I-35W/I-94 Commons

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
UptownSport
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 607
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » October 25th, 2012, 11:05 pm

mulad wrote:
billhelm wrote:If people actually honored the double white line, it would alleviate the backup somewhat. On an almost daily basis I have somebody full stop in front of me as soon as we're off the ramp to try and merge with 20 or 30 feet of clear lane in front of them.
They could in the very least add a rumble strip there, but perhaps that's not kosher since it wouldn't technically be for safety like rumble strips usually are?

(We need an "I-35W/I-94 Commons" thread ...)
And here's the thread

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby UptownSport » October 26th, 2012, 9:50 pm

Problem here is that Westbound 94 in this area averages several accidents a day.
Traffic is majorly jammed up, with there really being no 'through' lane-

As you can see, there's a lot going on in a very short distance; a left exit for the major SB freeway, entrance from that freeway and another merging onto the major WB freeway, competing with a major downtown exit, an entrance from the NB section of that freeway competing to merge with people exiting onto some of the busiest streets there are, and ending in a three lane, sharply curved tunnel.
Option 1.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby UptownSport » October 26th, 2012, 9:56 pm

Option 2.jpg
Vision Scenario 1.jpg
Scenario 3b.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lancestar2

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby Lancestar2 » October 26th, 2012, 11:06 pm

is their even funds set aside for the tunnel expansion with the next 10 years? I remember when that truck jumped accident shut down the tunnel and the rest of the metro was bumper to bumper I cancelled my driving plans that day just to avoid the added traffic. Of course it wouldn't be that bad given they could still use the other side. Also wouldn't they have to close off sections of Lyndale/Hennepin Ave above the tunnel too? I'm guessing it would take what 3 summer work periods to complete the entire thing? Excuse my debbie downerness but who in the world would look forward to that? Just talking about it makes me nervous :?

seanrichardryan
Capella Tower
Posts: 3940
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Merriam Park, St. Paul
Contact:

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby seanrichardryan » October 26th, 2012, 11:43 pm

None of these discussions take on the HORRIBLE shared ramp of 35w sb and 55w.
Q. What, what? A. In da butt.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby min-chi-cbus » October 27th, 2012, 6:01 pm

I don't like the alternatives either. One thing that probably NEEDS to be done is to widen the tunnel to 5 lanes in each direction. This is not to alleviate current traffic, but rather set the limit for how wide this tunnel will ever be, and therefore never have to reconstruct it again. That should save some future funds right there. As for the main design nothing I see here is what I expected at all.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby UptownSport » October 27th, 2012, 9:34 pm

The bypass from 35W SB to Henn / Lyn exit would do good, having a split flyover / bridge from 35W NB with your choice of Henn / Lyn or 94 W would help as well, but disrupt any hopes of having the left lane a 'through' lane.

Widening tunnel would be impossible- There's, like, buildings there- Walker, historic Churches or the old hotel wouldn't be negotiable-


One option just un-shares 55- While still showing three lanes in lowry tunnel

You could only image how sparse traffic must've been in the design with ONE LANE connections.

Perhaps 335 was one reason for underdesign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate ... nnesota%29

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7942
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby mattaudio » October 27th, 2012, 10:12 pm

I've always thought the better (and likely more cost effective) solution would be to create a second tunnel, likely six lanes, bored under 15th and Loring Park... basically providing connections between 35W and 394, so the existing tunnel would just be six through lanes for 94 itself.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby UptownSport » October 28th, 2012, 2:57 pm

Yikes! I'm thinking the tunnel is there to stay as-is and alone, unless Treasury Department decides to build a mint in Minneapolis.
Best people could do is use downtown 394 entrances / exits, or do lane re-allocation for rush hour, but that'd be confusing, to say the least.

MSP
Block E
Posts: 24
Joined: August 19th, 2012, 6:02 pm

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby MSP » October 29th, 2012, 7:02 am

There are no plans to widen the tunnel. It would be way too expensive.
I heard it would cost over a billion dollars or some insanely expensive number to do that.

MN_Badger
Block E
Posts: 6
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:16 pm

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby MN_Badger » October 29th, 2012, 7:14 am

MSP wrote:There are no plans to widen the tunnel. It would be way too expensive.
I heard it would cost over a billion dollars or some insanely expensive number to do that.
I preface this by admitting to the fact that I know nothing about highway construction or its cost, but what about deepening the tunnel? Would it be feasible to create an "Express/Local" configuration a la Wacker Dr.?

