Street, Road and Highway Projects

[mulad]

Two years ago, the Star Tribune ran a Whistleblower column and video on 33rd Avenue Southeast, way on the eastern edge of Minneapolis between Hennepin Ave and Como Ave, is one of the last unpaved roads in the city. Because it's mostly composed of dirt that has been oiled down considerably over the years, it looks like asphalt -- but it's not. For the past week or so, I've noticed construction activity in the area as I've gone past on the #3 bus -- looks like the city is actually paving the road along with a connected segment of Talmage Avenue. Judging by the Strib article, the project must have been delayed by a year for some reason. Nonetheless, they're working on it now. Here's the project page:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/cip/all/ci ... mage_index

[mulad]

Taking a random outing on the Hiawatha Line today, I noticed that the road reconstruction project at 22nd Street East is nearly done, with striping on the road surface. A brand new intersection with Cedar Avenue just south of Franklin. It also includes reconstructing a little bit of Minneapolis's Snelling Avenue.

redisciple had a blog post on the topic last August:

http://gettingaroundmpls.wordpress.com/ ... committee/

[mamundsen]

This should be what we are talking about.

http://www.bringmethenews.com/2013/03/2 ... on-season/

Here's the MN Dot page: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/construction/

[twincitizen]

The Penn Avenue project is about to get underway in a week or so: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/cip/all/WCMS1P-083125

It looks great with all the bumpouts and whatnot, but way too many bus stops! The stops at 59th and 61st are ridiculous and unnecessary. The ones at 59th should be eliminated without question. There should be an explicit ban on having two stops on the same block face (far-side and then again near-side of the next intersection)

Apparently they are considering removal of the signals at 56th and 58th. Shouldn't that be set in stone before construction begins?

[PhilmerPhil]

Pretty upsetting that Minneapolis' first cycle track wasn't included here. It was proposed, but then opposed because a few people didn't want to park across the street from their homes. Penn Avenue was on the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan and is a critical connection over 62 to Richfield.

[mattaudio]

It looks promising that there are a few bumpouts on Penn, and a few blocks where on-street parking is condensed to one side. Why not more of this? And, with the expanded boulevards it seems like it would be great for a cycletrack in some spots and bike lanes in others. Seriously, no bike lanes at all on this route? Reading the neighborhood feedback from the public meetings is about as depressing as reading Pioneer Press comment threads.

[mattaudio]

And 13' lanes when not next to a parking lane? Seems excessively wide. How about 12' or 11' + 6' parking lane rather than 13' or 11' + 8' parking.

[woofner]

Well they just have a cartoon up. The lanes will probably be reduced a foot or two for the gutter pan.

Yeah Penn is a real bummer. Too bad Mayor RT "Savior and Champion of Bicycling" Rybak didn't show up to advocate for decent cycling facilities in his own neighborhood. I believe there is money in the budget to make one of the nearby side streets even more safe for cycling, though, for what that's worth (nothing).

Edit: I forgot to complain about Public Works' refusal to add bump-outs at transit lanes, despite the fact that they are proven to increase safety and efficiency of transit. Remember that next time some politician brags about how great the buses are here (or next time you almost get hit by some douchebag in a rusty Duster making an illegal right turn around a bus at a stop).

[PhilmerPhil]

redisciple, I believe you are right about a side street being converted to a bike boulevard (Oliver Ave. specifically). Not sure if the funding was included as a part of this project though. It's another great example of treating biking as a novelty form of transportation. Oliver crosses neither 62 or the creek, forcing a detours and un-bike-friendly access to local businesses along Penn.

If anyone else is unhappy with this, it all boils down to political will. We need people in office that actually are "Saviors and Champions of Bicycling (and Urbanism)" to ensure important projects like this lean to a more urban friendly design, which is why it is so important to get your voice heard at the April 16 caucuses! See: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1265

[mattaudio]

$49 million in improvements to the Hwy 101 Minnesota River Crossing appear to be scheduled for 2015.
http://www.startribune.com/local/south/203244041.html
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... index.html

[beykite]

What I don't understand is that the main reason for a lot of the work on the Bloomington Ferry Bridge is to handle the extra traffic from the 101 project over the next couple years. However, now they're saying 101 won't need to close during construction. Seems like a bit of a waste. I know the 169 bridge needed to be worked on anyways, but the reinforcing they're doing on the shoulders to carry extra traffic seems kind of pointless now. Would rather of seen the money go to expansion to 3 lanes all the way to/from 494. Or at least auxiliary lanes from Pioneer Trail to Anderson Lakes and Anderson Lakes to 494 East. Theres plenty of room and row doesn't seem to be a problem. Anyone know of any plans to expand 169?

