Avidor wrote: So the design will have to change to prevent killing children by including stoplights and walk signs.....which will make it a plain, ordinary on and off ramp.
Then there's the cost of maintaining the shubbery, trees and grass. What is the dollar amount the City of Minneapolis will have to pay to buy and maintain the Access Project "mitigation".? Jeanne Massey: While I'm against the Access Project (and will continue to oppose it), I'm for making it as good as possible for Kingfield and the other neighborhoods if the project actually happens. In this vain, I support the roundabout interchange proposed for 38th Street, given that it provides for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. It is a very creative design, both aesthetically and functionally, and is a mitigative measure. The advantages of a roundabout are that it allows traffic to flow more smoothly, reduces traffic speed, reduces accidents overall and prevents head-on collisions (which are the most dangerous and typical as drivers speed through red lights at interchanges). The challenge is to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists and project staff are currently studying how to best do this. Many roundabouts have some sort of lighting for traffic flow purposes. In the case of 38th Street, it may be as simple as adding a pedestrian light to push as needed. Keep in mind that 38th Street is one of three pedestrian and bicyclist crossing opportunities in the area. As a part of the project, the 36th Street bridge would be rebuilt as a primary pedestrian and bicyclist crossing as would the 40th Street pedestrian bridge. Thus, people do not have to cross at 38th Street, and unlikely will, unless they live on 38th Street. Nonetheless, it's important to provide for pedestrian and bicyclist crossing because of Sabathani Community Center. Regarding the issue of maintenance costs, the PAC recommendations include full funding of maintenance as a condition of the project. In no way, should the mitigation proposals (the roundabout is a part of the mitigation proposal) be whittled away for lack of money. The PAC has taken a firm stance that full mitigation funding be committed along with construction funds or the PAC will not support the project. If mitigation doesn't happen, neither does the project. I believe the project shouldn't happen at all and that available funds be used to fix and mitigate the current ramp infrastructure (without building new ramps). However, if the project goes forward, I'll advocate the roundabout stay in the design (until shown untenable), for the advantages I state above. Roundabouts are in use throughout the world and work very successfully. We should look to these examples for what's possible in Minneapolis. Jeanne Massey Kingfield >_______________________________________ > >Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy >Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
