urbanMSP

The highway is for the ghosts they have to get to from Target just as much as the also non-existent residents along the proposed highway. Will this make the highway haunted as well?

www.citypages.com/arts/ghost-hunting-on ... /564522501

Definitely because they anticipate more suburban tract housing being built on the southern side of Cottage Grove, and maybe to replace the single lane bridge to the lower island for all the aggregate trucks headed to and from there, since most of the lower island is a part of Cottage Grove.

MnDOT will be doing a M&O on 7th in downtown St. Paul in the next few years (maybe 2027, maybe sooner). The St. Paul Bicycle Plan had a bicycle facility tentatively on 7th Street. According to the Transportation Committee meeting today the city doesn't currently plan to engage in a study to determine whether bicycle facilities should go there before the MnDOT project. This is really a shame. Apparently it is due to lack of staff. The Capital City Bikeway is important and I'm glad the city is focusing on it, but a safe bikeway on 7th would really be a good spine through the middle of downtown rather than just circling around it.

Does the river view corridor plan also play into this?

From the conversation it was still unclear how the Riverview project would impact the work on West 7th.

MnDot is looking into some options to convert Hwy 65 into a freeway from CR 10 to Bunker Lake Blvd. Interestingly, the interchanges at CR 10 and US 10 are likely to have a traffic signal set-up, to maintain pedestrian access. The rest of the highway would more or less have a completed frontage road system and a number of slip ramps between the mainlines and the frontages instead of the typical diamond interchange.

Project page: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... index.html
Online open house: http://highway65studyonlinemeeting.com/
Alt Analysis report: https://edocs-public.dot.state.mn.us/ed ... d=11151197

MnDOT gonna MnDOT.

MnDOT looking into a new Mississippi River crossing between 610 and 101. A few years ago a study was completed about a new freeway between 94 and 10 a bit further north near Clearwater.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... icrossing/

Also, there was a meeting about Hwy 13 in Burnsville and Savage today. Three options were presented, two are freeways and one increases the number of stoplights but expands to six lanes. New roads up the hill into Savage will be needed at Quentin and a new alignment that connects Lynn with Chowen.

Interchange will be going in at Dakota/Yosemite as the first step.

Some options were presented for Nicollet as well. One had a ped crossing and more or less kept the intersection the same as it is now. Another bridges Nicollet over 13, with a loop road that connects between the two. The Nicollet side would have a roundabout and the 13 side would have a light. The third option had an interchange that uses a roundabout above 13 instead of a traffic signal.

The slides are supposed to be posted tomorrow.

Ah yes just what we need, another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. (sarcasm very much intended)

As for Highway 13, I have mixed feelings about the proposals. I like that there will be a grade-separated pedestrian crossing at Hwy. 13 & Nicollet, though if I could go back in time I would've made sure Burnsville Transit Station was on the south side of the highway instead of having a transit station on one side of the highway and a BRT station on the other side of the highway.

My opinion for Savage (keeping in mind I have driven through there numerous times including during rush hour) is grade-separate at Dakota and Yosemite for the truck traffic going in/out of Port of Savage, but adjacent to Downtown Savage just leave it as is.

Will Friends of the Mississippi have a press release on the bridge proposal?

Exactly what we need: another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. At least until there's train service with private, individually ventilated compartments from every front to every other front door in the country.

As for the new bridge, my recollection is the original concept was an expressway type facility kind of skirting the western boundary. The idea disappeared and much later I heard the idea of an expressway type facility much to west, to tie into the new Brocton

The idea for an interchange at 13 and Nicollet has been around for at least since the 1960s when Control Data had an option on a large plot of land in the southeast corner of 13 and 35W

Exactly what we need: another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. At least until there's train service with private, individually ventilated compartments from every front to every other front door in the country.

As for the new bridge, my recollection is the original concept was an expressway type facility kind of skirting the western boundary. The idea disappeared and much later I heard the idea of an expressway type facility much to west, to tie into the new Brocton

The idea for an interchange at 13 and Nicollet has been around for at least since the 1960s when Control Data had an option on a large plot of land in the southeast corner of 13 and 35W

Another place a pedestrian bridge would be make sense would be at Silver Bell Road, along with a MUP from the end of the Old Cedar Bridge. This would connect it with the rest of Eagan's protected bicycle MUP network.

Exactly what we need: another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. At least until there's train service with private, individually ventilated compartments from every front to every other front door in the country.

Are you suggesting we try to pave our way out of the climate crisis just like we try to pave our way out of congestion?

Highway 13 options posted:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... urnsville/

My thoughts:
- Dakota diamond is the best option. Port was mostly concerned about truck movements and this one seems the most straightforward.

- Freeway option 1 is fine. At Chowen and Quentin there really isn't anything north of Hwy 13, so pedestrians and bikes aren't impacted.

- Chowen and Quentin need to be upgraded for this to work. Quentin will need a railroad bridge replacement to get rid of the stop sign that only lets one car go at a time. Also gives room for a bike path on that street.

- Chowen extension should be one lane each way. Lynn does fine to move cars up the hill with one lane, but using Chowen helps get through traffic out of the downtown area.

- I like the loop ramp with the light for Nicollet/13. Seems like the best option for peds and bikes, and moves all the turning down to the highway level. Given that all the intersections from Portland to Diffley aren't going to be interchanges, building a Nicollet interchange won't have many beneficial impacts.

Exactly what we need: another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. At least until there's train service with private, individually ventilated compartments from every front to every other front door in the country.

Are you suggesting we try to pave our way out of the climate crisis just like we try to pave our way out of congestion?

I never said building more roads was the solution to climate change. I doubt it's practical to build rail transit from every house in America to every other house and provide private, individually ventiliated compartments. So cars are going to stay with us so we need to look at things like electric cars, atmospheric sulphur injection, and industrial scale carbon capture so we can deal with climate change while still allowing people their freedom.

Exactly what we need: another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. At least until there's train service with private, individually ventilated compartments from every front to every other front door in the country.

Are you suggesting we try to pave our way out of the climate crisis just like we try to pave our way out of congestion?

I never said building more roads was the solution to climate change. I doubt it's practical to build rail transit from every house in America to every other house and provide private, individually ventiliated compartments. So cars are going to stay with us so we need to look at things like electric cars, atmospheric sulphur injection, and industrial scale carbon capture so we can deal with climate change while still allowing people their freedom.

And I never said we should build rail transit to every house in America so cars are no longer needed. The freedoms we enjoy today aren't sustainable, and the sooner people accept that the better off we'll be in the far term. The status quo of just one more lane, just one more bridge, and just one more freeway also isn't sustainable and won't help our goals of reducing our impact on the climate.

I didn't say that you suggested building rail to every house in America. Just pointing out how ridiculous the idea that anything can replace private cars is, so we should be looking at other options to deal with climate change. Besides the options presented bringing American jobs back to hard working Americans so we're not transporting everything we make across the ocean from China would be a good one. I doubt we're going to have battery powered cargo ships any time soon.

Not every trip needs a private car, and our metropolitan region needs to emphasize that with incentivizing transit, walking, and biking instead of continuing to incentivize inefficient and environmentally harmful single-occupant vehicle travel. Do people need a car for taking their lawnmower to get repaired? Yes. Do people need a car to get a few things at the grocery store? The answer should be no for more people instead of now where going to the grocery store without a car is a foreign concept especially in suburban areas.

Exactly what we need: another freeway to continue our dependence on roads, cars, and gasoline. At least until there's train service with private, individually ventilated compartments from every front to every other front door in the country.

Are you suggesting we try to pave our way out of the climate crisis just like we try to pave our way out of congestion?

I never said building more roads was the solution to climate change. I doubt it's practical to build rail transit from every house in America to every other house and provide private, individually ventiliated compartments. So cars are going to stay with us so we need to look at things like electric cars, atmospheric sulphur injection, and industrial scale carbon capture so we can deal with climate change while still allowing people their freedom.

Can we not do throw around "freedom" like this? Some people see cars as facilitating their ability to move around, and that's fine. For others, maybe they'd prefer the freedom to not spend thousands a year on a vehicle, or to not need a designated driver to get them home safely, or to spend their time reading instead of navigating gridlock on the highway. Maybe they have limited motor skills or eyesight and can't operate a car. For them, freedom has a very different meaning than it does for you.

This all-or-nothing viewpoint--where the only options are continuing to expand highways or providing a train that stops on every doorstop--is really frustrating, too. Transit can still be useful for people who don't need or want the ability to travel to every random house in Farmington. It can still be valuable for suburban commuters; even if they still need a car to do errands and drop their kids off, it still makes a meaningful difference for the climate (and potentially for their personal budgets!) if they can switch to transit when they reach the urban core (say, the cities + the first-ring suburbs). We can maintain the existing capacity for cars in outlying areas but focus on providing transit and active options as our main method of increasing capacity in congested, populated areas; these are not mutually-exclusive or contradictory.

Yes, we need electric cars and a clean grid and potentially carbon capture; transit alone won't solve the problem. But every trip that switches from a car to something else makes achieving all of those things easier.

Lastly, regarding the mention of "individual ventilated compartments," despite the initial fears, there's no evidence to support the idea that public transit is a meaningful spreader of Covid-19. (And even if there were, we shouldn't be making generational infrastructure plans based on a year or two of disruption.)

Are you suggesting we try to pave our way out of the climate crisis just like we try to pave our way out of congestion?

I never said building more roads was the solution to climate change. I doubt it's practical to build rail transit from every house in America to every other house and provide private, individually ventiliated compartments. So cars are going to stay with us so we need to look at things like electric cars, atmospheric sulphur injection, and industrial scale carbon capture so we can deal with climate change while still allowing people their freedom.

Can we not do throw around "freedom" like this? Some people see cars as facilitating their ability to move around, and that's fine. For others, maybe they'd prefer the freedom to not spend thousands a year on a vehicle, or to not need a designated driver to get them home safely, or to spend their time reading instead of navigating gridlock on the highway. Maybe they have limited motor skills or eyesight and can't operate a car. For them, freedom has a very different meaning than it does for you.

Agreed. I can easily drive, have the privilege of being able to drive my parent's cars, and only need to pay for gas, but I still hate driving. I hate having my eyes basically glued to the windshield and praying I don't cross paths with a reckless or incompetent driver. I hate that in our country we're pretty much forced to drive for all of our trips and those who dare try to move around without a car are punished with hostile infrastructure and poor transit service. And of course every time I drive I'm contributing to climate change. Just me alone the impact is less than microscopic, but taking into account the millions of people who drive in this country daily really adds up. So while politicians and constituents may celebrate the opening of a new or expanded road or freeway, I see it as a failure of our society to accept that the status quo is not sustainable and we need to stick with maintaining our existing road infrastructure, not expanding it even if people think that's needed.