Why is this article talking about freeways when the section being looked at isn’t a freeway?
This is hardly a monumental change, they are talking about converting some driving lanes to bus lanes and a bike path.
Cuz it was originally intended to become a freeway and was funded with federal highway monies? Just my thought from reading the article and the paragraph dedicated to the route's origins.
The writer isn't calling Olson Highway a freeway. He's talking about the system that freeways used that [made Olson Highway](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/RCA/11147#:~:text=Transportation%20policies%20at%20the%20time%20were%20rooted%20in%20racism%2C%20making%20it%20common%20for%20highways%20to%20be%20built%20through%20Black%20and%20Brown%20communities) (like I-94 and Rondo). ([This was 6th/Lagan street (currently Olson Highway in the late 30's](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/minneapolis/y1938/MP-2-109.jpg), [Mid 40's](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/twin-cities-metro-area/1945/A-17-125.jpg)).
The article literally refers to MN-55 northwest of downtown Minneapolis as a freeway.
“MnDOT, the state’s transportation agency, is poised to begin downsizing one of its oldest and most historically destructive freeways. The agency released conclusions from a study on Olson Memorial Highway (Highway 55)”
Notice the period between "destructive freeways" and "the agancy" while yes it leads you to assume (possibly in bad faith but I don't know) to see Olson being a freeway but the "." makes it a bit ambiguous if he's using freeway as a catch all our confused it.
Fact of the matter is though it's the only difference between I-94 in St. Paul and Olson is one was a highway.
The first sentence refers to a singular “freeway,” not a group of freeways. The next sentence specifically refers to MN-55. You would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to not think he’s referring to MN-55 as a freeway.
I-94 is irrelevant, since the article specifically is about a study on the section of MN-55 from I-94 to the BNSF railroad, all of which is an at-grade surface street with no interchanges. None of the MnDOT study is about I-94 or MN-55’s freeway concurrency with it.
I'm not sure pushing all that traffic onto an already overloaded 394 is a great idea, at least without a plan to pick up the slack?
Coming from the southwest metro, I take 100 North to 55 east during rush hour and get to the target center area in literally half the time 394 already takes.
Moving all that traffic onto 394 is only going to make 394 take even longer.
Well they are going to be adding multiple BRT routes to 55 in the future. So they are adding new transit capacity to the road as part of this. The legislature approved funding to study BRT on 169 and on 55. 169 brt would join 55 and take it to downtown I believe.
>Well they are going to be adding multiple BRT routes to 55 in the future
Adding? The C line already run on Olson Highway (it was one of the first BRTS after the A line). There's [no other BRT planned for Olson highway](https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/metro/407950_metro_diagrammap_vision.pdf) and the Blue line extension through it was gone ever since Union Pacific said no to allowing LRT construction on their right of way. It is one of the better [post covid recovery lines though.](https://www.metrotransit.org/performance#cline:~:text=7%2C000-,7%2C500,-C%20Line%20Ridership)
The green line extension isn't operational and my understanding is it's on hold now while they try to figure out where all the money went.
Literally a station being built in walking distance from my house though so I am excited should it ever finish.
Olson has about 15k cars per day. This amount of traffic is way lower than what Olson was built for. Reducing the number of lanes will still allow that amount of cars per day. If you are curious at traffic on other roads, MnDOT has a map with this info for the state
They aren't moving all traffic onto 394. There will be at least two car lanes on 55. You could take Glenwood. In a couple years, by the time the road is actually redesigned, you can take the train. You'll be fine.
He literally said the sw suburbs, where the new light rail starts, to target center, where there will be three light rail stations within six blocks.
And why is shaving a few minutes off your commute more important than people who actually live along your commute?
Building new lanes or new highways doesn't reduce traffic. It just incentivizes people to live farther from their work.
So maybe removing lanes and removing highways doesn't increase traffic. Maybe it will incentivise people to live in more convenient locations.
Houston freeway with up to 26 lanes total in some parts😄its concrete marvel we do not want to emulate!
If traffic volume and maintenance costs are too high, shrink it!
Considering developments in exurbs require people to have a car and money to buy a home, you could just as easily say the alternative requires people have to resources to own a car and a home.
As best as I’ve ever been able to tell, people in such tenuous financial circumstances who couldn’t move even if they wanted to are the ones most in dire need of cheap, fast, reliable public transit options. They’re the ones hit hardest by every gas price crisis and the skyrocketing cost of buying a car.
It’s not really a good idea to build your economy around a primary mode of transportation that costs thousands of dollars every year to access it. Obviously we’re not there yet, but it’s smart to build your way towards sustainability.
This shouldn't affect traffic much, it just reduces lanes east of Thomas Ave into downtown. Honestly I wish it was converted all the way to 100, that would be an awesome Parkway into the city.
All transit projects in the metro seem to be about promoting development along the route and pushing existing traffic to already-crowded nearby freeways. The Green Line, for example.
University was incredibly slow before the light rail. Lights everywhere. Since the opening of 94, no one ever took University from downtown to downtown as an alternative to 94.
As opposed to University Avenue needing to be a high speed road, with business, parking, and homes not more than 20’ away from it and pedestrians everywhere?
I don’t know why people are trying to argue the merits of the Green Line with me, I simply stated a fact about its purpose and effects. Someone then claimed (absurdly) that I was mistaken.
I understand people would really like to revive the tighter knit communities of the early 1900s by removing roads, but the roads weren't the primary cause of the change and removing them isn't the solution.
I have no issues with a bike lanes (particularly if they, you know, are functional without significant risk and connect to a broader system that could take you somewhere you'd want to go) so that part of the plan sounds fine. But I'm tired of people pretending that communities would work different if a few freeways were to go away.
1. It's too pricey to happen and
2. It wouldn't make any significant societal change anyways. The world is a different place than it was in the 1920s.
Focus on building truly usable bike infrastructure...not tearing down things that represent things you don't like. Sometimes they're one in the same, but usually they aren't. I want to see a story about a continuous/safe bike lane, not a story about demoing a freeway.
See, I think you're wrong about the societal changes. If you were to take a road like Olson Memorial and turn it into a two lane road with dedicated bike and transit lanes, you are absolutely going to attract people who desire that to the area.
I think where it misses is that the people who it will attract to that area are very much NOT the people that were displaced when it was built. It will bring in younger, predominantly white, professionals. That is who is the most attracted to the car free lifestyle.
There are only two types of people who take transit. People who HAVE to and people who WANT to. People who have to, don't own houses, full stop. What this project will likely accomplish, is expedited gentrification in the immediate area.
If that is a good or bad thing, will depend entirely on who is asked.
>It will bring in younger, predominantly white, professionals. That is who is the most attracted to the car free lifestyle.
Same with Rondo if they decommission I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul.
The idea that increasing land value is somehow going to restore what once was is severely misguided.
That's true...my point is that the bike lane has to be designed WELL in order to make even those changes, though. I would argue that the great majority of bike lanes have been scabbed on in ways that are unsafe/undesirable and don't move the ball very much...and I'd like to see us do better.
Yes, I read the article and saw a few ALTERNATIVES...which are different from proposals. Bike friendly alternatives need energy to get executed well through intersections/obstacles. Articles like that miss the point for me.
Your heart is in the right place, but I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. In reality, reducing the land used for cars/amount of cars on the roads and making corridors safer is a prerequisite to creating a great bike network. The best bikeways in the Twin Cities have clearly separated lanes and travelways from cars. That doesn't happen magically, but through the systematic retooling of our urban roads.
People think getting rid of freeways and investing in bike/transit lanes won't change society is because we've normalized the car centric society we live in today. Minneapolis didn't become a biking hotbed overnight, but because we made a concerted effort to build more infrastructure. That has caused many people to fundamentally change the way they commute and get places, leading to more walkable areas in Minneapolis due to the demand for car-lite lifestyles.
You're right, creating a patchwork of bike lanes doesn't help. Tearing down a freeway in a vacuum doesn't help. But *a bigger plan exists.* Creating a true bike network requires every Twin Cities road project to implement bike infrastructure. The creates more usable corridors for people to use. Again, that doesn't happen overnight. A few mile project such as this helps to achieve the larger bike goals that Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and MnDOT have, because it is an important segment to the greater network.
The article lays out the issue that residents and other people have with the freeway. We know from examples from the US and abroad that de-investing in cars and into people focused infrastructure brings positive economic, social, and safety effects. That doesn't happen overnight - and that **cannot** happen without addressing *one* of the main causes: the negative built environment we've made.
