Hennepin & Lyndale Bottleneck Project

[RailBaronYarr]

I think we can all agree that if money really was no issue this would be a best-case scenario. Based on my research into other tunnels, that stretch (at 3 lanes wide) would cost ~$2-3bn (including approaches, since Seattle's waterfront/viaduct project includes re-do of a boulevard, ramps, etc). The triangle itself might actually be a place people want to be instead of the congested asphalt mess it is today.

[bubzki2]

I'm not sure if someone could make a gut estimate, but what might the reclaimed (brown) land be worth in this area? (In order to partially offset the astronomical prices of the infrastructure upgrades) Unfortunately, I think probably not as much as we'd like if it were done tomorrow. Then again, if this actually got built, I bet the surrounding land would skyrocket in value.

[mulad]

Picking a few random parcels on the Hennepin County Property Map, there seems to be a range of around $2 million to $8 million per acre (including the buildings, which probably makes up for a large chunk of the difference). I haven't tried measuring the possible recovered space precisely, but I'd estimate it on the order of 20-25 acres. So I could imagine seeing $100 million or so in value from the recovered land itself, and surrounding property would probably increase in value as well. Not huge when weighed against $2+ billion, but it would be a considerable chunk of the local match (if the project qualified for 80/20 matching, anyway).

There would be some losses though -- some space would need to be found above the tunnel for ventilation systems. I'm not sure how much would be required.

[Mdcastle]

I know someone mentioned a 6 lane tunnel, but I think realistically the project isn't going to get done unless there's benefits to traffic and not just the neighborhood (or if the Lowry Hill Tunnel becomes unusable like the Alaskan Way viaduct.) Although they could start with a single six lane bore, and later add a twin and have 5 lanes and shoulders each direction- it would probably help a bit initially since there wouldn't be the sharp curve. 5 lanes probably wouldn't eliminate the traffic problems but it seems realistic as 5 lanes is the desirable limit for a single direction and the capacity constraints on either side. Notably also Mn/DOT thinks it's possible from an engineering standpoint to widen the existing tunnel that much.

[mister.shoes]

Counting lanes in a tunnel is easy until you add up the width required. I did the same thing as I was working on that idea. According to Wikipedia, the Alaskan Way tunnel uses a "record-breaking" 57.5' diameter TBM. Even discounting the concrete liner, 57.5' barely has room for three 12' lanes and safety shoulders—and that's at the absolute widest point. It isn't 57.5' wide 14' off the ground at the top of a semi. Realistically, a deep bore tunnel under downtown won't be any wider than three lanes. Unless there is some other technique that I don't know about or MNDot shells out for a new world's biggest TBM.

That said, I don't think three lanes would be too few. Removing the sharp corner, the abundance of on/off ramps in a short distance, and putting the focus of the tunnel's use on through traffic would greatly improve traffic flow.

[Mdcastle]

That's why I was suggesting two parallel tubes rather than a single big one. I agree three lanes without the curves and the weaves would be an improvement, but you'd still have a backup where two lanes of I-394 merge down to one.

[pannierpacker]

What if you bored two 3 lane tunnels for just one direction? You'd remove the weave for the folks going west/north, but you could leave the old tunnels in place for those going east/south. Then you have 6 lanes of capacity in both directions.

[Mdcastle]

I think the idea is that folks here want to reclaim the old ROW for redevelopment, and you'd still have a sharp curve in the eastbound direction.

[Wedgeguy]

Something one has to keep in mind about the right of way. You still have a tunnel so you will have to route flammable trucks outside the tunnels. So some of those round-a -bouts will be tricky for those vehicles. You will not be getting rid of all truck traffic in this area.

[Tom H.]

Well, truck traffic already is re-routed out of this stretch, and I don't think that the current surface street layout is any more truck-friendly that the proposed layout is. What do most flammable trucks do now? Just go around on 694?

