If it's quick and convenient to drive single occupant cars, that's what people will do. If it's less convenient they might consider some alternatives.

I agree with a lot of what you say... and I also agree with the above quote....

If it's safe and convenient to ride bicycles, that's what people will do. If it's unsafe and they have to pull a map out every 3 blocks to avoid the new mini-freeways, they might consider some alternatives.

It is seriously scary right now to ride. Even the few little white roads that go straight are teeming with cars. Even carpooling won't alleviate the problem.

They are doing some very clever things with park-and-rides. That could be a very nice solution.


It seems you folks are rightfully proud of your city. You kind of think of it as the Portland or the Amsterdam of the Great Northern Prairie. Well, if you really want to be Portland or Amsterdam (or maybe better than both), you have to make some hard choices. Otherwise you're going to be the Los Angeles or even the Detroit of the Northern Prairie.

I think we're a little of both, as we always have been. We have a lot going for us, yet we never quite achieve the city we want. We're a work in progress, with plenty of flaws that become apparent at times like this. We're under public scrutiny, and we can take whatever's dished out, but, speaking for myself, all I ask is that everyone try to understand the situation so they can assess us fairly in our decisions.

We have a lot going for us, yet we never quite achieve the city we want. We're a work in progress, with plenty of flaws that become apparent at times like this.

A city that is always evolving is a good thing. Hopefully there will be some creative solutions to the problem. The problem is not with cars... its about moving humans around. In a few cases it makes sense in automobiles, in others busses and trains would work, and in many, on bikes.

As a long term problem I could see several options - (doing a bit of armchair planning from VT)

Shut down certain streets to automobiles, and make them bus only (except for local residents). This will speed transit. Tie this speed into park & ride locations. Enforce this with plenty of police on the street.

Turn certain local streets into one way streets during certain times of the day.

Ban bus and truck traffic on specific streets, and ban auto-traffic (again, except locals) on another set of streets. This would separate the big guys from the lil guys, and hopefully make things go a bit smoother.

Consider what NYC did after 911 requiring folks to be carpooling into the city. Anyone coming into the city without 2 (or 3,4?) people in the car was fined. (my brother mentioned that this was a boom for the homeless, who stood around charging less $$ than the fine, and making good money for 2-3 car rides into town)

As for enforcement of 'locals' - I could see dividing the area into neighborhoods and giving out stickers for windshields (not unlike our inspection stickers here in VT). Color code away. Enforce like mad for the first few weeks during evening and morning rush... which will give time for people to get used to the routes, and keep them stuck in traffic, this will push them to using transit.

Ask employers to start operating on swing shifts... move employee start / finish times 1-2 hours earlier and later depending on type of business. Make some incentives available for folks to work weekends to relieve weekday traffic. Give sales tax holidays on the weekends to encourage non essential trips to the core during the week, but promote on the weekends.

Have the city head over to Waterloo, Wisc and pick up 500 or 1000 or 2000 bikes. Swing a deal with Trek. Give these away to any city or state employee that lives within a 10 mile radius of their job in the core. Throw a $200 'bonus' at them if they document their commute for 3 months (at which point they'll hopefully be hooked).


But, in the end, I'm sure you all will do fine, and I look forward to your bright ideas when something goes awry in my fair city...

I appreciate you Minnesota folks going to so much trouble to educate a Michigander who's probably untrainable! :) It's great learning more about a city that I once seriously considered moving to.

Ready for more?

Y'all are going to get a big hunk of cash from Uncle Sam, who's feeling guilty about blowing the Katrina thing. Who's to say you have to use that money to replace the bridge?

Most likely, Uncle Sam is going to say that. I'm betting that if we try to use it on something else, they will quietly pull the funding.

Let's question the very sanity of pouring 290,000 people into your downtown every morning in their own private motorcars, then pouring them out again every evening. You think that these cars would overwhelm the neighborhood streets. I say probably not.

Where did you get 290,000? From here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/maps/indexmaps/2006/mplsin.pdf) I see that 2006 volumes using the bridge were 140,000/day. As has been pointed out elsewhere, not even close to all of those people get off in downtown. But it is still part of the daily commute.

If these people have to double or triple their commute time, they just might try some alternatives that they're unwilling to try when the bridge is up and working. Like maybe ride in with their neighbor who works in the same building, or even (horrors!) try riding their bike on some of that great infrastructure you all are boasting about. Maybe they'll boost transit ridership to the point that it's economically feasible without government.

