I-35W/I-94 Commons

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 8th, 2012, 3:17 am

Heard something about that; massive piece fell off on a car- Driving thru is like Russian roulette in your Buick

Today same thing, 94 w traffic slows below downtown, then more so near 35W s entrance, then big time at 35w N entrance, but has picked up by the time it passes the Hennepin / Lyndale exit. So the tunnel would have no effect on current congestion points

And almost got in an accident ...

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby Andrew_F » November 8th, 2012, 3:25 am

Couldn't the 35w northbound to 94 westbound split into two ramps-- one signed "I-94" and the other "I-394/Lyndale/Hennepin-- the I-94 through-traffic ramp merging into 94 from the left, and the local ramp feed into a divided merge area to the right of 94, where it would weave with people exiting 94 to Lyndale/Hennepin and remain separated by a physical barrier until after Lyndale/Hennepin exit? This ramp could pass over the 4th street onramp easily.

tabletop
Nicollet Mall
Posts: 128
Joined: June 7th, 2012, 3:24 pm

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby tabletop » November 8th, 2012, 5:59 am

It just occured to me that I would be in favor of expanding or rebuilding the Lowery tunnel not soaly for freeway expansion, but it would provide the perfect opportunity to redesign the Hennepin/Lyndale bottleneck. I know it would be even more expensive but it would bolster the economic vitality of south Minneapolis and they would be in better standings to add street cars through the corridor. Win, win, win!

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 8th, 2012, 1:13 pm

DaPerpKazoo wrote:Couldn't the 35w northbound to 94 westbound split into two ramps-- one signed "I-94" and the other "I-394/Lyndale/Hennepin-- the I-94 through-traffic ramp merging into 94 from the left, and the local ramp feed into a divided merge area to the right of 94, where it would weave with people exiting 94 to Lyndale/Hennepin and remain separated by a physical barrier until after Lyndale/Hennepin exit? This ramp could pass over the 4th street onramp easily.
So add a 3d ramp (or split) so 394 (from 35W north) drivers merge into 94 W after hennepin / Lyndale?
Image

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby Andrew_F » November 8th, 2012, 2:28 pm

Sort of. I did a quick edit in MSpaint... Hopefully it is legible.

Image

Didier
Capella Tower
Posts: 2438
Joined: June 3rd, 2012, 10:11 am
Location: MSP

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby Didier » November 8th, 2012, 9:40 pm

DaPerpKazoo is on the right track, in my opinion.

I drive through this area every day, and I feel like the biggest problem is that there's no way to get through the area without getting caught up in a whole lot of other "stuff."

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 8th, 2012, 10:16 pm

That would leave only two 94 w through lanes, and there's be no place for it to enter 94, as there's no passing entering the tunnel, so it would be a 394 only entrance-

All cars from 35W north that wish to take 394 or lyndale / hennepin, 35W s that want Lyndale / Hennepin, hwy 55 that want henn / Lyndale, and 94 W that want henn / Lyndale would all be in one lane.
Too much, it'd be worse right there for all those people trying to weave

User avatar
Andrew_F
Rice Park
Posts: 453
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 10:15 pm
Location: Stevens Square

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby Andrew_F » November 9th, 2012, 2:13 am

UptownSport wrote:That would leave only two 94 w through lanes, and there's be no place for it to enter 94, as there's no passing entering the tunnel, so it would be a 394 only entrance-
There's already essentially only 2 through lanes to begin with, with one being lost to 35w sb and one to 394.



All cars from 35W north that wish to take 394 or lyndale / hennepin, 35W s that want Lyndale / Hennepin, hwy 55 that want henn / Lyndale, and 94 W that want henn / Lyndale would all be in one lane.
Too much, it'd be worse right there for all those people trying to weave
Who is weaving? Only weave is people coming from 55 nb and 35w sb that want 94 wb vs people coming from 94 wb that want henn/lyn or 394, and they have a long time to do it.

fehler
Rice Park
Posts: 444
Joined: July 30th, 2012, 8:33 am

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby fehler » November 9th, 2012, 11:00 am

I still have to laugh to see five lanes in the tunnel. Not gunna happen. Not. Gunna.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 9th, 2012, 11:09 am

:lol:

there was history in Wikipedia:
It is a bottleneck due to its dog-leg turn, and various proposals have been made for dealing with it. In May 2005, one city engineer proposed restriping it to 4 lanes each direction. This would not help the slowdown, but would theoretically allow more cars through it at a given time. The tunnel is also a leading contender for a new high-occupancy toll lane using the MnPASS electronic toll collection system.
Kazoo, you might be right- with those normally weaving onto henn / lyn already on it due to the new bypass

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 » November 9th, 2012, 11:29 am

I always wondered why they didn't bore a tunnel under Loring Park to get rid of the weird dogleg... maybe 40+ years ago the price was much different between boring and cut and cover (not to mention cut and cover was likely relatively cheaper because they obviously didn't have any trouble wiping out wide corridors of old buildings)... A tunnel from the Nicollet/94 area to the 94/394 area would allow for a lot of redevelopment, less crazy turns, and better revitalization of the Hennepin/Lyndale area.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby MSP » November 9th, 2012, 11:34 am

fehler wrote:I still have to laugh to see five lanes in the tunnel. Not gunna happen. Not. Gunna.
Each tunnel is roughly 44' wide. A standard traffic lane is 12'.
3 lanes each way is 36' with a 4' shoulder on the inside and outside for a total of 44'.
Even going down to 4 11' lanes would mean there would be zero shoulders and the tight radaii would make that configuration unsafe for semis.
I don't see this happening...