[Wedgeguy]

They get off at Lyndale exit, coming from the east, and travel down Lyndale until they reenter 394 or 94. West bound gets off again at Lyndale and gets on the Lyndale entrance ramp on the south side of the tunnel. My concern is round abouts and semi's possibly flipping going around them. Especially during the winter time and rainy slippery roads.

[mister.shoes]

So sign a different route:
- for trucks using 94: Olson Hwy, 7th/10th Streets, 3rd Ave
- for trucks using 394: Hawthorn Ave, 10th/11th Streets, 3rd Ave

Or as Tom suggested, use the beltway and/or 100/169/62/etc. I can't imagine there are many hazmat trucks that originate/terminate closely enough to downtown that the Lowry Hill tunnel is a necessity.

[Wedgeguy]

Time and fuel consumption are part of a companies business model. You now want Hazardous trucks driving through the downtown area, Or driving out of their way adding time and wasting fuel to get trucks around the tunnel. Your idea may look good on paper, but it will never get anywhere with the transportation lobby in this state. Doubt the city will want flammable trucks driving on city streets with buses. See some fool run a light downtown and T-bone a tanker truck. That would cause a bit of damage I'd think. BOOOM!!

[RailBaronYarr]

I think the point was that most of truck traffic (90%? 95%?) is through the metro area, ie not originating or terminating in Minneapolis or St Paul proper (or inner-ring suburbs). Almost all routes E-W or N-S are just as fast (or faster) by using 494/694/62/100/169 as options. The only route that isn't is straight north through St Paul from the 35E/W split to the the re-connection (which is 8 miles longer by branching out along 494/694. Add in the drivers' time if they're sitting in the (much worse I-94 vs. ring freeways) congestion and the extra mileage is likely a wash..

[Mdcastle]

Don't most of the trucks that can bypass the metro area already do so? Or are their GPSes leading them straight through on I-94.

[Anondson]

They might pass the central core via 494/694. I wonder how much alleged reduced commuter traffic in the belt is being replaced by increased freight to/from the booming North Dakota/Canadian Plains. I guess that's for some other thread...

[RailBaronYarr]

I know it's a bit off-topic, but the whole "we need big roads cuz people need goods shipped around" thing bothers me. Latest sata broken out (not in MN, but the ratios are probably pretty durn close):

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformati ... 10/vm1.cfm

Single Unit/Combine trucks accounted for 10.5% of urban interstate VMT, and just 7% of all urban roads (as classified by the report). I have no doubt that the Bakken oil fields are increasing freight through MN, but to say that it's anywhere near a major contributor to congestion is pretty laughable. I'm also guessing that many of the urban freight VMT is off-peak (meaning personal vehicle travel is an even larger share of traffic counts when people experience delays).

[Nick]

Traffic lights are out at the bottleneck right now, crossing that sucker on foot from Loring Park to the sculpture garden southbound bus stop was some serious Frogger.

[twincitizen]

http://www.hennepinlyndaleproject.com/index.html

[RailBaronYarr]

"The project goals are to improve the condition and operating efficiency of the roadway, and improve and expand upon multimodal opportunities for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit users. The city welcomes your thoughts on this important project, whether you live in the neighborhood, visit the corridor’s many attractions, or drive this stretch of roadway on your commute."

If they mean condition/operating efficiency of the roadway the way traffic engineers typically do, it would seem the 2 goals separated by a comma are at odds with each other. I think this is especially true as long as 94 and its entrance/exit ramps exist in the area. When the project budget of $9.1m has $7.3m in funding, it's easy to see what priorities will present themselves. I'm not taking away from the fact that the actual pedestrian/bike amenities will be quantitatively better (better signals, crosswalks, and sidewalks), but given the surrounding environment and and roadway that, at its skinniest is 150' wide carrying 50,000 cars, it will be tough to see notable improvements. A much more major overhaul is required to make this area pleasant and efficient for people not in cars.