Washington Avenue (reconstruction, restriping, etc.)

[fehler]

Ok, redesign with 2 lanes each way for traffic, with two center lanes for bus/bike traffic in the counter direction, and center-median bus stops/shelters. Fuck left turns, if you want to turn left take 4th street.

[MNdible]

Yes, because Marquette & 2nd buses deadhead on Washington going to the Gateway ramp. Check pages 10 & 44 of the Traffic Operations Analysis for specifics. In addition all Nicollet Mall buses that continue over the 3rd Ave bridge use Washington for a block, and could use the bus lanes for the entire distance to 3rd instead of the weird confusing jaunt to 1st St.

OK, this makes sense, but would only be the case for a few blocks, not the entire length. Right?

[woofner]

Yes, but it would be applicable for the majority of the segment they are reconstructing. I'm not sure about east of the Gateway Ramp, but there are a number of express buses to/from the northern suburbs on 35W that use Washington to get to Marquette & 2nd and at rush hours they likely approach the number of buses on Nicollet when combined with the 7 & the 22. So future phases of reconstruction would likely benefit from the provision of bus lanes. If they used the standard Shared Bus Bike Lane configuration (i.e. a 14-16' wide lane with solid white stripes with the exception of the 150' or so before a possible right turn with a diamond symbol conveying use restriction) this would meet transit and bicycle needs while not impacting SOV operations according to the Traffic Operations Analysis document (it would be similar, perhaps a bit "better", than the 4 lane w/ left & right turn scenarios).

[RailBaronYarr]

Why not use slip lanes as ways for traffic from minor cross streets to get in their desired travel direction? Major cross streets can employ roundabouts to keep things moving? Or employ something completely different like a Blackson Twist ( http://media.tumblr.com/eea116ab3017c79 ... qz4rgp.png ) if the cross-street is big enough?

It would also be possible to make the slip lane from my proposal the dedicated bus lane (future streetcar? - much lower probability of interaction with vehicles to slow it down..).

Just some ideas..

[mister.shoes]

RBY: I really dig your idea on the previous page. That would make for a *beautiful* street.

Incidentally, I drove down Washington from 35W to the NL on Friday evening. The potential is there for a really, really nice and lively corridor. I fear Hennepin County is going to screw this rebuild up. And in that vein, I have a question for anyone who might know: is it at all possible for the City of Minneapolis to "take back" Washington Ave from the County? It's clear that HC places a focus on auto traffic, while MPLS has much different goals for it's transportation network. I find it very frustrating that the city has to defer to the County when it comes to one of its most important streets.

Maybe this is a larger, more general issue to be discussed elsewhere. I understand why the County would need to be responsible for a network of highly traveled connector-type roads, but it seems to me that these roads should be *between* densely populated areas, not within them. This came up in one of the Richfield-related threads: the Country is keeping Nicollet(?) in a stroady condition that isn't necessarily justified given traffic counts and usage patters. Similarly, when Portland/Park were redone this fall, it was obviously the County that did so—and it seems a minor miracle that buffered bike lanes replaced one auto lane. Urbanism and "County Roads" doesn't really go together. So that said, count me in with the disappointed masses in the proposal for this street. What a let-down.

[mullen]

city doesn't want to be responsible for these major streets. look at lyndale. city can barely afford to re-pave/reconstruct. look at nicollet. that only took what, 50 years.

[mattaudio]

Please contact your county commissioner about this, everyone.

[gpete]

And when you contact your County Commissioner, maybe cite this report from the Met Council that says that vehicle miles have declined from 2000 and other modes of transportation are growing:

he automobile remains the dominant mode of transportation in the metro area, but its mode share is down slightly from 2000. The number of vehicle miles traveled in the region is less. The number of per-person trips has dropped. Meanwhile, there has been a significant increase in biking, walking and transit use.

http://www.metrocouncil.org/News-Events ... ation.aspx

[Mdcastle]

I'm not necessarily against an anti-car makeover for Washington, since I think it has a lot of potential as the leafy boulevard and I don't disagree with the plan to focus most of the in/out traffic on the one-way pairs, but if we're going to downscale it we should go all the way and remove access from I-35W, at least to and from the west.

[mattaudio]

A few of us had come up with a plan to do that earlier in the thread, basically a split diamond interchange with a few directional ramps for 3rd/4th St which would also help reconnect neighborhoods split by the 35W or Washington Ave trenches. One of the major criticisms was that access to Washington needed to be mainained. I don't really understand why. If there's a continuous street grid, what's the big deal if you're coming across the bridge, exit at 3rd St, and have to backtrack a block to get to a destination on Washington Ave?

