MN Highway 36

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
User avatar
woofner
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1327
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 10:04 am

Highway 36

Postby woofner » November 30th, 2012, 11:22 am

MNdible wrote:Build the bridge so that the people in this disconnected cluster of apartments can walk through the giant parking lot to get to the mall.
Are you really surprised you're getting pushback? Given the choice of building something or not building something, how many regular posters on this board are going to choose the latter in any given situation?

Again, if your opinion is that there is no hope for unwalkable areas so there's no point in even trying (and, to infer, that those that are currently walking in these unwalkable areas don't deserve basic accommodation), that's fine, and you're lucky because MnDot (not to mention Roseville, Ramsey County, and most suburbs) seems to share that opinion. But again, it seems like the popular attitude on this board is that things should change - typically what should change is that buildings should be taller or should use less cementitious panels in their exterior, but in this case that at least some currently unwalkable areas should be made more walkable.

But if your opposition is more specific to this unwalkable locality, maybe you'd care to elaborate? I think that as a regional shopping center surrounded by relatively dense housing that is already mostly arranged in a grid pattern and is already well-served by transit, it's an ideal candidate for improved walkability. Why don't you think Rosedale should be made more walkable? Even though the existing built form is clearly hostile towards pedestrians, it is already dense enough to attract some walking, so improvements to the roadways are needed to accommodate existing pedestrian travel. Of course improvements to the built form will be necessary to make the area truly walkable, but do you really think that improvements to the roadways should wait until, say, there are no more drive-throughs here? What would waiting for even a predominantly improved built form to install sidewalks even accomplish? Finally, there are several thousand employees working within a half-mile of the Snelling interchange, and in the same area there are dozens of restaurants. Given the facilities are built, why wouldn't employees walk to these restaurants in walking distance (i.e. Har Mar is potentially a half-mile walk from MnDot if they build sidewalks and a ped bridge on the east side of the interchange)?
"Who rescued whom!"

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5785
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby MNdible » November 30th, 2012, 5:07 pm

redisciple wrote:Are you really surprised you're getting pushback? Given the choice of building something or not building something, how many regular posters on this board are going to choose the latter in any given situation?
No, I'm not the least bit surprised. I guess in some ways I'm deliberately poking at this particular tendency of the board.

My point wasn't that this shouldn't be built; in fact, it probably should be built. My point is that I'd like people (on this board) to think seriously when they suggest/demand infrastructure projects be built out, and to think about how they fit into the reality of where things stand. We have limited resources, and for me, this project doesn't rank very high on the list of potential pedestrian improvements that we could be making. Due to planning decisions made in the past, I just don't see this proposed bridge having a very high cost-benefit ratio. To put it differently, I don't see it getting used very much.

I'll also be the first to admit that I have a bias against these types of bridges in general. I think that even in an urban setting, they're not very useful. I'd much prefer to see an ample, safe sidewalk built as part of a road bridge or underpass than one of these.

Ask yourself (or I suppose we could ask him) what would the Strong Towns Blog guy say about this. Is this really sustainable, justifiable infrastructure? Just because a project [s]achieves[/s] promotes goals we all believe in doesn't necessarily mean that the project makes sense.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7904
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby mattaudio » November 30th, 2012, 5:46 pm

Speaking as someone who posts batshit crazy plans for a 150 mile LRT network, dual level downtown transit tunnels, etc. I can certainly say that I'm not demanding infrastructure projects to be built in any particular timeframe nor am I suggesting that they bear more or less merit to earn any of our scare infrastructure dollars. That's the point for planning organizations, consultants that spend lots of money to figure out why projects are not feasible, etc. This is a message board.

To quote my earlier post in this thread, "Let's say hypothetically..."

UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby UptownSport » November 30th, 2012, 6:40 pm

Geez, it's just a ped bridge or two and perhaps a culvert. I don't see this as even a blip in a budget-
I'd rather doubt it would take any resources from DOT to facilitate- That it would 'hold up' other projects in the least.
My problem is both a practical (people need to move from one spot to another) and an emotional one- That in a wealthy suburb people are forced to cross a freekin freeway on foot.
There's myriad more expensive projects that are WTF? for me, the 55 bike bridge, and a bike crossing from Bryant across Lyndale- People using these have and had other options, I never use either because it's faster not to ...

I also think in this case private concerns could certainly donate to the project, so it wouldn't be exactly measured against, say a 94 improvement;
they could afford it (like how well that worked with the stadium :( )
It'd be a boon for their interests, to some extent
Foot overpass would be 'prompt' for the concerns
DOT, itself could finance the culvert and perhaps the East Bridge- in a 'we practice what we preach' outlay

I don't know the extent to which it'd be used

fehler
Rice Park
Posts: 441
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby fehler » December 3rd, 2012, 11:19 am

There are two large freeway signs here, so a bridge between them wouldn't be easy. However, could the two sign structures be combined, with the pedestrian bridge together?

mulad
Moderator
Posts: 2795
Joined: June 4th, 2012, 6:30 pm
Location: Saint Paul
Contact:

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby mulad » December 3rd, 2012, 11:49 am

Looking at the I-94 corridor, Mn/DOT seems to have a standard of around 400 or 500 feet between signs and other bridges. The spot I suggested for a ped bridge would be around 580 feet in front of the next sign on westbound MN-36, so I think it's fine for that direction. For eastbound MN-36, the ped bridge would be behind the sign, though far less than 400 feet -- only around 150 feet. There are some places along I-94 where Mn/DOT has signs which are much closer to (road) bridges, such as at the Huron Boulevard exits (50-70 feet). I don't see why having a ped bridge behind a sign would be a problem, but it might need some special exemption from the regular rules.

UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby UptownSport » December 3rd, 2012, 12:47 pm

I wrote Roseville, maybee I'll send them a letter- But writing, is like, so hard

UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby UptownSport » December 7th, 2012, 3:21 pm

Bill Malinen wrote:Dear Mr. UptownSport,



Thank-you for contacting me regarding your interest in a pedestrian bridge over highway 36. This has been an item of some discussion and a part of the Pathway Master Plan but has never risen to the highest of priorities. Funding has been an issue historically, as the city has not invested any local funds in new trails and sidewalks since 2002. With the funding of the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program, we will have funding for some pathways and trails, but this particular project is not identified for development. It has recently been suggested by Council Member McGehee that planning and preliminary design of pedestrian bridges on Snelling Ave. be a priority, and that may logically extend to looking to cross Highway 36 as well, however, there has been no formal City Council action or funding for such planning and engineering work. As we engage in our next round of strategic planning, this item may become a higher priority, and be considered for inclusion in our budget. Thanks again for your interest and concern.





Bill Malinen
City Manager
City of Roseville, MN 55113
2660 Civic Center Drive
651.792.7021
Tammy McGehee wrote:Dear Mr. UptownSport,

I, too, am interested in the ability of bicycles, pedestrians, and motorized mobility vehicles to safely cross some of the major traffic barriers in our city. East to west is clearly Snelling Avenue and north south is clearly Highway 36. I have spoken with a MNDOT official regarding Snelling, and he recommended that the city work with citizens,study the possible locations, and do enough preliminary work to find beginning and termination points to ensure that there is adequate land and space available. Then, with citizen and community support and further planning, this official believes the city should prepare a "shovel ready" plan to keep on file. MNDOT has money for such projects from time to time as do other state and federal funding agencies. There is also the possibility of future stimulus money.

However, this issue will have to be supported by a City Council majority in order to gain the support necessary to begin to study the issue. I hope perhaps you can get some others interested and/or take your wishes to the PWET Commission to see if you can get this idea started to percolate up the priority ladder. Maybe the city should consider a separate Trails and Pathways Commission to keep this issue before the public and Council. Trails and Pathways was the number one supported item on the recent Parks and Recreation Survey, yet it was afforded only $2 million of the $19.25

If you want to discuss this further, please feel free to call me.

