Northeast and Southeast Minneapolis - General Topics

Northeast, Near North, Camden, Old St. Anthony, University and surrounding neighborhoods
mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby mattaudio » July 14th, 2014, 9:49 am

...if the Green Line was a stroad.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5832
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby MNdible » July 14th, 2014, 10:39 am

Congratulations on waiting three posts before dropping the stroad bomb. Excellent restraint.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 833
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby LakeCharles » July 14th, 2014, 11:06 am

This forum is so delightfully catty.

MNdible
is great.
Posts: 5832
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 8:14 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby MNdible » July 14th, 2014, 12:48 pm

Sorry, it's Monday.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Wedgeguy » July 14th, 2014, 4:19 pm

I'm tired of the blinders on a few on this forum. People should not be walking on the street. Bicyclist can ride one block over with NO problems and cross back to where they want to get to and WALK their bikes if they can't seem to stay out of the way of autos that the roads are design to carry. You would pissing moan about there being horses and carriages on the street in the 1900's if they were in your way. Grow up, county roads are there for the very reason you say. They are there to help make it easier for people to get from point A to point B. Not everyone can walk to where ever they need to go. That is why there are state and county highways, just because you go into a city does not change the function of these roads. They are still part of the network. Like it or NOT, that is life. IF you can't ride one block over then it say more about your lack of intelligence and the stubborn stupidity. I'm tired of childish and immature gripping which is only for their own point of view with little facts showing how they plan to take care of the traffic that they will create by getting ride of cars on these streets.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby mattaudio » July 14th, 2014, 5:55 pm


Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Wedgeguy » July 14th, 2014, 6:20 pm

Refresher course. Trunk highways, definition is a road to move good and service in an efficient manner. They are roads for commerce. Many of these roads were trunk roads long before there was anything built up along them. But their purpose was to get goods to market which at the time they were created was in the city. These roads were platted out back in the 20's, 30, and 40,s. This was long before the interstate highway system. These were built wide for the trucks that were wider than cars, that needed the width to make wide turns and to pass by each other safely. This is WHY commercial districts were build along these roads as to help keep truck out of residential neighborhood. These roads are built for trucks, not cars, but guess what, cars will use them also. That is just the way things are. These are truck roads to deliver the goods that go into the stores, restaurants and businesses that line these roads. That is what they are intended to do. To be vehicles for commerce. You take away the vehicles that pass by and you decrease the profits that a business can make as they no longer have a way for get enough traffic of people who see or come into the store. The refresher course while a good read. My KISS refresher course that sticks with the simple basics. is what they teach you in a simple map reading class, I know I had one in high school. Your welcome to tell me anything that is not true of what I have written. I'll be glad to acknowledge anything that is not true factually.

This topic should not even be in this thread., but Minneapolsite want to ride his bikes on a designated truck road. Someone has to explain again the basics to some who refuse to use logic and goes off on emotion about something that is not a real topic for this thread.

David Greene
IDS Center
Posts: 4760
Joined: December 4th, 2012, 11:41 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby David Greene » July 14th, 2014, 8:38 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:This is WHY commercial districts were build along these roads as to help keep truck out of residential neighborhood. These roads are built for trucks, not cars, but guess what, cars will use them also.
These roads are built for trucks and used by cars too, but guess what, bikes will use them also.
Wedgeguy wrote:That is just the way things are.
Indeed.

Minneapolisite

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Minneapolisite » July 15th, 2014, 10:30 am

Roads were built for bikes too: get a quick history lesson and read about how cyclists were responsible for getting the government to pave roads: http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com ... d-america/ .And it's absurd to suggest that for cyclists near Hennepin not to use it when it already has bike lanes going all the way up to NE: are we supposed to take a right on St Anthony Main, walk up a few flights of stairs to get up on Central, walk north to the side street south of Lunds, and then bike to Hennepin. I'm not going to do it, no one on this forum would do that for damn sure, in fact, I doubt any one ever would (road construction aside).

This is a pedestrian-oriented business district: trucks and cars have a whopping four blocks to reach and then pass Central Ave where Hennepin turns into an industrial area. If you can't handle slowing down a bit for four blocks then you have no business driving in a city. From Main St NE to Central it's a whopping two minutes and if you get stuck behind me on a bike: one whole minute more. For anyone that actually rides a bike you'll know it's not uncommon for motorists to pass by in another lane only to catch up to them a few blocks later while they're stopped at the light: they're not going nearly as fast as they think and me pulling up beside them is proof of that. We can sacrifice one (probably not even a full) minute to make a mere handful of blocks safe and welcoming for pedestrians and cyclists NE's "downtown": it's the only logical thing to do.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Wedgeguy » July 15th, 2014, 10:57 am

David Greene wrote:
Wedgeguy wrote:This is WHY commercial districts were build along these roads as to help keep truck out of residential neighborhood. These roads are built for trucks, not cars, but guess what, cars will use them also.
These roads are built for trucks and used by cars too, but guess what, bikes will use them also.
Wedgeguy wrote:That is just the way things are.
Indeed.
Bicyclist chose to use them at their own risk. As I stated before, the standard that the FEDERAL government requires for help paying for trunk highways do not include bike paths. There are requirements for what needs to be included for trunk highways. Again bike lanes are not on that list. As far as road were built for bikes, you are going back about 80 years with your rediculuos argument Minneopolsite. As I stated before, trunk highways were built for commerce. That was all defined in the late 40's and 50's after World War 2. A big reason we have the interstate highways system. To move troops and commerce during possible war time. I'll give your residential street were paved for bikes 80 years ago. That is the only thing that you may have right.

I am a bike rider, but I have common sense to know that my life is worth riding a block or 2 out of the way so I arrive home in one piece. I also use the bike trails as much as I can to stay away from busy streets.

LakeCharles
Foshay Tower
Posts: 833
Joined: January 16th, 2014, 8:34 am
Location: Kingfield

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby LakeCharles » July 15th, 2014, 11:20 am

Wedgeguy wrote: As far as road were built for bikes, you are going back about 80 years with your rediculuos argument Minneopolsite. As I stated before, trunk highways were built for commerce. That was all defined in the late 40's and 50's after World War 2.


Emphasis mine.
Last edited by LakeCharles on July 15th, 2014, 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Wedgeguy » July 15th, 2014, 11:51 am

LakeCharles wrote:
Wedgeguy wrote:
David Greene wrote: As far as road were built for bikes, you are going back about 80 years with your rediculuos argument Minneopolsite. As I stated before, trunk highways were built for commerce. That was all defined in the late 40's and 50's after World War 2.


Emphasis mine.
If I had been there in the 40's and 50's to define what constituted a trunk highway, I'd have said mine. To say that Hennepin and Central were paved just for bikes when at the time they were paved they went out into farm land has very little logic.. We seem to ignore all the changes that have happened during the 20th century, when a lot of what was built and done for a different period when there were different requirements that needed to be taken into consideration. Due to space constrains, you can no longer just throw a bike lane in where ever you feel you want one.

I'm dealing with trunk highways that also happen to go through neighborhoods. Why did neighborhood grow up along these roads? Probably because that is also where the commerce also had to develop so that they could easily get their goods to market and easy for people to get to their services. People at those times needed to be closer to where they wanted to shop and get services. Things that were built in the 40's and 50's, had different requirements than the 70's and 80', as goes the 2000's.

Minneapolisite

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Minneapolisite » July 15th, 2014, 1:53 pm

Wedgeguy wrote:
David Greene wrote:
Wedgeguy wrote:This is WHY commercial districts were build along these roads as to help keep truck out of residential neighborhood. These roads are built for trucks, not cars, but guess what, cars will use them also.
These roads are built for trucks and used by cars too, but guess what, bikes will use them also.
Wedgeguy wrote:That is just the way things are.
Indeed.
Bicyclist chose to use them at their own risk. As I stated before, the standard that the FEDERAL government requires for help paying for trunk highways do not include bike paths. There are requirements for what needs to be included for trunk highways. Again bike lanes are not on that list. As far as road were built for bikes, you are going back about 80 years with your rediculuos argument Minneopolsite. As I stated before, trunk highways were built for commerce. That was all defined in the late 40's and 50's after World War 2. A big reason we have the interstate highways system. To move troops and commerce during possible war time. I'll give your residential street were paved for bikes 80 years ago. That is the only thing that you may have right.

I am a bike rider, but I have common sense to know that my life is worth riding a block or 2 out of the way so I arrive home in one piece. I also use the bike trails as much as I can to stay away from busy streets.
Motorists also use roads at their own risk to the tune of 30,000+ fatalities and many more severe injuries annually : what's your point? I had the common sense to learn how to safely bike in traffic. There was nothing ridiculous with what I pointed out: you're welcome for the smooth ride, by the way. A lane on Hennepin (or other streets) where there is no bike-only lane is by default a bike lane when a bike is in it. If it weren't, it would have signs similar to highways that have signs saying no pedestrians or cyclists allowed. When I'm riding in the right hand lane to go north to Lunds or in the far left lane to turn onto 2nd it's my lane too and motorists don't care, unlike yourself: they have other lanes to choose from and as I already point out: we're basically going at the same speed overall.

