University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Roads - Rails - Sidewalks - Bikeways
at40man
Rice Park
Posts: 437
Joined: January 3rd, 2013, 6:49 pm
Location: Maplewood

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby at40man » October 24th, 2013, 6:10 pm

I honestly would prefer to bike along Sherburne or Charles, 1-2 blocks to the north. Drivers tend to be more cautious in neighborhoods, which makes a safer environment.

Sherburne would require the most modifications, because there are concrete islands which would need to have an indent to allow peds and bikes to cross. Charles would require the least modifications.

Zebra stripe the crossings and make it VERY clear to motorists that bikes and people may be crossing over these areas. Maybe even put up a few flashing yellow warning lights that could be triggered with sensors. The sightlines are good enough to where I would feel safe slowing down my approach to the intersection and assess whether I should stop or bike straight through the intersections.

UptownSport
Target Field
Posts: 577
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: Green Line (Central)

Postby UptownSport » October 26th, 2013, 10:33 am

University was down to one lane in each direction - it resulted in carnage to businesses. 94 was the same distance from University during that time.
The carnage was well publicized, I find it impossible to believe posters are unaware of this.

My guess would be posters don't care about the cost as long as it fits the anti care agenda.

The question now is what damage dividing The Avenue will have on what remains.
So the priority is to get rid of cars?
Pretty much at any cost?

There was a rather large change to University, so saying people don't like an idea because they're afraid of change doesn't make sense.
Perhaps there could be something wrong wirh the merit of the idea.
I'm confused, in what way does "a lane of traffic, a lane for parking, left turn lanes at intersections, and I-94 a quarter mile away" say "get rid of cars" to you?

User avatar
Nick
Capella Tower
Posts: 2719
Joined: May 30th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Location: Downtown, Minneapolis

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby Nick » October 26th, 2013, 12:00 pm

Well-publicized carnage to businesses, you say?

http://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2011/ ... nstruction
So far, according to the Central Corridor Project Office, more businesses (44) have opened along the corridor than have closed (34) since construction began. Another seven have relocated outside of the corridor and 13 have relocated within the corridor.
Old article, though.
Nick Magrino
[email protected]

talindsay
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1533
Joined: September 29th, 2012, 10:41 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby talindsay » October 26th, 2013, 7:28 pm

The businesses that went out of businesses were well-publicized, and businesses that were nervous about the same fate did a lot to talk them up. The new businesses that took advantage of the cheaper rent, great subsidies, and opportunity to get a toe-hold before the line opens did not, in my opinion, get as much publicity.

There may be specific places where businesses have failed more than they've succeeded thus far, but it seems that businesses by and large have done pretty well. Of course, once the line actually opens they can be expected to do substantially better.

User avatar
mister.shoes
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1294
Joined: November 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby mister.shoes » October 26th, 2013, 10:46 pm

Wait a second. Did someone really just equate a 2-lane University in the middle of a huge construction project with a hypothetical 2-lane University with LRT, a bike lane, *and* on-street parking? That's...ridiculous.
The problem with being an introvert online is that no one knows you're just hanging out and listening.

Silophant
Moderator
Posts: 4470
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 4:33 pm
Location: Whimsical NE

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby Silophant » October 26th, 2013, 11:26 pm

Two lanes is two lanes. Cars are the only things that are important.
Joey Senkyr
[email protected]

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby Mdcastle » October 27th, 2013, 7:51 am

Maybe in the long term the pro-car and anti-car people can get together. The anti-car people can do what they want with with a lane on University, use it for parking or cycletracks, or yoga classes for all I care, if the pro-car people get four 12-foot traffic lanes and a shoulder on I-94.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7752
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby mattaudio » October 27th, 2013, 8:43 am

Not sure why people think that personal responsibility, paying for one's own mobility choices, and maximizing the usage of our streets constitutes "anti-car" sentiment.

Viktor Vaughn
Target Field
Posts: 593
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 6:37 pm

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby Viktor Vaughn » October 27th, 2013, 9:06 am

How is using a traffic lane for auto parking anti-car?

Mdcastle
Wells Fargo Center
Posts: 1209
Joined: March 23rd, 2013, 8:28 am
Location: Bloomington, MN

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby Mdcastle » October 27th, 2013, 9:19 am

Maybe I should characterize people as "pro-bike/ped" and "anti-bike/ped?" Generally in an urban area on a fixed ROW you can't make improvements to mode A without degrading mode B, so you're pro A and anti B. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the idea that converting a lane to parking is more about trying to "calm", ie degrade vehicle traffic rather than provide parking opportunities for vehicles? I've never had a problem finding a parking space near University. Just my opinion but I'd rather park a block away from Ax-Man than be stuck in traffic getting there and be able to park right in front.

UptownSport
Target Field
Posts: 577
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby UptownSport » October 27th, 2013, 10:08 am

How is using a traffic lane for auto parking anti-car?
Ask Lollipop:
If the ultimate goal is to decrease the number of people driving cars ...
And parking really won't be needed, if there's no cars.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minnea ... 78871.html

The Central spokeswoman came out and said they needed to do better on businesses (article also mentions this) closing.

