Cycletracks on Park and Portland: The Single Best Idea to Improve Minneapolis’ Streets

[Following on up Brendon’s call for ideas about Park and Portland, my suggestion for the best way to improve these streets!]

The truck that killed Dennis Dumm on Park Avenue in 2009. Img fm Star Tribune.

Anyone who walks or bikes around the Twin Cities will have a head full of ideas about ways to improve the experience. These mental lists quickly grow long: a crosswalk here, a spot for improved signal timing there, a better bike lane down that street… It’s a continual mental murmur, an alternate imagination for a city that doesn’t consistently place cars first, second, and third on the priority list.

In the midst of all this imagination, it can sometime be difficult to separate out the really great ideas from the merely beneficial, the brilliant from the banal. But rattling around my head for some time now (for years!), I ‘ve been wondering what to do with streets like Park and Portland, 26th and 28th, SE University and 4th. There’s one simple single thing that may be the best possible idea for improving Minneapolis streets in “one fell swoop.” What’s more, now is the ideal time to start thinking about it. Now more than ever, this is an a propos idea, killing at least three birds with one stone, skinning all sorts of cats. We need buffered cycletracks on Portland and Park!

Allow me to explain…

Minneapolis’ One-Way Street Pairs are Dinosaurs from Another Era

One of my biggest gripes about Minneapolis is its highly problematic network of one-way, high-speed streets running through the seemingly worst possible places: Park and Portland, 26th and 28th, and University and 4th Avenue SE. (There may be more, but they’re not on my beaten path.) A while back, talking about these streets with the late Urban Studies professor and Minneapolis historian Judith Martin, she explained that these streets are remnants of the pre-94 and 35W days. Back then, they were intended to provide freeway-esque access between Downtown and the growing suburbs. As you can imagine having witnessed the current University Avenue chaos, this was particularly important during the freeway construction period of the the 1960s.

Today, these streets run through some awkward spots. The north end of Park Avenue boasts large mansions. Elsewhere, both Park and Portland traverse some of the most economically challenged neighborhoods in South Minneapolis, places that have a great many children and families. What’s more, SE University Avenue near the U of MN campus runs directly in front of Fraternity Row and the school’s athletic complex, which boasts the highest densities of occasionally inebriated pedestrians for hundreds of miles in any direction.

Then, on top of these strange arrangements, some time ago bike lanes were placed on these streets. And when I say “placed”, I mean “placed badly on the incorrect side in ways that start and stop without warning.” After skyways, these streets are my #1 pet peeve about Minneapolis. They should not be taken for granted. At the very least, we need to think very carefully about the way that they operate.

At some point, someone thought it was a good idea to put a high-speed one-way street next to "frat row" on the University of Minnesota campus.

One-Way Street Pairs are Terrible for Homes, Yards, Pedestrians, Kids, Dogs, & Others

Anyone who goes for a walk down any of these roads will immediately note that cars move very fast. From a driver’s perspective, this is their chief benefit. You can “zip” through the city on Portland Avenue at nice 40+mph clip. Speeding with few relatively stoplights from Longfellow to Uptown is so much easier on 26th Avenue than any other option.

The downside, though, is what happens if you’re not in a car. For anyone living in any of the homes along these urban express routes (what Chuck might call stroads), the steady stream of fast moving cars is terrible. Cars are loud, and pollute the air. But even worse, they move really fast through neighborhoods filled with people. Mothers clutch children to their hips. Yards go un-played upon. Nobody walks down these sidewalks if they have any other choice. Property values along Park and Portland go down…

All these things are subtle and hard to quantify, but the effects are very real. Living along these streets is far less pleasant than in should be. In a sense, the people who live on, walk along, or bike down Park and Portland are paying the cost, while people driving in cars from points South reap the benefit of a few minutes traffic time. That’s something that might be good for commuters from Richfield, but it’s bad for Minneapolis neighborhoods.

[A very shaky look at an accident on 26th Street.]

 

One-Way Street Pairs are Literally Deadly & Unequally Distributed

Park and Portland, as they’re arranged today, depress the quality of life for thousands of people who live near there. But, on top of that, these one-way streets are also the streets in the city that literally kill. A cyclist was run over by a truck and killed on Park Avenue in 2009. Last year, a young woman was run over by a truck and killed along University Avenue SE. A woman crossing the street at Park and 27th was killed by a car in December. An old man crossing the street was killed on Park Avenue in May 2009. This is not even close to an exhaustive list.

Another thing to point out about these streets is that they just happen to be in neighborhoods with a lot of politically disadvantaged people. The neighborhoods along 26th and 28th, Park and Portland are the areas of town where people with limited means and limited access to transportation happen to live. This seems to be how it works everywhere. Places with well-connected residents get traffic calming, good bike lanes, and other amenities. Place without connections or political clout get dangerous roads.

The University of Minnesota has its own situation, where these streets are placed right thorugh student neighborhoods. Students don’t vote, and are sometimes restricted from participating in neighborhood and community processes. Nobody will complain when you ram a high-speed road through a student neighborhood, though they should.

The Benefits of the Buffered Bike Lane Approach

In the best possible world, if I had a magic wand, I’d wave it and change all these streets back in the two-way configurations they had before the 1950s “suburbanization” of the city. Not only are two-way streets safer because they slow down traffic speeds significantly, they are also easier to deal with for people navigating the city. Simply put, they’re simpler.

First Avenue South used to be a one-way street, and now it's not.

But that’s never going to happen. The city did do a conversion of a one-way street on 1st Avenue, near the Institute of Arts. But that was a short segment on a street with low traffic counts, and while it worked out nicely, most of the discussions about transportation in South Minneapolis seem to be about creating more “access” rather than creating better places.

Barring that political impossibility, if Park and Portland are going to remain the one-way “collector” streets that they are today, improving them needs to be a two-fold process. First, the streets very much need to be calmed, with traffic speeds lowered to something that tops out at 30 mph. That’s the speed that urban streets should be. 40mph is a very different kind of environment, not suitable for a corner like Park and Franklin, or 26th and Nicollet. Some sort of traffic calming approach, with narrower lanes and bumpouts on the corners, along with improved signal timing that really made it impossible to speed down the street would be a huge improvement over the today’s racetrack-style wide-lane layout. I’d even advocate removing a lane somehow, though this would probably be greeted with exasperating shakes of the head by any self-respecting public works department.

The second thing that has to happen, of course, is better bicycle infrastructure. No 21st century bike lane should be on the left side of the street, and no bike lane should be on a street where multiple lanes of cars are traveling in excess of 40 miles per hour. And this really should never happen in Minneapolis, a city that claims to be a national leader for bicycle infrastructure. As I’ve argued before, the way things are set up today, it’s inevitable that more people are going to be killed.

A cycletrack in Chicago, where it also snows and has "politics."

Well, the obvious solution, one that would solve many problems at the same time, is to take these Park and Portland and built the city’s first (real) buffered cycletrack bike lane. For those who don’t know, a cycletrack is a bike lane that’s separated from the moving traffic, either by bollards, concrete, parked cars, or ideally all three of those things. (If you want to get a sense of what a cycletrack doesn’t look like, go down 1st Avenue in the Warehouse District.) If you want to get a sense of what it does look like, check out this picture of one in Chicago, or this one in Denver, or this one in Copenhagen. Cycletracks are really the gold standard of bike lanes, because they create a space that feels and looks safe and is comfortable for all kinds of riders. Add because these streets would still be one-way streets, it would be a great route for cyclists!

On top of that, you could even do a “green wave” for bicycles with some stoplights timing tricks, which would both calm the high-speed auto traffic while making it convenient and efficient for bicycle commuters coming north and south from downtown to South Minneapolis.

Buffered cycletracks on Park and Portland would calm traffic, improve the quality of the life of the neighobhrood, increase property values, make the street far safer than the death trap it is today, and create a bicycle route that would rival the Midwtown Greenway in utility and comfort. It would really place Minneapolis on the map as a city that is doing creative and innovative things for bicycling and placemaking. In one fell swoop, you’d improve Minneapolis in at least five really important ways.

Can Hennepin County Think Oustide the Stroad?

Not only would this idea have benefits for all sorts of people living in the city, it’s very easy to do. Park and Portland Avenues are slated for a re-design and re-construction project very soon, and the plans are currently being worked out. Right now is the perfect time to think about re-designing these urban streets, which are really relics of a far earlier pre-freeway age that greatly devalued urban space at the expense of improving auto circulation. The plans are being worked out right now, and the great thing about cycletracks is that they’re pretty cheap to build if you’re already spending lots of time and concrete re-constructing a street. As Brendon has pointed out, its not that difficult to  re-allocate some paint, install a little bit of concrete or plastic, and move the parked cars out away from the curb. It’ll likely cost less than one part of one part of one mile of freeway.

The problem is that this is relatively unlikely to happen, because Park and Portland are owned and operated by Hennepin County, and not by the city. Compared to the city, which is relatively forward thinking in terms of how they design roads, the county struggles with changing the status quo. When the topic of a Park and Portland cycletrack came up at the last Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting, and apparently engineers had made it clear that a buffered cycletrack was impossible due to “political pushback” and “pushback about winter maintenance.”

Now, I don’t know the details of either of these “pushback” situations. Political pushback typically means 1) people don’t like change, 2) somewhere, someone might have to walk a few more blocks for their parking spot, 3) some politician is annoyed that that they weren’t consulted earlier, or 4) it’s not in the latest highway design manual. None of these reasons are convincing considering the huge need for a change along Park and Portland, and the huge amount of people who would benefit from innovative thinking.

Along with an invocation of “emergency vehicles,” snowplow concerns are another thing that always pops up whenever you talk about re-designing a street. To me, though, snow plowing is a problem that just requires some creativity. The big problem for plowing is when cars drive over the snow, and pack down into ice. With a cycletrack, this issue disappears. You might even be able to plow it with one of those brush machines that the Universities use, or maybe a pickup truck like they use on the Midtown Greenway.

It’s frustrating that people routinely invoke wintertime to perform a ritual of “Minnesotan exceptionalism”, saying that, “sure that might work in [X city], but here in Minneapolis we have such extreme winters, so [Y good idea] is just impossible.” The truth is, lots of cities have both snow and cycletracks. Snow plow concerns shouldn’t be driving this conversation.

An buffered cycletrack makes sense for most anyone living in Minneapolis. The stories that Brendon’s post generated about people waiting to cross these streets forever, or almost getting killed, are an everyday occurrence. It’s no exaggeration to say that people living in these neighborhoods are terrorized, that they literally live in fear. By one relatively minor change, Hennepin County and Minneapolis could take great strides toward actually achieving and implementing some of the nice ideals that politicians and planners are always touting  in speeches and planning documents. A Park and Portland cycletrack would foster liveable neighborhoods and dramatically encourage bicycling. Let’s do this!

A buffered cycletrack in New York City, where they also have snow and politics.

 

Streets.mn is a non-profit and is volunteer run. We rely on your support to keep the servers running. If you value what you read, please consider becoming a member.

12 Responses to Cycletracks on Park and Portland: The Single Best Idea to Improve Minneapolis’ Streets

  1. Patrick Phenow April 10, 2012 at 11:03 am #

    Good article. Anything to calm, even congest, Park and Portland would be good. I even feel a touch nervous when I'm driving down those streets during rush hour. What's the speed limit? 35? Which means the de facto speeds will be at least 40.

    I love the idea of a cycle track, but I'm not sure if I like them when the barrier is parked cars. People still park in the bike lanes after (at least?) a year of them in downtown, where there is (I'm sure?) more parking enforcement. It also hides bicyclists too much, make them more vulnerable at intersections.

    I think Kinzie St in Chicago is the way to do it (http://gridchicago.com/2011/its-official-kinzie-is-ready-to-ride/). Grid Chicago has Many articles about this, including about snow plow issues (http://gridchicago.com/tag/kinzie-street/).

