Was there a bike lane on that bridge that collapsed? Around here some of the interstate bridges have bike lanes some don't. Our newest one was supposed to but they cut it from the plans early on. In Minneapolis if the collapsed bridge didn't, maybe the replacement can.

There was no bike lane on that bridge. There is a trail beneath it, paralleling the Mississippi River. That interstate freeway would not make for a good bike crossing, but there are other better options near that crossing.

That interstate freeway would not make for a good bike crossing, but there are other better options near that crossing.
Thanks for responding. Here, we have two Interstate type bridges with bike/ped crossings. I-395 and I-66. The facilities could be better but they work. The other two I-95 and I-495 have nothing so cyclists near them have to go miles out of their way to make a river crossing. It would be nice for you if when they rebuild the bridge they'll put a cyclist friendly crossing that connects to the Mississippi trails.

There's a ton of bridges there, including one that is only ped/bike--no cars. It's nice but so crowded you almost want to walk the bike across.

There's a ton of bridges there, including one that is only ped/bike--no cars. It's nice but so crowded you almost want to walk the bike across.

Solveg,
How far up stream is the Menedota Bridge from the one that collapsed? I am not very familiar with the MSP area. But have ridden over that one on the way to Fort Snelling.

Aaron:)

The Mendota Bridge is on the far side of St. Paul from the 35W bridge so maybe 12-15 miles (just a guess.)

The Stone Arch bridge, a few blocks upriver, from 35W is the bike/peds only. Otherwise, the 10th Avenue bridge, 1 block to the south, is more bike friendly. 10th Avenue is where a lot of the videos where shot from.

The Mendota Bridge is on the far side of St. Paul from the 35W bridge so maybe 12-15 miles (just a guess.)

The Stone Arch bridge, a few blocks upriver, from 35W is the bike/peds only. Otherwise, the 10th Avenue bridge, 1 block to the south, is more bike friendly. 10th Avenue is where a lot of the videos where shot from.

Thanks, I did a ride up there last September but have no clue what the route was...I was just following the people in front:p

Aaron:)

It would be nice for you if when they rebuild the bridge they'll put a cyclist friendly crossing that connects to the Mississippi trails.

We will hope that the local bicycle advocacy groups will jump right on it. Opportunity is knocking.:D

Little Rock is fairly well situated with bridges. There are two in downtown that can be used to cross the river, and one about 6 miles up river, the Big Dam Bridge, that is the worlds longest bicycle pedestrian bridge, and does not allow cars on it.

Cyclist saving lives here (http://flickr.com/photos/s4xton/981233120/in/set-72157601157770382/), by the way.

A couple of questions come to mind whenever I stumble into the media frenzy on this subject, because nobody seems to be asking them.

1. Have we built more auto infrastructure than we can reasonably maintain? I imagine that your local news, like mine, is filled with reports on the sorry state of local bridges. This is always accompanied by a call to action, or shots of frightened drivers declaring they'll find an alternate route, rather than reflection on what may well be an unsustainable habit.

2. What is the differential, engineering-wise, between a bridge safe for cars and a bridge safe for, well... lighter vehicles? Would a "dangerous" bridge in fact be perfectly acceptable for bicycle traffic for years to come? And to what extent do we "overbuild" to accomodate multi-ton vehicles -- and what's the cost? And what if my state's Governor, instead of immediately allocating resources to More Engineering and Maintenance, considered the value in reducing the daily load on these overburdened structures? Isn't that an entirely reasonable cost analysis to perform, if the structures are, in fact, overburdened?

I'm neither an accountant nor an engineer; I can't answer these questions.

Stop being a burden of common sense.

2. What is the differential, engineering-wise, between a bridge safe for cars and a bridge safe for, well... lighter vehicles? Would a "dangerous" bridge in fact be perfectly acceptable for bicycle traffic for years to come? And to what extent do we "overbuild" to accomodate multi-ton vehicles -- and what's the cost? And what if my state's Governor, instead of immediately allocating resources to More Engineering and Maintenance, considered the value in reducing the daily load on these overburdened structures? Isn't that an entirely reasonable cost analysis to perform, if the structures are, in fact, overburdened?
I don't know the differential in engineering terms, but there is a bridge (http://www.sellwoodbridge.org/) here in Portland that desperately needs replacing. One option discussed is leaving the existing span for bikes and peds (http://bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?p=5675) (totally safe) while building a whole new bridge for motorized traffic. (Some people would like no new bridge for cars, but I feel that is unrealistic.) Currently, the bridge is so unsafe, they can't run buses and trucks over it. :eek:

There was a regulation created a few years ago that says any bridge constructed or improved with federal money must encompass the federal guidelines, which include bicycle and pedestrian access. I don't know how well it is being implemented because in Jefferson Louisiana there is a plan to refurbish the Huey P. Long Bridge over the Mississippi River and there were no bicycle or pedestrian lanes in the plans.

I think the replacement bridge in Minneapolis should not be built unless a commuter rail line is attached. The news reports say 290,000 vehicles cross there daily. Certainly that is enough traffic to sustain a light rail system in the area.

There was a regulation created a few years ago that says any bridge constructed or improved with federal money must encompass the federal guidelines, which include bicycle and pedestrian access. I don't know how well it is being implemented because in Jefferson Louisiana there is a plan to refurbish the Huey P. Long Bridge over the Mississippi River and there were no bicycle or pedestrian lanes in the plans.

I think the replacement bridge in Minneapolis should not be built unless a commuter rail line is attached. The news reports say 290,000 vehicles cross there daily. Certainly that is enough traffic to sustain a light rail system in the area.

Minneapolis has a decent start on the Light Rail (http://www.metrotransit.org/rail/). Also Jim Oberstar (congressman from MN) is chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee and is a proponent of alternate transportation and wants to see federal monies used to improve them.

Aaron:)

You must have never biked in the Twin Cities- There are bike accessible bridges everywhere in that area-- including two bike/ped-only bridges very near each other. This is in the middle of the city--- not some remote river crossing- and the river is relatively narrow downtown. The MN river is another story.

Thanks for responding. Here, we have two Interstate type bridges with bike/ped crossings. I-395 and I-66. The facilities could be better but they work. The other two I-95 and I-495 have nothing so cyclists near them have to go miles out of their way to make a river crossing. It would be nice for you if when they rebuild the bridge they'll put a cyclist friendly crossing that connects to the Mississippi trails.

1. Have we built more auto infrastructure than we can reasonably maintain? I imagine that your local news, like mine, is filled with reports on the sorry state of local bridges. This is always accompanied by a call to action, or shots of frightened drivers declaring they'll find an alternate route, rather than reflection on what may well be an unsustainable habit.

I think it probably has much more to do with people than money. How many of those "frightened drivers" would do nothing but moan if a bridge they used was closed for a month for repairs? Another post says 290,000 vehicles cross there daily, that's a lot of pissed off drivers.

People want roads to be maintained but they don't want to be inconvenienced when it happens or think of how much it costs. There will be temptation to put maintenance off as long as possible so it becomes someone else's problem. Then the money can instead be spent on something more voter friendly.

You must have never biked in the Twin Cities- There are bike accessible bridges everywhere in that area-- including two bike/ped-only bridges very near each other. This is in the middle of the city--- not some remote river crossing- and the river is relatively narrow downtown. The MN river is another story.
You are right. That is why I asked. It reads like the Twin Cities area is more bike friendly than the DC area. Here you can stand at one end of a bridge in Alexandria and see Oxon Hill MD just a few miles away across the bridge but if you are a biker or a pedestrian you have to go maybe 20 miles to get there. This is a new bridge that they just opened, so somehow they got around whatever federal law says they have to provide bike/ped facilities. I was at a design meeting where they promised bike facilities on the bridge then at a subsequent meeting when the subject of cost came up our congressman Jim Moran said "We can reduce the cost by eliminating the bike lane." Well, I guess that is just what they did.

I think it probably has much more to do with people than money. How many of those "frightened drivers" would do nothing but moan if a bridge they used was closed for a month for repairs? Another post says 290,000 vehicles cross there daily, that's a lot of pissed off drivers.

People want roads to be maintained but they don't want to be inconvenienced when it happens or think of how much it costs. There will be temptation to put maintenance off as long as possible so it becomes someone else's problem. Then the money can instead be spent on something more voter friendly.

BINGO!!! People want the infrastructure but want "somebody else" to pay for it. A nearby large city is raising the cost of car registration by $5 a year (from $20 to $25 BTW) to help increase funding for the mass transit (buses) system. You would think it was the end of the world the way people are crying and whining about it. I am sure it will drive every car owner into the poor house:rolleyes::rolleyes:;) Maybe if they wouldn't spend $120 million+ on a 4.5 mile stretch of freeway and spend it on buses instead....:D

Aaron:)

I think they might consider a light-rail option because I had heard that linking it with Washington St Bridge would not work out (going underneath the river seems ridiculous).

I could not possibly support more bridges for cars, especially those leading into big cities that are already overly congested. That's just plain stupid, to support more cars in cities! Trains, buses, especially bikes should get all the new bridges in urban areas.

Also, the talk about the "aging infrastructure" is historically naive. The infrastructure has always been aging, from the days of the Roman aqueducts. What, they think it would get younger? ;) The fact that the infrastructure ages gives us the opportunity to make it more up-to-date. That is, no more cars!

Roody,
What the talking heads should probably say instead of "aging infrastructure" is "poorly maintained infrastructure":D and don't I know it! It is the American way IMHO. Designate the funds to build something, but don't provide the funds to maintain it properly:rolleyes:

Aaron:)

I think it probably has much more to do with people than money. How many of those "frightened drivers" would do nothing but moan if a bridge they used was closed for a month for repairs? Another post says 290,000 vehicles cross there daily, that's a lot of pissed off drivers.

People want roads to be maintained but they don't want to be inconvenienced when it happens or think of how much it costs. There will be temptation to put maintenance off as long as possible so it becomes someone else's problem. Then the money can instead be spent on something more voter friendly.

Yeah, that's an interesting dynamic.

Perhaps not incidentally, Federal highways like I35 are maintained in part via a national fuel tax which hasn't increased in 15 years.

So, between the almost-revolutionary sentiment that the idea of raising gas taxes seems to elicit, and the current frenzy to increase spending on basic maintenance, what's gonna give? Somehow, I'm forced to suspect that neither will give; rather, that finding funding for bike and transit projects is about to get much more difficult, as we move our transportation dollars from one column to another.

You must have never biked in the Twin Cities- There are bike accessible bridges everywhere in that area-- including two bike/ped-only bridges very near each other. This is in the middle of the city--- not some remote river crossing- and the river is relatively narrow downtown. The MN river is another story.


GAH!!! Curse the MN river!!!

You would think it was the end of the world the way people are crying and whining about it. I am sure it will drive every car owner into the poor house:rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

If you have as many cars and toys as the people near to me, that's entirely possible. One household nearby has ten (10) automobiles parked in front. I believe that four people live there.

And people think I'm strange for having 12 bikes :rolleyes: .

East Hill

If you have as many cars and toys as the people near to me, that's entirely possible. One household nearby has ten (10) automobiles parked in front. I believe that four people live there.

And people think I'm strange for having 12 bikes :rolleyes: .

East Hill
Then I guess they should sell one to pay for the taxes on the others:rolleyes: (my mom always threatened us with that every time the grocery bill went up:D:p) I won't tell you how many infernal combustion vehicles we have around here...and good thing they haven't started taxing bikes;) Last count was around 15 ridable and 20 or so parts bikes.:p

Aaron:)

People want roads to be maintained but they don't want to be inconvenienced when it happens or think of how much it costs. There will be temptation to put maintenance off as long as possible so it becomes someone else's problem. Then the money can instead be spent on something more voter friendly.

Agreed.

We haven't raised gas taxes and that is where the money is going to come to fix our crumbling infrastructure. The way things are going in Washington, we're not about to raise gas taxes any time soon and more roads continue to be constructed without any regard to a long term maintenance plan.

The solution is obvious. They need to sell this bridge to some private investor who will put a TOLL and charge the motorist for maintenance. The days of the freeway are coming to an end.

I could not possibly support more bridges for cars, especially those leading into big cities that are already overly congested. That's just plain stupid, to support more cars in cities! Trains, buses, especially bikes should get all the new bridges in urban areas.

Also, the talk about the "aging infrastructure" is historically naive. The infrastructure has always been aging, from the days of the Roman aqueducts. What, they think it would get younger? ;) The fact that the infrastructure ages gives us the opportunity to make it more up-to-date. That is, no more cars!

Good point.

In New York City, they destroyed Cannal Street after constructing the Holland Tunnel. The congestion, smog and horrible polution make it one of the most unplesant places to live on the planet. It really is that bad and only the Chinese tolerate living under such bad conditions.

Building a bridge or a tunnel in an urban area destroys the quality of life of those living there. This is why you will NEVER see another bridge or tunnel going into Manhattan and that's the good news.

In a separate issue, we really need the Goethals bridge to open the ped/bike path. The next few months are critical and we need more people to request the Port Authority to open the bridge's path. Leave an email message and request to speak with superintendant. Please leave your phone number and talk with the guy. He's not a bad person but we need more folks to convince him the need to open this bridge.

http://www.panynj.gov/feedback.php

Time for everyone who has never ridden a bike in Minnesota to stop giving us advice about what we need.

Yes, I can think of six bike-accessible bridges within a mile of the 35W bridge, two of them bike/ped only. So I don't think the bike advocacy groups are likely to make any demands about the new bridge. There's just no need.

I do think the idea of making the new bridge transit friendly is a good one. There are no current plans to run a light rail line in that direction, but I think it would be great if the bridge were designed so that it could accommodate a light rail line if that became doable.

Time for everyone who has never ridden a bike in Minnesota to stop giving us advice about what we need.

+1

Hey, Minnesotans: Has there been any local discussion at all about altering the course of the Central Corridor light rail line to cross a new 35W bridge? The plan has been for the rail line to cross the Washington Avenue bridge, which is a straighter line to downtown Minneapolis -- but a report came out recently that that bridge can't cope with the extra weight without a huge, expensive reengineering project. Heading the line up to a new 35W bridge would cost more, too, but it would serve the East Bank campus of the University of Minnesota better, wouldn't it? (The West Bank would lose out, though.) I'm just curious whether anyone's talking about this option -- I can't find anything in the Twin Cities newspapers that suggests it's being discussed.

I wish. I haven't heard anything official either. Just from gossip, it seems that no one wants to delay the central corridor project for more environmental studies because of federal funding being approved (somewhat) for the current proposal. It might be hard to throw it down (crossing) university since it is a jam-packed street in that area. This is just rumor I've read from the Strib's website.

Time for everyone who has never ridden a bike in Minnesota to stop giving us advice about what we need.

Fooey! I have no idea what you need in Minnesota. But I damn well know what you don't need. You don't need more cars streaming in and out of your congested cities. They should not replace that hellish bridge. Or if they do, it should be replaced with a rational alternative. If, as you say, there is already adequate bike access, then put in bus-only or light rail on the new bridge. Put in a freekin' skateboard bridge for all I care. But no more E-Z access for more cars in a city that's already strangled with cars!

New info on the media suggests that one contributor to the collapse was that the bridge was handling more than four times as much traffic as it was designed for. IIRC, it was originally a four lane bridge, but was restriped to six and finally eight lanes. This is insane. I'm sorry that innocent motorists had to pay with their lives for this gridlock nightmare. (Of course 40,000 motorists die in traffic every year, but seldom in such a photogenic manner.)

I'm quite sure that Minnesota will get emergency feel-good money from the feds to counteract bad feelings about the Katrina debacle. And I have no doubt that they'll use those funds to replace the old eight-lane bridge with a 10-lane monster. And in a few years they'll be restriping that to handle 14 lanes of traffic.

Is that really what you want for your city?

I think it probably has much more to do with people than money. How many of those "frightened drivers" would do nothing but moan if a bridge they used was closed for a month for repairs? Another post says 290,000 vehicles cross there daily, that's a lot of pissed off drivers.


Harsh. It was already closed down to 2 lanes for months*, and I didn't hear anyone complaining about it. Avoided it, yes, but not complaining. There were times recently when 1/2 of it was shut down for periods of time, alternating directions.

Fooey! I have no idea what you need in Minnesota. But I damn well know what you don't need. You don't need more cars streaming in and out of your congested cities. They should not replace that hellish bridge. Or if they do, it should be replaced with a rational alternative. If, as you say, there is already adequate bike access, then put in bus-only or light rail on the new bridge. Put in a freekin' skateboard bridge for all I care. But no more E-Z access for more cars in a city that's already strangled with cars!

Is that really what you want for your city?

Yes. Of course, no one want's* bigger roads as a general rule, but sometimes the alternatives are far worse. We need a bridge there so that all the cars don't go into the neighborhoods. Remember that this is a major national N-S route, with plans to turn it into the Mexico-Canada express route for truckers. Right now the semis are going on main streets and it's really intimidating to ride, especially since many of the truckers are preoccupied because they're being rerouted. Plus, it's the only freeway connector for the NE quadrant of the city to get to MPLS. The only other N/S routes are on each end of the city.

The Twin Cities has made many efforts to promote alternative transportation. We need more buses running, but it hooks up with our light rail in an effecient manner. Our light rail is expanding. They closed down entire lanes of road in MPLS to be used only for bikes. People up here ride bikes... a lot.

City planning is complex. Threads like this just don't make any sense to me. It's as if I thought Washington DC should be restructured with no politicians. Nice idea, but where would they all go?

