urbanMSP

I'm alright with keeping the bridge across Nokomis since it would already be a hard sell to remove the Cedar Avenue connection to 62 and 77. However, if Minneapolis is serious about getting people out of their cars, then perhaps they should consider closing the bridge to regular traffic and only used by pedestrians, bikers, and buses (perhaps part of a future C Line extension).

Yeah, I broadly like a lot of the ideas going around here to reduce/remove highway traffic from Cedar, but I would hope that when planning any serious changes to either the bridge or the 62/77 interchange, they'd consider future transit uses as well. I think someday having a Cedar aBRT line would make a lot of sense, and a bus-only guideway allowing buses to continue on to 77 (and ultimately to the MOA) could make for a great transit experience without significantly increasing the complexity of the interchange.

Closing Cedar over Lake Nokomis is a good idea. It really only serves to degrade the park space.

South Minneapolis can use Portland, 28th, or 34th to drive to Hwy. 62.

Closing Cedar over Lake Nokomis is a good idea. It really only serves to degrade the park space.

South Minneapolis can use Portland, 28th, or 34th to drive to Hwy. 62.

That's a 2 mile gap between access which will make Portland and 28th much more dangerous. If we are even considering closing cedar (which let's be honest is purely fantasy map territory). Then at the very least the Bloomington Ave exit will probably get redone with traffic being directed over there for access to 62.

We also have to consider the fact that there is no access to 62 west for Portland Ave. So in order to access 62 west from let's say Bloomington Ave and 54th. You would have to take either 54th to Portland to diamond lake to 35w. Or the newly congested lake nokomis parkway to 28th avenue.

The lack of east west connections in this area is a major limiting factor 60th doesn't go west of Nicollet. 54th doesn't go east of lake nokomis. Minnehaha parkway is already way too car centric for a parkway. 46th doesn't go east of cedar. This raises the demand for 62. And as much as closing the entrance to 62 will reduce some of that demand. There will still be plenty of congestion that will go towards the city streets and impatient drivers are dangerous drivers.

Is Cedar good right now? No! We need to seriously rethink this corridor. But let's not get carried away and think that closing this bridge is the solution. (which iirc didn't this get redone recently. I could be getting mixed up.)

Closing the causeway is absolutely the solution, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

Closing the causeway is absolutely the solution, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

How would access be retained to Bloomington Ave into Richfield? Would drivers have to cut through lake nokomis Parkway? Would Portland Ave be redone to allow cars to continue towards 62 west? Or at the very least become even more dangerous then that section already is especially near 60th to 66th. Will 28th avenue be given a bunch of traffic lights because people will be more likely to run those stop signs near 62 with that being the only access point? Will Minnehaha creek become more car centric and not a parkway anymore with no east west access south of 42nd Street besides that with 62 unable to be accessed anymore?

Cedar avenue is a symptom of the problem which is the breakdown of the grid which forces all the cars onto Cedar. Get rid of Cedar and you make the problem worse now better.

I bet the property values would go up nearby if you closed. Be a fun study for someone to do.

Shut it down, tear it out between Minnehaha and E49th st to extend the park and remove the 62 ramps and the causeway when it needs to be replaced.

There are a number of routes people can get to Richfiled via. If people don't like it they can order their Chipolte, Target items or etc from their phone or get on their bike.

The benefit of extra space for development and greenspace outweighs the needs of those who want to conveniently get out of the city to the suburbs.

This is one of the five major Lakes in the City and we should treat the area with dignity.

That's a 2 mile gap between access which will make Portland and 28th much more dangerous. If we are even considering closing cedar (which let's be honIs Cedar good right now? No! We need to seriously rethink this corridor. But let's not get carried away and think that closing this bridge is the solution.

Nice try inserting some reality into the conversation! Now let's get back to fantasy maps.

The incessant roar of planes overhead impacts my experience of Lake Nokomis about 10x more than anything going on with cars and roads.

The incessant roar of planes overhead impacts my experience of Lake Nokomis about 10x more than anything going on with cars and roads.

This! I think people should think about if they are willing to turn the Westside of lake nokomis into something more car centric with a turn onto either 77 or onto 60th to Bloomington and get rid of the bridge. Or keep the bridge and have lake nokomis parkway remain a parkway.

Bulldoze the Nokomis Knoll Historic District. I just don't get that place.

The ability to do a complete lap of Nokomis on foot or on bike without those horrifying crossings of Cedar, especially the northern five-legged mess? I'll drive the bulldozer.

The ability to do a complete lap of Nokomis on foot or on bike without those horrifying crossings of Cedar, especially the northern five-legged mess? I'll drive the bulldozer.

Last year I went on a date at Lake Nokomis and we didn't dare try to cross Cedar, and instead walked along the west side of the lake. Witnessing a fender bender on the bridge made for a nice conversation starter though.

Bulldoze the Nokomis Knoll Historic District. I just don't get that place.

I did not know that existed. That's ridiculous.

During the past year there was a lane was added to west bound 62 west of France. This was awesome and really seemed to help the traffic flow. A couple weeks ago they took it away and has really f'ed up traffic. Why would they do that???? Please transit nerds take over......

That was temporary for the duration of the I-35W project. The shoulder wasn't built to handle long term through traffic, it required substandard lane widths, and there was no shoulder available for disabled vehicles.

The ability to do a complete lap of Nokomis on foot or on bike without those horrifying crossings of Cedar, especially the northern five-legged mess? I'll drive the bulldozer.

The closest I have is Family Tree clinic or Highland Bridge. Drive on the grass as much as possible, you’ll rattle your teeth loose on concrete.
How are you on excavators? Got the Liebherr R960 demo machine at Abbott…

That was temporary for the duration of the I-35W project. The shoulder wasn't built to handle long term through traffic, it required substandard lane widths, and there was no shoulder available for disabled vehicles.

That is what I thought but.....why would they not realize how dramatically it helped traffic flow and rework the WB lanes from France to 100 and make it a permanent fix?? I mean it is night and day without that additional lane.

It doesn't look like there's enough right of way to have three standard width lanes and a shoulder, and at any rate they'd have to find money someplace to rebuild the shoulder permanently.

MnDot is currently running an open house for the 252/94 study:
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/proje ... index.html

Three transit improvements are being considered, namely:

• BRT from Minneapolis to Northtown
• BRT from Minneapolis to Maple Grove
• Express and local bus improvements in the corridor

From some of the additional documentation for the transit improvements, it seems that the express and local bus improvements might be leading, because the ridership improvement is strong and the capital costs are low.

Five options for 252 are being considered:

• 6-lane expressway (more or less status quo)
• Four-lane freeway
• Four-lane "low-speed" freeway
• Six-lane freeway
• Limited-access Super 2 Expressway (basically a four-lane expressway with an elevated express lane)

My guess is that one of the freeway options is going to be picked. Given that auto collisions are one of the considerations of the study, I doubt either of the expressway options are chosen.

Eight options for 94 are being considered:

• No change
• Convert SB lane to MnPass
• Six options of adding a regular or MnPass lane in one or both directions between 694 and Dowling with or without direct connections

I never used 94 during the peak hour when I lived in the Twin Cities, so I am not quite sure why there's so much emphasis on the 694 to Dowling segment. In my opinion, I don't see why 94 needs added lanes as it one of the newer freeways in the region and always seemed more overbuilt to me.

Hard to trust their analysis when they claim that a full-on BRT line to a area of the metro that currently doesn't have all-day service would add no new riders to the 2040 transit system.

To be clear, I don't think a Maple Grove BRT line would be successful, but, man, even the Red Line has some riders.