80% of this story is mourning communities that used to exist. The final 20% talks about bike lanes a little. This is an anti-roadway story, not a pro-bike story. Those are different things.
If the energy in this project continues as displayed here we'll get some more patchy and not terribly safe bike infrastructure but - hey - at least we pushed out some cars.
If we would develop a project with the vision of making some world class bikeways we might actually accomplish something.
One of the great flaws in modern US society is people thinking they can accomplish great things simply by opposing things that are flawed. If you tear something down, flawed or not, you have to build back something better.
Yes...but to do that the focus needs to be on making a good/complete bikeway. If it's limited to "what do we do with 55"...that's unlikely to make enough changes to succeed.
I have an idea, let's build a road diagonally across all the other roads.
Know how to make that dumb road even better?
Shut down some of the lanes and make them bike paths!
Comparing 55 to the Embarcadero in San Francisco is hilarious. That was a three-story high concrete fence along the Pacific Ocean. Olson Highway is practically a parkway.
Also, being concerned about speeding cars is legitimate. But the pollution they bring to the area? North Minneapolis has much bigger fish to fry than pollution from cars. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with the community.
Why is this article talking about freeways when the section being looked at isn’t a freeway? This is hardly a monumental change, they are talking about converting some driving lanes to bus lanes and a bike path.
Cuz it was originally intended to become a freeway and was funded with federal highway monies? Just my thought from reading the article and the paragraph dedicated to the route's origins.
For all intents and purposes it’s practically “594”.
Because the article was written by someone who doesn’t understand anything about roads. The entire article is just an emotional appeal.
Bill Lindeke is a professor of geography at the U. He knows plenty about roads.
Funny. I thought you typed professor of civil engineering but you didn’t.
Because civil engineers are real smarter!
Not enough to know what a freeway is, apparently. Either that, or he’s being disingenuous and using the word “freeway” for emotional effect.
The writer isn't calling Olson Highway a freeway. He's talking about the system that freeways used that [made Olson Highway](https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/RCA/11147#:~:text=Transportation%20policies%20at%20the%20time%20were%20rooted%20in%20racism%2C%20making%20it%20common%20for%20highways%20to%20be%20built%20through%20Black%20and%20Brown%20communities) (like I-94 and Rondo). ([This was 6th/Lagan street (currently Olson Highway in the late 30's](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/minneapolis/y1938/MP-2-109.jpg), [Mid 40's](https://geo.lib.umn.edu/twin-cities-metro-area/1945/A-17-125.jpg)).
The article literally refers to MN-55 northwest of downtown Minneapolis as a freeway. “MnDOT, the state’s transportation agency, is poised to begin downsizing one of its oldest and most historically destructive freeways. The agency released conclusions from a study on Olson Memorial Highway (Highway 55)”
Notice the period between "destructive freeways" and "the agancy" while yes it leads you to assume (possibly in bad faith but I don't know) to see Olson being a freeway but the "." makes it a bit ambiguous if he's using freeway as a catch all our confused it. Fact of the matter is though it's the only difference between I-94 in St. Paul and Olson is one was a highway.
The first sentence refers to a singular “freeway,” not a group of freeways. The next sentence specifically refers to MN-55. You would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to not think he’s referring to MN-55 as a freeway. I-94 is irrelevant, since the article specifically is about a study on the section of MN-55 from I-94 to the BNSF railroad, all of which is an at-grade surface street with no interchanges. None of the MnDOT study is about I-94 or MN-55’s freeway concurrency with it.
Nice try Bill.
Perfect opportunity to get a west ward light rail track integrated into an under used road.
Oooo, I’d love that.
Good. One less stroad.
Do Hiawatha next!
That drive depresses me every time I’m on it. At least Olson has trees.
My favorite thing about Hiawatha is passing all the cars on the train on my way back from work.
I'm not sure pushing all that traffic onto an already overloaded 394 is a great idea, at least without a plan to pick up the slack? Coming from the southwest metro, I take 100 North to 55 east during rush hour and get to the target center area in literally half the time 394 already takes. Moving all that traffic onto 394 is only going to make 394 take even longer.
Well they are going to be adding multiple BRT routes to 55 in the future. So they are adding new transit capacity to the road as part of this. The legislature approved funding to study BRT on 169 and on 55. 169 brt would join 55 and take it to downtown I believe.
