Page 26 of 26

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 9:46 am
by billhelm
the ped/bike crossing at the 50th/parkway/Portland Y split is particularly problematic and I like turning the parkway into a one way there with a more defined intersection.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 9:55 am
by NickP
fehler wrote:
June 7th, 2019, 7:55 am
Looking at all the diagrams, where is it forcing people off? The Y split near Portland can change to favor continuing west onto 50th, no problem, if that's what the traffic demands. The ramps up to Lyndale hitting right turn only medians, fine, should have been there already. Is that really all? I couldn't see any other "traffic calming" measures.
I read the “diverters,” as “things that require people to leave the parkway.” I see your point though and apologize if I help spread incorrect information.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 2:14 pm
by QuietBlue
xandrex wrote:
June 7th, 2019, 9:46 am
I rarely stray into that corner of Minneapolis, and I'm loathe to provide cover for cars, but is there another good route through that area that isn't the parkway?

It looks like Minnehaha Parkway and Lake Nokomis Parkway are the only streets that provide crosstown connectivity anywhere between 43rd and Hwy 62. Presumably we don't want either parkway to be car sewers, but that's a long stretch without access.
That's basically it. The lakes and parks interrupt the streets for thirteen blocks, so everyone takes the parkway. Though the highways running through the grid don't help either.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 2:25 pm
by QuietBlue
mister.shoes wrote:
June 6th, 2019, 7:06 pm
Make it annoying to go WB from Cedar. Get creative. Come on.
It's already a PITA to turn left onto the parkway from Cedar much of the time, so I just go a block down and loop around onto Longfellow, then turn right onto the parkway.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 2:27 pm
by MNdible
The fact that people on both sides of the discussion are up in arms is probably an indication that they've found a reasonable compromise.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 8:13 am
by mattaudio
Opinion piece I disagree with and I think is based on faulty facts about the actual proposal and faulty assumptions about reality:
https://minneapolisparkhistory.com/2019 ... -good-one/

My comment, since I guess comments are moderated:
Even though I frequently use Minnehaha Parkway to drive my car, I'm a strong supporter of the plan to divert traffic away from using the parkway as a city-wide highway. In fact, I'm disappointed the Parkway is still planned as a commuter connector east of Portland Ave in the segment near which I live.

When the Grand Rounds were being planned a century ago and the automobile had not yet completely dominated American transportation and land use, the idea of " practice of driving Minnehaha Parkway for pleasure" may have been novel and appropriate. But in 2019, the parkway that cuts through our neighborhoods is a car sewer for commuters to drive fast and aggressive across the heart of our city through one of its crown jewels of public parkland.

The current proposal needs to go further, such as eliminating through-traffic between Portland and Cedar. Despite that, I'm still a strong supporter of the draft released a few weeks ago. While it still allows people to access every bit of the current parkway by car, it will hopefully reduce the amount of people using the parkway as an alternative to Hwy 62 or other crosstown routes.

The idea of reducing the toxic influence of cars on our land use - including our parks - is not new or novel. The recent Harriet master plan will eliminate auto traffic from the lower parkway. The City removed automobile traffic from Nicollet downtown in the 60s. There have recently been plans to close the downtown segment of both sides of River Parkway to cars during weekends and peak periods (another great idea). After spending more than a half century making our cities easy to drive through which, in the process, destroyed much of what makes our cities worth going to, it's great that we're finally right-sizing the role of the automobile in the land use and mobility picture of a thriving city. Cars aren't going away, but they will be guests among spaces for people rather than people being guests among spaces for cars.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 9:47 am
by amiller92
Yeah, apparently I'm not yet sufficiently anti-car. What with the lakes and freeway in the way, the Parkway is a useful connection that mostly works okay (aside from at Cedar), with relatively slow moving traffic.

