From now till the end of February, we’re hosting a focused discussion attached to this blog post on those issues of particular interest to those who use bicycles to commute to downtown and more broadly, to anyone who bikes in and around downtown Northfield.
We’ll start with some of those items brought forth by the eight bike commuters who attended the Feb. 6 meeting at the Goodbye Blue Monday but if you’ve got something that’s not on that list, be sure to chime in.
Below are the maps that Ross referenced in that meeting:
Left: 9 Key Macro to Micro connections in downtown
Right: major routes to downtown
If you ride your bike downtown, we want your participation here, whether or not you attended that meeting.
If you don’t ride your bike downtown, you can participate here, too, as bikers’ concerns and ideas can benefit from a greater diversity of feedback and opinions.
I’ll facilitate and moderate the discussion.
But you didn’t say why you see parking meters in such...
) Looking forward to seeing what others have to say on this topic. We chose our current house location and will most likely choose our next based on the...
And at this week’s City Council meeting, diagonal parking was discussed because of street improvements planned for 6th St. between Washington and Water streets this year. On page 68 of the council packet for the Council meeting:
The City staff linked to this Head-Out Angled Parking video by the Walkable and Livable Communities Institute
and wrote:
So let’s discuss the pros and cons of diagonal parking (both types) in downtown Northfield, especially at it relates to bicycling.
(Tech tip: Attach your comments to this comment by clicking on the ‘reply’ link below on the left. You can also reply to the replies of others in a nested/threaded fashion. No worries about messing up, as I can easily move your comment to the correct spot.)
Griff — I’m sold on the ‘head-out’ parking, and I’d like to see it replace ‘head-in’ angle parking throughout downtown. Backing out of a parking space is tough; all vehicles are designed to have good visibility forward — not in reverse — and a lot of people try to just look at their rear-view mirror, not turn their heads. As a bicyclist, I’d really appreciate the good visibility drivers would have when pulling out.
George
The “head-out” parking is a good compromise idea, and should improve safety for bikes. However, in the long-term, I’d still like to see parking solutions that avoid diagonal parking on Division Street altogether. It hogs a huge amont of space that could be better put to use for sidewalk dining and valuable downtown uses.
The other major issue (that may become better or worse as a result of this) is crosswalk visibility. Division St and 6th St is the top-ticketed intersection in Northfield for drivers failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. And it’s no wonder, because it’s almost impossible for a southbound driver to see a pedestrian crossing from the west side of Division.
Currently, the City has striped parking spots right up to the crosswalk, in violation of state law. (I guess the *stripes* aren’t technically illegal, but anybody who parks in that sanctioned spot is parking illegally.) Eliminating at least one car stall adjacent to the crosswalks at 6th and 7th Sts would bring us in-line with state law and improve safe pedestrian crossing.
And related, there was mention of the current discussion at City Hall regarding the painting sharrows on Division St downtown.
The Dec. 20 Park & Rec Advisory Board meeting included this:
Parks & Rec Advisory Board member Dale Gehring had a Dec. 13 blog post on Northfield Patch titled Connectivity in Northfield is at the Top of My Christmas List!
In case you’re wondering: What is a sharrow?
So let’s discuss the pros and cons of both A) painting center lines on more streets; and B) painting sharrows downtown on Division.
Seems like a very good list, except:
What exactly is “‘Shared’ (Bike and Parking) Painting”? I’ve seen this stunt pulled once, on 5th Street between Washington and Union, but this is not a recognized type of facility by the Minnesota MUTCD or the MnDOT Bikeway Manual. Non-bike-lane shoulders are only a suitable facility outside of the city, where they would never or virtually never be used for parked cars.
Sean, I’m not sure but this may have been comment about wanting something similar to the ‘share the road’ signs that were installed on Jefferson Road last year, only instead of using signs, using paint. Cars can park on the west side of Jefferson Road where the bike lane is (see the left side of this photo).
This seems a bit odd, as center line presence is associated with higher speed driving. Center-line removal is a common traffic-calming technique, so this seems like a step backwards (Wooddale Ave in Edina is one well-publicized recent example of center-line removal). On very wide streets (say, Roosevelt Dr) it might help keep cars away from bikes riding closer to the edge of the road. But on any street where drivers and bicyclists must share the lane, I think it makes things worse — cars are often more reluctant to drive over yellow paint than to drive dangerously close to a cyclist.
The other issue is a legal one. In situations where drivers and cyclists must truly share the lane (say, Jefferson Road SB, or County Road 1), a striped solid line means that the correct, legal behavior for drivers is to follow the cyclist at 10-20 mph. Just as it is illegal to overtake a car by crossing a solid yellow line, it is illegal to overtake a bike by doing so.
I’m agreeing with this — my own experience is that cars will swing wider to pass a bike if there is no center line, while the ones that nearly nick you with the side mirror are the cars passing on roads with stripes.
Sean/George, I don’t remember who it was who raised the issue of center-line painting at the meeting but I’m pretty sure it was in relation to Jefferson Parkway, the east-west street that goes by Bridgewater School and the soccer fields, as the lane is pretty narrow.
Here are a couple of photos from 2008. I’ll see if I can get some updated photos, as I don’t remember if bike lanes/striping have been added.I can’t imagine any way that W Jefferson Pkwy (between Jefferson Rd and Division St) could be made to accommodate bikes and cars side-by-side without major changes — removal of the median, moving the outer curb, etc. The lanes are simply too narrow; there is no way they could stripe to accommodate a bike lane. The best (cheap) change they could make would be sharrows and/or a “Bicycle May Use Full Lane” sign. (Bicycles may use the full lane now, legally; the purpose of the sign is to education cyclists and drivers in situations where lane-taking is necessary.)
The impossibility of bike lanes, however, is not true for E Jefferson Pkwy between Division and Spring Creek Rd. With the elimination of a number of right-turn lanes, I believe they could accommodate bike lanes for the full length. Since drivers are obligated to merge into bike lanes to turn right anyway, widening the lanes at intersections allows them to serve as de facto right-turn lanes, so long as drivers yield to bikes using the lanes. See this example on Lowry Ave in Minneapolis
Sean, I was wrong about Jefferson Parkway between Jefferson Road and Division/Hwy 246. There’s a median nearly the entire way.
And the median continues to the east, too. So if those turn lanes were removed, it would be somewhat similar to the new Roosevelt (right photo above).
Right. Except E Jefferson Pkwy still has a median, but (I think) enough room for bike lanes throughout. The white laned area on Roosevelt is a parking lane, correct? I’m not sure why that road was striped at all. But since it was, I wonder why they didn’t include bike lanes. At 44′ width, bike lanes could easily be accommodated, with parking on one side. As it is, the travel lanes are excessively wide, which promotes speeding (they appear to be at least 12′, maybe 13′ — wider than many freeway lanes).
Sean, I’m not sure if the white stripes on Roosevelt signify parking lanes but Ben Witt mentioned them at the bike meeting and said his wife was riding her bike on those lanes and that it made a huge difference to her.
Yeah, they’re not ideal, but very rarely used parking lanes can serve as functional de facto bike lanes. I’ve frequently ridden on the ones on Lincoln Pkwy as well, and they seem to be reasonable popular.
And in effect, that’s what Jefferson Road has on the west side of the street, right?
Yes. I suppose the most neutral term for this type facility would simply be “shoulder” — though that usually suggests a rural road, where on-street parking would be virtually non-existent.
According to this piece, effective bicycle networks must provide connectivity, accessibility, and comfort:
http://sustainablecitiescollective.com/dimaks/125691/cycling-comfort-maps
That’s some of what I heard from the attendees at the bicycle commuter stakeholder group.
Progress in Northfield will be made by evaluating and addressing these factors in our network.
Hmmm, I’d never heard of a cycling ‘comfort’ map, Ross.
Jay Walljasper has an article in yesterday’s The Line:
Change comes to car country: biking, walking on the rise in the suburbs
What are the suburbs doing that might help inform what we do in Northfield?
I recently moved to Northfield from downtown Minneapolis for reason that would involve a long long story which I don’t think is to important. I was really surprised at how much Northfield has to offer! Granted I mostly drive everywhere as I live in an apartment community around the Cub/Target area south of downtown.
i was reading through the comments and suggestions when I read somebody’s suggestion about making a biking friendly road down Washington st. After some additional thinking I would have to completely agree and give some suggestion as to how to make it fit together.
I believe removing street parking from Washington on one side would open up tons of space for wonderfully wide and safe biking. Perhaps by the library one side parking could remain for handicap accessibility. Additionally First United Church of Christ has a wonderful parking lot which I wonder if they would be willing to promote parking and allow parking for residents during Monday-Saturday when the library is open. As the church holds services only on Sundays. Even if they would charge a small fee I think it would cost much less than building more parking. I think using existing parking spaces better and to encourage biking would be wonderful for downtown.
I myself do own a nice bike however since I moved to Northfield it has been sitting in the frozen garage even when the weather becomes nicer I’m not sure I will be able to bike downtown safely.
If you look at downtown Minneapolis you notice they have bike routes just a block off of the very popular Nicollet Mall. Granted Northfield is not as anywhere as populated as Minneapolis however a similar design brought to a smaller scale could benefit Northfield.
Additionally I think the bike route should shift from Washington St. to Jefferson Rd on 8th streets. and continue south to 110th St. I think 110th st. has plenty of space to include a bike route in the future whenever the road needs to be upgraded but is not needed now. As this would be a great way to make the biking route network reach even more residents!
Additionally for the North side of Washington the
Carleton College should fund and plan for a connection into there campus to create an further extension of the bike route.
Also 2nd St. W. could also be a great East/West route (on the North end) if minor improvements were made to the Hwy 3 crossing and several of the intersections as well. Perhaps adding the sensors as others have suggested as well as including the biking crossing lane to cross with the pedestrian with side by side lanes (sidewalk crossing next to a bike lane crossing) Also I am suggesting just like on Washington St. a painted bike lane for each direction.
Additionally perhaps bike lanes on Lincoln st. N. (which would tie into 2nd St. W.) could also connect the residential area and would only require mostly some white paint and perhaps a sign or two to improve safety.
While it would be wonderful to expand the River trails south to Dundus on both sides however the cost would be much greater than using our existing blacktop and existing roadways.
The reason biking doesn’t work in Northfield is because it’s not safe, routes do not connect, and it’s not a realistic alternative to driving. My suggestion would have very little construction costs! repainting existing roads with the exception of some minor rework on 2nd ave crossings around Hwy 3
The benefits would of this route would connect both colleges, downtown area (with easy access just 1 block walk),connect Target & Cub & Econ foods in a single bike route!
I think the current issues with parking would go away with creating a biking network that allowed residents who lived close enough to bike to downtown and the surrounding area. Also this plan would remove bikes from most of downtown as bike parking could be encouraged to stick to around the route. Also the rest of downtown can remain car and pedestrian friendly because if your riding a bike you can walk to anywhere downtown within 2 blocks!
Lee, welcome to Northfield! And thanks much for taking the time to compose such a thoughtful and detailed comment. I’ve moved it from the straw poll blog to this discussion thread since most of your comments are about biking.
Be sure to see the list of ideas/comments that were generated at the Feb. 6 meeting of bicyclists:
http://northfielddowntownparking.org/2013/02/07/bicycle-commuters-discuss-parking-issues-at-feb6-meeting/
Your suggestions about establishing bike routes that connect to downtown are shared by others. See those maps.
The money for finishing the East Cannon River Trail connection between Northfield and Dundas has been allocated and we’re hoping to hear soon on whether all the regulatory/environmental hurdles have been jumped.
We discussed the problems with parking needed by Library patrons at last week’s residential stakeholders meeting. It’s not likely that there would be broad support to eliminate any on-street parking on Washington because of the need for patrons to get in and out quickly. It’s a big problem now and will likely get worse. There were some alternatives discussed, for example, designating some spots in the city-owned lot at 3rd and Washington as library patrons-only parking.
I think there’s probably more support for finding a way to make biking downtown on Division more feasible/safe than there is for routing bikers around downtown on Washington. Why?
Division St is a destination for the majority of both local bikers and bike tourists. The merchants want tourist bikers to see their shops and stop; and bikers want to be able to park right in front of where they’re going.
I’d be interested in your thoughts about A) painting sharrows on Division; and B) “head-out” parking. See the comment thread above for more on both of those.
And of course, feel free to comment on any of my comments to your comments!
hmm… “head-out” parking really sounds like a great idea! However I would only be in favor of the change if the downtown took the proper planning to see if all sections of downtown parking could be safely converted into “head-out” parking. Additionally having a plan that within 1-2 years all the parking would be switch would be my suggestion. Having two different style of parking would be somewhat confusing and may cause more accidents than be helpful. Also I would be curious if the parking spaces required to be bigger given that most drivers are less in control backing up than driving forward meaning they would need a touch more space to help them get parked quickly.
Also I would prefer a divided bike lane such from 2nd st. to 7th between the west side sidewalk and the parking spaces for the “head-out” spaces each parking space would need a post to stop cars from backing up to far which could double as a bike parking space.
As for sharrows I used to live on a street with 2 lanes but was a one way street I wasn’t a big supporter of sharrows because I’ve seen to many drivers getting way to close and even a few bikers getting run over.
I remember a study done in Minneapolis that talked about when you increase the “comfortably” of biking by creating barriers from car traffic you further encourage biking and you would get much greater amount of people.
The bare minimum I would need to use a route is a street with a designated space for bike lanes (such as Jefferson has existing for a small segment) preferable a barrier between the car traffic and bike traffic although I do understand that is more of a luxury.
Of course having a north bound bike lane between the parallel parking lane and the sidewalk would also by my personal preference, although I wonder how much space of the road is there. Also it would allow both bike lanes north and south bound to almost “walk” along the store fronts and getting the perfect view and have a better biking experience disconnected from the driving traffic and more connected to the actual storefront!
Of course additional space would be needed to create a barrier to prevent parallel parking cars to park to far over. I doubt such space exists in the road to allow all that! I would be personally very disappointing to see sharrrows presented as the final solution. Yes allow the bikers who wish to bike down the sharrow Division street but also allow bikers a much safer and a designated bike lane a safe commute through the downtown area.