Changes Finally Coming to the Franklin/Cedar/Minnehaha Intersection in Minneapolis

This is my first post for Streets.mn, so first a few things about me:

I have a degree in engineering (electrical). That means that math is my first language; English is my second. It also means I think in lists. So, I like bulleted lists—I just tend to find those easier follow. I also have a degree from the Humphrey School that I joke was in shameless agitation. I have served on a large number of nonprofit organization boards and was on the Minneapolis Library Board (before it disappeared), the Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation, the Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission (that was a LONG time ago), and the Minneapolis Planning Commission. A couple of my friends call me a serial shameless agitator.

Franklin Minnehaha Cedar

For at least the last 16 years, a goal of the Seward Neighborhood Group (SNG) and Seward Redesign have been working to make the Franklin/Cedar/Minnehaha intersection safer for people in cars, people who walk, and people who bike. In that time, there have been at least two proposals that died because of insufficient funds or lack of agreement by all the parties. This is a complex intersection that was designed in the 1940s just to improve it for car and truck traffic. It now is one of the busiest intersections in Minneapolis for motorized traffic and people-powered traffic (walking and biking).

Most recently, three years ago the SNG Community Development Committee and Redesign started working with the Hennepin County and Minneapolis Public Works Departments on plans for improvements to the intersection. Along the way, the Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition, the Native American Community Development Institute, and the North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club got actively involved. On February 9th, 2016, the community overwhelmingly voted to support a plan at an SNG Community Development Committee meeting that was attended by over fifty people. There have been a lot of pie-in-the-sky solutions proposed over the last few years, but this one fits within the existing budget and could get broad support.  It isn’t perfect, but it makes things better for everyone.

Why? For years everyone has agreed that it was a problem intersection:

  • The number of crashes at that intersection is roughly double the rate of similar intersections in the city.
  • The whole intersection complex (Cedar, Franklin, Minnehaha, and 20th Avenue) has an average of 40 crashes a year.
  • This includes a relatively high percentage of pedestrian and bicycle crashes (10-15%).
  • In a 10 year study, the intersection tied for the worst bike/car crash intersection in Minneapolis.
Five lanes of speeding traffic coming off Minnehaha and Hiawatha Avenues, courtesy Bill Lindeke

Five lanes of speeding traffic coming off Minnehaha and Hiawatha Avenues, courtesy Bill Lindeke

Problems: The problems go back to the 1950s project that created this intersection, but there are a lot of fixable things causing these crashes. Some of the major ones include the following:

  • The intersection is really confusing and drivers are concentrating on figuring out which way to go and watching other cars.
  • The layout of the left-turn lanes makes it hard to see on-coming cars.
  • Pedestrians and bicyclists have to cross multiple streets and deal with drivers who are distracted by the intersection design.
  • Drivers tend to speed on Franklin between 16th and Cedar where it feel
    Current plan (from Hennepin County) Pink = new or modified medians, Red= changed curb lines, Orange=combined bike/pedestrian, Green = current street area that will not be open to cars

    Current plan (from Hennepin County) Pink = new or modified medians, Red= changed curb lines, Orange=combined bike/pedestrian, Green = current street area that will not be open to cars

    s like a highway.

What is planned? This plan is not the perfect solution, but it will be within the budget available and it addresses the major problems. It is a major improvement to what is there. It will probably save lives. Here are some of the major changes included in the plan (a larger plan map with more information is available on the Hennepin County website–search for “Franklin Cedar”):