RailBaronYarr
Capella Tower
Posts: 2702
Joined: September 16th, 2012, 4:31 pm

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby RailBaronYarr » July 15th, 2014, 2:48 pm

I'd just like to point out, again, that freight makes up 7% of all urban road/street network traffic in MN (this includes "urbanized" areas beyond just MSP metro). Likely less during peak hours when us regular folk are commuting places. Obviously, freight doesn't include travel made by businesses (real estate agents, service business trucks/vehicles, etc). But let's be 100% clear that the capacity of our streets and roads (or trunk highways) as designed today exists largely to serve people who choose to live in certain places and then choose to move about by car. Why do people who choose to drive in a car get (multiple) lanes for themselves to access properties and other public spaces, but we ask bikers to detour and walkers to deal with horrid conditions?

Saying Central Ave serves a regional need ignores how inefficient it is at doing so - both in travel speed as a result of property entrances and so so many lights (despite their long signal timing) as well as safety. Plus, why does a neighborhood need to put the travel times of people or goods coming from further away ahead of their own businesses/people being able to move about? Long cycle times, limited access points (notable where freeways interact with urban areas), or local streets having stop signs while 4+ lanes of cross traffic has free flow makes getting around short distances far longer and long travel in comparably quicker per mile traveled.

Regardless, I'll even challenge how critical Central Ave is to the region through the heart of Northeast by citing myself:
did a quick gut check: AM peak traffic counts are high going southbound at Broadway - 1,500+/hour, yet at 37th Ave the pattern is reversed. AM peak hour traffic saw just 380 heading southbound but 1,033 heading north. To me this somewhat confirms the notion that most people driving across the river and through St Anthony on Central are coming from relatively short distances (south of St Anthony Parkway)
Basically, The need for heavy traffic flow at peak hours toward the city center disappears at 37th Ave, most likely because job sprawl has pulled enough trips away from Mpls. But, even if we imagined it was so critical (from a state's perspective) to bring people into the city from regional points northward, wouldn't it be done more efficiently by allocating space to different modes at-grade and running transit frequencies/capacities as needed rather than demanding an unsafe environment for everyone not in a car?

Wedgeguy
Capella Tower
Posts: 3785
Joined: June 1st, 2012, 6:59 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby Wedgeguy » July 15th, 2014, 8:05 pm

So we should have less lanes so that traffic sits at a stand still and burns gas and creates fumes that are detrimental to our health. When I hear people say to get rid of the green wave, I don't think that they understand that green wave is there to help lower air pollution due to car sitting still in one area for a prolonged period of time.Yes, let's have those bicyclist and pedestrians breathe that extra exhaust fumes. So you can either be killed by riding on the road or you can get lung cancer from breathing the exhaust that accumulated due to stopped traffic. Face it, there is no perfect world. There are some options that are less objectionable than others.

You want people to ride transit, then you get the gas tax raised by a buck a gallon and you will probably get a few people to take transit. But you will be roasted at the stake by those that drive and ship goods and it will not really decrease traffic from outside the the 1st ring suburbs.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby mattaudio » July 16th, 2014, 8:28 am

Yes we should.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2315
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby EOst » July 16th, 2014, 9:37 am

It's not just air pollution. You waste a ton of gasoline waiting at stops, which increases our carbon footprint.

Look, we can talk pie-in-the-sky worlds where everyone bikes and walks and takes buses, but for the foreseeable future we're still going to have to accommodate a lot of cars. Rather than the absurd absolutism shown here, we should be focusing on smaller changes that can be made without massive disruption.

ncd
Block E
Posts: 6
Joined: July 16th, 2014, 9:45 am

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby ncd » July 16th, 2014, 9:53 am

I am not sure where any "absurd absolutism" is coming from. Someone suggested "sharrows" of all things, which would have a really tiny impact. The neighborhood wants to convert portions of 1st ave and Hennepin (about 5 blocks of each) into two-ways and narrow the lanes slightly, so that people are more likely to drive the actual speed limit. That also doesn't seem like it should be a huge issue as Minneapolis converted the downtown roads to two ways several years ago, with little to no deleterious effect.

Nobody is saying that we should ban cars on these roads altogether, just that times change (and the neighborhood has become much more developed and urban), road uses and priorities change, and perhaps we should redesign our roads to accommodate that.

mattaudio
Stone Arch Bridge
Posts: 7941
Joined: June 19th, 2012, 2:04 pm
Location: NORI: NOrth of RIchfield

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby mattaudio » July 16th, 2014, 9:58 am

Such as making lane space more efficient by handing it over to buses and bikes, rather than space-inefficient users of our scarce urban rights of way: car users.

EOst
Capella Tower
Posts: 2315
Joined: March 19th, 2014, 8:05 pm
Location: North End, Saint Paul

Re: Northeast - General Topics

Postby EOst » July 16th, 2014, 9:59 am

mattaudio wrote:Such as making lane space more efficient by handing it over to buses and bikes, rather than space-inefficient users of our scarce urban rights of way: car users.
So, what you're saying is that you aren't even interested in engaging in constructive dialogue. Okay, nice talking to you.


Return to “Minneapolis - North, Northeast, and Southeast / University of Minnesota”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest