urbanMSP

Meh. Money isn't the problem methinks; When gov't WANTS to do something, it just happens;
Iraq war, 35w bridge

In any case THIS project is mandated (from above quote)- doesn't appear to include tunnel, tho

Seems as though I start sketching highways when I'm board... Interesting.
At some point, the 35:94 Interchange became less about an efficient design, and more about art. There are some bumps that are a little off, but if you look close you might be able to get the crazy idea of it all.

I am certain I will be bored again, and other sketches may appear. Until then most of what's happening on Hennepin is really just brainstorming. I started out removing all freeway access from the Virginia Triangle East. Rebuilding the street grid and and dumping that traffic onto locals, didn't really seem to work. So I opted for more of a boulevard direct to Henn/Lyn in the existing SE Trench rather than filling it in.

After I was all done I had some interesting thoughts about what to do with the old Lowry Tunnel. Fill it in? Board it up? Reroute traffic thru traffic (everyone going direct to 394/94 NB)? Makes for a fun project anyway. Enjoy!

Minneapolis Highways by Le Sueur, on Flickr

35:94 Interchange by Le Sueur, on Flickr

Love it! MOAR ROUNDABOUTS

I very much like the routing of a replacement tunnel. I have to imagine that deep bore tunneling is much cheaper than it was back in the 1960s.

I wasn't aware of any precedent for this type of tunneling but I've always been bothered by 94 forming an acute angle as it makes its way past Minneapolis. So I went out on the interweb and found one. Looks like Seattle is planning on going deep enough so even the Pacific doesn't fall in on them, let alone the ~150 buildings they're going under.

How much of projects like this could be funded by value capture.. Selling off land on reconnected grids this close to downtown and with great access to Uptown areas has to be quite lucrative. Especially if the freeway noise is mostly gone due to tunneling and pedestrian access is that much better. Maybe the existing trench could be capped off entirely around Groveland, Clifton, and Oak Grove and more N/S streets be reconnected?

I like your overall plan. A few problems might occur on some of the roundabouts, but better than the string of lights and confusion at the bottleneck today. I think the biggest way to make Hennepin and Lyndale successful, though, is to figure out a way for them to not be through-routes for so many people accessing Uptown.

Maybe the existing trench could be capped off entirely around Groveland, Clifton, and Oak Grove and more N/S streets be reconnected?

I had hoped to. I was afraid EB94 traffic heading to uptown would just drive through the new tunnel and then back through Lyn/Hen commons, causing further congestion.
Possibly fill the trench, rebuild the grid and still route some Uptown bound traffic through those blocks anyway. I like your funding idea. Didn't take the law school track though so I couldn't tell you who has rights to what.

I think the biggest way to make Hennepin and Lyndale successful, though, is to figure out a way for them to not be through-routes for so many people accessing Uptown.

Oh if only we had that 28th St. Crosstown and SW Diagonal to zip them in there. Alas, all routes to Uptown are non-freeway. Not all bad considering the alternative.

You're right, freeways running through would be far worse. I suppose my problem isn't with the size of the street or the need for through-traffic from people living in Uptown getting out (for jobs, visiting friends, etc) by car. The street width is more or less appropriate. Or that a significant chunk of people want to visit Uptown to utilize its amenities. It bothers me that we've built ourselves in to a situation that there ARE so many jobs that require freeway access to get out of Uptown to reach, and conversely that there ARE so many people who live in a place where travel by car is the only means necessary to get to Uptown.

Since those problems can't be solved (at least not for a LONG time), perhaps the best way for Minneapolis to handle the problem is de-regulate Uptown, so to say. Remove parking minimums moving forward, charge a market rate for on-street parking (read: higher, and not just in the commercial zones but the surrounding neighborhoods where it's free and plentiful today), try your damndest to allow for as much housing and commercial stock as the market will bear, and make the streets as calmed and safe as possible. This limits congestion by car to what people are actually willing to pay to get there, and can catalyze the market to meet the demand of people who want to live there.

My understanding about Uptown traffic is that we're victims of geopgraphy. Because of the lakes there just aren't easy ways for people to get to the near in south west suburbs from downtown.

My understanding about Uptown traffic is that we're victims of geopgraphy. Because of the lakes there just aren't easy ways for people to get to the near in south west suburbs from downtown.

Not saying that the vast array of freeways we have was a good idea (as it really only promoted further growth outward), but idn't that what 35W-62 and 394-100/169 is for... connecting downtown with the close-in suburbs? Are there a lot of people that travel from SLP/Edina to downtown through Lake/Hennepin?

I'd love to revive this topic. Driving in the I-35/I-94 commons, heck anywhere near the commons, is just such a farce it makes me angry every single time I drive by. Left entrances, left exits, sharp, blind turns, forced weaving.

Does anyone know if there's any chance they'll unweave this weave in the next 10-20 years? It's such a disaster. And 280, well, let's fix this one first.

The Lake street access plan would have fixed the left entrance onto I-94 east from I-35W (as well as the nasty weave on I-35W between the 36th and 38th ramps. So far this has gone nowhere .

There was an earlier plan to straighten the 35mph curve on I-35W that also went nowhere. I guess one of the buildings to be taken was cute or something.

Not near a pc to get the quote, but Lake st website stated it was a branch from legislature's mandate to fix the very area area you (astutely) complain of.
Ironically all information on this area disappeared from that website ...

Average 3 accidents /day. Not cool.

Well, I'm not sure what it cost to unweave 62/I-35w a few years back, but I have a feeling this would cost at least half again what that cost. Unless we see some pork barrel spending for interstate commerce (i.e., freeways) I just don't see them fixing this. My real hope is that they tackle some of this once the current infra starts to decay. But, I dream.

^^ I believe that project cost $280m. As much as I'd like to see the freeways turn to straight up boulevards within 2 miles of downtown, that isn't gonna happen. I really like the idea of deep-bore tunneling 94 as presented earlier, and using that as an opportunity to completely fix the Virginia Triangle/bottleneck. Probably will never happen and I admit even though it would be great, I'd rather see a similar amount of money spent on like 3 transit lines, since I think the 2-3 mile tunnel in Seattle is going to cost roughly $3.3bn. Wow.

EDIT: added link to project.

My real hope is that they tackle some of this once the current infra starts to decay.

Too late. Have you seen the condition of some of these bridges?

If my children's children are still dealing with this snafu and the Virginia Triangle ... *Sigh* Just build more transit, at least, then.

I liked the idea so much that I put together a combination of a couple ideas I had seen: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit? ... x2b9LCQA7Q

...but then I got lazy and didn't want to figure out what to do with the 394 intersection. Giant roundabout seems like a lot, and I'm not even sure what connections are truly useful...

When I picture this in my head, I've always connected the deep bore tunnel to 394.

Running a deep bore so close to the historic building of the basilica seems a recipe for a bad outcome. Vibrations and old stone masonry mix poorly.