All posts in the topic $25 million in mitigation of LRT-inspired traffic problems in SE Minneapolis? (Short link)

2008 May 30 13:01 UTC

The Star Tribune's editorial today again urged quick approval of the
Central Corridor LRT route that would close Washington Ave. SE for a
pedestrian/transit mall through the University's East Bank campus.
The editors claim that engineers have completed their comparative
analysis of the Washington Ave. SE closure versus using the U's
proposed Northern Route through Dinkytown. Where was that reported?

One new thing (also unreported so far) appeared in the editorial:
reference to a $25 million mitigation effort that would attempt to
address the massive negative traffic impacts of the avenue's closure
on Southeast Minneapolis neighbohoods. Such a mitigation plan "is in
the works," says the Strib. Because the paper has never reported on
the engineers' analysis, we don't know if traffic in the
neighborhoods--beyond the U's biomedical complex's problems--was part
of  their study.

Why hasn't the Star Tribune reported either on that mitigation fund
or on the traffic messes that would occur in Southeast Minneapolis?
The paper's emphasis has been on the St. Paul segments of the Central
Corridor LRT or on the immediate University East Bank campus, where
total peacefulness, calm and order will supposedly reign. The paper
has never reported on East Bank residential and business
neighborhoods' future traffic problems.

Now, suddenly, instead of risking $40 million in inflation costs if
the LRT project were delayed so everyone could think it through more
carefully, LRT planners, per the Strib editorial, have mitigation
plans "in the works," a tacit acknowlegement by somebody of the
horrendous traffic diversions the no-vehicles-on-Washington Ave. SE
(and, folks, that may include the bridge itself!) will impose on the
people who live and do business in Southeast Minneapolis.

Who brought up the need for this mitigation plan? When? After what
study or analysis? Of what data? Where was it presented in public,
and by whom? Where will the money come from? (I look at $40 million
of inflation costs for delaying the LRT and $25 million for
cushioning negative traffic impacts and the figures are looking
closer all the time.)  Where's the reporting of this new factor in
the financial or cost equation? Where will the negative traffic
impacts be? What are the [even provisional] mitigation plans? Why
wasn't mitigation part of the analysis for all these months?

Why is this LRT project moving ahead so fast and without full and
respectful study of its impacts on Minneapolis residents?

Here's an instance among many: Traffic data for all of Southeast were
presented to the Southeast Como Improvement Association early this
month by the Metro Council's Central Corridor planning group. I
looked at their projections of what will happen to the multiple
intersections of I35W, University Ave. SE and 4th St. SE, combined
with their cheek-by-jowl intersections of 10th Ave. SE with
University Ave. and 4th St. SE. Mindbloggling, the numbers of motor
vehicles per hour and per day that will attempt to go through those
two blocks'-worth of eight intersections of major two- or four-lane
streets, if Washington Ave. SE and the bridge are closed. Those eight
clustered intersections will be at the point traffic engineers call
"failure" with all the extra traffic that is diverted off Washington
Ave. So go the projections, anyway.

No one in their right mind would ever try to walk or bike through
those congested intersections, or even go near them.

Then, too, nobody seems to have studied the geological features of
the river bluff on the East Side by the University: every
winter/spring melt that East River Road bluff tries to let itself
fall into the river, and it has to be shored up. There's currently
only light traffic on East River Road (it's a parkway), but if most
vehicular traffic is diverted from Washington Ave. onto East River
Parkway, there will be many thousands more motor vehicles each day,
including trucks, on the East River Road Parkway. Has anyone spoken
to the Park Board about such a diversion of heavy traffic onto one of
the oldest segments of the Grand Rounds? I don't think so. Can the
East River Parkway roadbed take the extra volume and weight? Nobody
knows, apparently.

Then there's the Franklin Ave. bridge to consider. Today, everything
but trucks can cross to the East Bank over that bridge and go north
or south on parkway or east (on Franklin Ave. SE); trucks must use
27th Ave. SE.  Franklin Ave. bridge will see a huge increase in
vehicular traffic with Washngton Ave.SE closed, much of which will
head onto parkway and other residential streets.

Snafus and jams  and "failed intersections" are also predicted for
the I94 entrances/exits in Southeast Minneapolis; traffic will have
to be diverted onto various residential streets.

These issues have not been part of the Central Corridor discussion,
despite Marcy-Holmes, Como, and Prospect Park--and the
University--trying to bring them into it.

Sadly, I am becoming convinced that the tunnel under Washington Ave.
SE, which the original LRT Central Corridor plans entailed and to
which the University of Minnesota agreed, was the best route. Costly,
but the best solution to problematic future traffic issues.

I am also convinced that Central Corridor planning and decisions are
being made without due diligence by the officials concerned, who
mostly just want to Do It,  and Do It Fast, no matter what the
negative consequences for people who live in, and want to move around
in, Southeast Minneapolis.  Decisionmakers have tunnel vision (irony
intended) and just see the Corridor, not the urban fabric that
surrounds it and into which the Corridor is enmeshed.

And the absence from our Minneapolis paper of anything but
unquestioning editorial boosterism and lack of solid reporting on
this Minneapolis issue is not helping.

Connie
Como, in Southeast Mpls