And it displays in a spectacular fashion MnDOT's inability to think outside of the box and their seemingly congential fear of building a tunnel or double-decked arrangement of lanes -- something highway builders do everywhere else in the world.
Ron Lischeid responds:
Those other places in the world that use double-decked arrangements of lanes are in places that avoid 2 words 5 months of the year- 'black ice'-
Think of the trouble we currently have when black ice makes our current bridge decks slippery- now extend those bridge decks for 1-2 miles. I have seen more than my share of vehicles tetter-toddering on the guard rails on the I-94 bridge over the Mississippi by the U 0f M exit with occupants in them waiting to fall into the river below. A rush hour pile up on the design that Chris is proposing would take until a spring thaw to clear.
I don't think you could not be more wrong, Ron. Did you examine the current proposal? It will have miles and miles of elevated lanes. They just won't be double-decked. The proposed lanes will have just as much a problem with ice as a double-decked lane would have.
Black ice occurs when the surface temperature of the pavement is cold enough that it freezes the moisture in automobile exhaust on contact. Generally that happens around zero degree Fahrenheit, and is made worse by standing traffic, which is why it often occurs at intersections with traffic lights.
It is true that elevated roadways will cool to the ambient air temperature faster than those on the ground, since the gound retains heat more deeply and gives it up slowly. For example, it usually takes until late February for the frost line to reach its maximum depth in the soil. However, even non-elevated roadways are going to have surface temperatures near the ambient temperature in January and February. The biggest problem with elevated roadways (bridges, etc.) occurs during the "shoulder" seasons -- like now, when the weather is going from warmer to cold, or in spring when the opposite happens.
We deal with accidents on elevated roadways (lots of bridges when you have rivers like the Mississippi and the Minnesota cut through a metro area, and flyover ramps) all the time here. It's not going to bottleneck the roadway until spring. That's just hysterical fear mongering.
Lastly, my preferred design is for about 2000 yards of tunnel, not a double-decked arrangement. I doubt there is any significant increase in black ice on the Lyndale Ave / Hennepin Ave intersection which is directly on top of the Lowry Hill Tunnel.
Even when the roads are dry, an accident in the morning or evening driving into the sun would gridlock such a structure.
Why would it gridlock any worse than a non-elevated structure? It's not like drivers on the current or planned arrangement can simply drive off the shoulder, across the "lawn" and onto the city streets to avoid it. Once one is on a controllled access highway, whether elevated or not, one is stuck there whether they like it or not. The fact is, it would not be any worse in dry weather.
And that means that drivers are going to exit at 46th, Diamond Lake Road, Lyndale, Penn, Xerxes or France and take the scenic route through Minneapolis and Richfield residential neighborhoods.
They already do this. Come site on my front lawn during rush hour and count the hundreds of cars and trucks blasting down my street and running the stop sign on the corner. Follow them and see where they go. I have. They're avoiding the Crosstown and the stop lights on Penn and 50th by using my street and Xerxes, which only have stop signs which they can run with impunity.
I am still baffled why some form of light rail/commuter rail/express bus lanes wasn't built into the current design so the people from Burnsville can leave their cars in their own county to get to work in Minneapolis.
Don't be baffled. Just understand that suburbanites want to drive their cars anywhere they please, cost to Minneapolis be damned. That a commuter lane is not built into the current design pretty much puts the lie to the claim that an HOV lane is part of the Access Project design.
If there is a planned HOV lane on 35W from 50th to the Access Project at Lake Street, and an existing HOV lane from about 76th in Richfield south to somewhere in Burnsville south of the Minnesota River, just how are they supposed to connect up through this new Crosstown commons project? It would appear the MnDOT didn't put the commuter lane in this new design because it does not really intend to use that new lane in the Access Project for such purposes. Instead, it must be part of the widening of 35W to 10 lanes through all of south Minneapolis. Have we been hoodwinked?
I'm all for commuter rail, light rail, busses, personal rapid transit, ferries, bicycles and walking in place of automobiles for commuting whenever possible. It ought to be part of this plan, too.
Note however, that most of the commuters in Burnsville driving north on 35W are not commuting into work in Minneapolis. A lot of them are, but not most. Most commuters drive from suburb to suburb, and it's been that way for roughly 20 years or more.
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
