urbanMSP

So, I drove 35W past DTE this evening for the first time in ages. I noticed that as part of the 4th Street onramp project, there was a large support replaced for the ramp from northbound 35W to westbound 3rd Street....



Is it just me, or is this 60s-vintage flyover a complete waste? Nearly all motorists on NB 35W towards north / east downtown will take 5th Street. Or even if they wanted to proceed further, they could take Washington Ave. This flyover movement doesn't even register on the AADT map, but I'd be curious to know the traffic counts. It would have probably been just as easy to remove the entire flyover instead of retrofitting a new support to span the new ramp, with the added benefit of decrease long-term replacement liabilities.

It does seem pretty superfluous since motorists can just "exit" to the trench and take a left at the stoplight. If we ever do get serious about putting a lid on this area, I'm sure it will go away.

I use that baby every day, pretty much. You'd think Washington would be a good replacement exit but. ..... . the... .. . .lights . .. . .. . are.. . . . ... . . .so . . . .. . damn . . . . . . . .slow .. . . .

I'd live it was gone, though.

I heard a rumor that this was discussed when CPED met with MnDot as part of the West Bank Initiative. The MnDot reps supposedly said that there would be grade issues with replacing the flyover with an exit to the trench. That is obviously bullshit. I would like to see the city pass a resolution favoring a slimmed-down 35W-Washington-CR 122 interchange, but of course the 4th St Ramp/Freeway expansion project doubled down on redundancy.

The MnDot reps supposedly said that there would be grade issues with replacing the flyover with an exit to the trench. That is obviously bullshit.

Wait, but there is an exit to the trench already...how could they claim there would be grade issues? Are we talking about the same thing?

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9713162 ... 0?hl=en-US

They might have to add a protected left turn to this signal, but that's about it...

Oh wow, you can really see that new flyover monstrosity from that street view. This ramp is superfluous for so many reasons...
1. 5th Street exit. 2. Washington Ave exit 3. Newly reconfigured Washington Trench exit.

I actually wondered why there's not a forced right for that LRT-reconfigured exit to the trench... What exactly is the purpose of the ahead movement which takes vehicles up to Cedar (Seven Corners) when the same thing is accomplished by the Washington Ave ramp a block to the west?

Similarily, what's the purpose of the reverse at this intersection, where one can go down the ramp from Cedar to the trench, then take a left eastbound to go over the Washington Ave bridge. That's superfluous as well considering there's still a ramp from Cedar to the eastbound trench near Midwest Mountaineering and the Humphrey School.

Oh, MnDOT...

The MnDot reps supposedly said that there would be grade issues with replacing the flyover with an exit to the trench. That is obviously bullshit.

By my calculations, replacing the flyover in its current location would require a grade of about 4.5%, with no flat area before the intersection. The former is doable, though above the preferred (4%), but the latter would be a problem in the winter.

So, no, it's not completely b/s.

The reason the side ramp down to the trench (which extends back up to Cedar...the one mentioned by twincitizen) works is it both has less vertical depth to drop (by about 3 feet) and has a longer horizontal distance for the drop. Its grade is about 2.3%.

I actually wondered why there's not a forced right for that LRT-reconfigured exit to the trench... What exactly is the purpose of the ahead movement which takes vehicles up to Cedar (Seven Corners) when the same thing is accomplished by the Washington Ave ramp a block to the west?

It A) provides redundancy (which can spread traffic around instead of concentrating it), and B) provides easier access to Cedar-Riverside from northbound 35W.

Short of filling in the entire area and starting over, one relatively low-cost option (depending on how much traffic actually uses the 3rd St flyover) would be to add a left turn lane on the ramp that drops down to the trench, keep the flyover part that goes to Washington, and drop the flyover that goes to 3rd St.

Short of filling in the entire area and starting over, one relatively low-cost option (depending on how much traffic actually uses the 3rd St flyover) would be to add a left turn lane on the ramp that drops down to the trench, keep the flyover part that goes to Washington, and drop the flyover that goes to 3rd St.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

What other area/exit ramp are you and woofner talking about with the grade change and such? Why would anything beyond what you just described even be necessary?

That's exactly what I originally proposed, too. The point is that the flyover to 3rd St, the only flyover supported by this new pier, is not needed in the first place. There are no "grade issues" when the replacement is "nothing." MnDOT messed up.

Now that I think about it, I believe that MnDot was specifically reacting to an idea for a roundabout in the trench. Sorry, I obviously wasn't picking up on the thrust of your conversation that the existing ramp just be used, which makes more sense.

I bet the cost of that new column was less than the cost of removing the whole thing (in the short term, obvs). They're probably just waiting to take it down until a larger project comes along, though it should have been explored as part of this one. Onward and upward - to the lid project!!

Public meetings for the upcoming 35W bridge reconstruction over the Minnesota River are happening on October 27th and 29th.

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... index.html

The proposed cost to replace this bridge built back in 1959 is $140M Work scheduled to happen in 2020.

Home from the meeting
IMG_0221 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
IMG_0220 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
IMG_0219 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
IMG_0218 by North Star Highways, on Flickr
IMG_0216 by North Star Highways, on Flickr

Of note:
*5 lanes will be maintained throughout construction, with two general purpose lanes, and a reversible HOT lane.

*The northbound auxillary lane will feed into the existing truck lane, which they're looking at extending to 98th street

*They're looking for feedback as to which of the trail options to go with.

Or contact: Scott Pedersen, MnDOT
Or contact: Shelley Pederson, City of Bloomington
Or contact: Ryan Peterson, City of Burnsville

....smart asses.

I bet you had to triple check the spellings of those last names before you posted.

How much is 35W threatened by floods? Was this project going to deal with raising the routes lowest points for flood protection?

The part of the roadway that gets threatened by flooding is between Black Dog Road and Cliff Road. They're going to elevate that section of roadway enough so they don't have to go out and build a temporary dike every so often.

I thought that they wanted to consolidate the interchanges at Black Dog and Cliff into a new one at 123rd (or some new street.)

Trail should go on the east side. There is already a trail on the east side of 35W south of the river, and it better ties into Lyndale Ave on the north end, which is an obvious bike route. I believe that Black Dog Road is also supposed to be converted into a bicycle trail.

An interchange at 118th street is sketched out on the maps, but isn't going to happen as part of the project, and won't until the gravel mine closes, which could be 20 years yet.

I wish they could find a way to provide more separation between the freeway traffic and the pedestrian / bike trails on these bridges. At least this one looks like there will be a full shoulder on the bridge, which helps, but traffic moving at 70 mph (and regardless of speed limit, it will be going at least that) is pretty intense on these pedestrian trails. Probably the worst is the MN-5 Mississippi River bridge, since there's almost no shoulder to speak of, but the MN-55 Minnesota bridge (the Mendota bridge) is pretty awful too, and so is the 35E Mississippi bridge.

Don't get me wrong: it's better to have these non-ideal crossings than not, and I don't expect that they'll actually put in the effort to make them great pedestrian areas, but I do wish they could find a way to make it a bit less unpleasant. For cyclists it's over relatively quickly, but on foot it takes anywhere from five to fifteen minutes to cross these bridges, and especially in the winter it's pretty awful.

So they aren't giving any thought to any, for lack of a better term, above-road visual interest on the bridge whatsoever, it seems from those images. Which is too bad.