Re: Street, Road and Highway Projects
Posted: June 4th, 2015, 7:22 am
No. The part south of 494 was designed to accommodate 3 lanes, but none of it is on MnDOT's radar.
Architecture, Development, and Infrastructure of the Twin Cities
https://urbanmsp.com/
Apparently a "pop-up" six-laning of the short stretch from 35W to 77 is closer than we'd expect. Pushed by Richfield. I'd actually like to see 77 signed to/from 35W towards downtown over this short stretch of 62 if that happens.62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?
Given the crazy number of cars I see traveling WB on 66th at 12th every morning when I do daycare dropoff, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that 66th is a reliever for the Crosstown. The upcoming narrowing of that street + a widening of 62 for a mile and a half would do wonders for the livability of that part of the city.Apparently a "pop-up" six-laning of the short stretch from 35W to 77 is closer than we'd expect. Pushed by Richfield.62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?
Agreed on the livability. Widening will require some homes. I think about this every time I drive through there to/from work. Not including an eastbound aux lane between Portland and 77 as part of the crosstown redo was a huge mistake, IMO. The backups for both eastbound 62 approaching the commons and southbound 35W to 62 east are primarily a result of the Portland traffic entering the roadway and having to immediately get into moving traffic. If there was an aux lane, there would be far more room for the traffic to sort itself out. I'm hopeful that a widening of this stretch can happen soon. It's been a massive cluster for 20 years!Given the crazy number of cars I see traveling WB on 66th at 12th every morning when I do daycare dropoff, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that 66th is a reliever for the Crosstown. The upcoming narrowing of that street + a widening of 62 for a mile and a half would do wonders for the livability of that part of the city.Apparently a "pop-up" six-laning of the short stretch from 35W to 77 is closer than we'd expect. Pushed by Richfield.62 badly needs 3 lanes as well. Minimally from 100 to 77. Ideally from 169 to 5. Is any of that on MnDOT's radar?
It will be interesting to see how they squeeze more lanes through that section. Sound walls would have to be included from Bloomington Ave west, right? If they can pull it off without taking a dozen or so houses, I'd be really impressed.
A few thoughts:Given the crazy number of cars I see traveling WB on 66th at 12th every morning when I do daycare dropoff, it's obvious to anyone paying attention that 66th is a reliever for the Crosstown. The upcoming narrowing of that street + a widening of 62 for a mile and a half would do wonders for the livability of that part of the city.
It will be interesting to see how they squeeze more lanes through that section. Sound walls would have to be included from Bloomington Ave west, right? If they can pull it off without taking a dozen or so houses, I'd be really impressed.
I don't know this for sure but someone told me that as part of the work being done on the Bloomington Ave bridge, bike-ped lanes are being added. If this is true, it would seem to obviate the need for the 14th Ave ped bridge and it can simply be tore down.4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.
Ooops... just looked at the bridge on google maps and do see that bike lanes and a sidewalk were present before the bridge work began. I think it's safe to say that whatever they're doing at the present time, the ped-bike crossing will be even better when they're done. Being that the 14th Ave ped bridge is two blocks away, one would think it's simply going to be tore down at the next opportunity.I don't know this for sure but someone told me that as part of the work being done on the Bloomington Ave bridge, bike-ped lanes are being added. If this is true, it would seem to obviate the need for the 14th Ave ped bridge and it can simply be tore down.4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.
I'm not quite following your traffic patterns. Did you mix up a WB/EB somewhere? Or is my brain not working right?1. In the 66th St planning process, cut-through west of 35W was a much larger concern. For this east segment, the only really negative impact of the traffic currently is the Portland roundabout -- it seems that engineers currently think afternoon traffic requires two lanes SB to get the traffic onto WB 66th and toward the Cedar interchange. The overall traffic count is very low on 66th east of Portland.
While staring at Google Maps for a while yesterday I did take note of all the frontage roads and tried to eyeball how new lanes would fit through that section by only taking pavement. I couldn't see how the MPLS side between 13th and 15th could avoid losing any houses, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.2. Frontage roads are generally pretty easy targets when you need more space. In several instances, Richfield has gone to super-narrow alternating loop roads, with trails between -- so it's fully connected for bike-ped, but halfway to a cul-de-sac for motorists.
Are these proposals available on Richfield's site anywhere? I drive that section of the Crosstown regularly as well and have long wondered if an additional lane and sound walls could fit without any takings.For example, Richfield has a proposal to fit 6 lanes west of Penn Ave without taking any homes.
No, your brain is working fine. I meant SB Portland to *EB* 66th traffic during the afternoon. Sorry.I'm not quite following your traffic patterns. Did you mix up a WB/EB somewhere? Or is my brain not working right?
That little triangle block in Minneapolis bounded by 62nd, 14th, and Crosstown would probably be a loss, although there is a full frontage road on the north side you could eat into. There's also at least one house in Richfield at 62nd and 11th that might be too close. The plan for taking no homes was only related to the west-of-Penn area, so I'm not sure if anyone has concepts in the 35W-Cedar area that spare all homes, or how many homes would have to go for expansion.While staring at Google Maps for a while yesterday I did take note of all the frontage roads and tried to eyeball how new lanes would fit through that section by only taking pavement. I couldn't see how the MPLS side between 13th and 15th could avoid losing any houses, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
The west-of-Penn plan was shown at a Richfield Transportation Commission meeting 6-ish months ago. I don't believe it's online. The plan notably pushed all of the expansion to the south, as Public Works' impression was that the City of Minneapolis was considerably less interested in sacrificing land for Crosstown expansion. If you'd like to see it, you could probably get it from Kristin Asher <[email protected]>, the acting Director of Public Works.Are these proposals available on Richfield's site anywhere? I drive that section of the Crosstown regularly as well and have long wondered if an additional lane and sound walls could fit without any takings.
You're correct that the Bloomington Ave bridge will include both on-street lanes and a MUP on the east side. However, Portland Avenue to Bloomington Avenue is 3/4 of a mile. And both north and south of the Crosstown, Bloomington Avenue is really an "edge" to larger parkland and freeway/airport. 12th Ave goes more directly through neighborhoods.I don't know this for sure but someone told me that as part of the work being done on the Bloomington Ave bridge, bike-ped lanes are being added. If this is true, it would seem to obviate the need for the 14th Ave ped bridge and it can simply be tore down.4. Hope such a widening would also be an opportunity to replace the 14th Ave inaccessible ped bridge with an accessible bike-ped bridge at 12th Ave.