At Interbike in Las Vegas, Saint Paul, Minnesota, was named to the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community list for the first time. They check in with a Bronze designation, which is an excellent first-time recognition for the city.

As a sometime Saint Paul resident, I will testify [...]]]>

Enough about Minneapolis. Let’s talk about Saint Paul, baby.

At Interbike in Las Vegas, Saint Paul, Minnesota, was named to the League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly Community list for the first time. They check in with a Bronze designation, which is an excellent first-time recognition for the city.

As a sometime Saint Paul resident, I will testify to the city’s bikeability. While everyone knows Summit Avenue and the Gateway Trail, the city is also full of hidden gems, like the Battle Creek MTB trails, and the creek-level paved trail. The trails in Hidden Falls and Crosby Farm are often missed by cyclists who know the River Road routes. And let’s not forget the mighty climbs of the city — Ramsey Hill, Ohio, and Springside all come to mind, with the last being the steepest hill in Ramsey County. And can you bike past the House at Pooh Corner in Minneapolis? Nope. Saint Paul, bay-bee. Some of the best rest stops in the city can also be found in the capitol city.

The city’s been working on improving things for cyclists as well — everything from median tests to designating some new bikeways. The Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition has been growing more active as well.

And, in a rare statement, I’ve always been impressed with the knowledge city law enforcement has of bike laws and their enforcement.

I should also mention that La Crosse, Wisconsin, also received designation as a Silver-Level Community, and River Falls received an honorable mention. Hooray for them too. But Saint Paul is home, and I’m glad to see them finally request the recognition they deserve.

Our pals at Twin Cities Streets for People recently highlighted the not-a-crosswalk-crosswalks now in existence along the Cedar Lake Trail. I’ve ranted some about this in the past.

Minnesota state law is pretty clear about how crosswalks work. The key pieces of law that define crosswalks, as well as regulate behavior of road users and [...]]]>

via http://www.tcstreetsforpeople.org

Our pals at Twin Cities Streets for People recently highlighted the not-a-crosswalk-crosswalks now in existence along the Cedar Lake Trail. I’ve ranted some about this in the past.

Minnesota state law is pretty clear about how crosswalks work. The key pieces of law that define crosswalks, as well as regulate behavior of road users and pedestrians as regard crosswalks, are found in Minnesota Statute 169.21. The highlights of that statute include:

• If there’s a traffic signal, obey it.
• If there is no signal and a marked crosswalk at an intersection (or anywhere else), drivers must stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway.
• If there is no marked crosswalk at an intersection without a traffic signal, drivers still must stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway.
• Pedestrians who cross between intersections must yield to vehicular traffic (and are taking their own lives in their hands).

Basically, the statute says that if there is an intersection, whether there’s paint or not, there is a crosswalk.

In the case of the Cedar Lake Trail, which now has signs declaring the at-grade street crossings NOT CROSSWALKS, past arguments for the not-a-crosswalk theory is that these aren’t intersections. If it’s not an intersection, what is it? At several crossings, an issue would be this latter section of 169.21:

Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

At several points, this would create an expectation that someone would right- or left-turn off the trail, go to the adjacent controlled intersection, cross, then return back to the trail. What?

Another argument is that cars needn’t stop for cyclists in crosswalks. I don’t know where that argument comes from. It certainly doesn’t come from Minnesota Statute 169.222, which says:

A person lawfully operating a bicycle on a sidewalk, or across a roadway or shoulder on a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Basically, what this says is that 169.21 applies to bicycles legally using crosswalks.

Meanwhile, as the final extension of the CLT was opened, it was proclaimed to be a “bicycle freeway.” Gosh, under law, that sure sounds like an intersection, then.

Beyond all this, the rule for vehicles is that they’re supposed to yield at this kind of crossing. Are there special signs on the roadway telling them to floor it on through? This doesn’t just represent an exception for the pedestrians and cyclists using the trail, it demands that motorists behave differently than the law would require in every other crossing situation. It adds a level of decision-making complexity for the operators of motor vehicles!

No one’s taken on the signs as yet. I don’t know of any opinion from MNDOT or an appropriate authority that says that a municipality can just declare a trail crossing not an intersection/crosswalk. At the same time, without some thwack from the long arm of the law, the signs are sure to stay up. While many of these at-grade crossings are poorly constructed, have questionable visibility, and rate as downright dangerous… declaring them ‘not crosswalks’ doesn’t seem to address any of the real issues.

