Wow! I never knew buses were so well-used on this road. Who the hell looks at 47% bus transit share and says no to a dedicated bus lane?? I am completely for this redesign. Your points were excellent, and as someone who drives this road frequently I can vehemently attest to hating driving on it. It's got to be awful as a pedestrian, too, because it's just nonstop car noise. One major thing that needs to happen is raised medians prevent left turns out of business accesses. Those are super dangerous on this road.
The people opposed to dedicated bus lanes are people who hate the very idea of riding a bus. They also hate being around the general population of an area, not being able to limit who they are around to some certain types that are more similar to them.
This is substantially better street design. Should also reduce through-travel car demand on the basis of physiological assumptions of drivers and make it much safe and better for cars included.
I also tink smarter trafic light that doesn't go green in al direction will work. Instead it only goes green, when it detect a car and than you can do multi cars. Since it doesn't blok
My hometown did something like this recently, (though without the bus lane part), and it has already made the area considerably nicer to be in, even while driving! You don’t feel pushed to go over the speed limit, and even in a car it feels a lot safer. The medians with trees completely separate you from the other traffic in what was once a center turn lane, so you don’t feel exposed and about to die at every moment. While the bike lanes haven’t gotten a ton of use yet, it won’t continue that way. It isn’t yet completely connected to the surrounding trails, and it is less than a mile long. They plan to connect it better and add a larger portion going through downtown in the near future, and have also rezoned the area for mixed use TOD.
I lived in the uptown neighborhood. This is easily the worst avenue in the entire city. Buses are necessary for economic mobility and everyone’s sanity. I actively avoided this road at all costs and biked whenever I could because of other hostile drivers.
One of the main reasons Uptown is low on my list of favorite places in the Cities is because of how terrible the Hennepin/Lyndale and surrounding roads are designed honestly. I feel like every time I go there, no matter what time of day I get jammed in a stressful traffic situation. Even walking up and down Hennepin like I did for this video wasn't great.
@@Phillowownz the chain of lakes are great in the uptown area. But the alternative transportation methods you mentioned were clearly an afterthought to the car centric design. The area is super prone to car crashes too and drag racers and red light runners
@@Phillowownz We should probably reimagine Hennepin Ave completely, as a neighborhood corridor rather than a pass-through corridor. I’d remove the bike lanes & increase the width of the sidewalks. Since they’re pretty narrow now. With a wide bus lane as a separator, it’d be more comfortable to sit at the street, especially if drainage were redesigned to the center median where it could water trees before being sent away. The drive lanes should be shrunk further to 10’ (hopefully with corresponding speed reduction to neighborhood speeds). I’d remove the bike lanes in favor of allowing cyclists to use the bus lane as they’re typically as fast if not faster, while improving the side streets for casual bicyclists to navigate the adjacent areas. Ultimately, a modern streetcar line from the Fed plaza to the Lake Harriet Bandshell Park would add tremendous value & utility to an area that’s typically chosen small and local businesses over national & chain options.
Agreed! I propose this go further. We should axe some parking lots. One of the reasons why we have so many of them is that a chunk of them are only reserved for certain businesses (so if you park on them but mean to go elsewhere, you could get towed), but not all businesses can afford to have parking lots, so if we essentially ban businesses from limiting who can park at their lots, that could be a short term alternative to the on street parking that's eliminated on Hennepin. Over time, more people will a) have more choice on where to park, if at all, b) more people will be encouraged to not drive to Uptown when they're aware they can't be guaranteed a parking spot at those businesses. Another benefit of restricting lanes is the stress levels. At the 4 lane configuration, trying to walk or drive in this area is super stressful when you're aware of the many potential points of a collision, from closely spaced intersections (which btw should make this a street, not a low speed stroad that it is), to on street parking, to literally tons of other cars. I can only imagine what folks on the bikes have to deal with. I'm not sure how adding more lanes can do anything but amplify those issues. This street cannot be a road, no matter how much we try to, so let's keep it a street.
I have seen a single person ride a bike on this road. As much as I believe bikes have a right to be on the road, I would rather take a freeway lane than a lane on Hennepin. It's really that bad
@@altriish6683 Maybe people don't ride their bikes because...drum roll please...they don't have the infrastructure for it. Oh, and no those painted gutter "murder" bike lanes don't count. Look at bike ridership in Downtown Chicago before and after the Divvy Bike program was introduced, not to mention before and after major bike lane implementations across the city were made including but not limited to seperated and exclusive bike lanes with adequate right of way. It's almost like when you provide the proper infrastructure people will use it.
What, change based on actual facts and evidence and not "hurr dürr just one more lane will fix it"? This is fantastic and would make the place actually nice to be in! I hope it is implemented either as planned or even better, with trams replacing the busses.
@@Lolwutfordawin is this a "wholistic" approach OR a ONE street and everybody DRIVING from transit starved suburb is stuck to "suffer" Amsterdam makes a "wonderful" edge case but there system is "wholistic" that EVERY MODE of transportation has there own planning / routing INCLUDING CARS IMHO this is GOOD for USA but BAD for Amsterdam in there is NO model separation
I'm shocked at the amount of people using the bus on this avenue. It's also got a great urban fabric. I would absolutely be for this redesign and you should show this to as many opponents as you can find! Maybe you could walk down the street and hand out links to business owners? 😅 It's great to see a transportation department that understands good street design! I think that the city you live in really desires positive change.
Here in San Diego most the buses I see are quite empty. There is this "build it and they will come" mentality. I see them literally doubling down on this theory by having tandem-buses that are twice as empty.
If I was living along the street I would be massively in favour as it will increase livability. As a driver, one might be against it at first, but if there are finally viable alternatives many other drivers will move to these other modes of transportation and leave more room for the driver. When roads are widened it almost always reduces travel speed over time as it induces demand (build it and more will come). When roadlanes are removed, the opposite is true (remove it and many will find alternatives).
@@SomeGuy818 There must be proper alternatives of course, which currently there are none. Now almost everyone is forced to drive, but many do not want to drive. I live in a country where there are many alternatives. I hardly use them. But because other people do, it makes driving so much better than in the US. (and yes, do have quite some experience of driving in the US as well).
You hit the nail on the head in explaining the left hand turn issue and how drivers try to switch lanes quickly to avoid the stopped cars trying to turn left. While Anoka isn’t nearly as bad, I want to see something with public transit in mind for Main Street.
I recently started walking because my I lost my car but I work remote so it’s not a total loss. What you said about noticing business even I was so shocked to know what businesses were around the place i drive regularly to get to the grocery stores which is 1 mile away roughly. It was funny because I’d never stop in there at all and never would see them either I noticed about idk 4-5 business and lots I didn’t realize existed and I’ve been driving here for months because it’s right outside the street I live in. It’s true if no one stops in from regular local traffic cutting the parking allocated for cars won’t make a difference
Even with the new design there is some significant issues. There is a median of 4' wich is unnecessary wide. Reducing it to 2' is more then enough for a concrete median. This 2' can be given back to the sidewalk, wich in the new plans was reduced from 11' to 8'. Considering there is a lot of businesses, 8' is not enough. If you reduce the greenspace from 5' to 4' as well, you can add 2' to each sidewalk making it 10' wich is way closer to the original 11'. Also I would switch the greenspace and bike lanes. Predestinations and bikes will go reasonably well together, better than bikes and buses. If you folow the order: buslane, greenspace, bike lanes, sidewalks, you create a natural barrier between fast moving traffic and slower traffic. Also you can use the greenspace for dedicated bus stops, avoiding that bus traveles have to step on the bike lanes, but have a safe space in-between.
In a lot of American cities, pedestrians are expected to cross wide stroads in one whack. Having the ability to cross half of a busy street at a time can help people who can't get around as easily or quickly, but also eases crossing for all users. If I had a moment to reorient my "where is traffic coming from" attention in more than the width of a double-yellow stripe (which is quite typical for American cities), that would make crossing WAY less stressful.
@@adm1nspotter that's a mater of timing the traffic lights well. But a typical American traffic light is pre programmed and rarely uses detection systems to accommodate for changes in traffic.
This is fantastic! Transit ways will allow more people to actually travel down this street! And those bike lanes and improved walkability should be good for the local businesses!
I like this redesign, with the possible exception of the two way cycle path. I'm not sure this design is specifically appropriate for this type of street. It keeps bicycles to one side of the street more or less, so people on bikes would have to cross to the other side without bike infrastructure in order to visit businesses on that side. Perhaps they can just park and walk across, but I think one way paths on either side next to the sidewalk would be more appropriate. Along with that, bus stops should sit towards the median in relation to the cycle lanes, pushing the bikes towards the buildings rather than out between the bus and car lanes, which is probably taken into consideration in the redesign, but eliminating unnecessary conflict points is something that's important. The sidewalk might switch sides with the bike lanes in this case, bringing the bikes the closest towards the buildings for the duration of the bus stop, which is still a conflict point, but one between pedestrians and bikes rather than bikes and buses. That would be far more manageable for every day traffic negotiation.
yeah I think it'd make a lot more sense to have sidewalks and bike paths on both sides. You don't need a complete grassy median separating bikes and pedestrians, and I think a couple of planters and trees every now and then would suffice. So, sidewalk with some trees and planters - bike lane - maybe some grass there - bus lane - car lane - median - car lane etc (see before but in reverse). I'm not entirely sure how to feel about cars having to make a left turn, but I don't think screwing over all other modes of transport just because cars gotta go vroom vroom is the solution. If they don't like having to wait on other cars having to make a left turn, they can stop being a part of the problem and start being a part of the solution. So even if you were to make some ultradeluxe overpass super express left turn lane with teleportation possibilities so cars don't have to wait for other cars, all it'll do is induce more people to go by car, and you've solved nothing at great expense.
You are absolutely right. 2-way bicycle path designs don't make sense on busy streets, with meaningfull destinations along both sides. Apparently street designers think that cyclists can somehow magically teleport to the other side of the street, but if they could teleport, they wouldn't be using a bike to begin with. 🙄
@@hendman4083 the bike lane is for traveling through and you would use pedestrian infrastructure to cross over and the sidewalk to access the shops on the NON bike side
I would love a street like that redesign in my neighbourhood! I have switched to using my bicycle for errands and commuting and although my city does have some protected bike lanes and also some MUPs that are straightforward and useful for actual commuting, it's VERY MUCH a suburban sprawl kind of town and I have to bike to the nearest strip mall to get my groceries.
You answered my questions. True that if I were driving down this street, I am not going to suddenly decide "oh I need to go the hardware store". These businesses are best suited to get customers from the 1/4 mile around them. Unfortunately in my part of my city there is relatively little multistory multifamily residential development. There is not enough "bustle" on the street to justify lots of businesses - therefore we get dunkin donuts, corner convenience store, liquor store, chinese takeout, nail place.
It baffles me when drivers don't understand how improving public transit and bike infrastructure will make traffic better for them as a driver! You want to drive everywhere? Fine, but at least allow space for people who don't want to drive which results in less vehicles on the road and less traffic. It's not complicated.
This is a good redesign, but the bike lane should be one-way on either side of the street. A two way bike lane is difficult to access for cyclists who are visiting businesses on the other side of the road, and I imagine bike-car and bike-ped conflicts would be worse on a two-way bike lane as well. They make sense on arterials or parks with minimal intersections and conflict points, but in this case, the two-way bike lane should be split into two one-way bike lanes, each placed on either side of the street between the sidewalk and buffer zone.
I agree that would be ideal but from looking at the diagram maybe it was done due to space limitations? one way bike lanes need to be a bit wider to allow passing right?
@@davidhayden6116 I don't think you're saving a lot of space that way. In the Netherlands, a good two-way bike lane is about the same width as two one-way bike lanes. If it's a busy bike path (and you should plan and aim for that), overtaking on a two-way bike lane needs space as well, because you're going fairly close to oncoming bike traffic. So you can't make them much narrower anyways. Unless you just wanna be stingy and give bikes the bare minimum to stop complaining, but if you want people to actually use their bike, treat bikes like a first class mode of transportation. Over here in the Netherlands, two way bike lanes are pretty much only a thing on interconnecting roads, i.e. long stretches of road that are designed to get you from A to B. If it's a street with destinations, it'll almost always have one-ways on both sides, and traffic calming measures pretty much everywhere bikes don't have a protected path. I'd almost support banning cars on that road entirely if the alternative is not treating bikes like a first class mode of transport. Apparently buses are already very good on that road, so making buses and bikes even better sounds like a great idea.
@@davidhayden6116 I'd get rid of the median (4' is too narrow anyways) and add 2' to the bike lanes on either side. That results in an 8' sidewalk, 7' bike path, and 5' buffer. Another option is to widen the sidewalk to 10' and narrow the buffer to 3'. The sidewalk can include street trees while the buffer simply contains a few plants.
Moving more people more efficiently by a more sustainable means with all the evidence to prove it just seems like a no-brainer to me. For the redesign!
It’s so awesome to something like this being planned. Though I do have one thing to say, if this change at first is only this little area it may not be very useful until it is expanded
I’m in Minneapolis and when I drive to the office (very rarely) I use Hennepin for my route home. I like the redisgn idea, but I can easily see the relentless whining of other commuters who “have it all figured out” - personally, I am a fan of anything that discourages high speed and cut routes, so hopefully this plan will materialize.
Twin Cities based urbanist channel = instant sub from me! I'm moving back to the twin cities soon and hearing about this and other positive changes in the area (like improving zoning) make me happier about my moving destination.
A good decision making method to use when determining whether or not to remove on-street parking is to figure out if the private vehicle traffic is just passing through or trying to access the businesses along the corridor. Considering this arterial has a direct connection with the highway, I would assume its predominantly the former.
Honestly, I love this redesign and kinda wish I had come up with something similar for a very congested stroad in my city that isn't the exact one here. Like far too many American cities, we have that one stroad everyone hates due to the overbearing car traffic. Better yet, I work at a store's drive-thru and can personally attest to the fact that a large portion, if not the majority of those cars driving that stroad, are single occupiers coming at the coffee store from work and back, or from work to home. Seeing how stressful that stroad is for car drivers, it's no wonder it's also spilling out onto those who walk and bike there. The best-ish part to me is that the stroad in question around me does have protected left turn lanes, and I do want city land use to improve there by first curbing the car traffic so people will actually want to work and live along the street, since it has so much potential if we get more people onto it. That protected left turn lane means we have even more room for a decently wide sidewalk, so we could put in tons of bicycle parking racks and street trees, park benches, and small playgrounds on the wider sidewalks. If this can turn that stroad into a proper street, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Not only do I like this design, but I think I could form a solid argument to my city officials and the city residents themselves. I see potential with the bus lanes, since our transit system includes two bus routes that run through this street at 1 per hour frequency. If we get 2 entire dedicated lanes for said buses, we could improve frequency considerably over time, and before that have more riders per bus. People who walk or bike in the area more would see a safer environment, and those who drive there out of necessity won't be stuck in traffic.
In Madison, Wisconsin, it looks like they've found more of a "hybrid" solution. A good amount of people still use private cars, but it isn't bad for people who don't own cars. There's multiple biking corridors, a lot of contraflow bike lakes, and several combined bike/bus/right turn lanes. Since Madison is a university city, I can see why this approach was taken: to connect the suburbs and university into downtown via bike. There's even a commuter path that heads Northwest. They're also experimenting with cut-ins for busses at traffic signals along the US 151 corridor.
That's exactly how Europeans lanes are, at least here in southern Spain. We have the bike lane at one side of the road, then bus/taxi/motorcicle only lanes, where cars can only enter at the end of the lane and onnly to turn right, and then the cars lane. The bike lanes have been around for 20 years and it's become a popular way to go to work, and bus/taxi exclusive lanes have been for maybe around 10 years now, and it really works very well
I love it! As a local, I’m super excited to see our city put more into public transportation and walkable/bikeable infrastructure. I think another very important addition to our transit system is more frequent buses - if there was a bus that came every 10-15 minutes, I think we’d see a lot less cars on the road.
These little fights are going to happen all over Minneapolis. Take a look at what is happening in Dinkytown. There has been some minor push back from business owners about the pilot program to close off traffic to a portion of Dinkytown. Although it's mostly because most of them weren't informed of it happening. Some of it is because of the "lack" of parking. Have you ever tried driving to the University? The entirety of the Marcy Holmes is treated as a through fare. University Ave and 4th street is stressful to do anything because of all the parked cars and traffic. Don't even get me started on Broadway and West Broadway Ave. The entire city of Minneapolis needs a redesign if we ever plan on accomplishing the 2040 goals.
In Europe we have this thing where there are big parking lots on the edge of the city, where the final stop of an underground is, so it is not uncommon that people from the city just use public transport even when they have a car, the car is used mostly on weekends for trips outside of the city, and people from outside of the city, drive to the edge of the city, park their car there and take public transport to their destination in the city. We don't really have much of a choice our cities are build for horses not cars, but hey there are plenty of pedestrian zones and parks and caffes inside of the cities, which makes them nice places to just walk around.
I don't live in Minneapolis, but as a cyclist, bus and car user, the last thing I want is a contra-flow bike lane that is too close to the sidewalk. I would modify your plan by having (from the buildings): sidewalk, green space (trees), single-direction bike lane, maybe a small curb, single-direction transit lane, single direction car lane, then exactly the same in the other direction. That way, cyclists would run with traffic and at distance from pedestrians, and would respect the general principle of having lanes from slowest to fastest. Such a design would be more comfortable in daytime and even more so at night and would make intersections safer because traffic would follow predictable patterns. The real issue to solve - both with your design and mine, is to make sure that bus stops are safe. I would prefer to see the buses cross the bike lane so passengers getting on or off the bus wouldn't have to cross the bike lane. Finally, one aspect which is always forgotten in these designs is traffic light synchronization. If we truly want to give the message, traffic lights should be synchronized for approximately 25-30 km/h (20-22 mi/h) rather than 50 km/h (30 mi/h), i.e. at the commercial speed of transit vehicles and of cyclists.
Having busses cross the bike lane is awful, having either the bike lane form part of the raised platform, is much safer in my experience cycling in Germany. It means you do have to slow down and yield to people boarding / leaving the bus, but also never puts you at risk ov being run over by a huge vehicle.
Good plan, However... I'd move the bus lanes (and stops) to the middle of the road [par blvd thru busstops transit transit busstops thru busstops blvd bike par]. Pedestrians then only have to cross 1 lane of car traffic at a time (and are closer to the busstops for both directions). I will also give the illusion of a narrower street which in theory results in lower car speeds. The van Baerlestraat in Amsterdam is a nice example.
I don't need a car where I live (city with 50,000 inhabitants) for most of the time actually. Many shops are in walkable distance and the bus stop is around the corner. The bus runs every 20 minutes during daytime on weekdays. Now I retired. When I was still working, I used my car for getting to work, because no bus was running there. I could have used a bicycle for the 4 km distance too. Some coworkers did, one even hadn't a driver's license. Now I need my car only perhaps once a week if I need to buy drinking water and many groceries, that would be a problem carrying all that stuff within a bus. So reducing the usage of car to a minimum is what we need. Build shops you need for daily life in walkable distance. And make efficient public transportation networks. Have a nice day 🖐👴
Note that bus usage might also be saturated due to lack of access in the suburbs. If you deny people use of cars to shop on this street and they don't have an alternative, they will go elsewhere. Changes on this street cannot be done in a vacuum.
as someone who lives in los angeles i want this to happen i don't care where it is, it would be epic if it was closer to me but it can still serve as an example street for future planners
@@holger_p putting bike lanes on both sides rather than a two-way bike lane on one side doesn't really use more space though. Any decent two-way bike path is about the same width as two one-way bike paths.
@@alex2143 Almost, on two lanes you have more "overhang" of the bicyclers body, cause the lane is obeyed on the tire only. So a two lane way can be little narrower, than two single ones. A common problem of a single-side track is, to use it in the wrong direction. A bicycler who is going one block, should cross all the six-lanes and use the other side, and cross all six-lanes again. They never do it. They use the wrong direction. However, I don't mind your solution, just the reasons for your solution have been little weak. Bicyclers are not as strict in obeying a one-way street, as cars are.
@@holger_p "Almost, on two lanes you have more "overhang" of the bicyclers body, cause the lane is obeyed on the tire only." This doesn't really sound like you've driven a bike much in dense bike traffic tbh. You realize that the cyclists don't just clip through each other, right?
@@alex2143 I ride daily. It's a matter of law. A line to mark a track you keep with the wheel. Nobody will judge you if you touch a pedestrian, this is mutual consideration. A car stays in track, cause the wheels are on the edge of car. Don't know what you want to say with your 'clip through', I talk about vehicles side by side. Talking tracks is talking side by side. In dense traffic you slow down anyway. Maybe you want to pass, passing would be much safer in the two-lane-path. You use the oncoming bicycle lane, just as the cars do. A single lane would probably also be built to enable passing. So built wider.
Studies show very clearly that a single, separated, well designed car lane in both directions, is far more efficient than a multi lane system. Left turns in a multi lane system, cause jams, and merging traffic on the lanes still free. Side street traffic and parking lot leavers are waiting very long when they want to turn left. It creates unnecessary wait time constantly. On a single lane, traffic keeps flowing, when there is a dedicated short left turn lane. Because left turns face only one lane in the other direction, waiting time is shorter, because every gap can be used. In a multi system you have to wait until all lanes show a gap. Overtaking in a single lane system is impossible, no merging or other movements that make drivers push their brakes. So a continuous flow of all cars at the same speed. The only thing that needs attention is the car in front of you. Nobody stops because there is no parking on the side. Only dedicated parking places away from the road. If the road is used by buses, there is NO need for a special bus lane, only at bus stops, so the bus doesn't block any traffic when someone has to get in or out. Bus merges back into the single lane with priority. (You cannot pass a bus with left indicators on.) If such system is combined with roundabouts (also single lane) on every major crossing, there is no need for traffic lights. Why 'invent' things that function perfectly in other countries? It is very likely you make the same mistakes we did thirty, forty or fifty years ago.
Why should a left turner on a single lane, waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic, not cause a jam, since everybody behind them has to wait also ? Must be a weird study, you are quoting. Rundabouts do solve this problem, but only for moderate dense traffic.
@@holger_p Read correctly: "when there is a dedicated short left turn lane" Cars turning left get their own lane, not a very long one, just for a few cars. That is why they do not block straight going traffic. The actual turn can be done faster, and more efficient, so no need for a long left turn lane. Sudies were done by the TU Delft and the Verkeersacademy Breda, the only one who is weird is you.
@@dutchman7623 It said "Left turns in a multi lane system, cause jams" implying in a single lane systems, they do not. OK, a short lane you consider no lane. Still a weird wording for me, no reason to become unfriendly or aggressive. (Evaluating statements is different from evaluating persons) I'm deeply sorry for not knowing a left turning lane + a through lane is not considered a multilane design.
There are designs that make money in a long run and there are designs that cost money in a long run. If city's goal is to spend as much as possible, demolish the street and add 4 lanes to make a proper stroad. If city wants some additional income from taxes, healtiher citizens and safer infrastructure, go for the proposed solution.
The only negative about the entire new proposal that I can see is the bi-directional cycle path. My city has been making that mistake for decades now, because it's cheaper. However at night, that means that half the bicyclists are basically on the wrong side of the road and that causes motorists to blind them with their headlights. Putting up a physical barrier to prevent the blinding isn't feasible on a road with shops on either side, because people are expected to want to cross said road. So the only sane and safe solution is to make a split cycle path that follows the regular flow of traffic.
I agree with everything you said and at the same time the part you said about people driving in from the suburbs to patronize the shops on Hennepin Ave at 6:25 hit me in the disgruntled person from the outskirts of a major city that was developed during the 50s-70s where we are under resourced because everyone would just drive into town and now its a suburban hellscape feels. I already don't feel like I'm actually from the city I technically live in. Making it harder for folks like me to drive into town only makes it worse.
you chose to buy a house in the middle of nowhere, why should a business 10km away account for your needs while disregarding those next door or within walking distance? cities should make people father and father way able to connect with each other but with finite resources the futher away you are the lest you are going to get public transport wise. suburbs were a bad idea that people living in them will have to either live with or chose to move... you don't complain about a lack of rainfall if you move in to a desert, you should not complain about a lack of accessibility to the city center if you moved in to the middle of a far away suburb
No, I didn't. I was born here. I don't own property. And there are many many other people who moved to this area, not out of choice, but because it was the only place where they could afford to live.
@@michaellasfetto5810 life isn't fair, somebody chose to live there and you are suffering the consequences of that action. the US chose to make affordable housing in the form of single family homes in the middle of nowhere and you are paying the consequences of political actions taken a long time ago, still, i fail to see why bad choices taken now or a long time ago should be taken in to consideration when we are trying to fix a now problem... should we keep on compromising with mistakes so that those after us will have to make the same compromises? when does a previous mistake continued to the present day becomes a mistake done by us?
Making it harder to drive into town improves the experience for the people living in the town. There's a greater net benefit that way. It would be silly to prioritize the few over the many.
Have any person been in a Car accident? It's the most stressful experience you can ever be in your life. I was at the brink of having a Panic Attack. Yet people for some reason insist that driving is more better than other alternatives.
it IS FAR better when the alternative is a 30+ minute walk to the CLSOEST transit OR riding on a busy road with NO bike protection beyond a "bike gutter" if you are lucky and for a LOT of suburbs those are your ONLY alternatives to the CAR
This reminds me the current tramway project and it's redesign of certain stroads, in Quebec city. Now there are certain points that i agree with them (namely the part where they want to remove trees), but overall, you can see how much people are dependent on their cars by looking at their comments on mainstream news websites.
Parked cars are a menace to us bus drivers. People are too stupid to check their mirrors before opening their door into the street. If they open their door right as a bus is passing, ( *boom* ) bye-bye door. The funny thing is, I've tried blowing my horn, but these guys are too stupid to perceive horns as a warning of danger and get out of their cars... *SLOWER!* Then they stare at you with a confused look on their face.
In the past, interstate rail led to cities growing organically. We need to rebuild interstate commuter rail first, and allow local commuter transit to build organically from that. Any other way will always lead to contention and confusion.
When you're developing brand new towns out in rural areas, sure they spring up naturally along intercity rail lines, but for existing cities I don't see how that would really be an effective way to develop transit? Seems like apples and oranges really. I'm all for both intercity and local transit of course, but if Amtrak service suddenly got 10x better, that wouldn't make it any easier for me to live my day to day life without a car. It might eliminate the need for a car from the handful of trips per year where I need to leave town to visit relatives, or for vacations to neighboring states, but it probably wouldn't be cost effective for a lot of those if I already had a car just to get around town. I think both local and regional transit are needed to really hasten the move away from cars, but if anything isn't local transit needed first, or at least at the same time? If I can conveniently live 99% of the time without a car in my city, and only need a car for the occasions where I leave town, I can probably get by without a car by renting for those occasions, carpooling with friends and family, etc. even if intercity rail is lacking, but I can't realistically do the reverse.
I'm also personally on board, pun intended, in reviving all old streetcar routes with new wireless trams. When you install rails in a roadway you instantly reclaim that space from cars and trucks even if its still in mixed traffic. It shows them who is top dog on these streets. Just ask Toronto...
@@romanrat5613 assume BATTERIES but I for one WANT TROLLEY wires as the capital costs to lay the steel is larger then the overhead wiring and saves the battery costs AND high current charging stations
In Providence, we had a similar project happen by turning a road one way, one lane with priority for peds and bicycles, though on street parking remained. The biggest dissenter was a vegan restaurant owner, of all people, who you would think would know about increased traffic due to pedestrians would be better for business, not by catering to people trying to get back on the highway. In general, there is a pervasive attitude of being scared to change something in case it makes things worse, when a) it's only gotten worse with the current course of action and b) reverting decisions after they've been proven a misstep is usually fairly straightforward unless you count building freeways lol.
I can attest to how driving makes it harder to explore what businesses have to offer, I've seen cute stores wiz by and thought "I want to go there" but there was no way I could stop immediately, still haven'y checked out a particular store because I have no other option but to drive to a nearby destination
I am always a proponent for taking away car lanes. It is even more comfortable to drive on a street with only one lane in each direction. And don't forget: The car traffic won't stay the same and just spill over to adjacent streets (at least mostly and long-term), it will decrease
fear of the unknown and if done "wrong" will wipe out those businesses so they have a "right" to be angry but also GOOD QUALITY studies of traffic / shopping and parking usage "hopefully" will show that a LOT of there customer base is close by and "lazy driving" VS through commuter traffic
its crazy to me how the richest country in the world somehow finds it to be a waste of money to invest in transit infrastructure but we spend something like $800 billion a year on our military
whats more frustraiting to me is that on my 2 mile walk from my townhome to the nearest bus stop that only comes once an hour and doesn't have a bench or a shelter, is the amount of real estate we are willing to give up to parking lots that never fill up more than half way except for 3 days a year, but if I ask for a bench, or consistent sidewalks, or a bus that comes at reasonable intervals (i am not in some little rural town in the middle of nowhere and the route does get riders), or intersections that aren't designed to get me killed and take 10 minutes to cross, im told its to expensive. the bus stop I get on at is one of 3 serving a dead mall and one of the biggest, emptiest parking lot I've ever seen, I can grantee you could easily fit 4 thousand units at least into just that one parking lot alone, never mind the other 3 that are just as big and just as empty, the bus would get higher ridership, and that mall probably wouldn't be dying since it have all its customers basically living on the property.
@@schnipke279 yeah the closest bus stop to me is almost 2 miles from where I live, it comes once every hour, and goes to the bus station downtown from the suburbs. Even the bus route on my city's busiest street is timed at every 30 minutes
It's the overall idea, that transit has to be profitable, and if it is profitable a private company will offer services. The transport itself has not the rank of infrastructure yet. The streets are provided by the governement, without any intended direct profit or even a direct charge. But for transport they expect self-financing.
Was there a reason this was uploaded as ultra-widescreen when 75% of the video is 16:9 visuals or even more square? The three or so shots in the near-anamorphic widescreen ratio don't look anamorphic or particularly cinematic in quality, not sure if that and the one diagram in ultra-widescreen is worth making the viewport smaller for the majority of the video
Great redesign but I feel it overlooked pedestrian space, more space for pedestrians means more people able to walk safely as well as meaning stuff like cafés can start to add outside venue's
One simple way to fix huge parking lots is to can the stupid rules in the ADA about required handicap spots. Nothing like driving to a giant parking lot, to see 30 empty spots all marked for handicap, and then like 10 normal cars parked so far from the front of the store. Just removing the ADA requirements would save parking space...
hardly and considering how inaccessible cities are handicaps parking should be least of your priorities, if your city is built with accessible public transportation in mind handicap holders do not need cars and therefore they don't need dedicated parking.
@@herlescraft Yup, after visiting countries without ADA it is nice to see things so much better. The number of ped bridges in singapore is amazing. Never would see that in USA due to all the ADA rules. Yeah some have elevators and some have ramps, but not all. in USA it is ALL or NONE deal. Same stupid crap with parking. If a business wants business from people with the magical sticker (which basically anyone can get) they would put up such signs.
Handicap spots are a good idea, just lower the overall amount of parking. It's good to have options, some people can't walk, and struggle to take public transit unless there's a very developed infrastructure, but at the same time, some people have seizures and can't drive, there should be an option for everyone.
Free or low cost street parking is the absolute rock bottom worst use of public space in urban areas. Turn that crap into bus lanes and a bikeway, ASAP.
for I just there in Minneapolis on the 2nd, There's also the factor of less wear and tear on the roads and it being quieter + less police chasing cars and stuff to. just a money saving circle for the city.
You have no idea how angry to see private cars parked in the bus lane I am. What the hell is the point of a bus lane if it's going to get blocked anyways?
If they were to make the lights work with this to allow a few left turns and the rest blocked. So one direction can either go straight or turn left...or as much as it sucks at the end furthest from the city provide a parkn ride for those that dont live near a bus stop and increased connections to other places downtown
1:27 Those people who don't follow the rules are so annoying. I feel like cities can get a lot of money having a camera there and ticketing the people who turn left there when it's not time.
it'll probably be better but also it's gonna get fucking dismantled in committee. Advocating for no parking on the street and the dedicated ROW for busses would probably do more than enough as a compromise.
Parking in a red bus lane? Putting the red lane next to the curb may have been a bit dumb, but ticketing and towing could fix that overnight. Here in San Francisco, there seems to be no enforcement of moving violations, but if you park wrong, look out! You are messing with a profit center.
No, it doesn't. The bus lane will be abused by trucks for delivery. Or taxi's that stop for passengers. Unless the bus lane is completely separated it has little use. Simply look at NYC... ZeroEnigma shows how bad those bus lanes are, completely useless if not protected.
@@dutchman7623 this isnt nyc though. Trucks may try to be fair but i dont think taxis really exist in such numbers to matter. It all depends on if they will enforce the rules or not. But yeah protected lanes do sound a lot nicer
@@adamknott7830 When a bus lane isn't used intensively, it's going to be abused. Unless precautions are taken to prevent it. Suburb Nijmegen-Dukenburg has a completely separated bus road system, every car that enters it gets an automatic fine. Which can only be done if cars and people are reliably registered.
I bet it will be even quieter for those homes on that street. Seems like a good trade off to me - instead of constant car tire noise, you’ll hear the occasional bus break to a stop and a bike chime. And considering I rarely ever see or hear bike chimes (in my area at least), it’s really one the buses that will make the most noise 8/4/22 🌙 725
Not knowing the area, but is the significant traffic that drives along this street but doesn't utilize the businesses there just a symptom of not having a good highway bypass somewhere nearby? It sounds like a lot of people are forced on this street rather than desiring to be there. Is there anyway to know what percentage of the people using cars versus the buses are locals versus people passing through on their way to/from work for example?
What is ironic is that your privilege to drive can be taken away but your right to walk cannot be taken away, but walking is an afterthought here in the US so how can we even say it is a privilege to drive.
One of the worst pieces of infrastructure I’ve ever driven recently was a butterfly exit. My god, the concrete monstrosity is the worst I have ever driven on. Short turn lanes merging into each other while dropping speed from 70 to 25 to make the sharp loop turn. It’s horrible and begging for more death.
Ok, just to note something, any solution has to at least have some short term consideration for suburban commuters. Why? Because even if in an ideal future suburbs they currently are shouldn't exist, they exist now, and it's physically impossible to make them just suddenly not exist. Even if your advice is ultimately to "just move to the city", it still takes time for that to happen and people need to see a reason to do so. This road design is a great idea as long as there's an alternative route for traffic coming off the interstate to filter out of, and traffic getting on the interstate to collect onto.
Small quibble: the dedicated bus lanes should be in the center. Periphery lanes become parking magnets, as the end of this video clearly demonstrates. Otherwise the proposal is great.
We should probably reimagine Hennepin Ave completely, as a neighborhood corridor rather than a pass-through corridor. I’d remove the bike lanes & increase the width of the sidewalks. Since they’re pretty narrow now. With a wide bus lane as a separator, it’d be more comfortable to sit at the street, especially if drainage were redesigned to the center median where it could water trees before being sent away. The drive lanes should be shrunk further to 10’ (hopefully with corresponding speed reduction to neighborhood speeds). I’d remove the bike lanes in favor of allowing cyclists to use the bus lane as they’re typically as fast if not faster, while improving the side streets for casual bicyclists to navigate the adjacent areas. Ultimately, a modern streetcar line from the Fed plaza to the Lake Harriet Bandshell Park would add tremendous value & utility to an area that’s typically chosen small and local businesses over national & chain options, & values access to natural amenities & short distance travel outside a car.
The removal of all on-street parking in busy areas for bike/pedestrian or even rapid transit lines ALONE makes ANY project worthwhile... To me that's the lowest hanging fruit...
It's worthwhile unless the cars that use that on-street parking make up the majority of the customer base for those businesses. If most of the business is from walk up or bus passenger traffic then removing the cars on the street makes a lot of sense. If however they get most of the business from people passing through in their car or if the area is a destination location that most people get to by car eliminating too much parking can lead to those customers going elsewhere. In the long run, a design that makes for more of a pedestrian mall style business area with dedicated transit on the next block over and periodic parking garages along the route probably is the best combination. In my opinion.
@@jimzecca3961 I live in this neighborhood in the video. Most of the business comes from pedestrians. All the cars do is pass through making it annoying and time consuming to be a pedestrian.
How often does one drive through one of these streets, notices a business with something he really wants, but then hang on, I can't even stop or park, so must keep going? Is he ever likely to come back? 80% unlikely. If a train took him right into the vicinity, he could just get off it and walk a short distance to it. Of course, businesses that sell large items that need to be loaded in a pickup such as building materials, hardware or furniture still belong near roads in industrial areas or you simply can't pick them up........that's the modern world. But restaurants, cafe's and bars, and even clothing stores could use a more plaza type environment. Cycleways, footpaths and better planning and more rail is the answer. Once you've seen this setup, you'll want it placed in far more locations.
@@alex2143 It doesn't remove my main point that people need pedestrian friendly areas where they can shop, eat, drink and mingle with others free of the ever present danger of traffic. And some people still prefer to see things physically prior to purchasing.
even in Germany / Europe there are big box retailers that are near motorways but those type of stores DO NOT belong on a neighbourhood street outside maybe a "showroom"
The only suggestion I have regarding this design is to have the bike lanes on both sides of the street, rather than a 2-way on one side, and I'd also suggest modifying those intersections to become roundabouts.
@@simondahl5437 Bikes and pedestrians would not be part of the roundabout, you'd put those areas on their own crossing that's separated from the roundabout, similar to Dutch roundabouts. As for combining bus lanes and car lanes into one roundabout, I'm honestly not sure. You could try a turbo roundabout with bus lanes, but I'm not sure that's been done anywhere before, and I don't know if they have the space for it there. You could merge the lanes, but I don't think that makes sense for such short spans. Admittedly, there could be more space at the intersection, because American cities love to have massive intersections, but I was mostly referring to the old traffic pattern. You're correct that it would be difficult to incorporate bus lanes and regular traffic on that small street into a roundabout.
@@jamalgibson8139. You still have to fit the bikelane and sidewalk. Either inside or outside the roundabout. Which there isnt space for. The corners for the buildings are way too close.
@@simondahl5437 You're probably correct; I'm not familiar with the area, but as I said previously, I was more referring to the old layout. They could easily have fit a roundabout in there I think.
i hate when nimbys get upset over changes like this because the logic doesn’t even need to be backed with explanations or facts. the configuration of the road is bad for everyone including drivers. the traffic on these roads combined with the danger of the design makes driving in them insufferable while all other modes of transit suffer from having no space to themselves. car drivers aren’t losing anything from getting rid of these types of roads and probably will see benefits of their own
Looking at the stroad it looks like a very long village with oversized roads, low buildings that are just commercial or just residential. The population density is too low for any type of infrastructure investment that makes any sense. First you need multi-storey buildings with combined commercial and residential usage and only then the overhaul is beneficial.
Only complaint with the plan us perhaps the bike lanes. Are they protected or jyst painted gutters? Bike lanes that last a few blocks and stop are also annoying.
The problem with plans like these are lobbyists for the auto industry. They really don't like anything that limits or removes the need for cars. They are also willing to dump millions to keep things the way they are.
Disagree. People will have to get off at bus stops. Switch grassy median and bike lane around so the bike lane is next to the sidewalk and more away from buses, put bus stops in the grassy median so people don't exit the bus straight on a bike path. Cars can go in the middle.
If I were a retail owner on the 'left side' ,, i would oppose and demand a bike path on my stores side. Because the other side will have a lit more potential custumers pass by on bike , and pedestrans are more shielded ! So basically obe directional bike aths on both sides...
@@simondahl5437 I don't get you question I didn't mention roundabout , nor the video . So what about roundabout ? Did i miss something? It should be allright to have traffic light loop altering sensors on the brt buses ( and emergency services ) and bike/pedestrian friendly loops as well .
When is The USA and Canada going to install smart traffic light, that doesn't go green in 1 direction? One that can go green, only if it detect a car as the Dutch and many other country does?
I suggest asking the people who actually live and work there what they want, rather than people who are just passing through. 100% sure that the business owners would rather have bikes and pedestrians who are more likely to stop, and if you give them a reasonable alternative I'm also fairly sure that people who live there will also prefer a street where most of the space isn't wasted on storing large metal boxes.
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ORzNZUeUHAM/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stroads are Ugly, Expensive, and Dangerous (and they're everywhere) [ST05]](/img/tr.png)
Wow! I never knew buses were so well-used on this road. Who the hell looks at 47% bus transit share and says no to a dedicated bus lane??
I am completely for this redesign. Your points were excellent, and as someone who drives this road frequently I can vehemently attest to hating driving on it. It's got to be awful as a pedestrian, too, because it's just nonstop car noise. One major thing that needs to happen is raised medians prevent left turns out of business accesses. Those are super dangerous on this road.
You should also watch ''NottBikes'' where talks a lot about traffic and public transport
@@gameguild1555 i assume you mean 'Not Just Bikes' ☺️
And I imagine with dedicated bus lanes, the bus becomes more attractive and you might even be riding on it.
The people opposed to dedicated bus lanes are people who hate the very idea of riding a bus. They also hate being around the general population of an area, not being able to limit who they are around to some certain types that are more similar to them.
Selfish folks who care about themselves only. Surprisingly abundant in North America.
This is substantially better street design. Should also reduce through-travel car demand on the basis of physiological assumptions of drivers and make it much safe and better for cars included.
Did you mean psychological?
I also tink smarter trafic light that doesn't go green in al direction will work.
Instead it only goes green, when it detect a car and than you can do multi cars. Since it doesn't blok
These designs are trash
@@night6724 it's okay, Exxon will survive without you :)
@@Lolwutfordawin but you won't
My hometown did something like this recently, (though without the bus lane part), and it has already made the area considerably nicer to be in, even while driving! You don’t feel pushed to go over the speed limit, and even in a car it feels a lot safer. The medians with trees completely separate you from the other traffic in what was once a center turn lane, so you don’t feel exposed and about to die at every moment. While the bike lanes haven’t gotten a ton of use yet, it won’t continue that way. It isn’t yet completely connected to the surrounding trails, and it is less than a mile long. They plan to connect it better and add a larger portion going through downtown in the near future, and have also rezoned the area for mixed use TOD.
Nice
I'm thinking about running for mayor in my city just so I can replace the center turning lanes with concrete medians and trees
I lived in the uptown neighborhood. This is easily the worst avenue in the entire city. Buses are necessary for economic mobility and everyone’s sanity. I actively avoided this road at all costs and biked whenever I could because of other hostile drivers.
One of the main reasons Uptown is low on my list of favorite places in the Cities is because of how terrible the Hennepin/Lyndale and surrounding roads are designed honestly. I feel like every time I go there, no matter what time of day I get jammed in a stressful traffic situation. Even walking up and down Hennepin like I did for this video wasn't great.
Every road feeding into this area is awful, too. That 394 interchange, and 8 lane behemoth Lake street. It's road hell. Hate driving out there
@@Phillowownz the chain of lakes are great in the uptown area. But the alternative transportation methods you mentioned were clearly an afterthought to the car centric design. The area is super prone to car crashes too and drag racers and red light runners
@@Phillowownz We should probably reimagine Hennepin Ave completely, as a neighborhood corridor rather than a pass-through corridor. I’d remove the bike lanes & increase the width of the sidewalks. Since they’re pretty narrow now. With a wide bus lane as a separator, it’d be more comfortable to sit at the street, especially if drainage were redesigned to the center median where it could water trees before being sent away. The drive lanes should be shrunk further to 10’ (hopefully with corresponding speed reduction to neighborhood speeds). I’d remove the bike lanes in favor of allowing cyclists to use the bus lane as they’re typically as fast if not faster, while improving the side streets for casual bicyclists to navigate the adjacent areas. Ultimately, a modern streetcar line from the Fed plaza to the Lake Harriet Bandshell Park would add tremendous value & utility to an area that’s typically chosen small and local businesses over national & chain options.
Agreed! I propose this go further. We should axe some parking lots. One of the reasons why we have so many of them is that a chunk of them are only reserved for certain businesses (so if you park on them but mean to go elsewhere, you could get towed), but not all businesses can afford to have parking lots, so if we essentially ban businesses from limiting who can park at their lots, that could be a short term alternative to the on street parking that's eliminated on Hennepin. Over time, more people will a) have more choice on where to park, if at all, b) more people will be encouraged to not drive to Uptown when they're aware they can't be guaranteed a parking spot at those businesses.
Another benefit of restricting lanes is the stress levels. At the 4 lane configuration, trying to walk or drive in this area is super stressful when you're aware of the many potential points of a collision, from closely spaced intersections (which btw should make this a street, not a low speed stroad that it is), to on street parking, to literally tons of other cars. I can only imagine what folks on the bikes have to deal with. I'm not sure how adding more lanes can do anything but amplify those issues. This street cannot be a road, no matter how much we try to, so let's keep it a street.
I have seen a single person ride a bike on this road. As much as I believe bikes have a right to be on the road, I would rather take a freeway lane than a lane on Hennepin. It's really that bad
@@altriish6683 Maybe people don't ride their bikes because...drum roll please...they don't have the infrastructure for it. Oh, and no those painted gutter "murder" bike lanes don't count. Look at bike ridership in Downtown Chicago before and after the Divvy Bike program was introduced, not to mention before and after major bike lane implementations across the city were made including but not limited to seperated and exclusive bike lanes with adequate right of way.
It's almost like when you provide the proper infrastructure people will use it.
What, change based on actual facts and evidence and not "hurr dürr just one more lane will fix it"? This is fantastic and would make the place actually nice to be in! I hope it is implemented either as planned or even better, with trams replacing the busses.
But but ua-cam.com/users/shorts0dKrUE_O0VE?feature=share
and you have no proof this will work
@@night6724 there are literally examples of it working in the video. Not to mention the Netherlands exists.
@@Lolwutfordawin the netherlands is the worst country ever and literally inspired fascism
@@Lolwutfordawin is this a "wholistic" approach OR a ONE street and everybody DRIVING from transit starved suburb is stuck to "suffer"
Amsterdam makes a "wonderful" edge case but there system is "wholistic" that EVERY MODE of transportation has there own planning / routing INCLUDING CARS
IMHO this is GOOD for USA but BAD for Amsterdam in there is NO model separation
I'm shocked at the amount of people using the bus on this avenue. It's also got a great urban fabric. I would absolutely be for this redesign and you should show this to as many opponents as you can find! Maybe you could walk down the street and hand out links to business owners? 😅
It's great to see a transportation department that understands good street design! I think that the city you live in really desires positive change.
Here in San Diego most the buses I see are quite empty. There is this "build it and they will come" mentality. I see them literally doubling down on this theory by having tandem-buses that are twice as empty.
re: empty buses: ua-cam.com/video/qR4qfukbRb8/v-deo.html
If I was living along the street I would be massively in favour as it will increase livability. As a driver, one might be against it at first, but if there are finally viable alternatives many other drivers will move to these other modes of transportation and leave more room for the driver.
When roads are widened it almost always reduces travel speed over time as it induces demand (build it and more will come).
When roadlanes are removed, the opposite is true (remove it and many will find alternatives).
Even drivers in Minneapolis hate driving on Hennepin as it stands, so any change is welcome, even from that perspective
“Remove it, and many will find alternatives”. Yes! Such a simple way to explain it. Agreed.
@@EricPeter yeah, they'll all fuck up lyndale 😂 that road sucks even more than Hennepin.
@@SomeGuy818 Which is why this plan is about improving those alternatives.
@@SomeGuy818 There must be proper alternatives of course, which currently there are none. Now almost everyone is forced to drive, but many do not want to drive.
I live in a country where there are many alternatives. I hardly use them. But because other people do, it makes driving so much better than in the US. (and yes, do have quite some experience of driving in the US as well).
You hit the nail on the head in explaining the left hand turn issue and how drivers try to switch lanes quickly to avoid the stopped cars trying to turn left. While Anoka isn’t nearly as bad, I want to see something with public transit in mind for Main Street.
I recently started walking because my I lost my car but I work remote so it’s not a total loss. What you said about noticing business even I was so shocked to know what businesses were around the place i drive regularly to get to the grocery stores which is 1 mile away roughly. It was funny because I’d never stop in there at all and never would see them either I noticed about idk 4-5 business and lots I didn’t realize existed and I’ve been driving here for months because it’s right outside the street I live in. It’s true if no one stops in from regular local traffic cutting the parking allocated for cars won’t make a difference
Even with the new design there is some significant issues. There is a median of 4' wich is unnecessary wide. Reducing it to 2' is more then enough for a concrete median. This 2' can be given back to the sidewalk, wich in the new plans was reduced from 11' to 8'. Considering there is a lot of businesses, 8' is not enough. If you reduce the greenspace from 5' to 4' as well, you can add 2' to each sidewalk making it 10' wich is way closer to the original 11'.
Also I would switch the greenspace and bike lanes. Predestinations and bikes will go reasonably well together, better than bikes and buses. If you folow the order: buslane, greenspace, bike lanes, sidewalks, you create a natural barrier between fast moving traffic and slower traffic. Also you can use the greenspace for dedicated bus stops, avoiding that bus traveles have to step on the bike lanes, but have a safe space in-between.
In a lot of American cities, pedestrians are expected to cross wide stroads in one whack. Having the ability to cross half of a busy street at a time can help people who can't get around as easily or quickly, but also eases crossing for all users. If I had a moment to reorient my "where is traffic coming from" attention in more than the width of a double-yellow stripe (which is quite typical for American cities), that would make crossing WAY less stressful.
@@adm1nspotter that's a mater of timing the traffic lights well. But a typical American traffic light is pre programmed and rarely uses detection systems to accommodate for changes in traffic.
This is fantastic! Transit ways will allow more people to actually travel down this street! And those bike lanes and improved walkability should be good for the local businesses!
I like this redesign, with the possible exception of the two way cycle path. I'm not sure this design is specifically appropriate for this type of street. It keeps bicycles to one side of the street more or less, so people on bikes would have to cross to the other side without bike infrastructure in order to visit businesses on that side. Perhaps they can just park and walk across, but I think one way paths on either side next to the sidewalk would be more appropriate. Along with that, bus stops should sit towards the median in relation to the cycle lanes, pushing the bikes towards the buildings rather than out between the bus and car lanes, which is probably taken into consideration in the redesign, but eliminating unnecessary conflict points is something that's important. The sidewalk might switch sides with the bike lanes in this case, bringing the bikes the closest towards the buildings for the duration of the bus stop, which is still a conflict point, but one between pedestrians and bikes rather than bikes and buses. That would be far more manageable for every day traffic negotiation.
yeah I think it'd make a lot more sense to have sidewalks and bike paths on both sides. You don't need a complete grassy median separating bikes and pedestrians, and I think a couple of planters and trees every now and then would suffice.
So, sidewalk with some trees and planters - bike lane - maybe some grass there - bus lane - car lane - median - car lane etc (see before but in reverse).
I'm not entirely sure how to feel about cars having to make a left turn, but I don't think screwing over all other modes of transport just because cars gotta go vroom vroom is the solution. If they don't like having to wait on other cars having to make a left turn, they can stop being a part of the problem and start being a part of the solution. So even if you were to make some ultradeluxe overpass super express left turn lane with teleportation possibilities so cars don't have to wait for other cars, all it'll do is induce more people to go by car, and you've solved nothing at great expense.
Having it on one side improves connections to the existing Loring Greenway trail at the north end
You are absolutely right. 2-way bicycle path designs don't make sense on busy streets, with meaningfull destinations along both sides. Apparently street designers think that cyclists can somehow magically teleport to the other side of the street, but if they could teleport, they wouldn't be using a bike to begin with. 🙄
@@hendman4083 the bike lane is for traveling through and you would use pedestrian infrastructure to cross over and the sidewalk to access the shops on the NON bike side
@@jasonriddell Why would cyclists have to use pedestrian infrastructure to get somewhere? Are they supposed to walk? 😜
I would love a street like that redesign in my neighbourhood! I have switched to using my bicycle for errands and commuting and although my city does have some protected bike lanes and also some MUPs that are straightforward and useful for actual commuting, it's VERY MUCH a suburban sprawl kind of town and I have to bike to the nearest strip mall to get my groceries.
You answered my questions. True that if I were driving down this street, I am not going to suddenly decide "oh I need to go the hardware store". These businesses are best suited to get customers from the 1/4 mile around them. Unfortunately in my part of my city there is relatively little multistory multifamily residential development. There is not enough "bustle" on the street to justify lots of businesses - therefore we get dunkin donuts, corner convenience store, liquor store, chinese takeout, nail place.
1/2 mile capture business being replaced with CAR friendly brands is the "expected" outcome of a car focused land use
It baffles me when drivers don't understand how improving public transit and bike infrastructure will make traffic better for them as a driver! You want to drive everywhere? Fine, but at least allow space for people who don't want to drive which results in less vehicles on the road and less traffic. It's not complicated.
This is a good redesign, but the bike lane should be one-way on either side of the street. A two way bike lane is difficult to access for cyclists who are visiting businesses on the other side of the road, and I imagine bike-car and bike-ped conflicts would be worse on a two-way bike lane as well. They make sense on arterials or parks with minimal intersections and conflict points, but in this case, the two-way bike lane should be split into two one-way bike lanes, each placed on either side of the street between the sidewalk and buffer zone.
I agree that would be ideal but from looking at the diagram maybe it was done due to space limitations? one way bike lanes need to be a bit wider to allow passing right?
Correct.
