Park and Portland Avenues
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 573
- Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Wonder about putting LRT on these two streets. On the surface, the design of these as thoroughfares begs for it.
I doubt they rebuilt 94 bridges to hold trains, tho.
I doubt they rebuilt 94 bridges to hold trains, tho.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7761
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Where would it go south of 46th St? If it could get to 60th, it could connect to the PGR ROW through "downtown" Richfield and on to Bloomington.
The problem though is that the stations should serve high-use nodes. The highest-use nodes in S. Mpls that really need connectivity to downtown are Hennepin/Lake, then probably Lyn/Lake, then Chicago/Lake/MTM, then probably Eat Street. Any nodes south of Lake that would work well are probably on Nicollet, with the possible exception of 50th/Bryant or 48th/Chicago. If both directions of the LRT were on Park, it would be de-facto service for the Chicago Ave corridor anyways being the same distance to Chicago as the greenway is to Lake.
This could potentially be a lighter impact lower cost application than a cut/cover under Nicollet, but there are some obstacles. First, it would likely serve less riders compared to the same alignment along Nicollet (although we'll soon have a streetcar over there). Second, I'm not sure there could be two lanes maintained in both directions between Park/Portland unless the county made Portland four lanes (and I dislike that idea) and I can't imagine them allowing less than four total lanes. Third, it would require some creative alignment to be useful downtown, unless it went all the way north on Park and then west on 5th St... but the existing 5th St corridor will be at capacity with Green/Blue. Finally, I just can't imagine how LRT would be palatable in some people's front yards (even though it works fine on Minnehaha between 50th/54th).
The problem though is that the stations should serve high-use nodes. The highest-use nodes in S. Mpls that really need connectivity to downtown are Hennepin/Lake, then probably Lyn/Lake, then Chicago/Lake/MTM, then probably Eat Street. Any nodes south of Lake that would work well are probably on Nicollet, with the possible exception of 50th/Bryant or 48th/Chicago. If both directions of the LRT were on Park, it would be de-facto service for the Chicago Ave corridor anyways being the same distance to Chicago as the greenway is to Lake.
This could potentially be a lighter impact lower cost application than a cut/cover under Nicollet, but there are some obstacles. First, it would likely serve less riders compared to the same alignment along Nicollet (although we'll soon have a streetcar over there). Second, I'm not sure there could be two lanes maintained in both directions between Park/Portland unless the county made Portland four lanes (and I dislike that idea) and I can't imagine them allowing less than four total lanes. Third, it would require some creative alignment to be useful downtown, unless it went all the way north on Park and then west on 5th St... but the existing 5th St corridor will be at capacity with Green/Blue. Finally, I just can't imagine how LRT would be palatable in some people's front yards (even though it works fine on Minnehaha between 50th/54th).
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 573
- Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I was thinking strictly a 'mover' for S Minneapolis, and a train on each street (going with traffic, if that needs to be said).
It would seem easy to 'plop' down rail on these streets, and unobtrusive especially since one lane is essentially unused at the moment.
Don't think the Nicollet Trolley line's redundant; Streetcars traditionally have frequent stops; my understanding of the intent of Nicollet line is more local trips, especially near 'eat street'.
This would be a 'parallel' to Orange line in both senses of the word.
It would seem easy to 'plop' down rail on these streets, and unobtrusive especially since one lane is essentially unused at the moment.
Don't think the Nicollet Trolley line's redundant; Streetcars traditionally have frequent stops; my understanding of the intent of Nicollet line is more local trips, especially near 'eat street'.
This would be a 'parallel' to Orange line in both senses of the word.
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2622
- Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Just another note, one way pairs actually reduce the usefulness of a line despite the gut feeling that they add to the walk radius of stops:
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/one ... ansit.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2013/10/fre ... pairs.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/02/one ... ansit.html
http://www.humantransit.org/2013/10/fre ... pairs.html
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 573
- Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
One-ways reduce environmental impact of line, increasing efficiency (speed) with little risk of head-on accidents.
As discussed, cities have done one-ways world over, my guess would be engineering drawings weren't mis-interpreted by road builders en mass.
Not sure where you're getting these 'impressions' to debunk. People need to get efficiently into cities, get around, then get out, you can't reduce everything to a goat path without providing lots of goat parking.
As discussed, cities have done one-ways world over, my guess would be engineering drawings weren't mis-interpreted by road builders en mass.