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » November 10th, 2012, 1:40 pm

So much for city engneers

Here's an aerial shot, you can surmise about where it runs

Image

Truth be told, I've only used tunnel a few times in my life; I live on top of it.

Lancestar2

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby Lancestar2 » November 12th, 2012, 3:55 pm

ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/outbound ... tation.pdf


Don't you guys remember this? Tons of room on the Walker side for tunnel widening. Also I remember a lot of talk on the old site about how the tunnel could be expanded at a high cost regardless of the buildings next door. It would be nice if they could take out the sharp curve to keep speeds high but I guess with such tight space and high expense that may be very unlikely.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby beykite » November 12th, 2012, 5:52 pm

From finding 5 of This report
Any long-term visions to comprehensively expand and significantly improve I-94 operations and capacity must also include expansion of I-94 at the Lowry Tunnel. While the engineering and community challenges are considerable, conceptual designs suggest tunnel widening can be accomplished without need to acquire adjacent buildings.
Technology Advancements with Potential to Enhance the Feasibility of Tunnel Expansion Highway planners have long considered the Lowry Tunnel a bottleneck that could not be removed. Using the technology available in the early 1960s and the traffic forecasts of the time, a tunnel design that fit needs while avoiding impacts to adjacent buildings was developed and constructed. In the more-than 45 years since design/construction of the original Lowry Tunnel, technology has advanced on several fronts which make expansion and modification more feasible.

New construction techniques allow work to occur closer to the existing building foundations than was possible in the 1960s. For example, during the construction of the Leif Erickson Tunnel in Duluth, the use of tie backs and tangent pile walls allowed tunnel construction immediately adjacent to an apartment building. Other examples include:

• Improved methods for predicting the frequency and amplitude of vibrations during construction.

• The use of “jet” fans to force air and smoke through tunnels (requiring less space than
older methods).

• The use of composite materials to strengthen concrete and enable the expansion of existing or future structural spans.

With such technology advancements, a range of potential improvements to the Lowry Tunnel has become feasible and warrant consideration
Lowry.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby MNdible » November 12th, 2012, 7:53 pm

It would be interesting to see them take another pass at this today, as it seems that there are a number of these changes that have either been incorporated or made obsolete by subsequent events (the 35W bridge rebuild, the Central Corridor build, along with some minor restriping).

twincitizen
Moderator
Posts: 6211
Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
Location: Standish-Ericsson

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby twincitizen » November 14th, 2012, 3:16 pm

Continued from the Orange Line/35W thread:
UptownSport wrote:
twincitizen wrote:I had a conversation with an older fellow (like retirement age) about ... double-decking the tunnel (he brought it up first), etc.
What'd you learn??????

We were just spitballing about possibilities. It seems that a final decision has not been reached on the NB 35W to WB 94 flyover yet. Strongly leaning towards having it merge on the left side though.

The awkward 16th St entrance to WB 94 (behind the convention center) will remain, it seems. This means traffic will be simultaneously merging onto WB 94 from the left and right...and that seems like a bad idea. When the topic of moving the 35W flyover to the left lane came up at a TAC meeting months ago, Jim Grube was suggesting that the 16th St entrance could go away in that scenario.

I thought it was pretty cool that the SEH planner guy suggested the double-decked tunnel though. I mentioned the roundabout idea for the L-H bottleneck and he was not enthused. In fact, as soon as he brought up the tunnel, I was all like "only if it improves the conditions up on the surface!!!"

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby UptownSport » February 4th, 2013, 12:32 pm

This seems to have disappeared from the http://www.35lake.com/ site ...

This remains as justification for the 35W Lake project;
There are two bridges in the I-35W Transit/Access Project that must be replaced by 2018 under the Chapter 152 legislation. These are the “braid” bridge near 24th Street and the “flyover” bridge that connects northbound I-35W to westbound I-94. Replacement of the braid bridge provides an opportunity through a slight design change to land the bridge on the right side of southbound I-35W rather than the left side, thus accommodating a future continuous managed lane from downtown to the new transit station and beyond. Replacement of the flyover bridge offers an opportunity through a slight design change to ease congestion in the I-94 commons area that results from having a lot of traffic trying to merge in one location.

danie123182
City Center
Posts: 31
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:45 pm

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby danie123182 » February 8th, 2013, 11:04 pm

I find it repulsive that we as a state can't find the money to replace 50 year old infrastructure. The replacement for this tunnel should have had a fund set aside for since it was built so that when the time came for its eventual replacement the money was already there. Just imagine how much cheaper it would have been to have the money in interest bearing accounts for the past 45 years with every years contribution adjusted for changes estimated construction costs at the point in time of its eventual replacement.

Basically the 1 billion dollar price tag might had only cost 700 million with the other 300 million coming from interest.

Now imagine all infrastructure being planned in this way. It's called common sense and it's about time we start using it.

Or how about we do like North Dakota and create a state bank that loans out money for infrastructure projects to the state so that when it's paid back all of the interest goes into the state treasury. Basically paying the state to build infrastructure.

Maybe we could even do both. I imagine our infrastructure tax money will go twice as far with careful planning of the finances.

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

Re: I-35W/I-94 Commons

Postby min-chi-cbus » February 9th, 2013, 7:48 am

You can't save money when you live paycheck to paycheck, so to speak, and the citizens would be outraged if there were a budget surplus and those funds just sat earning interest instead of being reimbursed to the people or put into something more pressing (like schools). That's my guess as to why governments can't operate the way you are talking about.


Return to “Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest