Table of Contents i - SEH®3I Residential High Traffic to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . .2-7 ......

Mitigation & EnhancementsI-35W Access Project

November 2002

Hennepin County

City of Minneapolis

Phillips Partnership Transportation Inc.

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Metropolitan Council

Report prepared by

Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.

in association with HNTB Corporation

iTable of Contents...

Mitigation & Enhancements

Table of Contents

Table of Contents1. Introduction

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

General Clarifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

Subcommittee Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Subcommittee Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

2. Street CharacterIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1

Street Character Classification Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1

Prototypical Intersection Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3

Street Character Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9

Prototypical Street Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9Commercial Street – Lake Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-10Community Street – 38th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-17Residential High Traffic Street (One-Way) – 28th Street . . .2-19Residential High Traffic Street (Two-Way) – 36th Street . . .2-21Residential Low Traffic Street – 35th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-23Residential Parkway – 2nd Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-25

3. Traffic ManagementTraffic Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1

Thru-Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1

Turn Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2

Parking Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3

Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-4

Special Traffic Management Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5

4. Active TransportationPedestrian Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1

Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1Medians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1

Bicycle Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4

Transit Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5

Transit Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5Transit Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5Transit Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5Demand Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5

5. StructuresGateway Interchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1

Lake Street Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-138th Street Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3

Neighborhood Connecting Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5Franklin Avenue Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-526th, 28th, 35th, 36th and 42nd Street Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-7

Mainline and Ramp Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1228th Street Flyover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1229th Street Greenway Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1231st Street Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-12

Pedestrian Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1434th and 40th Street Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-14

Walls and Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15

6. Land Use and Urban DesignLake Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1

Spatial Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1Gateway Medians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1

38th Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4Sabathani Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4Nicollet Intersection Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4Pedestrian Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4

Remnant Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7Tot Lot Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7Lake Street and 2nd Avenue Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7Lake Street and Stevens Avenue Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7

Historic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad

Grade Separation District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10Minerva Apartments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10Stewart Memorial Presbyterian

(Redeemer Missionary Baptist) Church . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10Public Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-17

Planting Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-17Architectural Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-17Public Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-17Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-17Healy Block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10

7. Preliminary Cost EstimatePreliminary Cost Estimate of Mitigation

and Enhancement Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1Parking Bays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1Street Width – Residential Parkways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1Streetscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2Traffic Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.2Retaining Noise Walls & Railing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2Public Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2Mitigation & Enhancement Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-3

8. Final Design RefinementsFinal Design Refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-1

9. Acknowledgements

i

iiList of Figures...


List of Figures

Introduction1 Project Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Street Character2 Street Character Classification Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2

Prototypical Intersection Plans

3A Commercial to Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3

3B Commercial to Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4

3C Commercial to Residential High Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-4

3D Commercial to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5

3E Community to Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5

3F Community to Residential High Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6

3G Community to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6

3H Residential High Traffic to Residential High Traffic . . . . .2-7

3I Residential High Traffic to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . .2-7

3J Residential Low Traffic to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . .2-8

4 Street Character Element Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9

5A Commercial Street Prototype – Lake Street Plan . . . . . . . . . .2-10

5B Commercial Street – Lake Street Section A . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11

5C Commercial Street – Lake Street Section B . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-12

5D Commercial Street – Lake Street Section C . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-13

5E Commercial Street – Lake Street Section D . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-14

5F Lake Street Image Sketch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-15

5G Photograph of Lake Street Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-16

6A Community Street Prototype – 38th Street Plan . . . . . . . . . .2-17

6B Community Street – 38th Street Section A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-18

6C Community Street – 38th Street Section B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-18

7A Residential High Traffic (One-Way) Prototype – 28th Street Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-19

7B Residential High Traffic (One-Way) Street – 28th Street Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-20

8A Residential High Traffic (Two-Way) Prototype – 36th Street Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-21 ii

8B Residential High Traffic Street (Two-Way) – 36th Street Section A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-22

8C Residential High Traffic (Two-Way) – 36th Street Section B . .2-22

9A Residential Low Traffic Street Prototype – 35th Street Plan . .2-23

9B Residential Low Traffic Street – 35th Street Section A . . . . . . .2-24

9C Residential Low Traffic Street – 35th Street Section B . . . . . . .2-24

10A Residential Parkway Prototype – Stevens and 2nd Avenue Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-25