  2. timhMN April 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    I think two cycle tracks on Park and Portland would be a waste of resources. I've argued this before, but the basic idea is to make one of the streets a "auto-friendly" street, and the other a "cycle-friendly" street. Only one street needs a two-way cycle path, not one-ways on both. Make both roads 2 way, and have portland be more auto-centric street because it runs all the way to richfield. Because Park ends at the creek, build a two way cycle way with only one narrow lane in each direction for cars (think King's Highway), with bike boulevard-style barriers to keep it to local traffic.

    • Greg April 11, 2012 at 3:27 am #

      Brilliant plan, and in much less words than Bill's eloquent and well-researched argument. Cycle tracks would cost a chunka-change, and I'm not sold on them, I am loving the double lined, extrawide bikelanes on Blaisdell and 1st, and it feels like cars get them, even though they are kind of accidental in places (ie, was a parking spot, not extrawide bike lane, but still, I like it). I think apocalyptic blizzards SHOULD rank heavily on maintenance issues in terms of feasability of big boy plows coming and getting it done, AND extra space for snow accum. and remained existance of bike lane.

      So back to Park and Portland, how symbolic would the rivalry be if we made Portland the two-way car thoroughfare and Park be quieter with one lane of car traffic eachway and nice bike lanes on each side. I'm thinking 2 each way cars would totally fit on Portland, right? Now, the Portland residents may NOT like this idea, however 2-lane traffic may encourage closer to 30mph speeds???… I would support this as a cyclist and a motorist. Both streets could benefit. As a cyclist, I think more and more pedestrians and slow cyclists should feel safe, but I am not always in favor of just because a Euro. city has barricades, we should. And for the record, parked car barricades are a nightmare, no explanation necessary.

      Finally, as a Mpls cyclist who knows the city well, I would support leaving our Roided-out –every street has a bike lane–South Mpls ALONE! (with the exception of Franklin Ave) and focus any funding on incorporating North into the mix with more bike lanes up there, and better connectivity to the river for ALL types of transportation.

  3. Reuben Collins
    Reuben April 11, 2012 at 1:55 am #

    You mention property values dropping along Park & Portland. It would be an interesting exercise to try and quantify the total impact Park & Portland have on property values. We would expect single family homes to be worth less than they would otherwise because of the autocentric design, but we'd also have to account for any commercial properties being worth more than they would somewhere else (there's not much commercial), and we'd have to account for some properties that are multi-family buildings probably worth more than the single-family homes that may have been built instead had Park/Portland been designed differently. Also, we'd have to determine what we're comparing it to, which wouldn't be easy. It's probably not realistic to compare values on Park/Portland to typical South Minneapolis residential streets, since that's not a realistic design for the Park/Portland corridors. Rather, we'd need to compare to values along other roadways similar to whatever our ultimate vision for the corridor is. I'm sure there are established methods for doing this type of analysis.

    I'd also be curious to know of homes along Park/Portland are more likely to be rental properties, and what impact that has on values.

    I've always thought it was interesting that Park & Portland have never generated much commercial activity. Whether because the market never demanded it, or our zoning codes never allowed it, I'm not sure.

    Having recently been in the market four housing, and considering houses in the Park/Portland area near Minnehaha Parkway, my anecdotal observation was that a house located along Park or Portland seemed to be selling for about $25-$50K less than similar houses on adjacent streets.

  4. Marketing Stupid April 11, 2012 at 5:20 am #

    You hit it right, it's all about resistance to change. Lyndale, Nicollet and Hennepin move just as many cars, buses, bicycles or as we should just say, it moves PEOPLE, just as well in its old school two-way configuration. And not only that but both roads have amazing commercial and residential value. Similarly I've timed things, I can sometimes make it north faster on Cedar Ave than Park, and we all know Cedar is a crazy entanglement of turning drivers and badly spaced lanes. Fact of the matter is if you're going to drive through the urban fabric to go a long distance, you really aren't going to care about the speed or time, because it's a nice drive and you want to be "distracted" and engaged by what you're driving through. Plus most city drivers know rushing doesn't make things go faster, you get there or you don't.

  5. Scott F April 11, 2012 at 6:49 am #

    Bill, I question your statement that converting the one-way streets to two-way is "never going to happen" and an "impossibility." Why not think big? Just because the discussions about transpo in South are mostly about "access"? What is the point of a blog post like this, if not to change the discussion?

