urbanMSP

People want faster bus service, but few lanes of traffic!! That does not compute!!

I think we can all agree that public comment is valuable when you agree with the consensus but worthless when you don't.

Hear, hear!

People want faster bus service, but few lanes of traffic!! That does not compute!!

2 fewer lanes clogged with cars, 2 lanes dedicated for transit priority. Computes beautifully.

I think we can all agree that public comment is valuable when you agree with the consensus but worthless when you don't.

Ok, so don't comment. It will leave more power for the rest of us to have.

There's certainly value to public comment, in that it's a way to collect the range of issues and thoughts that are out there. But if a given point of view has 200 proponents, it could mean that it's a very common opinion in the public at large, or it could mean that it's just a small group with an axe to grind.

Also, even if it's a very common opinion in the public at large, it doesn't mean it's actually a good idea, because most of the public hasn't worked through all of the information that you'd really need to make an informed decision.

Also, even if it's a very common opinion in the public at large, it doesn't mean it's actually a good idea, because most of the public hasn't worked through all of the information that you'd really need to make an informed decision.

That's certainly true. Planners don't just take suggestions from the public and implement them. But when Met Council looks at, for example, DEIS comments, they rank them based on numbers and that informs decision-making.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 09391.html

"Even before the city applied for the grant, there wasn’t much opportunity for community input."

So can anyone tell me why the city would apply for a grant that merely cements a design that no one likes for another 50 years?

Thanks for the article. I am somewhat glad to see this project getting more public attention.

Another reminder for myself that reading comments on startribune.com is never good for my mental health and well-being.

Another reminder for myself that reading comments on startribune.com is never good for my mental health and well-being.

I've determined that I must hate myself and my time. I saw the article on my phone and mobile Strib doesn't have comments. So naturally, I pulled it up on my computer so I could see what people were saying. Naively, I thought there might be some constructive ones. The lesson: I'm a dumbass.

So can anyone tell me why the city would apply for a grant that merely cements a design that no one likes for another 50 years?

The term is "replacement-in-kind". Basically, when it comes to road infrastructure, if something's worn out (like pavement or curbs), replacing them as-is involves far fewer regulatory hurdles than a project that involves more significant changes to the design. Some minor changes or improvements are allowed (such as redoing curb cuts, as ADA-compliant curb cuts are now required by law), but anything that would significantly change the design or operations (like most of the suggestions by members in this thread) involves a lot more regulatory approval, not to mention it'd likely trigger a more involved Environmental Assessment. Both of which add time and money to the project BEFORE you even get to the meat of what you're building.

As for the Strib comments, they really aren't that bad. Besides the few car-centric comments in there (which are presumably what kellonathan and mister.shoes are griping about), the main argument I'm reading is the potholes. Fixing those, I believe, is something everyone should be able to agree on.

In general I like the idea of reconstruction. I see that the Majority of it will be built with federal funding.

What bothers me is how the remaining reconstruction costs will be paid for by adjacent property owners.

With Minneapolis having such high property taxes you would think that the policy of charging property owners for rebuilding roads wouldn't be needed. After all most cities have the funds to reconstruct roads without charging extra fees and also have lower property taxes. What gives?

But then again I watch as for the 5th year in a row a man in a city truck gets paid to repaint the metal trash cans surrounding Lake of the Isles. I'm sure funds could be found without charging a fee.

For one giving this man a pink slip as his job isn't needed.

This is an embarrassingly uninformed comment even for an internet message board. You do realize many (most?) of the property owners paying these assessments are tax exempt - museums and churches. The city hosts more than its fair share of exempt properties which serve an important regional purpose. Other Minneapolis property owners foot the bill for public safety and street needs of entertainment venues, churches, museums, parks and government buildings that add to the vitality of the entire metro.

Personally, I'm glad the MPRB pays attention to how little things like trash cans look. Over the decades we've spent billions on our park system, why let stuff like hideous garbage cans cheapen all those investments.

The Evolution of the Hennepin-Lyndale Commons http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Streetsm ... /#comments, Tue, 29 Jul 2014 03:54:36 +0000, Walker Art Center, https://streets.mn/?p=16404, [sfnc_item_enclosure]

Regarding special assessments for non-improvement capital expenditures: It's true, that's how it's done. But it's likely unconstitutional and would fail immediately if people banded together to fight it. The only amount that should constitutionally be assessed (which wouldn't represent unreasonable seizure) would be the value of any improvements witnessed by an adjacent property owner. That said, with this project, if we spent some good money traffic calming this intersection, it would reason that property values would rise significantly (and that margin can legally be assessed).

The Ecolab case study:
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/199693491.html

John Van Heel, co-facilitator of the open houses, says don't lose hope!

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 22091.html

Might there be a road diet in the cards? He seems to imply it may be possible.

It should be noted that John Van Heel's letter was a response to an earlier one by Sam Rockwell, which urged Minneapolis not to proceed with the current shortsighted project, and pursue something much greater: http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 95281.html

What was shown this past spring was terrible. A nothing project. Same number of lanes for cars, minimal improvements to pedestrian crossings at intersections, nothing at all for transit, nothing new for bikes.

Tonight's meeting should be interesting. Will bikes and pedestrians be separated on the east-side cycletrack? Will that require removal of a lane or will it take private (church) property? And on the west side, will there be anything for southbound Hennepin cyclists? Any changes to the Walker's awful sidewalk area?

I won't even ask about transit, because stupid Metro Transit isn't remotely involved in this project or even asking for anything. This seems like the one area of the city, that above all else, we could find room to make transit better. If not full exclusive lanes, there could be segments of bus priority (buses, right turns only) and queue jumps at the stoplight, where the bus would get a signal before general traffic. The physical space and the political will are there. We just have an impotent regional transit agency that is not engaged in the project and therefore not asking for anything.


F&C's summary: http://finance-commerce.com/2014/08/hig ... ottleneck/

It pisses me off to no end that the quasi-official task force doesn't include all the neighborhoods that abut this project.

A road diet wouldn't cost much more than a straight re-paving, right? Obviously at this point there's no money for the full roundabout or re-gridding of the area, but losing a lane each direction would be wonderful for pedestrians (the art crowd this weekend looked very uneasy crossing all these roads) and I would almost bet money that fewer, more logical lanes would indeed help traffic flow compared to the weird multi-lane merges we currently see (Lyndale & Hennepin northbound merge is awful).

Y'know, if they just tried to recreate the tree-lined nature this area used to have, it would be a huge improvement.

http://minneapolisparkhistory.com/2011/ ... -triangle/
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/07/28 ... en-and-now
http://www.hclib.org/pub/search/mplspho ... ry%20House
http://minneapolisparkhistory.com/tag/thomas-lowry/
http://www.slideshare.net/Sustology/the ... le-commons