Street, Road and Highway Projects

[MNdible]

My sense is that 62 really only needs to add a lane between 77 and 35W and improve that NB 77 to WB 62 movement. While a flyover might be the wish-list solution, it would seem that segregating the on-off movements from the through traffic would help a great deal.

[mister.shoes]

I’ve long had a wild idea in my head in which 77 gets the flyover and 62 gets widened — but in exchange for supporting freeway capacity, Minneapolis gets a calmed and pleasant Cedar Ave. That is, the connection from 77 to Cedar is severed, the viaduct over Nokomis goes away, and the grid is re-established between the lake and the highway. Through traffic on Cedar will be routed to the Bloomington Ave bridge over 62 and the extra ramps to/from the highway at Bloomington get removed to discourage using it as a shortcut.

[Trademark]

My sense is that 62 really only needs to add a lane between 77 and 35W and improve that NB 77 to WB 62 movement. While a flyover might be the wish-list solution, it would seem that segregating the on-off movements from the through traffic would help a great deal.

I wonder if a single reversable EZpass lane with direct access from 77 to 35w would solve that without having to take any land.

[mattaudio]

I’ve long had a wild idea in my head in which 77 gets the flyover and 62 gets widened — but in exchange for supporting freeway capacity, Minneapolis gets a calmed and pleasant Cedar Ave.

7762.png

That was similar to this idea of mine from years ago. The idea being the mainline of 77 would flow right into the outer lanes of 62 west lined up with the existing ramps to 35W north to downtown.

Then, Cedar would be more of a local street with a SPUI or similar at Cedar and 62 which also provides the local access from the north to 66th St. Or take it a step further and require all local Cedar Ave traffic to cross 66th St at grade before getting on Hwy 77, but that seems unnecessary.

[Mdcastle]

My fantasy is a third span of the river crossing with two reversible general purpose lanes and two light rail tracks to extend the Blue Line at least to the Eagan Transit Station. The two inside existing lanes could be converted to E-ZPass.

[Trademark]

My fantasy is a third span of the river crossing with two reversible general purpose lanes and two light rail tracks to extend the Blue Line at least to the Eagan Transit Station. The two inside existing lanes could be converted to E-ZPass.

The Eagan transit station would be a good station and there are a lot of big employers on the route. But it's still spread out a lot and I don't think that it could support the ridership. For the cost of a new bridge over the Mississippi. There would need to be a lot more ridership potential. Increasing the legibility of the 446 would be a good start tho.

[DanPatchToget]

Can we do none instead? Focus our resources on improving roads with safety issues, not adding another lane and in 5-10 years people will be complaining there isn't a fourth lane.

Most of this corridor is already 3 lanes. Adding in that third lanes in the few places where it's 2 won't induce demand, but it will reduce merging and lane movements and make people safer. As long as it stays 2 lanes north of 494. I think we should also improve the interchange with 494 and 77 to better encourage traffic to go on 494 instead of 62.

But adding a new lane or a mnpass lane is absolutely overkill for this corridor. Unless that mnpass lane is taken from a general purpose lane. (With maybe a direct exit onto 494 mnpass lane)

This project looks more like eliminating the minor inconvenience of merging going north of 138th Street and inducing demand than improving safety, so basically MnDOT's philosophy of trying to pave their way out of congestion. They should focus their resources on something that will greatly improve safety for motorists but also bikers and pedestrians; on this specific corridor that would be directing all northbound 77 traffic onto east and west 62. With a flyover ramp from northbound 77 to westbound 62, as well as eliminating access between the 77/62 interchange and Lake Nokomis Parkway, that would remove 3 of the 4 cloverleafs in the 77/62 interchange. The pedestrian bridge at 57th Street could be removed, and people crossing Cedar at the parkway would no longer have to worry about crazy drivers who have just gotten off a highway going 60 mph or are ready to floor it towards the highway.

[Hero]

If the goal is to sever the connection of 77 and Cedar in Minneapolis. Wouldn't the simplest solution be to use the two northern clovers and the southern ramps? Then build apartments or whatever on the former freeway entrance?

[DanPatchToget]

The cloverleaf from northbound 77 to westbound 62 is a pretty bad bottleneck, and I figure a flyover ramp would be a good concession for allowing 77 to be removed north of the Crosstown.

I made a quick Photoshop to give an idea of what it would look like: https://photos.app.goo.gl/nVCHHd66Ags6tnYT6

[NickP]

Thanks! That appears to free up so much land.

[Mdcastle]

Could move the houses displaced by widening Crosstown to the vacant Cedar land.

As I never use Cedar north of Crosstown. I don't have an opinion on the matter, but what would the residents and businesses think about losing easy access to and from the south?

[DanPatchToget]

Let's not widen more freeways. We already have more than enough miles of freeway lanes.

As for residential and business access without 77 north of the Crosstown, it might actually be easier since that segment is quite a bottleneck. You would just have to enter/exit at 66th Street, 28th Avenue, or Portland Avenue instead.

[kiliff75]

For those of us who live near cedar (even as far north as 35th), that section of cedar definitely provides very quick and easy access to the crosstown and points further south. Other streets (34th, 28th, portland/park) are much slower connections

[Trademark]

For those of us who live near cedar (even as far north as 35th), that section of cedar definitely provides very quick and easy access to the crosstown and points further south. Other streets (34th, 28th, portland/park) are much slower connections

I think some of the stop signs on 35th could be reduced as far as Hiawatha in exchange for calming cedar avenue. Direct the traffic to 35w with it's 10 lanes

[StandishGuy]

I live close to Cedar Avenue and E. 38th Street, and my sense is that everyone around here uses Cedar to get to the Target, Home Depot, etc. quite a bit. However, I find Cedar to be an awful street with fast traffic and high numbers of vehicles- very unwelcoming to pedestrians and bicyclists. I would love to see the connection to 62 severed, the bridge over Lake Nokomis removed and Cedar calmed into a street for human beings. Perhaps that would encourage more redevelopment akin to the new Lunds & Byerly's along the corridor?

[DanPatchToget]

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).

[Hero]

The cloverleaf from northbound 77 to westbound 62 is a pretty bad bottleneck, and I figure a flyover ramp would be a good concession for allowing 77 to be removed north of the Crosstown.

I made a quick Photoshop to give an idea of what it would look like: https://photos.app.goo.gl/nVCHHd66Ags6tnYT6

Why not remove the last leaf and have a ramp from westbound 62 to south 77? I think that would free up some more land.

[NickP]

Out of curiosity, what would be the height restrictions here. With the airport close by, does that factor in much?

[Cat385]

Out of curiosity, what would be the height restrictions here. With the airport close by, does that factor in much?

If there is, it should be ‘keep it under 100’.

[amiller92]

Could move the houses displaced by widening Crosstown to the vacant Cedar land.

As I never use Cedar north of Crosstown. I don't have an opinion on the matter, but what would the residents and businesses think about losing easy access to and from the south?

I have several neighbors who would gladly get rid of the causeway to reduce the heavy, speeding suburban traffic we get on Cedar. It would add a few minutes to our trips to and from my FIL's place in Bloomington, but that is a small price to pay.

During rush hour, I generally avoid Cedar anyway. Almost as easy to get to Target/Home Depot, etc. (which I don't do all that often anyway) via Bloomington.