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby UptownSport » October 29th, 2012, 2:35 pm

Texas would weave a four lane into a two lane by stacking two lanes atop the other two-
Rain would flood out lower two, but thanks to global warming that doesn't happen anymore

Yourpalborno
City Center
Posts: 41
Joined: October 8th, 2012, 1:09 pm
Location: Bryant
Contact:

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons-

Postby Yourpalborno » November 5th, 2012, 4:50 pm

MSP wrote:There are no plans to widen the tunnel. It would be way too expensive.
I heard it would cost over a billion dollars or some insanely expensive number to do that.
Well we're building a football stadium and rail for that much, so fixing one of the worst choke points in the state seems like a good use of a billion dollars to me.

min-chi-cbus
Capella Tower
Posts: 3131
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 9:19 am

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby min-chi-cbus » November 5th, 2012, 10:42 pm

No plans to widen the tunnel? Then why do the renderings show versions with more lanes within the tunnel (or are the lanes much narrower)?

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5832
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby MNdible » November 6th, 2012, 12:50 pm

min-chi-cbus wrote:No plans to widen the tunnel? Then why do the renderings show versions with more lanes within the tunnel (or are the lanes much narrower)?
It's part of this "road diet" action that all of the cool kids are hip to these days.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 6th, 2012, 1:28 pm

Again, I don't think you can widen tunnel.
evenso, it'd still be a 35 MPH curve

I'm not sure tunnel is the big choke point, to me it's
-35W south exit (sometimes) backing up and disrupting traffic with lane changes as lane clears
-35W south entrance merging in with downtown exit
- North bound 35W entrance merging with people trying to exit Hennepin Lyndale

traffic picks up after the last exit, actually

beykite
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 199
Joined: July 21st, 2012, 6:36 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby beykite » November 6th, 2012, 1:44 pm

UptownSport wrote:Again, I don't think you can widen tunnel.
evenso, it'd still be a 35 MPH curve
I thought I read in the report that widening the tunnel to some extent was possible. It was very expensive and difficult, but it was in fact possible. I think it had something to do with using cantilevered footings to protect the buildings above. When (if) I have time I will skim through and see if I can find it again, but I'm pretty sure its possible. Otherwise why include it in so many alternatives? If something is not possible it usually is eliminated right away (i.e. PRT or Monorail for the Gateway Corridor)

As much as I am generally against widening highways, this is one location where I want to go back in time and punch whoever thought a 6 lane tunnel on a major arterial through the heart of a major american city was a good idea.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby Wedgeguy » November 7th, 2012, 12:42 pm

IF Boston can pull off the big dig then I think Mn Dot can think outside the box and figure out ways to Increase the capacity of the Lowry Tunnel. I see the use of land bridges, Cantilevered areas over enterance and exit ramps to increase the number of lanes, but keep streets and green space aboves those new sections of roads.
Examples would be:
:4th ave south between E 18th St, and E Franklin would have the street above the south bound exit from 94 E to 35W south. In doing so we would keep the same amount of streets and possibly increase some green space up by 94.
:E 17th and E 18th between Portland and 11th could be rebuild as Cantilevers over the edges of the freeway to increase lanes and improve the layout of the freeways.
:Somewhat between Currie Park on the west bank and the Elloit Park neghborhood we need to get enterances and exits off the freeway to have a better use of land. Also I would like to see some kind of a land bridge to get West bank residences to be able to get over to Downtown without having to only go across the Washington Ave bridge.

Again all of this is wishful thinking, But this would be a plus that would last at least another 40-50 years. I doubt you would find a majority of Bostonians that wish they still have the elevated freeeway going thru their city today. What I'm proposing is a big price tag idea, but when you look at the improved traffic flow and invreased quality of life for the citizen of the neighborhoods, I see it as a win win situation. THese are my opinions, becuase I'm an out of the box thinker.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 7th, 2012, 10:56 pm

Could you do a sketch of what you mean?

web

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby web » November 8th, 2012, 12:36 am

big dig is considered the biggest waste of money in history. it leaks, pieces fall off and I doubt if any thing like that is needed for the lowrey hill tunnel area


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests