Page 8 of 9

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 18th, 2013, 3:17 pm
by mister.shoes
Wedgeguy wrote:My only problem with your suggestion is that you now will have cars flying thru the warehouse district to reach the entrance to 94. Not much of a residential neighborhood when you have how many cars using it to get to 94. With stoplights you have added air pollution, possible gridlock. Just what I want to live with. Again, what you put up in theory does not always fly in reality.
Counterpoint: by the time this were to happen *guffaw* the Bottineau LRT line would be up and running. These commuters (because that's exactly to whom you're referencing) who don't want to sit in traffic in the Warehouse District would have the option of taking LRT home to the NW 'burbs.

Or, maybe as a concession someone could figure out how squeeze in ramps directly from 394 to 94 for that particular traffic movement. Obviously that wasn't done from the start because the aforementioned longass ramps were a shortcut for that traffic—and a valid one when the NL was an industrial wasteland. It's not, now; it's an up-and-coming neighborhood that is needlessly cut in two.

Or, drivers could take 7th Street. That's 2 blocks away, wide/fast as hell, and leads directly to the A side of the ABC ramps. In fact, after thinking a little more about this, with access to 94 at Broadway and 7th/Olson/Lyndale these ramps to/from 3rd/4th aren't even necessary. Take them out altogether and hypothetical idling traffic problem: solved.

Or, heaven forbid, the people who are suddenly inconvenienced because their precious mile-long ramps from 94 directly into DT have been removed might consider moving into this hip new neighborhood they're forced to drive through.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 18th, 2013, 3:20 pm
by Blaisdell Greenway
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/mns ... _plan.html -- I see a lot of urban core highway bridge replacements planned for the next several years.

If freeway caps are significantly cheaper when paired with bridge construction, now's the time to lobby MNDOT, the mayoral candidates, the Met Council, etc. etc.

We just missed a huge opportunity to drop a small deck between Park and Portland over 94 as a demonstration...

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 18th, 2013, 3:29 pm
by mattaudio
I'd rather see a multiway boulevard where the existing viaducts are. It would move just as much traffic as the one way 3rd/4th couplet but it would do it in a way that is much less hostile to the new developments that have popped up on the block north and south of 3rd.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 18th, 2013, 3:31 pm
by Wedgeguy
Sorry don't want to fight, but you will just create what we have at Lyndale/Hennepin up in that area also. But you will be cramming too much in one area for transist to get on and off the freeway.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 18th, 2013, 3:42 pm
by Wedgeguy
One of the possible biggest problems will be getting federal approval, because those are made with federal dollars. They were design to drop traffic off at the edge of town, thus the ramp to the C ramp in the west side of the ramp. This was to keep the cars out of the core. Minneapolis will only get to put input. Someone in DC will have to give approval for them to come down.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 18th, 2013, 8:04 pm
by RailBaronYarr
Worrying about stationary cars polluting ignores alternative solutions to the problem.. 1) idling cars can automatically shut down. Mandate this as a means of improving air quality (even if it technically has a negative effect on gas mileage). 2) Create free-flowing intersections where the viaduct was. During AM/PM peak hours the number of people using the cross streets interfering with exiting traffic would be minimal. I've seen this work in French and Italian cities where exit ramps are short and followed by 2-3 small roundabouts at cross streets to calm speeds but keep traffic moving.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 20th, 2013, 11:10 pm
by UptownSport
RailBaronYarr wrote:1) idling cars can automatically shut down. Mandate this as a means of improving air quality (even if it technically has a negative effect on gas mileage).
yEP! Total no-brainer!

You can do this the rudimentary way; as long as you don't have to get out and crank it Model-T stye!

and it saves fuel- I'd be glad to supply fuel injection values, but just watch a hyper-miler - They've got that key off if they even think they're stopping!

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 21st, 2013, 10:45 pm
by alleycat
My 2010 Honda Insight has auto-stop. It freaks out first time passengers when you come to a stop and the car is silent. It's a relatively affordable car, but can you do this on a non-hybrid?

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 22nd, 2013, 5:41 am
by mulad

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 22nd, 2013, 7:39 am
by RailBaronYarr
Yep, they're all over in Europe. Works on automatics and manuals (for a stick you have to have it in neutral and the clutch out, so there's an easy way to prevent it if need be).

Just as another point of clarity on the whole reducing speeds effect on neighborhood health by way of car emissions...

Prior worries that the plan would result in asthma-inducing traffic jams turned out to be a straw man

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/upt ... z2ZmVGL4o2

Cars were clocked as going 50+ mph (what I would call "exit ramp/viaduct speeds"). After calming, the article says: "Prior worries that the plan would result in asthma-inducing traffic jams turned out to be a straw man."

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 22nd, 2013, 8:31 am
by UptownSport

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: July 22nd, 2013, 9:17 am
by talindsay
UptownSport wrote:
or

Image
The problem with doing it that way is that most cars not explicitly designed for "start/stop" don't have a starter, alternator, or battery strong enough to handle continuous stops and restarts - it will work for a while but any savings will be undone by the premature failure of those parts.

Also recall that until the last decade or so most cars would go into a very rich condition on starting in order to aid with the start, and so would pollute very heavily for the first few seconds they were running - and hence would do more environmental damage with continual stops and starts than just leaving them running.

Even brand new cars do enrich the fuel circuits at start, but warm engines don't need it so it's only a few tenths of a second before the sensors adjust it down, meaning stop-start is an environmental win on new cars.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: August 8th, 2013, 1:45 pm
by twincitizen
Hmm...looks like we decided against deleting the last page or two of nonsense. I'm still for it.

Anyways, check out what Seattle is doing: http://finance-commerce.com/2013/08/ber ... rty-surge/

I was not aware of this project at all.

EDIT: Yeah...that was totally the wrong link before. mb

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: August 8th, 2013, 1:56 pm
by RailBaronYarr

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: August 8th, 2013, 7:41 pm
by Anondson
I recall when the tunnel boring machine that dug out the tunnel beneath the airport some suggested the machine be kept in town and made to dig a grid of tunnels beneath Minneapolis, just keep it on and running around and around to get ready for the day we would be ready to use them.

Heh. Probably could have been a nice cost savings at this point.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: November 11th, 2013, 11:26 pm
by PhilmerPhil
I figured there's gotta be some people on here that have an interest in filling this out: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2014freeways

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: November 11th, 2013, 11:47 pm
by JMS9
http://gizmodo.com/should-london-build- ... 1462235473

Article from Gizmodo about a proposed nature bridge over the Thames in London. Pretty cool idea in and of itself, but in the replies section someone shows photos of how Dallas covered up a freeway that runs through downtown and turned it into a park.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: November 12th, 2013, 12:05 am
by ProspectPete
I'd love to see that in DT St. Paul at the 35/94 commons aka spaghetti junction by the Penfield. I'm sure it's Prohibitivley expensive, but it would help quiet that trench.

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: November 12th, 2013, 9:48 am
by mister.shoes
PhilmerPhil wrote:I figured there's gotta be some people on here that have an interest in filling this out: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2014freeways
Awesome survey. I went gung ho—no surprise given my predilection toward redoing roads :)

That said, on the first page was a paragraph with an email address and how to send more detailed information. I forgot to pull it out before submitting my response. Would someone mind quoting that whole paragraph for me? Thanks!

Re: Dismantling Downtown Freeways

Posted: November 12th, 2013, 9:54 am
by sad panda
5. Describe the highway and why you recommend its removal. Please include any information about maintenance, surrounding land uses, and traffic conditions. If you have images or can provide more detailed information, please email Alex McKeag at amckeag@cnu.org with "Highways" in the subject heading.