Nick, you're thinking 34 closed businesses is a good thing- No matter what they're replaced by?
So far, according to the Central Corridor Project Office, more businesses (44) have opened along the corridor than have closed (34) since construction began. Another seven have relocated outside of the corridor and 13 have relocated within the corridor.
Again, I could be wrong, and the shear genius of posters was just to cerebral to be appreciated- Draft a letter to the PioneerPress with your idea- Seriously.
(be sure to include the "Dismantling Downtown Freeways" idea, too!)

I'm more than glad to see transit projects to help my city move. I'm dead against idealistic projects designed to "... decrease the number of people driving cars".

robotlollipop
Metrodome
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 1:00 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby robotlollipop » October 27th, 2013, 1:51 pm

You're dead against projects trying to decrease the number of people driving cars? How very progressive of you. It's clearly not just my ideal, it's the hope of most cities in the nation, and you have to start somewhere. But I suppose it's pointless to argue on a subject you're dead set on. I, however, am open to hear why continuing to accommodate the ever increasing number of automobiles is more beneficial to a city than promoting density and alternative modes of transportation.

Also, you took my quote out of context. I pretty much asked the same question as Viktor.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 27th, 2013, 7:53 pm

Nick, you're thinking 34 closed businesses is a good thing- No matter what they're replaced by?
Again, comparing a 2-lane university with massive amounts of construction making crossing and accessing business a nightmare, bus routes much slower, and even walking as a pedestrian unpleasant, etc to a 2-lane University with a 3-car LRT, local bus, and bike lane is "shear" insanity. Ignoring that more new businesses replaced ones that went out of business is also insanity.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5989
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby MNdible » October 27th, 2013, 9:26 pm

Not taking sides, but I'd note that just because businesses held on during construction, knowing that it would end soon and an improved University with LRT would be worth waiting for, doesn't mean that they weren't suffering badly during construction.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 28th, 2013, 8:14 am

Not going to doubt that. So the questions I have, then, are: 1) how much worse would business shave suffered if they simply reconstructed University Ave without adding LRT (something that was needed anyway)? 2) Is the future payout of the LRT mobility enhancers that bring additional residents and street-scape improvements that help draw visitors worth the short-term suffering? 3) Why wasn't a more robust program offered as part of the LRT budget to compensate for losses during construction?

I almost always question the business community's bellows when on-street parking removal is even suggested because I'm really not certain they have a firm grasp on where/how their customers visit their stores, nor do people have a good way of understanding and calculating risk or future scenarios with alternative transportation options. But I would be interested to see what the businesses along University, particularly the ones with a more urban feel (ie NOT Midway Target) think about bike lane + on-street parking vs. 2 lanes.

Tom H.
US Bank Plaza
Posts: 605
Joined: September 4th, 2012, 5:23 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby Tom H. » October 28th, 2013, 9:25 am

Yeah - go stand around the KSTP tower on University for a few hours someday, and tell me that it couldn't be handled by a single traffic lane. Rush hour might get tight, but (a) that's what happens in a city, and (b) I-94 is a hop, skip, and a jump to the south.

UptownSport
Target Field
Posts: 577
Joined: July 23rd, 2012, 12:07 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby UptownSport » October 28th, 2013, 12:16 pm

I almost always question the business community's bellows when ostreet parking removal is even suggested because I'm really not certain they have a firm grasp on where/how their customers visit their stores.
You think Avenue Motors, Economy Muffler and Goodyear et al tire shops really need to conduct a survey on how their customers get to their stores?

again, these ideas just can't be kept in the dark! You really must get them to the public!

User avatar
FISHMANPET
IDS Center
Posts: 4241
Joined: June 6th, 2012, 2:19 pm
Location: Corcoran

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby FISHMANPET » October 28th, 2013, 12:21 pm

Well since University Ave businesses are 100% auto service shops then yes, they all require driving.

Or maybe they're not all auto service shops, and the world is a little more nuanced than you'd like to believe UptownSport?

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2625
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby RailBaronYarr » October 28th, 2013, 12:42 pm

Like I said much, much earlier. Howbout this for a low-cost way of finding out? When the line opens, implement this for a 2-3 mile stretch with some of that chalk paint that eventually wears off. Parking can be free at first for all I care. Run the test for a whopping 3 months (1 month prior to it opening and 2 after to get some data on pre/post LRT service). We've got how many months of the street being open with 2 lanes each way for businesses to benchmark the change. Do it for $10k in costs and reserve the $140k they WERE going to pay some firm for a study as a pot of money to potentially reimburse businesses along the stretch for comparatively low sales. I've obviously got my opinions on how it might play out, but I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong if the area becomes a hellhole.

robotlollipop
Metrodome
Posts: 94
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 1:00 am

Re: University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

Postby robotlollipop » October 28th, 2013, 12:46 pm

I almost always question the business community's bellows when ostreet parking removal is even suggested because I'm really not certain they have a firm grasp on where/how their customers visit their stores.
You think Avenue Motors, Economy Muffler and Goodyear et al tire shops really need to conduct a survey on how their customers get to their stores?

again, these ideas just can't be kept in the dark! You really must get them to the public!
Again, I'm still seriously waiting to hear why continuing to accommodate the increasing number of automobiles is more beneficial to Minneapolis than promoting density and alternative modes of transportation. I mean what are the amazing ideas that you're keeping in the dark?


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest