This is a reasonably good article, with some gaps. The main gap is really surrounding the concept of Complete Streets, and I’m not strictly certain that’s on the author [...]]]>

Shouts out to @reubencollins on ze Twitter for tweeting this article about people looking to have the resurfacing project on Snelling Avenue in St. Paul include bike lanes.

This is a reasonably good article, with some gaps. The main gap is really surrounding the concept of Complete Streets, and I’m not strictly certain that’s on the author so much as the people he spoke to for the piece.

Would adding bike lane striping be cheapest during a resurfacing project? Certainly. Do cyclists lack reasonable North-South choices to get through the Saintly City? Ohmyyes. Is slapping some paint lines going to make most of Snelling Avenue a Complete Street? OhmyNO.

The article does mention a few reasons why — first, Snelling is a truck route. There is a limited ability to narrow the lanes and maintain the status of the road as a truck route. And, much as cyclists lack north-south options through the city, so do trucks. Snelling Avenue is a key arterial route for trucks, and connects to many local businesses that need trucks to be able to reach them. Most of the north-south streets aren’t truck routes, and have significant direct residential frontage — people who would oppose their north-south streets becoming truck routes, and people who have less need for trucks to be able to get into their neighborhood than many of the businesses with Snelling Avenue frontage.

There are also a large number of uncontrolled intersections. The merges off the Pierce Butler Route and Como Avenue come to mind, where cars have about 3 feet to merge and the curve is not entirely blind but certainly not unobstructed.

Another key consideration is the parking situation. Snelling has a lot of on-street parking, and a lot of driveways. If the on-street parking is maintained, parked cars + abundant driveways equals out to crummy visibility for cyclists coming through. Dropping some of the parking reduces this visibility issue, and makes room for bike lane striping. However, it almost ensures local businesses to mobilize heavily against such a plan. Much of the city is unlikely to get involved in a parking removal project right now, given the many challenges in the Central Corridor, parking included. (Check the closing quote in this article about Central Corridor parking. Oy vey.)

It’s nearly impossible to argue that Snelling doesn’t need traffic calming. It does. A lot of traffic calming, in fact. Bike lanes can be a part of a traffic calming strategy. But just slapping some bike lanes down does not equate to a Complete Street, or to making Snelling an attractive roadway on which to bike. For that matter, bike lanes won’t do much to promote pedestrian safety.

Doing this project correctly could be a very good thing. Just painting in some bike lanes is not a correct approach to the problem that is Snelling Avenue, and won’t do a lot to encourage alternative mode share through much of the corridor. I have high doubts that the public meetings will do much to really address the totality of the situation, because to actually address the real issues will be very expensive, and require a lot of people to cooperate. After all, this is St. Paul, where there are still fights about simple changes to Jefferson Avenue that are unlikely to impact most residents or users. To make Snelling safe for, well, anyone not in an armored tank will require changes that will impact everyone.

As someone I know points out, one of the best parts of this video is where the guy sweeps up the glass afterwards. Very thoughtful.

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 League also releases a breakdown of where each state ranks in key categories used to evaluate and rank the states. Minnesota’s ranking overall is a B, with breakout categories ranked as follows:

I previously posted about the Minnesota GO project and the scheduled public meetings to help drive their vision statement and policy agenda.

Two additional listening workshops have been added to the schedule: One will take place June 2, online, as a virtual workshop for stakeholders who may be unable to reach other workshop locations (or be busy [...]]]>

I previously posted about the Minnesota GO project and the scheduled public meetings to help drive their vision statement and policy agenda.

Two additional listening workshops have been added to the schedule: One will take place June 2, online, as a virtual workshop for stakeholders who may be unable to reach other workshop locations (or be busy when one takes place near them). A second Twin Cities session has been scheduled for June 14, at the Mall of America in Bloomington.

Minnesota GO continue to update their website with policy videos, discussions, and input opportunities. Check it out.