That is happening, to some extent. However, there aren't many people who physically can bike commute 10-40 miles each way. Almost none of my coworkers (probably 300+ in the plant, many different departments) live anywhere near each other in the burbs. People closer to downtown would be more likely to rideshare effectively, but a lot of them already use transit or ride. The bus system to the burbs also doesn't run too often, only during rush hours in most cases. That could be improved, but they're still going to need highways to put the buses on. Rail is not currently anything resembling an option.

As far as the biking infrastructure, the immediate area north and east from downtown is one of the major areas that is being worked on. Several projects were finished this year, and others are happening next year.

But one thing is clear. It isn't going to change as long as you keep doing things the same way. (Duh!) If it's quick and convenient to drive single occupant cars, that's what people will do. If it's less convenient they might consider some alternatives.

There's some truth there. But it's kind of like saying that if it's quick and easy for blood to get from my heart to my brain, I'm not going to change that. Damn straight I'm not. True, by putting a different delivery system in place, the blood could get there by other routes. Putting a big hole in my jugular that bleeds out into my neck isn't going to do much to make that a smooth transition. Patch that hole, and point out how it's not going to hold forever, and I'm MUCH more likely to get me to look at alternatives.

It seems you folks are rightfully proud of your city. You kind of think of it as the Portland or the Amsterdam of the Great Northern Prairie. Well, if you really want to be Portland or Amsterdam (or maybe better than both), you have to make some hard choices. Otherwise you're going to be the Los Angeles or even the Detroit of the Northern Prairie.

I have never ridden in any of those cities, so I can't really say how we compare. I'm just pointing out my experience with this city. I don't think this is a battle that should be fought for alternative transport, if for no other reason than it could piss people off who just want it fixed. Quickly.

A city that is always evolving is a good thing. Hopefully there will be some creative solutions to the problem. The problem is not with cars... its about moving humans around. In a few cases it makes sense in automobiles, in others busses and trains would work, and in many, on bikes.

As a long term problem I could see several options - (doing a bit of armchair planning from VT)

Shut down certain streets to automobiles, and make them bus only (except for local residents). This will speed transit. Tie this speed into park & ride locations. Enforce this with plenty of police on the street.

Turn certain local streets into one way streets during certain times of the day.

Ban bus and truck traffic on specific streets, and ban auto-traffic (again, except locals) on another set of streets. This would separate the big guys from the lil guys, and hopefully make things go a bit smoother.

Consider what NYC did after 911 requiring folks to be carpooling into the city. Anyone coming into the city without 2 (or 3,4?) people in the car was fined. (my brother mentioned that this was a boom for the homeless, who stood around charging less $$ than the fine, and making good money for 2-3 car rides into town)

As for enforcement of 'locals' - I could see dividing the area into neighborhoods and giving out stickers for windshields (not unlike our inspection stickers here in VT). Color code away. Enforce like mad for the first few weeks during evening and morning rush... which will give time for people to get used to the routes, and keep them stuck in traffic, this will push them to using transit.

Ask employers to start operating on swing shifts... move employee start / finish times 1-2 hours earlier and later depending on type of business. Make some incentives available for folks to work weekends to relieve weekday traffic. Give sales tax holidays on the weekends to encourage non essential trips to the core during the week, but promote on the weekends.

Have the city head over to Waterloo, Wisc and pick up 500 or 1000 or 2000 bikes. Swing a deal with Trek. Give these away to any city or state employee that lives within a 10 mile radius of their job in the core. Throw a $200 'bonus' at them if they document their commute for 3 months (at which point they'll hopefully be hooked).


But, in the end, I'm sure you all will do fine, and I look forward to your bright ideas when something goes awry in my fair city...

Now you're talking!!! These are quick and dirty patches that could work into real and valuable long-term solutions. First-class thinking, bmike! This is what I was trying (but failing) to get at in my posts.

After an earth-shaking event, it's important to first identify the real problem. In this case it's not the bridge or its maintenence that was the problem. It was the weight (figuratively and literally) of the traffic on the bridge that was the problem.

I hope the people of Minneapolis think along the same lines as bmike, but that's very much up to them. What they should remember is that every time the current system is shaken up, even in a crisis or tragedy, people have the opportunity to make things better. Great cities do this. Dying cities do not. Which one will Minneapolis be?

Ready for more?



Most likely, Uncle Sam is going to say that. I'm betting that if we try to use it on something else, they will quietly pull the funding.



Where did you get 290,000? From here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/maps/indexmaps/2006/mplsin.pdf) I see that 2006 volumes using the bridge were 140,000/day. As has been pointed out elsewhere, not even close to all of those people get off in downtown. But it is still part of the daily commute.



That is happening, to some extent. However, there aren't many people who physically can bike commute 10-40 miles each way. Almost none of my coworkers (probably 300+ in the plant, many different departments) live anywhere near each other in the burbs. People closer to downtown would be more likely to rideshare effectively, but a lot of them already use transit or ride. The bus system to the burbs also doesn't run too often, only during rush hours in most cases. That could be improved, but they're still going to need highways to put the buses on. Rail is not currently anything resembling an option.

As far as the biking infrastructure, the immediate area north and east from downtown is one of the major areas that is being worked on. Several projects were finished this year, and others are happening next year.



There's some truth there. But it's kind of like saying that if it's quick and easy for blood to get from my heart to my brain, I'm not going to change that. Damn straight I'm not. True, by putting a different delivery system in place, the blood could get there by other routes. Putting a big hole in my jugular that bleeds out into my neck isn't going to do much to make that a smooth transition. Patch that hole, and point out how it's not going to hold forever, and I'm MUCH more likely to get me to look at alternatives.



I have never ridden in any of those cities, so I can't really say how we compare. I'm just pointing out my experience with this city. I don't think this is a battle that should be fought for alternative transport, if for no other reason than it could piss people off who just want it fixed. Quickly.

Well, you may be right that today is not the day for this battle. I'm not on the local scene so I really don't know. Of course I hope everybody remembers that the age of the automobile started only a short time ago, and it will be over within the next 50 to 100 years, no matter what we do. The more we hurry it's demise, the better off we'll all be. Unlike blood and veins, cars are not essential for human life, not even in the short term. Many better alternatives already exist, and more will come along, so bleeding into the neck should never be necessary. (Cool analogy, BTW! :))

Anyhoo, Minneapolis is lucky to have smart people like you and Solveg, even if you're totally wrong, and he's partially wrong, on this one small issue. ;) I can see that you both love your city, and that's a great thing. In fact, that's civilization.

I35W is like the I-40 corridor thru the Raleigh-Durham area. It is heavily used by locals as well as through traffic. I would suspect that during rush hour the traffic is 80%+ local. It runs across the southern side of the city and has a loop connecting from both sides of the city. In our case it is I-440 and there is an incomplete outer loop I-540.

Roody,
I took a quick look at the map of Lansing...imagine what the traffic would be like if all of a sudden the 496 spur was gone and all that traffic north bound to US127 was utilizing the city surface streets. That is similar to what has happened in MSP. However they have the added challenge of the rivers and lakes blocking roads from going through.

There is no question in my mind the bridge has to be replaced. If there was any chance in the world that light rail might run across it in the future they should go ahead and allow for it. The big new bridge that was built over the Cooper River in Charleston, SC put in enough additional width to allow for it. Even though it may be 15 or 20 years before the utilize it. The cost of bridges is only going to go up, if they build in the extra width needed now it will save them millions of dollars in future spending.

Aaron:)

A city that is always evolving is a good thing. Hopefully there will be some creative solutions to the problem. The problem is not with cars... its about moving humans around. In a few cases it makes sense in automobiles, in others busses and trains would work, and in many, on bikes.

As a long term problem I could see several options - (doing a bit of armchair planning from VT)

Shut down certain streets to automobiles, and make them bus only (except for local residents). This will speed transit. Tie this speed into park & ride locations. Enforce this with plenty of police on the street.

Turn certain local streets into one way streets during certain times of the day.

Ban bus and truck traffic on specific streets, and ban auto-traffic (again, except locals) on another set of streets. This would separate the big guys from the lil guys, and hopefully make things go a bit smoother.

Consider what NYC did after 911 requiring folks to be carpooling into the city. Anyone coming into the city without 2 (or 3,4?) people in the car was fined. (my brother mentioned that this was a boom for the homeless, who stood around charging less $$ than the fine, and making good money for 2-3 car rides into town)

As for enforcement of 'locals' - I could see dividing the area into neighborhoods and giving out stickers for windshields (not unlike our inspection stickers here in VT). Color code away. Enforce like mad for the first few weeks during evening and morning rush... which will give time for people to get used to the routes, and keep them stuck in traffic, this will push them to using transit.