  • Simplifying the intersection by closing Minnehaha in front of Taco Bell and eliminating left turns at Minnehaha Avenue and Franklin. This allows eliminating the traffic signal at Minnehaha and Franklin. This also allows fixing the alignment of the left turn lanes on Franklin and improved signal operation.
  • Closing Minnehaha also simplifies the north end of the intersection.
  • This also eliminates the need for pedestrians to cross a four-lane Minnehaha Avenue.
  • Reducing pedestrian crossing distances for Cedar and Franklin and providing real “refuge islands” for pedestrians half way across the intersections.
  • Allowing a left turn from south-bound Cedar to the “new” 22nd Street (especially for trucks but also to eliminate some of the left turns in the main intersection).
  • A protected bike route on Cedar Avenue from 20th to the LRT trail (only part of it in this project) and bike lanes on Franklin that continue from Bloomington to 21st Avenue, connecting to bike lanes that go across the Mississippi River.
  • Reducing Franklin Avenue to one lane in each direction from Bloomington Avenue to just west of Cedar Avenue and adding parking along the median to make it feel like a city street, not a divided highway.

What are the concerns? Some of the concerns include:

  • Potential increased traffic on the residential 21st and 22nd Avenues south of Franklin.
  • Too much traffic on 22nd Street between Cedar and Minnehaha
  • Access to businesses on Minnehaha.
  • Safety for pedestrians and people on bikes crossing Minnehaha at 22nd Street and at Franklin Avenue.
  • Safety for pedestrians and people on bikes crossing 22nd Street at Cedar Avenue.

The county and city staff promised to monitor the potential problems and come back to the project with fixes if they are needed in future years. Also, the resolution that was passed Tuesday included a strong recommendation for some additions to address these concerns.

Why not a roundabout? One question came up at just about every public meeting: “Why not a roundabout? They are cheap and safe.” Two roundabout designs were even proposed in the early 2000s.  One design even had two roundabouts. There are a variety of reasons for not building a roundabout:

  • The traffic volume at this intersection would require a multi-lane roundabout; something Minnesota drivers are not familiar with.
  • The budget for the current project is around $500,000 plus the cost of a “mill-and-overlay” of the pavement. The minimum cost for a roundabout was $6 million to $10 million, including the cost of buying additional right of way.
  • Roundabouts are not as safe as people think. At Portland and 66th Street in Richfield, a roundabout replaced a traffic signal. Crash rates went up. (The good news is that now they tend to be side-swipes, not 90 degree or head-on collisions.)
  • Roundabouts don’t work well for pedestrians and bicycles. Remember, the reason for this redesign was to make it safer for people in cars AND people walking and people on bikes. Large roundabouts are unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians for a couple of reasons: Minnesota drivers do not yield to pedestrians in crosswalks; also, drivers in Minnesota are not use to multi-lane roundabouts–they concentrate on the cars and how to get where they want to go and don’t pay attention to pedestrians or bicycles.
  • In Washington DC, a city with many large roundabouts, they tunnel under the roundabout for the busiest street for busy intersections. That design may have been required here—even more expensive.

Why not return to the old (pre-1950) alignment? Why don’t we “restore the grid”? That is an interesting idea but there is no political support for doing that and there is no budget for doing it either. If you thought the price of a roundabout was high, consider the cost of filling the “ditch,” moving the LRT line, and re-building Cedar on its old right of way. Then consider getting the political support to do that. Finally, it was never a pure grid. Minnehaha and Hiawatha always went through that area at an angle, and the old Milwaukee Road main-line and yards disrupted what grid there was. (There was one proposal to eliminate the northern road of the 4 lane divided part of Franklin between Cedar and Bloomington for development back around 2000. No one could find the money to do only that.)

History of the intersection, original photo comparison by Bill Lindeke

History of the intersection, original photo comparison by Bill Lindeke

When will it happen? The county needs to prepare complete engineering design drawings and get bids from contractors. Construction is planned for around August of this year. The plan is to keep the intersection open during construction, although there will probably be some lane closures.

Why did it finally happen? [That sounds like a whole new blog post (Sequel Time!).] The short answer is:

  • A lot of organizations and people in the community kept the pressure on;
  • Hennepin County Public Works and Minneapolis Public Works decided something needed to be done; and
  • Hennepin County Public Works was willing to listen to and consider ideas from the neighborhood and to spend a lot of time meeting with the public.

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

, , , , , , , , ,

33 Responses to Changes Finally Coming to the Franklin/Cedar/Minnehaha Intersection in Minneapolis

  1. Adam Froehlig
    Adam Froehlig February 12, 2016 at 12:47 pm #

    One notable error in an otherwise pretty good post: what DC has are not roundabouts. They are traditional traffic circles, most of which are signalized. Contrary to popular belief, there are some notable differences between roundabouts and traffic circles. For starters, traffic circles typically have a much larger radius than roundabouts. Second, traffic circles may be signalized or have traffic entering the circle receiving right-of-way versus traffic already in the circle. Roundabouts have neither of these.

    • Sheldon Mains February 12, 2016 at 12:51 pm #

      thanks–didn’t know that

  2. Sean Hayford Oleary
    Sean Hayford Oleary February 12, 2016 at 4:58 pm #

    I would have appreciated some citations for the roundabout claims, too. I was digging around to see if I could verify your claim that crashes have gone up at Portland/66th since the roundabout was installed. I can’t seem to find anything either way. I do know that, while the intersection was the third-deadliest in Hennepin County before, there has not been a single fatal crash since it was installed.

    I also think the “not good for pedestrians” is a little too simplistic. It’s intimidating, and that’s a problem, but I’d be surprised if it was truly less safe than the signal — especially a confusing one like the current setup.

    I think it’s also fair to note that farther down on Minnehaha, you have a roundabout that works great for bike-ped, at Godrey Pkwy (at least, in my experience). It’s likely this would be more similar to the experience of 66th/Portland, given regional traffic. But the Godrey/Minnehaha roundabout does seem to show that roundabouts can work pretty well for bike-ped, even for “unyielding” Minnesotan drivers.

    • Sheldon Mains February 12, 2016 at 5:30 pm #

      The information on the Portland/66th roundabout was from the Hennepin County Engineer. The fact that the crashes are now side-swipes instead of head on or 90 degree would explain the reduction of fatalities–so it did reduce fatalities.

      The roundabout at the south end of Minnehaha has a much lower traffic count and is only two roads (four connections) intersection. Traffic is moving much slower (the speed limit on the parkway is 25 MPH. That is a totally different animal than a multi lane roundabout with six connections.

      Have you tried crossing at Portland and 66th as a pedestrian or tried biking through it? It is scary.

      • Sean Hayford Oleary
        Sean Hayford Oleary February 14, 2016 at 9:14 am #

        This roundabout is close to my house, and on the fastest route to downtown Minneapolis, so I have biked through it almost every day during the summer the last three years.

        Bicycling is not too bad — although it can be tricky to encourage other bicyclists to assume an assertive-enough position to get through it comfortably. (You absolutely must control a full lane on the approach and within the roundabout.) I’d say I’m a little more nervous/aware going through than at a signal, but I also feel that way in a car. In both cases, the time savings and safety improvements seem worth that trade-off.

        Pedestrian experience is worse, I will grant that. The main reason why I supported additional roundabouts was staff’s observation that, at a signal, pedestrians only cross with the light about half the time anyway. Half of the time they’re darting for it, without the right-of-way, against cars that are going a full 35 mph or 40 mph. Even with low compliance, we’ve vastly improved the safety of those people crossing. I also don’t believe Portland/66th is the best example of how well a high-traffic roundabout can handle peds. Tunnels (which you mentioned) are the sort of nuclear option, but flashers, raised crosswalks, and other options exist, too

        I’ve been particularly thinking about the safety benefits of roundabouts lately, as I read the horrible story of the suicidal lunatic who drove 100 mph through several lights on American Blvd, before killing a city worker. The truth is that with a roundabout, there is no such thing as running it at 100 mph. At any speed over 25 or 30, she would have flipped the car or crashed into the center island.

    • Monte Castleman
      Monte Castleman February 12, 2016 at 8:12 pm #

      I don’t have a source either, just some years ago I recall reading it in the Star-Tribune that crashes had gone up at the Portland / 66th roundabout, (and one motorist said she was so scared of it that she speeds up going through it to get it over with as fast as possible.

      Minnehaha and Godfrey I’d much prefer it be a traffic signal when I’m riding through on my bicycle, which I do quite frequently.

  3. Rosa February 12, 2016 at 9:06 pm #

    I am so excited to see these changes. I go ridiculously out of my way to avoid biking here, have for years.

  4. Scott February 13, 2016 at 10:12 am #

    Nice post. I agree that round-abouts are intimidating for pedestrians. I imagine they would be almost impossible for blind people to navigate unless traffic signals were incorporated. For the same cost of an $8-$10 million round-about, the City could make hundreds of improvements to make walking and biking safer.

    Also, the Franklin Avenue Blue Line station is located on one side of this intersection and this project should make it more comfortable to walk there.

    • Alex February 13, 2016 at 8:18 pm #

      Why would roundabouts be impossible for blind people to navigate? How would they be different from any other unsignalized intersection, which vastly outnumber signalized intersections?

  5. Sheldon Mains February 13, 2016 at 11:07 am #

    Yes, it should help people walking and biking to the Blue Line. The most recent attempts to improve this intersection started with the Franklin Station planning before the Blue Line was built back in 2000.

  6. David Markle
    David Markle February 13, 2016 at 11:41 am #

    Two general concerns:

    1. Will the proposed changes put more automotive traffic onto Cedar Avenue north of this intersection? As a major commuter and visitor destination within the metropolitan area–home of a major hospital, college and university campuses and businesses such as Midwest Mountaineering, Cedar Cultural Center and others–we have a big time traffic problem, and any addition of through-traffic will hurt us.

    2. It’s disgraceful that no representatives of the City and County have not come to any neighborhood forum in Cedar-Riverside concerning this matter, and the well-paid individuals running our neighborhood’s organizations have utterly failed to bring our attention to it. If it were not for the placement of I-94, a substantial part of this intersection would lie in Cedar-Riverside.

    • Sheldon Mains February 13, 2016 at 12:59 pm #

      Hennepin county engineers’ projection that this will “at most” slightly increase the number of cars that can move through the intersection. Their goal of the changes were safety, not increase capacity.

      If you go to Hennepin.us and search for Franklin Cedar, the large PDF includes the current traffic counts for all the movements in the intersection. Below that is the projected traffic counts with the changes. The numbers are for the peak hour. The first number is AM, the second number (in parentheses) are PM peak hour.

      • David Markle
        David Markle February 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm #

        That doesn’t answer my concern. For example, does the planned change increase northbound traffic on Cedar by making it harder for motorists to go north on 20th Avenue?

        I have limited faith in traffic studies as predictors. The traffic study concerning the modifications to Riverside Avenue did not agree with the traffic study concerning the modifications to Cedar Avenue.

        I suspect that we’re looking at a done deal, because that’s how things tend to go around here.

        • Jeremy Werst February 14, 2016 at 1:09 pm #

          From what I saw, the main difference was that it was harder to go from Minnehaha up to either Cedar or 20th Ave. They would need to go from Minnehaha onto 22nd street, then north on Cedar.

          After that, there’s a wider bumpout to make the right turn onto 20th, so it would slow them down. Not sure if that would be enough to actually influence traffic patterns?

          But, yeah, it’s basically the same amount of lanes on Cedar going through the intersection, but with the traffic from Minnehaha re-routed further south.

          They’re also trying to re-route traffic from Cedar right after it passes under Hiawatha onto 17th if they’re heading west on Franklin, rather than going up to the intersection and _then_ turning.

          It sounded like a pretty done deal at the meeting to me. Basically “this is the only possible way to do anything with the budget we have right now, and it’s not going to get resurfaced for many more years, so if we don’t do something, it’s going to be unsafe for another few decades.”

          There are some more projects around it in the next few years that they’re trying to accommodate for, as well. One I think was a direct bike connection to the LRT. Another was a protected bikeway on 20th ave that they think could be routed onto “old 20th” keeping more cyclists out of the intersection altogether. I forget what the others were.

  7. David Markle
    David Markle February 14, 2016 at 12:03 pm #

    I should add that the Riverside Avenue and Cedar Avenue projects created or worsened problems, especially at afternoon peak traffic times (and I offered carefully prepared warning in the case of Cedar Avenue).

    • Ethan Osten
      Ethan Osten February 14, 2016 at 12:56 pm #

      But both projects made those areas dramatically more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. There are always tradeoffs.

    • Jeremy Werst February 14, 2016 at 1:15 pm #

      I was actually in an ambulance going from the Fairview Riverside ER over to their East Bank facility the other week, and asked the drivers how the redesign had impacted them. They don’t go through all the time with lights blaring, often it’s just shuttling people from place to place, presumably at all times of day.

      They said that it hasn’t really impacted them much at all.

      Anecdotal and just one perspective, but thought it’s worth noting.

      I used to hate going through there on bike, but now it’s one of my preferred routes out of Seward if I’m hitting anywhere north of downtown on the east side of the river. Most of the time I’m not heading through at rush hour, though.

      Always frustrates me how much of our traffic woes are related to trying to have everyone start and stop working within a couple of hours of each other. There’s absolutely no issues that I can see with Riverside’s flow during the off-peak hours.

  8. Jeremy Werst February 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm #

    Another aspect that came up that I didn’t know about is that apparently the sewer system there is combined with waste and storm, and some of it the old brick style. Not entirely sure on the specifics, but apparently if they go under the ground at all, that will all have to be brought up to modern code.

    So even without trying to buy more land for a roundabout, whatever else might be done to make a more extreme change would have to essentially not dig underground at all or the costs would suddenly start going up exponentially.

  9. robsk February 14, 2016 at 1:24 pm #

    How will a car access S Cedar from E Franklin? I suggest removing the crosswalk instead of adding the exclamation point shaped concrete median. Frequently, medians turn into poorly maintained eyesores that hamper plowing, emergency maneuverability, and encourage risk taking by pedestrians — sometimes it is better to herd the cattle.

    Will this negatively effect fire truck access to Minnehaha from Franklin, or are they currently using 21st?

    This looks like a great opportunity, but I bet they’ll wanting to tweak it within five years. E 22nd ST will turn into a racetrack.

    On another note, from the studies I’ve read, the farther you can keep peds and pedals from roundabouts, the better. From personal experience, pedestrians and bikes don’t go well together either.

    • Jeremy Werst February 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm #

      South Cedar from East Franklin is pretty much unchanged, except for putting in a refuge median for peds and re-aligning the left turn lane so that it’s easier to see oncoming traffic and turn safely. Right now east and west left turn lanes are offset a bit, which is one reason for the increased collisions.

      As far as access to Minnehaha for the fire station, I’m not totally sure. There were a lot of concerns about people taking 21st in both directions. Right now both it and 22nd street are pretty cramped and 2 way traffic on them is difficult. So increased traffic would have a pretty large impact, especially since a lot of residents often double park.

      My suggestion would be turning them into one-ways, 21st going south and 22nd going north.

      They also completely acknowledged that they will be tweaking things over the coming years, especially as other connecting projects are constructed. This isn’t meant as a completely final solution, just the best that could be done right now with the resources they have. There have already been several missed opportunities to do _anything_ so they don’t want to miss this one as well.

      It’s not perfect, but it’s better than doing nothing at all.

      • Sheldon Mains February 14, 2016 at 8:52 pm #

        Just a couple notes. From Minnehaha to Franklin, traffic will be directed to take 22nd Street to Cedar, then north to Franklin.

        There may be a problem with increased traffic on 21st Ave and 22nd Ave. These are residential streets, narrow, a number of kids, all residential and not engineered for a lot of traffic. The goal is to keep the traffic off these Avenues. The resolution had a couple suggestions for that– Curb bump-outs into 21st Ave and 22nd Ave at 24th Street, Minnehaha and Franklin; stop signs on 21st and 22nd Avenues at 22nd Street. The neighborhood and the residents of 21st and 22nd Avenues would not want either of those streets turned into one-ways.

        The Fire Department has been in on the planning and some changes were made to meet their needs.

        • Jeremy Werst February 14, 2016 at 9:09 pm #

          FWIW, I talked to the guy at the meeting that replied to me about increased traffic on 21st & 22nd avenues during the SNG meeting after we had to break.

          He and several of the other people out in the hallway thought that making them one ways would mitigate a lot of their concerns. It wasn’t so much about the traffic volumes, but the fact that cars can’t really fit going both directions now, and with increased traffic that would get worse. Not sure how many of the rest of the people in that group actually live on the streets, though.

          I kind of doubt that many people would actually take 22nd north to get onto Franklin, since they’d still be able to turn from Minnehaha onto Franklin at the same point they normally would.

          • Matt Steele February 15, 2016 at 9:30 am #

            Here’s what I’d suggest IF there is a problem with cut-through traffic on 21st. As Jeremy notes, southbound traffic would probably be the problem, since motorists could still turn right onto Franklin northbound on Minnehaha.

            Keep 21st Ave two-way between Franklin and 22nd St, but make the short stub of 21st Ave between Minnehaha and 22nd Street one-way northbound only. This would prevent people from cutting south via 21st from Franklin.

            Then keep 22nd Ave two-way south of 22nd St, but one-way northbound for the one block from 22nd to Franklin. This would prevent motorists from cutting south on 22nd too. If a motorist wanted to cut this corner southbound, they’d need to navigate 21st Ave, east on 22nd St, then south again on 22nd Ave, then west on 24th St (since 22nd Ave doesn’t run into Minnehaha).

            This would have the benefits of one-ways without the speed/volume-inducing harms of one-ways.

          • Ben February 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm #

            As a resident of 21st Ave, I do not want to see either 21st or 22nd Avenues turned into 1-way streets. That change would likely induce higher speeds of the motorists using them as ways to cut through the neighborhood, and it would do little to nothing to reduce traffic volumes. As it stands now, the two streets are narrow and full of parked cars, forcing slower speeds and (gasp!) the occasional need to wait when a car is double parked. A nice disincentive to using this highly-populated residential street as a short cut.

            • Rosa February 18, 2016 at 10:24 pm #

              what about just for one block? A lot of avenues that intersect Lake are either blocked off at Lake or one-way towards Lake for just a block, and people seem to like that.

    • Rosa February 15, 2016 at 1:08 pm #

      No more disallowing pedestrians because engineers can’t figure out traffic. It’s wrong, and like you said -people will cross anyway, so it’s not safer.

      That corner by the Takoda Institute, they couldn’t stop cars from turning on red and running into people, so they just put up a No Walking sign. It’s insulting and it doesn’t actually stop people from walking. Whichever designer or engineer decided it was a good solution should have to have one on his forehead like a red letter A so everyone knows how bad they are at road design.

  10. David Markle
    David Markle February 15, 2016 at 11:17 am #

    The Cedar Avenue modifications between 7th and 3rd did not improve conditions for cyclists; quite the contrary. When concern was raised at the city council committee meeting, Chairman Reich said they’d do everything to attend to the problem, but he was talking through his hat. There was not and is not any intention to accommodate cyclists on that stretch of Cedar.

    The Riverside Avenue modifications created a big afternoon traffic problem near the hospital that has led the hospital to hire off-duty police to direct vehicles between 4pm and 6pm.

