Northeast and Southeast Minneapolis - General Topics

[mattaudio]

I'm not interested in being an apologist for things that make our city and society poor, unhealthy, stressful, and awful. I'm surprised how many people are such apologists.

[RailBaronYarr]

Such as making lane space more efficient by handing it over to buses and bikes, rather than space-inefficient users of our scarce urban rights of way: car users.

So, what you're saying is that you aren't even interested in engaging in constructive dialogue. Okay, nice talking to you.

Actually, I'd say calling someone/their opinions absolutist is a little less engaging. I'd also say it's a bit odd considering you're advocating for maintaining the status quo where there are many lanes that induce driving, and buses/bikes get to share them and deal with slower travel times or unsafe environments as a result. Or say "bikes can take a hike and use side streets that make the trip longer, cars need to use this space to get to Fridley!" Yes, it's generic to just say buses and bikes are more space efficient (even though I agree). Saying cars stopping at signs/lights and therefore emit more pollution is also pretty generic (if not entirely misleading in a broader context). Saying the lanes are there for "commerce!" is also pretty generic and not a meaningful conversation.

Hypothetically, I'd rather have 1 lane of cars each way moving slowly or stopped + a lane for buses that come by every 5 minutes each direction (maybe some cycletracks, too) than 2 lanes of cars moving slightly faster (but still stopping and polluting), while also driving longer distances as a result (more total emissions). I'd also point out that single lanes of car traffic are easier to deal with at intersections, allowing options that smooth (but slow) flow and require less stopping. We've also talked about it before on this forum, but technologies do exist to shut engines off while idling.

And, finally, I'd like to point out that this stuff isn't "pie in the sky." It already works in places that are economic powerhouses: http://community-wealth.org/_pdfs/artic ... -et-al.pdf Fewer lane miles per capita in urban areas (national comparisons are tricky due to our land mass). Higher transit/bike/walk mode shares in all of Germany than Minneapolis proper has. Less pollution per vehicle. Lower total carbon emissions. Healthier people. Functioning economy. To act like we can't get there because it requires change ignores the baby steps people are proposing (bike lanes, better transit frequencies, traffic calming) - which pale in comparison to 1945-1975 transportation investments that enabled out current system.

[Wedgeguy]

It's not just air pollution. You waste a ton of gasoline waiting at stops, which increases our carbon footprint.

Look, we can talk pie-in-the-sky worlds where everyone bikes and walks and takes buses, but for the foreseeable future we're still going to have to accommodate a lot of cars. Rather than the absurd absolutism shown here, we should be focusing on smaller changes that can be made without massive disruption.

IT has become the realist and those that hope for a utopia. This conversation has run it's course. Someone please move this to transportation or anything goes. As I'd really like to know if there is anything that pertains to development going on out there in NE instead of this. I'm tired of this beating a dead horse with facts!

[mattaudio]

Your facts destroyed America.

[EOst]

I don't own a car. I don't even have a driver's license. I live in a dense area, I commute on public transit, I ride my bike everywhere. You're preaching to the choir.

But I'm also aware that I'm in a metropolitan area with an average population density of only 490/sq mile, stretched over 6.3k square miles of land. Is that unsustainable? Of course it is. But we can rage about how unsustainable as it is until we're old and gray; saying it over and over again isn't going to change the fact that those endless suburban tract houses have already been built, that people still live in them, and that people are going to continue to live in them for the foreseeable future. As long as that's the case, we're going to have to make compromises between what we want (our car-free paradise) and their needs. That's not apologizing for it, it's recognizing that the interests of the central city, while important (and paramount in the long run) aren't absolute.

That's why it makes far more sense to focus on incremental improvements than to try to create some revolutionary overhaul. Are there places where we can put in lights or crosswalks to make the space more pedestrian-friendly? You bet. Should we look into ways that we can slow traffic a bit (narrower lanes, perhaps)? Of course. Should we work on making the sidewalks wider, even if it means removing the center turn lane? Definitely. But should we turn it into Monroe? As much as I'd love that, I don't think we can.

[EOst]

Your facts destroyed America.

Stop being so melodramatic. It's unbecoming and childish.

[Wedgeguy]

I know that is what you feel, That is why I want this moved out of here. For you opinion is louder than real world fact. You have stated the same answer time after time with nothing new to add but to rehash your opinion. I brought up legitimate issues as to why it is not always possible to build your Utopia. I brought up, the State and county truck highway designation, increased pollution, Lack of real transportation in outlying area that keep people driving into the city. All I hear from you is the world is going to end if we don't have bike lanes on trunk highways. Bikes can use this road, but at their own bravery or stupidity, your choice on that one. Please use the time you spend here to harass the county and state transportation departments. THEY are the ones you will have to convince. Sorry but you falling on deaf ears here, as you are being blind to the facts I present. So please moderator move this out of this thread!

[Wedgeguy]

Has anyone come across numbers for how the detour on Central north of Broadway is impacting the corridor. Usually with a project like this they have some numbers/percentages of how much businesses have been impacted. With the green line construction there was average decrease in customer count and percentage decrease in sale. Just curious how things are north of the Broadway bridge on Central. I just to some extent even south of Broadway could be impacted if drivers just stay on Monroe to get back to Central.

[Viktor Vaughn]

That's why it makes far more sense to focus on incremental improvements than to try to create some revolutionary overhaul.

What do we want? Marginal change!

When do we want it? Sooner or later!

[EOst]

That's why it makes far more sense to focus on incremental improvements than to try to create some revolutionary overhaul.

