urbanMSP

I know there have been plans floating around to reduce the road from three lanes to two and put a cycletrack on the right hand side protected by parking.

Here's another idea I had...
How about half-multiway-boulevards?

From the right hand side of the ROW going left, there would easily be enough space for a parking lane, slip lane, vegetated median, two thru-traffic lanes, another vegetated median, then a dedicated cycletrack (which could possibly be contraflow for safety/visibility at intersections).

I think this would have a few advantages. First and foremost, it would probably calm traffic to have two lanes constricted by vegetated medians. Secondly, it would deal with two of the main reasons why traffic issues occur on the two streets. In the winter, sloppy plowing or simply too much snow slides the parking lanes inward. This in turn eliminates the existing bike lane on the left, and in many winters eliminates the right-most driving lane. The two medians would actually increase the ability of the roadway to handle snow. Secondly, it seems like double parking provides for inconsistent lane usage especially during the rush hours (head start buses, etc.) The slip lane would take care of this problem.

Eh?

Nah, I like the idea proposed by the MBC much better, especially if a planted median were to be used for separation of the cycle track.

http://mplsbike.org/blog/?p=1950

I'm skeptical because of the annual conversion of the streets to defacto two lane streets during late winter. I think without obvious and permanent structures in the ROW it will not be clear which side of parking is compromised for snow storage and it will be a mess. Prove me wrong! I like either option. The MBC is much more realistic.

I wish there were a group spending some time looking at these things with some impartiality. Imagine the MBC recommending an improved bike lane, but they have an obvious bias. Will it work? Does it make sense?

I am absolutely mystified that we aren't having a real conversation about converting these (BACK) to two-way streets. Someone on Streets.MN proposed a plan where Portland would remain the "car street", probably with two lanes in each direction (without bike lanes, north of 46th anyways). Park Ave would be shrunk down significantly, to a normal city street with one traffic lane in each direction, plus protected bike lanes, if not full cycle tracks.

This current plan to have two lanes of traffic, but remaining one-ways, could work. It preserves the ridiculous amount of on-street parking and leaves plenty of room for wide, buffered/protected bike lanes.

The existing third lane carries a helluva lot more people than delete for pedal bikes-
One-ways are much more efficient than a two-way (26th and 28th you can 'zip' across town even in heavy traffic) in moving vehicles.

I think the current proposal seems like a reasonable compromise.

I hear a lot of "Park and Portland are just mini-freeways serving suburban drivers." If you count everything south of Franklin as the suburbs, then maybe you're right. Should the speed be lowered? Are there excess lanes in some areas that should be put to better use? I'd say yes to both counts. But these streets (along with 26th and 28th Streets) are important for Minneapolitans ability to move around their own city.

It's very easy to write articles on Streets.MN in which you turn every street into a bicycling fantasy in which the cars just magically disappear and nobody remembers why they ever needed a car in the first place. It tends to turn into a bit of an echo chamber over there.

I think the plan is pretty good, much of the corridor will be narrowed to 2 lanes, except in the vicinity of downtown as well as Lake St. The speed limit is proposed to be lowered to 30 mph and more importantly, the lights retimed. But for reasons that are not clear to me, the bike lane will still be on the left side on Portland from Washington Ave. until 35th St. Here is a link to a handout with the concept plan.

http://mplsbike.org/blog/wp-content/upl ... -24-12.pdf

Does anyone know what the logic was behind having the bike lanes on the left side to begin with? I think it is a huge mistake not to move both bike lanes to the right side of the street.

I think the theory has to do with parking -- you're less likely to get doored when passing parked cars on the passenger side than the driver side, simply because the average car is only carrying 1.2 people or whatever. But I suspect passengers are more likely to open their doors without looking than drivers are -- but it'd be better to have bike lanes outside of the door zone anyway, and probably on the right-hand side of the street separated by a simple barrier.

Public meeting is tonight.

6:30 – 9 p.m. (presentation 7:15 p.m.) at The Center for Changing Lives (Lutheran Social Services), 2400 Park Ave. S., Conference Room 104.

Bummer, same time as the Strong Towns On Tap

Same time as the cat festival at the walker.

Rumor has it there will be another Strong Towns on Tap later this fall if you're torn about which to go to. I go to loring park to watch cat videos on my iPhone every Tuesday if you want to join me sometime.

Does anyone know what the logic was behind having the bike lanes on the left side to begin with? I think it is a huge mistake not to move both bike lanes to the right side of the street.

when bike lane was in middle of DT Hennepin, almost got killed half dozen times by left turning drivers.
Added some excitement to the day.

I go to loring park to watch cat videos on my iPhone every Tuesday if you want to join me sometime.

Worst pick-up line ever.

I go to loring park to watch cat videos on my iPhone every Tuesday if you want to join me sometime.

Worst pick-up line ever.

60% of the time, it works every time.