University Avenue Traffic Lane Modification Study

[Chef]

I lived in Frogtown for 15 years, and half of that was without a car so I think I know University Ave pretty well. The problem with this idea is that St Paul's built form lends it to being an autocentric city. It is a gigantic pain in the ass to live in St Paul without a car because it doesn't have the density to have good walkable commercial nodes all the way through the city. There is not enough foot traffic on the streets because most of what you want to go to is beyond walking distance. The 16 was/is like a cattle car which is not conducive to shopping unless you are too poor to afford a car. The other bus routes have infrequent service due to low ridership (compared to inner Minneapolis).

I think if we were to cut University down to two lanes it would be prudent to wait until infill along the central corridor has raised the population density significantly. Beyond that I am not sure if this is a good idea anyway. As long as cars exist there will always be places that have high traffic and University Ave is one of them. I-94 is not practical to go from point to point within St Paul and University and Snelling is the busiest intersection in the city. In this forum there are a lot of people who think the whole point of urban planning is to eradicate cars but out in the wider world that is a minority opinion so I think supporters of this redesign of University will find it rough going in terms of public opinion because this will create major bottlenecks in the western half of St Paul. Maybe in the future when St Paul is dense enough to be practical for other forms of transportation it will make more sense but we have to get there first.

[nordeast homer]

Well, for starters, not everyone rides a bike or uses public transportation, or wants to. There are no laws banning bikes from using the roadway, but you want to close a lane so that we can accommodate a bike that is 20 inches wide.? I rode my bike all over the cities when I was younger, (yes, even downtown), and lived to tell about it and we had no bike lanes.
Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but it seems that you would need more density than what you have to make this walkable. I think one long street with some apartments here or there is not enough.

[FISHMANPET]

Should transportation planning focus on moving cars, or moving people? What if it's a lot cheaper to move people than it is to move cars?

And for that matter, not everybody drives, or wants to. Also let's not there will soon be a train running up and down University Ave, providing fast easy connections between nodes. When I was in downtown Portland last year, there was plenty of people around, especially single lane streets with light rail. And the light rail was pretty well used, so it's not like the lanes were narrowed for a non-transportation use, they were narrowed to accommodate another transportation method that could carry more people than a car could in the same space.

[PhilmerPhil]

Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

[twincitizen]

A bit of political courage at Ramsey County and St. Paul City Hall could have prevented this conversation entirely by making a better decision ~5 years ago.

While I'm eager to hear the results of the study, and I generally support going to one lane each direction in some areas, others will obviously remain 2 lanes in each direction. Different parts of the corridor have different traffic levels and also have different on-street parking needs. What really pisses me off is that we're already talking about this before the LRT even runs. It's infuriating because we just rebuilt the street with the intent of it being a 4-lane street throughout. I wish there had been the political courage to stand up for a more flexible street design at the outset, rather than bowing to pressure to keep the status quo (i.e. the anti-change comments in this thread and in PiPress articles)

[Chef]

Should transportation planning focus on moving cars, or moving people? What if it's a lot cheaper to move people than it is to move cars?

And for that matter, not everybody drives, or wants to. Also let's not there will soon be a train running up and down University Ave, providing fast easy connections between nodes. When I was in downtown Portland last year, there was plenty of people around, especially single lane streets with light rail. And the light rail was pretty well used, so it's not like the lanes were narrowed for a non-transportation use, they were narrowed to accommodate another transportation method that could carry more people than a car could in the same space.

The problem is that most of the people going to University Ave are not coming from University. In large numbers they are coming from the neighborhoods south of 94 or north of University beyond walking distance. The north south transit links in the western half of St Paul suck beyond belief and have low ridership. That is a density issue. The result of this is that most of the people going to University in St Paul are driving there if they can. Beyond that most of that part of St Paul's every day type shopping places are on University (Rainbow, Cub, Target, etc.). I don't know how many of you have gone grocery shopping via transit, but on a busy line it is a truly terrible experience even without kids. I think with a family it would be even worse. This means that there will always be a lot of people driving there even with LRT. I suppose we could get rid of grocery stores.

[nordeast homer]

Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

Funny guy. The point is that it has been made to be crowded because you have limited access. You have set a limit to the amount of traffic coming in or out. You have only succeeded in created a sustained rush hour, how does that help anyone? As a business owner I would want as much traffic as possible going by my front door. LRT stops are infrequent and will have very little effect on businesses in between those stops.

3 people in a telephone booth is crowded too; doesn't mean you've increased the phone service, you've just succeeded in making a line.

LRT is not increasing the service, people already use the bus along here, but now you're spacing the stops out and on top of that you want to decrease the number of people using cars. At this point it's progress because it will take longer to get to a particular business? Again, I don't believe that there is enough density here to sustain all these businesses without having at least the same amount of autmobile traffic, no matter how bad you want everyone to walk, skip, or ride along this street.

[MNdible]

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 don't know the answers to 1 and 3, but I believe that the answer to #2 is a resounding yes, which was exactly my point. And also why you can't judge the impact of construction based on how many marginal businesses weren't able to tough out the period.

I wish there had been the political courage to stand up for a more flexible street design at the outset, rather than bowing to pressure to keep the status quo

Or, you could suggest that the right decision was reached five years ago, and that the city is now bowing to the pressure of the bike coalition and business owners who want on-street parking. Hard to say, but feel free to pre-judge the study.

[tab]

On one level the arguments about density being a pre-requisite to better streetscape is logical/obvious - but they ignore the possibility that an improved public realm would support and accelerate the build-out of that density.

The 'must have density to justify making this corridor more appealing for pedestrians' argument seems particularly problematic at the very moment when LRT is opening and thousands of passengers will have every reason to walk 2-5 blocks along the corridor to reach a destination from the nearest station.

Likely the study will conclude that University at Snelling (and similar locations) should remain as they are, and that in places where the road is clearly too big for the amount of traffic, a proposal to add some on-street parking, on a strictly trial temporary basis, will be floated.

[robotlollipop]

Well, for starters, not everyone rides a bike or uses public transportation, or wants to. There are no laws banning bikes from using the roadway, but you want to close a lane so that we can accommodate a bike that is 20 inches wide.? I rode my bike all over the cities when I was younger, (yes, even downtown), and lived to tell about it and we had no bike lanes.
Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but it seems that you would need more density than what you have to make this walkable. I think one long street with some apartments here or there is not enough.

Sounds like you would prefer working and living in a suburb. Not really where this street is.

[Chef]

Well, for starters, not everyone rides a bike or uses public transportation, or wants to. There are no laws banning bikes from using the roadway, but you want to close a lane so that we can accommodate a bike that is 20 inches wide.? I rode my bike all over the cities when I was younger, (yes, even downtown), and lived to tell about it and we had no bike lanes.
Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but it seems that you would need more density than what you have to make this walkable. I think one long street with some apartments here or there is not enough.

Sounds like you would prefer working and living in a suburb. Not really where this street is.

This sort of stuff is absolutely uncalled for. People live in cities and are urbanists for a lot of reasons, not just so they can ride their bikes everywhere. I was excited when UrbanMSP was created because I love Minneapolis and St Paul and was a contributor to the two previous local urban forums but it seems like this place has been commandeered by a subset of true believers who's appreciation of cities seems to be mostly driven by their hatred of cars. I feel odd saying this because I am not a fan of cars myself, have owned one for less than half my adult life, and only have one now because I work in the exurbs. However, one thing I like even less than cars is the sort of intolerant zealotry that I see on this forum. True believers are dangerous people because they think they know what is best for everybody and want to impose it even over the opposition of the rest of society. I am all for planning cities in a way that minimizes the need for cars. But the outright hostility towards something that is the overwhelming choice of most city dwellers smacks of the same sort of radicalism that animates the tea party, or religious fundamentalism.