Ask employers to start operating on swing shifts... move employee start / finish times 1-2 hours earlier and later depending on type of business. Make some incentives available for folks to work weekends to relieve weekday traffic. Give sales tax holidays on the weekends to encourage non essential trips to the core during the week, but promote on the weekends.

Have the city head over to Waterloo, Wisc and pick up 500 or 1000 or 2000 bikes. Swing a deal with Trek. Give these away to any city or state employee that lives within a 10 mile radius of their job in the core. Throw a $200 'bonus' at them if they document their commute for 3 months (at which point they'll hopefully be hooked).


But, in the end, I'm sure you all will do fine, and I look forward to your bright ideas when something goes awry in my fair city...

These ideas are absolutely terrific! Thankyou for putting so much thought into it! They have already done the staggered work hours thing, and it seems to be very effective.

They're waiting for after labor day to see the full impact on the traffic. I'm ultra-sensitive to the changes so far because I live in just the wrong spot and in a place that, while urban, doesn't have a good grid pattern. Plus, after being hit by a car once, I HATE riding in traffic. To be fair, we do have nice wide shoulders on some of these new thoroughfares, at least for much of the time, but they disappear suddenly.

Anyway, the way you're thinking here is helpful and practical. Like I said before, city planning is really complex... it will be interesting to see what happens.

Where did you get 290,000? From here (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/maps/indexmaps/2006/mplsin.pdf) I see that 2006 volumes using the bridge were 140,000/day.

I think I'm at fault here. I used the 290k number only because I saw it earlier in the thread, but it seemed awfully high... I just assumed someone had looked up the number. I should have double checked it to avoid further confusion.

I think I'm at fault here. I used the 290k number only because I saw it earlier in the thread, but it seemed awfully high... I just assumed someone had looked up the number. I should have double checked it to avoid further confusion.

I started with the 240,000 figure that I heard on CBS news right after the collapse. Then I switched to 290,000 after I read it here. Is 140,000 the correct figure from Minn-DOT (or whatever the state highway agency is called)?

I35W is like the I-40 corridor thru the Raleigh-Durham area. It is heavily used by locals as well as through traffic. I would suspect that during rush hour the traffic is 80%+ local. It runs across the southern side of the city and has a loop connecting from both sides of the city. In our case it is I-440 and there is an incomplete outer loop I-540.

Roody,
I took a quick look at the map of Lansing...imagine what the traffic would be like if all of a sudden the 496 spur was gone and all that traffic north bound to US127 was utilizing the city surface streets. That is similar to what has happened in MSP. However they have the added challenge of the rivers and lakes blocking roads from going through.

There is no question in my mind the bridge has to be replaced. If there was any chance in the world that light rail might run across it in the future they should go ahead and allow for it. The big new bridge that was built over the Cooper River in Charleston, SC put in enough additional width to allow for it. Even though it may be 15 or 20 years before the utilize it. The cost of bridges is only going to go up, if they build in the extra width needed now it will save them millions of dollars in future spending.

Aaron:)

Alright already! I hereby give my official permission to rebuild the bridge. ;)

But could we make it a bit smaller than the old bridge, and hope that some of the emergency measures to decrease traffic will take permanent hold? Better yet, see how it goes without the bridge in the next few months, as I imagine that it will take at least that long to design a new one, and then decide what's needed.

Best idea yet, maybe: Open traffic design as a competition. Use this opportunity to redesign traffic for the entire area served by the bridge, and get some fresh ideas. You know that the official highway planners will just come up with more of the same: ever increasing capacity for cars that will be obsolete within the life span of this new bridge.

Roody: Except most of the voting populace in the US drives cars, and any politician that has any influence over any American city's traffic design will get thrown out of office next election if anything is done to counter car culture.

Best idea yet, maybe: Open traffic design as a competition. Use this opportunity to redesign traffic for the entire area served by the bridge, and get some fresh ideas. You know that the official highway planners will just come up with more of the same: ever increasing capacity for cars that will be obsolete within the life span of this new bridge.

They did this around here and the urban planners rejected any and all ideas that weren't part of their pre existing design. Attending the meetings and proposing new ideas was a waste of time. Be careful what you ask for.

Roody: Except most of the voting populace in the US drives cars, and any politician that has any influence over any American city's traffic design will get thrown out of office next election if anything is done to counter car culture.

