Page 10 of 12

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 12th, 2015, 4:09 pm
by Anondson
Where would a woonerf be *needed*, though? Not a hypothetical, but which actual Minneapolis street?

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 12th, 2015, 4:44 pm
by MNdible
Well, Girard in Uptown seems to be an example. And we've seen a number of examples of private ROW situations where they make sense.

But honestly, there probably aren't very many places. Woonerf's are good solutions when you have a lot of pedestrians, not very many cars, and not much space. But in the absence of those conditions, I'm really not sure what the advantage of it is.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 12th, 2015, 11:59 pm
by scottiem
Have there ever been plans on this project to introduce a crosswalk, maybe with lights (like the one at 31st and Girard), across Lyndale at 29th Street? I've seen many people cross at this location, myself included, and it takes a while to find a safe gap between the cars. The marked crosswalk might slow traffic over the bridge and let pedestrians on the eastern Lyndale sidewalk access 29th without walking to the nearest light and back. Induced pedestrian demand...maybe.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 12:31 am
by Minnehahaha
Anondson wrote:Where would a woonerf be *needed*, though? Not a hypothetical, but which actual Minneapolis street?
I can't say about Minneapolis, but the only proposed woonerf that I know of in Saint Paul couldn't be argued to be "needed" in any way. Hamline University's 20 year development plan called for a woonerf on Englewood from Snelling extending three blocks east. Never. Gonna. Happen.

29th street on the other hand is a neat little street segment where this seems to make sense. Any time I've driven it, it has been at low speeds (out of necessity, due to the potholes.) So what is there to lose in giving this a try?

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 12:12 pm
by mattaudio
Induced demand. Induce demand for pedestrians. We don't need car-oriented streets designed to accommodate pedestrians. We need pedestrian-oriented streets which accommodate cars.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 12:39 pm
by Anondson
I guess I'm in that camp too. We can have car-mobility-dominated streets (Lake, 31st, 28th, 26th), but we should do as much as we can to make other streets prioritize pedestrian presence over car mobility and do it in the best way we know how.

I guess I see that even though the design makes driving fast uncomfortable, it signals that this street is still no place for people to be and they must get out of the way of drivers coming through.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 2:31 pm
by MNdible
Oh, come on. People are going to start walking more on 29th Street because they can walk in the street? That doesn't make any sense and you must know it.

To extend your induced demand analogy, if the existing sidewalk were so backed up with pedestrians that people avoided walking there, then turning this into a woonerf would increase pedestrian use.

In the absence of that, the only thing that will increase pedestrian use will be adding a lot of destinations.

The only reason to turn this into a woonerf is because a bunch of planners have a major hard-on for woonerfs.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 2:55 pm
by FISHMANPET
Maybe frame the question like this:
What's the justification for giving cars the majority of the space on this road? Or another way, what's the harm of a woonerf?

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 3:34 pm
by woofner
MNdible wrote:People are going to start walking more on 29th Street because they can walk in the street?
Woonerfs aren't only or even necessarily about allowing people to walk in the street. Their origin was to allow children to be able to play in the street. That means that they should be designed in a way that allows motorists to respond to people in the street. They are useful in places like 29th street that motorists treat like cut-throughs (that is, just about any other street in Minneapolis).

While there isn't any one way to design a woonerf, there should be less delineation between pedestrian and general traffic space than the 29th street design indicates. There should also be more obstructions for motor vehicle traffic -- they shouldn't be able to drive in a straight line for as long as they do here. But the 29th street design is a good small step forward for a city that less than 10 years ago refused to stripe crosswalks (it's also a far cry from RT Rybak's call for a pedestrian street).

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 3:37 pm
by Wedgeguy
BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wedgeguy is formulating a mythbuster/rebuttal that some on here will not be pleased with. But my outlook is on what I perceive to be reality of living here in the neighborhood and actually seeing how things are more than a few times a week and not fantasy. I'll back up my opinion with facts!! No time today, but it will be coming!

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 4:08 pm
by scottiem
Induced pedestrian demand will occur if the road becomes convenient and pleasant. Additional destinations certainly help, but are not required. This is similar to how additional lanes on a highway induce demand without additional destinations. At any rate, I've been hearing that there will be additional uses for this street after construction. Attractions like additional block parties, farmers markets, etc. All this without completely blocking car traffic, so I'm not sure what the major negatives to trying out a new method like this are. In fact, the idea that drivers will have to learn to negotiate a safe space for pedestrians seems like a nice silver lining to such a compromise.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 5:17 pm
by MNdible
scottiem wrote:Induced pedestrian demand will occur if the road becomes convenient and pleasant. Additional destinations certainly help, but are not required. This is similar to how additional lanes on a highway induce demand without additional destinations.
Look, clearly you all are in love with the woonerf, and I'm not going to change your mind on that. You're in love with the idea, I think it has it's place but in this case is a solution in search of a problem.

But can't we all agree that the above line of reasoning is a complete misunderstanding of the concept of induced demand?

If there is a two lane road that is lightly traveled and free-flowing, adding an additional lane does not induce demand.

If there is an eight foot wide sidewalk that averages 120 pedestrians an hour (that's a couple of people every minute -- and honestly, that's probably way generous for most of this stretch), adding 20 additional feet of walking surface is not going to induce demand.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 5:27 pm
by RailBaronYarr
Agreed. The term is being misapplied.

I don't see why a street like this which serves no regional and barely even any local traffic need wouldn't be designed in a way that really limits car speeds, is a natural fit for closures to hold events or markets, and could potentially be part of a much longer (and ideally better-designed) street focusing on peds. If redevelopment continues on the south side of the Greenway, a meander that functions similarly to Girard by opening commercial spaces up to the Greenway while still allowing traffic (maybe even blocked at some spots to keep cutting through down) would be nice. This street was going to cost a lot to rebuild as-is anyway.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 13th, 2015, 9:23 pm
by Wedgeguy
Thank you Mndidible and RailBaron, Nice to see some logic being written. On my 1st draft and I'm at 3 pages of text on my legal pad. Now I'll work to condense and find areas where I was repeating myself, as the facts keep repeating themselves with each point I was trying to stress. Knowing there are others that understand the BIG PICTURE will make it easier to condense.

FWIW: you would be lucky on a good day to have 25-40 people an hour walking on the sidewalks of 29th. Most times of day it is far less than that. Most are people out shitting their dogs from the apartment buildings next to 29th. Just what we need is a doggy park woofner for shitting you dog. There are 10 times or more cars that use 29th vs pedestrians. I'm sorry, but you can't induce pedestrian demand when there are very few door that actually open onto 29th for the foreseeable future. Big surprise, It is the north-south avenues that have all of the pedestrian traffic. People in the apartments north of the greenway are heading to Lake street, not Lyndale. People in those apartments prefer to walk next to their building on the promenade when heading east-west. I know because I walk it to work 5 times a week at least going to work. Will work on getting the rest up when I get it finished and now that I've somewhat taken care of a point or two, condensing should be a lot easier.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 14th, 2015, 4:30 pm
by Wedgeguy
Ok. decided just to try and state my facts and if people want to challenge them , them I'll go further in depth with another post. Don't want to preach to the choir.

1: In order to induce demand, you must have public doors facing 29th. The only real public door right now is the side door to the patio at Marche's. There is a private stair way that some tenants use, but it really does not get used all that much. I've actually seen about 6 people using the stairs during many trips along 29th when I head to Herrkimers. I actually see more people cutting thru the VFW parking garage under the apartments than I see use the stairs or 29th. The next block is Blue,which has a few private doors to 29th and aside door which is kind of a fire exit in reality. Next to that is the parking lot for the 2909 Bryant building. I don't see that parking lot going away anytime soon. The tenants of that building need those parking spaces. Next block is the Uptown Square Apartments, which has a block long black 4" iron fence facing 29th street. So unless they tears down those apartments, and build a whole new complex you have a very uninviting block to walk. Here is the kicker, like all of the apartment buildings built north of the greenway, the front doors to the buildings will be either on Bryant or Colfax. Those would be the public doors. There maybe some walk up, but those again are private doors. No induced demand there. Next block is the Buzza parking pit, again short black fence so people don't fall in. Not a demand inducer. Next block is Cub, not even going to waste my time with that block. Next block, currently is a back parking lot for PPH. Next to that is ACME machine which is a blank concrete wall. After reading that scenario, who was fired up to go want to walk 29th to see that?
I'll tell you where the induced demand will be. It will be on Bryant where there is already retail and commercial buildings, If something got built along Dupont maybe there with Cub across the street and CVS next door next to Lake. Emerson on the PPH side would tie into the Cub and the Retail already along Emerson under the Condos. Same with Fremont with the retail that will go in with the new Cheapo apartment and the new Mozaic building across the street.There is a pattern here. The public face of buildings is along the avenue side and not 29th street.

2: the tenants north of the greenway use the Promenade to walk east to west, not 29th. They like the ability to enter and exit thru their common courtyard areas. The sidewalks there are nicely lit, and there are door that they can turn to if there were to be in incident. So safety being near where they live makes them use the promenade for east west trips. But there are a lot more people using the promenade that walk along 29th, no matter how nice you think you can make it. The tenants are more likely to walk to Lake street that to walk 29th to Lyndale. The will be walking down Aldrich, Bryant, Colfax, Dupont, Emerson, Fremont and The Walkway to Girard and Mozaic. I see this every day when I go to and from work and to and from Cub. You can walk the promenade from Aldrich to Girard without much of any interuption except crossing the street. Plus the eye candy is great during the summer with the pool areas are filled with sun bathers!

3: In order to induce demand you have to have anchors or real destinations for people to get to. Those destinations are spread out more along Lake street than they are along Lyndale. No banker or smart investor will put a restaurant on 29th if the street is closed to cars. Really, no banker or smart investor would build retail on 29th period. Along the avenue sides of the building they might be more inclined to do, but there you have cars driving by and people walking to Lake to make those number more realistic. I think I hit my high points and this is enough for now. Glad to discuss more if you can find any real holes that are truly feasible and not fantasy in my thinking.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 14th, 2015, 5:09 pm
by Anondson
Wedgeguy wrote:1: In order to induce demand, you must have public doors facing 29th.
I don't agree that we must.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 14th, 2015, 5:11 pm
by Wedgeguy
4: There are 10 times more cars that use 29th than pedestrians, See above for reasons if this does not make sense.

5: I Have to agree with MNdible:" The only reason to turn this into a woonerf is because a very misguided bunch of planners have major hard-ons for woonerf. That is my angle on it, Anyone find some holes that I've left open and you want me to close for you, just let me know and I'll be glad to do that.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 14th, 2015, 7:05 pm
by Anondson
You've made it clear you don't think it has value considering what surrounds it right now.

But what would be negative if it were made into a residential (not commercial) woonerf?

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 14th, 2015, 9:14 pm
by Wedgeguy
Because there is little residential that is next to 29th. Most of the residential to the south of 28th will walk down to Lake to go east or west. A huge majority of the residents on the north side of the greenway will walk on the promenade that allows them 4 public and 2 private entrances to the greenway. All 29th allows is you to look thru the fence at the trench below, with no way to access it without going over to the promenade onorth over the bridge.. All I have to do is look at the woonerf next to the Calhoun Square. Which should be a neighborhood short cut to Calhoun Square/Lake street, but yet there was not enough people along that woonerf to keep Chang Mi Thai open. I remember the Alaskan bridge to no where.This is the woofner for whom really? For the lucky and the few. For those with Woonerf obsessions? A waste of valuable tax dollar. I just might add another dirty fact. That a good portion of those that walk on 29th are there because they parked their car there and are walking to Lake to the bars and restaurants. But you will ban parking so they will just stay away. They are not your residents from the north! As I said already, they walk south on the avenues to Lake or east to west on the promenade. I walk the area going to and from work, the grocery store 6 days a week. These are real people, not imaginary one that we think we can herd like cattle thru 29th street. I know, I see their patterns all too well. I also know the term location, location, location. This is not the location of a woonerf of any kind.

Re: 29th Street Reconstruction Project

Posted: November 14th, 2015, 10:22 pm
by Anondson
Woonerfs do not have to forbid parking.

I still don't see where you articulate what would be a negative if it were done, other than your belief parking would be eliminated.

Which leads me to think there is a speaking past each other about not the same thing. A woonerf identical to the one by Calhoun Square would bad, but there's many better possibilities to fit the context of 29th, imo.