Not sure where you're getting these 'impressions' to debunk. People need to get efficiently into cities, get around, then get out, you can't reduce everything to a goat path without providing lots of goat parking.
-
- Capella Tower
- Posts: 2622
- Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I'm confused? I just wanted to point out that while one-way pair transit lines have some benefits (similar to well-designed one-way pair streets), also have drawbacks. If the line is to be useful for people that frequently travel in both directions (like, say, to work downtown every day), then the relevant walk shed is reduced. Since Park and Portland are already 1/8 mile apart from each other, that means for a person willing to walk 1/4 mile to a stop, they can be at most 1/8 mile to the east of Park or west of Portland.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to the proposal. Park and Portland certainly have plenty of ROW (just shy of 60' curb to curb) right now. Do you have examples of one-way paired LRT being able to operate faster than median-running LRT (similar to Green Line)? Data showing they're safer? I think the final challenge is that neither Park nor Portland south of Lake has any high-intensity nodes (as mattaudio points out), either commercial or residential (or both). Chicago Ave certainly has some, but the one-way pair nature puts a southbound stop at 1/4 mile from Chicago Ave. Connections via bus could make this workable, but if that's the case, the Orange Line seems just as workable? Politically, I think this would also be a challenge given the Orange Line brewin west and the Blue Line to the east as major N-S connectors. I don't know, just spitballin' ideas/thoughts.
I'm not saying I'm opposed to the proposal. Park and Portland certainly have plenty of ROW (just shy of 60' curb to curb) right now. Do you have examples of one-way paired LRT being able to operate faster than median-running LRT (similar to Green Line)? Data showing they're safer? I think the final challenge is that neither Park nor Portland south of Lake has any high-intensity nodes (as mattaudio points out), either commercial or residential (or both). Chicago Ave certainly has some, but the one-way pair nature puts a southbound stop at 1/4 mile from Chicago Ave. Connections via bus could make this workable, but if that's the case, the Orange Line seems just as workable? Politically, I think this would also be a challenge given the Orange Line brewin west and the Blue Line to the east as major N-S connectors. I don't know, just spitballin' ideas/thoughts.
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1777
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 8:02 pm
- Location: Chicago (ex-Minneapolitan)
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Even north of Lake St, there isn't much going on on either Park or Portland. Best idea would be improving the Chicago and 4th Ave buses.
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 573
- Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I'm just thinking, as I said, a way for people to get from S Mpls to downtown, and it would seem impact would be (relatively) minimal to put trains on those streets.
The nature of the streets suggests to me that there's a lot of people coming in and out of the city on them- Perhaps it's too much a leap to assume this could translate into riders.
I was vaguely aware Park / Portland don't go to Hennepin, Chicago, Lyndale, I think making them do so would be an immense undertaking.
The nature of the streets suggests to me that there's a lot of people coming in and out of the city on them- Perhaps it's too much a leap to assume this could translate into riders.
I was vaguely aware Park / Portland don't go to Hennepin, Chicago, Lyndale, I think making them do so would be an immense undertaking.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6392
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
This thread has gone full retard. The Orange Line + aBRT on Chicago (shifting to Portland, south of 60th) will provide a range of transit improvements. Park and Portland are mostly quiet residential streets that unfortunately serve as antiquated relievers to 35W.
-
- Target Field
- Posts: 573
- Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
35W is mostly residential in S Minneapolis too ... Yes? So is area where SWLRT passes thru Isles/Cedar.
"Antiquated" drivers are still continuing to use both the roads, and are going to do so long after UrbanMSP whining has turned to the next discovery that cars are actually using a road.
"Antiquated" drivers are still continuing to use both the roads, and are going to do so long after UrbanMSP whining has turned to the next discovery that cars are actually using a road.
-
- Nicollet Mall
- Posts: 137
- Joined: June 18th, 2013, 12:18 pm
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Agree on the retard part. Orange line + midtown LTV + Chicago aBRT ave or streetcar (my preference) is going to transform south Mpls and will be plenty of transit w/o Park/Portland. Maybe it will take 10 years to have this, but at least its being looked at. It's kinda like being a Twins fan these days - it sucks now, but we have hope for the future (Buxton, Sano etc.). It will be a close call what will happen first - if these three lines are up and running or the Twins win another World Series?This thread has gone full retard. The Orange Line + aBRT on Chicago (shifting to Portland, south of 60th) will provide a range of transit improvements. Park and Portland are mostly quiet residential streets that unfortunately serve as antiquated relievers to 35W.
