--- Dave Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And the proposal deals with this (difficulty crossing Lake due to width) by REDUCING the > number of lanes to be crossed at every intersection. David Piehl writes: And you accuse me of misleading statements? The number of lanes is increased, so the total distance is greater; no doubt you are referring to the median as a way to take two cycles to cross the entire street, but it's still twice as wide from the edge of the sidewalk to the edge of the sidewalk - wasn't the original proposal (among other proposals) for 7 lanes total? Yes, a median as a resting spot in the middle accomodates to some extent, in much the same way as when I loosen my belt when I eat too many donuts; I make the situation more comfortable, but the problem remains. David Jensen wrote: > Yes, today, Lake Street is 5 lanes (62 feet) of > traffic wide. With the proposal, the most lanes the > eldery and Jay will ever have to cross in a single > cycle is 4 lanes. David Piehl writes: Well, since you brought up the subject of Enron math, then apparently the turning lanes (and possible bus lanes) don't count as lanes in Access Project math - have they been assigned to a subsidiary committee? The key concept here is "single cycle". Pedestrians will have to cross as many as 4 lanes just to get to the median, then wait for the lights again to get from the median to the other side - that may accomodate with respect to manageable distance increments, but is not pedestrian friendly because of the total distance and time required to cross. > [David Piehl, Central, wrote: > "Indeed, 4 blocks isn't an entire freeway, but it > sets > the stage for the SCHEDULED rebuilding of additional > stretches of Lake Street in the near future. Once > the > width of Lake near I35W is doubled as planned by the > Access Project...it opens the door to additional > widening."] > Dave Jensen wrote: > And black whisper helicopters will swoop down and > take us away. Good conspiracy theory. Next, you'll be telling me that Tom Johnson is a lobbyist. David Piehl writes: Tom Johnson is the one who provided the information on the scheduled re-building of other portions of Lake - did he not share that with the committee? As far as being a lobbyist, the firm Tom Johnson works for lobbies professionally in Washington DC - so if he's not registered as a lobbyist in Minnesota.....well, we've been through all that. Anyway, conspiracy theories are more exiting (and maybe more realistic) than life as a pollyanna. > [Barb Lickness, Whittier, wrote: > "I see how horrible the underpass is for pedestrians > and bikers at Lake and Hiawatha. That interchange is > not friendly for cars let alone pedestrians."] > David Jensen wrote: > I agree. The Mitigation subcommittee often uses > Lake/Hiawatha on what NOT to do. David Piehl writes: Please elaborate: I'm interested in knowing what changes have been made or considered to the I35W/Lake plan based on the mistakes of the Hiawatha/Lake plan. When I look at the current plans for Lake & 35W, I see Hiawatha and Lake. I394 is touted as a state of the art freeway too, all the modern concepts about moving vehicles, etc - but in my experience, it is one of the worst at moving traffic by any measure! > [David Piehl, Central, wrote: > "As far as the [38th Street] elliptical bridge deal, > I don't believe they will build it anyway; like most > Access Project promo pieces, it's just a carrot to > diminish opposition by neighbors that can later be > cut from the budget."] > David Jensen wrote: I believe the first "carrot" to be cut will be the enhancement of the 31st Street bridge and retaining wall treatments in front of the Healy Block -- just kidding. David Piehl writes: That would be funny, except there has been little attempt at meaningful mitigation in front of the Healy block to begin with - unless you consider a textured concrete wall to be prettier than a regular concrete wall. Which brings up the obvious question about why people who don't live there believe they have all the answers regarding mitigation without asking - maybe not so coincidentally most of the input from residents over the last four years is not reflected in the current plan. We'll be moving our houses, but what about the people further up on 2nd who will lose their homes? What will mitigation do for them? Dave Jensen writes: Everyone is clear that if the mitigation is not done, the project is not done. David Piehl writes: That qualifies as wildly optimistic if anything does. Once the project is underway and there are the usual cost overruns, just wait and see how important the mitigation items are considered to the projects! I'd like to believe it too, but have seen first hand on too many occassions how totally not important the mitigation efforts can be in MNDoT projects. Has MNDoT ever done a project where mitigation is pivotal? David Piehl Central __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
