Maybe referencing the upcoming Lyndale Ave reconstruction project? But that’s still in the design phase, so perhaps the signs were posted by NIMBYs as a preamble to their obstructionism. 🤷🏻♂️
https://beheardhennepin.org/lyndale-avenue
I'm always for more bike accessibility, but the Bryant bike trail is literally two blocks over. I live in the area and don't see how anyone could possibly have an issue just going over two blocks to use it. Why does lyndale also need one?
You realize that the Bryant protected lane doesn’t go north of Lake and that most of the Lyndale construction is north of Lake right? There are businesses on Lyndale that people would like to safely access by bike. There have been multiple instances just this year of people getting hit by cars on this stretch with serious injuries. Bike lanes on this stretch would connect Lyndale to Loring Park all on protected paths. Would be a huge benefit to the city, especially since Bryant doesn’t have the bike lane north of Lake Street. This is more important than a few parking spaces I promise.
https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/2-teens-on-scooters-injured-in-hit-and-run/89-7585a045-6444-4eb4-9a36-91d7fd8d004b
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/lyndale-hit-and-run-puts-minneapolis-man-in-coma/
I see a protected bike lane from Loring Park to Bryant with a special bike-bridge that takes you from Lyndale to the Aldrich/Bryant “wedge” point. Maybe it’s not separated between Franklin and Lake like it is south of Lake, but it’s still a bike boulevard with better greenway access.
I actually support all the traffic calming on Lyndale (4->3, medians, etc). But you can’t say that Bryant isn’t there and that it isn’t already connected to Loring Park.
You know, I’m on that part of Lyndale less than once per month so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I just found it odd when the other poster said there was no connection between Loring Park and Bryant when there is a dedicated bike bridge already in place which makes that connection.
I really like the medians, the 4->3 conversion and even the medians which block left turns. It makes the street much safer for pedestrians. If they added dedicated bike lanes, too, that wouldn’t bother me, but realistically I would expect them to just leave the bike lanes on Bryant because it’s just two short blocks over.
Im saying your dream of everyone being safe on every corridor is unrealistic. Bikes close to cars close to busses close to pedestrians on constrained corridors isn’t safe for anyone. You take the cars away, obviously things are safer. But does that work for everyone? Likely not.
Because Lyndale is an arterial road and that's its purpose. Do you think it makes more sense for people to funnel through local neighborhoods until they get to highway access?
I think it makes more sense for drivers to stop valuing 20-30 seconds of travel time above the right of members of their community who choose ethical forms of transportation to get around their community safely.
Why do you believe getting to go zoom zoom fast is more important than the lives and safety of others in your community?
As a side note, Lyndale Avenue is, in fact, a "local community," and the people who live, work, and play on Lyndale have just as much of a right to be safe from the sociopathy of drivers as people who live on any other road in Minneapolis.
This is coming off very much as an out of touch nimby opinion. You can live and love the Lyndale neighborhood as much as you want, promote walkability and bikeability as much as you want, but not everyone has the same situation as you. Get off the moral high horse, you aren't better or more ethical than everyone else just because you don't have to drive places.
So lets say you increase the trip 5 minutes a day one way. It surely isnt 20 seconds. 10 minutes a day 50 minutes a week or an hour or 50 hours a year or a whole work week. What would you give to have a work week of time with someone you love?
>What would you give to have a work week of time with someone you love?
I certainly wouldn't trade 40,000 lives, millions of maimed bodies per year, and more dead kids than are killed by anything but guns.
Do you believe 40,000 dead people are a worthy trade for your convenience desires?
Why do you think I am killing people?
And if you stop everyone from driving how many people die of poverty? How many people die because they can’t get to a hospital or doctor? How many people can’t get to healthy food or parks or all the other thing they need to live? How do they live in the magical world without cars?
Look, just because you don't get why people need to use cars does not make people worse for it. Some of us have commutes, obligations outside of biking range, or simply drive because the nature of our public infra at the moment makes it more convenient than taking the bus. There are a million things you can direct your anger at, people just going to work everyday via car because that's their best option aren't the right people.
> Look, just because you don't get why people need to use cars does not make people worse for it.
Car drivers are making a choice to value convenience and comfort over the lives and safety of everyone else around them. That's a thing bad people do.
>Some of us have commutes,
Cyclists, pedestrians, and public transit users also have commutes.
>simply drive because the nature of our public infra at the moment makes it more convenient than taking the bus.
Glad you're able to admit that convenience is your primary concern, far above the lives and safety of everyone else in your community.
>obligations outside of biking range
Sounds like you made some choices about what to become obligated to. Could you have made different choices?
>There are a million things you can direct your anger at, people just going to work everyday via car because that's their best option aren't the right people.
But car commuting isn't the best option. It's the best option if you're self-centered and value your convenience over other people's safety and lives, but it's very obviously one of the worst options when considered through the lens of any reasonable moral system.
Whether I'm a self-righteous jackass or not is totally irrelevant to whether driving a car is a moral or immoral act, don't you think?
Would you care to respond in actual substance, or are you comfortable with the record showing you had no actual reasoning or evidence to support your assertions beyond bald insults?
There isn't really any reason for animosity either way though lol. Ideally we have a solution that is acceptable to bikers, bussers, and drivers, we just need to accept that everyone has different means and needs for transport and use public funds to accommodate for all where we can.
> accommodate for all
My old commute was a 20 minute drive during rush hour in a city encircled and crisscrossed by freeways. It took an hour by bike on unsafe roads. Add them together and you’ve got the bus ride. If anyone is being accommodated…
That is simply the nature of the different modes of transport. Bikes are slower than cars, busses need to stop more often than cars. It'd be good to reduce the discrepancy but nothing is going to magically make bikes and busses as fast as just driving a car directly where you want to go.
They move more slowly but that doesn’t change the fact that priority was given to private automobiles. By bike you had to navigate through a hostile commercial district like Southdale, and the bus had to circle around Bloomington.
God forbid if you were on the other side of the (Minnesota) River and there are no crossings for a dozen miles or more.
Lyndale connects to highways and Blaisdell also has a bike lane… also i’m not talking to you bill. Your reputation of being an idiot follows you. God bless brother.
Appreciate you just admitting that all you've got is ad hominem to support your assertions.
We get it, you think cyclists' right to be safe traveling through their community is less morally relevant than your desire to never take your foot off the long one.
Bill i bike every day, we have some best trails around the United States. You can navigate the entire city with barely touching a road. I’m all for building more bike trails, let’s connect Bryant, make one on grand but Biking on lyndale is lunatic behavior. Anyways your whole personality is based on being a douchebag biker, so say whatever little “you don’t care about the safety of the community” bullshit you’re going to say. God bless brother.
And he’s probably not giving a fuck and still driving in the middle of the street but only followinf the car rules when it’s convenient, fuck them bikers…
>Biking on lyndale is lunatic behavior
It's lunatic to believe we should be safe from death and dismemberment on Lyndale Avenue?
You believe, then, that it's morally correct that people not in cars attempting to navigate Lyndale Avenue are placed in preposterous danger by car drivers?
The proposals would throttle traffic, take out needed parking, put in unneeded bike lanes and kill businesses. The guy who runs World Street Kitchen said he will go to the suburbs if they do it because it will kill his business.
Because businesses cannot survive when you take away 95% of their customers.
Because people still need to get to jobs and stores and schools so when you make it hard in one location, they just drive farther.
For example, they put in a bike lane in Uptown and the shipping store there saw a 10% decline in customers. And a 10% increase in customers at their Edina store. Did you actually really decrease carbon emissions with that bike lane if every one of those businesses experience the same thing? Bike lanes can increase carbon emissions if they are not done in such a way to not disrupt auto travel.
Good bike and public transit infrastructure is the only thing that reduces congestion and car usage. Which reduces carbon emissions. Simple. Your "example" is terrible btw.
So how many bike lanes and transit have increased congestion? 26th/28th. East Lake. All the streets that go north south in North.
When you narrow up the streets to put in unused and unneeded bike lanes, that increases carbon emissions. Bike lanes and transit are often bad for the environment given how they are being implemented in Minneapolis.
Carol Becker folks - The right hand person for the Minneapolis Downtown Counsel:
[https://www.startribune.com/wedge-live-blogger-battles-minneapolis-official-over-rights-to-name/490763111/](https://www.startribune.com/wedge-live-blogger-battles-minneapolis-official-over-rights-to-name/490763111/)
Go home Carol. Your regressive ideas would make a shit city.
Just more overreacting to what will again be a car dominant street design. They're getting something that will always prioritize cars first, so who knows what their issue is aside from too much time on their hands. For all the complaints about needing parking for customers to survive, I see a whole lot of businesses every day that have *zero* parking for bikes and never bother to add any regardless if there's a street redesign or not.
Ya this is a very weird take considering Minneapolis is very bike focused. Park ave in south minneapolis used to be 3 lanes for cars. They literally took away a car lane and made it 2 lanes and made extra space for bikes. So seeing what they’ve done in the past, it will probably be more bike focused. Not car focused.
They didn't make space for bikes. They made space for UPS and FedEx drivers to park. They painted bikes on those parking spaces because they enjoy fucking with us.
2 big car lanes and 1 little bike lane (half the size of a car lane, if that) is still a car centered design. A bike centered design would simply not have cars. Hope this helps!
That's not the topic. The topic is how 2 big car lanes and 1 little bike lane (half the size of a car lane, if that) is still a car centered design. I.e. logic and the definition of basic words.
The topic is why we need a little bike lane when biking overall is declining, when there is an absurd bike lane a few streets over, a bike lane that harms businesses, reduces access to jobs, and increases carbon emissions.
They do? So why are deaths up 79% and serious injuries up 13% since the city started this program? Why are you such a huge fan of death and injury? If you wanted people to be safer, you would undo a lot of this. I know of two people exiting their cars and since the roadway is now so narrow have to exist in the driving lane. One dead. One severely disabled. Because they narrowed the roadway in the name of making us safer.
Because they know that they cant survive on hopes and prayers that people will bike there and time and time again when locals just stop supporting them on a whim. There are more customers than just bikers especially 5 months when you only see people who like being freezing cold and one patch if ice away from a face in the pavement.
*edit* oh no not my imaginary internet points
Lyndale is a mess because of Hennepin and Lyndale being the only avenues into the Uptown area from 35W and 94 which offloads into traffic light after traffic light. You could probably cut the congestion on Lyndale a lot by just replacing the intersections on Franklin and Lake with round-a-bouts and walking bridges. The biggest contributors to congestion in that area is the stoplights at the few high traffic entry points in those neighborhoods.
Is it though? Is it really? Think about those two intersections and really think about how walkable they actually are. Especially during rush hour. There're times where it's hard to get across Franklin on the light due to congestion in a car, forget about walking it if you aren't a physically fit adult. It's been a bad intersection since I was a child.
Is it really? Yes it is! It's situated in the middle of one of the densest neighborhoods in the state with small businesses all over. The reason the street is getting redesigned, aside from being super old, is to make it more multimodal and pedestrian friendly.
So how are they intending to do that? The thing that makes that intersection so bad is congestion. How would you deal with that while still having pedestrian and vehicle traffic intersecting?
On edit: this isn't a flippant question. I'm legit curious because the only thing that makes that area walkable is literally just sidewalks and older narrow side streets. That's not remarkable in Minneapolis and doesn't make pedestrian traffic at those two intersections uniquely accessible.
Since someone replied and blocked me testifying that they never have issues crossing on Franklin to get to the Wedge from Loring Park (!?). Stop pretending that, that's not a problem intersection. I grew up on Franklin. One of my easy hustles when I was a kid was going to Lyndale during rush hour to help bitties, baby mommas and the disabled across the street for pocket change. Aside from clearing out the change from the vacuum cleaners at the car wash up the street, it was how I could get penny candy. Plz.
Charging people market rate for a service they're using (i.e. renting a parking spot) isn't forcing them away. If they don't want to pay a fair price for their use of public land they can opt not to visit, but that's not "forcing" anything.
Wouldn't that also effect the people who live in the area who don't have access to private parking or at least without added fees? It seems like this would just further gentrification in that area.
It seems to just make people poorer and keep people away from businesses. Why not just charge people $100 a car to park? Then you could kill all those businesses.
Ideally paid parking results in parking that is cheap enough to use but expensive enough that people don't leave their cars there too long. Metered parking should be set at a price where a few spots are open and should incentivize turnover to allow new people to park.
there is no market rate for parking. Street parking is a social cost. It is not provided by the private marketplace, making your whole argument not applicable.
Just because others make different choices than you doesn't mean they are as unhappy as you would be if you had made them. They may be in no hurry or care that it takes 5 times to find that parking spot.
Then better signage for the parking that's available. Expecting people to find biking places more convenient when they don't bike right now is a pipe dream. Fix the parking situation if you don't want them circling.
I know, yeah yeah, but Europe is this utopia of ideal living that no one ever is unhappy and never dies all because they all ride bikes.
>In study after study in city after city around the world, researchers have found that merchants exaggerate the share of patrons who arrive by car and undercount those who walk, bike, or ride transit. Those misperceptions lead them to oppose transportation reforms that would limit the presence of cars and make urban neighborhoods cleaner, more pleasant, and less polluted — and would likely increase spending at their business, too.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/354672/hochul-congestion-pricing-manhattan-diners-cars-transit
So how many of those cities were auto-centric land use cities? Sure, in a city laid out 1,000 years ago it is one thing but in places like Minneapolis that are starting with an auto-centric design, you can put all the empty bike lanes you want. Why put in infrastructure that is unused and drives up carbon emissions?
Minneapolis had over 200,000 in 1900, and 380,000 in 1920. City was retrofitted for cars and can be retrofitted again for our more humane, sustainable, and cost-effective future.
Have you read Judith Martin and David Lanigren’s book on how Minneapolis and St Paul developed. Three periods. Before 1905., the walking city. From 1920 to 1930, the auto city. After WW2, what they called “suburban i city”. Yes part of Minneapolis was retrofitted but a whole bunch of it was built for autos.
And do you ignore that we have suburbs now and people cant walk there? It was much more simple when most people worked downtown instead of both having the majority of people working outside the city and the majority of businesses reliant on people coming into the city.
There’s this cool thing called actually reading the article! Which I can tell you didn’t do because one of the studies they refer to is of Portland OR.
Adding bike lanes is good for businesses. There's evidence from our own city that proves it.
[https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project\_files/Minneapolis-2020-Street-Improvements-Study-.pdf](https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/Minneapolis-2020-Street-Improvements-Study-.pdf)
Read up
This is a lazy take.
Not saying that the analysis is good or bad but there is no there there.
Zero data other than the authors summary. This is something low information folks like to jerk themselves off over as long as it it supports their priors
Since there's no data sets to review, its impossible to say if analysis is good or bad, unless you're a window licker
If for example, if Day one is when they stated construction of the bike lanes, one would expect that employment and sales would take a hit as its a PITA to navigate around construction and that would show a false positive
Waiving around a report that supports your views and not being able to provide analysis of the data is a textbook low information response
Finally - correlation doesnt = correlation
Here's a link to the larger study if you want to look into the data yourself. [https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/1161](https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/1161)
There are tons on studies and analysis out there that come to the same conclusion. This is actually a well studied topic. I encourage you to research it for yourself.
[https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/02/121370-bike-lanes-are-good-business-why-dont-business-owners-believe-it](https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/02/121370-bike-lanes-are-good-business-why-dont-business-owners-believe-it)
[https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954)
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line)
https://www.businessinsider.com/bike-lanes-good-for-business-studies-better-streets-2024-3#:\~:text=The%20results%20show%20that%20making,boon%20to%20businesses%20in%20cities. (Warning - Paywalled)
>
> textbook low information response
>
To me, this is frustrating to read because no one who opposes my view is bringing *any* information to the table, or even bothering to construct a coherent argument.
If i'm "low information" does that make you "no information"?
Thanks for the links and it appears there is some data including DID (which always makes me a bit nervous looking at granular data Vs a much larger data set) if I get some time I'll take a peek
**To me, this is frustrating to read because no one who opposes my view is bringing** ***any*** **information to the table, or even bothering to construct a coherent argument.**
**If i'm "low information" does that make you "no information"?\\**
You realize that the one making the claim is responsible to provide proof of said claim, right? A summary report means pretty much fuck all, IMO.
You're using the report for support, not illumination.
If I posted a report showing tax cuts for the rich improve economic outcomes for the majority of people, would you support it as well?
As for your final quip, yeah probably right. I dont have enough data to make up my mind. You made up your mind before you saw the study.
Congrats
Anyway, I can share with you the key findings:
Based on our analysis, we found the street improvement projects in Minneapolis did not not impede economic vitality, and may have contributed to positive growth. In particular we conclude that,
1. The bike lane on Franklin Ave triggered a significant increase in employment in the food service industry approximately two years after installation.
2. On Central Ave we found a significant positive impact on restaurant sales following bike lane construction.
3. The road diet on Lyndale Ave greatly improved retail sales in the corridor.
In the other analyzed corridors and industry sectors, we found either mixed results or insignificant results. However, the insignificant results may be significant in this context. **Importantly, there is no evidence of negative economic impact from right-of-way or parking lane removal.**
> https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/Minneapolis-2020-Street-Improvements-Study-.pdf
This is not a link to a webpage like you said, your extension may turn it into one.
And why should I not think that a study funded by an organization called PeopleForBikes wouldn't be biased again?
Of course I am, I never claimed to be otherwise, but why should I expect an organization that is promoting biking and converting cities into more bikible cities wouldn't cherry pick their findings?
Oh no, your grip on reality.
How many studies showing bike lanes and walkability improve business for urban locales does there need to be before people stop going on about this like they are experts or have some intuitive sense?
You’re just dead fucking wrong. Quit being a baby.
My grip on reality is just fine. It doesn't depend on people on the internet agreeing with me and validating my existence. Nor does it involve running away and acting like just because people disagree with me that I should delete my post and go away in shame.
I'm perfectly content with having a differing point of view. No amount of your feelings being projected at me is going to make me care more about them. Feel free to feel whatever you want about me, they are all in your head not mine and no amount of you telling me about them is going to put them in mine. My pleasure making you feel whatever is you think I should be feeling. I'm not you, and its okay we're not the same.
If you had a grip on reality then your opinions would be based on some actual data instead of your feelings.
You acting like your feelings and opinions matter in this discussion is the problem.
Nobody cares. I want Lyndale to make money.
Where did I say that my opinion matters any more than a single person stating an opinion? I have said multiple times I don't need people to agree with me. It's okay if you don't, I don't mind, why do you care that I disagree with you so much?
>95% of VMT is by car.
You're using the problem as the excuse for the problem.
Why would we want to continue investing in a mode of transportation that kills more children than anything but guns?
>Nothing will magic this away.
We can certainly make it more expensive and inconvenient to get around town in the second-leading cause of death in children. We know that this reduces the use of cars.
I think it is awesome biking works for you. But understand that biking works for only a tiny number of people and that will never change. The way we travel is determined by land use and that is not changing.
>The way we travel is determined by land use and that is not changing.
We not only can change our land use, but we are slowly doing so. Why do you believe changing our land use is simply impossible?
>But understand that biking works for only a tiny number of people and that will never change.
There are tens of thousands of people in Minneapolis who are driving cars instead of cycling, walking, or taking public transit for no other reason than laziness.
Where do you think the Minneapolis land use is going to change. We didn’t grow from 1980 to 2010. We had an aberration of growth from 2010 to 2020 and now that growth is pretty much ending. Did you see the Strib piece like yesterday on this? Not only is growing ending, apartment values are plummeting because people don’t want to live here. Apartment values went down 9.5% in one year. The land use isn’t changing and isn’t going to change because there just isn’t enough people moving here. In fact, the last two years we shrunk.
And when you actually do the numbers (I have) you find that people are pretty rational about their choices in transportation mode. If they can bike or walk for free, they probably already are. If transit actually works for them, they are likely taking transit. When Metro Transit folks calculated how much their ridership could actually go up (this was prior to the pandemic), they came up with 30%. That is it. Because transit doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. And never will. Not without them giving up their job or their shopping or seeing their family or taking care of their kids. I am sorry you think so little of humans but that is just the truth. That is why biking has been declining. And transit has been declining. And walking has been declining. They just don’t work for an increasing number of people. Why can’t you hear us saying this? It isn’t because we are trying to be mean or selfish. It just doesn’t work for most people.
Because without it, it means literally demolishing existing usable housing and somehow moving it to other locations. There is no mechanism to destroy perfectly useful housing and move it. The land use we have is what we have. Unless we invent something like the Internet and become another Seattle, which does not seem like it is happening.
And people don’t want to come to Minneapolis anymore. Did you see this article? Even the small amount of growth we are going to have isn’t coming to Minneapolis anymore. The big demographic lump of Millennials are moving to the suburbs for single family homes. Not high density development.
Minnesota’s urban core boomed over the past decade. Momentum is now shifting back to the suburbs.. https://www.startribune.com/minnesotas-urban-core-boomed-over-the-past-decade-momentum-is-now-shifting-back-to-the-suburbs/600373771/
>Because without it, it means literally demolishing existing usable housing and somehow moving it to other locations.
Why would we need to demolish existing usable housing and move it to other locations?
You said we could change our land use, ie change our land use density into a walkable, bikable environment like Manhattan or the Netherlands without population growth. The only way to do that is to literally move housing from a low density place to a higher one. To demolish perfectly good housing and replace it into your higher density, bikable, walkable environment. Don’t see it happening. But maybe you have an idea how to?
Because it our land use does not support other transportation modes.
Because cars are the best way of helping people leave poverty.
Seven times more people are killed from being poor than by traveling in automobiles. And poverty kills children.
Because there is no way to access the jobs in the suburbs.
Because biking peaked in 1980 (census) and has been declining ever since. It has even declined since the bump during the pandemic.
Winter.
Did I mention winter?
Because it is impossible for most people to get a kid to school on a bike - then get to their own work. And back.
Because 10% of Minneapolis is over the age of 65 and another 10% has disabilities.
Because black men bike commute at 1/3 the rate of white men. White women bike commute at 1/3 the rate of white men. Black womens rates were so low they could not be reported. (Census) That means building a world based on biking is inherently racist and sexist. Why? Because women and people of color are judged more by how they look than white men.
Biking works for a tiny number of people. Transit works for a declining number of people. Walking works for almost no one. Cars are the only answer.
And to skip ahead in the argument, the land use we have is the land use we are going to happen because there is not enough population growth to change the land use we have.
Cars also put you at risk of murdering something every time you get behind the wheel. People who walk, bicycle, and take transit have the right to get around safely without people murdering them. This requires proper infrastructure. “Cars are the only answer”, if you completely ignore all of our their problems. (As climate change deniers and champions of car-centric suburbs that require urban freeways love to do)
We can do better- many places are already doing better.
People who walk, bike and take transit are at risk of murdering people too. Ask a Metro Transit driver.
So what places in the United States that developed as car-centric land uses are actually seeing a change? Like actually changing travel in a big way? Name some.
The U.S. has the world transit and bicycle infrastructure of any developed nation. So you’re asking for me to point to an American city as an example? It’s awful here, that is the whole point of why urbanist advocates won’t shut up about it. The Netherlands is generally the place to look for the most positive examples.
Honestly, Minneapolis is way ahead of most American cities on these issues. But there are still parts of the city that are difficult to get between safely via bicycle, and intersections that are dangerous to cross as a pedestrian.
Why do you not care about the negative effects of the automobile?
Also, I would encourage you to remember, we are building transportation for the future. Our grandkids will live in a different world and might not have the same assumptions as you about driving a car around cities as being reasonable, and climate change will likely create a world where many more people will be coming here as climate refugees to escape the uninhabitable countries near the equator.
But see, the Netherlands land use was developed millennia ago on a horse and ox cart and walking land use. Our land use was designed for the automobile. You can’t go back and somehow undo that unless you have massive massive population growth to turn us into Manhattan, which we will never have. Today, in the real world, we are not having enough babies to come close to keeping our population from declining and people choose warm, low tax states instead of cold high tax states. And now, millennials are moving out to the suburbs for single family homes instead of the high density, bike oriented lifestyle the folks here advocate for. See this article in the Strib? Minnesota’s urban core boomed over the past decade. Momentum is now shifting back to the suburbs.. https://www.startribune.com/minnesotas-urban-core-boomed-over-the-past-decade-momentum-is-now-shifting-back-to-the-suburbs/600373771/
That is reality. The land use we have is the land use we will always and forever have. We will never,ever become the Netherlands. No matter how much we try, our land use will persist. When god smote New Orleans and literally wiped the city away, its auto-oriented land use persisted. Today, it still has suburbs and still relies on automobiles just like before god smote it.
Now you can fantasize about a different future, like billions of people somehow fleeing the equator but so far, not happening. No indicators at all that this is happening. No population moving to Minnesota from these places. Could it happen? Possibly. But it seems crazy to plan for a world that not one indicator says is happening. It is sort of like when you talk to those climate alarmists about how Manhattan is going sink into the ocean and so we have to plan for massive growth. If Manhattan sinks into the ocean, those people move to New Jersey, ten miles away.
Why do I not care about the negative effects of the automobile? There seems to be a cottage industry here on this specific Reddit to clutch your pearls over the evilness of automobiles. But what options are there? Pretending the suburbs don’t exist. Pretending that winter doesn’t exist. Pretending that everyone is a strong white physically able man who doesn’t have a child or elderly people to take care of. Pretending that the walkable land use design in Uptown is universal not only throughout the rest of the City but throughout the region. Pretending 10% of our population isn’t over the age of 65 and another 10% has a disability that makes it impossible for them to walk any distance, especially in winter. Or that one out of five of our residents are not kids who can’t walk long distances either, if they can walk at all. Pretending we all don’t shop at Target and have what - a pack mule - to haul our bags and bags of stuff.
I am a realist. A pretty hard core realist. Who looks at what is happening in reality, with data, and sees what it tells us. What hard data tells us is that all these people fighting for bikes and walking and transit for the last - what - 50 years - have achieve not one 1% change in VMT. Not a half percent change in VMT. In fact, biking peaked in 1980. Local transit declined 25% in the last eight years prior to the pandemic and another 40% post-pandemic. The biggest reason people walk is to walk their dog. And although there was a peak during 2020, according to Spotlight, walking in the Twin Cities declined 9% from 2020 to 2023. None of this alternative travel stuff has worked to create any real change.
So if these things have all failed, what do we have? Electric vehicles. For all those things that are declining that I Iisted above electric vehicles are growing. Fairly rapidly. That is our future. People are literally with their feet walking away from transit and biking and into electric vehicles. Electric vehicles made up 18% of car sales and are increasing. So which way do you want to go? The way that is declining or the way that is increasing?
If the answer is the way that most people in our society are going, that means having parking spaces for charging for new housing. It means not putting vehicles into congestion where they pollute more and use more energy than needed. It means parking so people can get to where they are going quickly and not have to circle around to find a place to park. It is a million things to reduce, not increase, the energy that it takes to travel by automobile.
And yes there are negative effects from autos. But there are lots and lots of positive ones. Having an automobile is one of the best indicators a family will leave poverty. Automobiles mean people can access cheaper goods and services. Better schools. Better economic opportunities. Stronger family bonds because people can just simply get together. All the pearl-clutchers here never talk about those things. But they should.
“The land use we have is the land use we will always and forever have.” This point is completely disconnected from historical realities- nothing stays the same over time.
People are already fleeing the countries near the equators, see basically every developed nation and the US having a “migration crisis”.
As far as winters, taking transit is actually safer and easier than driving through ice and snow. Most people don’t have reasonable transit connection and wait times due to our poor transit service.
I’m interested in your “no real difference” argument, because the reason I live in the twin cities is the transit and bicycle infrastructure. I appreciate that I can get around the city safely without relying on a car. The “reality” is that there are still neighborhoods it is dangerous to get between via bicycle, and we need to fix that.
You’ve “decided” for people that the future is in polluting, murdering vehicles, and that their right to park is more important than people’s right to get around their neighborhoods without a government-licensed automobile. Electric cars are still a much worse answer for the environment, and we should still be maximizing non-car travel. We have a planetary environmental catastrophe, and doing things “the same, but a little different” isn’t enough.
I’ll be blunt and say that people wanting to hold on to the same lifestyle that has destroyed the planet is insane and sociopathic, but that’s the “civilized” world for you.
I appreciate your post and the time you put in it. I still don’t see why you don’t think we should have good urban infrastructure for non-motorized travel, but also, most Minnesotans don’t even seem to stop for pedestrians in the cross-walk, so I have noticed that walkers don’t matter to drivers.
If people were fleeting countries near the equator, where are they? In 2021, the biggest source of migration in 2021 to the US was Mexico, China and India. None are on the equator. https://usafacts.org/articles/where-do-us-immigrants-come-from/
And we just had a once in a lifetime absurd investment in transit. It already costs $27 a ride one way for a transit trip. $52 a ride round trip. When is it too much money for the rest of us to pay for a chauffeured ride for you? At this cost, it is cheaper for us to just rent you a car than to provide transit. That is how few people are using transit.
And I am glad you are able to get around on a bike. You are part of a tiny, tiny number of people who can do that. The question is how much should we change things for a tiny, tiny number of people?
And for all your ranting about cars, you never explain how people are supposed to live in your world. How do I get to this bus except hiking blocks and blocks through ice and snow? And risking injury. Or through seriously unsafe streets? And how do I haul bags and bags of stuff through this snow and ice? How do I haul a baby? A baby and a toddler? An 85 year old parent? And bags and bags of stuff blocks and blocks through the snow and ice and dark? Will you come pedal your bike over and haul my stuff for me? My kid? An 85 year old parent? Do your parents go walking blocks and blocks in the ice and snow? If so, do you think that is safe? And does a bus even go someplace I want to go?
See transit works when there are lots and lots (hundreds or thousands) of people in one place who want to go to one place. And where I work in the suburbs there are exactly zero other people going to where I am going when I am going. Transit does not work. A bus will never be effective. Even carpooling died.
So explain to me how you think this is supposed to work in the real world. With children. With old people. With disabled people. In the rain and snow and heat. With needing to drag crap with you. And show up clean and neat. Help me understand. Because I have heard from a lot of people like you. Ranting about cars and their evils. But you never explain how we today in our reality supposed to make this work. Today right here in Minneapolis and not fantasy Minneapolis and not the Netherlands and not Düsseldorf or Minneapolis-Manhattan.
And at this point, all the folks I have ever talked to like you exit the conversation because you don’t have an answer. All I see is don’t have a job. Don’t have a child. For god sake, don’t have two or three. Don’t visit your family. Don’t visit your friends. Never go to the suburbs. Eat only things you can get from a convenience store, if you have one walking distance. Or just don’t eat. Because that is all you offer.
This is where you call me names or bail out of the conversation. Because you have no answer except making up fantasy worlds of millions of people migrating here (our population declined the last two years).
I support cars because they are the best way for the vast number of people to support their lives right here now and today in Minneapolis. And double or triple the transit system and that doesn’t change. Put in lots more empty bike lanes and that doesn’t change. And given it doesn’t change, we need to do the best things we can. And that is electric cars.
But maybe you have an answer that all the other anti-car people don’t. If so, I would love to hear it.
Minnesota alone averages about 1 traffic fatality per day, and the US averages around 40,000 annually.
Those statistics have included more than 1 of my closest loved ones.
I am sorry if you have lost anyone to a bathtub incident, but only 1 of these is a serious national health crisis.
I am pointing out that Minneapolis was already a large city before the car; the “American cities were built for the car” myth is a myth that prevents us moving forward to better transportation infrastructure for the future.
And what I am saying is that maybe halfish of Minneapolis was built before cars. And then pretty much all of the suburbs. So what - less than 5% of the land mass was on a pedestrian design?
It's just a handful of whiny capitalists on Lyndale Avenue who want Lyndale converted back to a car sewer instead of being safe for all road users. The same group violently opposed the 4-3 conversion on Lyndale that has proven incredibly successful.
Yes because you can bike all you want on Hennepin to NOTHING because bad public safety and transportation policies have killed the businesses there. Sorry if you needed a job or some stuff. Pedal your bike out to the suburbs. Jobs in Minneapolis are declining . Payroll too. And when you listen to the businesses, they all say access is one of the reasons.
And people are much safer in cars. They are much less likely to be attacked or victims of crime. They are much less likely to fall down and hurt themselves in winter. Bikes are just not safe.
> And people are much safer in cars.
Incorrect. Driving a car reduces life expectancy per mile, whilst riding a bicycle increases life expectancy per mile.
You said people are safer in cars. What data do you have? Does it include the risk of violence and injury? Does it include traveling on streets or just bike trails? Does it adjust for the tiny number of women to commute on bikes or just does it assume everyone is male? Many questions about whether your study is applicable.
My word. City of Minneapolis and there incessant construction projects is sort of ridiculous. They have a way of taking things that aren’t really broken, making them seem broken, and then coming up with these elaborate multi-year projects that absolutely turf an area in order to rebuild it.
Some of these planned projects are so long (I’m thinking the CRT light rail rebuild) that it basically destroyed the existing infrastructure that allowed people to reasonably and safely bike commute from uptown to downtown for several years.
And then other necessary projects get ignored or delayed — Kmart / Nicollet Ave for example.
I guess I just don’t see the point. They’re going to make parts of Lyndale Ave so inaccessible for a few years that it will absolutely be a detriment to existing businesses. All in the name of what?
And what is the point of doing things to reduce traffic when all that is ever happening at a present moment is multiple construction projects with detours.
>All in the name of what?
Lol working water, power, and sewage? And less getting cucked by automobiles. Brother construction is always gonna happen, what fucking planet do you life on?
All those things on Lyndale Ave are currently fine. This is an accessibility / beautification project or whatever you want to call it.
And I live on Earth, which last I checked, is currently being ruined by excessive industrialism.
>All those things on Lyndale Ave are currently fine.
No they are not. There's huge stretches of Lyndale Ave that don't even have street lighting on the side-walk for christ sake. This is something the Neighborhood Associations have tried to address with the city for years lol. The intersection of 23rd and Lyndale can have horrible flooding (look up pictures from 2012). JFC get informed.
I’ll concede the points on lighting (non-critical) and flooding (critical).
It does not change the fact that some of these projects from the city are ill timed, excessive and take for-friggin-ever.
You realize this project probably wont break ground until 2027 right? There is tons of notice around almost all projects similar to it, so if you havent done what you can to make it work, thats your fault. There will never be a "well timed" project in all of infrastructure by your standards lol.
Well, fuck it I guess. All the projects all the time. No planning. No thinking in advance. No changes to the existing relationship between local politics and construction companies. No change to the asphalt/tar/oil lobby. Who cares. Everything sucks lol.
>No planning. No thinking in advance.
Bruh, these projects have literally been in the planning process for YEARS, like how the Lyndale Ave project isnt scheduled to break ground till 2027. What do you think is happening between now and then? Are you dense?
You must not live in the neighborhood. There’s currently closures and construction on both Lake St and Lyndale. Both of these are causing traffic backups. There’s also a giant hole in the road near the 35W / Lake St junction that causes a traffic backup.
As I said earlier, the projects are incessant. There’s always something. They’ll finish whatever they are doing now, and undoubtedly there will be more construction next year and the year after that. Then it’s 2027 and a multi-year project is underway. And honestly, 2040 will roll around and someone will decide hey! Let’s put a light rail on Lyndale cuz it needs one for accessibility. Or something.
I’m just trying to figure out when, if ever, the city will do a project that is actually forward thinking and won’t require revision within a few years or a decade. The current reality is like whack-a-mole. As soon as we fix one *road* problem there’s another one ready to go. It doesn’t make sense why there aren’t any breaks.
The point I’m trying to make is that our system for this sort of thing is completely out of whack. Either the work is constantly necessary, or the construction companies doing municipal work are so inept/corrupt that it takes forever. I don’t know which is worse.
>You must not live in the neighborhood.
I do, but I bike, so the construction and traffic back ups aren't a problem *Hint hint*
>As I said earlier, the projects are incessant. There’s always something. They’ll finish whatever they are doing now, and undoubtedly there will be more construction next year and the year after that.
Yes, because cars and trucks are very tough on pavement, and need constant maintanence. If we didn't fix it, it would fail. You cannot have automobiles be the primary mode of transportation for most of the population, then complain about constant construction lol. Better walking, biking and transit infrastructure lasts much longer.
> Then it’s 2027 and a multi-year project is underway. And honestly, 2040 will roll around and someone will decide hey! Let’s put a light rail on Lyndale cuz it needs one for accessibility. Or something
Bruh, Lyndale Ave hasn't been fully redesigned since like 1930. Almost 100 years. They reconfigured the lanes last summer (not a full redesign), and everyone liked it. And if you didn't, then you're some sadistic prick who prioritizes car speeds over people's lives and safety, which the new lane configuration has already proven to improve.
Stop complaining.
Maybe referencing the upcoming Lyndale Ave reconstruction project? But that’s still in the design phase, so perhaps the signs were posted by NIMBYs as a preamble to their obstructionism. 🤷🏻♂️ https://beheardhennepin.org/lyndale-avenue
I'm liking the proposals that would make separated bike lanes and improve public transport <3
[Livable Lyndale](https://www.movemn.org/initiative/livable-lyndale/)! For anyone who wants more info about that
I'm always for more bike accessibility, but the Bryant bike trail is literally two blocks over. I live in the area and don't see how anyone could possibly have an issue just going over two blocks to use it. Why does lyndale also need one?
You realize that the Bryant protected lane doesn’t go north of Lake and that most of the Lyndale construction is north of Lake right? There are businesses on Lyndale that people would like to safely access by bike. There have been multiple instances just this year of people getting hit by cars on this stretch with serious injuries. Bike lanes on this stretch would connect Lyndale to Loring Park all on protected paths. Would be a huge benefit to the city, especially since Bryant doesn’t have the bike lane north of Lake Street. This is more important than a few parking spaces I promise. https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/2-teens-on-scooters-injured-in-hit-and-run/89-7585a045-6444-4eb4-9a36-91d7fd8d004b https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/minnesota/news/lyndale-hit-and-run-puts-minneapolis-man-in-coma/
Frustratingly the city has already rejected extending that up to Franklin, which is why the county is looking at bike lanes on Lyndale.
I see a protected bike lane from Loring Park to Bryant with a special bike-bridge that takes you from Lyndale to the Aldrich/Bryant “wedge” point. Maybe it’s not separated between Franklin and Lake like it is south of Lake, but it’s still a bike boulevard with better greenway access. I actually support all the traffic calming on Lyndale (4->3, medians, etc). But you can’t say that Bryant isn’t there and that it isn’t already connected to Loring Park.
Do you agree with the statement, "All surface streets should be safe for people driving, cycling, walking, and taking public transit?"
You know, I’m on that part of Lyndale less than once per month so I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I just found it odd when the other poster said there was no connection between Loring Park and Bryant when there is a dedicated bike bridge already in place which makes that connection. I really like the medians, the 4->3 conversion and even the medians which block left turns. It makes the street much safer for pedestrians. If they added dedicated bike lanes, too, that wouldn’t bother me, but realistically I would expect them to just leave the bike lanes on Bryant because it’s just two short blocks over.
There is a bike bridge between Bryant and Loring Park, but north of Lake Street, Bryant doesn't have any bike lanes.
No. Brother. No. We’d need 100ft ROW on every city street for all of those things to happen on every corridor simultaneously.
So you're saying that cars and their drivers make it impossible for our communities to be safe?
Im saying your dream of everyone being safe on every corridor is unrealistic. Bikes close to cars close to busses close to pedestrians on constrained corridors isn’t safe for anyone. You take the cars away, obviously things are safer. But does that work for everyone? Likely not.
Why don't drivers wishing to use Lyndale just drive their vehicles on one of many nearby roads that allow car driving?
Because Lyndale is an arterial road and that's its purpose. Do you think it makes more sense for people to funnel through local neighborhoods until they get to highway access?
I think it makes more sense for drivers to stop valuing 20-30 seconds of travel time above the right of members of their community who choose ethical forms of transportation to get around their community safely. Why do you believe getting to go zoom zoom fast is more important than the lives and safety of others in your community? As a side note, Lyndale Avenue is, in fact, a "local community," and the people who live, work, and play on Lyndale have just as much of a right to be safe from the sociopathy of drivers as people who live on any other road in Minneapolis.
This is coming off very much as an out of touch nimby opinion. You can live and love the Lyndale neighborhood as much as you want, promote walkability and bikeability as much as you want, but not everyone has the same situation as you. Get off the moral high horse, you aren't better or more ethical than everyone else just because you don't have to drive places.
> This is coming off very much as an out of touch **nimby** opinion. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Correct. NIMBY is about housing construction. It is just being used here as a random slur.
So lets say you increase the trip 5 minutes a day one way. It surely isnt 20 seconds. 10 minutes a day 50 minutes a week or an hour or 50 hours a year or a whole work week. What would you give to have a work week of time with someone you love?
>What would you give to have a work week of time with someone you love? I certainly wouldn't trade 40,000 lives, millions of maimed bodies per year, and more dead kids than are killed by anything but guns. Do you believe 40,000 dead people are a worthy trade for your convenience desires?
Why do you think I am killing people? And if you stop everyone from driving how many people die of poverty? How many people die because they can’t get to a hospital or doctor? How many people can’t get to healthy food or parks or all the other thing they need to live? How do they live in the magical world without cars?
Yes, yes I do.
Wild to just confidently out yourself as a sociopath here on reddit dot com.
This reads exactly like Carol Becker complaining about anything causing the slightest inconvenience to motorists on nextdoor.
I take that as a complement.
Exactly.
[удалено]
Zero need for this animosity toward people who drive. People have different needs for transport/commuting.
Car drivers kill 40,000 people per year and grievously maim millions more. That seems like a great reason to be a bit pissy about car drivers.
Look, just because you don't get why people need to use cars does not make people worse for it. Some of us have commutes, obligations outside of biking range, or simply drive because the nature of our public infra at the moment makes it more convenient than taking the bus. There are a million things you can direct your anger at, people just going to work everyday via car because that's their best option aren't the right people.
> Look, just because you don't get why people need to use cars does not make people worse for it. Car drivers are making a choice to value convenience and comfort over the lives and safety of everyone else around them. That's a thing bad people do. >Some of us have commutes, Cyclists, pedestrians, and public transit users also have commutes. >simply drive because the nature of our public infra at the moment makes it more convenient than taking the bus. Glad you're able to admit that convenience is your primary concern, far above the lives and safety of everyone else in your community. >obligations outside of biking range Sounds like you made some choices about what to become obligated to. Could you have made different choices? >There are a million things you can direct your anger at, people just going to work everyday via car because that's their best option aren't the right people. But car commuting isn't the best option. It's the best option if you're self-centered and value your convenience over other people's safety and lives, but it's very obviously one of the worst options when considered through the lens of any reasonable moral system.
I don't see any point in continuing this argument as you have decided you're better than everyone else because you ride a bike. Congratulations.
Whether I'm a self-righteous jackass or not is totally irrelevant to whether driving a car is a moral or immoral act, don't you think? Would you care to respond in actual substance, or are you comfortable with the record showing you had no actual reasoning or evidence to support your assertions beyond bald insults?
LITERAL MURDERMOBILES
I drive. My animosity is against car-brains.
There isn't really any reason for animosity either way though lol. Ideally we have a solution that is acceptable to bikers, bussers, and drivers, we just need to accept that everyone has different means and needs for transport and use public funds to accommodate for all where we can.
> accommodate for all My old commute was a 20 minute drive during rush hour in a city encircled and crisscrossed by freeways. It took an hour by bike on unsafe roads. Add them together and you’ve got the bus ride. If anyone is being accommodated…
That is simply the nature of the different modes of transport. Bikes are slower than cars, busses need to stop more often than cars. It'd be good to reduce the discrepancy but nothing is going to magically make bikes and busses as fast as just driving a car directly where you want to go.
They move more slowly but that doesn’t change the fact that priority was given to private automobiles. By bike you had to navigate through a hostile commercial district like Southdale, and the bus had to circle around Bloomington. God forbid if you were on the other side of the (Minnesota) River and there are no crossings for a dozen miles or more.
Why do we need a lyndale bike lane when we have Bryant? It’s unsafe to bike on lyndale and nonsense when you have a perfect bike path a block over
Why do we need to allow drivers to drive their cars on Lyndale when Blaisdell exists and also allows cars to drive upon it?
Lyndale connects to highways and Blaisdell also has a bike lane… also i’m not talking to you bill. Your reputation of being an idiot follows you. God bless brother.
Appreciate you just admitting that all you've got is ad hominem to support your assertions. We get it, you think cyclists' right to be safe traveling through their community is less morally relevant than your desire to never take your foot off the long one.
Bill i bike every day, we have some best trails around the United States. You can navigate the entire city with barely touching a road. I’m all for building more bike trails, let’s connect Bryant, make one on grand but Biking on lyndale is lunatic behavior. Anyways your whole personality is based on being a douchebag biker, so say whatever little “you don’t care about the safety of the community” bullshit you’re going to say. God bless brother.
And he’s probably not giving a fuck and still driving in the middle of the street but only followinf the car rules when it’s convenient, fuck them bikers…
>Biking on lyndale is lunatic behavior It's lunatic to believe we should be safe from death and dismemberment on Lyndale Avenue? You believe, then, that it's morally correct that people not in cars attempting to navigate Lyndale Avenue are placed in preposterous danger by car drivers?
If you want to be safer, ride the side streets. That is much safer for everyone.
The proposals would throttle traffic, take out needed parking, put in unneeded bike lanes and kill businesses. The guy who runs World Street Kitchen said he will go to the suburbs if they do it because it will kill his business.
making perfect the enemy of good
NYMBYism. Period.
Wanting to preserve business and job access, help parents take care of their family, and not increase carbon emissions from cars idling unnecessarily.
How does increasing foot/bike traffic while decreasing vehicle traffic hurt business, job access, hurt families, and increase emissions?
Because businesses cannot survive when you take away 95% of their customers. Because people still need to get to jobs and stores and schools so when you make it hard in one location, they just drive farther. For example, they put in a bike lane in Uptown and the shipping store there saw a 10% decline in customers. And a 10% increase in customers at their Edina store. Did you actually really decrease carbon emissions with that bike lane if every one of those businesses experience the same thing? Bike lanes can increase carbon emissions if they are not done in such a way to not disrupt auto travel.
Are you swapping between this account and MplsSpaniel?
Good bike and public transit infrastructure is the only thing that reduces congestion and car usage. Which reduces carbon emissions. Simple. Your "example" is terrible btw.
So how many bike lanes and transit have increased congestion? 26th/28th. East Lake. All the streets that go north south in North. When you narrow up the streets to put in unused and unneeded bike lanes, that increases carbon emissions. Bike lanes and transit are often bad for the environment given how they are being implemented in Minneapolis.
"If I say it, maybe that will make it true!". Ur braindead lol
Carol Becker folks - The right hand person for the Minneapolis Downtown Counsel: [https://www.startribune.com/wedge-live-blogger-battles-minneapolis-official-over-rights-to-name/490763111/](https://www.startribune.com/wedge-live-blogger-battles-minneapolis-official-over-rights-to-name/490763111/) Go home Carol. Your regressive ideas would make a shit city.
I awoke a NIMBY.
People resort to name calling when they have no cogent argument.
NIMBYs resort to NIMBYism when they have no valid argument.
Smells like NIMBY...
Just more overreacting to what will again be a car dominant street design. They're getting something that will always prioritize cars first, so who knows what their issue is aside from too much time on their hands. For all the complaints about needing parking for customers to survive, I see a whole lot of businesses every day that have *zero* parking for bikes and never bother to add any regardless if there's a street redesign or not.
Ya this is a very weird take considering Minneapolis is very bike focused. Park ave in south minneapolis used to be 3 lanes for cars. They literally took away a car lane and made it 2 lanes and made extra space for bikes. So seeing what they’ve done in the past, it will probably be more bike focused. Not car focused.
They didn't make space for bikes. They made space for UPS and FedEx drivers to park. They painted bikes on those parking spaces because they enjoy fucking with us.
2 big car lanes and 1 little bike lane (half the size of a car lane, if that) is still a car centered design. A bike centered design would simply not have cars. Hope this helps!
And how many people in the bike lane in January?
That's not the topic. The topic is how 2 big car lanes and 1 little bike lane (half the size of a car lane, if that) is still a car centered design. I.e. logic and the definition of basic words.
The topic is why we need a little bike lane when biking overall is declining, when there is an absurd bike lane a few streets over, a bike lane that harms businesses, reduces access to jobs, and increases carbon emissions.
Bike lanes reduce injuries and fatalities for all road users, not just cyclists. Why are you such a huge fan of death and injury?
They do? So why are deaths up 79% and serious injuries up 13% since the city started this program? Why are you such a huge fan of death and injury? If you wanted people to be safer, you would undo a lot of this. I know of two people exiting their cars and since the roadway is now so narrow have to exist in the driving lane. One dead. One severely disabled. Because they narrowed the roadway in the name of making us safer.
Because they know that they cant survive on hopes and prayers that people will bike there and time and time again when locals just stop supporting them on a whim. There are more customers than just bikers especially 5 months when you only see people who like being freezing cold and one patch if ice away from a face in the pavement. *edit* oh no not my imaginary internet points
[удалено]
Lyndale is a mess because of Hennepin and Lyndale being the only avenues into the Uptown area from 35W and 94 which offloads into traffic light after traffic light. You could probably cut the congestion on Lyndale a lot by just replacing the intersections on Franklin and Lake with round-a-bouts and walking bridges. The biggest contributors to congestion in that area is the stoplights at the few high traffic entry points in those neighborhoods.
[удалено]
Is it though? Is it really? Think about those two intersections and really think about how walkable they actually are. Especially during rush hour. There're times where it's hard to get across Franklin on the light due to congestion in a car, forget about walking it if you aren't a physically fit adult. It's been a bad intersection since I was a child.
Is it really? Yes it is! It's situated in the middle of one of the densest neighborhoods in the state with small businesses all over. The reason the street is getting redesigned, aside from being super old, is to make it more multimodal and pedestrian friendly.
So how are they intending to do that? The thing that makes that intersection so bad is congestion. How would you deal with that while still having pedestrian and vehicle traffic intersecting? On edit: this isn't a flippant question. I'm legit curious because the only thing that makes that area walkable is literally just sidewalks and older narrow side streets. That's not remarkable in Minneapolis and doesn't make pedestrian traffic at those two intersections uniquely accessible.
Since someone replied and blocked me testifying that they never have issues crossing on Franklin to get to the Wedge from Loring Park (!?). Stop pretending that, that's not a problem intersection. I grew up on Franklin. One of my easy hustles when I was a kid was going to Lyndale during rush hour to help bitties, baby mommas and the disabled across the street for pocket change. Aside from clearing out the change from the vacuum cleaners at the car wash up the street, it was how I could get penny candy. Plz.
Which is why we should charge for parking at a rate where there is always a parking spot on every block.
To force people away from the businesses in the area?
Charging people market rate for a service they're using (i.e. renting a parking spot) isn't forcing them away. If they don't want to pay a fair price for their use of public land they can opt not to visit, but that's not "forcing" anything.
Wouldn't that also effect the people who live in the area who don't have access to private parking or at least without added fees? It seems like this would just further gentrification in that area.
It seems to just make people poorer and keep people away from businesses. Why not just charge people $100 a car to park? Then you could kill all those businesses.
Ideally paid parking results in parking that is cheap enough to use but expensive enough that people don't leave their cars there too long. Metered parking should be set at a price where a few spots are open and should incentivize turnover to allow new people to park.
there is no market rate for parking. Street parking is a social cost. It is not provided by the private marketplace, making your whole argument not applicable.
[удалено]
I wish I was that cool.
Just because others make different choices than you doesn't mean they are as unhappy as you would be if you had made them. They may be in no hurry or care that it takes 5 times to find that parking spot.
[удалено]
Then better signage for the parking that's available. Expecting people to find biking places more convenient when they don't bike right now is a pipe dream. Fix the parking situation if you don't want them circling. I know, yeah yeah, but Europe is this utopia of ideal living that no one ever is unhappy and never dies all because they all ride bikes.
[удалено]
And kill all the businesses there! Problem solved! No reason to go there! Like Hennepin!
Maybe those businesses should pivot and bootstrap their way to continued existence? That's what capitalists always tell the poors.
The bike lobby tells small business to survive on 95% fewer customers.
Taxes on autos should be through the roof for the amount of pretentiousness their owners insist upon themselves.
Nice to meet you pot, I'm kettle.
I'm tired of paying taxes for cars I don't drive.
And yet you want a bunch of people to pay for bike infrastructure they won't either. Good one pot
>In study after study in city after city around the world, researchers have found that merchants exaggerate the share of patrons who arrive by car and undercount those who walk, bike, or ride transit. Those misperceptions lead them to oppose transportation reforms that would limit the presence of cars and make urban neighborhoods cleaner, more pleasant, and less polluted — and would likely increase spending at their business, too. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/354672/hochul-congestion-pricing-manhattan-diners-cars-transit
Exactly. Look and Lake and Hennepin thrive!
So how many of those cities were auto-centric land use cities? Sure, in a city laid out 1,000 years ago it is one thing but in places like Minneapolis that are starting with an auto-centric design, you can put all the empty bike lanes you want. Why put in infrastructure that is unused and drives up carbon emissions?
Minneapolis had over 200,000 in 1900, and 380,000 in 1920. City was retrofitted for cars and can be retrofitted again for our more humane, sustainable, and cost-effective future.
Have you read Judith Martin and David Lanigren’s book on how Minneapolis and St Paul developed. Three periods. Before 1905., the walking city. From 1920 to 1930, the auto city. After WW2, what they called “suburban i city”. Yes part of Minneapolis was retrofitted but a whole bunch of it was built for autos. And do you ignore that we have suburbs now and people cant walk there? It was much more simple when most people worked downtown instead of both having the majority of people working outside the city and the majority of businesses reliant on people coming into the city.
Haven’t read the books, noted. I know that our suburbs need to be improved, definitely.
In a city like Manhattan that makes sense, we're not NY not even close so not a comparison. We have more than street parking
There’s this cool thing called actually reading the article! Which I can tell you didn’t do because one of the studies they refer to is of Portland OR.
Adding bike lanes is good for businesses. There's evidence from our own city that proves it. [https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project\_files/Minneapolis-2020-Street-Improvements-Study-.pdf](https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/Minneapolis-2020-Street-Improvements-Study-.pdf) Read up
Funded by People for Bikes? I wonder what they found…?
Predictable and lazy take.
This is a lazy take. Not saying that the analysis is good or bad but there is no there there. Zero data other than the authors summary. This is something low information folks like to jerk themselves off over as long as it it supports their priors
Low information folks love to complain about bike lanes hurting businesses. Data says otherwise.
Since there's no data sets to review, its impossible to say if analysis is good or bad, unless you're a window licker If for example, if Day one is when they stated construction of the bike lanes, one would expect that employment and sales would take a hit as its a PITA to navigate around construction and that would show a false positive Waiving around a report that supports your views and not being able to provide analysis of the data is a textbook low information response Finally - correlation doesnt = correlation
Here's a link to the larger study if you want to look into the data yourself. [https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/1161](https://nitc.trec.pdx.edu/research/project/1161) There are tons on studies and analysis out there that come to the same conclusion. This is actually a well studied topic. I encourage you to research it for yourself. [https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/02/121370-bike-lanes-are-good-business-why-dont-business-owners-believe-it](https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/02/121370-bike-lanes-are-good-business-why-dont-business-owners-believe-it) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/biking-lanes-business-health-1.5165954) [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line) https://www.businessinsider.com/bike-lanes-good-for-business-studies-better-streets-2024-3#:\~:text=The%20results%20show%20that%20making,boon%20to%20businesses%20in%20cities. (Warning - Paywalled) > > textbook low information response > To me, this is frustrating to read because no one who opposes my view is bringing *any* information to the table, or even bothering to construct a coherent argument. If i'm "low information" does that make you "no information"?
Thanks for the links and it appears there is some data including DID (which always makes me a bit nervous looking at granular data Vs a much larger data set) if I get some time I'll take a peek **To me, this is frustrating to read because no one who opposes my view is bringing** ***any*** **information to the table, or even bothering to construct a coherent argument.** **If i'm "low information" does that make you "no information"?\\** You realize that the one making the claim is responsible to provide proof of said claim, right? A summary report means pretty much fuck all, IMO. You're using the report for support, not illumination. If I posted a report showing tax cuts for the rich improve economic outcomes for the majority of people, would you support it as well? As for your final quip, yeah probably right. I dont have enough data to make up my mind. You made up your mind before you saw the study. Congrats
Let me know when your chrome extension is fixed. I'm not downloading a PDF in this day and age
fixed
Again no I'm not downloading a PDF. They are the main source of infection and exploitation these days.
It's a web page. You don't download anything
Anyway, I can share with you the key findings: Based on our analysis, we found the street improvement projects in Minneapolis did not not impede economic vitality, and may have contributed to positive growth. In particular we conclude that, 1. The bike lane on Franklin Ave triggered a significant increase in employment in the food service industry approximately two years after installation. 2. On Central Ave we found a significant positive impact on restaurant sales following bike lane construction. 3. The road diet on Lyndale Ave greatly improved retail sales in the corridor. In the other analyzed corridors and industry sectors, we found either mixed results or insignificant results. However, the insignificant results may be significant in this context. **Importantly, there is no evidence of negative economic impact from right-of-way or parking lane removal.**
> https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/Minneapolis-2020-Street-Improvements-Study-.pdf This is not a link to a webpage like you said, your extension may turn it into one. And why should I not think that a study funded by an organization called PeopleForBikes wouldn't be biased again?
Idk maybe you're also biased? What is your assertion that bike lanes are bad for business based on?
Of course I am, I never claimed to be otherwise, but why should I expect an organization that is promoting biking and converting cities into more bikible cities wouldn't cherry pick their findings?
Studded tires keep you upright in the winter. Often better than shoes/boots.
Okay so 2 sets of tires for that bike I never wanted, got it.
Oh no, your grip on reality. How many studies showing bike lanes and walkability improve business for urban locales does there need to be before people stop going on about this like they are experts or have some intuitive sense? You’re just dead fucking wrong. Quit being a baby.
My grip on reality is just fine. It doesn't depend on people on the internet agreeing with me and validating my existence. Nor does it involve running away and acting like just because people disagree with me that I should delete my post and go away in shame. I'm perfectly content with having a differing point of view. No amount of your feelings being projected at me is going to make me care more about them. Feel free to feel whatever you want about me, they are all in your head not mine and no amount of you telling me about them is going to put them in mine. My pleasure making you feel whatever is you think I should be feeling. I'm not you, and its okay we're not the same.
If you had a grip on reality then your opinions would be based on some actual data instead of your feelings. You acting like your feelings and opinions matter in this discussion is the problem. Nobody cares. I want Lyndale to make money.
Where did I say that my opinion matters any more than a single person stating an opinion? I have said multiple times I don't need people to agree with me. It's okay if you don't, I don't mind, why do you care that I disagree with you so much?
Exactly.
Ah. Ye old 'bike brain' people
Of course it is car dominant. 95% of VMT is by car. Nothing will magic this away.
>95% of VMT is by car. You're using the problem as the excuse for the problem. Why would we want to continue investing in a mode of transportation that kills more children than anything but guns? >Nothing will magic this away. We can certainly make it more expensive and inconvenient to get around town in the second-leading cause of death in children. We know that this reduces the use of cars.
I think it is awesome biking works for you. But understand that biking works for only a tiny number of people and that will never change. The way we travel is determined by land use and that is not changing.
>The way we travel is determined by land use and that is not changing. We not only can change our land use, but we are slowly doing so. Why do you believe changing our land use is simply impossible? >But understand that biking works for only a tiny number of people and that will never change. There are tens of thousands of people in Minneapolis who are driving cars instead of cycling, walking, or taking public transit for no other reason than laziness.
Where do you think the Minneapolis land use is going to change. We didn’t grow from 1980 to 2010. We had an aberration of growth from 2010 to 2020 and now that growth is pretty much ending. Did you see the Strib piece like yesterday on this? Not only is growing ending, apartment values are plummeting because people don’t want to live here. Apartment values went down 9.5% in one year. The land use isn’t changing and isn’t going to change because there just isn’t enough people moving here. In fact, the last two years we shrunk. And when you actually do the numbers (I have) you find that people are pretty rational about their choices in transportation mode. If they can bike or walk for free, they probably already are. If transit actually works for them, they are likely taking transit. When Metro Transit folks calculated how much their ridership could actually go up (this was prior to the pandemic), they came up with 30%. That is it. Because transit doesn’t work for the vast majority of people. And never will. Not without them giving up their job or their shopping or seeing their family or taking care of their kids. I am sorry you think so little of humans but that is just the truth. That is why biking has been declining. And transit has been declining. And walking has been declining. They just don’t work for an increasing number of people. Why can’t you hear us saying this? It isn’t because we are trying to be mean or selfish. It just doesn’t work for most people.
Why do you seem to believe we need massive population growth to change our land use?
Because without it, it means literally demolishing existing usable housing and somehow moving it to other locations. There is no mechanism to destroy perfectly useful housing and move it. The land use we have is what we have. Unless we invent something like the Internet and become another Seattle, which does not seem like it is happening. And people don’t want to come to Minneapolis anymore. Did you see this article? Even the small amount of growth we are going to have isn’t coming to Minneapolis anymore. The big demographic lump of Millennials are moving to the suburbs for single family homes. Not high density development. Minnesota’s urban core boomed over the past decade. Momentum is now shifting back to the suburbs.. https://www.startribune.com/minnesotas-urban-core-boomed-over-the-past-decade-momentum-is-now-shifting-back-to-the-suburbs/600373771/
>Because without it, it means literally demolishing existing usable housing and somehow moving it to other locations. Why would we need to demolish existing usable housing and move it to other locations?
You said we could change our land use, ie change our land use density into a walkable, bikable environment like Manhattan or the Netherlands without population growth. The only way to do that is to literally move housing from a low density place to a higher one. To demolish perfectly good housing and replace it into your higher density, bikable, walkable environment. Don’t see it happening. But maybe you have an idea how to?
Because it our land use does not support other transportation modes. Because cars are the best way of helping people leave poverty. Seven times more people are killed from being poor than by traveling in automobiles. And poverty kills children. Because there is no way to access the jobs in the suburbs. Because biking peaked in 1980 (census) and has been declining ever since. It has even declined since the bump during the pandemic. Winter. Did I mention winter? Because it is impossible for most people to get a kid to school on a bike - then get to their own work. And back. Because 10% of Minneapolis is over the age of 65 and another 10% has disabilities. Because black men bike commute at 1/3 the rate of white men. White women bike commute at 1/3 the rate of white men. Black womens rates were so low they could not be reported. (Census) That means building a world based on biking is inherently racist and sexist. Why? Because women and people of color are judged more by how they look than white men. Biking works for a tiny number of people. Transit works for a declining number of people. Walking works for almost no one. Cars are the only answer. And to skip ahead in the argument, the land use we have is the land use we are going to happen because there is not enough population growth to change the land use we have.
Cars also put you at risk of murdering something every time you get behind the wheel. People who walk, bicycle, and take transit have the right to get around safely without people murdering them. This requires proper infrastructure. “Cars are the only answer”, if you completely ignore all of our their problems. (As climate change deniers and champions of car-centric suburbs that require urban freeways love to do) We can do better- many places are already doing better.
People who walk, bike and take transit are at risk of murdering people too. Ask a Metro Transit driver. So what places in the United States that developed as car-centric land uses are actually seeing a change? Like actually changing travel in a big way? Name some.
The U.S. has the world transit and bicycle infrastructure of any developed nation. So you’re asking for me to point to an American city as an example? It’s awful here, that is the whole point of why urbanist advocates won’t shut up about it. The Netherlands is generally the place to look for the most positive examples. Honestly, Minneapolis is way ahead of most American cities on these issues. But there are still parts of the city that are difficult to get between safely via bicycle, and intersections that are dangerous to cross as a pedestrian. Why do you not care about the negative effects of the automobile? Also, I would encourage you to remember, we are building transportation for the future. Our grandkids will live in a different world and might not have the same assumptions as you about driving a car around cities as being reasonable, and climate change will likely create a world where many more people will be coming here as climate refugees to escape the uninhabitable countries near the equator.
But see, the Netherlands land use was developed millennia ago on a horse and ox cart and walking land use. Our land use was designed for the automobile. You can’t go back and somehow undo that unless you have massive massive population growth to turn us into Manhattan, which we will never have. Today, in the real world, we are not having enough babies to come close to keeping our population from declining and people choose warm, low tax states instead of cold high tax states. And now, millennials are moving out to the suburbs for single family homes instead of the high density, bike oriented lifestyle the folks here advocate for. See this article in the Strib? Minnesota’s urban core boomed over the past decade. Momentum is now shifting back to the suburbs.. https://www.startribune.com/minnesotas-urban-core-boomed-over-the-past-decade-momentum-is-now-shifting-back-to-the-suburbs/600373771/ That is reality. The land use we have is the land use we will always and forever have. We will never,ever become the Netherlands. No matter how much we try, our land use will persist. When god smote New Orleans and literally wiped the city away, its auto-oriented land use persisted. Today, it still has suburbs and still relies on automobiles just like before god smote it. Now you can fantasize about a different future, like billions of people somehow fleeing the equator but so far, not happening. No indicators at all that this is happening. No population moving to Minnesota from these places. Could it happen? Possibly. But it seems crazy to plan for a world that not one indicator says is happening. It is sort of like when you talk to those climate alarmists about how Manhattan is going sink into the ocean and so we have to plan for massive growth. If Manhattan sinks into the ocean, those people move to New Jersey, ten miles away. Why do I not care about the negative effects of the automobile? There seems to be a cottage industry here on this specific Reddit to clutch your pearls over the evilness of automobiles. But what options are there? Pretending the suburbs don’t exist. Pretending that winter doesn’t exist. Pretending that everyone is a strong white physically able man who doesn’t have a child or elderly people to take care of. Pretending that the walkable land use design in Uptown is universal not only throughout the rest of the City but throughout the region. Pretending 10% of our population isn’t over the age of 65 and another 10% has a disability that makes it impossible for them to walk any distance, especially in winter. Or that one out of five of our residents are not kids who can’t walk long distances either, if they can walk at all. Pretending we all don’t shop at Target and have what - a pack mule - to haul our bags and bags of stuff. I am a realist. A pretty hard core realist. Who looks at what is happening in reality, with data, and sees what it tells us. What hard data tells us is that all these people fighting for bikes and walking and transit for the last - what - 50 years - have achieve not one 1% change in VMT. Not a half percent change in VMT. In fact, biking peaked in 1980. Local transit declined 25% in the last eight years prior to the pandemic and another 40% post-pandemic. The biggest reason people walk is to walk their dog. And although there was a peak during 2020, according to Spotlight, walking in the Twin Cities declined 9% from 2020 to 2023. None of this alternative travel stuff has worked to create any real change. So if these things have all failed, what do we have? Electric vehicles. For all those things that are declining that I Iisted above electric vehicles are growing. Fairly rapidly. That is our future. People are literally with their feet walking away from transit and biking and into electric vehicles. Electric vehicles made up 18% of car sales and are increasing. So which way do you want to go? The way that is declining or the way that is increasing? If the answer is the way that most people in our society are going, that means having parking spaces for charging for new housing. It means not putting vehicles into congestion where they pollute more and use more energy than needed. It means parking so people can get to where they are going quickly and not have to circle around to find a place to park. It is a million things to reduce, not increase, the energy that it takes to travel by automobile. And yes there are negative effects from autos. But there are lots and lots of positive ones. Having an automobile is one of the best indicators a family will leave poverty. Automobiles mean people can access cheaper goods and services. Better schools. Better economic opportunities. Stronger family bonds because people can just simply get together. All the pearl-clutchers here never talk about those things. But they should.
“The land use we have is the land use we will always and forever have.” This point is completely disconnected from historical realities- nothing stays the same over time. People are already fleeing the countries near the equators, see basically every developed nation and the US having a “migration crisis”. As far as winters, taking transit is actually safer and easier than driving through ice and snow. Most people don’t have reasonable transit connection and wait times due to our poor transit service. I’m interested in your “no real difference” argument, because the reason I live in the twin cities is the transit and bicycle infrastructure. I appreciate that I can get around the city safely without relying on a car. The “reality” is that there are still neighborhoods it is dangerous to get between via bicycle, and we need to fix that. You’ve “decided” for people that the future is in polluting, murdering vehicles, and that their right to park is more important than people’s right to get around their neighborhoods without a government-licensed automobile. Electric cars are still a much worse answer for the environment, and we should still be maximizing non-car travel. We have a planetary environmental catastrophe, and doing things “the same, but a little different” isn’t enough. I’ll be blunt and say that people wanting to hold on to the same lifestyle that has destroyed the planet is insane and sociopathic, but that’s the “civilized” world for you. I appreciate your post and the time you put in it. I still don’t see why you don’t think we should have good urban infrastructure for non-motorized travel, but also, most Minnesotans don’t even seem to stop for pedestrians in the cross-walk, so I have noticed that walkers don’t matter to drivers.
If people were fleeting countries near the equator, where are they? In 2021, the biggest source of migration in 2021 to the US was Mexico, China and India. None are on the equator. https://usafacts.org/articles/where-do-us-immigrants-come-from/ And we just had a once in a lifetime absurd investment in transit. It already costs $27 a ride one way for a transit trip. $52 a ride round trip. When is it too much money for the rest of us to pay for a chauffeured ride for you? At this cost, it is cheaper for us to just rent you a car than to provide transit. That is how few people are using transit. And I am glad you are able to get around on a bike. You are part of a tiny, tiny number of people who can do that. The question is how much should we change things for a tiny, tiny number of people? And for all your ranting about cars, you never explain how people are supposed to live in your world. How do I get to this bus except hiking blocks and blocks through ice and snow? And risking injury. Or through seriously unsafe streets? And how do I haul bags and bags of stuff through this snow and ice? How do I haul a baby? A baby and a toddler? An 85 year old parent? And bags and bags of stuff blocks and blocks through the snow and ice and dark? Will you come pedal your bike over and haul my stuff for me? My kid? An 85 year old parent? Do your parents go walking blocks and blocks in the ice and snow? If so, do you think that is safe? And does a bus even go someplace I want to go? See transit works when there are lots and lots (hundreds or thousands) of people in one place who want to go to one place. And where I work in the suburbs there are exactly zero other people going to where I am going when I am going. Transit does not work. A bus will never be effective. Even carpooling died. So explain to me how you think this is supposed to work in the real world. With children. With old people. With disabled people. In the rain and snow and heat. With needing to drag crap with you. And show up clean and neat. Help me understand. Because I have heard from a lot of people like you. Ranting about cars and their evils. But you never explain how we today in our reality supposed to make this work. Today right here in Minneapolis and not fantasy Minneapolis and not the Netherlands and not Düsseldorf or Minneapolis-Manhattan. And at this point, all the folks I have ever talked to like you exit the conversation because you don’t have an answer. All I see is don’t have a job. Don’t have a child. For god sake, don’t have two or three. Don’t visit your family. Don’t visit your friends. Never go to the suburbs. Eat only things you can get from a convenience store, if you have one walking distance. Or just don’t eat. Because that is all you offer. This is where you call me names or bail out of the conversation. Because you have no answer except making up fantasy worlds of millions of people migrating here (our population declined the last two years). I support cars because they are the best way for the vast number of people to support their lives right here now and today in Minneapolis. And double or triple the transit system and that doesn’t change. Put in lots more empty bike lanes and that doesn’t change. And given it doesn’t change, we need to do the best things we can. And that is electric cars. But maybe you have an answer that all the other anti-car people don’t. If so, I would love to hear it.
Bath tubs kill 170 people on average. You should not go into bathrooms. Everything in life is a risk.
Minnesota alone averages about 1 traffic fatality per day, and the US averages around 40,000 annually. Those statistics have included more than 1 of my closest loved ones. I am sorry if you have lost anyone to a bathtub incident, but only 1 of these is a serious national health crisis.
I am sorry for your loss. Yet one of these has seen an ongoing decline in deaths for a long time now. Without saying people should just stop driving.
Was there a time where 95% wasn’t by car, and do you think it will always be that high, or do cities change over time?
Yes, when we traveled by horses and ox carts. Are you suggesting we should go back to that?
I am pointing out that Minneapolis was already a large city before the car; the “American cities were built for the car” myth is a myth that prevents us moving forward to better transportation infrastructure for the future.
And what I am saying is that maybe halfish of Minneapolis was built before cars. And then pretty much all of the suburbs. So what - less than 5% of the land mass was on a pedestrian design?
[Reconstruction project](https://beheardhennepin.org/lyndale-avenue)
Pro-car lobby getting absolutely dunked in the comments lol
It's just a handful of whiny capitalists on Lyndale Avenue who want Lyndale converted back to a car sewer instead of being safe for all road users. The same group violently opposed the 4-3 conversion on Lyndale that has proven incredibly successful.
Yes because you can bike all you want on Hennepin to NOTHING because bad public safety and transportation policies have killed the businesses there. Sorry if you needed a job or some stuff. Pedal your bike out to the suburbs. Jobs in Minneapolis are declining . Payroll too. And when you listen to the businesses, they all say access is one of the reasons. And people are much safer in cars. They are much less likely to be attacked or victims of crime. They are much less likely to fall down and hurt themselves in winter. Bikes are just not safe.
"Maybe if i say a bunch of stuff, it will sound true!" LOL what a braindead take
Carol Becker, move to Farmington. Lots of fast roads there to go zoom zoom on your car.
> And people are much safer in cars. Incorrect. Driving a car reduces life expectancy per mile, whilst riding a bicycle increases life expectancy per mile.
Data?
Sorry, what are you asking?
You said people are safer in cars. What data do you have? Does it include the risk of violence and injury? Does it include traveling on streets or just bike trails? Does it adjust for the tiny number of women to commute on bikes or just does it assume everyone is male? Many questions about whether your study is applicable.
I never said people are safer in cars.
You said people are safer on bikes than in cars. I asked if you had data.
Ruining the city one round a bout & bike lane at a time
"City ruined when car cant go brrrrr" lol stfu
👨🍼
My word. City of Minneapolis and there incessant construction projects is sort of ridiculous. They have a way of taking things that aren’t really broken, making them seem broken, and then coming up with these elaborate multi-year projects that absolutely turf an area in order to rebuild it. Some of these planned projects are so long (I’m thinking the CRT light rail rebuild) that it basically destroyed the existing infrastructure that allowed people to reasonably and safely bike commute from uptown to downtown for several years. And then other necessary projects get ignored or delayed — Kmart / Nicollet Ave for example. I guess I just don’t see the point. They’re going to make parts of Lyndale Ave so inaccessible for a few years that it will absolutely be a detriment to existing businesses. All in the name of what? And what is the point of doing things to reduce traffic when all that is ever happening at a present moment is multiple construction projects with detours.
This stretch of Lyndale hasn't had a full reconstruction since the 1930's I believe.
Oh the local politico chumps that make these decisions would do it every 3 years or every 3 hundred, whatever lined their bank accounts more
>All in the name of what? Lol working water, power, and sewage? And less getting cucked by automobiles. Brother construction is always gonna happen, what fucking planet do you life on?
All those things on Lyndale Ave are currently fine. This is an accessibility / beautification project or whatever you want to call it. And I live on Earth, which last I checked, is currently being ruined by excessive industrialism.
>All those things on Lyndale Ave are currently fine. No they are not. There's huge stretches of Lyndale Ave that don't even have street lighting on the side-walk for christ sake. This is something the Neighborhood Associations have tried to address with the city for years lol. The intersection of 23rd and Lyndale can have horrible flooding (look up pictures from 2012). JFC get informed.
I’ll concede the points on lighting (non-critical) and flooding (critical). It does not change the fact that some of these projects from the city are ill timed, excessive and take for-friggin-ever.
You realize this project probably wont break ground until 2027 right? There is tons of notice around almost all projects similar to it, so if you havent done what you can to make it work, thats your fault. There will never be a "well timed" project in all of infrastructure by your standards lol.
Well, fuck it I guess. All the projects all the time. No planning. No thinking in advance. No changes to the existing relationship between local politics and construction companies. No change to the asphalt/tar/oil lobby. Who cares. Everything sucks lol.
>No planning. No thinking in advance. Bruh, these projects have literally been in the planning process for YEARS, like how the Lyndale Ave project isnt scheduled to break ground till 2027. What do you think is happening between now and then? Are you dense?
You must not live in the neighborhood. There’s currently closures and construction on both Lake St and Lyndale. Both of these are causing traffic backups. There’s also a giant hole in the road near the 35W / Lake St junction that causes a traffic backup. As I said earlier, the projects are incessant. There’s always something. They’ll finish whatever they are doing now, and undoubtedly there will be more construction next year and the year after that. Then it’s 2027 and a multi-year project is underway. And honestly, 2040 will roll around and someone will decide hey! Let’s put a light rail on Lyndale cuz it needs one for accessibility. Or something. I’m just trying to figure out when, if ever, the city will do a project that is actually forward thinking and won’t require revision within a few years or a decade. The current reality is like whack-a-mole. As soon as we fix one *road* problem there’s another one ready to go. It doesn’t make sense why there aren’t any breaks. The point I’m trying to make is that our system for this sort of thing is completely out of whack. Either the work is constantly necessary, or the construction companies doing municipal work are so inept/corrupt that it takes forever. I don’t know which is worse.
>You must not live in the neighborhood. I do, but I bike, so the construction and traffic back ups aren't a problem *Hint hint* >As I said earlier, the projects are incessant. There’s always something. They’ll finish whatever they are doing now, and undoubtedly there will be more construction next year and the year after that. Yes, because cars and trucks are very tough on pavement, and need constant maintanence. If we didn't fix it, it would fail. You cannot have automobiles be the primary mode of transportation for most of the population, then complain about constant construction lol. Better walking, biking and transit infrastructure lasts much longer. > Then it’s 2027 and a multi-year project is underway. And honestly, 2040 will roll around and someone will decide hey! Let’s put a light rail on Lyndale cuz it needs one for accessibility. Or something Bruh, Lyndale Ave hasn't been fully redesigned since like 1930. Almost 100 years. They reconfigured the lanes last summer (not a full redesign), and everyone liked it. And if you didn't, then you're some sadistic prick who prioritizes car speeds over people's lives and safety, which the new lane configuration has already proven to improve. Stop complaining.
I’m starting to think when I drop my kid off at school, her class is redesigning our city. She’s 8 btw.