In the sense of promoting more people coming downtown, it probably was a net good – one-way streets confuse people who are not near them every day and who are in for a special event (theatre on Hennepin, a Twins game, whatev).

They’ve published an evaluation of the conversion. Because this study was performed by the same agency responsible for the conversion, there is a bit of a question of impartiality, but data is at the base of most conclusions:

• Bicycle traffic is up, based on user-count metrics.

• Allegedly, there have been no bike crashes on Hennepin since conversion, whereas prior it was known as one of the worst ‘bikeways’ in the city because it violated every principle of bicycle lane planning ever created. (I’m a bit dubious that it went from apocalypse to idyllic – I’m wondering about reporting, personally.)
• The city claims people have figured out the odd parking/bike lane configuration.

When you dive into the stats, it turns out that bicycle traffic on Hennepin Avenue alone is down by about half. The increase is based on a combination of Hennepin, 1st, and Nicollet. Apparently, some people really liked the bike-lanes down the center configuration on Hennepin – a configuration that almost undoubtedly was a part of the crash statistics, and may have led to more serious crashes due to the physics of bicycle-vs-car based on lane placement and speed.

I think the parking zone/bike lane setup remains the most confusing element of the conversion. Flipping them around does put the bike lane in the door zone, but that’s a more common configuration, and motorists and cyclists typically know where they’re supposed to be in such a setup. The city have stated that they intend to paint all of the shared lanes for vehicles/bicycles green, particularly on Hennepin. Buffer zones are to be added between the bike lanes and parking zones on 1st Avenue to reduce dooring risk and facilitate use of the parking areas by handicapped vans with ramps.

Never one to let a trend completely pass me by unless it’s a really heinous one (I’ve never owned a pair of Crocs, for instance), I think this is all very well and nice. They are all chock full of helpful advice for motorists and cyclists, such as the 3-foot passing rule, wearing helmets, avoidance of distracted driving, etc. etc.

But you know what? I have not seen a single article mention something I think is fundamental: Cars need to signal their turns. Use your turn signals, motorists.

A number of the articles mention the danger of the right-hook – where a cyclist on the curb lane ends up to the right of a vehicle who is right turning, with somewhat predictably painful results. There are several good ways to avoid the right hook, but one of the top ways – beyond cyclists wising up to the idea that hugging the curb isn’t always strictly necessary under law, and is often injurious – is for vehicles who are right turning to always signal their intent.

Because this doesn’t always happen, I tend to be mildly annoying in lanes that can work as either right-turn or through lanes, pulling to the left into the right-hand wheel well where vehicles might go, even if there’s not a car at the intersection when I arrive there. A vehicle arriving might pull alongside, and depending on positioning, it an be difficult to see a signal if it’s even used.

Turn signals are really bueno for the benefit of other cars and pedestrians on the road, too.

So, in summary: Sure, read all those happy articles about road sharing. Then try using your turn signals. Cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists will praise you for it.

Bike Walk Twin Cities, which is a federally-funded initiative through the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, is working within the community to reach out to underrepresented groups such as women, and in the coming weeks have a number of pretty awesome educational opportunities for women. There are several Biking with Traffic class opportunities for women, each 1.5 hours long and taught by women who are League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructors.

The Complete Streets bill is made up of H.F. 2801 and S.F. 2461.

Per the bills – and general definition of Complete Streets from a national policy perspective – Complete Streets considers the needs of all users moving along and across roads, intersections, and crossings in a manner that is sensitive to the local context and recognizes that the needs vary in urban, suburban, and rural settings.

In the case of Minnesota’s Complete Streets legislation, Complete Streets applies to every road construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation project funded partially or completely by the state.

Federal bills to create similar consideration for federally-funded road projects is still pending as S. 584 and H.R. 1443. Minnesota’s Senators – Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken – have both signed on to S. 584 as co-sponsors. H.R. 1443 is currently co-sponsored by Reps. Keith Ellison (MN-5) and Tim Walz (MN-1). Minnesota’s other Congressional representatives have not yet signed on as co-sponsors. While this is not necessarily a sign that they do not support the legislation, if you live in Districts 2, 3, 4, or 6, consider writing a letter of support to your Congressperson.

SF 2453 and HF 2616 amend Minnesota Statutes 169.06, Subd. 9 to insert the words “bicycle or” into the existing law that allows motorcycles an affirmative defense for proceeding through a red light if the motorcycle is unable to trigger the signal to change to green.

Subd. 9. Affirmative defense relating to unchanging traffic-control signal.
(a) A person operating a bicycle or motorcycle who violates subdivision 4 by entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control signal against a red light has affirmative defense to that charge if the person establishes all of the following conditions:
(1) the bicycle or motorcycle has been brought to a complete stop;
(2) the traffic-control signal continues to show a red light for an unreasonable time;
(3) the traffic-control signal is apparently malfunctioning or, if programmed or engineered to change to a green light only after detecting the approach of a motor vehicle, the signal has apparently failed to detect the arrival of the bicycle or motorcycle; and
(4) no motor vehicle or person is approaching on the street or highway to be crossed or entered or is so far away from the intersection that it does not constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) The affirmative defense in this subdivision applies only to a violation for entering or crossing an intersection controlled by a traffic-control
signal against a red light and does not provide a defense to any other civil or criminal action.

The big things to keep in mind is that a full stop is required, and it needs to stay red for an unreasonable time. Cyclists need to use some sense when defining ‘unreasonable.’ Motorist distance on the cross-street is also a consideration.

Jumping the red after resting for 2.2 milliseconds is not the intent of this new rule, and has a risk of increasing cyclists’ reputation for ignoring traffic signals and laws. Use the law in good faith!

Duluth’s Northland News Center, which is a site for Duluth’s CBS, NBC, CW and ‘MyNetwork’ affiliate television outlets, provokes today’s big headsmack with their article “BICYCLE RIDING DEATHS UP IN MN.”

While the article does include some fatality statistics for the state, I’m relatively sure that the safety message being put out by Susan Koschak, the chair of the Statewide Non-Motorized Advisory Committee, didn’t include the OMG YOU WILL ALL DIE tilt. The DPS official quoted also is quoted on safety, although the fatality figure (average of 8 cyclist deaths/year) is a DPS number.

Just as a comparison, DPS reports 72 motorcyclist deaths in 2008, and 416 car accident deaths in 2009. Obviously, working towards 0 in all columns is important, but you rarely see the attachment of OMG DANGER! attached in the same way to these other modes of transport.

Northland News also inserts a “use bike paths!” comment, even though DPS and MNDOT share the 8 principles of the Share the Road Minnesota campaign, all of which focus on appropriate and legal use of roadways by cyclists.

I’m blaming this all on Northland, as the state agencies quoted are typically right on and supportive of the Share the Road principles and Minnesota statutes on bicyclists. Education of all roadway users – and not breathless sharing of noncontextual fatality statistics – is the key to cyclist safety on the roads. All a headline of this nature does is forward a not-especially-subtle bias against cyclists’ road rights.

By Let Ideas Compete, via Creative Commons

The short summary of this: Many more people ride bikes than consider themselves cyclists. This makes a big difference when planning outreach, working on advocacy or community education, or otherwise trying to get attention on non-motorized transportation alternatives. It’s a good bit of what’s involved in the People For Bikes campaign.

To a certain extent, it’s this bikers vs. cyclists, for want of better terminology, that gets into some of the haters who post to online message boards whenever good (or bad) news involving bicycles gets posted on local media websites – as well as the bikes-are-toys-not-transport stuff that oozes into such commentary as well.

But it also reflects a divide among people who really should be united. While someone who rides to work for function may not consider themselves a cyclist, they benefit from the same policies and initiatives the spandex-clad weekend warriors or lifestyle cyclists who spurn cars and count their carbon footprint savings.

A lot of it does come down into the spandex-vs.-not crowd, and also the virulent hatred the haters have for the spandex crowd. The bikers, who do not consider themselves cyclists, look at the spandex and the hate, and the mass generalizations about stop signs and road ownership, and think: That isn’t me. I bike in loose pants, I use sidewalks when I can and like trails, I don’t go fast.

It’s something worth considering, although I don’t know that I would say to the spandex-clad superheroes that they need to relax. But it’s an interesting notion to think upon, and ask: How do you convince bikers that they are cyclists? How do you convince the people who give the community a bad name – the stop sign blowers, regardless of garments, the daredevils, the Critical Massholes – to reach out instead of alienate?