Minneapolis police are looking to better enforce vehicular and pedestrian laws to help prevent life-changing [...]]]>

The Minneapolis safety record for bicycles is suffering right now. First, a driver jumped a curb near Dinkytown and hit several pedestrians. Today, a right-turning dump truck killed a cyclist near 4th Street and 15th Avenue, again near the U of M.

Minneapolis police are looking to better enforce vehicular and pedestrian laws to help prevent life-changing accidents, but also ask “pedestrians and cyclists to watch out for themselves.”

One of the filthy truths about “sharing the road!” is that most of the responsibility for doing so ends up being assigned to cyclists, rather than it being a more community effort. And it’s hard to say to cyclists that they shouldn’t make these efforts to protect themselves — even with the protection of law, dead is dead, and cyclists are a more vulnerable road user than a car or truck. Complete Streets and other road calming measures are one response to this, as they can prompt more considered driving by heavy vehicle users on roadways.

Today’s accident, while the details are not yet clear, also serve as a reminder to cyclists that roadway facilities like bike lanes are recommendations, but not necessarily edicts. By this, I mean that if there is a safer place on the road for you than between the painted lines, use THAT place and not the bike lane. On streets like 4th Street and University near the University of Minnesota, the roads are 3-5 lanes, one-way, with narrow bike lanes that do not necessarily allow for actions like safe left turns, or dodging broken beer bottles in the gutter. While I’ve not gone out with a tape measure, I am fairly sure the painted bike lanes are narrower (and predate) current AASHTO standards for bike lane width.

Look out for yourself out there, and remember that sharing is really great, but sometimes you do need to control a lane or other part of the roadway for your own safety. You’re a legal user of the road as well, and “sharing” will do you no good if it leads to injury. Use good sense, and be careful out there.

Per the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, who has been tracking the progress of this bill, proposed amendments to the bill were inconsistent with the bill’s intent, so the author has pulled the bill.

Senate File 201 allowed for use of [...]]]>

The hearing on Senate File 201 at the Minnesota Capitol — scheduled for today — has been cancelled.

Per the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, who has been tracking the progress of this bill, proposed amendments to the bill were inconsistent with the bill’s intent, so the author has pulled the bill.

Senate File 201 allowed for use of the gross misdemeanor charge and associated penalties for careless driving resulting in death.

The House bill remains alive at this time, and it is expected a similar bill to SF 201 will be reintroduced later. Stay tuned.

A key piece of the 2011 Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota legislative agenda has been the support of bills to increase careless driving penalties. Cyclists have been encouraged to send messages of support to committee members and to their own legislators, preparing the latter to vote [...]]]>

EDIT: This has been rescheduled for Thursday, April 14, at 1:00 PM.

A key piece of the 2011 Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota legislative agenda has been the support of bills to increase careless driving penalties. Cyclists have been encouraged to send messages of support to committee members and to their own legislators, preparing the latter to vote in favor of these bills when they are available for floor votes. Unfortunately, these bills were tabled in March after several committee hearings.

The bills, however, remain alive at the Capitol. Another hearing — this time on SF 201, which would increase the penalty for causing a death while committing a careless or reckless driving offense to a gross misdemeanor and carry a fine of up to $3,000 and a jail sentence of up to 1 year — is scheduled for today, at 1 PM. The hearing is part of the agenda of the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, and the meeting is scheduled to take place in Room 15 of the State Capitol.

It turns out that this bill has some heavy-hitting opposition — chiefly trucking organizations, and budget hawks who fear the expense of additional jail time for guilty individuals. It is important for cyclists and pedestrians to reach out to friends and family to ask them to join their voices to ours for support, and groups like the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota are reaching out to other vulnerable road users — motorcyclists and scooter operators — requesting their support.

Stay tuned. The Bicycle Alliance is on top of this issue, and will be releasing regular updates via their Facebook page — go be a fan.