The Minnesota Department of Transportation is currently finishing the planning process for re-decking the Smith Avenue Bridge over the Mississippi River in Saint Paul. As part of this 2018 project, they are also repaving Smith Avenue, from Grand Avenue all the way south to Interstate 494.
The Smith Avenue Bridge, also known as “The High Bridge” is an important bike route for getting to and from the west side of Saint Paul. Right now, conditions on it are terrible. Bike lanes or “bikeable shoulders” only exist on the bridge itself. At either end there is nothing but high speed motor vehicle traffic.
At the south end in particular, southbound cyclists exit the bridge on a blind right turn where they are temporarily invisible to motorists, only to find that the bike lane disappears. If they stay in the street, they risk getting hit by cars. So many take the first curb cut and bike on the sidewalk. In theory, there is a trail crossing for cyclists, joggers and walkers right at the south end of the bridge on Cherokee Avenue. Cyclists and pedestrians traveling southwest on Cherokee have a decent view of oncoming traffic in both directions and can make it across. Going the opposite way, however, Smith Avenue’s blind turn and high speed traffic increase the danger for cyclists and pedestrians of being hit by southbound cars. I myself have almost been killed there.
Improving that intersection for cyclists and pedestrians wouldn’t be hard. They could put crosswalk warning signs and pavement markings ahead of the crossing, stripe a “colonial” or prominent zebra-stripe crosswalk, and hang a warning sign and pedestrian-activated flasher over the crossing in both directions.
Unfortunately, MnDOT doesn’t want to do that. They claim it’s too dangerous. So they are giving cyclists and pedestrians absolutely nothing and severing access to one of the city’s nicest bluff trails. More importantly, they are giving southbound cyclists no way to safely go east into the West Side neighborhood and, because of the way the neighborhood is laid out, most cyclists ultimately need to go east. When asked about pedestrian crossings at the south and north ends of the Smith Avenue Bridge, David Kuebler, a Saint Paul Public Works project engineer said “It’s too hazardous for pedestrians there.” (Highland Villager, Wednesday, February 15, 2017, pg. 2)
The problem with Mr. Kuebler’s and MnDOT’s position is that The Saint Paul Bikeways Plan calls for an off-street pathway along Cherokee Avenue as the main cycling connection on the west side. It also calls for in-street, shared-lane markings, also called “Sharrows” from the north end of the Smith Avenue bridge all the way to Kellogg– something else that MnDOT has no plans to implement as part of this project. You can see both of these clearly marked on the map of the Saint Paul Bikeways Plan. I include an image of the relevant map section to the right.
If the Saint Paul Bikeways Plan and MnDOT’s promises to improve cycling conditions mean anything, then MnDOT and Saint Paul Public Works have a choice. They need to improve the crosswalk of Smith Avenue on the south end, at Cherokee (as described above) …and/or they need to extend the bridge’s bike lanes one block south to West George Street, where there is a traffic light and southbound cyclists can safely travel east. Otherwise, the Bikeways Plan is just a meaningless piece of paper and MnDOT’s supposed interest in bicycle and pedestrian safety is just a lot of hot air, spewing from the tailpipe of a diesel truck.
If MnDOT really cared about cyclists, they’d also make the bike lanes on the bridge protected lanes, by citing a proposed concrete wall in such a way that it protected both pedestrians and cyclists. Instead, they are just protecting pedestrians and leaving unprotected, substandard, 5.5-foot bike lanes next to the 30mph highway.
If you care about this issue or if you’ve almost been hit by cars on or near this bridge (like me), this is your last chance to weigh in. MnDOT has a survey on the project website (until Sunday, February 19). The survey is largely about meaningless things like “railing designs and colors” but there are lots of areas where you can add written comments and one place where you can prioritize cycling and pedestrian concerns.
In addition, you should e-mail the project engineers Tara McBride and David Kuebler at: email@example.com …and firstname.lastname@example.org (the email addresses are also on the project website). CC your message to your Saint Paul City Council members and anyone else you think might have the power to intervene. Whatever MnDOT does to this bridge, we’ll be stuck with it for the next seventy years. So lets make it great for pedestrians and cyclists.
You can see a few additional photos of the Smith Avenue High Bridge on the Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition’s Facebook page.
“It’s not safe for pedestrians” is never an acceptable answer for a city street.
Is there a petition started to support a bike lane on the bridge and a safe intersection for bikes to cross at the top and bottom of the bridge?
Not that I’m aware of.
This is also designated as a highway. A highway is defined as a public way freely open to everyone, by high legislative intent forever. As such a highway is always designed for all people to be able to walk and pedal drive a bicycle safely.
The project website reads: “MnDOT is asking ‘motorists’ to provide input on potential improvements to the Hwy 149 High Bridge project…”
That statement is incorrect, as I see it. It should read: “MnDot is asking *everyone* to provide input…” , NOT “MnDot is asking motorists to provide input…”
If Hwy 149 is a real hwy, then it should b designed, built and maintained for everyone to walk and pedal drive a bicycle.
I was on the community advisory council for the project last year, along with several other cyclists, and unfortunately there’s a lot that this piece leaves out.
Quick overview – it’s a state trunk highway with a lot of design limitations (the bridge deck can’t be widened, for instance, and also has to accommodate inspection trucks). The design was a compromise to meet needs of pedestrians, casual cyclists and roadies doing 35 mph down the bridge – not to mention suicide prevention advocates pushing for taller railings along the outside. Car lanes are being narrowed from 12′ to 11′ in an effort to slow car traffic (current speed limit on the bridge is 40 mph btw, not 30) and the monuments that create the blind corners Andy references are being removed. It’s not perfect but a significant improvement, a lot more like the Wabasha bridge in terms of function.
There are other safety inprovements elsewhere along the corridor, including bike lanes in Annapolis, sidewalk bumpouts on Smith at Baker and Curtice, and fixing a severely dangerous trail crossing leading to a middle school in Mendota Heights.
I agree more could be done but I can tell you that this project manager fought hard on our behalf in the face of some severe design limitations.
I’ll try to find time to write more on this later.
From a practical standpoint (ignoring antiquated MNDOT design guidelines) the motor vehicle lanes could be 10′ or less which allows more room for safer walkways and bikeways.
Many countries with much safer roads and much lower fatality rates will adjust motor vehicle speeds to fit the ped/bike infrastructure. E.G., if there is not sufficient room to provide the protected bikeways (along a roadway and at junctions) that are required for 40 MPH traffic then motor vehicle speeds are lowered to match with whatever facilities can be provided. If only a painted bike lane then motor vehicle speeds are limited to 25 MPH (which will then have 2.75 meter or 8′ motor traffic lanes).
Would this bridge be a good candidate for a reversible center travel lane (E.G., 4 to 3 conversion)? From what I’ve seen it is quite low traffic volume other than during morning and evening rush which do largely flow in opposite directions. This could allow for higher motor vehicle speeds and appropriate safety for people walking, riding bicycles, and using mobility scooters.
I think the problem here is that talking about what’s theoretically possible is different from what’s practically/politically possible.
A 25 mph limit on the bridge? Sounds great. Get that done for us.
Also the current bridge is two car lanes with wide shoulders. The deck cannot be widened. So squeezing all different uses in is a challenge.
And that’s where priorities become important. How do engineers prioritize people’s lives vs saving drivers a few seconds? Interestingly that may not even be a compromise — if we can get enough of a safe bikeway network in that more people will choose to ride bicycles instead of drive then drivers will benefit from less congestion.
Does it need two car lanes? I’m not over there often enough to really know, but it hasn’t when I am.
One lane in each direction, sorry should have been more clear.
What I mentioned isn’t theoretical — it’s what is quite common outside of the U.S. It’s what works quite well and produces a much safer road system. It’s what produces a road system that works better for all people whether driving, riding, or walking.
Traffic engineers here believe that wide lanes and wide curb reaction distances are necessary because our drivers are so bad that they can’t deal with anything else. Engineers in the rest of the world know that narrower lanes with immediate danger in the form of curbs or other hard elements cause drivers to pay much better attention and create a much safer environment. It’s an element of cement being a much better enforcer than paint or rules.
Talking about these things helps to educate people on what is possible rather than have the only communication come from traffic engineers and politicians who place a higher priority on speed and convenience than on human life.
I mean it’s theoretical in the context of this project. I wish we would adopt European standards too. But that’s not the environment we’re working in.
We need to change the environment.
Engineers in every other field of engineering I’ve worked with place a high priority on safety and human life. They will not sign off on a design that is riskier to human life than absolutely necessary. That’s not the case with traffic engineers in the U.S. — which is why we have the highest road fatality rates of all developed countries.
What must we do to get our traffic engineers to design streets and roads that are safe for all users?
At what point do we begin to say that ‘better’ or even ‘much better’ isn’t good enough? This especially when our U.S. traffic engineer’s ‘much better’ is what traffic engineers elsewhere tossed out 30 years ago as dangerous and insufficient?
Sorry – one more key piece of information here is that there is a plan to build a trail underpass beneath the south end of the bridge along Cherokee but it’s not currently funded. That’s why there’s that weird one-block section of bike lanes on George, it’s a “temporary” bypass route. Anyone wants to help find funding to finish this, we’d welcome the help.
We saw plan sets for the bridge, we are aware that the deck can’t be widened …but everything being asked for in this column is within MnDOT’s power to provide. They just don’t want to do it. They can make a better crosswalk, at grade. They’ve done it at one intersection on Snelling (at Macalester College) after two women were hit and permanently injured (including brain damage) and MnDOT and the city got a lot of bad press. They simply don’t want to do this stuff and have perfected coming up with spurious excuses to say “no”. Why allow MnDOT to put the burden on residents of Saint Paul to raise money for a bypass and force us to go down and up, out of our way, to bypass THEIR roadway? That’s insane. MnDOT has barely done anything in the last 15 years to improve cycling and pedestrian conditions on its roadways in Saint Paul. These roadways– Snelling, 7th Street and others are some of the most dangerous in the state based on the agency’s own bike/ped crash data (what they call “Crash cost per mile”). I’m against waiting 10, 15 or 20 years and trying to raise money for something that this myopically highway-oriented agency has boatloads of money to fix and should be fixing as part of this project.
I agree with all of this. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the whole agency to turn on a dime on this project. I was skeptical that the input process would just be window dressing but In reality there was a lot of progess here and I’m not sure what we accomplish by dismissing that.
Did I get everything I wanted? No I’d did not. Nor did anyone else. I’d close the whole damn street to cars if I had my way but I don’t have that kind of political sway unfortunately.
What we did have though was a project manager who takes bike and pedestrian issues seriously and went to the mat for us multiple times. She didn’t get everything she wanted either. It’s an example of the kind of positive change that will get us where we need to be.
I didn’t get anything I wanted on Smith Avenue. I don’t see one improvement from what’s currently there (for cyclists) and what’s currently there is awful. From looking at the plans, it’s possible they’ll actually made things worse– narrowing the bike lane and putting them closer to traffic. This isn’t the “8-80 design” that’s been so touted by the City of Saint Paul. I don’t expect the agency to “Turn on a dime” …but they have been on notice that they need to fix this bridge and lots of other stuff in Saint Paul for years. The Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition submitted a list of specific places that need to be fixed 4 years ago and this bridge was #5 on that list …and we’d been fighting with them for two years before that about Snelling Avenue. The agency also periodically held “bike plans” or non-motorized public outreach sessions and I (and others) have attended many. The last one, a couple years ago at the Wellstone Center asked people to place post-its with comments on a map of Saint Paul. There were lots of post-its on that bridge. I personally have spent at least a hundred hours in meetings with agency staff or on their citizen planning committees and I’ve gotten absolutely nothing. They have not addressed a single thing on the SPBC list, a single post-it or even followed through with plan sets that were produced by these committees. If you wanna let them off the hook, that’s fine, but I hold them 100% accountable for anyone who gets hit in the bike lane of that bridge (or afterwards, where they refuse to put bike lanes), and for anyone who gets hit trying to cross Smith. Our entire city is a cesspool of cars and parking thanks to MnDOT. Saint Paul used to have a thriving downtown and a thriving neighborhood in Rondo before MnDOT partially obliterated them. It’s time they fixed this stuff. But if no one holds them accountable, they’ll never fix it.
By all means, hold them accountable then.
I’m not letting anyone off the hook, just trying to help explain the context.
Appreciate your feedback on this. Let me know how your further outreach efforts work out.
Sri for late reply, Andy. I think what you are describing here is applicable throughout the state on many roads and bridges. I do not look at infra design for “cyclists” as a separate group of people, rather I look at the bicycle as a mode of transport for all. This problem with MN Dot is everywhere.
Do I need to go to the High Bridge and measure the street (I have measured a lot of streets in the past) ? I have used the High Bridge by bike on the old bridge and the current bridge after is was built. I probably have taken over 100 trips by bike from Saint Paul to Northfield, MN.
I believe there should be enough room for at least one Jersey barrier wall, if not two, to provide full separation between walk/bike and the car lanes. Does anyone actually have the cross section measurements?
Paul, the big challenge was accommodating cars, high-speed cyclists, low-speed cyclists (such as families and kids) and pedestrians. There’s only room for one barrier, and you can’t have 35-mph roadies mixing with pedestrians. So the barrier separates the high-speed users from the low-speed ones.
Also the layout has to be symmetrical because of the bridge structure and accommodate boom trucks.
The bridge is 54 feet wide.
You’d be surprised how quickly that 54′ gets eaten up.
We have “35mph roadies” mixing with pedestrians on all our our city trails– MRT trail, River Road, The Midtown Greenway, absolutely everywhere. We paint a line in the middle of the middle of the pathway …and/or vary where the curb edge is located. I’m tired of designing all Saint Paul’s bike infrastructure for “class A” cyclists and screwing everyone else. No one is going 35mph southbound. The wall will serve as a nice surface for cars to mash you against and will make an already stressful ride more so.
Yes, would be cool to build southbound differently but the load needs to be balanced.
It seems obvious… Do 10.5′ lanes with 2′ ridic curb reaction zones, then a concrete barrier, and cycletracks + sidewalk outside the barrier. No need for all that shoulder space. https://goo.gl/maps/7Tu8R4KJxxF2 In 2017 we have cameras with sensor zones and tow trucks that can be dispatched on a moment’s notice to clear stalls.
We really need to eliminate the curb reaction zone thing. It’s really a don’t-pay-attention-and-text-all-you-want zone.
Also called a “making-sure-my-truck-or-bus-mirrors-don’t-hit-anything-in-the-boulevard”…
You’d think “prudent operation of a motor vehicle at safe speeds” would take care of that concern.
Of course, side friction – basically the risk of motor vehicle operators running into something that could damage their beloved vehicles – is a proven traffic calming technique that reduces design speed.
Well, lets “eat” the cross section space. I am unable to locate the width dimensions of the Hennepin Cty Franklin bridge in Minneapolis, across the Mississippi. However that bridge now has two MV traffic lanes and jersey barrier walls on each side protecting walk and bike space on each side of the bridge, symmetrical. If the High bridge is 54 feet wide and there wer no barriers of reaction space, we could draw 22 feet for two traffic lanes on each side and 16 feet wide walk bike space on each side, equals total of 54. We do not need 16 ft wide for walk bike on each side, so let’s say 12 to 14 feet on each side for walk and bike and measure the needed width for railing barrier on each side and the width of the base of two Jersey barriers, one for each side.
We should be able to provide *at least* 12 feet on each side for walk and bike, separating walk from bike, and provide reaction space for each 11 ft wide traffic lane on each side, and the needed width for both Jersey barrier walls on each side.
So, what is the problem?
The problem as I recall had to do with positioning the barricades to accommodate inspection trucks. As I mentioned in this post they tried out 20 different layout concepts.
I’m not an engineer so I can’t speak with authority as to the design limitations but I also don’t think Tara was BSing us on this. You should contact her to get a more complete response.
Also there was no concern from MnDOT or anyone else about leaving space for disabled vehicles. That wasn’t an issue.
I walked this bridge up the hill for the first time on Saturday night. Wow, traffic goes fast so close to the unprotected sidewalk. It was a simultaneously beautiful yet unnerving walk.
Exactly. So that’s why the sidewalk barrier was a priority and unanimous vote of the CAC. With that and narrower car lanes (and hopefully texturing between the car and bike lanes) the intent is to slow vehicle traffic from the current 40-45 mph to 30-35. The project manager even talked about leaving the 40 mph speed limit signs off since the speed limit can’t be lowered (if you did a speed study you’d wind up raising it to 45.
I’ve reached out to Tara to get a more definitive answer on why the barriers couldn’t be moved farther in but she’s out of the office until 2/27. Will report back what I find out, but again I’m 99% sure it’s because of accommodating inspection trucks.
But MnDOT moving to *slow traffic down* on a state highway is a big step in the right direction, IMHO.
I’m not sure if it’s feasible, but I’d almost rather see a good sidewalk and two-way cycletrack on one side, and two car lanes on the other. As long as there are good (good!!) crosswalks on both ends. That would make it so you’d have one interior jersey barrier instead of two, and probably a wider space to squeeze in a boom truck as well.
Something like this. http://streetmix.net/-/490732
That’s one of the ideas they explored, not feasible because the bridge wasn’t designed to carry a traffic load on the edge of the deck. So car lanes have to be in the middle and the layout has to be symmetrical or you risk damaging the bridge structure.
Haven’t you heard? That’s justification to build a new four lane bridge!
What about the Franklin bridge? This bridge already has the jersey barrier walls on both sides. How would an inspection truck be used on the Franklin bridge? The design of placing the wall next to the sidewalk and pushing the bike lane closer to the MV traffic is not best practice of roadway design. It’s bad.
You are right Paul. I took pictures of Franklin Avenue bridge and sent them to the project managers. the Franklin Bridge walls protect both cyclists and pedestrians and they have the added advantage of physically narrowing the motor vehicle travel lanes and calming traffic. Cars travel over the Franklin Bridge significantly slower than they used to, which has the added benefit of increasing safety for pedestrians in crosswalks at either end of the bridge. MnDOT could do the same thing with Smith Avenue.
I finally heard back from Tara – the reason they didn’t pursue this option for Smith is because the inspection boom trucks would not be able to reach from the middle of the road and, if you tried to put them on the sidewalk, would not be able to negotiate the curve at the south end through a 12 foot space. This was among the 20 different layouts that they tested.
I agree this would be a better option (assuming you could enforce a speed limit so you didn’t have cyclists bombing down the hill amid pedestrians) but the High Bridge is kind of a unique challenge.
I don’t buy this. If you combined the sidewalk and the bike lane — a 6′ sidewalk and 7.5′ (current) bike lane– you’d have a 13.5 foot space. This is bigger than a freeway lane for a boom truck and more than enough space. By moving the wall in, you actually make the space too small and push the truck farther away because it now must operate from the center of the road. Here’s one of the trucks– http://www.bridgeriggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Hamburg-rt20-028mail.jpg …with Smith Avenue’s giant anti-suicide fence I actually can’t see how one of these trucks could look at anything from he middle of the road because it will have to reach over a wall, an 8 foot sidewalk and a much higher fence.Tara’s excuse also defies what I see on Franklin, which has closer bottle-necks (due to turn lane at one end and narrower entry at the other). This means that (on the south side) their boom truck would have to use the center of the bridge and reach an even longer distance than Smith. I just spent the weekend at both sites (and some other bridges) taking photos and measuring stuff. Besides all this, in some cases they now do bridge inspections with drones. MnDOT is just making excuses. I cannot see by any measure how taking an existing 7.5 foot bike lane next to 40 mph traffic and reducing it to 5.5 feet will make cycling safer. It makes it more dangerous and uncomfortable. On top of this, everyone who is not a spandex-clad “class A” cyclist (and often less experienced) will use the sidewalk, increasing the likelihood of conflicts or crashes with pedestrians. Combining walk bike and striping it works better for the greatest number of users. Virtually every trail in the twin cities (and the nation) is divided with a painted white line into pedestrian and cycling areas and this has proven safe and workable. There’s nothing unique about Smith. MnDOT just doesn’t want to make the effort.
I’m just giving you the backstory, Andy. You can conclude from it whatever you want.
Here’s another, even better photo of an inspection truck on the hwy 5 bridge near Ft. Snelling. This could fit in a 13.5 foot protected, combined bike/walk lane (similar to what’s on Franklin)– https://mntransportationresearch.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/sloop.jpg
The problem is not whether it fits but getting it around the curve.
I don’t buy it. Even if it were true, they have similar problems on other bridges and simply use rope systems. It’s on their own website.
OK but they don’t want to do that because it’s 160 feet in the air. So what’s your plan to convince them?