True, at least to some extent. I live in a city that builds cars for a living, and it sure is political suicide to go against cars. But even here that's starting to change some. People are starting to question the supremacy of cars, especially in light of global warming and higher gas prices. It's a shame that we have such low quality political leadership in this country. Somebody should be explaining the new realities to people and proposing valid alternatives to roads as usual. I'm seeing this more in Europe, where, for example, the Heathrow Airport protesters are being taken seriously even by politicians and business people who disagree with them.

Alright already! I hereby give my official permission to rebuild the bridge. ;)


Well! That's* a relief! Just in time, too. Took a photo on my ride today... as I said, the traffic is getting weird!

http://homepage.mac.com/sbacig/.Pictures/Me/IMG_1771.jpg

Well! That's* a relief! Just in time, too. Took a photo on my ride today... as I said, the traffic is getting weird!

http://homepage.mac.com/sbacig/.Pictures/Me/IMG_1771.jpg

wow, those cars are a solution that is so last century! (http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/08/09/congressman-ridicules-bikes-as-19th-century-solution/)

Some might even say Congress should use this energy legislation to create new energy, bring new nuclear power plants on line, use clean coal technology, energy exploration, but no, no. They want to tell the American people, stop driving, ride a bike. This is absolutely amazing.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/7265/simpperpetmotionlv4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

I started with the 240,000 figure that I heard on CBS news right after the collapse. Then I switched to 290,000 after I read it here. Is 140,000 the correct figure from Minn-DOT (or whatever the state highway agency is called)?

As with anything on the net, I can't be 100% sure. It was pulled off of Wikipedia, but I did check the citation and saw it was a PDF map released by MNDOT.

Locals reaction to not putting up the light rail here:

http://www.mplsbikelove.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3717

Lots of answers for questions in this thread in this morning's Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Feud Forming over Function of New Bridge" at http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1360924.html

Nutshell: Minneapolis's Democratic mayor, RT Rybak, is pushing for the new bridge to be engineered for a future light rail line. Republican governor Tim Pawlenty is opposed and says a highway traffic-only bridge should replace the collapsed structure. Details in the article.

Lots of answers for questions in this thread in this morning's Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Feud Forming over Function of New Bridge" at http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1360924.html

Nutshell: Minneapolis's Democratic mayor, RT Rybak, is pushing for the new bridge to be engineered for a future light rail line. Republican governor Tim Pawlenty is opposed and says a highway traffic-only bridge should replace the collapsed structure. Details in the article.

Thanks for posting this, Takara. :)

My worst opinions of traffic planners and politicians were confirmed by the article. The new bridge will be 10 lanes, bigger than the previous one. There is no thought to the overall transit needs of the region, let alone the localcommunities. The alternative voices are being frozen out by the Governor, who is pawlenty short-sighted! The only way things might go better is if the people of the area stand behind Mayor Ryback.

"I believe a large number of people want this bridge to symbolize the rebuilding of a community in some way," Rybak told the Associated Press on Monday. "That does not seem to be a significant part of MnDOT's goal at this point."

Rybak's lofty goals for the bridge run counter to the U.S. Department of Transportation's emergency funding rules that authorize only the replacement of an "equivalent" structure. Congress would likely permit additional traffic lanes, but not another mode of transportation, such as light rail.

Because it's federal money, I, and EVERY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN is paying for that bridge to not have light rail, and that's just wrong. Time to write letters?

Please do! I don't think it will help, though, as they want the bridge completed by next Tuesday.

"Congress would likely permit additional traffic lanes, but not another mode of transportation, such as light rail."
So that cuts out bike/ped stuff too? I seems like they have good bike ped river crossings already but as long as they're building a bridge why not reserve two of the ten lanes for non motorized transport?

"Congress would likely permit additional traffic lanes, but not another mode of transportation, such as light rail."
So that cuts out bike/ped stuff too? I seems like they have good bike ped river crossings already but as long as they're building a bridge why not reserve two of the ten lanes for non motorized transport?

gwd,
I have ridden in that general area of MSP...believe me you DON'T want to have to ride a bike on the 35W bridge. There are plenty of other river crossings for cycles and peds at other near by locations. I think they are being short sighted by not providing for the potential light rail though. If nothing else they could put the space in and use it for bus lanes or emergency lanes for the time being. Cheaper to build it now rather than later.

