Chains vs Local Business

[FISHMANPET]

You'll forgive me if I don't jump on a solution that requires us to bulldoze our entire built environment, right?

Nice strawman, since that's not at all what Matt was saying?

[MNdible]

The article he linked to very explicitly talks about tearing down vast swaths of the city and re-platting the basic city blocks. It's in there, I just double checked.

The article also includes photos of cute minor streets, some of which appear to be little more than glorified alleys, while acknowledging that there needs to be wider streets (somewhere else).

Look, we've got lots of narrow residential streets in Minneapolis, some so narrow that two cars literally cannot pass each other in the winter. But that's really not what we're talking about here. Is it possible that, incrementally, our commercial streets become so difficult for larger trucks to maneuver that they throw in the towel? Yes, possibly. But that's really not what the article he linked to was talking about.

[FISHMANPET]

I get it. You don't like Strongtowns. You're pragmatic to what I would say a fault, but that's open to interpretation. But like, could you engage with the ideas instead of just dismissing them because it ended up on a Strongtowns blog? You've completely missed the thesis of that post, instead preferring to dig at some little minutuie. The thesis is not "here's why we should tear down the world." It's "when the world gets torn down all on its own, here's how we can rebuild it better." Now, you may not agree that the world's going to get torn down all on its own. That's fine. But you can still engage with the thesis, which is about the benefits of narrow streets.

[FISHMANPET]

And really, it's not talking about tearing down "vast swaths" it's talking about tearing down the remnants of the failed suburban experiment (and if you don't agree with that language or framing that's fine). But tearing down things like big box stores isn't some pie in the sky idea. We're trying to do it at Kmart. My house is literally on the site of a whole block development where everything (mostly parking lots) is being torn down and rebuilt. So there are actual honest to God opportunities to incrementally replat our street grid RIGHT NOW in this very city.

But no, Strongtowns is in the URL so we must dismiss the idea out of hand and mock it.

[MNdible]

Honestly, setting aside the StrongTowns stuff, there wasn't really much to the article. Especially since the original discussion was about large trucks in Minneapolis proper, and the article recommends a mix of 75% narrow streets and 25% wider streets, which is basically what Minneapolis already has.

Until we full out banish large trucks from the city, our commercial roads will need to be designed to accommodate them, including lane widths and turning radii. If there are things that we can do to minimize these impacts, or things that will discourage but not eliminate the ability of these trucks to move through the city, that could be an interesting conversation.

[FISHMANPET]

Well there's a carrot or a stick approach. Is there a legal requirement that we design roads with turning radii and such to accommodate semi trailers? Back to that Dominos example, it's the one on campus and I think they just park the truck in front, which is probably harder now with the bus area there, and bike lanes there. So what if we just make it illegal to park your semi there? And start putting in bump outs at curbs and stuff to make things better for pedestrians (because if there's anywhere in this city where the pedestrian rules, it's the U campus). I'm sure businesses would throw a stink (and I wouldn't blame them) but is it technically possible?

So do we need to banish them, or do we need to just stop accommodating them and let everything else sort itself out?

I think about the Hiawtha-Lake interchange a lot (like, a looooot) these days, and how it's just truly abysmal. Part of it is these super curved turn lanes so that the street can accommodate trucks, and that makes the pedestrian experience pretty bad (and honestly, isn't great for cars either). So what if we just... don't accommodate those trucks anymore in this one spot? Make them go somewhere else (and I think in this specific case there are other places for them to go).

[mattaudio]

Until we full out banish large trucks from the city, our commercial roads will need to be designed to accommodate them, including lane widths and turning radii.

If there are things that we can do to minimize these impacts, or things that will discourage but not eliminate the ability of these trucks to move through the city, that could be an interesting conversation.

These two sentences are placed next to each other, and are incompatible. The point is exactly that if we don't design our streets to accommodate large trucks, we will in effect discourage them and encourage smaller vehicles. It's. Not. Complicated.

(just broke my rule, I know)

[MNdible]

They're not incompatible, they point to the very reason why solving this problem isn't easy.

It actually is complicated. To do. Really easy to talk about, though!

[FISHMANPET]

If we can't imagine a future in which we stop accommodating trucks on our streets, then gee it sure will be hard to stop accommodating trucks on our streets won't it?

I don't think there needs to be a policy on trucks one way or the other. An increase in walking and pedestrian safety is going to lead to changes to our streets that make it harder for trucks to enter them. I don't think it will happen next week. Maybe in the next 10 years we'll see a slow change.

[mattaudio]

Since fire trucks were brought up in another thread on this issue, I'll note that it's not a big deal (as cities around the world have shown). Even here in Minneapolis, firefighters actually prefer smaller, more nimble rigs that can be assembled at a call. When I was endorsed by the firefighter's union for city council, I actually pushed them on this issue quite a bit. And was pleasantly surprised by how much they agreed. In fact, they brought up that there was a former chief in the early 2000s who had what is apparently a suburban "shiny truck" mentality which they sort of derided (I'm guessing they had other reasons not to like this chief, too). But they talked about how this chief had ordered a bunch of oversized rigs that were hard to use in an urban environment as dense as ours. Later that decade, they went back to (relatively) smaller rigs.

[FISHMANPET]

Especially when the number of actual fires they're responding to falls and the number of medical calls grows.

Relating to bump outs specifically (because I think that's going to be the easiest most tangible way we see to discourage large trucks, especially when that's not even the intention) are there peer cities we can look at in regards to how snow removal would work with those. Or, hell, how are we doing it already in places where we do have bumpouts?

[MNdible]

Just to underline, I'm fully supportive of smaller trucks and fire trucks. No reason for them to be any bigger than they need to be. Maybe Matt's right, and on the fire department side, we're already taking care of the problem.

As a general comment, I'd say that the city needs to figure out a way to start budgeting a lot more money towards snow removal, especially with the fussier pedestrian and bicycle treatments that we're adding at a break-neck pace. A lot of the commercial areas with bumpouts are covered by special service districts which provide enhanced snow removal (and here I actually mean removal -- trucking it away to somewhere else).

[mattaudio]

I completely agree with you there... Many Minneapolis places, especially commercial corridors and neighborhood nodes, are valuable enough where we need to remove snow rather than displace it. Leaving snow there - especially if it requires space for "snow storage" - is harmful to the wealth generated by that place. Even if there's not dedicated snow storage space, the snow gets stored somewhere... in the way of a bus stop, or trimming the sidewalk, or even carving into the street to the point where a travel or parking lane are not usable. It's time to do more snow removal.

[David Greene]

While I agree this is no doubt an issue, you'd think that these big companies have plenty of smart people in supply management who have decided that this is the most efficient way of doing things, right?

But maybe that equation changes if we don't subsidize their distribution costs by letting delivery vehicles block intersections, bus stops, parking spaces, etc. UPS blocks one whole lane of Blaisdell coming out of downtown at rush hour, for God's sake. I can't even count how many times I've seen Pepsi trucks do the same on other already congested urban streets.

[MNdible]

That's an interesting point David.

Is what they're doing technically legal? I know I've had a cop harass me when I was double parked with my hazards on a quiet side street trying to load some furniture -- do commercial licenses give them the right to do this? Or is it just something that we let them do to accommodate business in the city?

Honestly, this issue doesn't go away just because they use smaller trucks. I know, for example, I've seen smallish box trucks unloading from the central turn lane on Nicollet.

[mister.shoes]

I read once-upon-a-time that UPS builds parking tickets into their delivery budget for urban areas. It's cheaper and faster to just pay the parking ticket for blocking lanes than it is to find a legal space. The same is probably true for the private supply chains of various businesses. Stick that 40' semi with a lane-blocking ticket, see if they care. It's cheaper than running two or more small box trucks.

[mister.shoes]

Oh, and of course, the chances of getting a ticket every time or even often enough for it to be a problem are so low that it's worth it to just keep parking illegally.

That said, the small box truck or UPS truck blocking lanes doesn't bother me in the least. Isn't that exactly the type of heterogeneous use of our city streets that we want? Keeping the lanes clear at all costs is part of the auto-centric thought process we all despise.

[David Greene]

That said, the small box truck or UPS truck blocking lanes doesn't bother me in the least. Isn't that exactly the type of heterogeneous use of our city streets that we want? Keeping the lanes clear at all costs is part of the auto-centric thought process we all despise.

I get that, but we're also a society where laws are supposed to be applied equally.

And rush hour? I mean, I don't care if a truck is blocking a non-busy street but no one else can park in those lanes during rush hour. Why should business get special treatment? We do have to keep traffic moving.

[MNdible]

Related pet-peeve -- food delivery vehicles, taxis, UPS trucks, and private cars fully blocking the bike lane and partially blocking the right auto lane on Blaisdell.

[FISHMANPET]

Oh, and of course, the chances of getting a ticket every time or even often enough for it to be a problem are so low that it's worth it to just keep parking illegally.

That said, the small box truck or UPS truck blocking lanes doesn't bother me in the least. Isn't that exactly the type of heterogeneous use of our city streets that we want? Keeping the lanes clear at all costs is part of the auto-centric thought process we all despise.

I think on a "narrow street" where usage is low and there isn't necessarily a dedicated space for each unique mode, this is fine. I can bike around a truck because I know there isn't going to be a car racing into me at 60 mph on the other side etc etc. But larger streets where we've carved out dedicated space for each mode (sidewalk for pedestrian, bike lane for bikers, traffic lanes for vehicles) it becomes a problem when a mode goes into a place it doesn't belong or otherwise blocks a mode.

So yeah we want that heterogeneous use, but only on the streets that's designed for it.