@@davidhayden6116 I don't think you're saving a lot of space that way. In the Netherlands, a good two-way bike lane is about the same width as two one-way bike lanes. If it's a busy bike path (and you should plan and aim for that), overtaking on a two-way bike lane needs space as well, because you're going fairly close to oncoming bike traffic. So you can't make them much narrower anyways. Unless you just wanna be stingy and give bikes the bare minimum to stop complaining, but if you want people to actually use their bike, treat bikes like a first class mode of transportation.
Over here in the Netherlands, two way bike lanes are pretty much only a thing on interconnecting roads, i.e. long stretches of road that are designed to get you from A to B. If it's a street with destinations, it'll almost always have one-ways on both sides, and traffic calming measures pretty much everywhere bikes don't have a protected path.
I'd almost support banning cars on that road entirely if the alternative is not treating bikes like a first class mode of transport. Apparently buses are already very good on that road, so making buses and bikes even better sounds like a great idea.
Having it on this one side improves connections to the existing Loring Greenway trail at the north end
@@davidhayden6116 I'd get rid of the median (4' is too narrow anyways) and add 2' to the bike lanes on either side. That results in an 8' sidewalk, 7' bike path, and 5' buffer. Another option is to widen the sidewalk to 10' and narrow the buffer to 3'. The sidewalk can include street trees while the buffer simply contains a few plants.
stumbling upon a new urbanist youtuber everyday. the anti car lobby is growing stronger
Moving more people more efficiently by a more sustainable means with all the evidence to prove it just seems like a no-brainer to me. For the redesign!
It’s so awesome to something like this being planned. Though I do have one thing to say, if this change at first is only this little area it may not be very useful until it is expanded
I’m in Minneapolis and when I drive to the office (very rarely) I use Hennepin for my route home. I like the redisgn idea, but I can easily see the relentless whining of other commuters who “have it all figured out” - personally, I am a fan of anything that discourages high speed and cut routes, so hopefully this plan will materialize.
Twin Cities based urbanist channel = instant sub from me! I'm moving back to the twin cities soon and hearing about this and other positive changes in the area (like improving zoning) make me happier about my moving destination.
A good decision making method to use when determining whether or not to remove on-street parking is to figure out if the private vehicle traffic is just passing through or trying to access the businesses along the corridor. Considering this arterial has a direct connection with the highway, I would assume its predominantly the former.
Honestly, I love this redesign and kinda wish I had come up with something similar for a very congested stroad in my city that isn't the exact one here.
Like far too many American cities, we have that one stroad everyone hates due to the overbearing car traffic. Better yet, I work at a store's drive-thru and can personally attest to the fact that a large portion, if not the majority of those cars driving that stroad, are single occupiers coming at the coffee store from work and back, or from work to home. Seeing how stressful that stroad is for car drivers, it's no wonder it's also spilling out onto those who walk and bike there.
The best-ish part to me is that the stroad in question around me does have protected left turn lanes, and I do want city land use to improve there by first curbing the car traffic so people will actually want to work and live along the street, since it has so much potential if we get more people onto it. That protected left turn lane means we have even more room for a decently wide sidewalk, so we could put in tons of bicycle parking racks and street trees, park benches, and small playgrounds on the wider sidewalks. If this can turn that stroad into a proper street, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Not only do I like this design, but I think I could form a solid argument to my city officials and the city residents themselves.
I see potential with the bus lanes, since our transit system includes two bus routes that run through this street at 1 per hour frequency. If we get 2 entire dedicated lanes for said buses, we could improve frequency considerably over time, and before that have more riders per bus. People who walk or bike in the area more would see a safer environment, and those who drive there out of necessity won't be stuck in traffic.
In Madison, Wisconsin, it looks like they've found more of a "hybrid" solution. A good amount of people still use private cars, but it isn't bad for people who don't own cars. There's multiple biking corridors, a lot of contraflow bike lakes, and several combined bike/bus/right turn lanes. Since Madison is a university city, I can see why this approach was taken: to connect the suburbs and university into downtown via bike. There's even a commuter path that heads Northwest. They're also experimenting with cut-ins for busses at traffic signals along the US 151 corridor.
That's exactly how Europeans lanes are, at least here in southern Spain. We have the bike lane at one side of the road, then bus/taxi/motorcicle only lanes, where cars can only enter at the end of the lane and onnly to turn right, and then the cars lane. The bike lanes have been around for 20 years and it's become a popular way to go to work, and bus/taxi exclusive lanes have been for maybe around 10 years now, and it really works very well
I'm definitely *for* this redesign.
Excellent video...thank you!
I love it! As a local, I’m super excited to see our city put more into public transportation and walkable/bikeable infrastructure. I think another very important addition to our transit system is more frequent buses - if there was a bus that came every 10-15 minutes, I think we’d see a lot less cars on the road.
These little fights are going to happen all over Minneapolis. Take a look at what is happening in Dinkytown. There has been some minor push back from business owners about the pilot program to close off traffic to a portion of Dinkytown. Although it's mostly because most of them weren't informed of it happening. Some of it is because of the "lack" of parking.
Have you ever tried driving to the University? The entirety of the Marcy Holmes is treated as a through fare. University Ave and 4th street is stressful to do anything because of all the parked cars and traffic. Don't even get me started on Broadway and West Broadway Ave.
The entire city of Minneapolis needs a redesign if we ever plan on accomplishing the 2040 goals.
In Europe we have this thing where there are big parking lots on the edge of the city, where the final stop of an underground is, so it is not uncommon that people from the city just use public transport even when they have a car, the car is used mostly on weekends for trips outside of the city, and people from outside of the city, drive to the edge of the city, park their car there and take public transport to their destination in the city. We don't really have much of a choice our cities are build for horses not cars, but hey there are plenty of pedestrian zones and parks and caffes inside of the cities, which makes them nice places to just walk around.
I don't live in Minneapolis, but as a cyclist, bus and car user, the last thing I want is a contra-flow bike lane that is too close to the sidewalk. I would modify your plan by having (from the buildings): sidewalk, green space (trees), single-direction bike lane, maybe a small curb, single-direction transit lane, single direction car lane, then exactly the same in the other direction. That way, cyclists would run with traffic and at distance from pedestrians, and would respect the general principle of having lanes from slowest to fastest. Such a design would be more comfortable in daytime and even more so at night and would make intersections safer because traffic would follow predictable patterns. The real issue to solve - both with your design and mine, is to make sure that bus stops are safe. I would prefer to see the buses cross the bike lane so passengers getting on or off the bus wouldn't have to cross the bike lane.
Finally, one aspect which is always forgotten in these designs is traffic light synchronization. If we truly want to give the message, traffic lights should be synchronized for approximately 25-30 km/h (20-22 mi/h) rather than 50 km/h (30 mi/h), i.e. at the commercial speed of transit vehicles and of cyclists.
Having busses cross the bike lane is awful, having either the bike lane form part of the raised platform, is much safer in my experience cycling in Germany. It means you do have to slow down and yield to people boarding / leaving the bus, but also never puts you at risk ov being run over by a huge vehicle.
I would just change one thing have multi directional bike lanes on both sides. Crossing streets for bikes should always be a last resort.
30 kmh on bikes in a busy urban area is too fast. 20 kmh is a better pace for bikes in cities
Good plan, However... I'd move the bus lanes (and stops) to the middle of the road [par blvd thru busstops transit transit busstops thru busstops blvd bike par]. Pedestrians then only have to cross 1 lane of car traffic at a time (and are closer to the busstops for both directions). I will also give the illusion of a narrower street which in theory results in lower car speeds. The van Baerlestraat in Amsterdam is a nice example.
I don't need a car where I live (city with 50,000 inhabitants) for most of the time actually. Many shops are in walkable distance and the bus stop is around the corner. The bus runs every 20 minutes during daytime on weekdays.
Now I retired. When I was still working, I used my car for getting to work, because no bus was running there. I could have used a bicycle for the 4 km distance too. Some coworkers did, one even hadn't a driver's license. Now I need my car only perhaps once a week if I need to buy drinking water and many groceries, that would be a problem carrying all that stuff within a bus.
So reducing the usage of car to a minimum is what we need. Build shops you need for daily life in walkable distance. And make efficient public transportation networks.
Have a nice day 🖐👴
Note that bus usage might also be saturated due to lack of access in the suburbs. If you deny people use of cars to shop on this street and they don't have an alternative, they will go elsewhere. Changes on this street cannot be done in a vacuum.
as someone who lives in los angeles i want this to happen i don't care where it is, it would be epic if it was closer to me but it can still serve as an example street for future planners
Bikes lanes on both sides creates the mobility to stop on every shop at this road without congesting road space.
If 99.9% is through traffic, and 0.1% shop access, that's of minor concern. But it could convince the shop-owner, if they had to agree to the concept.
@@holger_p putting bike lanes on both sides rather than a two-way bike lane on one side doesn't really use more space though. Any decent two-way bike path is about the same width as two one-way bike paths.
@@alex2143 Almost, on two lanes you have more "overhang" of the bicyclers body, cause the lane is obeyed on the tire only.
So a two lane way can be little narrower, than two single ones. A common problem of a single-side track is, to use it in the wrong direction. A bicycler who is going one block, should cross all the six-lanes and use the other side, and cross all six-lanes again. They never do it. They use the wrong direction.
However, I don't mind your solution, just the reasons for your solution have been little weak. Bicyclers are not as strict in obeying a one-way street, as cars are.
@@holger_p "Almost, on two lanes you have more "overhang" of the bicyclers body, cause the lane is obeyed on the tire only."
This doesn't really sound like you've driven a bike much in dense bike traffic tbh. You realize that the cyclists don't just clip through each other, right?
@@alex2143 I ride daily. It's a matter of law. A line to mark a track you keep with the wheel. Nobody will judge you if you touch a pedestrian, this is mutual consideration.
A car stays in track, cause the wheels are on the edge of car.
Don't know what you want to say with your 'clip through', I talk about vehicles side by side. Talking tracks is talking side by side.
In dense traffic you slow down anyway. Maybe you want to pass, passing would be much safer in the two-lane-path. You use the oncoming bicycle lane, just as the cars do. A single lane would probably also be built to enable passing. So built wider.
Studies show very clearly that a single, separated, well designed car lane in both directions, is far more efficient than a multi lane system.
Left turns in a multi lane system, cause jams, and merging traffic on the lanes still free. Side street traffic and parking lot leavers are waiting very long when they want to turn left. It creates unnecessary wait time constantly.
On a single lane, traffic keeps flowing, when there is a dedicated short left turn lane. Because left turns face only one lane in the other direction, waiting time is shorter, because every gap can be used. In a multi system you have to wait until all lanes show a gap.
Overtaking in a single lane system is impossible, no merging or other movements that make drivers push their brakes. So a continuous flow of all cars at the same speed. The only thing that needs attention is the car in front of you. Nobody stops because there is no parking on the side. Only dedicated parking places away from the road. If the road is used by buses, there is NO need for a special bus lane, only at bus stops, so the bus doesn't block any traffic when someone has to get in or out. Bus merges back into the single lane with priority. (You cannot pass a bus with left indicators on.)
If such system is combined with roundabouts (also single lane) on every major crossing, there is no need for traffic lights.
Why 'invent' things that function perfectly in other countries? It is very likely you make the same mistakes we did thirty, forty or fifty years ago.
Why should a left turner on a single lane, waiting for a gap in oncoming traffic, not cause a jam, since everybody behind them has to wait also ?
Must be a weird study, you are quoting. Rundabouts do solve this problem, but only for moderate dense traffic.
@@holger_p Read correctly: "when there is a dedicated short left turn lane"
Cars turning left get their own lane, not a very long one, just for a few cars. That is why they do not block straight going traffic.
The actual turn can be done faster, and more efficient, so no need for a long left turn lane.
Sudies were done by the TU Delft and the Verkeersacademy Breda, the only one who is weird is you.
@@dutchman7623 It said "Left turns in a multi lane system, cause jams" implying in a single lane systems, they do not.
OK, a short lane you consider no lane.
Still a weird wording for me, no reason to become unfriendly or aggressive.
(Evaluating statements is different from evaluating persons)
I'm deeply sorry for not knowing a left turning lane + a through lane is not considered a multilane design.
It’s a really good idea especially for people that can’t drive or cannot afford to drive especially with gas prices these days
There are designs that make money in a long run and there are designs that cost money in a long run. If city's goal is to spend as much as possible, demolish the street and add 4 lanes to make a proper stroad. If city wants some additional income from taxes, healtiher citizens and safer infrastructure, go for the proposed solution.
This looks and sound like an incredible quality of life improvement for anyone having to use this street nowadays!
7:11 So true! I love how Chicago has bus lanes downtown to get out of all that traffic during rush hour!
The only negative about the entire new proposal that I can see is the bi-directional cycle path.
My city has been making that mistake for decades now, because it's cheaper. However at night, that means that half the bicyclists are basically on the wrong side of the road and that causes motorists to blind them with their headlights.
Putting up a physical barrier to prevent the blinding isn't feasible on a road with shops on either side, because people are expected to want to cross said road.
So the only sane and safe solution is to make a split cycle path that follows the regular flow of traffic.
How are left turns proposed for this section, presumably from Franklin Ave to W 36th St?
I agree with everything you said and at the same time the part you said about people driving in from the suburbs to patronize the shops on Hennepin Ave at 6:25 hit me in the disgruntled person from the outskirts of a major city that was developed during the 50s-70s where we are under resourced because everyone would just drive into town and now its a suburban hellscape feels. I already don't feel like I'm actually from the city I technically live in. Making it harder for folks like me to drive into town only makes it worse.
you chose to buy a house in the middle of nowhere, why should a business 10km away account for your needs while disregarding those next door or within walking distance? cities should make people father and father way able to connect with each other but with finite resources the futher away you are the lest you are going to get public transport wise. suburbs were a bad idea that people living in them will have to either live with or chose to move... you don't complain about a lack of rainfall if you move in to a desert, you should not complain about a lack of accessibility to the city center if you moved in to the middle of a far away suburb
No, I didn't. I was born here. I don't own property. And there are many many other people who moved to this area, not out of choice, but because it was the only place where they could afford to live.
@@michaellasfetto5810 life isn't fair, somebody chose to live there and you are suffering the consequences of that action.
the US chose to make affordable housing in the form of single family homes in the middle of nowhere and you are paying the consequences of political actions taken a long time ago, still, i fail to see why bad choices taken now or a long time ago should be taken in to consideration when we are trying to fix a now problem... should we keep on compromising with mistakes so that those after us will have to make the same compromises? when does a previous mistake continued to the present day becomes a mistake done by us?
Making it harder to drive into town improves the experience for the people living in the town. There's a greater net benefit that way. It would be silly to prioritize the few over the many.
Have any person been in a Car accident? It's the most stressful experience you can ever be in your life. I was at the brink of having a Panic Attack. Yet people for some reason insist that driving is more better than other alternatives.
it IS FAR better when the alternative is a 30+ minute walk to the CLSOEST transit OR riding on a busy road with NO bike protection beyond a "bike gutter" if you are lucky
and for a LOT of suburbs those are your ONLY alternatives to the CAR
@@jasonriddell that is the issue
This reminds me the current tramway project and it's redesign of certain stroads, in Quebec city. Now there are certain points that i agree with them (namely the part where they want to remove trees), but overall, you can see how much people are dependent on their cars by looking at their comments on mainstream news websites.
Parked cars are a menace to us bus drivers. People are too stupid to check their mirrors before opening their door into the street. If they open their door right as a bus is passing, ( *boom* ) bye-bye door.
The funny thing is, I've tried blowing my horn, but these guys are too stupid to perceive horns as a warning of danger and get out of their cars... *SLOWER!* Then they stare at you with a confused look on their face.
In the past, interstate rail led to cities growing organically. We need to rebuild interstate commuter rail first, and allow local commuter transit to build organically from that. Any other way will always lead to contention and confusion.
When you're developing brand new towns out in rural areas, sure they spring up naturally along intercity rail lines, but for existing cities I don't see how that would really be an effective way to develop transit? Seems like apples and oranges really.
I'm all for both intercity and local transit of course, but if Amtrak service suddenly got 10x better, that wouldn't make it any easier for me to live my day to day life without a car. It might eliminate the need for a car from the handful of trips per year where I need to leave town to visit relatives, or for vacations to neighboring states, but it probably wouldn't be cost effective for a lot of those if I already had a car just to get around town.
I think both local and regional transit are needed to really hasten the move away from cars, but if anything isn't local transit needed first, or at least at the same time? If I can conveniently live 99% of the time without a car in my city, and only need a car for the occasions where I leave town, I can probably get by without a car by renting for those occasions, carpooling with friends and family, etc. even if intercity rail is lacking, but I can't realistically do the reverse.
I'm also personally on board, pun intended, in reviving all old streetcar routes with new wireless trams. When you install rails in a roadway you instantly reclaim that space from cars and trucks even if its still in mixed traffic. It shows them who is top dog on these streets. Just ask Toronto...
wireless trams? what do they run on? batteries? Diesel?
wires are a good investment
@@romanrat5613 assume BATTERIES but I for one WANT TROLLEY wires as the capital costs to lay the steel is larger then the overhead wiring and saves the battery costs AND high current charging stations
@@jasonriddell yeah and wire trams just look way cooler 🗿
In Providence, we had a similar project happen by turning a road one way, one lane with priority for peds and bicycles, though on street parking remained. The biggest dissenter was a vegan restaurant owner, of all people, who you would think would know about increased traffic due to pedestrians would be better for business, not by catering to people trying to get back on the highway.
In general, there is a pervasive attitude of being scared to change something in case it makes things worse, when a) it's only gotten worse with the current course of action and b) reverting decisions after they've been proven a misstep is usually fairly straightforward unless you count building freeways lol.
How can you possibly be against it?!??
I can attest to how driving makes it harder to explore what businesses have to offer, I've seen cute stores wiz by and thought "I want to go there" but there was no way I could stop immediately, still haven'y checked out a particular store because I have no other option but to drive to a nearby destination
I am always a proponent for taking away car lanes. It is even more comfortable to drive on a street with only one lane in each direction. And don't forget: The car traffic won't stay the same and just spill over to adjacent streets (at least mostly and long-term), it will decrease
businesses should realize this and stop being angry about parking space
fear of the unknown and if done "wrong" will wipe out those businesses so they have a "right" to be angry but also GOOD QUALITY studies of traffic / shopping and parking usage "hopefully" will show that a LOT of there customer base is close by and "lazy driving" VS through commuter traffic
its crazy to me how the richest country in the world somehow finds it to be a waste of money to invest in transit infrastructure but we spend something like $800 billion a year on our military
whats more frustraiting to me is that on my 2 mile walk from my townhome to the nearest bus stop that only comes once an hour and doesn't have a bench or a shelter, is the amount of real estate we are willing to give up to parking lots that never fill up more than half way except for 3 days a year, but if I ask for a bench, or consistent sidewalks, or a bus that comes at reasonable intervals (i am not in some little rural town in the middle of nowhere and the route does get riders), or intersections that aren't designed to get me killed and take 10 minutes to cross, im told its to expensive. the bus stop I get on at is one of 3 serving a dead mall and one of the biggest, emptiest parking lot I've ever seen, I can grantee you could easily fit 4 thousand units at least into just that one parking lot alone, never mind the other 3 that are just as big and just as empty, the bus would get higher ridership, and that mall probably wouldn't be dying since it have all its customers basically living on the property.
@@schnipke279 yeah the closest bus stop to me is almost 2 miles from where I live, it comes once every hour, and goes to the bus station downtown from the suburbs. Even the bus route on my city's busiest street is timed at every 30 minutes
@@schnipke279 in my city (Mound, MN) they just tape a piece of laminated paper that says "bus stops here" to the light post. Genius
It's the overall idea, that transit has to be profitable, and if it is profitable a private company will offer services.
The transport itself has not the rank of infrastructure yet. The streets are provided by the governement, without any intended direct profit or even a direct charge. But for transport they expect self-financing.
Makes sense to me. Anytime we eliminate car traffic that's a win for everyone.
They should do Snelling next. It's right next to my college and it's an absolute deathtrap.
Was there a reason this was uploaded as ultra-widescreen when 75% of the video is 16:9 visuals or even more square? The three or so shots in the near-anamorphic widescreen ratio don't look anamorphic or particularly cinematic in quality, not sure if that and the one diagram in ultra-widescreen is worth making the viewport smaller for the majority of the video
Great redesign but I feel it overlooked pedestrian space, more space for pedestrians means more people able to walk safely as well as meaning stuff like cafés can start to add outside venue's
Looks intresting, but still looks like it would have a problem with cars turning left holding up trafic, but now for every car?
It's a start for those invested in single-family housing to adapt.
One simple way to fix huge parking lots is to can the stupid rules in the ADA about required handicap spots.
Nothing like driving to a giant parking lot, to see 30 empty spots all marked for handicap, and then like 10 normal cars parked so far from the front of the store.
Just removing the ADA requirements would save parking space...
hardly and considering how inaccessible cities are handicaps parking should be least of your priorities, if your city is built with accessible public transportation in mind handicap holders do not need cars and therefore they don't need dedicated parking.
@@herlescraft Yup, after visiting countries without ADA it is nice to see things so much better. The number of ped bridges in singapore is amazing. Never would see that in USA due to all the ADA rules. Yeah some have elevators and some have ramps, but not all. in USA it is ALL or NONE deal.
Same stupid crap with parking.
If a business wants business from people with the magical sticker (which basically anyone can get) they would put up such signs.
Handicap spots are a good idea, just lower the overall amount of parking. It's good to have options, some people can't walk, and struggle to take public transit unless there's a very developed infrastructure, but at the same time, some people have seizures and can't drive, there should be an option for everyone.
Free or low cost street parking is the absolute rock bottom worst use of public space in urban areas. Turn that crap into bus lanes and a bikeway, ASAP.
for I just there in Minneapolis on the 2nd, There's also the factor of less wear and tear on the roads and it being quieter + less police chasing cars and stuff to. just a money saving circle for the city.
You have no idea how angry to see private cars parked in the bus lane I am. What the hell is the point of a bus lane if it's going to get blocked anyways?
If they were to make the lights work with this to allow a few left turns and the rest blocked. So one direction can either go straight or turn left...or as much as it sucks at the end furthest from the city provide a parkn ride for those that dont live near a bus stop and increased connections to other places downtown
You should look into broad st in Richmond VA, now that road has a lot of traffic
incredible peter
1:27 Those people who don't follow the rules are so annoying. I feel like cities can get a lot of money having a camera there and ticketing the people who turn left there when it's not time.
BRAVO!
it'll probably be better but also it's gonna get fucking dismantled in committee. Advocating for no parking on the street and the dedicated ROW for busses would probably do more than enough as a compromise.
Parking in a red bus lane? Putting the red lane next to the curb may have been a bit dumb, but ticketing and towing could fix that overnight. Here in San Francisco, there seems to be no enforcement of moving violations, but if you park wrong, look out! You are messing with a profit center.
Looks like a great design to me. Less cars and more people and transit space just like it should be
No, it doesn't. The bus lane will be abused by trucks for delivery. Or taxi's that stop for passengers. Unless the bus lane is completely separated it has little use. Simply look at NYC... ZeroEnigma shows how bad those bus lanes are, completely useless if not protected.
@@dutchman7623 this isnt nyc though. Trucks may try to be fair but i dont think taxis really exist in such numbers to matter. It all depends on if they will enforce the rules or not. But yeah protected lanes do sound a lot nicer
@@adamknott7830 When a bus lane isn't used intensively, it's going to be abused. Unless precautions are taken to prevent it.
Suburb Nijmegen-Dukenburg has a completely separated bus road system, every car that enters it gets an automatic fine. Which can only be done if cars and people are reliably registered.
@@dutchman7623 auto fines sound good to me and i want the bus lane to be well used
the new plan looks great
That’s a good project
I bet it will be even quieter for those homes on that street. Seems like a good trade off to me - instead of constant car tire noise, you’ll hear the occasional bus break to a stop and a bike chime. And considering I rarely ever see or hear bike chimes (in my area at least), it’s really one the buses that will make the most noise
8/4/22 🌙 725
it's nice to see as an EU, when americans want more and more improvments on their streets.
Not knowing the area, but is the significant traffic that drives along this street but doesn't utilize the businesses there just a symptom of not having a good highway bypass somewhere nearby? It sounds like a lot of people are forced on this street rather than desiring to be there. Is there anyway to know what percentage of the people using cars versus the buses are locals versus people passing through on their way to/from work for example?
What is ironic is that your privilege to drive can be taken away but your right to walk cannot be taken away, but walking is an afterthought here in the US so how can we even say it is a privilege to drive.
One of the worst pieces of infrastructure I’ve ever driven recently was a butterfly exit. My god, the concrete monstrosity is the worst I have ever driven on. Short turn lanes merging into each other while dropping speed from 70 to 25 to make the sharp loop turn. It’s horrible and begging for more death.
i really wish theyd do this stuff in saint paul too
Ok, just to note something, any solution has to at least have some short term consideration for suburban commuters. Why? Because even if in an ideal future suburbs they currently are shouldn't exist, they exist now, and it's physically impossible to make them just suddenly not exist. Even if your advice is ultimately to "just move to the city", it still takes time for that to happen and people need to see a reason to do so.
This road design is a great idea as long as there's an alternative route for traffic coming off the interstate to filter out of, and traffic getting on the interstate to collect onto.
Small quibble: the dedicated bus lanes should be in the center. Periphery lanes become parking magnets, as the end of this video clearly demonstrates. Otherwise the proposal is great.
We should probably reimagine Hennepin Ave completely, as a neighborhood corridor rather than a pass-through corridor. I’d remove the bike lanes & increase the width of the sidewalks. Since they’re pretty narrow now. With a wide bus lane as a separator, it’d be more comfortable to sit at the street, especially if drainage were redesigned to the center median where it could water trees before being sent away. The drive lanes should be shrunk further to 10’ (hopefully with corresponding speed reduction to neighborhood speeds). I’d remove the bike lanes in favor of allowing cyclists to use the bus lane as they’re typically as fast if not faster, while improving the side streets for casual bicyclists to navigate the adjacent areas. Ultimately, a modern streetcar line from the Fed plaza to the Lake Harriet Bandshell Park would add tremendous value & utility to an area that’s typically chosen small and local businesses over national & chain options, & values access to natural amenities & short distance travel outside a car.
This doesn’t always happen. I live in Vancouver, and adding bike lane/bus lane significantly increase traffic in some road
The removal of all on-street parking in busy areas for bike/pedestrian or even rapid transit lines ALONE makes ANY project worthwhile... To me that's the lowest hanging fruit...
It's worthwhile unless the cars that use that on-street parking make up the majority of the customer base for those businesses. If most of the business is from walk up or bus passenger traffic then removing the cars on the street makes a lot of sense. If however they get most of the business from people passing through in their car or if the area is a destination location that most people get to by car eliminating too much parking can lead to those customers going elsewhere.
In the long run, a design that makes for more of a pedestrian mall style business area with dedicated transit on the next block over and periodic parking garages along the route probably is the best combination. In my opinion.
@@jimzecca3961 I live in this neighborhood in the video. Most of the business comes from pedestrians. All the cars do is pass through making it annoying and time consuming to be a pedestrian.
How often does one drive through one of these streets, notices a business with something he really wants, but then hang on, I can't even stop or park, so must keep going? Is he ever likely to come back? 80% unlikely. If a train took him right into the vicinity, he could just get off it and walk a short distance to it. Of course, businesses that sell large items that need to be loaded in a pickup such as building materials, hardware or furniture still belong near roads in industrial areas or you simply can't pick them up........that's the modern world. But restaurants, cafe's and bars, and even clothing stores could use a more plaza type environment.
Cycleways, footpaths and better planning and more rail is the answer. Once you've seen this setup, you'll want it placed in far more locations.
"Oh wow, I need that but I can't park there. I gotta remember that and I'll order it on Amazon when I get home"
@@alex2143
It doesn't remove my main point that people need pedestrian friendly areas where they can shop, eat, drink and mingle with others free of the ever present danger of traffic. And some people still prefer to see things physically prior to purchasing.
@@noelgibson5956 I agree, it reinforces it. These kinds of streets are bad for the businesses that are next to them.
@@alex2143
Couldn't agree more. Cheers 😃
even in Germany / Europe there are big box retailers that are near motorways but those type of stores DO NOT belong on a neighbourhood street outside maybe a "showroom"
The only suggestion I have regarding this design is to have the bike lanes on both sides of the street, rather than a 2-way on one side, and I'd also suggest modifying those intersections to become roundabouts.
How do you expect fitting 2 lanes of motor vehicle traffic and bike and pedestrian infrastructure into a roundabout, on that footprint?
@@simondahl5437 Bikes and pedestrians would not be part of the roundabout, you'd put those areas on their own crossing that's separated from the roundabout, similar to Dutch roundabouts.
As for combining bus lanes and car lanes into one roundabout, I'm honestly not sure. You could try a turbo roundabout with bus lanes, but I'm not sure that's been done anywhere before, and I don't know if they have the space for it there. You could merge the lanes, but I don't think that makes sense for such short spans.
Admittedly, there could be more space at the intersection, because American cities love to have massive intersections, but I was mostly referring to the old traffic pattern. You're correct that it would be difficult to incorporate bus lanes and regular traffic on that small street into a roundabout.
@@jamalgibson8139. You still have to fit the bikelane and sidewalk. Either inside or outside the roundabout. Which there isnt space for. The corners for the buildings are way too close.
@@simondahl5437 You're probably correct; I'm not familiar with the area, but as I said previously, I was more referring to the old layout. They could easily have fit a roundabout in there I think.
i hate when nimbys get upset over changes like this because the logic doesn’t even need to be backed with explanations or facts. the configuration of the road is bad for everyone including drivers. the traffic on these roads combined with the danger of the design makes driving in them insufferable while all other modes of transit suffer from having no space to themselves. car drivers aren’t losing anything from getting rid of these types of roads and probably will see benefits of their own
NIMBY types need to just be completely sidelined as they oppose anything that is human-centered vs car-centered.
@@hakarmalm7756 exactly they shouldn’t even be part of the conversation because their wants aren’t based in fact or the good of the community
Looking at the stroad it looks like a very long village with oversized roads, low buildings that are just commercial or just residential. The population density is too low for any type of infrastructure investment that makes any sense. First you need multi-storey buildings with combined commercial and residential usage and only then the overhaul is beneficial.
Only complaint with the plan us perhaps the bike lanes. Are they protected or jyst painted gutters? Bike lanes that last a few blocks and stop are also annoying.
The problem with plans like these are lobbyists for the auto industry. They really don't like anything that limits or removes the need for cars. They are also willing to dump millions to keep things the way they are.
While better design, transit should be in the middle if possible, so you can possibly put a tram in the future and eliminate head on crashes
Disagree. People will have to get off at bus stops.
Switch grassy median and bike lane around so the bike lane is next to the sidewalk and more away from buses, put bus stops in the grassy median so people don't exit the bus straight on a bike path. Cars can go in the middle.
Park n rides outside the city centre or in the suburbs are good if they have actual transit connections or TODs.
Very sad that the awful mayor veto'd the 24 hr bus lane. Now we will just have cars parked on the bus lanes and back to square 1.
If I were a retail owner on the 'left side' ,, i would oppose and demand a bike path on my stores side. Because the other side will have a lit more potential custumers pass by on bike , and pedestrans are more shielded !
So basically obe directional bike aths on both sides...
@@simondahl5437 I don't get you question I didn't mention roundabout , nor the video . So what about roundabout ? Did i miss something?
It should be allright to have traffic light loop altering sensors on the brt buses ( and emergency services ) and bike/pedestrian friendly loops as well .
Wait, parked on the bus lane?! O_O
When is The USA and Canada going to install smart traffic light, that doesn't go green in 1 direction?
One that can go green, only if it detect a car as the Dutch and many other country does?
the redesign seems like a win win for everyone except those who want street parking at all costs
I suggest asking the people who actually live and work there what they want, rather than people who are just passing through. 100% sure that the business owners would rather have bikes and pedestrians who are more likely to stop, and if you give them a reasonable alternative I'm also fairly sure that people who live there will also prefer a street where most of the space isn't wasted on storing large metal boxes.
not everyone can drive if they are disabled for example if they have epyelsy or are blind/parshaly sighted. but everyone wants their independancs.