10B Residential Parkway – Stevens Avenue Sections . . . . . . . . . .2-26

Traffic Management11 Thru-Lanes on Commercial Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1

12A Turn Lanes on Commercial Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2

12B Turn Lanes on Community Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3

13 Parking Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-4

Active Transportation14A Sidewalks on Commercial Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2

14B Sidewalks on Residential Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2

15A Crosswalks on Commercial Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3

15B Crosswalks on Residential Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3

16 Medians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4

17 Bicycle Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-4

18A Transit Stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-5

18B I-35W and Lake Street Transit Station Model . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-6

Structures19 Lake Street Bridge Study Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1

20 Lake Street Bridge Study Model Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-2

21A 38th Street Ellipseabout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3

21B Towson Roundabout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-4

22A Franklin Bridge Elevation and Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-5

22B Franklin Avenue Bridge Precedent Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-6

Figure Description Page Figure Description Page

List of Figures

Neighborhood Gateways

23A Neighborhood Gateway Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-7

23B 26th Street Bridge Elevation and Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-8

23C 28th Street Bridge Elevation and Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-9

23D 35th Street Bridge Elevation and Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-10

23E 36th Street Bridge Elevation and Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-11

24A 28th Street Flyover Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-12

24B 31st Street Bridge Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-13

25 Typical Pedestrian Bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-14

26A Preliminary Noise Wall Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15

26B Ornamental Railing Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-16

26C Noise Wall Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17

Land Use and Urban Design27 Building Height to Street Width Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1

28A Model of Gateway Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-2

28B Model of Intersection Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-3

29A 38th Street and Sabathani Community CenterStreetscape Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-5

29B 38th Street and Nicollet Avenue Streetscape Plan . . . . . . . . . .6-6

30A Model of 2nd Avenue Remnant Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7

30B Model of 2nd Avenue Remnant Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-8

30C Alternative Model of 2nd Avenue Remnant Parcel . . . . . . . . . .6-8

31 Model of Stevens Avenue Remnant Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-9

Healy Block

32A Median Enhancement Alternative – Plan and Section . .6-11

32B Median Enhancement Alternative – Illustration . . . . . .6-12

32C Boulevard Enhancement Alternative – Plan and Section .6-13

32D Boulevard Enhancement – Illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-14

32E Wall Enhancement Alternative – Plan and Section . . . .6-15

31F Wall Enhancement Alternative – Illustration . . . . . . . . .6-16

Figure Description Page

1Introduction...


Introduction

IntroductionExecutive Summary

This report documents the findings of the Mitigation and Enhancement

Subcommittee (M&E) of the I-35W Access Project Advisory Committee

(PAC) as amended and accepted by the PAC on October 29, 2002.

The Subcommittee was formed in the late summer of 2000 of interested

members of the PAC. The membership of the Subcommittee was almost

exclusively composed of those PAC members who represented residential

neighborhoods. The Subcommittee met 36 times in the course of two

years in addition to the regularly scheduled monthly PAC meetings.

In addition to these 60 regular, open-to-the-community meetings, the

Subcommittee also sponsored two community workshops on the project

and arranged neighborhood forums in Bryant, Central, Kingfield,

Lyndale, Phillips, Powderhorn, and Whittier neighborhoods. Many

of these neighborhoods actually conducted multiple meetings exclusively

on the I-35W Access Project. The Subcommittee also directed consultant

staff to develop working relationships with Sabathani Community

Center, C-SNAP (Citizens for a Sensible Nicollet Avenue Plan), Sherman

Associates (K-Mart Site Redevelopment), and most recently, residents

of the Healy Block. At the request of the Kingfield and Lyndale

Neighborhoods, consultant staff also attended monthly mitigation

meetings with neighborhood residents for approximately one year.

The Subcommittee also sponsoredone meeting exclusively on the 38th

Street Bridge Ellipseabout proposal.

The Subcommittee believes that if it’srecommendations are incorporatedinto the project, its vision of creatinga project that enhances the livesof residents by improving the safety,well-being, and cohesion of theneighborhoods adjacent to I-35Win South Minneapolis will occur.

Specifically, the recommendations:

� Manage traffic effectively, relegatingcommuting and commercial trafficto commercial and communitycorridors and effectively allowingonly local, residential traffic useson residential streets.

� Identify traffic managementstrategies that efficiently direct andregulate traffic movements from andto I-35W.

� Improve pedestrian safety andamenities throughout the project area.

� Improve transit operationsthroughout the project area.

� Identify appropriate land uses forremnant parcels created as a resultof the I-35W Access Project thatenhance community identity,cohesion, and safety.

� Develop conceptual plans forcreating a safe link between the 29th

Street Greenway and transit facilitieson Lake Street.

� Develop requirements for land-scaping and maintenance thatenhance and maintain an attractiveappearance reflective of the urbancharacter of the corridor and expec-tations of neighbors.

� Develop conceptual plans for thearchitectural facades of all highwaystructures to be constructed as partof the project.

� Develop recommendations thatintegrate public art and communityvalues into the development of newinfrastructure during preliminaryand final design.

In summary, the Project AdvisoryCommittee accepted these recom-mendations of the Mitigation andEnhancement Subcommittee andincorporated them into the preferredbuild alternative described in thisdocument.

General ClarificationsThis report only lists the FinalRecommendations of the Subcom-mittee. These recommendations arebeing made only after extensive dis-cussion by the Subcommittee, PAC,and public review. To avoid creatingtoo cumbersome of a document, thereport typically does not identify theunderlying issues and the rationalefor these recommendations. Theunderlying issues and the rationalefor the Subcommittee’s recommen-dations are documented in themeeting minutes of the Mitigationand Enhancement Subcommitteeand the meeting minutes of theProject Advisory Committee.

The need to coordinate these recom-mendations with other infrastructuredevelopment activities outside theproject area is assumed, particularlythe recommendations for city streets.Streets do not occur in isolation andthe Mitigation and EnhancementSubcommittee and the PAC recognizethat their recommendations needto be coordinated with neighborsand neighborhoods outside theproject area. Such coordinationwill occur during final design.

After early discussions, the Subcom-mittee restricted its recommendationsto an area bounded by FranklinAvenue on the north, 42nd Streeton the south, Blaisdell Avenue onthe west, and 5th Avenue on the eastin order to produce recommendationsthat were equitable to all neighbor-hoods. This area was confirmed bythe Subcommittee and the PAC asdefining the maximum geographicallimit that the I-35W Access Projectwill be asked to mitigate or enhance.

Although the Subcommittee andthe PAC recognize that many of thedesign concepts to mitigate adverseimpacts and enhance the livabilityof south Minneapolis have merit ontheir own with or without an I-35WAccess Project, they have strived togenerate recommendations that areappropriately tied to the I-35WAccess Project, fulfilling the visionof Congress to enhance the livabilityand economic vitality of southMinneapolis by improving access tothe regional transportation network.

Coordination with the PAC bythe project sponsors is anticipatedthroughout the development of allaspects of the final design. The PACwill remain engaged during thedevelopment of detailed designdocuments so the intent of the miti-gation and enhancement recommen-dations, as adopted by PAC, are fullyrealized. The final section of thisreport lists those items that the PAChas identified as needing furtherdesign development during the finaldesign phase of the proposed accessproject if the Build Alternativeis selected.

1-1


Introduction

Subcommittee Vision Statement"Create a project that enhances the livesof residents by improving the safety,well-being, and cohesion of theirneighborhoods adjacent to I-35Win South Minneapolis."

Subcommittee Goals 1. Traffic in the project area mustbe managed so that commercialand commuting traffic is relegatedto commercial corridors and onlylocal residential traffic usesresidential streets.

2. Identify traffic managementstrategies that efficiently direct andregulate traffic movements fromand to I-35W while simultaneouslyimproving pedestrian safety through-out the project area.

3. Develop conceptual plans forsidewalks, crosswalks, and associatedpedestrian amenities that enhancethe pedestrian experience, particularlyits movement and safety on 26th,28th, Lake, 31st, 35th, 36th and 38th

Streets between Blaisdell and 5th

Avenues, especially where theseroads cross over or under I-35W.