[robotlollipop]

The result of this is that most of the people going to University in St Paul are driving there if they can.

But what if they can't? Humans are pretty good at adapting.

I suppose we could get rid of grocery stores.

Or add more. I understand it's not called for in a lot of areas but it would be nice to see a Trader Joe's on Huron.

[robotlollipop]

Well, for starters, not everyone rides a bike or uses public transportation, or wants to. There are no laws banning bikes from using the roadway, but you want to close a lane so that we can accommodate a bike that is 20 inches wide.? I rode my bike all over the cities when I was younger, (yes, even downtown), and lived to tell about it and we had no bike lanes.
Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but it seems that you would need more density than what you have to make this walkable. I think one long street with some apartments here or there is not enough.

Sounds like you would prefer working and living in a suburb. Not really where this street is.

This sort of stuff is absolutely uncalled for. People live in cities and are urbanists for a lot of reasons, not just so they can ride their bikes everywhere. I was excited when UrbanMSP was created because I love Minneapolis and St Paul and was a contributor to the two previous local urban forums but it seems like this place has been commandeered by a subset of true believers who's appreciation of cities seems to be mostly driven by their hatred of cars. I feel odd saying this because I am not a fan of cars myself, have owned one for less than half my adult life, and only have one now because I work in the exurbs. However, one thing I like even less than cars is the sort of intolerant zealotry that I see on this forum. True believers are dangerous people because they think they know what is best for everybody and want to impose it even over the opposition of the rest of society. I am all for planning cities in a way that minimizes the need for cars. But the outright hostility towards something that is the overwhelming choice of most city dwellers smacks of the same sort of radicalism that animates the tea party, or religious fundamentalism.

Excuse me, but someone who would prefer driving their car to work with no traffic, has the opportunity to do that in a suburb. Being in an urban area probably isn't nordeasthomer's best option. Am I wrong in saying that?

[Chef]

Most people don't live in cities for transportation reasons. If they are of middle class background they often do it for cultural reasons. In my case I find the suburbs to be extremely alienating, and am drawn to the creative community of the city (which I have been a part of for 20+ years). In other cases people live in the city because it is where they are from, or because they like being in close proximity to places that have a lot of choices for activities, or in the case of Northeast MPLS maybe they got a killer deal on a house.

This is why the transport discussions that happen here are so detached from social/political reality of the communities that make up most of Minneapolis and St Paul proper. Outside of a core of twentysomething activists you guys don't even have most of the left with you (at least based on the people I know and interact with on a regular basis).

[FISHMANPET]

Well, for starters, not everyone rides a bike or uses public transportation, or wants to. There are no laws banning bikes from using the roadway, but you want to close a lane so that we can accommodate a bike that is 20 inches wide.? I rode my bike all over the cities when I was younger, (yes, even downtown), and lived to tell about it and we had no bike lanes.
Contrary to your beliefs, increasing congestion does not make people want to visit or live in that particular area. In fact, I personally avoid areas that increase my travel time. Have you been to Portland? They have several areas near downtown that have been narrowed to accommodate LRT or streetcars and have left single lanes for vehicles. The traffic is horrendous day or night. You couldn't pay me to live in an area like that.
I'm really not trying to pick a fight, but it seems that you would need more density than what you have to make this walkable. I think one long street with some apartments here or there is not enough.

Sounds like you would prefer working and living in a suburb. Not really where this street is.

This sort of stuff is absolutely uncalled for. People live in cities and are urbanists for a lot of reasons, not just so they can ride their bikes everywhere. I was excited when UrbanMSP was created because I love Minneapolis and St Paul and was a contributor to the two previous local urban forums but it seems like this place has been commandeered by a subset of true believers who's appreciation of cities seems to be mostly driven by their hatred of cars. I feel odd saying this because I am not a fan of cars myself, have owned one for less than half my adult life, and only have one now because I work in the exurbs. However, one thing I like even less than cars is the sort of intolerant zealotry that I see on this forum. True believers are dangerous people because they think they know what is best for everybody and want to impose it even over the opposition of the rest of society. I am all for planning cities in a way that minimizes the need for cars. But the outright hostility towards something that is the overwhelming choice of most city dwellers smacks of the same sort of radicalism that animates the tea party, or religious fundamentalism.