-
- Stone Arch Bridge
- Posts: 7761
- Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
- Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I don't think anyone, save maybe uptownsport, thought this was anything more than a wild thought experiment. It only got crazy when it kept getting defended.
- mister.shoes
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1300
- Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I noticed last night that Portland south of 46th Street is now signed for 30 MPH (with orange "hey! Pay attention!" flags) instead of 35. I only got as far as Diamond Lake Road this morning but I assume it extends the whole way to MN62.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6392
- Joined: May 31st, 2012, 7:27 pm
- Location: Standish-Ericsson
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I will confirm on the way home today and report back. I had been meaning to nag the county about that...it didn't make any sense for the narrowest, curviest stretch of the street to have a 35MPH limit, while the wider "faster" portion was 30.
-
- Block E
- Posts: 16
- Joined: January 6th, 2023, 5:22 pm
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Hennepin County applied through the Metropolitan Council's Regional Solicitation federal grants process for a protected bikeway on Park/Portland between the Midtown Greenway and I-94. Their application scored the highest out of all bike/trail projects. They have a predicted construction date of 2027.
Link to application:
https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... 33MUT.aspx
Link to 2022 Regional Solicitation selected projects:
https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... jects.aspx
Link to application:
https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... 33MUT.aspx
Link to 2022 Regional Solicitation selected projects:
https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... jects.aspx
-
- Nicollet Mall
- Posts: 124
- Joined: December 30th, 2021, 12:19 pm
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Thank god, the current bike lanes are among the scariest in Minneapolis. 5 year wait for implementation is disappointing, thoughHennepin County applied through the Metropolitan Council's Regional Solicitation federal grants process for a protected bikeway on Park/Portland between the Midtown Greenway and I-94. Their application scored the highest out of all bike/trail projects. They have a predicted construction date of 2027.
Link to application:
https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... 33MUT.aspx
Link to 2022 Regional Solicitation selected projects:
https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation ... jects.aspx
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Wells Fargo Center
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: November 12th, 2015, 11:35 am
- Location: Minneapolis
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
Yeah, it's going to be an improvement.
But I've been a bit disappointed that nobody thought to dream a little bigger. What about returning one of the streets to two-way traffic and remaking the other as a greenway and linear park? Instead, the I-35W reconstruction status quo has just gotten baked into the future with no real thought.
But I've been a bit disappointed that nobody thought to dream a little bigger. What about returning one of the streets to two-way traffic and remaking the other as a greenway and linear park? Instead, the I-35W reconstruction status quo has just gotten baked into the future with no real thought.
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I'm sure that it will be completed as a project of its own soon. My guess is that since regional solicitation grants are usually small maybe going down to 46th was too big for the scope of the project? Maybe those streets aren't due for reconstruction for a few more years?Yeah, it's going to be an improvement.
But I've been a bit disappointed that nobody thought to dream a little bigger. What about returning one of the streets to two-way traffic and remaking the other as a greenway and linear park? Instead, the I-35W reconstruction status quo has just gotten baked into the future with no real thought.
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
I think I've mentioned this before but I'd like to see both Park and Portland as two way streets. With Park turned into a linear park from the Mississippi river to Minnehaha creek. I think this would give a nice protected north/south corridor to connect with the east/west corridors along the Mississippi river, Minnehaha creek and the Midtown greenway.Yeah, it's going to be an improvement.
But I've been a bit disappointed that nobody thought to dream a little bigger. What about returning one of the streets to two-way traffic and remaking the other as a greenway and linear park? Instead, the I-35W reconstruction status quo has just gotten baked into the future with no real thought.
Re: Park and Portland Avenues
From the Application
"The roadways will be narrowed to slow drivers who today are enticed to drive excessively fast by the wide roadways. The project will add green space and bumpouts to benefit people crossing these A-minor relievers on foot and mobility devices by shortening the crossing distance and improving visibility. The project will have minimal if any impacts to on-street parking. The project will install accessibility ramps midblock to reduce the distance people who need to use ramps have to travel to get to sidewalk level and will include accessibility parking."
"The roadways will be narrowed to slow drivers who today are enticed to drive excessively fast by the wide roadways. The project will add green space and bumpouts to benefit people crossing these A-minor relievers on foot and mobility devices by shortening the crossing distance and improving visibility. The project will have minimal if any impacts to on-street parking. The project will install accessibility ramps midblock to reduce the distance people who need to use ramps have to travel to get to sidewalk level and will include accessibility parking."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests