Page 25 of 35

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: May 27th, 2019, 8:47 pm
by seanrichardryan

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: May 27th, 2019, 8:53 pm
by Didier
Southside Pride is very pro Hiawatha Golf Course, I’ve determined.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: May 27th, 2019, 8:56 pm
by Didier
(Not related to this tweet. Just learning Southside Pride’s bizarrro politics and seemed like a relevant time to share)

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 3:54 pm
by Anondson
Should Minnehaha parkway divert thru-drivers off the route?

http://www.startribune.com/plan-to-boos ... 510929632/

This will meet serious pushback by people used to driving it to cross the city fast.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 6:08 pm
by BoredAgain
Should Minnehaha parkway divert thru-drivers off the route?

http://www.startribune.com/plan-to-boos ... 510929632/

This will meet serious pushback by people used to driving it to cross the city fast.
Summary: East of Portland, the parkway would remain unchanged. From Portland to 50th at the south end of Lake Harriet there would be diverters at major roads. Local residents complain about it.

Personally I think this will be fine, but shouldn't be the city's main priority for improving bike/pedestrian safety. I am glad they aren't planning to change the eastern side because East-West travel through this section of South Minneapolis is highly constrained because of the lakes.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 7:02 pm
by twincitizen
The changes at Portland are less drastic than what was shown in some of the initial concepts. No homeowners are losing their quasi-private frontage road / parking spaces in front of their homes.

I really want to see more drastic changes to the intersections at 28th and 34th Aves. Those double-stoplight intersections can go to hell. Either pinch the two directions of the parkway together at a single standard stoplight or put in roundabouts. The latter would be my preference, but Minneapolis seems allergic to roundabouts for some reason, even though there’s excellent precedent for a bike/ped friendly roundabout at Minnehaha Ave & Minnehaha Pkwy

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 7:06 pm
by mister.shoes
Echoing Matt’s comment on the Strib site, I don’t like the resignation to the Parkway being a commuter route east of Portland. I live right at the Parkway/Portland mess, and I want to see it calmed severely instead of allowed to stay a speedway. Figure out how to do meandering split one-ways from 35W to Cedar. Make it hard to go EB from 50th. Make it annoying to go WB from Cedar. Get creative. Come on.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 7:09 pm
by mister.shoes
I kinda like the double stoplight intersections. They feel more, um, quaint? than a pinch. It’s not a fair comparison, but Summit/Lexington is far more intimidating than Summit/anything-west-of-there-except-Snelling.

That said, I heart roundabouts.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 7:15 pm
by mister.shoes
Furthermore, because I’m apparently talkative tonight, I hate the new proposed Portland changes. I feel like they were a capitulation to commuters and loud, squeaky-wheel homeowners with creek frontage.

Also also, the rationale in the article is annoying at best. Yeah, there’s a median at the east end of 50th forcing WB traffic up the hill, but that just means drivers will be able to kamikaze their way west and not have to worry about any possible interfering traffic. I pity pedestrians and bikers wanting to cross to the north. I watched someone doing at least 40mph WB just this evening.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 6th, 2019, 9:56 pm
by NickP
I actually really enjoy this drive. I find it very calming. Instead of forcing people off it, is there a way to slow people down?

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 7:55 am
by fehler
Looking at all the diagrams, where is it forcing people off? The Y split near Portland can change to favor continuing west onto 50th, no problem, if that's what the traffic demands. The ramps up to Lyndale hitting right turn only medians, fine, should have been there already. Is that really all? I couldn't see any other "traffic calming" measures.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 9:16 am
by SurlyLHT
Surely, the Park Board could spend the million dollars for this one something more productive for the parks? This seems like a lot of money for something that is going to build resentment against Complete Streets initiatives. I don't go down here during rush hour, but I see how the river parkway is always jammed during rush hour. I just bike past the cars.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 9:46 am
by xandrex
Echoing Matt’s comment on the Strib site, I don’t like the resignation to the Parkway being a commuter route east of Portland. I live right at the Parkway/Portland mess, and I want to see it calmed severely instead of allowed to stay a speedway. Figure out how to do meandering split one-ways from 35W to Cedar. Make it hard to go EB from 50th. Make it annoying to go WB from Cedar. Get creative. Come on.
I rarely stray into that corner of Minneapolis, and I'm loathe to provide cover for cars, but is there another good route through that area that isn't the parkway?

It looks like Minnehaha Parkway and Lake Nokomis Parkway are the only streets that provide crosstown connectivity anywhere between 43rd and Hwy 62. Presumably we don't want either parkway to be car sewers, but that's a long stretch without access.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 9:46 am
by billhelm
the ped/bike crossing at the 50th/parkway/Portland Y split is particularly problematic and I like turning the parkway into a one way there with a more defined intersection.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 9:55 am
by NickP
Looking at all the diagrams, where is it forcing people off? The Y split near Portland can change to favor continuing west onto 50th, no problem, if that's what the traffic demands. The ramps up to Lyndale hitting right turn only medians, fine, should have been there already. Is that really all? I couldn't see any other "traffic calming" measures.
I read the “diverters,” as “things that require people to leave the parkway.” I see your point though and apologize if I help spread incorrect information.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 2:14 pm
by QuietBlue
I rarely stray into that corner of Minneapolis, and I'm loathe to provide cover for cars, but is there another good route through that area that isn't the parkway?

It looks like Minnehaha Parkway and Lake Nokomis Parkway are the only streets that provide crosstown connectivity anywhere between 43rd and Hwy 62. Presumably we don't want either parkway to be car sewers, but that's a long stretch without access.
That's basically it. The lakes and parks interrupt the streets for thirteen blocks, so everyone takes the parkway. Though the highways running through the grid don't help either.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 2:25 pm
by QuietBlue
Make it annoying to go WB from Cedar. Get creative. Come on.
It's already a PITA to turn left onto the parkway from Cedar much of the time, so I just go a block down and loop around onto Longfellow, then turn right onto the parkway.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 7th, 2019, 2:27 pm
by MNdible
The fact that people on both sides of the discussion are up in arms is probably an indication that they've found a reasonable compromise.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 8:13 am
by mattaudio
Opinion piece I disagree with and I think is based on faulty facts about the actual proposal and faulty assumptions about reality:
https://minneapolisparkhistory.com/2019 ... -good-one/

My comment, since I guess comments are moderated:
Even though I frequently use Minnehaha Parkway to drive my car, I'm a strong supporter of the plan to divert traffic away from using the parkway as a city-wide highway. In fact, I'm disappointed the Parkway is still planned as a commuter connector east of Portland Ave in the segment near which I live.

When the Grand Rounds were being planned a century ago and the automobile had not yet completely dominated American transportation and land use, the idea of " practice of driving Minnehaha Parkway for pleasure" may have been novel and appropriate. But in 2019, the parkway that cuts through our neighborhoods is a car sewer for commuters to drive fast and aggressive across the heart of our city through one of its crown jewels of public parkland.

The current proposal needs to go further, such as eliminating through-traffic between Portland and Cedar. Despite that, I'm still a strong supporter of the draft released a few weeks ago. While it still allows people to access every bit of the current parkway by car, it will hopefully reduce the amount of people using the parkway as an alternative to Hwy 62 or other crosstown routes.

The idea of reducing the toxic influence of cars on our land use - including our parks - is not new or novel. The recent Harriet master plan will eliminate auto traffic from the lower parkway. The City removed automobile traffic from Nicollet downtown in the 60s. There have recently been plans to close the downtown segment of both sides of River Parkway to cars during weekends and peak periods (another great idea). After spending more than a half century making our cities easy to drive through which, in the process, destroyed much of what makes our cities worth going to, it's great that we're finally right-sizing the role of the automobile in the land use and mobility picture of a thriving city. Cars aren't going away, but they will be guests among spaces for people rather than people being guests among spaces for cars.

Re: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

Posted: June 18th, 2019, 9:47 am
by amiller92
Yeah, apparently I'm not yet sufficiently anti-car. What with the lakes and freeway in the way, the Parkway is a useful connection that mostly works okay (aside from at Cedar), with relatively slow moving traffic.

The exceptions are the two intersections with 50th, where I think the plan offers smart fixes. The fact that you kind of have to know what you're doing to use it as a through route (e.g., westbound, hanging the left at 50th instead of following everyone else to the right, turning right over the creek and then left again to stay on the parkway) helps keep some random traffic out (I didn't even know there was a connection to Nicollet until I looked more closely at these plans). My vote is no to the barriers at Lyndale and only yes at Nicollet if there's a very good reason to realign to the upper roadway.

Meanwhile, if we're talking about taking away through routes, I'd much rather get rid of the Cedar Ave causeway.