urbanMSP

I guess the engineer's models just didn't take all that into account, then.

Not at all. I think the design has a long way to go. I like the protected bike lane. I would like to see the lanes narrowed. what is the posted speed limit? Can they slow down the traffic? If the Traffic is slowed, and the mode options are nurmious, we may be able to get some of the cars off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shrugs]

Maybe they're right. But do you honestly believe that removing the turn lanes really won't meaningfully affect things? Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Stopped buses are only a meaningful impediment to traffic in the current design at two intersections, 4th and 10th, and at least at 10th it looks like there might be room to move the stop back a bit. Are delays in one direction at one intersection really going to have those kinds of systemic effects?

Wow, two pages and no one has mentioned a transit tunnel yet?

^I was, and am, just about to.

We really need a transit tunnel under Hennepin. Minneapolis should just bite the bullet and pay for one itself. What would be the best way for the city to do so?

Having been at the first meeting, the engineer was very clear to say that these drawings were so so so so preliminary, but needed to be done in order to get then submitted to get the federal funding needed for the project in time for construction. When asked about lane widths and whether or not they could be narrowed and if there would be left turn arrows etc etc, all he said that everything at this point was done by the book. State requirements, nothing is off the table, but this is the preliminary concept to get federal funding and there will be 4 years of upcoming planning to get it all squared away.

[Shrugs]

Maybe they're right. But do you honestly believe that removing the turn lanes really won't meaningfully affect things? Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I typically believe what the models say in terms of what delays and corridor travel times will be. I've seen traffic analyses that show the model's output compared to current conditions to give some credence to their accuracy (even if it's a bit silly they sometimes go down to a tenth of a second when talking delay 25 years out). I talked with staff about this particular project, asking if the model included all the known bus route frequencies, etc and they confirmed yes, so I have to believe it considered buses stopping in the travel lane.

So, while I'm not a traffic engineer, I trust the model enough to say it's probably accurate to +/- 5% in this (and most) situations. My gripe with traffic models is always the input assumptions (traffic growth projections, that we evaluate the peak hour for 5 days a week), broader assumptions about travel behavior (that people in cars won't shift time or mode of their trips), and what politicians and PW leadership choose to do with the data (3rd Ave is a great example, but there are less publicized decisions that use traffic models to justify driver time over equity arguments for saving an equal or greater amount of person-time in transit. We've basically drawn a line in the sand that we're willing to do road diets to improve walking, biking, and general safety on streets but ONLY if it doesn't reduce vehicle LOS in 25 years by more than 5% in peak hours. That's sad.

As to tunnels. Yeah. The city is fairly effortlessly committing to raising its levy (among other sources of cash) to the tune of $22m for 20 years to pay for reconstructing residential streets (and utilities beneath them) that carry 400 cars a day each (at most!). The city was also able to fairly effortlessly come up with $50m to pay for a cosmetic upgrade of Nicollet Mall (of which half comes from assessments on property owners). I have a hard time believing that, if the city really wanted to, it would not be hard to make a serious equity argument for a mix of issuing debt paid for by levy increases, assessing downtown landowners, and getting a little bit of help from either the state or feds to build two tunnels through downtown (my estimated price tag: ~$500m depending on length/number of stations).

If the airport tunnel of the blue line cost ~$300 million how in the world do you think we can build two for $500m? Each tunnel would be considerably more complex, with multiple vertical circulation points, ventilation for buses, and potentially multiple vehicle portals. Not an engineer, buy $500m for just one tunnel sounds more likely.

In any case, I think we'd all love for the city to do something like taxing parking ramps rather than using the general fund. Back of the napkin math says you could raise $18m a year if you put a $1 per driver per day fee in place. (~150k DT workers, half drive, 240 workdays/year). That would be enough to cover a half billion dollar tunnel over 30 years with no fed or state money to boot.

I'd give up pavement quality on my street to have fast transit (including tunnels downtown) in a heartbeat. Just saying.

Also, the airport tunnel was a deep-bore tunnel under extremely sensitive airport terminal and runway ops, with an extremely deep underground station. A hybrid with cut-and-cover downtown would be cheaper.

So, playing hypotheticals for a second: if you were in charge of the world, where would you put the portals for a Hennepin tunnel? I can imagine finding some land in the bottleneck on the south end, but I don't see a lot of great options near the bridge.

Unfrotunetly letting pavement quality deteriorate doesn't really save money, it leads to more frequent expensive rebuilds. The only sustainable path forward on that front is to make the streets smaller, but even that doesn't save a ton of money. I don't know, back to gravel roads?

So, playing hypotheticals for a second: if you were in charge of the world, where would you put the portals for a Hennepin tunnel? I can imagine finding some land in the bottleneck on the south end, but I don't see a lot of great options near the bridge.

My first instinct is demolish the post office parking ramp next to Hennepin and put it there.

So, playing hypotheticals for a second: if you were in charge of the world, where would you put the portals for a Hennepin tunnel? I can imagine finding some land in the bottleneck on the south end, but I don't see a lot of great options near the bridge.

Turn down 2nd/the parking area and bring it up there? Cross the river on Central.

We could always tunnel under the island. It's not like anyone had any trouble doing that before!

I think this dilemma is why a Nicollet tunnel makes more sense at first. The northern entrance can be on Washington so that all the Northeast bus routes can easily get to it. With Hennepin you'd be building it mainly for just the 4 and 6 unless you want to try underground curves to make it work for the other N/S downtown routes as David suggested.

[My first instinct is demolish the post office parking ramp next to Hennepin and put it there.

Yeah, I thought about that too. Awkward transition onto the bridge, though, and I'd really love a park there.

Turn down 2nd/the parking area and bring it up there? Cross the river on Central.

Maybe we could just demolish the Churchill?

I think this dilemma is why a Nicollet tunnel makes more sense at first. The northern entrance can be on Washington so that all the Northeast bus routes can easily get to it. With Hennepin you'd be building it mainly for just the 4 and 6 unless you want to try underground curves to make it work for the other N/S downtown routes as David suggested.

Good point. The problem with a Hennepin tunnel is that it would pull transit off Nicollet. But we're not doing a Nicollet tunnel. I can't imagine we'd do two tunnels in the future.

Damn it.

Yeah, Nicollet does make more sense. And Hennepin transit could use it by hopping over via 12th, 11th, or 10th.

But getting back to tunnel-free Hennepin future.... Even IF there was an option that degraded LOS during peak hours... Why should that be off the table?

In the first meeting someone did bring up a 4/3 conversion, but the city engineer explained that the traffic delays would triple from what's proposed. So yeah, it's off the table for a good reason.

Even if traffic delays would triple (and I find that idea ridiculous) why is that necessarily bad? This is one of the prime streets downtown, with constrained right of way. It's far too valuable to use up so much of it on a mode of transportation that consumes approximately 200 square feet of right of way per user, when other users in buses, on bicycles, and walking on sidewalks are much more space-efficient users of the scarce right of way. In essence, Hennepin Avenue may be too valuable and critical of a street to be this concerned about motor vehicle throughput.