4. Develop conceptual plans forimproving the function, location,and appearance of transit stops onLake Street between Blaisdell and 5th

Avenues, including the proposedtransit stations at I-35W.

5. Identify appropriate land uses forremnant parcels (created as part ofthe transportation project) that will

maintain or enhance communityidentity, cohesion, and safety.

6. Determine if connecting the 29th

Street Greenway to transit facilitieson Lake Street is necessary. If neces-sary, develop conceptual plans thatlocate and design a safe link betweenthe 29th Street Greenway and transitfacilities on Lake Street.

7. Develop conceptual plans for newcommunity gateways at the entrancesto the community from I-35W thatreflect the history, character, and vital-ity of the respective neighborhoods.

8. Develop conceptual plans andmaintenance requirements for land-scaping the freeway corridor toenhance and maintain an attractiveappearance reflective of the urbancharacter of the corridor and theexpectations of neighbors.

9. Develop conceptual plans for thearchitectural facades of highwaystructures, particularly bridges,retaining walls, and noise walls thatwill be constructed as part of theproposed project, especially the newbridges proposed at 38th Street, 31st

Street, Lake Street, and the "fly-over"exit to 28th Street.

10. Integrate public art that reflectsthe values of the community intonew infrastructure development.

1-2

Figure 1: Project Context. The area definedby the Mitigation and Enhancement Subcommitteeas being affected by the I-35W Access Projectincludes approximately 200 blocks of southMinneapolis. Bounded on the north by FranklinAvenue, on the south by 42nd Street, on the eastby 5th Avenue, and on the west Blaisdell Avenue,the project area is 20 blocks long by approximatelyten blocks wide. It is bisected by I-35W andimmediately south of downtown and I-94.

35

W

35

W

2Street Character...


Street Character

Street CharacterIntroduction

A primary goal of the Mitigation and Enhancement Subcommittee

was to create a street network that induced drivers to use particular

roads depending on their reason for being in the project area. The

fundamental principle was that commuting traffic needed to be

funneled to those routes that had been designed to handle such

traffic, primarily commercial routes, and residential streets needed

to be reserved for neighborhood use.

The recommendations of theSubcommittee and PAC related tostreet character are presented in thischapter. The chapter is divided intofour sections. The four sections are:

1) Street Character ClassificationMap – A map which classifies all ofthe streets in the project area into oneof five types by how the PAC wantsthe street to be used by travelers andexperienced by neighbors.

2) Prototypical Intersection Plans –A set of ten plans that ideally illustratethe design of how selected typesof streets would intersect witheach other.

3) Street Character Element Matrix –A list, by types of streets, what designelements would be utilized to estab-lish the character of the street.

2-1

4) Prototypical Streets – A set of urbandesign plans that illustrate how thestreet character classification systemand layout of prototypical intersec-tions would be applied to six repre-sentative streets in the project area.

Street CharacterClassification MapThe map, Street Character Classifica-tion, indicates the classificationscheme developed by the Mitigationand Enhancement Subcommittee.In most cases it reinforces the variousclassifications assigned to streetsby the city, county, or state. In somecases, however, it contradicts previousclassifications and will require negoti-ations with governmental authorities.

The Technical Advisory Committee(TAC), composed of representativesfrom transportation agencies from

Hennepin County, the City ofMinneapolis, the MetropolitanCouncil, and the State of Minnesota,has reviewed the classification map.In general, it agrees with the classifi-cation system and with continueto work with PAC to develop plansthat meet the vision and goals ofthe Mitigation and EnhancementSubcommittee.

Not all symbols on the StreetCharacter Classification Map arediscussed in this chapter of the report.Specifically, recommendations for the"Special Traffic Management Zone"as marked on the map are listedunder the Traffic Managementchapter of this report.