[Tcmetro]

Speaking of the area, MnDot recently held a meeting discussing opportunities for Hwy 13 between 169 and 35W. The options ranged from reducing the number of lights and improving intersections to the conversion of 13 to a freeway with interchanges at Dakota, Chowen, and CR 5. No mention of improving the cloverleaf at 35W. Additionally, it didn't seem like they were interested in introducing an interchange at Nicollet, despite the traffic issues there. Anyways, sounds like a nice project, but will probably kill the already struggling downtown area of Savage. Who knows, maybe the remaining strip malls will be replaced by yet another senior housing project.

[beykite]

There really does need to be a East-West freeway connecter on that side of the river to hopefully alleviate some of the traffic on 494. 13 from 169-35W seems like the best option considering its much closer to the core then any of the other proposals, most of wich put the connecter south of CR 42.

[mattaudio]

Interesting trivia: At one point, Scott County 21 was proposed as a freeway from 169/18 in Shakopee to 185th/35W in Lakeville.

[Tcmetro]

Scott County has moved their sights onto a new freeway from 169 in Shakopee down to the county line. Like we need another 30 miles of exurbs with no job centers in a 30 minute drive.

As for the Hwy. 13 freeway proposal, it's actually a decent idea because the land is mainly industrial, truck traffic is heavy, and IIRC, there is some 70,000 vehicles traveling on the road each day.

[Mdcastle]

Scott County has butted heads with the met council before about transportation priorities so I'm now surprised they wanted a freeway, as for US 169 I'm thinking the long term idea might be for a HOT shoulder during peak periods, like I-35W approaching downtown. I don't agree with stealing safety shoulders, but that may be the idea.

As for MN 13, it seems stupid to keep adding signals and taking away signals simultaneously. They added one at Quentin last year and took one away at County 101. Now they plan take away one at County 5 and add one at Dakota. I know the area north of Savage is kind of a no-mans land with railroad and industrial uses, but it would be nice to depress MN 13 and the railroad, and then extend the downtown plaza across and towards the river.

Improving the I-35W and 13 interchange is actually being / been studied and is linked to a totally different project to reconfigure the I-35W interchanges with Black Dog Road, Cliff Road, MN 13, and Burnsville Parkway that also includes MN 13 and Nicollet. All plans have a high speed ramps for the I-35W north to MN 13 west movements, but the other options range from downgrading the cloverleaf to a split diamond with Burnsville Parkway to a high powered system interchange with C/D roads and an interchange at Nicollet. I'm not sure if Burnsville is clear what they want with Nicollet and 13. My opinion this is similar the situation in North St. Paul, where they sunk the traffic down and built interchanges and overpasses to make it easier for both local traffic and pedestrians to get across.

[Tcmetro]

So Mn/Dot released a summary of their recent Hwy 13 study.

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

A few suggestions from that:

- Double left from Nicollet to Hwy 13, double lane entrance from WB 13 to NB 35W
- Near term reconstruction of the Washburn intersection, consoliate into Chowen in the long term
- Long term reconstruction of the Chowen intersection. Control type TBD. Elimination of the Lynn Ave signal. New connector road from Chowen/13 to Glendale/McColl roundabout.
- Near term closure of Yosemite Ave access.
- Long term reconstruction of Dakota Ave intersection, control type TBD.
- Extensions of frontage roads to mitigate access closures.

[mattaudio]

Sort of weird that they label a "Kenwood Trail extension" to 35W for CSAH 5. I don't think the Burnsville stretch of this road has ever been labeled Kenwood Trail.

[RailBaronYarr]

Also, how about continuing to make the Burnsville Transit Station more and more pedestrian hostile and less accessible, even as the area just south of Hwy 13 along Nicollet is becoming a somewhat dense and walkable area?

All these slated improvements in addition to the 13/101 overpass recently completed and the 13/5 freeway interchange are just going to continue supporting auto-focused development in Savage, Shakopee, and beyond. It's ridiculous.

[mulad]

Hmm. I wonder how many parcels/acres will be taken by the Washburn/Chowen intersection construction. If we can't take any buildings for SWLRT, we shouldn't allow MnDOT to take any here.