Skip to main content

Stop the Lynnhurst Plan! No New Traffic at 51st & James Ave.

311 Comments

K
Kristine Jagers
6 years ago

I’m a proud, lifelong Minneapolis resident who has lived near the creek my entire life. Our beautiful park system is a major reason for this. I enjoy the park in all its forms, and appreciate that it's an asset that most cities don't have. In general, I think MPRB is doing a great job, but to deny the full use of Minnehaha Parkway would be a travesty to our community and I feel deeply that this historical and signature feature needs to be preserved for everyone, including drivers. Removing this road does nothing to help our community, but instead harms it. Closing the parkway at Lynnhurst will have many negative consequences: 1) Diverting 85% of parkway traffic along James-- inbetween an elementary school and popular church-- 1900 additional cars per week on James Ave. (220 at rush hour), is a recipe for disaster. 2) Poses a new problem to the proposed, uncontrolled bike/ped crossing at James Ave. & 51st St. 3) It's unreasonably to have to zig-zag through a neighborhood just to get to the parks or lakes. 4) New problem posed for the proposed pedestrian and bike paths along the south side of the creek at James Ave. The pitch of the bridge makes it impossible for southbound traffic to see pedestrian and bike traffic that allows time to stop. Increasing traffic onto southbound James Ave and this mid-block bike and pedestrian crossing is a recipe for tragedy. 5) The traffic expert stated that when traffic gets too “maddening” drivers will find alternate routes. There are NO good alternate routes, as adjacent Knox is not a through street. This is really the only route to the school, park and lake. 6) It doesn't honor our historic Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway as a tourist attraction, or as a signature feature of Minneapolis. 7) Raising 50th Street will create a long unsightly view of traffic to residents in the immediate neighborhood and to park patrons, alike. It will also increase the noise tremendously, destroying the charm of the neighborhood and

A
Andrea Wood
6 years ago

51st and James supporting more traffic is an unsafe proposal and not a solution that I support. I live in this neighborhood and do not support the plan.

L
Linda Collins
6 years ago

PLEASE do not make these changes. We don't want them.

M
Mary Harlow
6 years ago

This plan to limit cars on Minnehaha Parkway discriminates against the elderly and handicapped who cannot bike or walk the beautiful parkway, which, by the way, belongs to us all. It is also very difficult for those who live on the Parkway. This appears to be a vote to please the tiny minority of bikers rather than the vast majority of taxpayers who support the parks. This is taxation and planning without representation and a violation of Wirth's intention that our parks be available to and enjoyed by all.

M
Mark McCleary
6 years ago

I attend Mt Olivet and am in this area several times a week. I am opposed to the Park Board making any changes. This is an UNWANTED solution to a problem that DOES NOT exist.

R
Rachel Grubbs
6 years ago

Mr. Bourn, I am completely, strongly, 100% for protecting our water in Minneapolis. I am equally against the closing of the parkway and rerouting traffic to 51st. Full disclosure: I live at 5140 Irving Avenue South, and I, along with our neighbors, will be negatively affected by the rerouting. I used to teach and did bus duty—bus duty and getting kids on and off busses is probably a teacher’s least liked assignment because of the immense responsibility we feel at safely getting kids on and off busses. My point-student safety, pedestrian safety, should be the #1 consideration in this rerouting. There are many factors that make 51st and James a dangerous, tricky, horrible option for rerouting parkway traffic; 1) 51st is not wide enough to accommodate two way traffic-especially when property owners, who pay high taxes, park in front of their homes. Will that stretch need to be widened? Will you grab park space or private owner space, both—and who will pay for it? Plz get honest about future assessments for those affected neighbors. 2) 51st and James has a blind spot coming over bridge. 3) As traffic literally stalls along 51st causing backups in both directions, Irving will become a parking lot as people wait for chance to turn onto 51st. Side note, our neighbors petitioned the city for speed bumps along Irving as it garners fast traffic. In the city’s refusal, we heard reason 1) police officers need to use Irving as a fast, relatively stop free street, for emergency travel. Is that no longer the case? I assure you, there will be nothing fast or easy about the intersections at 51 and James or Irving. 4) On a personal note, this whole thing reminds me of China. Build infrastructure, tear it down. Build infrastructure, remodel infrastructure. Either the original city planners were shortsighted, or our new planners are incredibly far sighted. I’m thinking when the current planners were interviewed for the job, they were asked about aging infrast

D
Dan Woychick
6 years ago

This is a solution looking for a problem – and social engineering at its worst.

A
Angel Paulson
6 years ago

Please leave the parkway alone!

R
Ryan Alexander
6 years ago

Resident of Lynnhurst since 2012. Opposed to closing the Parkway at 50th!

K
kevin j kavaney
6 years ago

please leave the park way alone..

P
Patrick Prochaska
6 years ago

Please do not change traffic flow, On Minnehaha Parkway. It is an important roadway through south Minneapolis

C
Charles j Schlies
6 years ago

We the people pay the taxes. let us decide.

K
Kathy peterson
6 years ago

I support this petition. Rerouting the Parkway and utilizing streets as James 51st will only cause new problems. I can’t see one positive reason on this idea. Can’t see how anyone benefits from this but can see how many will suffer from this re-route idea. Please don’t let it happen. Thank you

K
Karen MacMurdo
6 years ago

This whole parkway proposal is ridiculous. So far I've heard multiple reasons for the changes. Originally, they claimed they needed to adapt the parkway for more extreme weather events and flooding. None of the proposal actually deals with that. Then it was safety which spurred the "2 day traffic study". There is no mention of the decreased bike and pedestrian use in the winter (which lasts 5-6 months). People who live on the parkway pay higher property taxes. They should at least feel they were heard and at least considered their input.

B
Beth Gyllstrom
6 years ago

Don't forget the Mt. Olivet preschool! Many parents use James to drop off and pick up their little ones. The Parkway isn't broken with the current balance of traffic, bikes and pedestrians...Park Board, please put your energy and resources into the many park features in dire need of maintenance and repair.

M
Mary Dolan
6 years ago

This is so sad. This is our family’s favorite area in Minneapolis. So many memories of walking along the creek here almost daily and the many bike rides through the woods and often to Minnehaha Falls. Out of state guests would be amazed at the fun and adventure that could be found in Minneapolis, MN. I really hope this area does not change at all, it is PERFECT the way it is! Very good points about the yard sizes and the pedestrians who will be at risk.

A
Alice OHara
6 years ago

Please do not close the parkway! I use this route every day.

A
Anna Erbes
6 years ago

Collaborative planning with Park Board Members AND Community Members is critical to addressing the current and future needs of Minneapolis!

A
Anonymous
6 years ago

Leave the parkway the way it is!

A
Anonymous
6 years ago

Leave the parkway as is, listen to the taxpayers for once!!!!!