I can appreciate that, but I don't think that's what's happening at all. Any suggestion that the car shouldn't be put on a pedestal as the pinnacle of transportation is met with that same kind of zealotry. Any attempt to have a rational discussion about the role of our car in society is met with instant hostility that anyone might be arming up for a war on cars.

[FISHMANPET]

Most people don't live in cities for transportation reasons. If they are of middle class background they often do it for cultural reasons. In my case I find the suburbs to be extremely alienating, and am drawn to the creative community of the city (which I have been a part of for 20+ years). In other cases people live in the city because it is where they are from, or because they like being in close proximity to places that have a lot of choices for activities, or in the case of Northeast MPLS maybe they got a killer deal on a house.

This is why the transport discussions that happen here are so detached from social/political reality of the communities that make up most of Minneapolis and St Paul proper.

The social and political reality is that people are driving less, and want communities that enable that. It's a trend that started before the recession, and it's a trend that I believe will continue after the recession.

[Chef]

I think the best way to minimize car use is to upzone and encourage infill in all the parts of the core cities that are under 10,000 ppsm. If you look at the parts of the city that have a large number of people who live car free by choice it generally coincides with the contiguous swathe of higher density and good transit that exists on the south side, downtown and around the university. Increase the size of that area and more people will choose not to drive. I think that will be both more effective and more palatable to the rest of society than making it harder to drive for people who live in low density areas (which is what this plan will do to people in St Paul). Carrots rather than sticks.

[FISHMANPET]

What about enticing people to use more bikes by providing better bike facilities?

Honestly I have like zero opinion on this project, but transportation is a zero sum game in established corridors. You have to take away space from one mode to grow another mode. I feel like we don't do a very good job of recognizing this, so it feels like personal attacks on both side when really it's just people with different priorities.

[MNdible]

The social and political reality is that people are driving less, and want communities that enable that. It's a trend that started before the recession, and it's a trend that I believe will continue after the recession.

And we're apparently going to increase the population of our center cities by 1/3, while at the same time increasing the number of regional destinations located in the center cities. It's a little hard to guess how these trend lines will play out on particular streets.

Question: The wife and I want to go to dinner at a spot on University Avenue right on the Green Line. We live in South Minneapolis. Are we really going to spend an hour one way getting over there by transit? Or a similar amount of time on a bike and show up for dinner cashed and sweaty (assuming we want dinner in one of the pleasant summer months)?

Answer: No, we're not. And neither are very many of our neighbors. I guess you could argue that dangnabbit we shouldn't be going to St. Paul for dinner anyway, but again I don't think that's a limitation most people are ready to make.

[robotlollipop]

Most people don't live in cities for transportation reasons. If they are of middle class background they often do it for cultural reasons. In my case I find the suburbs to be extremely alienating, and am drawn to the creative community of the city (which I have been a part of for 20+ years). In other cases people live in the city because it is where they are from, or because they like being in close proximity to places that have a lot of choices for activities, or in the case of Northeast MPLS maybe they got a killer deal on a house.

This is why the transport discussions that happen here are so detached from social/political reality of the communities that make up most of Minneapolis and St Paul proper. Outside of a core of twentysomething activists you guys don't even have most of the left with you (at least based on the people I know and interact with on a regular basis).

I guess I can't say the same. Most of the people I interact with are out of college a few years, grew up with money in the suburbs, and now live in the city. Big reason they prefer the city is accessibility without a car. Many of these people are not activists and plenty of them voted for Romney.