urbanMSP

Interestingly, it doesn't appear that the SWLRT bridges will be a part of this project. Which they should be, because the existing bridges are sufficient for freight, LRT, and the trail. The southern bridge looks like it carried 3 freight rail tracks, and the northern bridge carried 4+ freight tracks (an added bonus of this is there's significant vegetation screening when biking over the freeway). Is this another case of a road expansion project adding to a transit expense?

Getting back to the (somewhat inconsequential in the grand scheme) question of why Holiday closed...another wrinkle is that the work on Mtka Blvd and its exit/entrance ramps doesn't start until April 2015.

Does the Holiday closing early have anything to do with the removal of the underground storage tanks? I have no idea how long it takes to have those removed and have soil contamination cleaned up (if any).

Interestingly, it doesn't appear that the SWLRT bridges will be a part of this project. Which they should be, because the existing bridges are sufficient for freight, LRT, and the trail. The southern bridge looks like it carried 3 freight rail tracks, and the northern bridge carried 4+ freight tracks (an added bonus of this is there's significant vegetation screening when biking over the freeway). Is this another case of a road expansion project adding to a transit expense?

Actually, they have been: http://www.metrocouncil.org/getdoc/7fb6 ... sItem.aspx

"MnDOT has been working closely with the SW LRT project office on this project, and will continue to do so, since one of the bridges to be replaced would carry the planned Southwest LRT over TH 100."

Does the Holiday closing early have anything to do with the removal of the underground storage tanks? I have no idea how long it takes to have those removed and have soil contamination cleaned up (if any).

If there's soil contamination (quite possible), then yes it would take some time to clean up.

From the project scope presented at the April 2, 2014 CMC meeting:

Freight bridge relocated from the southern portion of the corridor to the north of the LRT tracks. New double track LRT bridge constructed on the southern portion of the corridor utilizing existing freight bridge abutments. Trail bridge remains on the northern portion of the corridor.

MnDOT builds a new trail bridge and a new freight bridge with the MN 100 project. SWLRT relocates the MnDOT freight bridge north on new abutments and constructs an LRT bridge on the existing freight abutments. MnDOT trail bridge will remain untouched by SWLRT.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/getdoc/e21c ... ation.aspx

But will that bridge for SWLRT come from the rail project budget or this highway project budget? It should come from the highway project, because the existing bridges would serve all three uses (they once served 7+ rail tracks) and the bridges are being replaced due to highway needs.

I'll be the devil's advocate. Those bridges are almost eighty years old and warrant replacement regardless what happens with highway 100. One bridge carrying freight and one for the bike trail could serve the current uses. (Please Jesus don't let this issue become another swlrt hobby horse)

This wouldn't be the first road project that caused budget increases for SWLRT. The Lake/Hiawatha SPUI severed MILW access from West Lake to the Short Line Bridge. If the bridge was still owned by a private railroad and they planned to rebuild two tracks for a total of three (within the existing bridge detail) you can be sure the railroad wouldn't be paying for that added cost.

Incidentally, the Marathon station kitty-corner was completely unprepared for the Holiday to close, and their shelves have been picked almost clean.

That Marathon station has never been stocked and looked like it was about to close at any time in the last five years. Hopefully they stock up and clean up a bit. It's been kind of an eyesore.

That station has changed names and brands more than a few time over the years with periods where it sat empty for a period of time. Most not too long though. I think who owns it must be trying to milk it for ever penny they can get out of it with high rents. So there is generally little ROI with that property when you had the old Roger's/Holiday that you had a better experience at.

The city of SLP sent out an "engineering update" informing residents on upcoming construction happening in the city during 2014. In it there was this sketch of the Minnetonka Blvd. bridge.


Aerial sketch of Minnetonka Blvd crossing. by xeoth, on Flickr

Sorry for the shadowing happening over on the right of the image.

That looks like a whole lot of freeway. What happened to Toledo ave? I catch the bus on the NE corner (a bit north of the corner) of toledo and mnkt blvd. I am a bit concerned that this is going to turn mnkt blvd into more of a freeway btwn 100 and France. Thus far the City of St. Louis Park doesn't seem too concerned about it (how crappy mnkt blvd is for walkers/bikers from 100 to France).

For context, the view of the drawing is looking south, so Toledo is on the left side of the sketch. Toledo looks to be disconnected from Minnetonka. Seems there will be large islands for pedestrians to stop in the middle while crossing Minnetonka.

[added]MNDoT's map of the project does show two "10' trail" one the north and one the south of Minnetonka, from Toledo to Vernon. So that's an improvement for peds and bikes in that stretch, but the rest of Minnetonka from Toledo to 7 however is another thing. The project map also shows a new 10-foot trail running along Toledo from Minnetonka north to 28th St.

FYI the layout on MnDot's project page is actually incorrect. As a condition of municipal consent, St Louis Park required 6' shoulders that are not depicted on the online layout, but I've confirmed with MnDot that they will be constructed. Bizarrely, according to the FONSI, Hennepin County actually requested that bike lanes not be included on the Minnetonka overpass despite the fact that their policy for the last 15 years was that there should be a bike lane on that overpass. So these are shoulders, not bike lanes, though they will segue into the existing bike lanes westbound. Eastbound, there isn't room after the FOUR general traffic lanes to fit in a bike lane, so cyclists will have to transition from the bike lane to the "trail" and back to the "shoulder". Yes this will be a Minnetonka freeway, the fruition of many an engineer's wet dream.

Another weird fact, Anne Mavity made a failed motion to cap the amount of St Louis Park money spent on building bikeable "shoulders" then she turned around and pretended she fought for bike/ped facilities as part of this project. Long story short, any politician who claims to support any mode of transportation besides driving is likely just being a votewhore; if you want to live a respectable life while cycling for transportation find a way to move to Holland or at least Montreal.

Yikes. So we're making Minnetonka inhospitable human habitat in addition to the Hwy 7 extension a half mile south. Also a missed opportunity to build a bridge that's not merely just for more car lanes as a way to connect two sides of St. Louis Park. Also, there should be some sort of rule that additional general purpose lanes, or stroadification of streets, should automatically trigger an EIS. People want SLP to be SLP, not Plymouth.

It's also hilarious to read this page: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/projec ... isual.html
"Which color poison pill would you like, St. Louis Park? Which color bodybag? Nope, don't ask about lane count, width, or shoulders!"

Since the Minnetonka bridge construction doesn't start for another year, I wonder if activism can get the bridge built as designed, with "trails" protected from motor vehicle traffic. If what woofner says is true, that is terribly shameful of the city leadership.

So it's not enough to have a multi-use trail on each side of the road, there need to be bicycle lanes too? SInce some people seem to think free right turns are a sign of the apocalypse they should be happy that both of the existing ones are being removed. Looks like there not adding any general purpose lanes, just dual left turn lanes in each direction- do we really want taxpayers to fund a full EIS every time turn lanes are added?

There are bike lanes on Minnetonka Bl both east and west of the interchange, so logically bike lanes should cross 100 too.