Interstate 35W

[Tcmetro]

A study should be finishing up soon that will examine the feasibility of the addition of HOT lanes to 35W north of downtown and a Highway BRT system similar to the Orange line.

There are 4 phases to the HOT lanes:
1: Hwy 36 to Hwy 10
2: Hwy 10 to Lexington Ave
3: University Ave to Hwy 36
4: Direct connections to Downtown (looks like 2nd St)

Additionally, improvements at Hwy 10, 694, and 36 are under consideration.

As for the BRT proposal, there are 7 stations: 95th Ave (existing), CR J, CR H, CR E2, CR C, Stinson, and E Hennepin.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... index.html
http://www.metrocouncil.org/Council-Mee ... rsntn.aspx
http://www.metrocouncil.org/Council-Mee ... rview.aspx

[MNdible]

A direct connection (I assume for buses only) from 35W to 2nd Street? Not sure if that's going to fly.

Also interesting to see the modest improvements proposed for 694-35W... have they completely given up on adding a flyover here?

[twincitizen]

Interline it with the Orange Line!

From the south: via 35W, 4th & 5th Aves, Gateway Ramp, Washington, & back on 35W.

4th & 5th could be done in a Marq2-lite fashion, for far less money. Also, Gateway Ramp is skyway connected.

[matt91486]

I'm trying to think of where they'd put the station at Stinson to be really accessible to anyone. The Quarry basically makes it sort of a pedestrian wasteland.

I also always thought that if they did BRT on this corridor they should consider running it on Highway 88 for its existence to cut off the big curve in 35W. I realize that also cuts off the existing park and ride lot, though, but it does allow for a more direct route on a road that has fairly wide shoulders and medians that could easily accommodate the construction if necessary over most of its length.

[twincitizen]

^I've often wondered why 35W wasn't just routed on Hwy 88. All that curving really makes no sense.

[web]

335 was going to be branching off......before it was cancelled

[mulad]

Uh, in the opposite direction. That was going to run from roughly The Quarry over to the west bank of the Mississippi north of downtown. I'm not aware of any plans for it to extend farther east, though I'm not an expert on it.

[woofner]

^I've often wondered why 35W wasn't just routed on Hwy 88. All that curving really makes no sense.

Could it have been the influence of the ruling class? Perhaps they wanted it closer to the site for their Rosedale Shopping Center.

[mattaudio]

The curve where it crosses Johnson twice is because originally 335 would connect in at Johnson/Hennepin, and a MN-65 freeway would connect at Johnson/14th Ave NE. Then, 35W headed directly east likely because it allowed for the commons section between 280 and 36. There were also more railroads at the time, including a wye with the BN near Broadway.

Since the two freeways which would have connected west of Johnson were never built, I wish the curves could eventually be softened or removed. Likely never going to happen, though.

[Le Sueur]

335 was going to be branching off......before it was cancelled

Interesting little islands of 80's construction along the planned route
https://maps.google.com/?ll=44.992884,- ... 8&t=w&z=19
If anyone is second guessing memories of where 335 was planned Froggie has several versions posted:
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/minnesot ... d/i335.htm

...I wish the curves could eventually be softened or removed. Likely never going to happen, though.

Maybe future BRT guidelines could accomplish this.

[mister.shoes]

I came across that Froggie page not too long ago and had the forehead-smacking realization that 335 is the reason that Boom Island is no longer an island. Even when the RRs had it covered in tracks as a yard, they left it separate from the mainland. But the freeways? Oh ho ho, let's fill that sucker in.

[Tcmetro]

Final study is available

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... report.pdf

[mulad]

Ugh.

[tabletop]

yeah... maybe its in the finer details but how do suppose they came up with the crash data segments? Perhaps a county thing? I suppose there ARE more fatal accidents at Hiawatha and if there's any improvement over there that would be great, but I'm surprised they haven't opted to remove the cloverleaf at 694. That would make the most sense to me for reducing congestion, aside from running LRT or even heavy rail (gasp!) up 35 past the Quarry on New Brighton Blvd, cut over to Rosedale, up 61 back to 35W and head north. We do have a river crossing to support that now, if I'm not mistaken...

[Tom H.]

I believe the current reconstruction of the 35W/694 interchange does remove a few of the cloverleaf ramps, reducing it to a partial cloverleaf with a few flyovers.

Update: here's the interchange plan.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... o6_cl1.pdf

[MNdible]

But they're not actually doing that work now, are they? It's a little hard to tell from the website, but my sense is that this work has been designed but not funded or scheduled.

[mattaudio]

I know I posted it a long time ago (maybe on Minnescraper) but does it baffle anyone else that we're not coordinating our approach to 35W/694/10?

There's currently a project to grade separate Hwy 10 and Hwy 96 near the Arden Hills superfund-tailgate-plaza. The flyovers at Hwy 10 and 35W are new. The interchange at Hwy 10 and 694 is new. So we have a brand new 1.5 mile freeway shortcut between 35W and 694. Yet the current plans as linked above show a full-on flyover from SB 35W to EB 694. This seems like a total waste.

We should have picked one approach and stuck with it...
1. Ditch this 1.5 mile Hwy 10 cutoff, the last remnant of the old Hwy 10 alignment from St. Paul to Anoka. Cost avoids: rebuilding interchanges at 694 (the weave), 96, and 35W. The cost savings here would have enabled funding for directional ramps at 35W/694. Fewer lane miles, less ROW, and more redevelopment-friendly for Arden Hills. Unfortunately we lost this opportunity.
2. Sign our new fully limited access cutoff as the ramp from SB 35W to EB 694 and save the cost of the duplicative flyover. The only flyover that would be useful at 35W/694 is eastbound 694 to northbound 35W. Westbound 694 could have a C/D roadway. Tons of money saved. This is still an option.

[woofner]

So the BRT option would add 6500 daily riders but would cost $350m, so they decided it was not worth pursuing? But the managed lanes themselves would increase utilization by 6200 vehicles a day at the cost of $750m, and that is worth building?

[tabletop]

I thought the managed lanes would be in conjunction with the transit option, so maybe that's part of the cost? I know there's sense to be made somewhere in all this!

[woofner]

The $350m for BRT would be on top of the $750m for the managed lanes. Express buses would still use the managed lanes without BRT stations, and they project an increase of about 400 express route riders by 2030 without BRT - although for some reason they project the entire increase to occur on the 250 and nothing on the other half-dozen routes that would be able to take advantage of the supposed decrease in overall travel times due to the managed lanes (this entire corridor currently has bus-only shoulders, although Hennepin County will eliminate a mile or two of them as part of the 3rd St ramp project).

Just for comparison, Bottineau is projected to attract 7,000 new daily transit riders at a cost of more than a billion dollars. Considering the FTA will fund up to 80% of BRT projects (for example, the New Haven busway, which is expected to cost $550m and attract 16,300 rides in 2030, 4,900 of which are new to transit), I can only draw one conclusion from the recommendation not to pursue BRT here. I'd elaborate but I think you all know my opinion of MnDOT.