Street Character 2-2

Figure 2: Street Character Classification Map This map illustrates the street character classification system recommended by the Mitigation and Enhancement Subcommittee and adopted by the Project Advisory Committee. Street character is based on how residents of the community want traffic managed on theirneighborhood streets. Note that only five colors are used to depict the six types of street character discussed in the text of this report. The map does not differentiate between streets designated as Residential High Traffic One Way and Residential High Traffic Two Way. Both streets share the same color on the classification mapbecause, except for traffic direction, their character is essentially identical.



PrototypicalIntersection PlansThe Mitigation and EnhancementSubcommittee created a set of tenprototypical intersection plansto guide in the development ofprototypical streets. The plans weredeveloped to guide the design ofstreets, on-street parking, sidewalks,boulevards, medians, crosswalks,and transit stops. These are idealintersections and do not necessarilyreflect actual conditions found inthe City of Minneapolis. To simplifythese plans, accommodations forbicycle transportation are notincluded but are illustrated anddiscussed elsewhere in this report.

Application of these prototypesto specific intersections will bedeveloped during final designby the appropriate transportationauthority in coordination with PAC.

Figures 3A-3J:Prototypical Intersection Plans

One key to effective traffic management is thedesign of intersections. The Mitigation and

Enhancement Subcommittee developed theseten prototypical intersection plans to illustrate

all of the possible combinations of intersectingstreets. The intersections are designed to facili-tate movement between streets handling com-muting traffic, ensuring that commuting traffic

stays on commuting routes. They also passivelyregulate access from commercial and community

streets to residential streets through the use ofbump outs, medians, crosswalks, and other

urban design measures.

Figures 3A (right):Commercial to Commercial



Figure 3B:Commercial to Community

Figure 3C:Commercial to Residential High Traffic



Figure 3D:Commercial to Residential Low Traffic

Figure 3E:Community to Community



Figure 3F:Community to Residential High Traffic

Figure 3G:Community to Residential Low Traffic



Figure 3H:Residential High Traffic to Residential High Traffic

Figure 3I:Residential High Traffic to Residential Low Traffic



Figure 3J:Residential Low Traffic to Residential Low Traffic


street character 2-9

from the street by only a sidewalk.Urban parking is on the street, onsurface lots behind the buildings,or in parking ramps.

Thus, the same street can easily havevery different character dependingon location. The dimensions of thestreet itself do not create a rural,suburban, or urban street. This doesnot mean that the street does notinfluence the character of the adjacentproperties. On the contrary, the streetmust support the activities of peopleon the adjacent properties, that isit must provide optimal volumesof traffic at optimal rates to supportthe desired land uses and layout ofthose land uses. The street must bedesigned not to stifle nor overwhelmadjacent land use. Succinctly,the Mitigation and EnhancementSubcommittee referred to this princi-ple as, “Putting commercial trafficon commercial streets, and residentialtraffic on residential streets.”

In an urban setting, the location,form, materials, and other architec-tural features of buildings largelydetermine the character of the streetand, in turn, affect the character ofother design elements that reinforcethis authentic urban character. Theseare the elements that compose thepublic realm. These elements signifi-cantly contribute to the livabilityof the city. The use and placementof these elements are determinedby what type of street characteris being sought.

The following matrix lists thoseelements that are recommended

Street CharacterElementsThe character of a street is establishedand maintained by many factorsbeyond the dimensions imposedby the need to move vehicular traffic.Land use alone typically creates a criti-cal context. A 4-lane street througha corn field is different from a streetwith the same dimensions in a city.

Even if the adjacent land use is iden-tical, local building codes could createstreets with very different characters.Two streets with the same dimensionsand the same land uses but laid outin accordance with very differentbuilding codes – one suburbanand one urban – may have widelydifferent characters.

For example, a 4-lane street in a sub-urb or the same street in a city, bothwith the same retail land use, mayhave very different characters. Bothstreets, in this example, would beflanked by retail stores. However,stores in the suburb would typicallybe limited to one or two stores.Suburban stores are frequentlymassed together in malls with indi-vidual stores only accessible fromthe interior of the building. Theyalso, typically, have large encirclingparking lots. In the city, storesfrequently occupy the first floorof multistory buildings with officesor housing over the stores. In anurban setting, the buildings are usu-ally massed shoulder to shoulderwith individual stores having theirown entrance from the street. Thebuildings are typically separated

Figure 4: Street Character Element Matrix. The character of streets is established andreinforced by the type, location, and quantity of design elements. The matrix lists those elementsthat are recommended for each of the six types of streets in the project area.

for each of the six types of streetin the project area.

