All posts in the topic Portland-Park: 1-way or 2?
Summary
- There are 40 posts — by 29 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Peter Tobias at 2009 Aug 11 16:42 UTC
For a potential column, I'm interested in hearing from people about the concept of converting Park and Portland avenues to two-way streets. The city's Downtown Transportation Action Plan calls for converting these two streets to two-way streets north of Interstate 94. A draft of the Citywide Transportation Action Plan calls for study of conversion to two-way streets south of 94, once the Crosstown Commons project is done. It seems to me that from a transportation standpoint, one-way pairs work well for both drivers and bikers in terms of moving traffic. Offsetting this, they were converted to one-way operation in the days before Minneapolis had 35W. I know from acquaintances that they are unpleasant to reside on. Offsetting that, anyone who has moved onto the streets since 1946-47 did so with full knowledge of those conditions. More information about this and other one-way to two-way conversions that have been considered is available at: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/public-works/trans-plan/Citywide_FinalDraft_Ch4_060509.pdf See page 61 in particular. I'm particularly interested in hearing from people with neighborhood or residential perspectives on what they see as the advantages of a conversion to two-way operations. But all opinions-pro or con-are welcome. Steve Brandt Reporter Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 612-673-4438 <email obscured><email obscured>>
i live on Elliot, a few blocks east of Park. My husband and i both work dwntwn
and use park/portand regularly (in cars) to get to and from work. Having them
as one-ways makes for a super quick car commute, but it seems unsafe for bikers
because drivers on p/p go really fast, and because the bike lanes are too
narrow. The one-ways also make Park and Portland unappealing for many
potential home buyers because the streets are so busy.
It would be great if P/P were converted two-ways with extra-wide bike lanes.
My car commute would not be as quick, but the overall benefits of having the
volume and speed of traffic reduced on p/p are more important than me getting
to/from work a few minutes faster.
I would also recommend that you pose this question to the Powderhorn forum;
many Central n'hood residents are forum members.
From the perspective of neighborhood continuity (in Central), having P/P two
way would be a considerable plus. Kids, particularly, get hit by cars
periodically, they're chances of survival increase with a slow down to 30 mph.
Organizing and keeping the neighborhood organized would be greatly improved.
People don't as readily make neighbors of those directly across the street when
living on P/P or 35th 36th. With such a small neighborhood, the five existing
one way streets are a big barrier to neighborhood continuity. Not as big as the
freeway, but big enough.
From S. Brandt's post, I want to ask whether downtown transportation mavens are
hoping to encourage everyone to use 35W rather than P/P? What changes are being
made downtown which funnel vehicles on to the freeway?
Sandwiched between the two streets, I use P/P all the time, but avoid rush
hours so as NOT to have to go 35 mph.
Would such a change lessen the number of accidents at Park and both Lake and
31st.? Or the accidents at Portland and Lake and 31st.? There seem to be a
regular parade of accidents at those four intersections.
On the whole, I would welcome such a change for Central Neighborhood.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM, WIZARD MARKS <email obscured>> wrote:
>
> From the perspective of neighborhood continuity (in Central), having P/P
> two way would be a considerable plus. Kids, particularly, get hit by cars
> periodically, they're chances of survival increase with a slow down to 30
> mph. Organizing and keeping the neighborhood organized would be greatly
> improved.
>
> People don't as readily make neighbors of those directly across the street
> when living on P/P or 35th 36th. With such a small neighborhood, the five
> existing one way streets are a big barrier to neighborhood continuity. Not
> as big as the freeway, but big enough.
>
One of the issues with these streets is they are so freakin' wide.
Converting them to two-way wouldn't change that (though I suppose if they
added a median it wouldn't feel so wide, though it would only increase the
physical separation of the two sides of the street). Unless there's
something more radical planned than simply putting a yellow line in the
middle.
If it's just a matter of traffic calming, making the streets two-way isn't
the only way to accomplish that.
Steve,
Considering what a colossal mess South Cedar Ave is as a two way, keeping
Park and Portland one way in and out of downtown would be a huge plus.
We avoid Cedar Ave even though it passes our neighborhood because P&P, with
their timed lights, work so well. Converting these to a two way street would
mean less efficient travel, consequential higher fuel use, and would likely
drive traffic to other nearby overloaded north-south routes.
Park and Portland work so well it would be tragic to see them devolve into
just two more inefficient and congested north-south routes.
Park and Portland work very well just the way they are. They are heavily used,
because they work so well.
Given the financial crisis the City is in now, where do they expect to find the
money to do an expensive changeover?
I have to agree with Tim about the money. We tax payers simply cannot afford
the play time of the Council and "Planners" right now.
I have always advocated for making Portland and Park two ways with two lanes
going each way on each street. It is a much better design for carrying
traffic, and also for creating the commercial nodes that make a city vibrant.
Just look at these streets when they get south of Minneapolis.
BUT:
After looking at the total mess that the City planning dwarfs (or are they
goblins since they make a hob-gobble of most things) have made of Lyndale ,
Franklin, etc. I have changed my mind. (Richfield with there stupid traffic
circles I put in the same category of pointless stupidity) It would not be
long before these cretins also set about "traffic calming" Park and Portland.
We simply CANNOT trust these so called planners and Council Members who want to
be "KEWL".
The problem with these "Traffic Calming" devices, and the planer's mantra of
car hate is that it wastes huge amounts of precious petroleum products,
precious time, and worst of all it pollutes the hell out MY city. A car that
gets 30 miles per gallon at regular speeds gets 4 or 5 at best with the grid
lock these planners create. They sit an pour out pollution while doing an
average of 5 miles per hour or stopped. No Thanks!
So I guess, against what I think is correct "Urban Planning", I must come out
in opposition to the idea. Not because it is not a good idea in principle, but
because it CANNOT be trusted to our planners. Before long you would have bump
outs and those idiot traffic circles down the length of those streets also,
just to be "Kewl". Sorry folks, some of us have to actually drive to work.
Jim Graham
“The City that scorns excellence in community infrastructure as a humble
activity and tolerates shoddiness in political philosophy because it is an
exalted activity will have neither good sewers nor good public policy: its
political policies will hold more crap than its pipes.” - Gem
No comments on Portland-Park, but a couple responses to Jim.
>Graham: "looking at the total mess that the City planning dwarfs...have made
of Lyndale , Franklin, etc.">
Maybe someone can correct me on this. But, as I understand, the adjacent
neighborhood residents were more the designing force for Lyndale than the City
planning folks. The local home owners wanted the road to be more neighborhood
friendly. People living with a road in their neighborhood may have some
different perspectives than the people who just drive through the neighborhood
from point A to point B. From what I have heard, a two lane road(one lane in
each direction) with left turn lanes operates just as well as a four lane road
without left turn lanes. Of course, a 4 lane road with left turn lanes would
operate traffic-wise even better, but the nearby residents may think of this as
less neighborhood friendly.
>Graham: "...stupid traffic circles..." "...those idiot traffic circles...">
Roundabouts are just another possible design option for an intersection.
Granted, each intersection must be analyzed, and most intersections probably
are better off staying with stop signs or signal lights. However, with
roundabouts, some intersections actually operate better, including less
pollution and burning less fuel because there is much less of vehicles stopping
and idling while waiting at red lights or stop signs. Also with some
intersections, roundabouts greatly reduce the number of deaths and serious
injuries, due mainly to the near elimination of the serious T-bone crashes.
Dave Stack
(ps - Isn't demeaning name-calling, such as calling planning people "dwarfs",
"goblins" and "cretins", a violaion of list rules?)
I live on 29th and Portland, and I love that Portland is one-way. There is a
steady stream of cars and bicycles, putting many eyes on the street. Cars go
fast, but they only come from one direction. Bicyclists can travel quickly
alongside, without many stops. The bike lanes MUST be wider and separated from
car traffic with a curb or other physical barrier.
If Portland and Park go two way what will happen to 26 & 28 Street
S. I guess I would visit Up-town and points west a lot less often if
I did not have those one way Streets with the timed lights to get
across the city, although I could use the Minnehaha Parkway in an
emergency or the Midtown Greenway if I could travel light. I seldom
use the Portland and Park, but I might suggest that if traffic speed
is an issue, and I agree that it is pretty fast, the lights could be
re-timed, add a few new ones (cheaper than rebuilding the road), or
do a parking/bike path reversal were the bike path is on the outside
of the parking lane with a small barrier between the parked cars and
the bike path. That could narrow the road and perhaps slow down
traffic. I guess I would prefer to keep them as a relief valve for
serious accidents on I35W, but it is up to the citizens along the
route to make a case for what they want and then for the rest of the
city to determine if that choice is good or bad for the rest of us.
(You can bet that will not happen, what will happen is that a couple
of council members will decide under cover of their office what will
happen, hold some public meeting, say the public has spoken and they
agree with the council member and that is that.)
Cheers;
DeWayne Townsend
Candidate for Board of Estimate and Taxation.
I can see both sides on this one.....one way relief or two way streets for
traffic calming.
When I do visit my cousins in Winnipeg, I am actually somewhat amazed that a
city of nearly a million people moves all people (and it is car centric) on
city one-ways just like Park and Portland. It is the largest city in North
America without freeways. Despite their envy of Edmonton, Minneapolis, and
other places with freeways, it seems to work well.
When the IP held a meetup on transportation last year, an urban planner
actually mentioned the Winnipeg grid. In some ways the freeways work well for
the burbs and downtown, but they break up the full capacity of the city
grid....Portland and Park like roads are able to move people efficiently at
40mph because of the numerous off and on points (every block), and an easy
shifting of traffic to neighboring streets. Interesting idea...
Peter Tharaldson
Chair Dist 5 IP
Loring Park, Minneapolis
Very selfishly I have to say that I support keeping Park, Portland, 26th and
28th one ways. I live between 26th and 28th. I take 28th to Park into
downtownin the a.m. and Portland to 26th in the p.m. It makes my commute a
dream. 5-8 minutes depending on the lights. I suspect many other people feel
the same way. I have been in Whittier for over 18 years and not once have I
heard anyone along 26th or 28th pleading to turn them into 2 ways. I have
worked in Phillips West for 10 years and I have never heard the neighborhood
group make any issue whatsoever about Portland or Park becoming two ways.
Park and Portland Avenues are currently designed to move auto traffic at about 40 mph. The lanes are numerous (three travel + two parking + one bicycle), the lanes are wide (close to 12 ft which is the standard for interstate freeways), and the cars move fast (the roads are posted at 35 mph and the signals are timed to move cars *at least* that fast). The conditions I describe above are not hospitable to people, unless they happen to be traveling in cars. Research shows us that a person in a collision with an automobile traveling at 40 mph has over an 80% chance that she will die. The person's chance of death drops to a 20% chance if the colliding car's speed is reduced to 25 mph. It is my personal position that 40 mph roads in urban areas are not appropriate even if they save us a couple of minutes on a car trip into downtown. As Steve Brandt mentioned, Park and Portland Avenues were designed in their current configuration before Interstate 35 carved its way through the middle of Minneapolis. Such roadways would be needed in a city without grade separated expressways cutting through it, but they are more than excessive in Minneapolis where such expressways exist. A city like Paris has a network of "grand boulevards" that work like Park and Portland, but Paris does not have grade separated expressways cutting it up like Minneapolis does. Peter T. mentioned Winnipeg as another city without freeways and I'll add Vancouver as another example of such a city to consider. Of course, I would rather have a city street network like that of Paris or Vancouver that includes "grand boulevards", but goes without the grade separated expressways. A well connected street system (counterintuitively) actually moves more people (and more cars) much more efficiently than a network that is chopped up by limited access expressways as Peter T. described regarding Winnipeg. This phenomenon is known as Braess's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27_paradox Maybe the best way for me to share how I feel about Park and Portland Avenues would be to show a video of my personal reaction, back in 2006, to a collision that took place on their East/West sister pair. The video is 8 minutes of unedited reaction to the situation on East 26th Street. For people who really want to know what its like on these fast streets while being outside of a car this will give you a good idea. The first half of the video focuses on the crash scene while the second half focuses on normal operations on East 26th Street: There's even a very nice conversation I have with a neighborhood family at the end (if you make it that far). Thanks, Matty Lang, Midtown Phillips
What if Park and Portland were 'traffic calmed' in a manner similar to
Lyndale south of Lake Street and above Minnehaha Parkway. Slim down to
two lanes with corner bump outs and a center divider with foliage
prettyification.
John Ferman
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Kingfield Neighborhood
<email obscured>
As the owner and resident of a home on Portland Avenue and a commuter using
Park and Portland Avenues, I am very familiar with the quality of life and
traffic issues surrounding these thoroughfares. My prior house was on a busy
undivided four-lane two-way city street with a speed limit of 35mph, so I
thought I knew what to expect with respect to traffic and accompanying noise.
But I continue to be very surprised by the speed and behavior of drivers on
Park and Portland. Drivers routinely travel at speeds of 45 mph or more (even
up to 70 mph!) and often with little regard for scooters, bicyclists and
pedestrians. I have personally seen the occurrence or aftermath of many
accidents between cars and cars striking bicyclists and pedestrians, including
one that recently killed a bicyclist at the intersection of Park Avenue and
19th Street. In the nearly three years I have owned my current home, I have
seen seven multi-car crashes in front of my home (there are many more that
occur during the work day and to which I am not a witness). Five of those
crashes involved cars traveling at such high speeds that the crash landed one
or more cars in the sidewalk or yard of (and, in once case, struck) a home
across the street from my own. With that in mind, I ask you to imagine that
your are unloading your children or groceries from your parked car mere inches
from that traffic.
My opinion is that the width of the street combined with one-way traffic
creates an environment that allows drivers to treat Park and Portland Avenues
as freeways. Unfortunately, those "freeways" travel through densely populated
residential neighborhoods and have none of the safety features designed to
protect drivers and isolate them from pedestrians and bicyclists. Wide one-way
streets (which permit speeders to easily pass other drivers), combined with the
timing of the traffic lights, allow cars to travel at speeds that are unsafe
and inappropriate for residential neighborhoods. In contrast to my prior home
on a wider four-lane (but two-way) city street with no bicycle lanes or traffic
calming measures, I witnessed far fewer accidents and speeders. I believe that
was, in no small part, due to the inability of speeders to as easily pass other
cars. In addition to the safety issues resulting from the current
configuration is the fact that these streets act on many levels as a barrier to
neighbors across the street getting to know one another, which in turn impacts
neighborhood cohesiveness and overall livability.
As a commuter using Park and Portland Avenues, I certainly appreciate the short
time in which I am able to travel downtown and home again. I understand that
the needs of the city and county's transportation network and the residents
along these corridors must be balanced, but I believe the current configuration
gives much greater consideration to the needs of drivers that spend mere
minutes traveling through our neighborhoods at the significant expense of
pedestrians, bicyclists and the residents that live in those neighborhoods.
Commuters traveling through the effected neighborhoods have numerous options in
reaching their destination, including the use of 35W which lies only a few
blocks from Park and Portland Avenues.
My ideal would turn Park and Portland Avenues into two-lane two-way streets
with curb bump outs, a median and bike lanes running each way and reducing the
speed limit to 30mph (similar to the reconstruction of Lyndale Avenue, sans
median). Narrowing the traffic lanes into two-lane one-way streets with
similar traffic calming measures would also be preferable to the current
configuration. Ultimately, I would settle having Park and Portland become a
two-way 30mph street with two lanes running one direction and one lane running
the other with the existing bike lane (or some other variation) in conjunction
with other traffic calming measures.
I am one (former) resident of Whittier who has wished for 26th and 28th to be
two-ways. Currently I use Portland and Park several times a week (on a
bicycle) and would prefer that they be converted to two-way traffic.
More important to me than how many directions and lanes a street has, though,
is how much thought is put into the aesthetics of its design. A street is a
work of architecture, and it seems that Minneapolis Public Works Dept has
always belonged to the Wal-Mart parking lot school of design.
Portland & Park have a chance of actually being places instead of streaks of
tar because Hennepin Cty is responsible for their construction, and that entity
actually incorporated some stylized design elements in their reconstruction of
Lake St. In addition, both streets are wide enough to incorporate stylistic
elements while still maintaining their carrying capacity. My understanding is
that a 2-lane road with turn lanes can comfortably accommodate 15-20k cars a
day, which neither Park nor Portland exceeds according to MnDOT's AADT maps.
How about taking one of the traffic lanes from each street and making the
streets live up to the name Park Avenue?
The tremendous difference between Park and Portland and all other nearby
streets is intended use.
Park and Portland are used in the way for which they were intended. As a
result they work very very well. Those of us who rely on this street don't
take issue with the concept of traffic calming. Calm away! We subscribe to
the idea that if something works then it ain't broken.
Mpls has sooooo many streets that are NOT being used in ways intended. We
desperately need focus on those streets. I'm most closely associated with
south Cedar Ave which is a flippin nightmare for all modes.
South Lyndale was never intended for traffic like that on Park and Portland.
The south Lyndale extreme makeover is returning that street to intended use.
Bravo!
Trying to apply a Lyndale makeover to Park and Portland is absurd. These
streets' intended use would first need to be redefined before it would ever
be considered for a Lyndale-style makeover.
I hope Steve Brandt's article calls out whoever was the genius to even open
this dialog. If there aren't 25-50 Mpls thoroughfares in dire need of
attention ahead of Park and Portland then I'd be shocked. Who the hell has
time and funds to consider a project like this when there are already so
many other roads that already need work to be started ASAP? Those of us near
more tortured thoroughfare's would sure like to know.
The homes on Park and Portland tell the story about it originally being a
grand boulevard. Unfortunately, many of them are now beat to hell thanks to
their use as rental properties.
Werent these streets converted to one ways in the 1940s to match the
PRESENT intended use? So the RECENT 60 years as one ways. They are perfectly
serving INTENDED USE and this would need to change before any consideration
for redesign.
Its one thing to get nostalgic about old buildings and homes. Old homes are
why I moved into the city. Its another thing to go back to pre-war roads.
As for city vs county control, I believe Hennepin County controls part or
all of 35 thoroughfares in the city of Minneapolis. There is ZERO chance
Park and Portland are the neediest streets in that lot. Considering how well
they function as roads, Id say their damned near the end of that list.
You want to make Park and Portland back into grand boulevards? Then bring
back trolleys and cable cars throughout the city first. And since the
suburbs were insignificant back then, you can tell all those folks they have
to park in the outer ring suburbs and use our restored pre-war public
transportation to get around the city. If this entire past vision is also
the entire future vision then Im on board. Short of that, nostalgia about
grand boulevards should remain just that.
Again, who decided to look at two perfectly functioning thoroughfares when
we have so many more urgent COUNTY road issues in the city of Minneapolis?
<email obscured> wrote:
> As the owner and resident of a home on Portland Avenue and a commuter using
Park and Portland Avenues, I am very familiar with the quality of life and
traffic issues surrounding these thoroughfares. My prior house was on a busy
undivided four-lane two-way city street with a speed limit of 35mph, so I
thought I knew what to expect with respect to traffic and accompanying noise.
But I continue to be very surprised by the speed and behavior of drivers on
Park and Portland. Drivers routinely travel at speeds of 45 mph or more (even
up to 70 mph!) and often with little regard for scooters, bicyclists and
pedestrians. I have personally seen the occurrence or aftermath of many
accidents between cars and cars striking bicyclists and pedestrians, including
one that recently killed a bicyclist at the intersection of Park Avenue and
19th Street. In the nearly three years I have owned my current home, I have
seen seven multi-car crashes in front of my home (there are many more that
> occur during the work day and to which I am not a witness). Five of those
crashes involved cars traveling at such high speeds that the crash landed one
or more cars in the sidewalk or yard of (and, in once case, struck) a home
across the street from my own. With that in mind, I ask you to imagine that
your are unloading your children or groceries from your parked car mere inches
from that traffic.
>
> My opinion is that the width of the street combined with one-way traffic
creates an environment that allows drivers to treat Park and Portland Avenues
as freeways. Unfortunately, those "freeways" travel through densely populated
residential neighborhoods and have none of the safety features designed to
protect drivers and isolate them from pedestrians and bicyclists. Wide one-way
streets (which permit speeders to easily pass other drivers), combined with the
timing of the traffic lights, allow cars to travel at speeds that are unsafe
and inappropriate for residential neighborhoods. In contrast to my prior home
on a wider four-lane (but two-way) city street with no bicycle lanes or traffic
calming measures, I witnessed far fewer accidents and speeders. I believe that
was, in no small part, due to the inability of speeders to as easily pass other
cars. In addition to the safety issues resulting from the current
configuration is the fact that these streets act on many level
> s as a barrier to neighbors across the street getting to know one another,
which in turn impacts neighborhood cohesiveness and overall livability.
>
>
Mark Anderson:
I would not be all surprised if there are more accidents on Park and
Portland than all the other north-south streets, because many times more
cars pass through P & P. Making them two way would undoubtedly decrease
the accidents on those streets, but at the expense of increasing
accidents on the other major streets.
I don't understand this whole controversy. Park and Portland are two
streets that work in Minneapolis. Lots of cars get moved at reasonable
speeds. All the cars on P & P makes the other north-south arteries
bearable at rush hour. Has everyone seen the miles-long grid-lock on
Nicollet on the weekends that they close down Minnehaha Parkway, making
Nicollet and 35W the only north-south routes? That's what we are asking
for every rush hour if we take away the P & P one ways. Do people
seriously want to spend a lot more time in their cars getting from place
to place? Changing P & P to two way would be a diminishment in our
quality of life.
And the one ways do not encourage speeding. Because of the well-timed
traffic lights, anyone who speeds won't get anywhere any faster --
they'll just spend more time waiting at a red light. Certainly there
are drivers who will speed anyway, but such drivers would be dangerous
on any street.
FWIW, I like Park and Portland the way they are.
I am so glad that this debate is taking place. Portland and Park are deeply in
need of change. Several years ago my family was considering buying a home in
which to raise our children on Park Avenue near 19th street. We fell in love
with the home, but couldn't stomach living on a street where drivers would
speed by at over 50 miles an hour at all hours of the day. At night time,
people were driven inside by the noise and speed, and the street felt unsafe.
We ended up skipping the house, and it stood unsold for months after that.
Park and Portland do have many assets. They have a very wide right-of-way,
with many historic and prominent sites along the way. If we really had vision,
we would create two parallel parkways that would serve to knit neighborhoods
together rather than divide them, streets that would move traffic, but also
feel safe for families to bicycle on. We would considerably slow the car
traffic. These are not freeways! They should be for everyone! They should be
streets where families want to live that encourage home ownership and
investment. That will increase our tax base, and make our neighborhoods safer.
People would advertise homes for sale near Portland and Park, rather than
having to do damage control when potential buyers are put off by the traffic.
Park could be laid out as follows, from east to west (Portland would be the
same in the opposite direction):
6' sidewalk
8' boulevard
10' bicycle lane
10' grassy, tree-lined median
11' foot auto lane
13' auto lane
8' parking bay
8' boulevard
6' sidewalk
Intersections would have bump-outs and public art could be installed along the
median along with benches and gardens.
There is space to do this. If we did it, we would have something we currently
lack: a world-class, safe, green, bicycle throughway connecting downtown to
South-Central Minneapolis. Currently, how do you ride with your 12 year old
from 48th and Park to downtown? Down Park with traffic careening past at 50
mph? Down Chicago? There is no North-South Greenway that invites cyclists and
pedestrians like the Midtown Greenway. Let's change this, let's make Portland
and Park into beautiful greenways that we can be proud of! I guarantee that if
we do, other cities will be watching.
Jeff Carlson
Whittier
Re: From Steve Basile: "Park and Portland are used in the way for which they
were intended. South Lyndale was never intended for traffic like that on Park
and Portland.The south Lyndale extreme makeover is returning that street to
intended use.Trying to apply a Lyndale makeover to Park and Portland is absurd.
These streets' intended use would first need to be redefined before it would
ever be considered for a Lyndale-style makeover."
IN FACT: Both Park and Portland were originally designed as 36-foot wide,
two-lane, two way roadways, with boulevards on each side of the roadway that
were a full 10 feet wider than the current boulevards. In the early 1940s, the
City of Mpls conducted a similar study to what it is proposing to conduct
today, but at that time it was for the exact opposite: it was a study to
convert the streets into one-ways. By the late 1940s, the one-way conversion
had taken place and, according to long-time residents who lived on Park and
Portland at the time, the subsequent negative impact on the quality of life on
Park and Portland Avenues was felt immediatelyâand dramatically. Despite
heavy protests from upwards of 1,000+ Park and Portland residents at the time,
what followed was that in the 1950s the City of Mpls decided to widen the
roadway from the then 36 feet to its current three-lane, 56 foot width, which,
in addition to adding a whole extra lane to encourage even more, faster traffic
along the nearly 100% residential Avenues, also wiped out a full 20 feet of
green space along the entire stretch of Park and Portland from downtown to
Minnehaha Creek.
Like so many civic decisions at the time, these streets were changed to
one-ways and widened by 20 feet in the name of that generation's interpretation
of âprogress.â But thanks to the new Citywide Transportation Action Plan
and potential two-way study of Park and Portland, today we face exciting new
possibilities for the future of Park and Portland Avenues: to right some wrongs
by once again making them safer, more bike and pedestrian friendly, more
beautiful, and, yes, exactly as they were intended.
As someone who does NOT live on Portland or Park, I like them pretty
much the way they are. They are by far the best arteries to go
to/from downtown from the central south side.
If you're going to reduce traffic there, it's got to go somewhere
else. Unless you first build a streetcar or light rail line or
something comparable, to reduce car use entirely. That would be nice,
but build it first. Maybe in the middle of Park or Portland, since
those are pretty much the only streets wide enough to have room for
it. Otherwise, what do we do, destroy more neighborhoods to create
more limited-access north-south routes?
I'd be sympathetic to reducing the speed a bit, by changing the timing
of the lights (which now seems to be about 40-45), so long as that
smooth timing can be maintained (so that if you drive at the right
speed, you can usually go from 35th to 9th without being stopped by a
light). It's the smooth that's valuable much more than the fast.
Yes, traffic moves faster there. I grew up in a house that was on a
50 mph state highway, so perhaps I'm not quite as sympathetic about
the speed (and it's cars, not coal trucks like in my childhood). But
I don't remember anybody ever getting hit. My parents did educate me
about that road early, though.
The discussion threads speaking to the speed of driver's on Park and Portland
is a traffic management issue. Any neighborhood along Portland or Park can
identify that speeding is a problem on their portion of Portland or Park and
work with your local police precinct in partnership to address the issue
through increased enforcement. If enough people get tickets the word gets out
and people start to slow down.
Speeding is not just an issue on P & P. Drive down many North South streets and
you will see that neighborhoods have installed "slow down we live here" signs.
Those streets are the 36' wide streets that are two-way streets. My street is
one block long and only 30ft. It is a one-way because it is too narrow to
accommodate two-way traffic plus it would be bad for the traffic school from
Whittier School. In spite of that people fly down my block so they can make the
light. More than once I have yelled at people to slow down.
As a mother and a resident on E. 26th St, and a full-time year-round biker hauling a 2 yr old (as of now) in a Burley trailer, I agree that changes need to be made on Park and Portland. BUT, I DISAGREE that they should both be made into 2-way streets plus bike lanes. A MUCH SAFER alternative, and easily doable with signage, is to convert ONE of the streets (take your pick) into a wide 2-lane each, 2-way 30mph street for cars and trucks ONLY. And convert the other street into a PEDESTRIAN and BIKE-ONLY street. My thought would be divide the street into thirds (which it is almost is), and dedicate 1/3 of the street just to walkers (2-way), and 2/3 of the street to bikers, roller-bladers, skateboarders, etc. (2-way). Give us a place to commute safely and avoid the constant danger of the stream of toxic-spewing 2-ton-metal-death cages! How can the City say that it encourages people to convert to zero-emission forms of transportation and not give us a safe way to do it? Imagine families with 7-yr olds riding their bikes with their parents and able to get from Mhaha Pkway to downtown and back without nearly having a coronary at each intersection. Honestly, this type of conversion to bike and pedestrian-only streets really ought to be done on MANY other streets as well, but I'll take Park or Portland for a start. In Germany, there is now a community that doesn't even allow cars on the streets (yeah!) or for people to build garages to house cars. I refer you to this article if you're interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?_r=1 I look forward to hearing feedback and your thoughts on this. Peace, Carrie Anne Johnson East Phillips http://www.facebook.com/greenwarriorbunny
Steve Basile: "The homes on Park and Portland tell the story about it
originally being a grand boulevard. Unfortunately, many of them are now beat to
hell thanks to their use as rental properties."
This is only partially true. There were several factors which contributed to
the deterioration on Park and Portland.
*35W going through completely disrupted the culture of the neighborhood,
forcing people out who lived between the east side of Second Av. and the west
side of Stevens. That cohesiveness changed dramatically since only some of
those evicted through eminent domain could move east and still be in the
neighborhood.
*Red-lining by banks, insurance companies, and the city itself made enormous
inroads on the neighborhoods adjacent the freeways. Banks refused second
mortgages for repairs, insurance companies jacked up rates and/or refused
insurance to homes in the area. The city withheld services or did an inferior
job with services.
*White flight. It is not that they left, but that, not being able to sell their
houses nor repair them, they offered them as rental property to pay their
taxes, hoping for a turn around in the real estate market that could not
materialize because of the red-lining. Subsequently, some of them died, leaving
houses in probate or to relatives who either did not live in Mpls. and/or did
not want them, so sold them to speculators. (Case in point: Ferris Alexander
and his porn emporiums.) The function of speculators is to deliberately slumify
an area to get it ready for massive redevelopment where those entrepreneurs
expected to make a killing by selling to the players in redevelopment before
eminent domain could take over the process. (It was easier to see in Phillips
where it was clear, by the time SSB was in office that it would seem to be the
best option to flatten Phillips entirely and rebuild.)
The long term effect, in Central Neighborhood, was borne particularly harshly
on the backs of the African Americans, who were basically robbed of their
investments in their homes and had fewer resources to recoup the lost
investment.
*Crack hit Central in 1986? 87? The indigenous chaotic clan, the Rolling 30s
Bloods, began taking over blocks in Central. They formalized their clan/gang
entity as the 'Rolling 30s' circa 1989 at a triplex at 3033 Portland, owned by
a Bloomington airline steward, and a duplex owned by a close friend of Sayles
Belton who lived in Pennsylvania and had a cutthroat management company run his
house at 3025 Portland. (I lived in the owner occupied duplex sandwiched
between the two at 3029 Portland.)
While it is convenient shorthand to say houses "were beat to hell thanks to
their use as rental properties," it is actually a way of hiding the causes of
how a neighborhood like Central deteriorates. The symbiotic relationship among
cities, developers, banks, insurance companies, and speculators is what keeps
all those balls in the air.
It would be of no moment to me except that that particular bigotry via
inaccurate shorthand has made and continues to make a mess of Central
Neighborhood. The new neighborhood organization put in place when the wave of
new owners set on "restoring" the Central neighborhood muscled their way into a
neighborhood, poisoning the extant neighborhood organization, continues that
bigotry apace. That phrase, and a lot of similar phrases, along with downright
public insults and other sub-prime behaviors are used to keep older residents
away from any participation which makes everyone more vulnerable and serves to
keep the neighborhood chaotic and thus keeps it ripe for picking from the more
aggressive id-driven among us, including the gangs. The cycle repeats itself
generationally and gets worse each time.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:30 PM, <email obscured>> wrote: > As a mother and a resident on E. 26th St, and a full-time year-round biker > hauling a 2 yr old (as of now) in a Burley trailer, I agree that changes > need to be made on Park and Portland. > > BUT, I DISAGREE that they should both be made into 2-way streets plus bike > lanes. A MUCH SAFER alternative, and easily doable with signage, is to > convert ONE of the streets (take your pick) into a wide 2-lane each, 2-way > 30mph street for cars and trucks ONLY. And convert the other street into a > PEDESTRIAN and BIKE-ONLY street. > > My thought would be divide the street into thirds (which it is almost is), > and dedicate 1/3 of the street just to walkers (2-way), and 2/3 of the > street to bikers, roller-bladers, skateboarders, etc. (2-way). > > Give us a place to commute safely and avoid the constant danger of the > stream of toxic-spewing 2-ton-metal-death cages! How can the City say that > it encourages people to convert to zero-emission forms of transportation and > not give us a safe way to do it? Imagine families with 7-yr olds riding > their bikes with their parents and able to get from Mhaha Pkway to downtown > and back without nearly having a coronary at each intersection. > Another option for creating better bike throughways is the "Bike Boulevard" concept, where a street still allows car traffic, but is optimized for bike traffic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard And videos on Berkeley and Portland's implementations: http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/berkeley-bike-boulevards/ http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/portland-or-bicycle-boulevards/ It still allows local neighborhood car use, but discourages using the roads as a car throughway. It seems like it would be quite compatible with Minneapolis since there's many underutilized roads that could be repurposed like this to create a better bike network.
There is a benefit for small community stores and other retail to
remain in communities. They are dying now because the big boxes are
luring people to them. Some compromise is needed for truck traffic
(deliveries after hours?)
An American city - Carmel, CA has had a compromise plan in place for
decades - or as long as I can remember. No vehicles over a certain
size are allowed - that includes delivery and garbage trucks, etc.
Walking is encouraged and people do it - locals and visitors. Cars
are allowed but the fun thing is to park at your hotel and just walk
the whole time you are in the city. (I noticed the same thing in
Salzburg, Austria. Little trolleys took you from one side of the
river to the other, but otherwise walking is the best way to traverse
the city).
I did notice one bad thing in Carmel. Most workers can't afford to
live there. They bus in from other places and then walk in to get to
their jobs. That is poor city planning. Carmel's charm comes at the
personal cost of service personnel who have to come long distances to
support the image of the city.
There are ups and downs to closing streets or limiting traffic. The
ideas have to be well thought out.
As an infrequent user of P&P I would like to say that I do very much enjoy how
fast I can get to or from Downtown or areas near Downtown by using these
streets.
It's great to get on Park at the Parkway and pretty much breeze all the way
Downtown without stopping. I would probably be just as thrilled going slower
on P&P, just don’t make me stop every few blocks.
The times I use it the traffic is not very high, and I try to just keep a nice
pace to catch all the lights.
Ron Leurquin
Nokomis East
I hope I wasn't percieved as being too flippant when I said I thought P/P
were "just fine as is". That was solely a *personal* perspective from someone
who doesn't live there and occasionally benefits from the high speed (I don't
drive but I occasionally get rides from a friend who uses P/P a lot).
That said, as a candidate for office, seperately from my personal
thoughts, I am interested in what other people think and can see the value in
say, a bike lane or other traffic-calming measures. I think going to two-way is
a bad idea though.
I just thought of another traffic-calming possibillity: Blocking the P/P
pair at 35th St. either completely or enough to discourage through traffic from
south of that point to north of it.
The idea behind that is 35th/36th is the first on/off ramp set on I-35W
south of Downtown; traffic from south of that point has I-35W as an
alternative....
Just curious: was Hiawatha a high-speed road in the 1940s? Or did that
come about later? IIRC it may have been the 1970s but I'm not sure.
BTW, I live on Blaisdell, which is also a high-speed, high-traffic
one-way and a pain to cross at rush hour, so I'm not totally insensitive to the
issue.
I see a lot of concern for safety and traffic calming, but whatever happened to traffic efficiency? Are there few of us that truly care about getting people to their destinations in the minimal time practical? I've studied traffic flow through most Midwestern cities over the years, as a hobby. Minneapolis is more inefficient than most, primarily due to the stoplights either being timed poorly or not timed at all, but also because most arterials are only two-lane. Per capita, there are far fewer four-lane roads or one-ways in Minneapolis than other, more efficient cities such as Kansas City, St. Louis, Des Moines, and Omaha. Lake St. and the 26th/28th one-way pair are the only east-west roads south of downtown with more than one lane in the same direction. Other than 35W, Hiawatha and the Portland/Park one-way pair are the only north-south roads south of Lake with more than one lane in the same direction. I'm not counting lanes that double as parking since there generally are parked cars blocking those lanes. I've driven all over Minneapolis, and I can say with confidence that Portland and Park are the most efficient streets in town, aside from the freeways. If they are turned two-lane, they will not be able to handle as much traffic, due to both reduction in number of lanes and that the stoplights will no longer be able to be timed. The stoplights are pretty much perfectly timed right now. Incidentally, I wrote a song about driving down Portland: http://www.myspace.com/millcitytailracers Yes, the song does talk about driving fast, but the song was written for fun and that's beside the point. If speed is the issue, slowing down the timing of the lights would be a much more practical solution. I was told by a traffic engineer several years ago that one-ways are overall safer than two-ways. He didn't explain why, but my guess is because of turning traffic and ease of turning onto the road or crossing it - you only have to watch for cars from one direction. Also, no head-on collisions. This is a hidden safety aspect of one-ways that hasn't been brought up in this thread yet. If Portland and Park are made two-way, it will decrease their capacity. Making a street one-way enables the stoplights to be timed for traffic flowing in that direction. If they're two-way, traffic will flow slower and there will be much more stopping and traffic jams during rush hour, which will not only make commuting across south Minneapolis to take longer but will in turn cause more drivers to use 35W. Portland and Park are currently a great alternative to 35W when it's jammed. If they're made two-way, the increased traffic on 35W will lead to more frequent and longer jams than we see today on 35W, and that section of 35W is jammed much more often than most other freeways in the metro area. Most of the major arterials in Kansas City are four-lane. Some are six-lane. There are many more lanes per capita in KC than there are in Minneapolis. Consequently, in my experience I'd say it takes less than half, possibly as little as one third, of the time to go the same distance down a Kansas City arterial than it does a Minneapolis arterial. Not just because you can pass the slow person going 5 under, but also because more lanes can handle more traffic without getting jammed. Every traffic engineering decision is a balance between safety and efficiency. I understand and respect the neighbors' safety concerns, but please keep in mind that if Portland and Park were made two-way, the reduced capacity will make for more stop-and-go traffic on both those two streets and neighboring parallel arterials like Chicago and Nicollet - people will seek alternate routes - and traffic flow in the area will be messier (more jams and more stop-and-go traffic) and substantially increase the time it takes to get from point A to point B. The messier traffic may also cause other safety concerns that aren't there today, so I'm not convinced that making them two-way would make things safety. I hope that the city council considers the efficiency aspect of this and doesn't just see the side of the neighborhood residents concerned about speed. If I lived on Portland or Park, I'd still be all for keeping them one-way, and I'm sure some folks are. Minneapolis arterials are already relatively inefficient compared to most other cities. Let's not make it any worse than it already is.
From my experience Minneapolis is probably the worst City in the nation for
driving in. I am glad Mr. Sandstone used K.C. in comparison. Though of similar
size the contrast in driving time is remarkable.
This far more than just the streets however, even though he is correct about
their traffic engineers versus ours. Our traffic people apparently do no drive
so may not know what a mess our streets are, both in design of streets and in
the timing of lights.
But other social factors also complicates things in South Minneapolis. We just
do not seem to understand that following to close and not allowing people to
get in front of us in reality slows us down immensely. Where and why "Minnesota
Nice" created this I do not know but it is definitely a factor.
The other factor is the large number of immigrantswho simply do not come from a
car culture and who are unbelievable bad at it because it is not almost rote
behavior. This is also complicated by the love of modern technology. Recently,
while driving down 24th Street between Chicago and Cedar I made a bet with my
son about the number of Somali women (unbelievably bad drivers) who would be
talking on phones. So we counted them, and the total came to 11 on cell phones
and two without phones. (One woman attempting to do a U turn in the middle of
the block while clutching a cell phone to her ear, unconcernedly blocking
traffic.) These numbers pretty much reflect the realities of what anyone can
observe.
So while street engineering can surely change, people engineering (driving with
a cell phone implanted in the ear)) needs to also improve.
Jim Graham
"Many receive advice, few profit by it."
- Publilius Syrus, 1st Century B.C.
Thanks for your contributions to today's column: http://www.startribune.com/local/west/52312227.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU Online readers are commenting like mad on the issue. Steve Brandt Reporter Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 612-673-4438 <email obscured>
"like mad"..... Like mad at all the pop ups on the web site??? I tried
to read it online, but the site is a pop up minefield. The credit card
ad kept popping up over the article, so I had to click it closed several
times. I finally figured out that when my mouse went over Steve's
that's what triggered it.
"Brandt, Steve" wrote:
> Online readers are commenting like mad on the issue.
Dean Lindberg
Minnehaha
Steve, Another fine article. There's middle ground here somewhere. Even though residents knew what they were getting into when moving near Park and Portland, changes can be made to restore value to the neighborhood without breaking the best running roads in the city. New considerations can and perhaps should be made to bicycle and pedestrian needs. Eliminating a lane to improve boulevards and bike lanes is entirely reasonable. Slowing traffic should be considered. Red light and speed cameras could be considered to penalize the law breakers. If Park and Portland changes are to be considered then all stakeholders can to come to the table to have their needs heard. What should not be considered is making these back into what they used to be. What was then is likely not what we need now. Finally, I'm going to beat a dead horse on the matter of priority. There are dozens of city and county roads screaming out for improvements. Putting effort or funds into this ahead of roads already past due for maintenance or redesign is irresponsible use of public staff and funds. If this is not thrown on the furthest back of burners then we need to start looking into undue influence of connected parties. Steve Basile <email obscured> http://www.xebrawerx.com http://www.twitter.com/xebrawerx
It's interesting to read everyone thoughts on this thread, however as someone
who lives on Portland Ave where it is a two way (across from Pearl Park), I
question the validity of of a two-way having a calming affect. I would invite
anyone to come out on a Mon-Thursday evening (soccer/baseball/football etc.)
and enjoy some tea on my front stoop while watching a couple hundred 6-14 year
old kids trying to dodge traffic from two direction going 40 around blind
curves with cars park solid on both sides. It's even more of a joy to watch
someone drive a sane speed giving the circumstances being honked at to speed
up.
We get our fair share of 50-70 mph folks as well, my favorite was two summers
ago when the Plymouth police were chasing a stolen car going about 60-70. My
guess would be they would have been suspended in Plymouth for going that fast
past a park.
The only "calming" effect that I have seen work is when someone talking on
their cell or texting misses one of the curves and nails a tree/sign/snow
bank/telephone pole. We lost our boulevard tree last fall when the Park Board
decided it was now too damages from hits from cars to live. But I've only see
this be a temporary and individual effect. I hope this area is a part of any
"traffic calming study" of two-way roads.
Thaddeus Lesiak
Hale/Page/DL
At 2:20 PM -0500 8/5/09, Steve Basile wrote:
>
>Finally, I'm going to beat a dead horse on the matter of priority. There are
>dozens of city and county roads screaming out for improvements. Putting
>effort or funds into this ahead of roads already past due for maintenance or
>redesign is irresponsible use of public staff and funds. If this is not
>thrown on the furthest back of burners then we need to start looking into
undue influence of connected parties.
I want to underline what Steve says, about Park/Portland not being
priorities at all in today's tough environment. The idea of
re-designing them is pure distraction from real issues.
Last night, after National Night Out on our block, some neighbors
from blocks north of East Hennepin Ave. held a meeting to discuss
what to do with Garfield St., 14th Ave., 15th Ave, and 16th Ave., and
Winter Street (part of the Como neighborhood since 1882): theose
streets have never been paved. Never. Just "tar and chipped." They
are potholed and dangerous and an embarrassment to Minneapolis and
especially, to all the Council Members or Aldermen of the First Ward
who ever have served in the City Council.Those I can remember are
Ostrow, Dzietzic, Sivanich. None of them saw fit to address this
nineteenth-century reality in our neighborhood. And there's no
movement in sight.
A year and a half ago, CM Ostrow held a meeting, at the formal
petition of almost everyone who lived on those blocks, to explain the
CLIC system and why he couldn't promise to negotiate any improvement
to the streets for four, or five, or six years into the future, if
ever. Other areas have priority, and Ostrow was not willing to go to
bat for our neighbors (my own block, in the Second Ward, has been
by-the-books paved, and then re-paved after thirty-some years--like
yours, no doubt.) He brought along a Public Works guy who explained
what a paving of the streets would look like, if ever it were done.
Dog and pony show, to pretend to address these very concerned and
neglected citizens' complaint.
Obviously, there are parts of Minneapolis that just don't count at
the Mayoral and Council level. So I suspect that Steve's last
sentence is spot on.
Connie
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis
It's interesting to read everyone thoughts on this thread, however as someone
who lives on Portland Ave where it is a two way (across from Pearl Park), I
question the validity of of a two-way having a calming affect. I would invite
anyone to come out on a Mon-Thursday evening (soccer/baseball/football etc.)
and enjoy some tea on my front stoop while watching a couple hundred 6-14 year
old kids trying to dodge traffic from two direction going 40 around blind
curves with cars park solid on both sides. It's even more of a joy to watch
someone drive a sane speed giving the circumstances being honked at to speed
up.
We get our fair share of 50-70 mph folks as well, my favorite was two summers
ago when the Plymouth police were chasing a stolen car going about 60-70. My
guess would be they would have been suspended in Plymouth for going that fast
past a park.
The only "calming" effect that I have seen work is when someone talking on
their cell or texting misses one of the curves and nails a tree/sign/snow
bank/telephone pole. We lost our boulevard tree last fall when the Park Board
decided it was now too damages from hits from cars to live. But I've only see
this be a temporary and individual effect. I hope this area is a part of any
"traffic calming study" of two-way roads.
Thaddeus Lesiak
Hale/Page/DL
I enjoyed Steve's article. Very well written.
Yesterday I made a couple of trips through South Minneapolis and received some
additional perspective of Portland/Park. I actually drove from Franklin to
Diamond Lake with one stop, the first one after making the turn. On the way
home again one stop. Imagine the amount of extra gas I would have burned and
the amount of additional pollution I would have put into our communities if I
were stopping and sitting still for every other light.
Then I happened to have to drive down Nicollet and again am reminded of the
incredible stupidity of building a K-Mart across that once main artery of
Minneapolis. Can we really have confidence in City Planners after seeing that
colossal disaster that ruined a great commercial corridor. Of course it did
create "traffic calming".
Later in the day I drove in from the south and decided to take Lyndale for
perspective. This again is a street that was once a main artery in Minneapolis.
It has now been destroyed as a functioning artery. Calmed to the point of being
nothing more than a residential street. This is on the part completed .
So once Minneapolis had four main north-south arteries, Cedar, Portland/Park,
Nicollet, and Lyndale. I used all of them frequently 40 years ago, in fact more
so than the freeways when they were finally opened. Now City "Transportation
Planners" and politicians have destroyed two of them, or at least removed their
capacity to move traffic.
I very much doubt if the City is going to ban cars in the foreseeable future.
And would not support taking out the bike lanes on Portland and Park to allow
widening them to have two lanes each way. Bikes really do move along there. So
we are left with the choices of one lane each way or the streetscontinuing to
be three lanes and be one way only.
It really comes down to whether you are concerned with conservation and the
environment or just lip sync-ing to be cool. Making the two streets two ways
would make them have a much greater carbon footprint and would create
additional tons of pollution in our communities and City.
Minneapolis traffic is already a catastrophe, lets not let political cool get
in the way of sense. Of course I think the Hennepin County Commissioners have a
great deal more of that commodity, so I am confident they will take the larger
view than City Council Members and not repeat the mistake of allowing a "County
Road" to be destroyed for moving traffic.
Jim Graham
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without
accepting it."
One of the recent postings on this list, "South West Transitway Open Houses and
meeting schedule", linked to a variety of plans for the planned light rail to
the southwest suburbs, ending in Eden Prairie. One of the alternatives I
saw in the plans was putting the light rail on the Greenway and then on one of
the big Avenues leading north to Minneapolis downtown, like Nicholett or Park
Avenue. If that happens, the plans for the big traffic arteries southwards
have to be redone anyhow - even if the light rail would run on Nicholett and
not on Park, which I doubt, the car traffic from Nicholett would have to find a
different way, at least partly, e.g. on Park and Portland Avenue.
Need help? Please contact technical support and we will follow-up in 24-48 hours.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using the open source web-based mailing list manager GroupServer.