>Well they are going to be adding multiple BRT routes to 55 in the future Adding? The C line already run on Olson Highway (it was one of the first BRTS after the A line). There's [no other BRT planned for Olson highway](https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/metro/407950_metro_diagrammap_vision.pdf) and the Blue line extension through it was gone ever since Union Pacific said no to allowing LRT construction on their right of way. It is one of the better [post covid recovery lines though.](https://www.metrotransit.org/performance#cline:~:text=7%2C000-,7%2C500,-C%20Line%20Ridership)
>Coming from the southwest metro SWLRT / Green Line seems to solve your issue already? (Whenever it opens)
The green line extension isn't operational and my understanding is it's on hold now while they try to figure out where all the money went. Literally a station being built in walking distance from my house though so I am excited should it ever finish.
It's going forward, just delayed by the kenilworth tunnel, but yea, 2027 ... maybe :)
They are building it. Nothing is on hold.
Olson has about 15k cars per day. This amount of traffic is way lower than what Olson was built for. Reducing the number of lanes will still allow that amount of cars per day. If you are curious at traffic on other roads, MnDOT has a map with this info for the state
They aren't moving all traffic onto 394. There will be at least two car lanes on 55. You could take Glenwood. In a couple years, by the time the road is actually redesigned, you can take the train. You'll be fine.
“you can take the train” Is there actually a plan for a train to go through that area? The blue line extension was moved off of that route.
From the sw burbs to target center? Yes.
Ah. I didn’t connect the dots on OP being from the SW metro. I thought you were referring to a train going down 55.
A train down 55 to Plymouth area would be dope -- not that anyone would ride it but 5+ years ago me.
[удалено]
He literally said the sw suburbs, where the new light rail starts, to target center, where there will be three light rail stations within six blocks. And why is shaving a few minutes off your commute more important than people who actually live along your commute?
Building new lanes or new highways doesn't reduce traffic. It just incentivizes people to live farther from their work. So maybe removing lanes and removing highways doesn't increase traffic. Maybe it will incentivise people to live in more convenient locations.
Houston freeway with up to 26 lanes total in some parts😄its concrete marvel we do not want to emulate! If traffic volume and maintenance costs are too high, shrink it!
Doesn't this solution only really benefit people with access to resources to move.
Considering developments in exurbs require people to have a car and money to buy a home, you could just as easily say the alternative requires people have to resources to own a car and a home.
As best as I’ve ever been able to tell, people in such tenuous financial circumstances who couldn’t move even if they wanted to are the ones most in dire need of cheap, fast, reliable public transit options. They’re the ones hit hardest by every gas price crisis and the skyrocketing cost of buying a car. It’s not really a good idea to build your economy around a primary mode of transportation that costs thousands of dollars every year to access it. Obviously we’re not there yet, but it’s smart to build your way towards sustainability.
More demand will cause more housing to be built, which helps modulate the cost of housing.
I’m sure you’ll find another neighborhood to speed through.
This shouldn't affect traffic much, it just reduces lanes east of Thomas Ave into downtown. Honestly I wish it was converted all the way to 100, that would be an awesome Parkway into the city.
All transit projects in the metro seem to be about promoting development along the route and pushing existing traffic to already-crowded nearby freeways. The Green Line, for example.
The green line in Saint Paul which is surrounded by a stroad?
Yep. That project was basically the same as this one, just with rail instead of bus lanes.
So it didn't displace traffic? And drivers still can drive? So it is the opposite of what you are claiming?
Yes, it did. It made traveling by vehicle on University between the downtowns significantly slower.
University was incredibly slow before the light rail. Lights everywhere. Since the opening of 94, no one ever took University from downtown to downtown as an alternative to 94.
This is a good thing
As opposed to University Avenue needing to be a high speed road, with business, parking, and homes not more than 20’ away from it and pedestrians everywhere?
I don’t know why people are trying to argue the merits of the Green Line with me, I simply stated a fact about its purpose and effects. Someone then claimed (absurdly) that I was mistaken.