The exceptions are the two intersections with 50th, where I think the plan offers smart fixes. The fact that you kind of have to know what you're doing to use it as a through route (e.g., westbound, hanging the left at 50th instead of following everyone else to the right, turning right over the creek and then left again to stay on the parkway) helps keep some random traffic out (I didn't even know there was a connection to Nicollet until I looked more closely at these plans). My vote is no to the barriers at Lyndale and only yes at Nicollet if there's a very good reason to realign to the upper roadway.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about taking away through routes, I'd much rather get rid of the Cedar Ave causeway.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 9:59 am
by MNdible
amiller92 wrote:
June 18th, 2019, 9:47 am
Yeah, apparently I'm not yet sufficiently anti-car.
[sound of my head exploding]

[winking emoji]

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 10:01 am
by QuietBlue
People probably won't use 62 instead, though. They will use the other streets that run parallel to the Parkway.

I don't have an opinion on this proposal yet, but it wouldn't reduce the overall amount of traffic in the area, just redistribute it. Sure, the Parkway itself would be safer, but putting more traffic on the other residential streets nearby will make those so.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 10:29 am
by amiller92
Oh, I don't know about that. Taking away capacity may well reduce trips. I mean, induced demand and all.

But yes, whatever trips aren't eliminated will use 50th and 54th/Diamond Lake Road instead if they can't avoid the area entirely.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 12:23 pm
by QuietBlue
It's possible that it may enter into people's decisions over the long run. I was admittedly thinking more about the near-term -- people still need to commute, drive their kids around, etc.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 12:37 pm
by Didier
I can't imagine there are many trips on the Parkway for which 62 would be the next-best fit. Not saying that as a good or bad thing, just an observation.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 12:58 pm
by LakeCharles
My dad takes the parkway coming from Highland Park in St. Paul to my sister's at Lyndale & 54th. These changes will almost certainly push him to 62. One anecdote, for sure, but I don't think it's so unusual.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 1:39 pm
by amiller92
Not that I particularly care how people re-route, but that seems like a trip that would be particularly well-suited to just divert to 50th at the first barrier.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 1:44 pm
by RedDutch
I live on 2nd Ave (East frontage of 35W) and 50th. I use Minnehaha daily in both directions. It is a great way to get around the neighborhood and is RARELY congested...….only during both rush hours. Getting on 35W at 46th has sucked in the past 2 year because of all the closures due to construction. So using the parkway to get to 35W at 54th or down Portland to get to the crosstown is essential.

There are very few intersection on the Parkway that actually get backed up, Cedar, Portland and 50th.....even those are manageable. Someone called the Parkway a highway.....that is absurd. People really do drive slowly through the parkway and like I said ….there really isn't THAT much traffic. Yes....there could be some improvements but overall I think it is a waste of money!

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 3:00 pm
by mattaudio
Interestingly enough, I proposed left turn lanes at intersections like Cedar.... Shocker, I'm not anti-car either... The reasoning being if you had a protected left turn phase off the parkway onto Cedar, you could offer significantly more protection to the people bicycling or walking in the crosswalk. I've discussed this concept a number of times with Park Board staff, and they ultimately decided not to include it in their most recent draft from May 30. Their reasoning? Adding turn lanes would further induce traffic... Which is true! They say the fact that it currently takes multiple light cycles to get through some of the stoplights such as Cedar, Chicago, or Portland result in fewer people using the Parkway for crosstown trips. Eliminating some of that congestion would induce demand for more motorists on the parkway, and yes that's true. I just wonder what the right balance is, since we're deciding that the parkway east of Portland is a crosstown commuter route yet we're not willing to make the intersection changes necessary to protect people walking or bicycling in conflict with turning motor vehicle traffic.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 3:02 pm
by mattaudio
amiller92 wrote:
June 18th, 2019, 1:39 pm
Not that I particularly care how people re-route, but that seems like a trip that would be particularly well-suited to just divert to 50th at the first barrier.
That's what most traffic does anyways, based on the traffic counts and matched with anecdotal observation. The Parkway is a de-facto extension of 50th St. I keep hearing motorists who dislike having to drive the curvy segment near Washburn. I drive that segment all the time, and it's not bad. It's just you often have to go 25-30 MPH (which is, good?) instead of 35-40 MPH as most people do on 50th west of Lyndale.