That’s a romantic propaganda video with quaint music …but here’s a photo–
Recognize the bridge?
and just type– bridge inspection using rope access –(no quotes) into Google images and you’ll find hundreds of photos, many on bridges that are higher up than Smith Avenue showing inspection of every part of a bridge. Here’s some info on becoming a certified rope inspector– http://dmmprofessional.com/articles/2013/04/18/becoming-qualified-as-a-rope-access-technician/
This style of inspection is just slower and more costly and MnDOT doesn’t want to spend real money to substantially enhance bike/ped (beyond what they’re required to do by federal law). They have a quarter billion dollars to widen 35E or three quarters of a billion for a Stillwater Bridge that carries fewer cars than Snelling Avenue but they don’t wanna spend the money in this or any other bike/ped situation that I’ve seen in Saint Paul in the last 16 years. Another creative solution that they could do (if you believe their claim about “the curve”, which I don’t) is they could install some removable guard railing in part of that section instead of wall. My “plan to convince” them is to try to bring attention to yet another project where they refuse to accommodate bikes– via this post, via writing various state legislators and some congress people who get federal money for the agency and are all aware that it often screws the city in a myriad of ways, and trying to get the city planning commission and council members to weigh in. Most of all, it’s to try to create and support a strong, unified city bicycle advocacy group. Are you a member of the Saint Paul Bicycle Coalition or Women on Bikes? If not, why not? If you are (or are not), how can you go on a MnDOT community advisory committee and claim to speak for the city’s cycling community without making any effort to reach out to that community and get their input? What’s YOUR plan to make Saint Paul more bike friendly and get safer access to the city’s bridges, streets and roads?
The bridge design is, IMHO, bike friendly. There’s an 8-foot protected sidewalk that is a standard and adequate width for one-way bike traffic and pedestrians. There is a bike lane for faster riders. The roadway is narrowed to calm car traffic. The blind spots at the ends are being eliminated. It’s a dramatic improvement over the existing design, and very similar to the Wabasha bridge which I cross every day to get to work and to my knowledge has not been flagged as particularly unsafe for cyclists.
I know we disagree on this, and that’s fair. FWIW I did write about the design on this very website back in August and no one flagged it as unsafe.
I was on the CAC representing my neighborhood *as an individual*; at least four other people who are regular cyclist were also in the group. At no point do I claim to “speak for the city’s cycling community,” because no one person or group can do that. And keep in mind this project covers the entire corridor and not just the bridge – I also walk in this neighborhood, with my family, and have priorities beyond the bridge itself.
I’m a little snarky and defensive about that process, because the group consisted of longtime neighborhood advocates who met for several months and pushed for literally every idea that has been presented in this thread and then some.
The resulting design is a compromise that works within existing budget and engineering limitations and still leaves money for other improvements along the corridor. Including – as I’ve mentioned before – a trail crossing in Mendota Heights that is a tragedy waiting to happen, the crossing at my son’s elementary school on Dodd, and the Smith/Annapolis and Smith/Dodd intersections, the latter of which is a disaster for pedestrians (and an issue I’ll be again devoting considerable time to this year).
This particular advisory process, which I was initially very skeptical of, struck me as a sincere effort to improve quality of life along the corridor. Tara did her best to advocate for bike and pedestrian safety in a very difficult political environment internally.
What you seem to be asking for, fundamentally, is for MnDOT to change its budgetary and design priorities, which is something I support 100%.
What I’m suggesting, though, is that effort might be made more effective by acknowledging progress where it does take place and supporting people within MnDOT who can be advocates going forward.
And that’s all I really have to say on the matter.
I encourage people to contact me if they have specific questions about the CAC process, I’ll do my best to remember or get accurate information. Also at some point I may need to rally some political support for the Smith/Dodd intersection and will post here as that process moves along.
I really do appreciate the conversation and take none of it personally. Ride safe and hopefully our paths will cross again soon.
I hold no grudge against you, Tara or any of MnDOT’s staff as individuals. I respect that you volunteered on a CAC and tried to improve things in your neighborhood. We just disagree on what constitutes “improvement” and that’s fine. I’m advocating for my idea of “improvement” and you advocate for yours. There’s also many nice and good people who I’m sure are trying to change things within MnDOT (I know some of them) but, in the last 16 years, I haven’t seen substantial changes in how the agency approaches road projects in Saint Paul. I hear platitudes but, most of the time, when they actually redeck a bridge or rebuild a street, biking continues to be excluded or remains largely unimproved. I’m not sure what the answer is but what we’re doing isn’t getting us any closer to “8-to-80” or even “15-to-65”. You ride safe too and good luck with your crosswalks.
Here’s a video/photos of a recent inspection. I just don’t see how you could get up and under to get a good look at the bridge deck using ropes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETVQiROz418
See above comment.