What do we want? Marginal change!

When do we want it? Sooner or later!

Let's ruin people's lives for the sake of theoretical urbanism! Yeah!

[LakeCharles]

I would like to know whose life is being ruined when a bike lane is added to a road.

[mattaudio]

Life is clearly ruined when traffic lanes are n<infinite.

[Minneapolisite]

I love how some people are flipping the fuck out over losing one out of three lanes over the length of four measly blocks. I'm already catching up to motorists without a specifically bike-only lane, so this wouldn't change things as far as how slow they're going.

[mplsjaromir]

I love how some people are flipping the fuck out over losing one out of three lanes over the length of four measly blocks. I'm already catching up to motorists without a specifically bike-only lane, so this wouldn't change things as far as how slow they're going.

I cannot agree more. 1st Ave NE is ridiculously wide. I drove into downtown during the peak of rush hour this week two observations: A. way under capacity B. significant bike traffic.

This area's streets definitely need reorganizing to better suit the needs of the area.

[Viktor Vaughn]

I was trying to say that pushing for incremental improvements is a recipe to maintain the status quo. The change that retrofitted our cities for the automobile was revolutionary, and we're not going to undo that damage by fiddeling around the margins. It's not theoretical to say our recent experience with auto-oriented urbanism has ruined lives, and has all sorts of unintenteded consequences that make life worse. It's not theoretical to recognize the benefits of people-oriented cities and towns like the ones we've lived in since the dawn of civilization (except the last several decades).

For Old St Anthony this means two-way streets, narrower and fewer lanes, wider sidewalks, and bike amenities. People will squeal of course, they always do, but the neighborhood will transform to a place people want to live, stroll & shop, and eat at sidewalk cafes.

Given how far the pendulum has swung in an auto-oriented direction, this does require radical change to achive. But I also think we have some of our language backwards. As an example, "conventional agriculture" means the radically different way we typically grow food now without knowledge or regard for the unintended consequences, and organic agricultural is branded as the "alternative" or "unconventional" even though they use age-old, time-tested methods.

An example from urbanism may be the woonerf. What a radical idea of shared space! Or it pretty much works the the same way as every street throughout the vast majority of the history of cities and in much of the world today. We ought to recognize that turning the streets completely over to vehicles is what's radical, and has come with an immense cost.

But Eost, I appreciate the conversation and particularly pushing against urbanist impulses; groupthink is a threat for a community like this.

[Minneapolisite]

...I appreciate the conversation and particularly pushing against urbanist impulses; groupthink is a threat for a community like this.

Everyone here should rightly be of the peds & cyclists/human lives>motorists' desire to drag race through heavily populated areas. Even if that were the case it by no means would lead to groupthink: just look at the SWLRT. We all have very different takes for implementation/types of infrastructure that places people before cars where we do agree peds and cyclists>motorists. The problem with those saying motorists>peds and cyclists is that they aren't offering any solutions, because people getting killed on such streets due to current designs that prioritize motorists is, apparently, not a problem.

[EOst]

Viktor, I'll definitely agree with you that major changes are needed in the long term, and there is a considerable danger to thinking too small about these kinds of changes. We should all have a vision of the city we want to see, even if that isn't realistic in the short term (or even the long term!)

My concern is less about the end goal than about the means. Contra some people here, I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good. Incremental changes, when implemented correctly, aren't about maintaining the status quo, they're about providing improvements that are feasible in the short term while slowly, but surely, shifting the conversation in favor of something better.

Think about the current light rail situation in downtown. I'm sure pretty much everyone here ultimately would like to see the shared tracks between DTE and TFS put underground, to beef up capacity and increase speed. Thus from a certain perspective, you could say that the decision to put them above-ground during the Hiawatha planning and construction was a mistake. At the same time, however, light rail might never have happened if people had been confronted at the beginning with the cost of tunneling. Beginning with the half-measure gives people time to accustom themselves to the idea of change, which greases the way for more changes later.

So yeah, we can go to meetings and say "Central Ave should be converted to two lanes with dedicated bike and bus lanes!" and someone will listen politely and never think of it again. Better to go and say "we should put in sharrows on Central." Then, when people are biking on it and there is some clear demand, you can go in and talk about something more, and so on. It takes more time (and ultimately more money) to do things incrementally, but we shouldn't expect that we can undo a century of automobile focus overnight.

[mattaudio]

That's not how negotiation works, though.

[EOst]

That's not how negotiation works, though.

We aren't negotiating, though.

[xandrex]

Better to go and say "we should put in sharrows on Central." Then, when people are biking on it and there is some clear demand, you can go in and talk about something more, and so on. It takes more time (and ultimately more money) to do things incrementally, but we shouldn't expect that we can undo a century of automobile focus overnight.

Totally understand what you're saying (I'm more of the incremental mindset), but just wanted to note that sharrows already exist on Central in the Old St. Anthony area.

First Avenue is indeed incredibly wide, though as someone who lives in the area, I've very much seen it handle a lot of traffic (the AM commute into downtown is very much like this). I don't really mind its one-way nature, but I think a big way to make it seem narrower and more safe would be to eliminate the parking lane on the northwest side and make wider sidewalks and a protected bike lane. There's a shifting of lanes as you approach the bridge that could be fixed as well: eliminate the lane that turns into a free right for Main Street/Marshall (it's not used all that often and usually results in people realizing they need to shift lanes at the last minute and causing some near-miss incidents) and build up better bike facilities crossing the bridge.

And, of course, there will be a streetcar that will likely be running on this soonish. I imagine that will calm things down.