    • Adam Miller
      Adam Miller February 15, 2016 at 11:35 am #

      Cars having to wait a bit at peak times is not what I’d call a “big problem.”

  11. Evan Roberts
    Evan February 15, 2016 at 2:07 pm #

    Roundabouts are unfamiliar to Minnesota pedestrians and cyclists, but most research shows that roundabouts are generally safer for all users because they slow vehicular speeds.

    I get that the roundabout isn’t an option, but lets not make untrue statements about their general benefits in street design.

  12. Debbie Wolking February 16, 2016 at 11:10 am #

    I don’t see any reference to the fact that there is no pedestrian access across Minnehaha Avenue to the Franklin Avenue light rail station for people coming North of I-94. This has been a huge problem for residents since the station opened. Apparently, Augsburg College recommends that students use the Franklin Ave. station rather than the Cedar Riverside station. I recommend people who are interested in making this a safe intersection for pedestrians, and support use of Light Rail, take a walk from 20th and 8th street to the Franklin Ave station to see what the experience is like. Unless a pedestrian crossing is added here, the proposed fix will not solve the pedestrian access issue.

    Additionally, closing Minnehaha Ave. will significantly restrict access of residents living North of I-94 to their homes. Were these people notified and invited to participate in the discussion?

    • Sheldon Mains February 16, 2016 at 11:46 am #

      The plan does not show crosswalks– that is one of the next engineering steps. Making the intersection with 20th going over 94 more of a 90 degree intersection should make it possible to add a ped crossing there.

      I agree with the problems with access to the Franklin LRT station–it is terrible for everyone. Your comments about from Cedar-Riverside are correct. For Ventura Village, the only access is the walk through no-person’s land under Hiawatha. For Little Earth it is along Cedar under Hiawatha and then along old Cedar between Cedar Box and Ambles (definitely not pedestrian friendly). Seward lucked out– it’s access only requires walking along the Franklin no-person’s land from the Seward Cafe to Franklin (no pedestrian activity there, no “eyes-on-the-street”) and then through a parking lot (we really do appreciate the fact that AIOIC lets people use their parking lot for pedestrian access). The un-offical connection to the LRT trail at 22nd Street that Seward Redesign created helps. But, Met Transit can spend millions on a pedestrian bridge for the Vikings but won’t spend anything to fix access to the “arm-pit station of the LRT system.”

      Debbie– II don’t understand your comment about residents living North of I-94. I don’t see how this has any change to their access (except making the intersection safer for pedestrian and bicyclists). If you are referring to the residents between I-94 and Franklin, yes they were notified and some did attend and ask questions. One of the details I didn’t include in the article is the recommendation that “old” 20th Avenue (just east of Taco Bell) and 9th Street between 20th and 21st Avenues be made two way.

      • Matthew February 18, 2016 at 8:22 pm #

        ‘Seward lucked out– it’s access only requires walking along the Franklin no-person’s land from the Seward Cafe to Franklin (no pedestrian activity there, no “eyes-on-the-street”) and then through a parking lot (we really do appreciate the fact that AIOIC lets people use their parking lot for pedestrian access). The un-offical connection to the LRT trail at 22nd Street that Seward Redesign created helps. But, Met Transit can spend millions on a pedestrian bridge for the Vikings but won’t spend anything to fix access to the “arm-pit station of the LRT system.”’

        Amen to that!! The “last 100 yards” make this literally one of the most unfriendly LRT stations in the country.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Sunday Summary – February 14, 2016 | streets.mn - February 14, 2016

    […] on February 9, 2016, new streets.mn writer Sheldon Mains reviews the issues and previews the Changes Finally Coming to the Franklin/Cedar/Minnehaha Intersection in Minneapolis as well as offering some perspective on roads not taken (roundabout, restoring the grid, […]

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (23.253.79.32) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (23.253.121.1) and so is spam.