Aaron:)

"Congress would likely permit additional traffic lanes, but not another mode of transportation, such as light rail."


I doubt that news story is true. If Rep. Oberstar (D-MN), who chairs the House transportation committee, wants a multi-modal bridge -- as I expect he does -- then Congress isn't going to prevent it. But the governor and the state DOT is another story. :(

gwd,
I have ridden in that general area of MSP...believe me you DON'T want to have to ride a bike on the 35W bridge. There are plenty of other river crossings for cycles and peds at other near by locations. I think they are being short sighted by not providing for the potential light rail though. If nothing else they could put the space in and use it for bus lanes or emergency lanes for the time being. Cheaper to build it now rather than later.

Aaron:)

Well, I'll pass on what my aunt said, who was hopping mad about this. I don't know these facts firsthand.

She said she was furious that they weren't going to include space for future light rail until she found out they already had plans to do it to the 10th Avenue bridge, which is about 2 blocks away and leads directly to the U of M, so it's a more practical place for it any way.

Honestly, there's no reason for bikes, people or skateboards to be on the 35W bridge. There are tons of places for people to cross just a few blocks away.

She said she was furious that they weren't going to include space for future light rail until she found out they already had plans to do it to the 10th Avenue bridge, which is about 2 blocks away and leads directly to the U of M, so it's a more practical place for it any way.
The 10th Ave bridge is still 4-5 blocks from the East Bank. I heard they were going to expand the Washington Avenue bridge for light rail. It's about half a mile away but leads into the center of campus. I don't know how they plan to route it through the campus, but it makes a lot more sense if they want to follow University Ave for the central corridor.

I saw at least one comment that adding light rail to a 35W bridge would cost more than modifying the Washington Ave bridge. So unless I see numbers that say different, I'm satisfied.

No, don't narrow the bridge. 35W is separated from the rest of the city in that area. It's set 20-25 feet below the side streets on the north side, and feeds right into a set of interchanges on the south side. It's a place for cars to go fast. If the bridge made freeway traffic bad, more cars would spill into side streets. By all means, build a ten-lane bridge if it means fewer cars on the roads I bike on.

The Tenth Avenue Bridge is indeed about two blocks downstream from the collapsed 35W bridge.

http://www.troubling.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/tenthavenuebridgempls24.jpg

It's four lanes of local motor vehicle traffic and a big wide lane of bike traffic on each edge. I used to ride across this bridge all the time 25 years ago. I remember that it was a big speed trap (the speed limit is 30 mph and car drivers forget to slow down) and that it was one of the first places where a bike lane actually got plowed after a snowstorm.

The collapsed 35W highway bridge is visible in the background, two blocks away, just above the railway car. (More photos, and their source, at http://www.troubling.info/archives/1124.)

Adding width for bicycle lanes on the new bridge would be crazy. Nobody would use bike lanes on a roaring highway bridge when there's a much more pleasant alternative two blocks away. The money would be better spent on almost any other car-free transportation project you could imagine.

Light rail capacity on the new bridge is an entirely different matter. I am surprised to hear that Solveg's aunt thinks the Central Corridor light rail is going to go over the Tenth Avenue Bridge -- is that really being discussed as an alternative to the original-choice-but-not-strong-enough Washington Avenue Bridge?

And if so, why wouldn't they extend the track two more blocks and send the rail over the new bridge???

The 10th Ave bridge is still 4-5 blocks from the East Bank. I heard they were going to expand the Washington Avenue bridge for light rail. It's about half a mile away but leads into the center of campus. I don't know how they plan to route it through the campus, but it makes a lot more sense if they want to follow University Ave for the central corridor.

I saw at least one comment that adding light rail to a 35W bridge would cost more than modifying the Washington Ave bridge. So unless I see numbers that say different, I'm satisfied.

No, don't narrow the bridge. 35W is separated from the rest of the city in that area. It's set 20-25 feet below the side streets on the north side, and feeds right into a set of interchanges on the south side. It's a place for cars to go fast. If the bridge made freeway traffic bad, more cars would spill into side streets. By all means, build a ten-lane bridge if it means fewer cars on the roads I bike on.

Captain Cool, where did you hear the estimate that modifying the Washington Avenue Bridge for light rail would cost more than adding light rail to the new 35W Bridge? Please let us know -- I'd love to get to the bottom of that. Thanks!

(I mean the other way around.)

Must have been the Washington Bridge she mentioned and I misremembered, then. Sorry. I warned* you my facts might not be entirely straight! :o

The Tenth Avenue Bridge is indeed about two blocks downstream from the collapsed 35W bridge.
It's actually one very short block away. My dad also went to college at the U of M. He says that the south end of the bridge was unfinished while they were rebuilding it, but there was enough room for peds and bikes to get on and off. So, for almost a year, it was the city's only 50-foot-wide bike lane.

Captain Cool, where did you hear the estimate that modifying the Washington Avenue Bridge for light rail would cost more than adding light rail to the new 35W Bridge? Please let us know -- I'd love to get to the bottom of that. Thanks!
It was in the link you posted on the last page:
"MnDOT believes it would be less expensive to reinforce or rebuild the Washington Avenue bridge, or build a stand-alone LRT river crossing, than to add an LRT component to the I-35W bridge," Molnau and Bell wrote.

It was in the link you posted on the last page:

Silly me! Molnau is both the lieutenant governor (allied with Pawlenty's no-taxes-for-infrastructure leadership) and the head of the department of transportation (in charge of signing off on infrastructure neglect on behalf of the department) so I didn't consider that her opinion rose above the status of a self-serving lie.

The Washington Avenue Bridge is a double-deck affair where the entire upper level is devoted to pedestrian and bicycle traffic. On the one hand, it was last renovated in the 1970s, and adding light rail might be cost-effective in the context of a needed overhaul of the entire structure. On the other hand, it's preposterous on the face of it to suggest that reengineering an existing bridge for light rail would be cheaper than designing it into a bridge about to be constructed. So I think we can call Molnau a liar and ask again why reconstructing a 35W bridge with the capacity for light rail is being blocked.

So I think we can call Molnau a liar and ask again why reconstructing a 35W bridge with the capacity for light rail is being blocked.
So there's an agenda, maybe. But I can't just accept one side or the other. Was that opinion, or something MNDOT actually said? 35W is not a part of the current central corridor plan. University Ave west of campus is pretty narrow, residential, and busy as it is. A dedicated light rail bridge could be significantly narrower, simpler, and lighter than one for traffic. Maybe the Washington Ave bridge was overdesigned enough to handle a train with minimal construction. There are a lot of unknowns involved, and I doubt we can resolve them from here.

Tonight on the news they were talking about how 94 was closed to add 2 lanes in 3 days to help with traffic since the bridge fell. What was interesting is that the LRT got maxed out. The Mall of America ran out of parking, so people went to pick up the LRT at different stations. The news stated the people were packed in like sardines with pre-Twins game activity.

I guess this was startling to me, that a Twins game could max out the Mall of America's parking lot for park and ride, and that the LRT would be packed that tight with just Twins Fans.

I guess this was startling to me, that a Twins game could max out the Mall of America's parking lot for park and ride, and that the LRT would be packed that tight with just Twins Fans.

Doesn't surprise me at all. I end up commuting through them all the time. I really wish they'd put some lane markers on that last little stretch of the hiawatha trail, and finish it past 11th into downtown. I doubt it would keep the twins zombie fans from wandering all over the bike lanes, but it couldn't hurt. That parking lot at the end and Washington were still packed with cars Sunday, so I guess they weren't all on the train.

If you unbuild it, they will not come!

Putting in more capacity for cars will just result in a corresponding increase in the number of cars. I'm surprised that such a basic fact is unknown to many on a carfree forum! The proposal is to build TWO new bridges to replace the one that collapsed. Funded by all Americans, of course. The ten lanes in the proposed bridges include breakdown lanes, so they will soon be restriped to fourteen lanes, just as the old bridge was restriped.

As for more cars on the surface streets. First, if I owned a small business in the area I would be happy for more traffic past my store or office. A prime cause for the failure of central city businesses is the bypassing of traffic onto expressways. Once the businesses go, the whole quality of life in the neighborhood goes too. The expressways that made the abominable Mall of America possible are equally responsible for the bankruptcy of many smaller but more bike-accessible stores. Ever ride a bike to the Mall of America? If it's like most malls, it isn't easy to ride or walk to it. Those small stores that the malls replaced (and that the highways bypassed) were exactly what makes carfree living in the city so desirable.

Traffic engineers and urban planners are incapable of looking at the big picture, especially when the feds are dangling a quarter-billion dollars in front of their noses. It's up to us, the people, to tell them what we really want our cities to look like.