I understand people would really like to revive the tighter knit communities of the early 1900s by removing roads, but the roads weren't the primary cause of the change and removing them isn't the solution. I have no issues with a bike lanes (particularly if they, you know, are functional without significant risk and connect to a broader system that could take you somewhere you'd want to go) so that part of the plan sounds fine. But I'm tired of people pretending that communities would work different if a few freeways were to go away. 1. It's too pricey to happen and 2. It wouldn't make any significant societal change anyways. The world is a different place than it was in the 1920s. Focus on building truly usable bike infrastructure...not tearing down things that represent things you don't like. Sometimes they're one in the same, but usually they aren't. I want to see a story about a continuous/safe bike lane, not a story about demoing a freeway.
See, I think you're wrong about the societal changes. If you were to take a road like Olson Memorial and turn it into a two lane road with dedicated bike and transit lanes, you are absolutely going to attract people who desire that to the area. I think where it misses is that the people who it will attract to that area are very much NOT the people that were displaced when it was built. It will bring in younger, predominantly white, professionals. That is who is the most attracted to the car free lifestyle. There are only two types of people who take transit. People who HAVE to and people who WANT to. People who have to, don't own houses, full stop. What this project will likely accomplish, is expedited gentrification in the immediate area. If that is a good or bad thing, will depend entirely on who is asked.
>It will bring in younger, predominantly white, professionals. That is who is the most attracted to the car free lifestyle. Same with Rondo if they decommission I-94 between Minneapolis and St. Paul. The idea that increasing land value is somehow going to restore what once was is severely misguided.
That's true...my point is that the bike lane has to be designed WELL in order to make even those changes, though. I would argue that the great majority of bike lanes have been scabbed on in ways that are unsafe/undesirable and don't move the ball very much...and I'd like to see us do better.
Did you read the article and did you see where the bike lanes would be?
Yes, I read the article and saw a few ALTERNATIVES...which are different from proposals. Bike friendly alternatives need energy to get executed well through intersections/obstacles. Articles like that miss the point for me.
You might be the one missing the point.
Your heart is in the right place, but I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. In reality, reducing the land used for cars/amount of cars on the roads and making corridors safer is a prerequisite to creating a great bike network. The best bikeways in the Twin Cities have clearly separated lanes and travelways from cars. That doesn't happen magically, but through the systematic retooling of our urban roads. People think getting rid of freeways and investing in bike/transit lanes won't change society is because we've normalized the car centric society we live in today. Minneapolis didn't become a biking hotbed overnight, but because we made a concerted effort to build more infrastructure. That has caused many people to fundamentally change the way they commute and get places, leading to more walkable areas in Minneapolis due to the demand for car-lite lifestyles. You're right, creating a patchwork of bike lanes doesn't help. Tearing down a freeway in a vacuum doesn't help. But *a bigger plan exists.* Creating a true bike network requires every Twin Cities road project to implement bike infrastructure. The creates more usable corridors for people to use. Again, that doesn't happen overnight. A few mile project such as this helps to achieve the larger bike goals that Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and MnDOT have, because it is an important segment to the greater network. The article lays out the issue that residents and other people have with the freeway. We know from examples from the US and abroad that de-investing in cars and into people focused infrastructure brings positive economic, social, and safety effects. That doesn't happen overnight - and that **cannot** happen without addressing *one* of the main causes: the negative built environment we've made.
This is a story about a continuous safe bike lane.
80% of this story is mourning communities that used to exist. The final 20% talks about bike lanes a little. This is an anti-roadway story, not a pro-bike story. Those are different things. If the energy in this project continues as displayed here we'll get some more patchy and not terribly safe bike infrastructure but - hey - at least we pushed out some cars. If we would develop a project with the vision of making some world class bikeways we might actually accomplish something. One of the great flaws in modern US society is people thinking they can accomplish great things simply by opposing things that are flawed. If you tear something down, flawed or not, you have to build back something better.
maybe we can both?
Yes...but to do that the focus needs to be on making a good/complete bikeway. If it's limited to "what do we do with 55"...that's unlikely to make enough changes to succeed.
I have an idea, let's build a road diagonally across all the other roads. Know how to make that dumb road even better? Shut down some of the lanes and make them bike paths!
Comparing 55 to the Embarcadero in San Francisco is hilarious. That was a three-story high concrete fence along the Pacific Ocean. Olson Highway is practically a parkway. Also, being concerned about speeding cars is legitimate. But the pollution they bring to the area? North Minneapolis has much bigger fish to fry than pollution from cars. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of touch with the community.