West 7th Street and MN-5 Interchange

[mulad]

Here's the URL they're officially using for the study:

http://www.stpaul.gov/hwy5study

In addition to RailBaronYarr's other two links, here's the PeakDemocracy link related to a presentation board showing where traffic across the MN-5 bridge flows from/to on the St. Paul side. (I'd like to see one for the Fort Snelling side too...)

http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/11 ... Issue_2677

Here's the image:


I think there was another one that showed specific traffic counts, though I can't find it on the project website yet. But whatever, we can try the fancy HPMS ARNOLD Mapbox tool instead.

[fehler]

I love this image. A great way to represent the data. Although it does make it look like all the traffic is in one direction.

[froggie]

You can also view the traffic volumes on MnDOT's traffic application.

[froggie]

I've made some revisions to my earlier concept:



I keep a similar concept to what I had before, with a half-interchange at Edgcumbe (which is extended to the river parkway), a full interchange at Davern, and both eliminating West 7th west of Davern and restoring the street grid. But instead of looping south of the Airport Parking ramp, I locate the connector just south of Norfolk Ave. I believe it can also be built to incorporate a lid over the highway between Edgcumbe and Davern, though for obvious reasons such a lid cannot also cover the ramps. Still, the block of lid between Edgcumbe and Wheeler should be able to accommodate air rights development.

I've also created a map showing land requirements and redevelopment parcels for my revised concept:



With this concept, slightly more land currently used for streets and roads becomes available for redevelopment (12.2 acres, shaded in orange) than is needed for the roadway concept (12 acres, mostly shaded in yellow). However, about 4 acres initially needed for construction can be recovered via the freeway lid, with about half of that becoming parkland/open space (shaded in green), and the other half becoming developable air rights (mentioned above).

The existing Norfolk Place apartments (which I believe fall under "affordable housing") could be replaced on the parcel behind Buca (shaded in light orange).

Under this concept, Buca (shaded in fuschia) would lose a few parking spots for the Edgcumbe extension, but would otherwise remain intact.

The Airport Parking ramp also remains intact, but could easily become part of a future redevelopement proposal.

I've included 2 of the blocks along West 7th west of Davern under "redevelopment" as they would lose street access under this concept (especially the Taco Bell at West 7th and Davern).

[seanrichardryan]

Yes please. If the relocation of existing housing can be made upon land gained from deconstruction of the exiting interchange, even better.

[mulad]

I found a meeting packet related to the Shepard/Davern development plan from earlier this month. The developer has been looking at using the northwest corner of the Shepard/Davern intersection itself, as they assumed that it would be the least likely to be affected by changes. I believe this is the same plan approved 11-1 by the planning commission the other day.

[Mikey]

Looks good. I would like to retain at least some of West 7th St west to Edgcumbe for a potential LRT line

[froggie]

My concept for a possible LRT line is to use the Ford spur and the Edgcumbe median.

[mister.shoes]

You're a mad genius, froggie. That's fantastic.

[twincitizen]

Hmmm... Buca bldg sells for $6MM: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... or-6m.html

[mattaudio]

The Fort Road Bridge construction is in full swing. Traffic is down to two lanes. And, given the insanely tight and dangerous ramp spacing at each end of the bridge, it is actually much easier to merge and drive this section when people are driving cars at 15-20 instead of 55-65 MPH.

[seanrichardryan]

Hmmm... Buca bldg sells for $6MM: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... or-6m.html

That's about 2.5 times what I thought it might be worth.

That's going to be expensive to acquire for a planned interchange :/

[froggie]

Sean: as demonstrated in my concept above, the Buca building isn't necessarily needed to build an interchange.

[twincitizen]

Froggie, have you shopped your concept around with St. Paul & MNDOT planners? I know you don't live in the state anymore and enjoy drawing these maps just for fun, but it would be a shame to not have this concept (or variations of it) on the table. Losing the 80-100 units of affordable housing is a shame... but as discussed on Twitter last week or whenever, I'm not sure there's another way. Widening the existing Norfolk ROW would take away the yards of both the affordable apartments and the newer stuff on the North side - and would no doubt be met with furious resistance.

[froggie]

I submitted my earlier version to the project manager. Haven't gotten to it with my latest version.

[mulad]

Hmmm... Buca bldg sells for $6MM: http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... or-6m.html

That's about 2.5 times what I thought it might be worth.

That's going to be expensive to acquire for a planned interchange :/

I went through and made a spreadsheet of property values on that block a couple weeks ago. The parcel with the main building was valued at $1.58 million -- $6 million is 3.8x the assessed value.

There's a parking lot across the street too, but that's showing up as right-of-way, so I presume it's leased from MnDOT.

[froggie]

Some progress in the study: 9 different alignment options were created, considered, and presented at the Community Advisory Group meeting last week. There are all sorts of weird options including utilizing the existing loop from Shepard Rd to the bridge, building a new ramp off the bridge to eastbound Shepard Rd, previously mentioned alignments along Norfolk Ave, one-way roads, and options that twist alignments back and forth.

Maps of the alignments are available on the project website. A single PDF showing all 9 alignments is available.

5 of the 9 are recommended to be dropped. The alternatives being retained are #4, 5, 6, and 9. Alternatives 1 and 2 were the most direct connections, utilizing Norfolk Ave. They also had the most local opposition (mostly those living along Norfolk Ave) and thus were dropped. Alternative 2 is the option that most closely resembled my own design, and is the only alternative that proposed eliminating part of existing West 7th.

Of the four remaining, only Alts 4 and 5 appear realistic from an engineering perspective, although Alt 5 could cause some confusion as it involves roadway alignments swapping for a spell (with eastbound traffic either bridging under westbound or crossing at a traffic signal. IMO, there isn't enough distance from the river to accommodate the downhill grade required for Alt 6.

Alt 9 is really weird. It'd effectively have Hwy 5 do a 270-degree turn, using the loop ramp in the northwest quadrant. I have serious doubts about this alternative. Unless they expand the radius of the loops, these would be 20 MPH, or even 15 MPH loops. Very dangerous for the volumes involved, especially for trucks. The eastbound (outer) loop would also have a very steep climb right away in order to bridge over the ramp from West 7th/Edgcumbe.

[mattaudio]

Seems like they dropped the wrong ones. Who do we comment to?

[froggie]

I've been trading E-mails with Michelle Beaulieu. She's a planner with the city. Her contact info is near the bottom of the project webpage.

[mulad]

None of these include any potential alignment for Riverview, which is frustrating. It's early for that project (well, sorta -- had anything ever been put together under the old Alternatives Analysis?)

Alternative 3 is being dropped because it would cut through the site that the developer wants to build on first at Shepard and Davern.

I'm disappointed there isn't an alignment shown that could go through the Buca di Beppo property and the parking ramp site, a compromise of sorts between Alt #1/#2 and Alt #3.

I think #1, #2, and #3 would do the most to recover currently unusable land, but they're all recommended to be dropped. Alternative 4 seems to be a wash (gain some/lose some), while #5 looks like it would waste more space than the current setup does.