urbanMSP

Thanks, panda. I appreciate it!

Are the 394 entrance/exit ramps that connect directly to Washington Avenue really necessary? It seems that 3rd and 4th Streets could handle the job just fine, without destroying the pedestrian experience on Washington. There's an additional freeway entrance by continuing ahead on 3rd Avenue.

By making this small change, we could put some very prime real estate back on the tax rolls and really improve the pedestrian experience at Washington & 3rd.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid= ... sp=sharing

Completely agree that they're unnecessary and that the connections at 3rd and 4th are plenty sufficient. That whole mess of ramps was the one spot on my dream North Loop redo that I couldn't quite figure out how to do, so I left it as-is. Should have just eliminated them altogether instead of trying to reconcile the vertical clearance issues.

Some extremely good stuff in this article:

Good Stuff

Like many on here, I’m not a huge fan of interstates and how they divide the urban landscape. An idea I’ve had that’s between a cap and the status quo is to work some of the excess MnDot land back into the city by developing it.

For example through North Minneapolis why not take the majority of the land between the roadway and Washington Ave and build on it with buildings facing Washington? Or take the land around the Washington Ave and 3rd St and open it for development? There is also space along 94 in St. Paul with the development facing the city.
I presume red-tape and etc. would limit the potential here, but this seems better than the status quo. This is just an idea. I've put some screen-snips of spaces where I see some potential.

Queue a re-post of the mister.shoes fantasy map to re-grid Downtown East to Cedar Riverside.

Nah. Let's do froggie's instead.

But if you insist, here's mine.

Those fantasy maps are great, but one thing I think they miss is the length off ramps require to be safe. The very lowest threshold in the city is from 35W to 4th st and University ave. Those ramps are so short, cars come screaming off the freeway and need to slam on the brakes. Super unsafe for all users. Wish there was something the city/county/state/feds could do about it.

Those fantasy maps are great, but one thing I think they miss is the length off ramps require to be safe. The very lowest threshold in the city is from 35W to 4th st and University ave. Those ramps are so short, cars come screaming off the freeway and need to slam on the brakes. Super unsafe for all users. Wish there was something the city/county/state/feds could do about it.

I have no materials engineering knowledge, so forgive me if this sounds silly or dumb... but is there a high-friction road construction material that would be capable of significantly aiding deceleration without causing excessive wear to tires?

Those fantasy maps are great, but one thing I think they miss is the length off ramps require to be safe. The very lowest threshold in the city is from 35W to 4th st and University ave. Those ramps are so short, cars come screaming off the freeway and need to slam on the brakes. Super unsafe for all users. Wish there was something the city/county/state/feds could do about it.

I have no materials engineering knowledge, so forgive me if this sounds silly or dumb... but is there a high-friction road construction material that would be capable of significantly aiding deceleration without causing excessive wear to tires?

Rumble strips do/promote this kind of thing, but they’re obviously loud to anyone living adjacent to where they’re placed.

How the Federal Government Could Help Kill the Highways It Built

As Streetsblog reported on Jan. 11, the Economic Justice Act, a spending package worth over $435 billion, includes a $10 billion pilot program that would provide funds for communities to examine transit infrastructure that has divided them along racial and economic lines and potentially alter or remove them. It would also help pay for plans to redevelop reclaimed land. The program contains specific language requiring projects funded through it prioritize equity and avoid displacement. It also provides grants meant to facilitate community engagement and participation as well as construction.

Topical:
Bill Lindeke estimates that the I-94 4th St ramps cutting through the North Loop cost the city 5 million in unrealized tax dollars every year. https://streets.mn/2021/03/31/how-much- ... nneapolis/

They should put that money aside as an down payment for tearing down the aqueduct. You could also simply close it as a test. Right now I doubt we'll see much impact.

This is where I plug my idea of demolishing only the southern ramp, and turning the northern ramp into an aerial park.

In regards to a Rondo land bridge, are there specific plans for how that would work? I was just driving that stretch today and notice the freeway trench there isn't very deep. It almost feels like you'd have to dig it way deeper, or else it'd be a random Rondo hill that wouldn't actually be all that useful.

It seems that the Rethinking I94 effort only envisions freeway caps in a limited area of St. Paul. IMO Minneapolis officials should advocate for caps in Prospect Park, between Cedar Riverside and Seward, between Ventura Village/ Phillips and Elliot Park, and between Loring Park and Stevens Square/ Loring Heights. Also, I94 between downtown and the Northside is a huge barrier cutting off residents from jobs. It's frustrating that MNDOT was basically able to rebuild I35W through Minneapolis ensuring it will be in place for another 50+ years, as is. It seems that it is nearly impossible to downsize or truly mitigate or dismantle these roadways...

After the 35W Bridge collapsed in 2007 was there ever consideration of just not rebuilding it and rerouting traffic via I-94 and Highway 280? Seems like it would've been a similar case to the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco after the 1989 earthquake.

As somebody who lives blocks from 35W in south Minneapolis, I can say that... it's just fine. And spending hundreds of millions of dollars to landbridge over it would be a serious misappropriation of limited resources.

If you ignore the particulate matter and toxic chemicals, constant noise pollution, severed neighborhood connectivity and induced traffic that spills over onto neighborhood streets, living next to urban freeways is swell. I agree that land bridges are an expensive remedy, which is why highway to boulevard conversions should be prioritized.

As somebody who lives blocks from 35W in south Minneapolis, I can say that... it's just fine. And spending hundreds of millions of dollars to landbridge over it would be a serious misappropriation of limited resources.

You mean the same "limited resources" that we use every year to repave, reconstruct, and widen roads and highways? Is that the "limited resources" you're referring to?