[woofner]

I've long been opposed to the 4th St ramp project as inferior to a split diamond using the existing northerly exits on Washington, but now I'm starting to think it would be a good trade to move all of the general-purpose ramps to the trench, then create ramps to the proposed HOV/BRT center lanes at Washington. That would be way better than 2nd St.

I'm not necessarily against an anti-car makeover for Washington

I don't think anyone's talking about anti-car anything. Hennepin County's own report shows that a 4-lane configuration with right turn lanes works almost as well for cars as a 6-lane configuration - so we're talking about an anti-waste makeover.

[mattaudio]

Here's the best map that came out of the discussion earlier in this thread:
https://streets.mn/2013/01/22/addressin ... rhood-gap/

Adam included Washington inside the split diamond in the map above whereas I'd prefer to see it connect 3rd and 4th only. Keep in mind this would put a street grid above the 35W trench, instead of shoving 3rd/4th even further below 35W to get to the Washington Ave bridge.

[RailBaronYarr]

I'm not necessarily against an anti-car makeover for Washington, since I think it has a lot of potential as the leafy boulevard and I don't disagree with the plan to focus most of the in/out traffic on the one-way pairs, but if we're going to downscale it we should go all the way and remove access from I-35W, at least to and from the west.

I'm confused how a multi-way boulevard that helsinki or I described could be construed as "anti-car." Cars receive 2 lanes in each direction plus a fully dedicated parking lane, and at intersections get a left-turn lane to boot (plus the slip lane that facilitates cars looking to park). This amounts to at minimum 52 ft of space in a proposed 110' ROW.

[Mdcastle]

Cars have now have three lanes in each direction. Under the proposal they'd have two and would operate only "almost as well". To me that's anti-car. Do I disagree with it, no. Nor do I think Harriet Pkwy should be 2 lanes with a 45mph speed limit and right turn lanes. But with transportation you (usually) can't enhance one mode without degrading the other, the only exceptions being things like building pedestrian overpasses.

[mattaudio]

The multiway boulevard proposal would still have three lanes in each direction, but just split up. Two lanes (with the right-hand lane serving transit as well) and then a slip lane with left-hand parking which is nearly the same thing as a cycletrack.

[gpete]

Mpls Bike Coalition posted this item which claims to reveal Hennepin County's proposed alternatives for Washington Ave:

http://mplsbike.org/blog/posts/choose-a ... ngton-ave/

Layout 1: Wide Pedestrian Zone; No Bicycle Facilities
We don’t understand why this option is even up for consideration. Washington is on the City’s Bicycle Master Plan map. Hennepin County has a Complete Streets policy. Bicycling was tied for the top ranked priority at the first open house and the third ranked (of eight options) in the online survey. None of the groups at stakeholder design workshops left out a bike facility. There is clearly space for a bicycle facility under any scenario. This shouldn’t be on the table and honestly reflects the work that still needs to happen to routinely incorporate bicycling into projects from the start.

Layout 2: Buffered Bicycle Lane Adjacent to Curb
While bike lanes are much better than nothing, most people will not ride in an on-street bike lane next to fast moving traffic with only a painted line to separate them. This has been shown in cities across the world and is readily apparent when you compare who rides on trails versus who rides in bike lanes in Minneapolis. Given the opportunity on Washington to build something to serve the next 50+ years, we do not feel an on-road bike lane is adequate.

Layout 3A: Cycle Track Adjacent to Road
This option has a 5-foot wide protected bikeway separated from the road by a curb and a 2-foot buffer zone. A 6-foot wide green and furniture zone separates the bikeway from the main walking area. This proposal does a nice job of separating people biking from people walking, but offers a less than ideal barrier between the bikeway and the street.

Layout 3B: Cycle Track Adjacent to the Pedestrian Zone
This option has a nice 7-foot wide green and furniture zone separating the bikeway from the street. The 5-foot wide protected bikeway is separated from the sidewalk by a 2-foot buffer. County staff says that material and color differences would help differentiate the bikeway from the sidewalk to reduce conflicts, but it is admittedly less than ideal with such a narrow buffer. The bikeway would be brought closer to the street near intersections to increase visibility.

[gpete]

And Hennepin County has now posted its proposed alternatives on the project website. Here's a PDF that shows the different concepts: http://www.hennepin.us/files/HennepinUS ... ay2013.pdf

[sanchopanza]

I love the separation of automobiles from peds and bikers.
How will the city deal with snow removal in winter from the bike lanes?

[gpete]

Yeah, I am really liking the 3B option, too. I could see snow removal being a criticism against it.

[woofner]

The pedestrian space in layouts 3A & 3B are severely substandard in the 110' configuration. If they do 3B there will be pedestrians in the cycle track all the time. There are entire blogs devoted to slamming this type of cycle track in Germany, where they're ubiquitous (and slowly being replaced with more functional facilities).