Tammy McGehee
651-645-2993

pannierpacker
Metrodome
Posts: 56
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:25 pm

Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/17

Postby pannierpacker » July 16th, 2013, 6:28 pm

Hey everyone,
It looks like MNDOT is finally taking the plunge to improve the last segment...

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/news/1 ... hwy36.html

Upcoming open house
Anyone interested is invited to attend a public open house for the Hwy 36 Study:

Wednesday, July 17, 2013
4:30 to 6:30 p.m.
Oakdale Discovery Center
4444 Hadley Avenue N., Oakdale

Draft preliminary design concepts, including a combined interchange, low-cost and at-grade concepts, will be presented for comment at the open house. Other project information will be on display and staff will be on hand to answer questions and take feedback. No formal presentation is scheduled.

Meetings
Public and agency involvement are important factors for the success of this project. Preliminary design information will be presented and local coordination will take place to move the preliminary design forward.

The following meeting types will be conducted as part of this preliminary design study:

PMT and design specific meetings- held to confirm the basic preliminary design objectives to solidify a work plan, discuss design and concept development, public involvement and agency related issues relevant to the project.
Public open houses- held to provide general information and answer questions of local area residences and businesses
City Council/County board meetings
Agency coordination meetings- held to coordinate information related to approvals and other forms of consent

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7904
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby mattaudio » July 16th, 2013, 6:54 pm

Welcome back to the forum btw. Weren't you on Minnescraper?

pannierpacker
Metrodome
Posts: 56
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:25 pm

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby pannierpacker » July 16th, 2013, 6:57 pm

I sure was. Wow, this place has changed a lot in the last year! So many posts!

at40man
Rice Park
Posts: 426
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 6:49 pm
Location: The Saintly City

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby at40man » July 17th, 2013, 8:04 am

Please - no at-grade crossings at 120 or Hadley! Crossing these intersections is very dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Perhaps the solution is to run Hadley and 120 over/under 36, and construct access ramps. This will provide better access to the Gateway trail as well as allow traffic to flow through smoothly.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7904
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby mattaudio » July 17th, 2013, 8:18 am

Is it still too late to cancel the Stillwater bridge so we can redirect the money to projects like this that would actually increase mobility and safety?

Tom H.
Rice Park
Posts: 423
Joined: September 4th, 2012, 5:23 am

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby Tom H. » July 17th, 2013, 10:12 am

My guess is that this project is only really necessary because of the St. Croix bridge adding / inducing new traffic loads upstream.

at40man
Rice Park
Posts: 426
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 6:49 pm
Location: The Saintly City

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby at40man » July 18th, 2013, 9:11 am

Tom H. wrote:My guess is that this project is only really necessary because of the St. Croix bridge adding / inducing new traffic loads upstream.

Nope - State Hwy 120 (Century)/36 intersection is one of the most dangerous in the state and has been targeted to be redone for many years for reasons NOT related to the new bridge. The new St Croix bridge would only exacerbate the issues these intersections face.

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6187
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby twincitizen » July 18th, 2013, 9:15 am

Agreed. St. Croix bridge or not, Century/120 should have been grade separated 6 or 7 years ago when they reconstructed that entire stretch of MN-36 through North St. Paul. I'd love to see a really compact "Tight Diamond", much like Hwy. 7 & Wooddale in SLP.

bptenor
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 142
Joined: November 11th, 2012, 9:28 pm

Re: Highway 36 changes at Century and Hadley - Open house 7/

Postby bptenor » July 18th, 2013, 7:34 pm

I also agree. Century/36 is a very dangerous intersection. I drive that section about 3x/week since I live in Maplewood and travel to and from North St Paul. I've also crossed 36 with my bike there, but that's really not a great idea. There's not much space there, but I hope some sort of interchange is built, particularly if it forces pedestrians to be safer when crossing.

pannierpacker
Metrodome
Posts: 56
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:25 pm

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby pannierpacker » July 22nd, 2013, 3:26 am

redisciple wrote:
MNdible wrote:Realistically, how many people do we think might use this on any given day? Related, what would be the minimum number of users necessary to justify building it, assuming, say, a $3 million price tag?
The only relevant number here is the cost of the Snelling interchange. MnDot made the choice to build a facility on a major thoroughfare in an urban area that is impossible to walk across. The $3m or whatever it costs to build a ped bridge should be considered a part of the cost of the Snelling interchange. It would not be a "pedestrian amenity" - it is a basic responsibility of a transportation department.

