Street, Road and Highway Projects

[EOst]

The pedestrian median at 17th (added as part of the bike blvd) doesn't leave enough space. I should think that sharrows would be enough here, especially if there were a marked crosswalk.

[amiller92]

The pedestrian median at 17th (added as part of the bike blvd) doesn't leave enough space. I should think that sharrows would be enough here, especially if there were a marked crosswalk.

Figured that was it, but is the median more valuable than a connected grid?

[mattaudio]

The median at 46th/17th does not prohibit left turns or 17th Ave cross traffic. Yes, it's a sticking point, since sharrows are really less than ideal. Even if the curb a foot or two closer to the center, we could get bicycle lanes through there. I'm going out there with my laser measure this afternoon to do some more fine tuning.

[billhelm]

I know this is an unpopular question on this site, but seriously -- how many bikes are going to be using this stretch?

EDIT: Also, amazing that the preferred solution turns out to be exactly what Matt said it was going to be. Huh. What are the odds?

As a resident of the area, I will use these lanes frequently. 40th is a terrible bikeway, it's poorly paved with lots of stop signs and hills. It's also out of the way if you want to get to points around 46th. The parkway trail is my usual east-west route but it's not exactly a straight shot and has a speed limit. 46th has little use in the way of off street parking today along most stretches and the existing 4 lane config allows vehicles to travel at excessive rates of speed and make it hostile to pedestrians and bikes. Anything to slow cars down is welcome in my book.

I went to the community meeting where this was unveiled, and support seemed overwhelmingly positive, which was good to see.

[twincitizen]

With the calming of 46th, addition of bike lanes, etc., I'd question if that median at 46th/17th is truly necessary anymore. Bikes heading north-south on 17th will be able to come to a stop and then "nose-out" into the 46th St bike lanes, shortening their crossing distance. All the median does is lengthen the crossing distance. The median obviously provides a refuge for pedestrians too, but I mean really, who the hell is getting stuck halfway here?

Is tearing out the median an option? Could bumpouts and/or better crosswalk markings be added instead?


I also share MNdible's reservations about 35W to Nicollet. It's already an uncoordinated mess that suffers from back-ups and probably a decent number of side-swipe crashes. The changes would cause greater backups at rush hour, but would seemingly simplify traffic movements. Greater certainty in what lane people are supposed to be in, but the delays seem like more than Hennepin County would be willing to accept. I like that there is a left turn lane at Lyndale. Obviously a separate project entirely, but there should be turn lanes on 36th at Lyndale as well - both directions.

[woofner]

I hate riding on bikeways where the lanes fade in and out. The segment west of 3rd Ave looks like something I would avoid. It's too bad the city didn't plan for any N-S bikeways in the area between Park-Portland and 35W that could be a logical terminus for the 46th St bikeway.

According to Hennepin County and Minneapolis street design policies, the thing to do would be to sacrifice turn lanes to continue the bike lanes to Nicollet (which is planned to have bike lanes). According to state CSA rules, they need the lanes. Guess who wins?

Obviously this wouldn't work between Nicollet and 3rd, but why not carry the advisory bike lanes concept east to Nicollet rather than have lanes that drop out at Grand?

As for 17th, the city was stupid to build the median so wide, even though their own bike plan calls for lanes on 46th. But come on, how much would it add to the project to move the curbs now? If they narrowed the median by 6', it would still be 12' and allow for 11' through traffic lanes and 5' bike lanes on either side. Either the city or the county should pony up.

[mattaudio]

I hate riding on bikeways where the lanes fade in and out. The segment west of 3rd Ave looks like something I would avoid. It's too bad the city didn't plan for any N-S bikeways in the area between Park-Portland and 35W that could be a logical terminus for the 46th St bikeway.

According to Hennepin County and Minneapolis street design policies, the thing to do would be to sacrifice turn lanes to continue the bike lanes to Nicollet (which is planned to have bike lanes). According to state CSA rules, they need the lanes. Guess who wins?

Obviously this wouldn't work between Nicollet and 3rd, but why not carry the advisory bike lanes concept east to Nicollet rather than have lanes that drop out at Grand?

As for 17th, the city was stupid to build the median so wide, even though their own bike plan calls for lanes on 46th. But come on, how much would it add to the project to move the curbs now? If they narrowed the median by 6', it would still be 12' and allow for 11' through traffic lanes and 5' bike lanes on either side. Either the city or the county should pony up.

Happy 100,000th post!

Also, the county program won't be moving any curbs next year. But it could possibly fund concrete moves the following year.

[froggie]

Obviously this wouldn't work between Nicollet and 3rd, but why not carry the advisory bike lanes concept east to Nicollet rather than have lanes that drop out at Grand?

MnDOT's traffic maps don't go into block-by-block detail, but my guess is that the city determined that east of Grand is where 46th exceeds the 6K daily traffic threshold where a centerline is required, which would preclude being able to extend advisory bike lanes.

[David Greene]

On the really narrow streets with near-100% parking demand, I'd prefer a one-way with two-side parking. In CARAG, the one-way streets like Dupont & Emerson are usable. The two-way streets like Colfax and Aldrich are not. And I'm not even talking about winter, I'm talking about now.

I live on such a two-way street and I prefer the slow/stop that is necessary. Our parking is pretty full most of the time so we deal with this constantly. It's no big deal and the safety gains are totally worth it.

I wish 28th was two way with two-sided parking.

[mattaudio]

We tried for an advisory bicycle lane concept east to Pleasant/Nicollet, but the county said it was a non starter. At Grand, we could fit in continuous bicycle lanes if we eliminated parking on one side, but that's also a non starter based on our community outreach (three popular restaurants on that corner). The same issue is playing out at Bloomington, the only other node on the corridor where two-side parking may be necessary. My take? The only way sharrows are even remotely passable is if Bloomington/46th becomes a four way stop (to slow cars at the intersection closer to bicycle speeds) and if bumpouts are in the corner's future. The county would prefer the one-sided parking concept near Grand and Bloomington nodes to maintain bicycle lanes, and I think we could still sell that if there was public comment in favor of lanes over sharrows at these tight spots.

Regarding 35W, the county actually modeled a three lane bridge profile with short left turn lanes. It failed miserably during peak hours. Our three neighborhood corridor committee just sort of assumed anything less than four lanes on the bridge was a non starter, but the county really wants to see a continuous bicycle facility on the corridor. One thing we're also considering is if we could slightly carve back the curb bumpouts for the bus pullouts at 46th Street Station, so that bicyclists can use this space across the bridge during the (majority of) time when buses aren't dwelling at the station.

[amiller92]

The same issue is playing out at Bloomington, the only other node on the corridor where two-side parking may be necessary.

There is no way that 46th and Bloomington needs two-side parking. Maybe if something popular moved in to the empty building on the southwest corner, but as is the only business that draws any volume is Sister Sludge and it's not THAT popular, even in the mornings (I catch there bus there sometimes).

[MNdible]

So, seriously Matt: what's the deal with the Nicollet/46th bus stops? Whether they're near-side or far-side, it's going to be bad news.

I'm also wondering if left turns onto 1st Avenue could/should be eliminated.

[froggie]

I'm also wondering if left turns onto 1st Avenue could/should be eliminated.

I'd say yes.

[mattaudio]

That's definitely open for consideration. According to the models they ran, the LTL to southbound Nicollet may not need to extend way back to 1st. But I think preventing LTLs to/from 1st would be worth it. I'd also like to see the same treatment at 3rd on the other side of the bridge. The plan is to do things with pylons to make sure things work, then possibly come in with any minor curb changes after a year or two. If we see a median at 1st and at 3rd, I'm working on a possible funding stream to make them slightly longer and provide for St. Paul-esque plantings/trees rather than merely concrete. They'd be a sort of gateway feature to the neighborhoods (one that would be much more beautiful than the ridiculous monument signs MnDOT bought).

[Sacrelicio]

Anyone live near 46th street, east of 35W? I live in Field, we had a meeting a couple weeks ago about the potential new design for next year. Pretty excited that they are giving the road a traffic diet and adding bike lanes. A real win for civic engagement, since they were initially planning to just repave the street as is until people pushed back.

People in the neighborhood are mostly for it, but at the meeting there was some loud protesting by one woman who insisted that bike lanes would become "Institutionalized" by the "hipster millennial bikies" and prevent a possible road rebuilding (narrower road with boulevards). She and another resident also argued that bike lanes should be kept off "arterials," which I thought was silly because 46th street was never meant to be a real "arterial" like Lyndale, Hennepin, etc. She also complained that pedestrian were treated like "3rd class citizens" behind drivers and cyclists. I agree that we need better pedestrian infrastructure, but we're all "pedestrians," even drivers and cyclists, and I don't see how bike infrastructure is any better than pedestrian infrastructure. Interesting to see some of these tropes in person!

[Mdcastle]

If it's not meant to be a "real arterial" then why is it designated as one by Mn/DOT and the Met Council? It's a "Minor Arterial" which is the exact same functional classification as Lyndale and Hennepin.

[EOst]

If it's not meant to be a "real arterial" then why is it designated as one by Mn/DOT and the Met Council? It's a "Minor Arterial" which is the exact same functional classification as Lyndale and Hennepin.

Because it's an arterial shoehorned into the ROW of a local street.

[Mdcastle]

Alternative 3 has been chosen for completing the gap in the 4 lane sections of Highway 101 (And will undoubtedly result in the turnback of this section. I'm guessing they're only building one trail to minimize earth moving, but putting it on the east side is a head scratcher, and the one thing I don't like about the layout. Since the trail is on the west side of the new bridge it necessitates using an underpass (that will also be used for a future trail along County 61.) Also the "LRT Trail" (should we even be calling it that?) will get a new overpass.

This may be why they built a signal rather than a roundabout where Highway 101 currently meets, the plan was to tie it in with the roundabout from the bridge.
http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/2638

[Sacrelicio]

Well, yes, I'd agree those blocks are a big problem... and re-reading Matt's comment, I think I totally misunderstood what he's suggesting.

If they're proposing that there be a single westbound lane between 35W and Nicollet, that's going to be really problematic. It stacks up now with two lanes -- not sure how anybody will think it will work with just one. There probably needs to be a hard look at acquiring some additional ROW in those two blocks, but in the meantime, that needs to remain something very close to the status quo.

I don't care if traffic stacks up, people can go someplace else. My neighborhood is not a thru way.

[Mikey]

Alternative 3 has been chosen for completing the gap in the 4 lane sections of Highway 101 (And will undoubtedly result in the turnback of this section. I'm guessing they're only building one trail to minimize earth moving, but putting it on the east side is a head scratcher, and the one thing I don't like about the layout. Since the trail is on the west side of the new bridge it necessitates using an underpass (that will also be used for a future trail along County 61.) Also the "LRT Trail" (should we even be calling it that?) will get a new overpass.

This may be why they built a signal rather than a roundabout where Highway 101 currently meets, the plan was to tie it in with the roundabout from the bridge.
http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/2638

Well, if they weren't building 8' shoulders south of Creekwood Dr, there would be room for a path on both sides of the road - just like there is north of Creekwood. So either the earthmoving would be too hard (although they are planning for curb & gutter outside the shoulder) or the engineers REALLY want that shoulder