All posts in the topic Snelling Avenue Medians (Short link)
Summary
- There are 36 posts — by 22 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by david unowsky at 2008 Jan 30 16:48 UTC
The fate of a series of proposed center medians on Snelling Avenue
between Grand and St. Clair is expected to become clearer in the next
few weeks when the Minnesota Department of Transportation decides
whether the project merits state financing. The 10-foot-wide medians
would be installed on a six-block stretch of Snelling abutting
Macalester College. Two lanes of traffic would be maintained in each
direction, with designated left-turn lanes at Grand and at St. Clair.
Vehicles would still be able to turn left at Goodrich and Osceola
avenues, but left-turning access to and from all other side streets,
all alleys and the Lincoln Commons retail center would be lost, as
would most parking on Snelling. The project's estimated cost of
$750,000 would be split by Macalester and the state. (Snelling is a
state highway.)
The medians are being pitched as a way to improve pedestrian safety
across Snelling by giving pedestrians a midway island in a river of
heavy car and truck traffic. Some contend that the medians would also
slow traffic.
Others beg to differ. Some believe the loss of access to and from
four residential streets will only divert more traffic onto Goodrich
and Osceola. Some believe a street separated by medians with a ban on
most parking will actually increase traffic speeds. Others are
concerned about the economic impact.
"I dont think anyone is considering all of the consequences of this
project," said Ross Feffercorn, the owner of Lincoln Commons. "Im
not against pedestrian safety and traffic calming, but I question
whether medians on a short stretch of street are going to have the
impact people are looking for."
In any case, he said, "People may want traffic to flow more smoothly
on Snelling, but I don't want it to flow past my buildings. I want
people to be able to turn into my parking lot." Lincoln Commons'
tenants include Coastal Seafoods, Caribou Coffee, Great Clips and Fed
Ex/Kinkos, all of which reported lost business during a test of the
median last fall.
Personally, if Mn/DOT officials line up in support of this project,
I'd be leery. State highway engineers are notoriously pro-traffic
flow, at the expense of such concerns as traffic speed. As a Mn/DOT
spokesman frankly told one of the Villager's reporters last week, "We
don't do traffic calming."
Miscke said:
> The fate of a series of proposed center medians on Snelling Avenue
> between Grand and St. Clair is expected to become clearer in the next
> few weeks when the Minnesota Department of Transportation decides
> whether the project merits state financing. The 10-foot-wide medians
> would be installed on a six-block stretch of Snelling abutting
> Macalester College.
This proposed project is nothing less than surrender.
Snelling Ave carries about 30k cars per day in that stretch, part of a
long build-up to the maximum of 40k cars per day at I-94. Traffic is
light to the south, but heavy to the north. At the moment, there is a bit
of a bottle-neck in the 1/2 mile proposed project area.
If this bottleneck is removed, it will only encourage traffic to move
northward, causing even more congestion at that end of the line. As we
know, just beyond the maximum is the intersection with University, where
the SUCS proposed a tunnel as the most viable way to alleviate the
congestion. Eliminating bottlenecks to the south, where the congestion is
gradually building, is a surrender to the proposed tunnel and
corresponding loss of businesses in the area.
There has to be an alternative to making Snelling Ave look increasingly
like a freeway. If you were to consider trolleys or a dedicated bus lane,
for example, you have substantial room for them on this 100' wide street
(Grand Ave, by comparison, is only 80'). By restricting the through
traffic to a 3-lane arrangement in the middle, the lane saved plus the 10'
dedicated for the median could be put to use that enhances the
neighborhood rather than cuts it off in a river of asphalt.
Granted, at 30k cars per day a three-lane configuration would be swamped,
needing to shed around 25% of its traffic to flow smoothly. But that is
what we have to do to make Snelling traffic flow at a reasonable rate
further north from this point. We should start by insisting that transit
be introduced as we place reasonable restrictions on Snelling away from
the major choke-point.
This proposal comes from very narrow thinking and a complete lack of
imagination. The SUCS showed us that traditional ways of dealing with
cars as bulk commodities cannot be applied to Snelling without producing
unacceptable results. There is no alternative left but to understand why
the cars are there through an Origin and Destination Study, and to take
dramatic steps to provide real alternatives that get people out of their
cars.
We have to reduce the cars on Snelling, not find ways of accomodating more
of them. To do that, we have to understand who are in those cars. We'll
find that, more often than not, it's all of us. What else can be done to
get us where we need to be?
Speaking as both a daily driver of this stretch of Snelling and as a frequent pedestrian crossing it, I support the median. Setting aside any and all ideas of reducing the number of cars using this state trunk highway, given the utter lack of compliance with and enforcement of pedestrian crosswalk laws I rest assured that a median will only increase pedestrian safety. If you've ever tried to cross Snelling at any crosswalk between the lighted intersections at St. Clair or Grand, you know that you essentially risk your life. It's very difficult to cross four lanes of traffic on foot given the speeds most drivers exercise on Snelling. And as a driver, I worry about pedestrians stuck halfway across who face some cars stopping and others speeding by. The poor lighting and difficulty seeing pedestrians at or after dark is a whole separate issue. The proposed median will allow those of us in the neighborhood to wait for the light at the relevant intersection, cross to the middle, wait for the other light, and then cross again. What a dream! And as a green median, it will be a small step toward beautifying what is otherwise an ugly roadway scab on this lovely neighborhood. Snelling is a concrete Grand Canyon, splitting Mac-Groveland in two. The median will help bridge the halves. Sarah Dirksen Excitedly counting the days until the median gets built 1 1/2 blocks from my home in Mac-Grovelend <email obscured> wrote: Miscke said: > The fate of a series of proposed center medians on Snelling Avenue > between Grand and St. Clair is expected to become clearer in the next > few weeks when the Minnesota Department of Transportation decides > whether the project merits state financing. The 10-foot-wide medians > would be installed on a six-block stretch of Snelling abutting > Macalester College. This proposed project is nothing less than surrender. Snelling Ave carries about 30k cars per day in that stretch, part of a long build-up to the maximum of 40k cars per day at I-94. Traffic is light to the south, but heavy to the north. At the moment, there is a bit of a bottle-neck in the 1/2 mile proposed project area. If this bottleneck is removed, it will only encourage traffic to move northward, causing even more congestion at that end of the line. As we know, just beyond the maximum is the intersection with University, where the SUCS proposed a tunnel as the most viable way to alleviate the congestion. Eliminating bottlenecks to the south, where the congestion is gradually building, is a surrender to the proposed tunnel and corresponding loss of businesses in the area. There has to be an alternative to making Snelling Ave look increasingly like a freeway. If you were to consider trolleys or a dedicated bus lane, for example, you have substantial room for them on this 100' wide street (Grand Ave, by comparison, is only 80'). By restricting the through traffic to a 3-lane arrangement in the middle, the lane saved plus the 10' dedicated for the median could be put to use that enhances the neighborhood rather than cuts it off in a river of asphalt. Granted, at 30k cars per day a three-lane configuration would be swamped, needing to shed around 25% of its traffic to flow smoothly. But that is what we have to do to make Snelling traffic flow at a reasonable rate further north from this point. We should start by insisting that transit be introduced as we place reasonable restrictions on Snelling away from the major choke-point. This proposal comes from very narrow thinking and a complete lack of imagination. The SUCS showed us that traditional ways of dealing with cars as bulk commodities cannot be applied to Snelling without producing unacceptable results. There is no alternative left but to understand why the cars are there through an Origin and Destination Study, and to take dramatic steps to provide real alternatives that get people out of their cars. We have to reduce the cars on Snelling, not find ways of accomodating more of them. To do that, we have to understand who are in those cars. We'll find that, more often than not, it's all of us. What else can be done to get us where we need to be? Erik Hare West End (Irvine Park), Saint Paul http://www.authorsden.com/erikhare Info about Erik Hare: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/erikhare This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5gyeJJbtDNqpvSuRLhqmLl
Speaking as another daily driver of Snelling Av, I totally hate the idea of
medians. We have much more important ways to spend money than on concrete
lumps. While those medians are being built, those medians will totally disrupt
Snelling and the surrounding community.
Concrete lumps is bad city planning. Big blocks of concrete don't fix too much
traffic. With 35W down, we have some of that traffic. Don't make a lives worse
by putting concrete barriers. It does not work and it wastes money that should
be better spent elsewhere. Just because someone put the marketing label
"Traffic calming" on concrete lumps, does not make it true. "Traffic
frustration and endangerment" would be a true label. Frustrated traffic gets
mad and does stupid things. Left turning traffic still has to turn left.
Medians will shift cars from the suicide lane to the intersections. Left
turning traffic will back up and slow down intersections. Traffic engineers
will put in longer left turns at intersections slowing us all down.
Concrete lump planning is bad city planning. Concrete lumps is what they used
to wall up Baghdad to make it safe. We already have examples of concrete lump
planning on Selby. I also drive the Selby median area almost daily. Wow, that
an awful mistake! Cars jut out in slanted parking on the cutouts. Buses stop
and block the whole street, with the medians. On slippery days, there is no
margin for error and no way to go around a problem. Emergency vehicles cannot
cross the median. In fact, concrete lumps on Selby means that on bad snow days
I take Snelling-Summit to go around and avoid concrete lumps. So the businesses
on Selby suffer and traffic gets worse on Snelling. So lumps on Snelling could
shift traffic through neighborhood alternate routes - where kids hang out.
If you really want to fix this, get Pawlenty to raise taxes to fix the state
highway system and put in more public transportation. Our problem is that there
should be public transportation and State highways, not Snelling avenues!
Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Curmudgeon from Merriam Park
Macalester College did a proper pilot around medians where students cross on
Grand just west of Snelling. Students, faculty, community members,
transportation people, etc., were all involved. Purpose was to improve
pedestrian safety and a corollary, reduce driver anxiety and risk of killing
people. Long story short, they're in and are working well.
Snelling Avenue is a pedestrian death trap from Roseville to Montreal.
Community groups and district councils are pursuing medians and other
landscaping as well as regulatory solutions to improve pedestrian safety in
the section from University to Pierce Butler (where there are, in fact, many
more signaled intersections than south of Grand...and in fact south of
Selby).
It's an extra challenge because as a state highway MnDOT has an exceptional
amount of control, and little willingness to collaborate with anyone over
anything.
Tho I am not as close to the area under consideration as Sarah Dirksen and
others are, I have spent most of my life living or traveling in or near this
area. I also witnessed a pedestrian killed late at night a few years ago
trying to cross Snelling near but not at a crosswalk at Highland Parkway and
Snelling. Rushing to cover him to prevent shock, I cradled his head off the
cold pavement and listened to an EMT on my
hours-old-cell-phone-w-minimal-charge telling me to begin mouth-to-mouth
recusitation. I had to explain that she simply didn't understand how badly
injured he was; labored breathing was the least of his concerns -- if I
moved his head back even enough to open his airway, he would die in my
hands. As it was, he died very shortly thereafter. I see near-death
crossings almost every day between Montreal and I-94. Since 1) more signals
are not going to happen on this state highway, 2) the speed limit is at 30
for most of it already, 3) traffic volume was high before 35W and simply
continues on this arterial, and 4) people still DO need to cross without
going to the signals placed at the 1/2-mile: We MUST create better short-
AND long-term solutions. Medians work, they've been tested in this
community, and they solve one part of the problem. Not taking this step
continues to put lives at risk. I can't support the trouncing of the good in
pursuit of perfection. Step by step, and protect people at every one.
I, too drive Snelling regularly. It is very interesting to see how the
Montreal to Edgecumbe block is so much different than the rest of the Snelling
going north. Granted, that section doesn't have all of the truck traffic
coming up Montreal and headed for the Ford Plant. But the stretch north of
Montreal really needs calming. Having four lanes makes it very difficult for
pedestrians crossing the street. If one car in one lane stops for them, will
the other car coming up in the other lane stop? And then will the cars coming
in the other direction also stop? Crossing at Scheffer by the Arby's is always
challenging. And I know that the folks crossing from the east side of Snelling
to get to Macalester have to deal with the same concern. (The new construction
has reduced the number of intersections where folks can cross.) Medias and bump
outs do "calm" traffic flow. So do frequent speed traps. I haven't seen one
on Snelling for quite awhile. Folks really get their speed up coming north
from St. Clair and this is where I most often see the speed traps.
So I support a media. I would like to see it run from Summit to Montreal.
Rob Fulton,
Highland Park
I think I understand the issue and need to protect pedestrians crossing
Snelling. However, I wonder how adding a median will help.
Unless the city is going to widen Snelling to add the medians all you will
succeed in doing is make it more difficult to drive down Snelling.
Adding crosswalks with signals will work without adding the medians. Of
course, it would be necessary to restrict how often a pedestrian could activate
the crosswalk signals. If have ever driven by United Hospital since they added
cross walk signals you know that pedestrians can block traffic for as long as
they want by simply pressing the cross walk signal soon after the lights
change.
Another option would be pedestrian bridges. Although, I assume these would be
much more costly to install then medians. I just don't know how medians will
protect a pedestrian that challenges traffic.
"Anne R. Carroll" <carrfran@qwest.net> wrote: Macalester College did a proper
pilot around medians where students cross on
Grand just west of Snelling. Students, faculty, community members,
transportation people, etc., were all involved. Purpose was to improve
pedestrian safety and a corollary, reduce driver anxiety and risk of killing
people. Long story short, they're in and are working well.
Snelling Avenue is a pedestrian death trap from Roseville to Montreal.
Community groups and district councils are pursuing medians and other
landscaping as well as regulatory solutions to improve pedestrian safety in
the section from University to Pierce Butler (where there are, in fact, many
more signaled intersections than south of Grand...and in fact south of
Selby).
It's an extra challenge because as a state highway MnDOT has an exceptional
amount of control, and little willingness to collaborate with anyone over
anything.
Tho I am not as close to the area under consideration as Sarah Dirksen and
others are, I have spent most of my life living or traveling in or near this
area. I also witnessed a pedestrian killed late at night a few years ago
trying to cross Snelling near but not at a crosswalk at Highland Parkway and
Snelling. Rushing to cover him to prevent shock, I cradled his head off the
cold pavement and listened to an EMT on my
hours-old-cell-phone-w-minimal-charge telling me to begin mouth-to-mouth
recusitation. I had to explain that she simply didn't understand how badly
injured he was; labored breathing was the least of his concerns -- if I
moved his head back even enough to open his airway, he would die in my
hands. As it was, he died very shortly thereafter. I see near-death
crossings almost every day between Montreal and I-94. Since 1) more signals
are not going to happen on this state highway, 2) the speed limit is at 30
for most of it already, 3) traffic volume was high before 35W and simply
continues on this arterial, and 4) people still DO need to cross without
going to the signals placed at the 1/2-mile: We MUST create better short-
AND long-term solutions. Medians work, they've been tested in this
community, and they solve one part of the problem. Not taking this step
continues to put lives at risk. I can't support the trouncing of the good in
pursuit of perfection. Step by step, and protect people at every one.
I believe room will be made for the medians by
removing parking lanes and/or left turn lanes. There
shouldn't be any effect on the amount of traffic
Snelling can handle as there will still be four
traffic lanes after the medians are constructed. What
the medians will do is make it easier for pedestrians
to cross this very busy, four lane street/highway.
They'll allow pedestrians to cross two lanes of
traffic at a time and have a safe place to wait till
they can cross the remaining two traffic lanes.
I suspect there is also an aesthetic purpose on the
part of Macalester for wanting the medians. I believe
they'll be more than a "lump of concrete" and will
have some landscaping on them.
The downside is the loss of parking and the inability
to make as many left turns as are now possible. This
may well be a problem for stores like Coastal Seafoods
in that small strip mall just south of the Grand Ave.
intersection.
And let's not forget that Macalester is willing to pay
half the cost.
Personally, I like the idea even though it will
inconvenience me slightly when I shop at Coastal
Seafood. I don't see the dire consequences for traffic
that others see. There are four traffic lanes there
now and there'll be four lanes when (or if) the
medians are constructed. But pedestrians will be safer
and the city will look nicer.
This decision will benefit from some local eyes. At MnDOT in particular, the general mission is to move cars through the area with maximum efficiency. If people find MnDOT's interests conflict with the interests of the City and/or neighborhood, that shouldn't bring an end to the issue. Snelling Avenue is really similar in use and dimensions to Ashland Avenue in Chicago, and in the 1990s I saw that street very much transformed by a project like this (http://tinyurl.com/36rw78). What once felt like a small freeway was made both safer and far more appealing to pedestrians. Excelsior Boulevard in St. Louis Park is probably the closest parallel locally (http://tinyurl.com/37kymu). One of the reasons you don't see more similar projects is because it costs cities scant money. With Macalester's offer, St. Paul wouldn't foot the bill here, and that's pretty unusual. Which brings us back to review by local stakeholders who know the area the best. However you feel about the proposal, I hope there's some apprecation that this simply wouldn't even be a possibility in many other similar areas across the City.
Pedestrian safety... Will these new medians effect emergency vehicles ability to make U-turns if/when needed? (Perhaps to save just 30 seconds on the way to your residence while searching for your address.) How many pedestrians have died on this stretch of road while crossing the street (illegally crossing the street)...I think I missed that number in the thread? Seems relevant if in fact there is a *real* public safety issue. Where are the stats? *"Snelling Avenue is a pedestrian death trap from Roseville to Montreal." * "*pedestrian death trap"?* How many people died during the State Fair season? I believe we lose *under* 50 (out of several million) people per year (2002 STATEWIDE #'s <http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/facts/stats2002/index.htm#map7>) to "pedestrian deaths" *statewide.* *"stretch north of Montreal really needs calming."* ** *None of this needs "calming".* Pedestrians need to use the crosswalks. Period. We speak of an obesity epedemic out of one side of our mouths and then want to pander to a minority who can't figure out how to cross a street because apparently they refuse to walk to the crosswalks. We could frame the Snelling traffic issue as a public health "opportunity" to get people walking more and combat obesity by walking to use the crosswalks we already paid for. (It's not as if bodies are bouncing off bumpers on Snelling folks. All of this "fear for your life" talk is a bit much) Page 6 <http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/04100.pdf> (USDOT FHWA report) has a nice pic of a Zebra crossing in Sweden. These "refuge islands" needn't run the length of the strip, do not obstruct emergency vehicles, are less intrusive and more attractive. These give those of us who are short on common sense a safe(r) crossing option. Marc Keep *our* money MNDOT. Let Mac pay for it. They're rolling in cash. West 7th
Just to be clear - Grace is confused when comparing the proposed
Snelling project to anything in Baghdad. We are not talking about 3
foot concrete dividers, we are talking about a curbed median - similar
the one that was added recently on Grand just west of Snelling.
Many appear to not grasp how this will help pedestrians. It will allow
us to cross half way and pause before going across the other half. This
is not about people "refusing to walk in the crosswalks."
In fact, I have seen several accidents from people who did walk in
crosswalks (legally) when motorists stopped for them (as required by the
law) and someone behind did not stop, not expecting traffic to be
stopped on Snelling so far from a stoplight.
There have been times when the police force had to send an officer to
help people cross the road during sporting events. Why did they have
to? Because it makes sense to prevent accidents when drivers are so
inconsistent with noticing people who want to cross the street and being
aware of vehicles stopping in front of them.
Allowing us to cross the street safely with a pedestrian refuge in the
middle (by not having to wait for those rare instances when no one is
coming in both directions rather than just one) allows the city not to
waste an officer's time as crossing guard, will reduce the number of
accidents on that stretch, and will make it a lot easier for us to cross
the road.
Building ped bridges over the road is difficult due to wheelchair access
issues.
These are good investments that ultimately save both money and aggravation.
As for emergency vehicles - these medians exist all over the place -
even on Snelling (just north of University) and these professionals know
how to deal with them. Let's not belittle their driving / planning skills.
Christopher Mitchell
Snellin' n Selby but often around Mac stadium
OK, first of all pedestrians should only cross Snelling at a crosswalk. If
pedestrians are not on crosswalks, on Snelling, (especially, on Snelling) we
need a pedestrian re-education program, not concrete lumps in the middle of the
road. If pedestrians are in danger in the crosswalk, no concrete lump in the
middle will take them out of danger. And in this design, the concrete does not
in anyway stop an out of control car from hitting a pedestrian.
Second, the Grand Av experiment cannot be compared to Snelling. Grand Av is a
shopping road, that people expect to have to stop for people crossing all over
the place. Through traffic uses Summit Av, just one block over. Any pedestrian
who tries to cross on Snelling, the way we all do on Grand, needs re-training
and re-education.
Snelling is the major access road for emergency vehicles. When intersection
stopped traffic blocks one side, the emergency vehicles can swerve around them
using the other side. Medians would stop that. We have only one large north
south road for at least 10 blocks in each direction. Macalaster is a huge
blockage for traffic flow. We need Snelling Av to work, not turn into an only
for locals living there street.
Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Curmudgeon who is not confused at all
Still living in Merriam Park
"If pedestrians are in danger in the crosswalk, no
concrete lump in the middle will take them out of
danger."
Not so. There's a big difference between standing in a
10 foot wide median waiting for the second two lanes
of traffic to clear and straddling a six inch lane
marker. And could we please stop with the "concrete
lump" nonsense. That's not what we're talking about.
As for restricting pedestrians to crosswalks, how far
is it between crosswalks on Snelling? My impression is
that you're talking about the distance between the
proposed station stops on the Central Corridor. Except
at intersections with traffic lights, it's almost
impossible to cross all four traffic lanes on Snelling
in one go. It's necessary to first cross two lanes,
then wait for the second two to clear. A median makes
that procedure much safer.
As for out-of-control cars, of course a median isn't
going to stop a car. But the same argument would apply
to any sidewalk as well.
In reality, Snelling Avenue overall is hugely deficient. There is no equivalent
inclusive or adjacent right-of-way for bicycle transportation and the walking
and handicapped facility is inadequate too. For north-south access, the stretch
between Marshall and University, and between Taylor and Larpenteur is deficient
for walking and handicapped, as well as no ROW for bicycle access.
More significant is I-94 that feeds and collects only cars and motor vehicles
to Snelling. I-94 is profoundy deficient and inadequate and a complete
re-design of I-94 is something we should be talking about *now* because it will
be an expensive, 20-year project to fix. Another thread for I-94.
What we really need to do to Snelling, is decrease from two lanes in each
direction to one lane in each direction. This would provide the needed space
for improved walking and handicapped access, and room for a plowable 24/7,
year-round ROW for bicycle transportation. We need this. The easiest and best
way to accomplish decreasing the number of lanes is to build a rapid transit
rail line traversing far south and far north. Properly designed and with
adequate length-distance, built for 60 to 100K passenger trips per day, one
traffic lane in each direction would be more tolerable. How so? Because 60K to
100K daily transit passengers would displace more of the current 55000 vehicle
count on Snelling today.
I am not certain LRT can be fitted with both left hand turn lanes and station
platforms on Snelling. Last Easter I measured 94 feet from building wall to
building wall at Snelling and Van Buren.
However, whether LRT will fit easily or not, I firmly believe we will have no
choice but to decrease to single lane on Snelling and other streets in the not
to distant future. The reasons are many, but perhaps the most significant
reason is that none of us want to pay the increasing tax and expense of auto
subsidy, least of all those of us who use the cars the most. Building just for
cars is costing us a bundle in taxes, money and space, more each year, and its
not getting us where we want to go or be. That is reality.
For the moment, anything that improves human access crossing Snelling or
traversing the entire corridor, is the direction we want to go, and the future
we want to be.
All The Best
Paul Nelson
Ward One
Hyde Park
District 7
I live near Snelling Ave, travel on it when necessary, and only cross it
willing on foot at traffic signals. It is even hard to cross Snelling in
a car except at traffic signals.
Problems arise not only from people crossing in the middle of blocks
between pedestrian crossings. (For the life of me, I can't understand
why people within 25 feet of a crosswalk choose to avoid the crosswalk
and just dash between oncoming traffic.) Drivers cause a significant
problem.
By the way Kelly, will your "pedestrian re-education centers" be
surrounded with chain-link fences topped by barbed wire and have towers
for armed guards. Just the phrase sounds sinister?
Part of the problem with people crossing Snelling Ave. is their lack of
visibility. Redesign of crosswalk areas and small shelters island in the
middle of the road could solve part of this problem. So would bridges
over the roadway.
Mike Schoenberg
MacGroveland
I think we could solve the problems for pedestrians on the more
difficult crossings of Snelling without medians using trebuchets and
catapults (we'll have to automate them, of course; or create new
transit jobs for attendents); all we really need are safe and
suitable landing areas or perhaps piles of packed parachutes for
folks to use on either side of the roads to be crossed. I think this
could make walking St. Paul a great deal more fun.
Heck, it could get many folks out of their cars as well as help folks
cross the street. At strategic transit centers, we could place the
appropriate new transport machines to hurl folks to common
destinations, say the more the open areas of downtown like Mears or
Rice Parks, or Prospect Park and Harriet Island on the West Side.
Just strap on that parachute, spruong, pull the ripcord, and you are
floating down to your destination. Folks with the skill and means can
use fancier equipment to glide to more challenging landings all over
the city and Metro area. Of course we'd have to consult the F.A.A.
about more visibility issues like Mike's, especially on those cloudy,
foggy, or overcast days. I guess we've also got to consider that
folks might abuse the system by forgoing parachutes and make nasty
messes on various trajectories; I guess we'll need permits for folks
to use it, sort of like conceal/carry.
I've been speaking with my consultants off-list, and I think that the
idea is more suitable for Metropolitan rapid/rabid personal transit.
I now think that a system of vines on strategically placed and
specially designed urban trellises would make it possible to swing,
Tarzan-style, from one side of Snelling to the other. I'm sorry for
all this thinking out loud, but this is really what the e-democracy
forums are good for: solving our problems with community input.
Again, Mischke originally said this was pitched in order to increase
pedestrian safety or more succinctly, as a public safety issue. Where's the
issue?
Yes it would look nice. Yes it would slow traffic down. Yes it would impede
emergency access to the east side of Snelling for southbound EMT vehicles
(perhaps a tolerable delay). (No one is belittling anyone Christopher.)
I guess I would ask the question, *to what extent is one required by
MNDOTto prove there exists a legitimate public safety risk in order to
push
funding through for projects like this?*
Based on several points made, we should re-design the entire city so a tiny
minority of citizens can feel like they have more convenient access. When in
fact, we already have sufficient access points in place.
Christopher said
"It will allow us to cross half way and pause before going across the other
half."
Chris, who is "us"? "I" am apart of the "us" which you refer to that
comprises the "we" and "we" don't need any help crossing a street. Does your
"us"? Attend one of Grace's classes.
Look...
Build medians wherever we need them in order to beautify the city but DO NOT
frame this as a "pedestrian safety" issue for clearly it is not. (We don't
have a "pedestrian safety" problem in St. Paul.)
Build it because *we'd* like to see fewer cars, slower speeds, more walking,
increased accessibility, quieter neighborhoods etc. Build it as part of an
overarching agenda that means to change the St. Paul psyche regarding
transportation. Build it as an offshoot of the METs transportation vision
for the city. Pitch it for what it is.
St. Paulites don't need to be scared into spending money on
neighborhood beautification projects.
Shame on us for thinking otherwise.
I hear clearly that some are skeptical of the need for the median. I also
think many people see value in a median. And there's some shades of grey in
there.
At least three lives have been ended by driver-walker collisions in the last
dozen years on Snelling here in St. Paul. We owe each of those lives lost
serious and thoughtful consideration.
I can also say, as a former staff at the area district council, people have
been concerned about pedestrian safety along this stretch of Snelling for
years. Public safety is partly about changing perceptions and getting everyday
people to feel safe on their streets. There's a perception that drug dealers
cause safety problems in the Midway, and community members work to change both
perception and reality. There continues to clearly be a perception
pedestrians are unsafe along Snelling, and we work to change both perception
and reality. A well designed median could change both perception and reality.
People will come to all sorts of conclusions on the issue. At the end of the
day, local stakeholders need to try to establish some general direction, not
because any organization tells them what's important, but because they listen
to stakeholders of all perspectives, think carefully, and find a common
direction for themselves. And without a lot more information, I don't have a
clue what a good proposal might be. Just that folks on that part of Snelling
should feel lucky to have some options available to them, and should give those
options serious consideration.
Greetings my St. Paul friends, I'd like to offer some thoughts on this most important topic of street design as it relates to Snelling Avenue in St. Paul. As usual, Paul Nelson has done a wonderful job thinking about far-sighted solutions to our mobility challenges that otherwise might never be brought up in these discussions--thank you Paul. In a close second to Paul's commentary, the commentary by Erik Hare aligns well with my thoughts on this topic, with one major exception (I'll explain that below). Over the last few years, my work has mainly concentrated around people-oriented transportation and land use design. During this time I've attended many informative conferences and workshops on the topic and have visited and researched cities across the globe in regards to their transportation systems and urban design. My most relevant experience on which to base any comments on this topic comes from a recent Transit for Livable Communities sponsored workshop on pedestrian street design led by Michael Ronkin. http://www.michaelronkin.com/ One thing we learned from Michael (all of Michael's conclusions are backed up by documenting the safety and Level of Service effects of various street design scenarios) is that the largest factor in determining pedestrian safety is not the width of a road we need to cross, but rather, the number of lanes we need to cross as peds. (The LOS term is antiquated and refers to moving only cars, and others have correctly pointed out that this is MnDOT's only charge under our current mobility paradigm which drastically needs to change.) Michael also helped us understand the importance of medians as a tool for providing pedestrian safety as they provide a "safe refuge" half way across the right of way the pedestrian needs to traverse. Medians do provide a safer streetscape for pedestrians allowing for the task of crossing 4 lanes to be split into two task of crossing two lanes--empirical data backs this up. That said, the best solution for Snelling Avenue would be a complete reconfiguration (aka a Road Diet) of Snelling Avenue with a lane reduction as described in both Paul and Erik's scenarios for Snelling as it would reduce the number of lanes that pedestrians need to cross and therefore reduces the number of potential collisions with motor vehicles along the way. Sounds good, eh? It gets even better. Not only do Road Diets improve pedestrian safety, but they actually improve motorist safety by drastically reducing motor vehicle crashes (crashes largely resulting from aggressive weaving maneuvers encouraged by multi-lane road designs as well as weaving to avoid turning motor vehicles). But you don't need to take my word for it. The Federal Highway Administration studied the topic. See the results for yourselves here: http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/hsis/pubs/04082/index.htm And what about that dreaded Level of Service? Won't a lane reduction make it impossible to move 30K cars/day on Snelling Avenue (this is where I disagree with Erik)? The answer is no. Although the conventional ADT (Average Daily Traffic) number used as a threshold for the 4 to 3 lane road conversion is 20K cars/day, evidence from existing Road Diets tell us that we can employ them without causing Level of Service disruptions up to 30K cars/day and there's one case that works with nearly 40K cars/day. Context and analysis on about a dozen or so Road Diets across the country is found in this PDF: http://www.walkable.org/download/rdiets.pdf To be clear, my stance is that it's a drastic mistake to have accommodating 30K cars on Snelling as one of our communities' goals. As Paul points out, our goal should be displacing cars from Snelling and replacing them with people (in LRV's or streetcars, on bicycles and on foot). Both of Paul and Erik's Snelling scenarios include improvements to transit and the bicycle and pedestrian environment which would transform Snelling from an quasi-auto-only state highway cutting through many St. Paul neighborhoods to a truly multi-modal boulevard that can accommodate all of our mobility needs without sacrificing the quality of our urban design or the safety of people moving through and about St. Paul regardless of their mode of mobility. Hugely expensive (and most of the time unnecessary) pedestrian and bicycle overpasses or underpasses are not the answer. They are the ultimate insult to pedestrians and bicyclists by relegating these citizens to separate, substandard facilities in the name of making more space for more cars. Again this should not be our goal. Finally, I'll end this post with an image depicting how much space is required to move the same amount of people in cars, in a bus and on bicycles: http://www.hubsess.com/uploaded_images/26080732636761.jpg Keep in mind that LRV's and Streetcars can more comfortably hold even more people than a bus. Thanks for reading St. Paul; I hope this helps. Matty Lang, Midtown Phillips, Minneapolis
Bill Kahn wrote:
"I've been speaking with my consultants off-list, and I think that the
idea is more suitable for Metropolitan rapid/rabid personal transit.
I now think that a system of vines on strategically placed and
specially designed urban trellises would make it possible to swing,
Tarzan-style, from one side of Snelling to the other. I'm sorry for
all this thinking out loud, but this is really what the e-democracy
forums are good for: solving our problems with community input."
I was going to throw my weight behind this proposal but then it occurred to me
that it might not be practical when I'm carrying 60 pounds of children, a
stroller, a backpack, and a large iced coffee from Caribou. So now I'm
wondering if we can get a park-and-catapault lot added to the Ford site design.
Recent post: ..."park-and-catapault lot added to the Ford site design"
Yes, yes, yes -- I would be totally into this!
And, speaking of the Ford site design, I believe there's an update on that
entire adventure Mon eve 1/28. At the moment my Internet is punking out on
me at this moment so I can't verify that or check location, but previous
notes indicate it's at 7 pm at Lumen Christi (details should be on the St.
Paul Planning and Economic Development website, under Ford). Should be
interesting to find out what's going on now with Ford's delay in idling the
plant, etc.
I can't find a meeting on the Ford Plant scheduled for the 28th. But the link to the upcoming schedule is: http://www.stpaul.gov/depts/ped/fordsite/process.html#agendasummaries "Anne R. Carroll" <carrfran@qwest.net> wrote: Recent post: ..."park-and-catapault lot added to the Ford site design" Yes, yes, yes -- I would be totally into this! And, speaking of the Ford site design, I believe there's an update on that entire adventure Mon eve 1/28. At the moment my Internet is punking out on me at this moment so I can't verify that or check location, but previous notes indicate it's at 7 pm at Lumen Christi (details should be on the St. Paul Planning and Economic Development website, under Ford). Should be interesting to find out what's going on now with Ford's delay in idling the plant, etc.
Public Transit - Going to public transit is good, but public transit has to
EXIST first in a reliable way to everywhere that I want to go. Currently a
reliable frequent accessible public transit system does not exist. So to take
away auto transit is to take away transportation.
Language - Traffic "calming" is a lie. It is traffic blocking, it is making it
so horrible to drive on a street like a one lane-concrete blocked-bus stopped
nightmare that one would go anywhere to avoid driving down the road.
The Study Proves - The study cited above, uses the central left turning lane to
keep traffic moving smoothly. So the proof (above) is actually a contradiction
of the median strip proposal. The median strip blocks all left turns, pushing
that left turn flow to intersections and slowing down intersections. The
immediate neighbors benefit from traffic blocking like Macalaster while
everyone's ability to navigate goes down.
The medians would be forcing Snelling from being a major street back to a
neighborhood street. Under this logic, we could just put stop signs on every
single corner, which would really "calm" down everything. So if not Snelling,
what through street would people use? Macalaster has carefully blocked and dead
ended all streets on the campus, so you can't go through Macalaster. Maybe we
should totally block Snelling from West 7th street also. As long as we are in a
blocking mode, here is my favorite: Ayd Mill - Please put more stops signs and
concrete traffic "calming" on the entrance and exit to Selby, through traffic
is still using that route instead of 35W and other freeways.
As it happens, the Metropolitan Rabid Personal Transit team was
meeting as this was posted. Lara will be pleased to note that her
family's situation was addressed in the preliminary work, except the
Caribou coffee, which must be disposed of or consumed before transit.
An approved list of strollers is available now to which GPS servo
system units can be retrofitted. These GPSSSU's can be programed both
to grip and release the street crossing vines and to deploy and
control parachutes to land at catapult destinations at the proper
point in time and space (even on the Macalaster campus, Kelly). The
two systems are compatible and in no way an "either/or" proposition.
GPSSSU equipped pods to carry up to three children to 4 years of age
and childcare paraphernalia for same or up to 200 pounds of
belongings will be ready and available for rent or lease at street
crossings and catapult launch sites upon project completion; the pods
also roll on the ground on a side to side axis (topsy-turvy fun, fun,
fun) or on retractible wheels (eh..).
We're all wondering here about the leaks of the Ford Plant transit
center plans Lara cites in her post; we're guessing it was the PR
people who gave us the "Swing or launch into your future" jingle
incorporating a Tarzan yell (included in GPSSSU sound system along
with the lights and FAA registration numbers suggested by Mike
Schoenberg's visibility concerns) to complement the new "more to
life" branding of MSP. The whole MRPT team is more than a bit
embarrassed at this point, and we're thinking of dropping the whole
thing until next year as we were not expecting to go quite this
public yet; dealing with the Legislature this session in the face of
all these leaks and second guessing is going to be tough.
On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Lara wrote:
Bill Kahn wrote:
"I've been speaking with my consultants off-list, and I think that the
idea is more suitable for Metropolitan rapid/rabid personal transit.
I now think that a system of vines on strategically placed and
specially designed urban trellises would make it possible to swing,
Tarzan-style, from one side of Snelling to the other. I'm sorry for
all this thinking out loud, but this is really what the e-democracy
forums are good for: solving our problems with community input."
I was going to throw my weight behind this proposal but then it
occurred to me that it might not be practical when I'm carrying 60
pounds of children, a stroller, a backpack, and a large iced coffee
from Caribou. So now I'm wondering if we can get a park-and-
catapault lot added to the Ford site design.
First Lara:
> I was going to throw my weight behind this proposal
> but then it occurred to me that it might not be
> practical when I'm carrying 60 pounds of children, a
> stroller, a backpack, and a large iced coffee from
> Caribou.
This touches on my biggest complaint about transit -
other than the fact that it's hideously expensive,
doesn't actually move a signficant number of people,
and supports a modern of urban planning that's
becoming obsolete...
...well, OK. It's my fourth-biggest complaint about
transit. Speaking as someone who's been a
transit-and-bike guy for the past year (indeed, I
likely have a greener lifestyle than most of you
Prius-driving, "Earth Is Your
Mother"-sticker-sporting, granola-chomping alleged
environmentalists do), I have to observe that *a
transit based lifestyle is not compatible with having
a family*.
Seriously. Between doctor's appointments, school
meetings, and the inevitable emergencies, plus Metro
Transit's penchant for skipping the occasional bus on
some of the lower-traffic routes (like my 67) when
excessive absenteeism cuts into the number of drivers
available to drive, I've found that using the bus and
biking is *barely* tenable. Barely. And my kids are
older, more independent, and less emergency-prone than
they used to be. And I live five miles from work,
unlike the 20-plus average I've had for most of the
past 15 years.
I've noticed most of the serious "transit" people I've
met either have no kids and never plan to, OR once
they have kids they race out and buy a minivan and
move to Burnsville, OR they are a two-parent family
with one kid (two at the very outside).
Now, Grace:
> Language - Traffic "calming" is a lie. It is traffic
> blocking, it is making it so horrible to drive on a
> street like a one lane-concrete blocked-bus stopped
> nightmare that one would go anywhere to avoid
> driving down the road.
I (ta daaa!) agree. "Traffic Calming" pretty
inevitably becomes either "Traffic Displacement"
and/or "Pissing Voters Off".
> The Study Proves - The study cited above, uses the
> central left turning lane to keep traffic moving
> smoothly. So the proof (above) is actually a
> contradiction of the median strip proposal. The
> median strip blocks all left turns, pushing that
> left turn flow to intersections and slowing down
> intersections.
This was a huge problem the first time median strips
were built, in Wilhelmshaven, Germany in 1785. Due to
a huge engineering miscalculating combined with a
temporary surplus of money (the "Happy to Pay For A
Better Wilhelmshaven" campaign, oddly enough), all
roads were given median strips through their entire
lengths, making all left turns impossible and, indeed,
making it impossible to cross many streets at all.
The dislocation actually rendered Wilhelmshaven
incapable of fulfilling its economic role as a major
seaport, allowing Hamburg to leap into first place.
It took the innovation of a brilliant engineer - Link
Mittenzeil, a man who'd been ostracized for
criticizing the median plan in the first place - who
rescued the city at the brink of extinction by
developing the concept of the *gap in the median*,
allowing room for a turn lane.
It was Herr Mittenzeil's ingenious invention that made
the modern median strip feasible.
I live to serve.
Mitch Berg
The Midway
Bad news. The MRPT vine street crossing and catapult/trebuchet
transit system is no more. We have been undercut by a competitor
using air cannons powered by waste steam from the power plants
dotting our fair city of St. Paul. A SNAFU at the patent office even
allowed them to make off with our pod and GPSSSU concepts. Rumor has
it that the company pulling this off, Grab'n'Run Transit, is
controlled by anti-transit interests, so while their system really is
cheaper and possibly just as effective, it is unlikely ever to be
implemented. The vine trellises might have gone through, but
reliability concerns with winter die backs of vines might make our
region a none-starter for this technology. Oh well. Medians can't be
all that bad, Can they?
Grace Kelly wrote: >The Study Proves - The study cited above, uses the central left turning lane to keep traffic moving smoothly. So the proof (above) is actually a contradiction of the median strip proposal. ML: Greetings again my Saint Paul friends, I believe Kelly's comment is directed at my post so I'll take a stab at addressing it. Perhaps my initial post wasn't clear so I'll elaborate on what, in my back of the envelope analysis, are the best potential treatments (in order of best mix of safety and service to all users) to turn Snelling Avenue into a complete street that functions for all users regardless of mobility mode: 1. A Road Diet, aka, a 4 to 3 lane conversion with 5' minimum width bicycle lanes in each direction in conjunction with an upgrade to public transit service on Snelling, preferably of the fixed-rail variety. This is the scenario (without the transit improvements) that the Fed's studied to determine impacts on motor vehicle traffic movements that I cited and linked to in my earlier post. It would, as I opined in my previous post, do more to improve pedestrian safety than a median although a median is a huge improvement over the status quo. Saint Paul knows the Road Diet well with past experience on Grand Avenue, Rice Street and Marshall Avenue. Folks can read more about road conversions including some more local examples at my firm's web site: http://www.c-d-g.org/resources/transportation/three_lane.htm 2. A Road Diet (4 to 3 conversion) without the transit improvements. 3. Current 4 lane configuration with a center median. 4. Status quo. I don't know if anyone involved with advocating the median has suggested a Road Diet or not as a solution, but if they have, I can almost guarantee that they were given a stern response (either from city engineers or MnDOT) that it is not workable and they would not even discuss it as an option. As it should be clear by now, I do not agree with that analysis and I believe the empirical data available supports my analysis over that of Road Diet skeptics. As evidenced by Kelly's post, there is a major misconception ingrained in American culture (and by extension St. Paul culture) that believes the term transportation refers to moving cars. It does not; it refers to moving people (and goods) in a variety of ways for various purposes. This is part of the reason I'm trying to train myself to stick to term of mobility rather than transportation. This is a big part of the problem. Traffic engineers and public works staff begin to look at their work from a very narrow lens of serving the unfettered movement of motorized vehicles rather than facilitating the movement of people and goods throughout St. Paul and our region. If Kelly is worried that a 4 to 3 conversion on Snelling would take away motorized vehicle mobility "to take away auto transit" she needs only to look as far as Marshall and Grand Avenues to see plenty of cars (still too many, in fact) chuggin' along just fine on both streets. Kelly (and others) do have a good point when they speak of a median potentially getting in the way of the urban street grid (which is good for the mobility of all modes), but as others have pointed out the Macalester campus already does that. From my desk in Minneapolis, my bet is that MnDOT would accept only a 4 lane configuration with a median as that would not impact at all its goal of most efficiently moving as many cars as possible through St. Paul on Snelling Avenue. MnDOT does not care about getting anything across Snelling Avenue because the federal government leveled entire St. Paul neighborhoods decades ago so it could build a trench underneath Snelling for a freeway which actually funnels more motor vehicles onto fewer roads (see Snelling) giving you the massive congestion and choke points all of the motorists in our midst enjoy today. Running freeways through the urban core was the worst thing that could have been done to the mobility of St. Paul residents and visitors, even those in cars. Then Mitch Berg adds: >I have to observe that *a transit based lifestyle is not compatible with having a family*. ML: I would say to that (tongue firmly in cheek) that Mitch needs to pull himself up by his boot straps and work harder. ;) Seriously, I think this claim is more than bordering on the edge of hyperbole. The perceived incompatibility (and very real difficulty for many) is the result of auto-oriented land use codes that Mitch and other transit critics embrace that result in the extreme separation of land uses quasi-forcing families into car ownership and dependence to meet their daily needs. In a people-oriented community Mitch could have doctors, schools, dentists, restaurants, grocery stores, flower shops, coffee shops and even a liquor store and a gun shop (I have all of this in my n'hood today) all within easy walking distance with many other services available via a manageable trip on quality public transit. Of course, St. Paul will need to change is outdated auto-oriented zoning codes in the Midway for that to happen, but I believe there is hope for that. We've made too many mistakes over the past 60 years to correct this situation in one fell swoop; it will unfortunately take time and resources to fix. The sooner we start the less painful and the less expensive it will be for us all. Thanks for reading, Matty Lang, Midtown Phillips, Minneapolis
Good Lord you Luddites! This is the 21st century! I say cannon travel
for all!
Jon Gorder
Cathedral Hill
Lara <laraandersen@hotmail.com> wrote: Bill Kahn wrote:
"I've been speaking with my consultants off-list, and I think that the
idea is more suitable for Metropolitan rapid/rabid personal transit.
I now think that a system of vines on strategically placed and
specially designed urban trellises would make it possible to swing,
Tarzan-style, from one side of Snelling to the other. I'm sorry for
all this thinking out loud, but this is really what the e-democracy
forums are good for: solving our problems with community input."
I was going to throw my weight behind this proposal but then it occurred to me
that it might not be practical when I'm carrying 60 pounds of children, a
stroller, a backpack, and a large iced coffee from Caribou. So now I'm
wondering if we can get a park-and-catapault lot added to the Ford site design.
Lara Andersen
Mac-Groveland, Saint Paul
Info about Lara: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/laraandersen
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5QrS1LfBrZcWAaozpwWWco
This topic has generated a lot of interest, and I have to tell you I've learned a lot. My first response was to look at this systemically, playing off of the warnings I've been blurting out on Snelling for years. Clearly, however, the neighbors are stuck in a bad situation that demands some immediate relief. I can see that this has to be addressed as quickly as possible, regardless of the long-term. Having said that, I want to point out one part of the debate that has irked me a bit. Comparisons of the median on Snelling to the one on Grand that is also part of the Macalaster campuscape simply doesn't work for me. The one on Grand, from what I can measure, leaves about 11' of street to walk across at any given time. No one has mentioned Snellings lane widths, but as a state aid highway I will assume they have to be at least 12', meaning that there is at least 24' to cross. The feeling will be very different no matter what is done. The cozy constriction on Grand will not be put in on Snelling, no matter who pays for it. Still, I understand it would be an improvement over the existing river of asphalt. I want to thank Matty Lang for his great post about putting roads on a diet. Thats exactly what I'd like to see on Snelling. My estimate of 30k cars per day, taken from the City Master Plan, is apparently high based on the last traffic count; that came in at 25k per day. A three-lane on Snelling is a very real possibility at that point, and we have to consider it. There are ways to construct a median that don't preclude doing this later, and I would hope we would build that into the design. Thanks, Matty. That was a great post. The bottom line for Snelling is that we have 100' of streetbed to work with, meaning that while the traffic is a problem we have space to make things happen. Granted, there are wide boulevards with mature trees that should not be disturbed, reducing that 100' considerably. But despite the high traffic on that street, we have the room to do an amazing number of things. The way it is now, given over to through traffic, is not serving the neighborhood or the City very well at all. Let's think about what we can do here. Then there is the real need for a beefed-up transit and bike network, as Paul and other posters have covered that very well. Thanks, Paul. I think that the absolute silence that has met my posting on the Central Corridor and its financial problem coming into crunch time speaks rather loudly. It appears that people are realizing the very serious problem we continue to have coming up with the resources we need to develop the network that will get people out of their cars and make our public spaces both efficient and livable. In short, we have to insist on better leadership on transit. I'd like to be a part of that, if anyone is interested. Finally, while I'm opposed to a trebuchet based transit system, I want to say th