Hennepin & Lyndale Bottleneck Project

[woofner]

I have submitted a question to the Frequently Asked Questions page and am hoping that the statement "No questions have been submitted at this time" is only temporary.

My question asks how final the goals are at this stage and if the public still has an opportunity to influence them. If so, the goal should be altered to read something like "Improve the operating efficiency of the roadway as measured by person-trips".

[streets.mn]

Hennepin/Lyndale Bottleneck Revisited https://streets.mn/?p=11089

[froggie]

(surprised I didn't register on this forum before now, but noticing I was out to sea when it started)

A different way to look at the Hennepin/Lyndale confluence:

[TheUrbanGopher]

As a reminder, the public meeting for the project is tomorrow evening at 6:30pm in the Walker.

[David Greene]

As a reminder, the public meeting for the project is tomorrow evening at 6:30pm in the Walker.

I'm hoping to go. Anyone else?

[twincitizen]

Absolutely. This is like urbanist-transportationist Christmas

Reminder:
Tuesday, March 25, 2014 Walker Art Center
Skyline Room
1750 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN

6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

[mattaudio]

Yes, I'm hoping to go.

Looking beyond this project... I think there are a few opportunities to let our roads be roads and streets be streets. First, braiding the ramps between Henn/Lyn and 35W would reduce backups southbound above the tunnel. Second, in conjunction with the planned expansion of TH100 between 394 and 36th St, six-laning TH62 between 35W and 100/169 would reduce system demand for the tunnel. This could be used as a way to exchange for fewer lanes through this triangle.

[David Greene]

Absolutely. This is like urbanist-transportationist Christmas

Let's try to organize some talking points to share with the planners and public officials.

I would eventually like to see some kind of traffic circle implementation here, but I doubt the budget for this project will cover something like that. Assuming others want to see the same, what kinds of points should we be making that could turn this project into something like a "phase I" of the larger vision?

[MNdible]

Even if they managed to reduce demand on the tunnel by 50%, it would still be over capacity.

[mattaudio]

Is that a bad thing?

It's not wise to expand capacity, because it just fills up again. The tunnel will always be full. We can either distribute its capacity by queue (which we do now) or by price (which would be tolling). In an urban area, demand for flowing freeway lanes, at price=$0, is infinite.

We realize our old paradigm is broken - even our road-centric MnDOT commish speaks as such - but we need a replacement paradigm for urban projects. We need to implement more market reforms for our existing infrastructure, and consider where trades between road expansion and street calming can increase the consumption possibilities frontier for mobility and placemaking in our region. These trades can happen intra-project, such as improvements for queuing/merging before a tunnel chokepoint in exchange for lane reductions above the tunnel. Or they can happen at a system level, such as the 62 idea.

[twincitizen]

I agree with David. A strong theme of the conversation should be, "What's next?"

We already know what we're getting with the current near-term project: re-surfaced streets, new signals/timing fixes, and pedestrian crossing enhancements. I'm hoping others will join me in pushing for small changes/improvements to the issues with the combined cycletrack/sidewalk section, as well as pushing transit issues. What, if any, improvements are there to existing bus stops or travel speeds? (other than generally improving traffic flow). That should absolutely be something that could be addressed in the current project. While the budget is already set, what's to stop Metro Transit from throwing some money at this in the same construction season? Who says the City can't add redirect $500k away from another project to improve this one further?

[David Greene]

I agree with David. A strong theme of the conversation should be, "What's next?"

We already know what we're getting with the current near-term project: re-surfaced streets, new signals/timing fixes, and pedestrian crossing enhancements. I'm hoping others will join me in pushing for small changes/improvements to the issues with the combined cycletrack/sidewalk section, as well as pushing transit issues. What, if any, improvements are there to existing bus stops or travel speeds? (other than generally improving traffic flow). That should absolutely be something that could be addressed in the current project. While the budget is already set, what's to stop Metro Transit from throwing some money at this in the same construction season? Who says the City can't add redirect $500k away from another project to improve this one further?

I confess I haven't looked at the project documents at all. What specific issues are you thinking about WRT the cycletrack and transit? The dumb way the cycletrack just ends at the entrance ramp needs a serious fix, obviously. Then there are the awful bus stops, but what specificlaly should we do with them?

I'm all for pedestrian improvements but I'm somewhat skeptical that *anything* useful can be done in that regard as long as we have 9-10 lanes of traffic going through there.

[mattaudio]

Paint lanes for cars, and we get cars.
Paint plazas for people, and we get people.

[Nick]

I'm going. Somehow it'll be my first time at the Walker.

[Rich]

I'm no traffic engineer, but would something like this work?

[MNdible]

Paint lanes for cars, and we get cars.
Paint plazas for people, and we get people.

How delightful! And if we sprinkle fairy dust, what happens then?

You realize that Broadway is flanked by about a dozen very wide (roughly) parallel streets that go (roughly) to the exact same place, right? And you realize that there are no other ways to get where Hennepin and Lyndale go, right?

I totally get the whole induced demand theory, and I believe it to be true. But that doesn't change the reality here. It's called the bottleneck because it is, in fact, a bottleneck. It's a seriously constrained point in our transportation system, and even though traffic through here is terrible, people still sit through it because it takes them where they need to go.

[mattaudio]

It is a bottleneck. It is a constrained point in our transportation system.

Which is exactly why it is completely ridiculous to have so much of this precious public real estate devoted to space-inefficient automobiles.

[MNdible]

I know, right? Stupid people driving their stupid cars.

[Seth]

I'm no traffic engineer, but would something like this work?

Whether or not this works, it's a really cool solution. I could see development hugging the "onramps" and a cool public park/plaza in the center. Really reminds me of a more elegant version of Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn. http://goo.gl/maps/Yld1Z

[Anondson]

One serious consequence is that the Groveland Terrace intersection stop light looks like it would back traffic up into the traffic circle. A complete solution would need to involve all the way up to Dunwoody.