Dave Piehl wrote:
For folks planning on attending the I-35W AccessWM: Not true. If it becomes less hair-raising to get on the freeway at Franklin, 35th St (northbound) or off at 35 St. (southbound) it will benefit all of us. If it makes it possible to get on and off 35W at Lake St., it will benefit residents. If it makes trips to and from Nicollet Garage shorter with less sitting in traffic our lungs benefit. If every ambulance sent out in a day doesn't come down Lake St. I'll benefit.
Expansion Meetings this week, I offer the following
items to think about before the meeting:
1) Existing residents do not benefit from the project
itself; the "benefits" are derived from the
mitigation/enhancement efforts.
The original freewayWM: I might could even agree with this except that MNDoT is the designated player on that transportation corridor, so it seems to me that we're tilting at windmills trying to pull them out of the picture.
was never mitigated, so mitigation and enhancements
should be undertaken separately on the existing
version of the freeway.
WM: The review has not begun yet. A lot will depend on whether RT can be effective in concert with our Minneapolis legislators over at the Capitol.2) Doesn't giving away space for "potential" HOV lanes now rob us of bargaining power in the future (if they have the space, how do we pressure them to consider other options)? Giving away space now ensures we get a bigger freeway in the future, because the sunk costs of building the bridges and retaining walls will "justify" completing the expansion. The expansion has never been agreed to by the residents or the city of Minneapolis! The Access project was hijacked by MNDoT to include it with minimal review, morphing into the Access/Expansion Project.
3) This project disproportionately negatively impactsWM: True, those businesses in the edge land will move or may go under if they do not move. We saw what happened when 394 was made into a big deal. In my mind it was how we began to lose the Lincoln Deli as an institution, something I'm not ready to be forgiving about yet.
existing businesses; they won't survive the
construction phase or the gentrification to follow. Why are we "revitalizing" a street that is already
vital?
WM: "A much smaller amount of money" is what the Southside usually gets when it tries to improve it's economic status--it has been true for some 30 to 40 years. (Copies of the red- lining series by Ken [mental blank moment here] in the Alley newspaper c. 1991 or 92 are available at the MPL.) I'm willing to work within a budget, but in order to mitigate the mistakes of the past alone, we are gonna need some considerable amount of bucks.Couldn't a much smaller amount of money make a bigger impact supporting existing businesses and creating additional small business opportunities?
WM: Light rail for this corridor is a long way in the future. There is an interim solution--dedicated bus lanes, HOV lanes. We do have to have an understanding with the suburbs in particular about how many vehicles can fit in the city per day. We do have to emphasize that dreams of taking considerably more land are pretty much out of the question since we need the tax base and populations that space represents to the city. We will have bupkiss with which to run the city if we gut it for transportation wet dreams.4) This is an automobile-only solution, despite previous studies (per the memo Sharon Sayles Belton wrote) that have called for light rail as the preferred alternative.
I've got 8 minutes to get to the meeting.
WizardMarks, Central
5) How does rearranging a few off-ramps compare in importance to other state-wide MNDoT projects? (such as the northstar commuter line), and why is Hennepin County willing to front the money for the state and ask for reimbursement rather than permission? 6) What kind of value does the $150+ million project create in the area? If this is being referred to as an "investment" in south Minneapolis, then what is the payoff? Keep in mind that the major tenants for both Nic/Lake and Chi/Lake have stated that they do not require additional access for their proposals to move forward. 7) Why have Access Project coordinators attempted to link their project to unrelated neighborhood goals? 8) The project disproportionately affects minority homeowners; nearly all of the units to be demolished are occupied by minorities. 9) The project demolishes affordable housing - compensation to the owners will not enable them to find new affordable housing in a market with such an affordable housing shortage. 10) The project goal seems to be to convert Lake Street back to it's previous status as a regional commercial space; neighborhood goals promoting small business and owner operated businesses would seem to be in conflict with this. Does this fit in any way with the city's goals?? David Piehl Central __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