How do we all recognize we’re in this together?

However, looking at this another way, this is a win for the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP). Established as part of SAFETEA-LU as advocated for by Congressmen James Oberstar (D-MN), the program provided $25 million to each of 4 communities to demonstrate how improved walking and bicycling networks can increase rates of walking and bicycling in communities.

During the National Bicycle Summit, this program was spotlighted in several ways. The Minnesota delegation was privileged to meet with Congressman Oberstar’s Chief of Staff and legislative director, who discussed some of the history of the program. A core piece of the NTPP is that it provided for federal study of mode-shift – key to overcoming objections from some that most studies have been done by local advocacy groups who may not be wholly objective. The pilot report is due in September, but Congressman Oberstar’s staff do not believe it will come through until year-end at the most optimistic.

The Congressman is a strong supporter of the NTPP, but between the lines is was suggested he cannot support expansion prior to the report’s availability due to the commitments he made relative to the original pilot funding’s passage.

This ties into the second spotlight at the NBS for the NTPP: On March 2, a week prior to the Summit, Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced H.R. 4722, the Active Community Transportation of Act of 2010. The ACT Act calls for “the Secretary of Transportation to carry out an active transportation investment program to encourage a mode shift to active transportation within selected communities by providing safe and convenient options to bicycle and walk for routine travel, and for other purposes.” It amounts to an extension of the NTPP.

As part of the Summit, many state delegations asked for cosponsorship for this bill. As a result, a Bill that started with 6 co-sponsors is now up to 27. The bill has been referred to the Transportation Committee, chaired by Congressman Oberstar, where is is likely to remain until the NTPP report comes out.

However, in the meantime, if you’re excited about Minneapolis cracking the top of Bicycling’s top cities for cycling list, or live in another city you’d like to see get funded to make similar strides, consider writing your Congressional delegate to support HR 4722. Your best bet is to ask them to co-sponsor the Bill – this is the most immediate supportive action a Congressperson can take.

Even if it takes some time to come out of committee, having solid national support will help drive the bill through the Committee and through Congress when the time is right.

Wired Magazine are ‘crowdsourcing’ reviews, asking people to try their route and see what comes out of the system. It’s a generally savvy crowd, so they aren’t assaulting Google (or their data sources) for errors.

Meanwhile, others are claiming Google is providing hazardous directions. The notable in this category is the NY Post, who found that Google’s data on NYC bike routes is not accurate. Commenters on this article are embracing the general run of bike-hater joy, discussing running bikers off the roads, how this is all a liberal conspiracy, etc. You know, the usual.

As someone who works with Google services every day (for money!), I’ll say that I come closer to the opinions of the Wired folks. It’s a beta project. The pedestrian walking routes instructions have also been notably erratic (routing people onto highways, onramps, sidewalk-free zones). There are prominent buttons to provide feedback. Garmin and other GPS instructions haven’t been 100% either.

GPS services and Google Maps are always going to be limited by their data sets. I think anyone going somewhere unfamiliar, or coming in from out-of-town, needs to view Google Maps as a guide. Talking to a good local bicycle shop, or a local bicycle club, will ever be your best bet for getting the real (and most current) poop on local bike routes, including road construction, reality of what traffic levels are like, and even if they’re scenic or not. No online data set will ever match the know-how of the local cyclists!

In the meantime, there are some video embeds of Ray LaHood standing on the table at Thursday’s social with Congressional Staff and some core new policy changes, posted at the FastLane blog.

Something the Minnesota delegation emphasized when meeting with Minnesota lawmakers in Washington DC is that most road projects directly and indirectly subsidize automobile use and dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil. We aren’t anti-car, but we want to see sane planning regulation and principles that give our families and communities safe choices, especially for the large number of daily trips that are within 1-2 miles of our homes.

The new policy guidelines announced today echo that position:

• The DOT is integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects.

• The DOT is discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians.
• Projects are encouraged to go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

Under the new guidelines, state DOTs and communities are being asked to treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes, protect and plow sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected, and improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.

This is all great stuff.

I’ll hopefully be posting my summary later today of the meetings the Minnesota attendees had with Minnesota’s members of Congress, and what you can do to support legislation that furthers these great policy initiatives announced today by Secretary LaHood.