Bicycle Infrastructure

[MNdible]

Not having been involved in this at all, it seems like a not-at-all-atypical situation where both sides entered a process knowing what they wanted the outcome to be before considering any of the facts, and both were willing to warp the facts to justify their preordained outcome.

[woofner]

As someone who was paying attention but not involved, I'm not sure that your apparently uninformed oversimplification is accurate. Though CM Gordon makes a good case, I'm not convinced that it was a token cycle track, for one, but rather I think it may have just been a bad design owing to inexperience. For two, while I'd agree that the Mpls Bicycle Coalition came into the process with a preferred outcome, I think their argument was solidly based in fact and fairness (I'd agree that Hennepin County stretched the truth once they decided against a cycle track; there are of course examples of cycle tracks in streets with far more skewed intersections and far shorter blocks than Minnehaha). For three, this was not by any means a bilateral negotiation, and the local businesses were a significant voice that don't really fit into a caricature in which two sides mindlessly butt heads. Adding to this, I think it does a disservice to CM Gordon to imply that he's in the pocket of the MBC.

What I think is interesting and noteworthy about his blog post is that it's foreshadowing a somewhat rare municipal consent battle. I for one am looking forward to Jim Grube's appearance at the Council on this.

[MNdible]

I'm not sure that your apparently uninformed oversimplification is accurate.

I aim to please.

I have read a number of the MBC posts on this project, and, based on what I've read, they're just as guilty of stretching the truth and cherry-picking facts as any of the other players in this.

[woofner]

I tend to agree regarding the MBC, but thought they did a good job on this one. In part due to sensitivity about my own bias because I happen to agree with them on Minnehaha, I would be curious about any examples you can scrounge up. And again, since CM Gordon is not a puppet of the MBC, and since his post was a fair critique of Hennepin County's position, the truth gets another good stretching when you imply that all the players stretched the truth.

But I'm more interested in what happens next. I'd say Gordon has a good chance of convincing Colvin Roy to support him (assuming it comes before the TPW committee prior to Nov 5th in order to be approved by the Council in November; but even if it's Andrew Johnson representing Ward 12 the chances are the same or better), in which case I don't see the rest of the Council putting up a fuss. Like I say, though, I think Jim Grube will make a stink about it. I like the poetic justice in that they did a half-assed cycle track in part because of the obstacle and delay posed by MSA standards, but they're going to end up getting delayed anyway.

[talindsay]

he believes Hennepin County offered a token cycle track rather than a competitive cycle track option.

I apologize for not doing my homework on this issue that I've completely ignored until right now, but when you say, "competitive" cycle track, do you mean that as in a cycle track option that's competitive in cost-benefit analyses of roadway imrpovements, or do you mean a cycle track that's capable of being used for competition and/or competitive training? I assume the former, but thought I'd ask for clarification.

[orangevening]

Bluff Street Trail : saw crews removing trees from the rail bed on the west bank side of Bridge #9. I assume this will be done by next fall. I still haven't heard how they are going to connect the rail bed to the trail/ bridge. Flyover? Ramp with underpass?

[orangevening]

he believes Hennepin County offered a token cycle track rather than a competitive cycle track option.

I apologize for not doing my homework on this issue that I've completely ignored until right now, but when you say, "competitive" cycle track, do you mean that as in a cycle track option that's competitive in cost-benefit analyses of roadway imrpovements, or do you mean a cycle track that's capable of being used for competition and/or competitive training? I assume the former, but thought I'd ask for clarification.

Umm, I think he meant a cycle track that is competent instead of the half-ass one they proposed and claimed it would take out hundreds of trees and parking spaces.

I've never heard of a cycletrack used for competition . Kinda of the opposite- cycle tracks are typically built for safety and to draw riders that typically don't feel safe biking on the street.

[woofner]

CM Gordon's post is all about how the cycle track option as presented by Hennepin County was not really compelling compared to the bike lane option and that this was a direct result of design decisions by Hennepin County. When I spoke of a competitive cycle track option, I meant it would actually compete with the bike lane option rather than be a token option (in the sense of being "done for the sake of appearances or as a symbolic gesture" as described by google's new dictionary). You should read his post, he does a much better job describing this than I have.

[twincitizen]

1. This guy in NYC got a ticket for riding his bike *not* in the bike lane, so he made a hilarious protest video of himself running into the common obstructions one finds in bike lanes: http://www.minds.com/blog/view/23184491 ... bike-lanes

2. Hennepin County is seeking input for a revision/update to the County Bike Plan: http://www.minnpost.com/political-agend ... n-revision

[ProspectPete]

Bluff street trail: is that between stone arch and bridge # 9? That little illegal stretch that everyone uses? (myself included)

[mulad]

No, the Bluff Street Trail is intended to be on the other side of the river, connecting the West Bank end of the #9 bridge to a (currently blocked-off) tunnel under I-35W and then onward toward downtown somehow.

This is one of the portals to be used to get under the freeway:

[Anondson]

I consider it a minor miracle of rare foresight of our city that they were able to get the 35W rebuild to include that tunnel for a future possible access. There is hope right there.

[ProspectPete]

I consider it a minor miracle of rare foresight of our city that they were able to get the 35W rebuild to include that tunnel for a future possible access. There is hope right there.

I couldn't agree more. That is going to be great. Next fall they say it'll be completed?

[talindsay]

I suppose, but to me it seems completely redundant to West River Parkway, and might save, what, a quarter mile as compared to looping from #9 up on to the River Parkway, under the freeway, and into downtown along perhaps 11th to 2nd. Nothing against it, since they built the tunnel they might as well use it but I'm not sure I understand what it saves.

Being primarily a runner I'm always surprised at how inconvenient cyclists think a quarter-mile detour is. I see the same thing with the talk about rerouting the bike trail on Kenilworth. Bikes make it so easy to cover ground - a quarter mile takes a minute at most, and maybe 10 calories if you're working hard - that I don't understand the concern with straight and short routes.

[MNdible]

Tom, I think in this case, the savings may be more in vertical distance rather than horizontal.

I agree with your point about how easy it is for bikers to cover ground quickly, as long as its flat. The (West) River Road route involves dropping down from the bluff top and then having to climb back up.

[talindsay]

Tom, I think in this case, the savings may be more in vertical distance rather than horizontal.

I agree with your point about how easy it is for bikers to cover ground quickly, as long as its flat. The (West) River Road route involves dropping down from the bluff top and then having to climb back up.

Oops, no idea why I wrote East River Parkway - I'll edit that.

[woofner]

Do you often run for transportation rather than recreation? I think very few people intentionally choose circuitous routes when they have someplace to go. With cycling, another issue is that sharp angles require a slowdown and a corresponding loss of momentum. The official reroute for Kenilworth was particularly egregious because not only did it add a few right angles but it also added about a dozen at-grade crossings - I don't know how you could spin it as anything but a significant degradation of the trail. As for Bluff St, I agree that it is redundant and it wouldn't be a priority for me, but in addition to the grade issues Mndible mentions the West River Pkwy crossing is really tight (not like tight bra tight, like the angles are really sharp and at the base of a hill).

[orangevening]

Tom, I think in this case, the savings may be more in vertical distance rather than horizontal.

I agree with your point about how easy it is for bikers to cover ground quickly, as long as its flat. The (West) River Road route involves dropping down from the bluff top and then having to climb back up.

I've been taking this route nearly everyday since school started up. I thought it was a tad redundant too, but then I realized it is much easier and safer to stay on W. River Parkway and then turn right onto the trail entrance than to cross the parkway, building up speed down the hill again, then crossing the street again 40 yards away(fast) to get on the trail. There is a blind corner too for cars coming from the east. Plus the old railbed is there, why not use it? Bluff street will make that crossing a lot safer and a little faster. And think Bikin' Rybak wants bridge #9 to become the new stone arch

[orangevening]

Bluff street trail: is that between stone arch and bridge # 9? That little illegal stretch that everyone uses? (myself included)

Nope, but there is hope (although negotiating with the RR is never easy) for this to become a official trail. I take it myself but always worry getting yelled at,

http://www.mndaily.com/news/campus/2013 ... ks-bikeway

[OPAFiets1]

I'm always surprised at how inconvenient cyclists think a quarter-mile detour is.

A bit of perspective. For the average person riding about 12 mph this will be about an extra 60 seconds assuming no additional delay due to increase in grade, additional cornering, loss of momentum, etc. I would guess reality is about an additional 90 seconds?

In traffic engineering a delay of 80 seconds for a motor vehicle is considered completely unacceptable—a failure. One traffic engineer recently told me that they did not want to install a no-turn-on-red sign at an intersection because it would add an additional delay of about 27 seconds per vehicle. Numerous multi-million $ road projects seem to have been justified based on improving level of service, for motor vehicles, by less than 1 minute. No mention of level of service for pedestrians and folks on bicycles.