    OK, that's a lot of rhetorical questions in a row – no more for me. I think it's great that you're calling attention to the problems with these street pairs (I myself was injured and could have been killed trying to turn across 3 lanes of traffic on 4th Street SE). And cycle tracks would be an improvement on the current situation, so I would definitely support them if that's the plan that ends up gaining momentum.

    However, I disagree that cycle tracks are the best idea, and maybe this is just because I haven't been to Copenhagen to see how it's done or whatever, but I perceive that cycle tracks are intended to separate bikes from car traffic that's perceived to be "dangerous." When I look at the photos in this article from Chicago and New York, I see wide, busy, potentially scary streets with no medians. Adding the cycle track seems to have been a mere workaround, while the underlying problem – streets that serve cars, not neighborhoods – may still exist.

    Cycle track or not, the one-way street pairs are speedways, and I don't think they should remain speedways. As you point out, these streets are dinosaurs from a pre-interstate area, and as commenters have added, they don't really get cars across town that fast anyway.

    These streets should be turned two-way, slowed, and reduced to human scale, so that they are no longer scary enough to need cycle tracks in the first place. That's my take and while it may not be the most politically feasible option right now, I think it would be the best.

    • Scott F April 11, 2012 at 6:51 am #

      Oops, made a little mistake there – meant to write "pre-interstate ERA", not area.

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke April 11, 2012 at 9:23 am #

      Well, it's just my cycnicism talking, I suppose. Having witnessed too many good ideas and good plans get derailed by public works concerns, traffic count stats, etc., I just really doubt we could get a two-way conversion to happen now. Hennepin County is not ready for this kind of change, is my understanding of people who've talked to the county engineers.

      On the other hand, a cycletrack is well within the realm of possibility right now! This could potentially happen this year, if we start talking to our county board representatives, the Bicycle Coalition, and folks at the city.

      Long-term, maybe a two-way conversion is a potential outcome. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who works closely with the county to say that it's in the cards for the next 10 years (say).

      • Alex April 11, 2012 at 10:35 am #

        Also, because converting most of these streets to two-ways would be more effectively done during a full reconstruction, rather than the mere repaving going on now. This is because pretty much any way you think of Park & Portland as a two-way, some curbs will need to be moved. This may not, however, be true of some other one-way pairs – specifically 26th & 28th and Emerson/Fremont could operate as two-ways with similar curb lines. So let's up the pressure on the policymakers, and elect a not-pretend progressive mayor in 2013.

  6. Charlie Quimby April 12, 2012 at 3:26 am #

    As I think I wrote on another post, my wife and I lived at 34th & Portland for 10 years in a house we owned. We were runners who barely cycled in those days, putting in 60 miles a week, mostly from our house. We could run the two miles down to the Parkway in the middle of the street on Oakland, the street between Portland and Park, because the one ways siphoned off the local traffic as well as the commuters.

    In all those miles on foot in the neighborhood, we rarely went more than a block on the busy streets. Not out of literal safety concerns, but because the streets were so unfriendly compared to the next block.

    After our son was born and became ambulatory, we moved, and the reason WAS safety, and we did it even though mortgage interest rates were in double digits.

    Bill is right to connect biking issues with the experience of living on streets designed for car traffic. If we make improvements about safety and livability, cyclists might find more support than if we make them about bikes vs. cars.

    Here's a post I did showing the situation where Dennis Dumm took his last ride on Park.
    http://greatdivide.typepad.com/across_the_great_d

    • Bill Lindeke
      Bill Lindeke April 12, 2012 at 4:02 am #

      I hadn't seen that piece, Charlie. Thanks for sharing it.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Time is now to start transforming Park and Portland Avenues | Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition - May 2, 2012

    […] There were two recent articles on streets.mn that offer some good options (from Brendon and from Bill). We’re taking those ideas and building on them with what we think is a viable solution that […]

Note on Comments

streets.mn welcomes opinions from many perspectives. Please refrain from attacking or disparaging others in your comments. streets.mn sees debate as a learning opportunity. Please share your perspective in a respectful manner. View our full comment policy to learn more.

Thanks for commenting on streets.mn!