But yes, there are thousands of people who work within a half-mile of this interchange who would probably walk to a restaurant at work every once in a while if they didn't have to add a mile to their trip by crossing at Fairview.

And yes, there are many other needed pedestrian improvements in the Rosedale area, as there are in every suburb. Roseville waited for Federal money to add a sidewalk on the east side of Fairview as it crosses under Hwy 36. This didn't magically make Rosedale into a pleasant or safe place to walk. For one thing, it only extends north as far as the frontage road, at which point someone continuing north would have to cross to the west side, then cross again a couple blocks north. All the while this potential, theoretical pedestrian would have to dodge cars speeding around the multiple slip ramps at every intersection. Finally, even the new easterly sidewalk on the underpass will likely need to be shared with cyclists attracted by the new bike lane, which of course stops just in time for the underpass.

In short, Roseville is a mess. The ped bridge won't fix it, but neither will it be fixed without the ped bridge.
-Roseville staff recently did a cost estimate on the bridge. It would be at least 2 million to construct the bridge and trails but that doesn't include right of way costs.

-Actually, that trail on the east side of Fairview Ave extends beyond the Service Road and goes all the way down to Larpenteur now.

I agree that a standalone project doesn't fix anything by itself. It will take developers some time to adjust to the new environment. All along Fairview Ave, development is very far away from the curb. I think Roseville has the potential to have a very dense urban high built cluster along the Fairview Ave area where it crosses 36, but this will take a lot of major redevelopment. Recently, additional density was added south of 36 by Snelling when the new apartments were put in. The apartments were built to the frontage of the street as well. Maybe the same thing will happen near Fairview someday?

I do think the highway 36 pedestrian bridge by Snelling would have some immediate payoff today if it were put in though. It will require some planning though to allow it to continue north of the movie theatre for it to be of major value. The trail can't just stop at the mall. It has to connect to an existing network and the nearest trail along Snelling is north of Crossroads Mall.

pannierpacker
Metrodome
Posts: 56
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:25 pm

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby pannierpacker » July 22nd, 2013, 3:31 am

mattaudio wrote:Let's say hypothetically the 36/51 interchange needed complete replacement and was programmed into a future budget. What would people like to see here to accommodate a modern pedestrian/transit friendly development?
I'd like to see a single point urban interchange or the elimination of ramps on one side of the highway to facilitate a trail. A trail would be much cheaper to install near Snelling if MNDOT could integrate it into their highway design. I think it would make more sense to put the trail on the west side of the roadway as that is where the existing facilities are today.

I'd also like to see a curbside Snelling Ave BRT station installed right around B2 so that MNDOT and Rosedale users would have access to transit and the transit would be efficient.

pannierpacker
Metrodome
Posts: 56
Joined: July 16th, 2013, 6:25 pm

Re: HWY 36 walkway????

Postby pannierpacker » July 22nd, 2013, 3:33 am

Lancestar2 wrote:If a bridge would cost about 3 Million how much would a tunnel under the road cost? Waiting until the next road resurfacing couldn't they basically place a 8-10 ft. concrete pipe under the road. Dig a few drain tiles string a few lights and wires for outdoor usage to weather the elements maybe a few retaining walls on each side and couldn't it be built on the cheap for less than a Million? If it's going to be a low capacity why does it need to be big and expensive.

I think grading is the issue. Because highway 36 is below Snelling in this area it is difficult to build a tunnel. Just behind National American University, there is actually a nice culvert, but the problem with it of course is that it is at water level...


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests