urbanMSP

Removing it would normalize the flow through the actual grid, however. Close AMR plus add one or two more new bridges over the shortline railway to access 94 (e.g., Pascal if possible) and you'd have a better, more stable grid system.

Saint Paul City Council voted 4-3 today to go ahead with the modified 4-3 roadway conversion with the addition of a bike/ped path where the easternmost lane currently lies. Not a perfect solution, but this should help move the corridor in the direction of a more pleasant and sustainable piece of CITY infrastructure. Very curious to see the bike/ped connection details in greater detail.

So are they keeping the current roadways and just modifying them to add a bike lane? Or are they tearing everything up and building a new road and a new bike lane in the space?

Southbound 2 lane stay, being resurfaced, and northbound rebuilt & reduced to 1 lane, with a new trail built adjacent to that, with a new boulevard between that and the northbound lane.

4/6/20 presentation

The original Mayor's proposal would have required a full reconstruction of at least the intersections to permit a 1x1 with turn lane layout. In order to save costs (some of which weren't factored into the original 3.5MM earmarked for the project), it was decided to leave the current median as-is, and only reconstruct a curb on east side along with drainage improvements and actual, permanent traffic signals. A lot of hand-wringing about the cost of the bike facility, when in fact a lot of the increased cost had more to do with the drainage and signals that weren't part of the M&A 3.5MM budget.

The bike/pedestrian trail is only 12’ wide? That does not seem wide enough for both bikes and pedestrians. Why can’t they squeeze some space out of the 15’ northbound lane and the 6’-8” boulevard to get the trail closer to 14’ or 15’?

The bike/pedestrian trail is only 12’ wide? That does not seem wide enough for both bikes and pedestrians. Why can’t they squeeze some space out of the 15’ northbound lane and the 6’-8” boulevard to get the trail closer to 14’ or 15’?

Because St. Paul

The bike/pedestrian trail is only 12’ wide? That does not seem wide enough for both bikes and pedestrians. Why can’t they squeeze some space out of the 15’ northbound lane and the 6’-8” boulevard to get the trail closer to 14’ or 15’?

The feedback they received was that people wanted separation between road/trail more than they wanted extra trail space. The Bruce Vento Trail along Phalen Blvd is also 12'.

I can't say I blame them - a freshly paved single 15' lane with limited intersections? the average SB vehicle speed is gonna be like 65mph.

I'd imagine they're putting a non-mountable curb on the trail side of the roadway so they're allowing some space for motorists to bypass a disabled vehicle rather than have traffic back up to Mendota Heights every time it happens.

It's a pity that the summit ave bridge is being replaced now and not after the bicycle path was put in.... perhaps they would have been able to engineer in a vertical connection to summit ave from ayd mill.

There are abandoned ramps at Grand that could be utilized for bikes.

There will be trail spurs at each ramp (Jefferson, St. Clair, Grand, Hamline, Selby) connecting the trail up to the surface. But there is a need for more work to make those streets comfortable when you're up there.

There will be trail spurs at each ramp (Jefferson, St. Clair, Grand, Hamline, Selby) connecting the trail up to the surface. But there is a need for more work to make those streets comfortable when you're up there.

Yeah, as much as I think better (and more frequent) connections on/off the new trail would be great, I think the limiting factor in its success right now is gonna be the lack of a network feeding into it.

It would be great if the north end of the trail could just flow seamlessly into a two-way protected cycle track along Selby towards St. Thomas. Could consider a similar treatment along Jefferson from Ayd Mill to West 7th.

I think there are real opportunities for bike improvements on Jefferson, St. Clair, Grand (to connect to Summit), and Hamline. This part of Hamline in particular is part of the city/county 4-3 study. Selby is probably the least likely/most difficult to make improvements on.

I think there are real opportunities for bike improvements on Jefferson, St. Clair, Grand (to connect to Summit), and Hamline. This part of Hamline in particular is part of the city/county 4-3 study. Selby is probably the least likely/most difficult to make improvements on.

Any of those would be pretty meaningful, yeah. Hamline is one I hadn't thought of (probably because its connection to Ayd Mill is weird) but the access to Midway would be a big deal.

What makes you say Selby in particular is a challenge? Width constraints around the base of the bridge? Other than that it seems like the combination of destinations and potential for smooth trail access makes it a good target for investment.

Not to say that it wouldn't be useful, but doing something on Selby has much more significant impacts than on the others:

- Selby is 46' (ish) curb to curb, so on 3-lane sections a cycletrack means removing both sides of parking in a busy commercial district
- The trail comes out on the north side of Selby, so continuing it straight on the north side would mean a lot of conflicts with people turning right from Selby onto Snelling
- Selby only exists as a wide-ish commercial street until Fairview. West of Fairview (where it jogs) it's a narrow residential street

You and I might think those challenges are worth working through, but given the difficulty of getting this trail through in the first place I don't see it happening in the near future.

There is a reserved space for a future bike connection to Ayd Mill from Dayton Ave. The space was set aside during the Whole Foods project replatting.

Once you get past Snelling, Selby west of AMR is actually quite bikeable, the potholed pavement notwithstanding. As usual, the Snelby mess will remain the limiting factor.

Not to say that it wouldn't be useful, but doing something on Selby has much more significant impacts than on the others:

- Selby is 46' (ish) curb to curb, so on 3-lane sections a cycletrack means removing both sides of parking in a busy commercial district
- The trail comes out on the north side of Selby, so continuing it straight on the north side would mean a lot of conflicts with people turning right from Selby onto Snelling
- Selby only exists as a wide-ish commercial street until Fairview. West of Fairview (where it jogs) it's a narrow residential street

From an urban design perspective I think the value of a cycletrack that would give access to that busy commercial district and act as a trail extension (even just to Fairview) is just so much higher than the value of any of the other possible uses of the street width. The short bidirectional turn lane segment, in particular, seems mostly just to be an accommodation to ensure left turns into the Whole Foods parking lot don't slow the flow of traffic between Snelling and Ayd Mill, which given the city's goals of reducing through-traffic on Ayd Mill seems like it should no longer be a priority.

A 12' cycle track, a 3' curb buffer, an 11' travel lane, and an 18' travel/parking lane seems more than adequate and consistent with city width guidelines (and even leaves a couple feet of fudge width for chokepoints, curb widenings, etc.). It would remove parking from one side, but abundant free parking is available on cross and parallel streets.

You and I might think those challenges are worth working through, but given the difficulty of getting this trail through in the first place I don't see it happening in the near future.

And there's the rub. I agree that from a political perspective the best urban design is sometimes kind of irrelevant. There are loud people who will fight to the death to protect their god-given right to not walk around the corner after parking. That might mean having a trail connection onto Dayton and some sharrows on Dayton are the foreseeable future.

That would be a shame, though. It seems like if there were ever going to be a moment to move St. Paul towards building real, protected, all-ages-and-abilities bike facilities, and not just the sharrows and painted lanes that are ubiquitous between 94 and the River, this would be it. The trail will attract lots of riders who otherwise might not ride on city streets--or at least, it could, if they can get to it. It should be the start and spine of a network and not a one-off.