urbanMSP

Are they assuming the railroad will abandon the tracks and it'll be a rail-trail, or would the trail be parallel to the tracks?

I prefer the city, county, and Three Rivers focus on segments where they could make improvements right now if they had funding instead of assuming/hoping the railroad will go away so they can have a rail-trail. If I can't be on the sidewalk and motorists don't want me hogging a lane with my tiny bike then bike lanes are needed (among other improvements).

My understanding is that the trail will be near the line, but not a rails-to-trails conversion.

Segment A between the river and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail is almost entirely existing infrastructure, and this study seems to claim the "trail" along East Bush Lake Road where I got clipped is adequate, so I'm having a hard time taking this proposal seriously.

Also I'm wondering where they would put the trail going north if this isn't a rail-trail conversion. The maps show the route right on the rail line, but an exact alignment hasn't been chosen yet. I'm sure Three Rivers prefers CP abandon it and they ignore the importance of this rail line as a north-south freight and passenger corridor.

Vehicles have been particularly bad lately at blocking the box downtown going E/W with Hennepin reconstruction occurring. Cars don't seem to care if they endanger 10 pedestrians or make 30 people on a bus wait for them. The city doesn't seem to care about the problem either, saying the traffic lights are functioning as designed. Looks to me the city isn't taking Vision Zero seriously and that they are prioritizing cars over other modes of transport. "Vehicles should not block the intersections" but the lights are just fine...

Anyone have thoughts on a solution or how to get the city to act? Can Metro Transit Police ticket vehicles blocking their buses if MPD traffic enforcement won't do anything about it?

I happen to be walking along Washington Avenue between Hennepin Avenue and fifth Avenue. It looks absolutely beautiful. They did a really good job on the redesign. It definitely makes the pedestrian feel more safe while walking along a busy street. I like that the bike way pavement is color different than the pedestrian walking area. It gives people and bicycles a sense of which space belongs to them. I think it works a lot better than just putting a line on the pavement.

Are there any plans to reconstruct Washington Avenue from fifth avenue to the I-35 bridge? There’s a lot of great new developments happening with in the area. That stretch of road could really use some pedestrian improvements.

Is that stretch of Washington Avenue owned by a different entity, as opposed to being owned by the city? It surprises me that they didn’t reconstruct the entirety of Washington Avenue all at once. Why only reconstruct Washington Avenue from Hennepin to fifth Avenue, without having plans to reconstruct the remainder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a follow-up question related to the different color of pavement between pedestrian walking area and biking area, does anyone know if that is the plan along Hennepin Avenue from Washington Avenue to 12 street?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I recall, Our Streets was pushing for the county (I think it's all county road) to continue with the redesign to continue to 35 but the county rejected that and opted for the painted bike lane (currently disconnected by construction in several places). Don't remember specifically why, but maybe there's more space for cars this way? The new section is great but I wish they hadn't bothered with the bike signals, which make no sense anyway.

I think the plan is different color pavement for bikes and peds on Hennepin. Seems to be standard these days (see, the redone path on Hennepin/Lyndale through the bottleneck, 66th St. in Richfield).

Washington Ave is a county road all the way to 35W. The long-term plan is for the bikeways to continue all the way to the freeway, but there was only funding to reconstruct Hennepin to 5th, and reconstruction of the remainder hasn't been scheduled yet.

FWIW, after about a year of daily use, I figured out how the bike signals actually work, and I quite like them:
Red and solid bike yellow: exactly like normal traffic signals.
Blinking bike yellow: means the same thing as a normal green - traffic going straight has the right of way, but be aware that clueless drivers may try to turn through you. This is the biggest problem, since there's no indication anywhere that this unique signal has the opposite meaning of a blinking yellow arrow.
Bike green: bikes have the right of way, all car traffic in all directions is stopped, including No Turn On Red. This allows bikes to make left turns from the bikeway (yielding to other bikes and peds, of course). It's great, except for the whole "no one knows what it means" thing. And cars running reds, of course, but apparently that's something the city and county have decided they're fine with.

Do the most recent state drivers test manuals cover these type of bike signals? Our bikes signal standardized throughout the country, or do the different cities have different types of signals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If I recall, Our Streets was pushing for the county (I think it's all county road) to continue with the redesign to continue to 35 but the county rejected that and opted for the painted bike lane (currently disconnected by construction in several places). Don't remember specifically why, but maybe there's more space for cars this way? The new section is great but I wish they hadn't bothered with the bike signals, which make no sense anyway.

IIRC, protected lanes would have meant slightly below-standard travel lane widths on one or more blocks. That was enough to scuttle them.

Blinking bike yellow: means the same thing as a normal green - traffic going straight has the right of way, but be aware that clueless drivers may try to turn through you. This is the biggest problem, since there's no indication anywhere that this unique signal has the opposite meaning of a blinking yellow arrow.

Right, blinking yellow in all other contexts indicates that the person performing that motion does not have the right of way. Why are we supposed to assume people know it means something here? I mean, I take your word for it, but I don't think the signal itself communicates that meaning.

Also, why is the bike signal red for a second (fraction?) after the walk signal and car lights turn green. Do they really mean that bikes are supposed to wait for a tiny bit after the rest of street users can go? Why?

Bike green: bikes have the right of way, all car traffic in all directions is stopped, including No Turn On Red. This allows bikes to make left turns from the bikeway (yielding to other bikes and peds, of course). It's great, except for the whole "no one knows what it means" thing.

The intent is good. The execution means I'd rather they just not.

Right, blinking yellow in all other contexts indicates that the person performing that motion does not have the right of way. Why are we supposed to assume people know it means something here? I mean, I take your word for it, but I don't think the signal itself communicates that meaning.

Blinking yellow lights generally mean "proceed with caution" with cross traffic stopped (but not a protected turn). In some parts of the country it's quite common to have flashing a yellow ball in one direction and flashing red in another. The MUTCD language for "flashing circular yellow" is virtually identical to "circular green", except for the addition of "cautiously enter the intersection" (even non-flashing "green arrow" has the "cautiously enter" language).

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4d.htm

http://m.startribune.com/student-hit-by ... 568242042/

Boy hit by pickup truck crossing Robert Street despite school bus having lights flashing and stop arm extended.

Based on looking at the location on Street View it looks pretty dangerous for anyone to cross, especially a kid.

The pickup had the deadly front designed to push pedestrians under that is so popular with upsized pickups today.

Five lanes for 14,000 cars per day is completely unnecessary.

Man, that's a terrible place to be crossing the street. There's no way the driver wasn't speeding over that bridge too.

Appalling road design, obviously. But in this case I can't get over the driver behavior. If you don't have the patience to wait while kids get on a school bus, you should have your license automatically suspended for a long, long time. A decade at minimum.

MnDOT/the city are looking at possible changes to this stretch when MnDOT does a pavement preservation project on Robert in a few years. I imagine this will add some urgency there.

Bike lane reconstruction approved.


http://www.startribune.com/plan-for-con ... 568445032/

This seems a small miracle. I had a different design I wanted. But. Good on the city.