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.

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.

Generally speaking, every type of bicycle facility has its own drawbacks. Frequently, [...]]]>

Regular readers of this site will know that I can be a bit of a crank about certain types of bicycle facilities:

• Signage alone doesn’t make a route ‘bicycle-friendly.’

• Paint jobs sometimes just indicate what the knowledgeable already know.
• Bike lanes as backfill can create their own hazards.

Generally speaking, every type of bicycle facility has its own drawbacks. Frequently, the choice of implementation is based on familiarity or ease, rather than a real evaluation of the different drawbacks.

That’s why this article on Bikeway Network Recipes is interesting. The author rightly views all of the options as part of a toolkit. She specifically cites the Copenhagen cycling network – often held up as a model by others – and calls out the drawback found by some residents of that city: That inexperienced cyclists (and parents of small children!) are uncomfortable with them and thus don’t use them!

Her recommended recipe is to take advantage of the relatively easy-to-implement bike lanes and boulevards while also working on some of the high-profile, harder to implement and more expensive projects. In the Twin Cities, examples of this kind of split would be the Jefferson Avenue bicycle boulevard in St. Paul (fairly cheap, and really just a paint job indicating what locals already know to be true), and the Cedar Lake Trail extension (years in the making, fiercely expensive, but a needed piece of the network).

I especially like her thought to start wherever you can – and to keep going. The money quote, though:

…if there’s no reaction in the media, business community, or neighborhoods, you probably haven’t done enough – because you need to have the changes be visible enough to provoke a spirited conversation about bicycling as a mainstream form of transportation.

And that’s really what we need – a view of cyclists as the norm, and not freaks or fringe.

The timing for this is interesting – because of the many issues with right-of-way, as well as [...]]]>

There’s been a bunch of coverage of the final phase of the Cedar Lake Trail. After years of right-of-way issues, the construction of Target Field, and funding, the final easement to extend the trail to the river has been acquired.

The timing for this is interesting – because of the many issues with right-of-way, as well as building a mile of trail through the densest part of the urban core, this is going to be monstrously expensive. Estimates for the total cost of this last segment exceed $9.2 million dollars, paid via a combination of state funds, federal earmark, donations and even funds from the city of Minneapolis.

A lot of people question this expense, particularly at a time of challenging federal, state and municipal budgets.

One thing to keep in mind is that this won’t ever become any cheaper, short of a zombie apocalypse that devastates that piece of Minneapolis and makes the construction easier. Costs to get the construction going are cheaper now than at any time in the recent past, due to high labor supply.

The maze to get from the de facto current trailhead to the river frustrates many. Some of the city’s recent shenanigans with parking, bike lanes, taking streets two-way from one-way, and etc. haven’t helped. Obviously, this of itself doesn’t justify expense – but the completion has been planned for many years.

Completion is scheduled for November. I am assuming that the extension, like the rest of the trail, will be plowed during the winter, adding to the Minneapolis commuter trail network that is quite workable even in the nastiest months of the year. However, it’s always good to confirm plowing each year – budgets being what they are.

One reroute involves using Portland Avenue through downtown, if going from downtown outbound. I hate that bike lane, mostly because it’s on the left side of the one-way, violating all vehicular principles of ‘slower [...]]]>

Now that they’re starting in on Twins Stadium construction, looks like the downtown exit of the Cedar Lake Trail will be closed indefinitely.

One reroute involves using Portland Avenue through downtown, if going from downtown outbound. I hate that bike lane, mostly because it’s on the left side of the one-way, violating all vehicular principles of ‘slower traffic to the right.’ Portland is also pretty busy, which freaks some riders out.

There’s also some bridge work out near Minnetonka Boulevard that will create another detour in the corridor.

I love how this work starts right around the time of year they promote cycle commuting, and when gas is at $3+ per gallon. I know it’s just the way of the world and not a conspiracy worthy of wrapping my bike helmet in tinfoil, but…