Specifically, the section behind TCF Stadium is being rerouted to accommodate LRT construction and the utility work associated with the U’s new cancer and [...]]]>

More construction news out of Minneapolis: Part of the Intercampus Transitway between the University of Minnesota Minneapolis campus and the Saint Paul campus is going to be rerouted for much of the summer.

Specifically, the section behind TCF Stadium is being rerouted to accommodate LRT construction and the utility work associated with the U’s new cancer and cardiovascular research building. The official detour puts cyclists on University Avenue, which is something of a mess thanks to the LRT construction, and not an appealing prospect for the average cyclist.

Depending on your final destination, you may want to give this area a wide detour during the construction season.

Regular riders of the Greenway have seen the states of disrepair of many of the Greenway underpasses. A mobile operation will blast loose concrete off underpasses between Hennepin Avenue and Cedar, [...]]]>

The City of Minneapolis has started various bridge projects that will impact the Midtown Greenway for the immediate future and last through approximately mid-summer, weather permitting.

Regular riders of the Greenway have seen the states of disrepair of many of the Greenway underpasses. A mobile operation will blast loose concrete off underpasses between Hennepin Avenue and Cedar, enhancing safety and cleanliness — in some locations, concrete has been crumbling onto the trail. The bridge work will impact approximately 25-30 bridges. City workers will be working on these bridges during the week, usually during core hours of 7:30-3:30. Closures will be clearly marked and offer reasonable detours for trail users.

Additional bridge rehab work is planned near the Lakes — specifically, on the bridges over the Lake Calhoun-Lake of the Isles Channel, Lake Calhoun Parkway, and Dean Parkway. Work on these bridges will help widen the Greenway and extend the life of these bridges. Trail closures are not expected during this work.

In both cases, cyclists are asked to respect workers and posted closures and detours. In situations where the trail is narrowed but remains open, cyclists are asked to show respect to other trail users in lane placement and travel speed.

More information is available from the Midtown Greenway Coalition.

The proposed trail would link Edina to the main regional network of [...]]]>

The proposed Nine Mile Creek Trail extension through Edina has stirred up a lot of controversy, including NIMBYism disguised as faux environmental concern. This is normal in Edina, which has an excellent Bicycle Task Force working hard despite many residents who just don’t get it.

The proposed trail would link Edina to the main regional network of trails, including several commuter trails and a variety of recreational trails. Three Rivers Park District has come out in favor of the proposed extension, opting for the trail route along the creek rather than rerouting to nearby surface streets. This essentially provides the go-ahead for the extension, save one kinda mission-critical issue: Funding.

The seven-mile trail is expected to cost $20 million. Three Rivers hopes to receive $11 million in federal grants to fund construction, from federal awards expected to be announced in spring 2012. Additional funding will be sought from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and the Hennepin County Bicycle Capital Improvement Program. Once funding is secured, construction would begin in 2015.

Worth noting in this project is the overall cost — about $2.85 million per mile of trail. To be fair, this includes $5 million for trail bridges over the Crosstown (MN 62) and MN 100, and may include funding for stabilization of the creek banks in order to avoid yearly path washouts (although that’s quite unclear in the documents and coverage I’ve read). Even dropping the cost of the two bridges and leaving their mileage in the total, you’re still looking at more than $2 million/mile of trail — and it’s perhaps unfair to drop the bridge costs for the trail, as without passage over these two highways, the system will fail to achieve stated linkage goals.

Still, given that former Congressman James Oberstar cites averages of $128,000/mile to build 12-foot bicycle paths, it’s clear that his number must be some sort of average. Either some accounting must take place to remove items like the environmental work on the creek banks, or some paths must cost next to nothing to balance out this kind of average.

And, of course, it’s worth noting for the noble Edina residents who have opposed this project: That $11 million from the feds is by no means a sure thing with the current Congress and the next election not coming until fall 2012. They may have many years without having to worry about a trail being built on public right-of-way near their homes.

The bikes-are-toys [...]]]>

One comment common to many alternative transport advocates — including individuals like former Congressman James Oberstar — is that we need to push the idea that bicycles are transportation. One of the big challenges is to overcome perceptions that bicycles are toys or recreational. They can be, certainly — but so can cars and motorcycles.

The bikes-are-toys thought pattern is at the heart of statements like that of Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who believes that bicycling shouldn’t be a part of the House Transportation Committee’s work. In his own words, Hunter says, “I don’t see riding a bike the same as driving a car or flying an airplane…. I think it’s more of a recreational thing.” A panelist at a recent House Transport Committee public meeting in Indianapolis compared cyclists to hunters and fishermen.

There is a certain extent to which bike trails feed these notions of bicycles as recreational — and, in the case of many trails, there is a good and fair argument that they should not be funded from transportation programs, but rather from park and conservation funding.

The reasons are straightforward: Most bicycle trails are built with recreational intent. They aren’t designed for access to practical destinations, as would be necessary to classify them as “transportation” facilities. While there are certainly outliers that are contrary to this generality — like the Midtown Greenway and Cedar Lake Trails, which operate as bicycle expressways on a traditional hub-and-spoke model to downtown Minneapolis — the fact is that most trails operate in ways that make them more analogous to parks. Systems like the Gateway State Trail and the Hardwood Creek/Sunrise Prairie Trail can have incidental use for commuters, but it’s really not a primary use or intent.

That isn’t to say that there’s not reason to invest in bicycle trails. Far from it. Bicycles can be recreational. Many trail corridors promote tourism — the wild financial success of the Root River Trail network near Lanesboro, Minnesota, is proof of that. Urban trail systems provide recreational options close to cities and often help preserve green corridors near the urban cores. Users of trails both close to home and further afield provide economic benefits in areas the trails pass through — just go stand in line at the North Saint Paul DQ on a nice July day as proof!

Trail riding and recreational bicycle use can serve as lead-ins to more transport-oriented use of bicycles as well.

However, use of funds allocated to transport use for trails really needs to come down to context. A recreational trail system, defined by park-like structure and limited routing to functional destinations, is not a good use of transportation funds at a time when funding is an issue and likely to remain such as vehicles get better gas mileage, and legislative appetite to raise gas taxes remains low. Trails built on a transportation model, such as the Midtown Greenway, merit consideration for use of transportation enhancement funding. Via appropriate use of all funding models, both recreational and transportational bicycle development can be supported.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio [...]]]>

On this International Women’s Day, I thought I’d address one of the skeletons in the room when we discuss bicycle-friendly infrastructure and the interested-but-hesitant cyclist: A pretty good portion of that 60% is female.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio is far closer to one-to-one.

One reason for a lower incidence of women on bikes: Women generally have a greater share of responsibility for care of children. Women do more of the household shopping. The study in Scientific American suggests that bicycle routes need to be structured around “practical” destinations to support this gender role behavior. It’s hard to see a lot of average suburban moms hitting Costco on a bike. As I’ve said before: I get it. You won’t be bringing home diapers for two kids, a turkey, and several gallons of milk on a bike while also caring for a child regardless of infrastructure. (SA suggests this can be addressed via education. What?)

Another reason for women to bicycle less than men: Safety concerns. Women are typically found by studies to be more risk averse. The Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals did a survey in 2010 about women on bicycles. The report is very clear that the sample was not representative of population and also self-selecting — which is to say drawing strong conclusions on the data is fraught with issues. However, the data collected supports assertions that women are risk-averse: Women cited such concerns about cycling as motorist behavior, distracted driving, and stranger attacks.

The APBP study also asked respondents what would get them cycling more. The answers? More than 60% said bike lanes, and another 46% responded with completely separated bike paths/tracks. Better direct routes was also cited by more than 40% of respondents.

I’ve written about this before. Many special facilities lead inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of safety, and actually guide them into hazardous scenarios. I’ll quote myself, here:

Under most state laws, roads are bicycle facilities. We need to find ways to empower the 60% of reluctant cyclists to feel safe on these facilities, and we need to educate drivers not to be jerks. Additional segregated facilities need to be developed based on context — because, yeah, there are some routes on which they make lots of sense — and not based on a knee-jerk belief that they are “safer” or “better.” Segregating cyclists as a matter of policy doesn’t productively further a goal of having bicycling be considered a transport mode, and not a cute little way to get around for hipsters, hippies and people who just aren’t cool enough to have cars.

The challenge is how to calm streets so that all potential users — cyclists, pedestrians, women, kids, the elderly, dogs, etc. — can use them safely and confidently. An additional challenge is continued education to these groups. Bike/Walk Twin Cities have done a number of cycling seminars targeted specifically to women, and many other groups have done similarly.

I happen to believe that improving programs like Safe Routes to Schools could help influence women’s participation in cycling. Enabling those who are providing childcare with the means to choose active transport to get to school, athletics/extracurriculars, and even church will help cut down on the number of car trips under two miles.

I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can’t get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. — Susan B. Anthony

Amen.