New feature: Ranking NoMo

This site has been dormant for some time, but I’m going to kick it off again by ranking Northfield-area nonmotorized accommodations and projects.

Where the sidewalk ends: Roosevelt Drive

Roosevelt Drive is a residential street started in the 1970s and completed in the early 2000s. Though not considered a collector street by the City’s transportation plan, it is the primary access for 14 “presidential” streets. The older portion of the street has no sidewalks whatsoever. The southernmost portion (from Truman Court to Tyler Court) has a sidewalk on the south side.

Roosevelt Drive is walking distance to three schools, the NCRC, and arguably the downtown. There is some redemption in that there are shared-use paths that connect at several points to Jefferson Park and the sidewalk along Jefferson Parkway West. (This is the reason it was not included in my top 10 list.)

One particularly irritating issue with Roosevelt is that the road itself is very wide — I have not measured, but at least 40′ (32′ is standard). With little on-street parking used and no marked bike lanes, all this width serves to do is increase runoff and encourage cars to drive faster.

The Idaho Stop

I saw an excellent piece in Slate last week about getting bicyclists to better-abide by traffic laws. One of the things brought up is something we’d discussed a few times on the Task Force: stop signs. Officially, in Minnesota and almost all other states, a bicycle is required to stop at stop signs like a vehicle. However, actually recommending this to bicyclists is problematic, because, as anybody who has ridden a bicycle knows, it’s extremely inefficient to stop completely and start again.

The Slate article contained a link to a video made for Oregon about the “Idaho Stop.” The Idaho Stop is a law that allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as if they were yield signs — they can’t violate cars’ right of way at the intersection, but they don’t need to stop if there are no cars in the vicinity. A law like this (HF4245) was proposed in 2008 in Minnesota, but it never made it past committee.

Here’s the video; it’s definitely worth a watch.

Mill Towns Trail Friends Oct. meeting

Steve Hennessy, DNR, reported that the Metro Federal Enhancement grant for the other half of the Byllesby park connection bridge is almost certain to be awarded in November. This would mean construction in 2013. Dakota County is applying for $1,000,000 in state bonding to complete the trail connections in Byllesby Park on the north side of the Cannon River.

With the assistance of the Parks & Trails Council, property negotiations with owners on the south side of the Cannon west of Cannon Falls, are moving along. Kent Skaar, DNR, confirms that Mr. Goudy is willing to sell the river front piece. Steve says that engineering for trail from Cannon Falls, across the Wienrl property, under Highway #52 will be done this winter. Funding for these purchases and trail development was certified last bonding session, 2008.

The Friends group will submit support letters to Dakota County for their bonding request, to the Joint Powers Board for the $550,000 for acquisition between Dundas and Faribault, and to Northfield for the Legacy application for trail along the east side of the Cannon River, Northfield to Dundas. Meg Otten and City personnel are writing that grant application, due Nov. 13. Steve Janusz shared the Fillmore County/Root River lodging tax progression. Amazing what a good trail network accomplishes in tourism.

We discussed the construction of the new bridge on Canada Avenue, underpass space for the trail and preservation of the old Iron Bridge for pedestrian use. We discussed trail alignment in/around Northfield.

Treasurer John Stull will be cashing CD’s to repay the City $121,086, the Friends share of the Total $1,025,449 bridge cost. About 1/3 Federal funding, 1/3 bonding, 1/3 city & Friends.

Just Foods sent a check for $424 from their re-used bag project. Thank you.

MTT Events October 14th and 15th

In 1998 we opened the Mill Towns Trail; 2000 it became a state trail. Wednesday, Oct. 14, 6:30 PM, Dundas City Hall, come hear about the next big steps.

On Thursday, Oct. 15, 9:00 am, Legislative Bonding committee at the City of Northfield Transit garage. We’re requesting $850,000 for right-of-way acquisition!

Northfield celebrates Walk to School Day on Thursday, October 8

I’m the lead organizer for Walk to School Day here in Northfield, Minnesota, again. It promises to be a fun event, as usual!

Here is our press release for this year:

Students at Northfield Middle School and the three public elementary schools will celebrate Walk to School Day again this year on Thursday, October 8.

It promises to be a fun event for many students who have a safe route available from their homes. Not only will they get to walk with their friends, but there will be prizes and recognition as well.

The event is part of the district’s Safe Routes to Schools program, which is designed to help students and communities gain the benefits from increased walking and biking. Those benefits include improved health, a stronger sense of community, and reduced traffic congestion and air pollution.

The event also helps to illustrate the benefits of “complete streets”–streets that are built to accommodate all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, and the handicapped. Unfortunately, all too often streets in our society are incomplete.

Students will receive maps of recommended routes, and adult volunteers will be stationed along the routes during the morning and afternoon travel times. A Northfield police officer will be located at the intersection of Jefferson Parkway and Division St./Highway 246 during both the Middle School and Bridgewater travel times. Bridgewater students who live east and northeast of the school are asked to ride the bus as usual due to concerns with that intersection.

A Nonmotorized Solution to School Congestion

The Northfield News ran an article this week — Late starts lead to traffic jams outside schools — about congestion around the South Division Street school strip (High School, Bridgewater, and Middle School). Reading it, I had trouble feeling sympathetic for parents “forced to find an alternate route” in the crowded traffic. Even more grating were the suggested solutions:

[District Superintendent Chris] Richardson said the high school is also encouraging students to use a “back route” to Raider Drive through Koester Court. The alternatives, Richardson believes, should help separate traffic going to the high school from traffic going to Bridgewater and the middle school.

Getting people to drive to the schools in a slightly different way might alleviate some of the symptoms, but the real problem here is that there are just too many cars on the road. Every child has access to the school bus. If they must drive due to extracurricular activities, they can certainly carpool. And of course, they can bike or walk.

Now part of what prevents biking and walking is an infrastructure problem. Division Street south of the High School is just generally terrible, and 2200 Division is simply a bad location for the Middle School, at least until some significant growth occurs on the south edge of town. Though these are important — and I plan to write more about the issues with this stretch of Division in a future post — the main issue here is the choice to not walk or bike. The main access for the schools — Jefferson Parkway or Division St — are busy roads, but all three have alternative routes.

Northfield High School

NHS can be accessed from Linden Place to the north (shared-use path that cuts through the tennis courts), or Raider Drive to the west.

Bridgewater Elementary

Bridgewater can be accessed from Roosevelt Drive (by way of Tyler Park) to the west. The sidewalks on Jefferson Parkway are also perfectly adequate for walkers.

Northfield Middle School

This has the most unsafe main entrance, but there’s a smaller west entrance off of Carter Drive (Roosevelt to Fillmore to Carter) which is perfectly safe for walkers and bikers.

It’s not always viable to walk or bike, but this was a nice September morning. I see no reason why more kids couldn’t have been getting themselves to school with their own two feet.

Northfield’s 10 worst sidewalk omissions

As I’ve already mentioned, Northfield is in the process of making full sidewalk coverage the standard. In the last few years, they’ve consistently added sidewalks during street reconstructions — many on both sides. All new roads within the last fifteen years (save for a few rogue culs de sac) have sidewalks. However, there are definitely some areas that are missing this essential piece of a safe roadway. Note that these roadways are not limited to city-maintained streets or the city limits. This is about Northfield-area problems, and I do note when an entity other than the City of Northfield is responsible.

10. Greenvale Avenue and North Spring Street

This is only #10 because it actually no longer is missing a sidewalk. The City installed a sidewalk along the north side of Greenvale Avenue when the road was reconstructed in 2003 and along North Spring Street in 2008. Why do I mention it? Because it’s shocking to think that for more than 40 years, two busy residential collector streets less than half a mile from a school had no sidewalks whatsoever. While only one side of each street received a sidewalk, the sidewalks function well and, outside the downtown, Greenvale’s is one of the most heavily used sidewalks I see. Both of these are City-maintained streets.

9. Spring Creek Road

This could be a poster for problematic suburban design. The 1980s Mayflower Hill development has sidewalk coverage. It’s not terribly far from the downtown. And yet Spring Creek Road — which for years was the only access road — is extremely narrow and has no sidewalks. It makes the neighborhood isolated from the surrounding community, and essentially treats walking as a novelty — not any serious form of transportation. Spring Creek Road is the responsibility of the City of Northfield.

Are bike paths too dangerous?

I recently came across an excellent blog on redevelopment along 76th Street in Richfield (South Minneapolis). Richfield is an unusual kind of city for today, a suburb built on an urban grid — a grid that could serve nonmotorized uses very well — but missing one critical piece of a vital city: sidewalks.

While Richfield has had somewhat of a change of heart since it was originally laid out, retrofitting unsidewalked streets can always be difficult. The solution proposed by the consultants for 76th Street was a beefy 10′ shared-use path along one side, designed to handle all nonmotorized users of the road. This post does an excellent job of pointing out issues with sidewalks and shared-use paths. (Note that this excerpt treats the two as synonymous; Northfield considers a sidewalk to be 6-10′ wide and made of concrete; a shared-used path would be asphalt and 10-12′).

The problem with [the 75th/76th Street plans] is the belief that sidewalks are safer than streets for biking. Bicycle side paths such as the one on 75th have proved so dangerous that even the US government instructs that they be used in only the few locations where their dangers are insignificant. The problem is not just pedestrians; urban sidepaths cause difficult and dangerous car-bike conflicts at every driveway and intersection. How so?

A car backing down a driveway will slow down at street level before entering expecting fast moving vehicles. This is not the case for a sidewalk. Not seeing pedestrians the car will back out past the sidewalk to the street .

A car is more likely to see a bicyclist in the street when making a right hand turn but is less likely to see the bicyclist up on the sidewalk entering in to the street when making the turn.

The author goes on to back up the claim with solid numbers, which the Task Force has also discussed in the past:

Contrary to intuition, cyclists riding on bicycle paths (now called “shared use paths”) have a higher crash rate than cyclists riding on roads, although not as high a crash rate as cyclists riding on sidewalks (Aultman-Hall and Kaltenecker 1998). The risk of injuries on paths compared to roads has been calculated as 40%, 80%, and 260% higher (Moritz 1998, Aultman-Hall and Kaltenecker 1998, Kaplan 1976).

Northfield’s Uses

This picture -- on East Woodley -- is an example of excessive path/road crossings, creating more opportunities for accidents with turning drivers

The Northfield Parks/Trail Plan proposes several shared-use paths on streets without bike lanes: Jefferson Parkway, South Division Street, Rice County 1, and 7th Street.

Good Uses

I think that shared-use paths are only appropriate in situations where most bicyclists cannot safely interact with traffic. Rice County 1 and Division Street (MN 246) south of Jefferson Parkway are two instances where this may be the case: both are 45+ mph roads that carry around 4000 cars a day. Both also have relatively few driveways and intersections, so the risks pertaining to shared-use paths are less severe. While an ideal solution (from a nonmotorized perspective) would be to simply slow down the roads, shared-use paths are a good solution to an inhospitable road.

Bad Uses

A bad use would be unnecessarily segregating motorized and nonmotorized traffic, or putting a path where there are frequent intersections or driveways. A 7th Street shared-use path would then probably be the most questionable, since the street handles relatively little vehicle traffic at only 30 mph and is lousy with driveways. Jefferson Parkway — like Woodley Street, which just received a shared-use path — is somewhere in-between. It’s a high-traffic road with no driveways and a fairly low speed (30 mph posted; I would guess 30-35 in practice). It could have a shared-use path with somewhat lower risk, but there’s no obvious reason why it could not have a bike path instead.

Who Benefits?

Ostensibly, the beneficiaries of a shared-use path would be casual riders, but for truly inexperienced users (e.g., kids learning to bike), there’s little a shared-use path can do that a sidewalk can’t. I think the real beneficiaries are drivers, who avoid having to interact with cyclists in the same way they would have to in a bike path.

Of course, interactions are inevitable, and if more of those interactions result in accidents, nobody really wins.

Clarifying Crosswalks

I’ve often felt, driving or walking, a lot of confusion about pedestrian crossings. Obviously when there’s a marked crosswalk, a pedestrian has the right to cross. And I suppose when there’s a stop sign, a driver should wait for a pedestrian. What about when there’s neither?

Though I imagine a lot of complexity to it, as it turns out, Minnesota’s pedestrian statute, 169.21, is actually quite blunt:

“Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped [...].” (169.21 Subd.2a)

So essentially the rule of thumb is that a car must stop at any intersection unless controls are in place. This wasn’t that surprising for a residential grid, but it just didn’t seem right for a busy intersection like West 3rd Street and Highway 3. So I asked a helpful Mn/DOT engineer who confirmed that, yes, even at the intersection, cars must yield to pedestrians.

The restrictions

So while that is the rule of thumb, there are several limitations:

Traffic signals

As mentioned in the above quote, if there is a traffic light, pedestrians must abide by it.

Reasonable stopping distance

169.21 2a also specifies that “No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.”

Pedestrians must use mixed-grade crossings when provided

169.21 3b specifies that “Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.”

What about bicycles?

People operating bicycles are not considered pedestrians. If a bicyclist wanted the rights of a pedestrian s/he could dismount and walk the bicycle temporarily — helpful to keep in mind for difficult-to-cross roads like West 5th St (Hwy 19).

And yet…

Of course, the illegality of ignoring pedestrians does not seem to affect all drivers. I’m just amazed to see Malt-O-Meal employees crossing 5th Street. There are several warning signs both directions of pedestrian crossing, big flashing lights at the well-painted crossing, and occasionally even fluorescent yellow “STATE LAW STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK” signs in the middle of the road. There are still cars that don’t stop.

Why? Because they don’t think the pedestrian is going to exercise his or her rights. Which is mostly true: we as pedestrians are not as aggressive as we should be. While I’m not advocating anyone walk out in front of a moving car “which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield,” being more assertive would go a long way to making pedestrian crossings safer and driving calmer.