I suppose it's just an internet thing that encourages people to talk about things they don't know about, but until you've seen how bike/pedestrian-friendly that city is, you just don't understand what the issues are. It doesn't help to blanket reject ideas without providing realistic, educated, thoughtful alternatives. You could start by getting legislation going in Lansing that all truckers going through the Twin Cities will take smaller highways (which I would hate*). If everyone did that, maybe we wouldn't need* a 10-lane bridge.

Harsh. It was already closed down to 2 lanes for months*, and I didn't hear anyone complaining about it. Avoided it, yes, but not complaining. There were times recently when 1/2 of it was shut down for periods of time, alternating directions.

Yes. Of course, no one want's* bigger roads as a general rule, but sometimes the alternatives are far worse. We need a bridge there so that all the cars don't go into the neighborhoods. Remember that this is a major national N-S route, with plans to turn it into the Mexico-Canada express route for truckers. Right now the semis are going on main streets and it's really intimidating to ride, especially since many of the truckers are preoccupied because they're being rerouted. Plus, it's the only freeway connector for the NE quadrant of the city to get to MPLS. The only other N/S routes are on each end of the city.

The Twin Cities has made many efforts to promote alternative transportation. We need more buses running, but it hooks up with our light rail in an effecient manner. Our light rail is expanding. They closed down entire lanes of road in MPLS to be used only for bikes. People up here ride bikes... a lot.

"Alternative" transit won't become popular as long as it's less convenient than cars. Therefore, while we're making the alternatives more attractive, we also need to be making car use less attractive. That means drawing a line somewhere, stating firmly that we're not going to tolerate any more increases in car traffic. The best way to do that (other than high taxes and user fees) is to draw the line on new road and bridge construction. According to many media reports, the I35 bridge, and Twin city traffic in general, is a gridlock nightmare. Good luck to you all if you believe that building more roads is a solution to gridlock. Obviously, more roads encourage more cars, and ultimately more congestion, not less.


City planning is complex. Threads like this just don't make any sense to me. It's as if I thought Washington DC should be restructured with no politicians. Nice idea, but where would they all go?

Yes, city planning is a complex issue. The most simplistic solution is to continue as we have, building more roads for more cars. A more complex solution would be to draw the line on road building, while simultaneously redesigning our cities for multiple use and higher density, thereby decreasing demand for car trips by making them shorter, more efficient and less frequent. Simultaneously, we need to design for alternatives, including walking for short trips, bikes for medium trips, and mass transit for longer trips.

I suppose it's just an internet thing that encourages people to talk about things they don't know about, but until you've seen how bike/pedestrian-friendly that city is, you just don't understand what the issues are. It doesn't help to blanket reject ideas without providing realistic, educated, thoughtful alternatives. You could start by getting legislation going in Lansing that all truckers going through the Twin Cities will take smaller highways (which I would hate*). If everyone did that, maybe we wouldn't need* a 10-lane bridge.

Basically, you're saying that whoever doesn't agree with your POV just doesn't get it. Then you play the game of one state blaming another. I'll be interested in seeing if you can go beyond your Minnesota chauvinism to see a bigger picture. Basically, it seems that you're proposing a solution that consists of building more roads for more cars and trucks, only with a few bike lanes thrown in.

I think we need alternatives that are more comprehensive and more realistic than the ideas proposed by you and most mainstream traffic engineers and urban planners. Bike infrastructure is one piece of the transit puzzle, but far from the whole picture. Actually, in my utopian dream, bikes would have first shot at our existing fine infrastructure (roads and city streets) while cars would be pushed to the side and inconvenienced right out of existence (gradually, in urban and most suburban areas). Buses and delivery trucks would dominate the boulevards and avenues, and light rail and subways would be expanded in the larger cities.

While waiting for utopia to happen, I'd settle for a freeze on car traffic capacity. Let the motorists spend more time in traffic jams, watching bikes and buses whiz by. The biggest motivator for alternative traffic design and urban planning is people spending a couple hours a day stuck in gridlock.

As for trucks, I don't see them as the main problem. You mentioned in admiring tones a super-highway from border to border. One two lane highway from Mexico to Canada could easily handle all the truck traffic if it was sensibly convoyed. Much better yet would be to use trains to carry freight at distances greater than 50 miles or so. If railroads were paid for by the government like highways are, they'd make perfect economic sense.

"You mentioned in admiring tones a super-highway from border to border.

You gotta be kidding. I think it's a totally crappy idea. Why is it that people here assume the worst about everyone?

In my* utopia, gas would cost $8/gallon, and there would be a law that said you had to live less than 10 miles from where you worked if you worked for any government agency, and there would be tax benefits for employers who maintained a workforce that employed 90% people who lived within that circumference. But I wasn't pushing my view, regardless of what you think.

But as far as this bridge goes, there needs to be a motor vehicle route from the NE quadrant to downtown or life would be hell for residents of that are with the extra traffic coming to their neighborhoods. They don't need to make a bigger bridge, but there needs to be a bridge. You accuse me of pushing new roads. What are you reading in my posts? I'm just reacting to the totally unrealistic proposal that we don't allow cars on the bridge if we rebuild it.

I was just saying that the huge increase in traffic is not just local. There are only so many places trucks can cross a river.

You want to jump on anyone posting any reality, have at it.

You gotta be kidding. I think it's a totally crappy idea. Why is it that people here assume the worst about everyone?

In my* utopia, gas would cost $8/gallon, and there would be a law that said you had to live less than 10 miles from where you worked if you worked for any government agency, and there would be tax benefits for employers who maintained a workforce that employed 90% people who lived within that circumference. But I wasn't pushing my view, regardless of what you think.

But as far as this bridge goes, there needs to be a motor vehicle route from the NE quadrant to downtown or life would be hell for residents of that are with the extra traffic coming to their neighborhoods. They don't need to make a bigger bridge, but there needs to be a bridge. You accuse me of pushing new roads. What are you reading in my posts? I'm just reacting to the totally unrealistic proposal that we don't allow cars on the bridge if we rebuild it.

I was just saying that the huge increase in traffic is not just local. There are only so many places trucks can cross a river.

You want to jump on anyone posting any reality, have at it.

I'm sorry that I misread your posts. I'm not sure that my disagreeing with you is the same as "jumping" on you." But if that's how you felt, I apologize for my tone.

But I'm still not agreeing with you about replacing the bridge. What did people do when the bridge was down to two lanes for repairs? You said there wasn't a single complaint, so evidently motorists adapted to the bridge not being there. I think there would be a lot more adaptation (meaning, basically, fewer car trips, most of which are totally unnecessary) if car infrastructure was not automatically replaced and especially not expanded.

Every time a bridge or highway ages to the point that it needs replacing, the local planning agencies should make it a priority to find ways NOT to replace it. I think it's just plain silly that a quarter-million people, most of them alone in a car, feel compelled to cross the Mississippi River each day. I really can't help but believe that our transit patterns in this country (and I certainly don't mean to single out Minnesota) are asinine and in desperate need of fundamental change. If so, why not start now? At least those of us who would like to reduce this ridculous and destructive overuse of the automobile should start speaking out.

And I don't think my perspective is counter to "reality", as you say. What I believe is unreal is the national dream that an unsustainable infrastructure can be sustained indefinitely. The whole thing is going to collapse at some point in the near future. I would rather we not be caught off guard like those poor people on the bridge.

The light rail will not be incorporated into the new design, from what I've heard. There isn't enough time to plan how it would have to be fit in, where it would go on either side, etc. They want the plans for a new bridge ASAP, because, as people have stated, it's a very heavily used bridge. There is also concern about trying to get the additional funding for studying where the light rail would go, since it makes the whole project a lot more complicated. AFIK, the plan is o put a stand-alone light rail crossing, if there is going to be one there.

Minneapolis is built out because there are no natural boundaries. Several of my coworkers (we're less than a block from the bridge) actually commute 40-50 miles each way. It's not sustainable, and a lot of them are trying to figure out ways that they can change. For people that live closer, alternative transportation works. The bus system could be better, but we have a really great bicycle infrastructure, and it's just getting better each year.

There are a ton of projects in the works now, in addition to what was already planned and budgeted. We just received 7M shortly before the collapse for alternative transportation, and it's mostly going towards bicycle routes. One of the routes that we already have sees the same volume as our arterial feeder corridors for cars. Those are typically 4-6 lane 50mph streets, the Midtown Greenway is a 12 foot wide 3 lane bike path. The city planners have noticed, and have been working with the commuting public to target the areas that most need improvement. This is in addition to the hundreds of miles of dedicated bike paths we have, and even more miles of on street bike lanes.

35W will remain a high volume route with or without a bridge. It's just a matter of how close to downtown that traffic gets before being diverted. Other bridges in the area are already optimized for local and bike/ped traffic into neighborhoods, and can't handle the volume effectively for long.

I really can't help but believe that our transit patterns in this country (and I certainly don't mean to single out Minnesota) are asinine and in desperate need of fundamental change.

And on that point, I wholeheartedly agree.

One interesting fact is the large proportion of transportational bike riders in Minneapolis, a city which possibly has the most extreme climate of any large city in the lower 48. Although I'm at roughly the same latitude here in Michigan, it's rarely as hot here in the summer or as cold in the winter.

Minneapolis is living proof that carfree cycling is feasible in just about any climate. Good job, 'Sotans!

:beer:

Yes, it's pretty cool. Portland has by far the most.

Here's some interesting tidbits (and this is just Minneapolis, not including St. Paul--which is full of bikers): http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/bicycles/

Minneapolis was recently recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau as having the 2nd highest percentage of people who bike to work, when compared to the 50 cities with the most workers in America. The percentage (2.4%) was second only to Portland, Oregon (3.5%), and just ahead of Seattle (2.3%) and Tucson (2.2%).

2.4% translates to 4,600 Minneapolitans who bike to work on a regular basis. Add to that total:

St. Paul and suburban workers who bicycle commute to Minneapolis,
College students living in dormitories (who are not counted by the Census),
Children under the age of 16 who bike to school,
Workers who occasionally bicycle commute to work,
Non-bicycle commuters who pedal to run errands,
And recreational cyclists.

How many cyclists do you think we have? The Public Works Department estimates that Minneapolis that has at least 10,000 cyclists each day.

It has been interesting to read and learn about the issues in the twin cities. Roody's points about not replacing a bad idea with an identical bad idea makes sense to me. So often I see a quality of life improvement when some car oriented infrastructure goes out of service. I was thinking bike lane but Roody had a broader perspective. Not only that, I learned that that city is already ahead of the rest of the country in the alternative transportation department so the local car people can use that as ammunition to shoot down any proposal to create less than a 10 lane bridge for them.

~snip~
How many cyclists do you think we have? The Public Works Department estimates that Minneapolis that has at least 10,000 cyclists each day. 10,001 when I am there:D I am still amazed by the bicycle infrastructure that exists in the MSP area. I live in an absolute barren area by comparison. The most we get...if we are lucky are a couple of share the road signs:o

Aaron:)

Just for the record... you can't just say "OMG I WANT THIS BRIDGE TO NOT BE REBUILT FOR CAR TRAFFIC," and expect that to be the case.

The car culture is WAY too embedded to try that. Also, you want to PROMOTE cars having to drive around a city, which is a longer route than straight through, causing more resource use?

quite possibly the best comment ever, which i cross posted to a thread about the AAA:

Comments Paul Billings of the American Lung Association, "Building more roads to solve an air pollution problem is like buying a larger pair of pants to solve an obesity problem."
(http://www.nrdc.org/amicus/01win/aaa/aaa.asp)

Just for the record... you can't just say "OMG I WANT THIS BRIDGE TO NOT BE REBUILT FOR CAR TRAFFIC," and expect that to be the case. The car culture is WAY too embedded to try that.

Granted, but maybe if I wave my magic fairy wand?

:)


Also, you want to PROMOTE cars having to drive around a city, which is a longer route than straight through, causing more resource use?

I don't have any figures to back this up, but I suspect that most city traffic is cars going someplace within a city, rather than transients going completely through a city. Do you agree?

Certainly, the media reports on this bridge collapse have all pointed out that this was rush-hour commuter traffic on the bridge. All the eyewitnesses I saw interviewed were local people traveling to work, shopping, child care and similar destinations.

As for promoting cars going around a city, no, I don't want to promote that. Beltways have been one of the causes of inner city decay. Actually, I want to promote fewer cars in and around a city, period. Save cars and dwindling gas supplies for rural and small town areas where they're hard to replace with buses, trains and bikes. That's what I want to promote! :)

OK, let me give this a try to help you guys visualize the situation...

open this map: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=45.035685,-93.160629&spn=0.072663,0.145226&z=13&om=1

this is my little area of the city. It's about 7 miles north of both Minneapolis and St. Paul, right in the middle. I'm in a first tier suburb... NE MPL is about 2 miles away. I'm about 5 miles from the bridge, I think.

the 290k drivers that went over the 35W bridge had* to go through my general area, both north and south. Some split off and went on a E-W freeway, some continued North, and some took an exit. the only exits on 35 between my house and the bridge were the University, the Quarry, and Cleveland. Some people entered or exited the system that way, but the numbers were comparatively small. Anyway, those 290k cars essentially pass within a couple miles of my house.

If we don't rebuild a bridge (and I'm not saying it has to be bigger...just a bridge), those 290k cars are going to get off and drive on the yellow roads until they can pick up the freeway again.

Now, why is this so bad? Look between the yellow roads. The Twin Cities is filled with lakes and parks. Not only will the cars go to the few roads that go through all this, but the bikers* have to go on them. In between the yellow roads are roads and roads that twine around lakes, only to dead-end at a lake!

So, suddenly we're sharing the roads with semi after irate semi, and thoroughfares which were busy but OK to use are now suddenly streaming with cars. Today, on a Sunday afternoon, I could see non-stop traffic from my house.

So, I hope this adds a little perspective. Yes, there can be creative and wonderful solutions that come from situations like this, but in this case it needs a longer termed solution.

Oh! And by the way, the reason my area is so isolated is because back when they built the bridge or shortly thereafter, the people in NE Mpls banded together and refused to let the freeways come through their neighborhoods! It was a gutsy and admirable thing to do, but it leaves them landlocked in freeways right now, with all the traffic routing through.

(PS: I'm not looking to convince anyone or change their minds... I just thought a clear explanation, at least from my little corner of the world, might help explain the challenge of this--if they don't* put in a car bridge, I'm moving!)

For a little more perspective, here are some maps of Minneapolis:

1) Downtown, default gmap:

http://www.mplsbikelove.com/Random_Images/Jeremys_Stuff/Downtown_Blank.gif


2) Downtown, with most of the bike lanes and crossings sketched in:

http://www.mplsbikelove.com/Random_Images/Jeremys_Stuff/Downtown_Lanes.gif

There are more in downtown proper, but my map is a little out of date. Just pretty much put red all over where it says Minneapolis. I don't really have details on the bus lines, but they cover most streets as well. Typically the bike lanes are between them and car traffic.

The question is certainly not do we need to include bikes, but how do we keep cars moving without disrupting other modes of transit. If you look at a wider view:

3) Greater metro area:

http://www.mplsbikelove.com/Random_Images/Jeremys_Stuff/Mpls_Overview.gif

As you can see, 35W is really the only real way into downtown from the NE suburbs. Those burbs aren't going away, but the traffic is now forced to make detours. A lot of them are going onto surface streets, which doesn't work well. There also isn't much of anywhere else to put a major crossing over the river. The roads in a lot of that area don't really go through except to neighborhoods. Where they do, they are built on a much smaller scale for local traffic, and often are marked as bike routes on maps even if they aren't actually painted for lanes or have share the road signs.

I know that a lot of us want to see car culture crumble, but right now there really is no other option without spending TONS of money. There isn't really a viable option to move people from the NE area of town to downtown, or through to jobs in the south suburbs. In the long run, yes, we need to find something different. But if the bridge isn't rebuilt and that traffic doesn't flow, it will more likely have a fairly serious impact on the economy of the city, and that will influence how much money there is in the budget for a better plan...

All the eyewitnesses I saw interviewed were local people traveling to work, shopping, child care and similar destinations.

Well, there were at least 2 semis on the bridge...local ones, and one of the women that died was from Wisconsin.

It is used mostly by locals, I think. But they're certainly not all going downtown. Just from my own observations, I think maybe 20% of them get off on the true downtown exits, MAX. Most are going through to places further north or south.

I appreciate you Minnesota folks going to so much trouble to educate a Michigander who's probably untrainable! :) It's great learning more about a city that I once seriously considered moving to.

I'm a firm believer in local determination, so I'll grant that the bridge should be replaced. Like hell I will! :D

Y'all are going to get a big hunk of cash from Uncle Sam, who's feeling guilty about blowing the Katrina thing. Who's to say you have to use that money to replace the bridge? Let's question the very sanity of pouring 290,000 people into your downtown every morning in their own private motorcars, then pouring them out again every evening. You think that these cars would overwhelm the neighborhood streets. I say probably not. If these people have to double or triple their commute time, they just might try some alternatives that they're unwilling to try when the bridge is up and working. Like maybe ride in with their neighbor who works in the same building, or even (horrors!) try riding their bike on some of that great infrastructure you all are boasting about. Maybe they'll boost transit ridership to the point that it's economically feasible without government.

But one thing is clear. It isn't going to change as long as you keep doing things the same way. (Duh!) If it's quick and convenient to drive single occupant cars, that's what people will do. If it's less convenient they might consider some alternatives.

It seems you folks are rightfully proud of your city. You kind of think of it as the Portland or the Amsterdam of the Great Northern Prairie. Well, if you really want to be Portland or Amsterdam (or maybe better than both), you have to make some hard choices. Otherwise you're going to be the Los Angeles or even the Detroit of the Northern Prairie.