Prototypical StreetCharacterThe Mitigation and EnhancementSubcommittee applied the prototypi-cal intersection plans and the streetcharacter element matrix to a setof six prototypical streets. These sixstreets were selected because of theirimportance to the community. TheSubcommittee believes that these sixconcepts are transferable to otherstreets in the project area. The sixprototypical streets are:

� Lake Street – prototypicalcommercial street

� 38th Street – prototypicalcommunity street

� 28th Street – prototypical residentialhigh-traffic one-way street

� 36th Street – prototypical residentialhigh-traffic residential two-way street

� 35th Street – prototypical residentiallow-traffic residential street

� Stevens and 2nd Avenues –prototypical residential parkways



insert Lake Street Street Planfold-out



Figure 5B: Commercial Street – Lake Street Section AA set of before and after illustrations depicting existing and proposed cross sections of Lake Streetimmediately west of Nicollet Avenue.

ExistingComparing Dimensions

Environment Existing Proposed Difference

Vehicular 64' 85' 21'

Pedestrian 16' 46' 30'

Total Right-of-Way 80' 131' 51'

60% of new right-of-way is being purchased to improve the pedestrianenvironment.

80' Right-of-Way

Proposed

131' Right-of-Way



Figure 5C: Commercial Street – Lake Street Section BA set of before and after illustrations depicting existing and proposed cross sections of Lake Streetimmediately east of Nicollet Avenue.

Existing

Proposed

80' Right-of-Way

131' Right-of-Way

Comparing Dimensions








Figure 5D: Commercial Street – Lake Street Section C. A set of before and after illustrationsdepicting existing and proposed cross sections of Lake Street immediately east of 1st Avenue.

Existing

Proposed







80' Right-of-Way

130' Right-of-Way



Figure 5E: Commercial Street – Lake Street Section D A set of before and after illustrationsdepicting existing and proposed cross sections of Lake Street immediately east of 2nd Avenue.

Existing

Proposed






Over 70% of new right-of-way is being purchased to improve the pedestrianenvironment.

73' Right-of-Way

119' Right-of-Way



Figure 5F: Lake Street Image Sketch.An artist’s illustration of an aerial view of the

Lake Street and I-35W area looking southwestfrom 29th Street and 3rd Avenue in the year

2020 after the construction of the I-35W AccessProject. The illustration depicts many of the

project’s features including a new I-35W bridgewith towering bridge heads constructed of brick,

a new north bound entrance ramp, a new 28th

street flyover, terraced brick retaining wallselevating the freeway, a transit station in the

center of the freeway, green medians dividingtraffic and providing an inviting pedestrian refuge

on Lake Street, wide sidewalks with manypedestrian amenities, new two to four story

buildings lining Lake Street, and a new parkconnecting the 29th Street Greenway and LakeStreet with a privacy wall separating the alley

and back yards of neighbors from the new park.



Figure 5G: Photograph of Lake StreetModel. A photograph of a study model that wasused to illustrate the character of Lake Street in

the year 2020 following the construction of theI-35W Access Project and the reopening of

Nicollet Avenue. The view of the model is fromNicollet Avenue looking east on Lake Street

toward I-35W. The model depicts the characterof Lake Street with four thru lanes, turn lanesat selected locations, wide 14’ sidewalks with

pedestrian amenities, regularly spaced plantingsof trees and colorful flowers buffering pedestriansfrom the street, and wide medians in Lake Streetwith plantings, fountains, and a gateway monu-ment that provide a refuge for pedestrians. The

new two to four story buildings that line LakeStreet may share the street with an optional new

park on the north side of Lake Street betweenStevens and 1st Avenues.

Site of Potential Park

Table of Contents i - SEH®3I Residential High Traffic to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . .2-7 ......

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents i - SEH®3I Residential High Traffic to Residential Low Traffic . . . . . .2-7 ......