I strongly believe that many of the false perceptions of Northfield’s Highway 3 result from the name we currently use to describe it. Highway 3, it must be some long state route. Highway — that’s for driving fast.
The reality is that most state highways in Minnesota have local names. In Northfield, Highway 246 is known as W Woodley St and S Division St, and Highway 19 is known as W 5th St and N Division St. Yet except for a small portion downtown, in the path of the existing Water Street, Highway 3 does not have a Northfield name.
Giving Highway 3 a name would change our perceptions, and begin to understand it as a critical city street (that happens to be owned and maintained by the state). The City Council has the power to establish a City name for a street, and I believe this is doable in 2012.
None of this changes the designation of the street as Minnesota Trunk Highway 3, but would allow for signage and business addresses to use a Northfield name.
So what’s in a name? These are the factors I believe should be considered.
Does it reflect small-town character?
Without being nauseating, it should have a certain charm. An overly suburban name (e.g., Bluff Pointe Parkway) or an overly utilitarian name (e.g., Highway 3) does not reflect small-town character. The current name fails.
Does it reflect our long-term vision for Northfield Highway 3?
Other than the Land Development Code, we don’t seem to have one, so this is iffy. But for a name, let’s pin it on this: if Highway 3 were a perfect corridor, in the vision of Comprehensive Plan’s land use principles, would the name be appropriate? The current name fails.
Does it reflect the centrality of the street to our community?
The name should clearly reflect the importance to Northfield. “Birch Lane”, for example, is not a good name, because it implies a small or unimportant street. The current name fails to an outsider, but is established among locals.
Context: Does it reflect relation to the original Northfield town plan, reflect its current form, reflect natural features nearby, or reflect the historical impulses that created it?
It should logically fit into the older, bigger picture. Again, Bluff Pointe Parkway fails. “Broadway” would probably reflect its current form. Cannon St might reflect a natural feature. The current name fails.
Is it easy to say?
A cumbersome name will never catch on. The simpler, the better. At three syllables and a four-character abbreviation, this is the strongest point for the existing name.
Does it reflect something else unique or positive about Northfield?
Naming a central street is an opportunity to highlight a positive aspect of the city. The current name does not do this.
Let’s think of some names.
The NDDC task force on Highway 3 has suggested John North Blvd, and Ross Currier, of that task force, advocates for the name Dahomey Ave (already shown erroneously on many online maps). My personal favorite is Wellstone Ave. But here’s the chart. Click to view full size.
I was having a conversation about speeding at Christmas dinner, when my brother remarked at the onerously slow speed limits on Highway 3 in Northfield, especially the 30 zone downtown. I responded that it is downtown, and that pedestrians need to be able to cross the roadway without freeway-speed traffic. He insisted that there weren’t even sidewalks: why would there be pedestrians?
There are in fact sidewalks on both sides of Highway 3 from W Jefferson Pkwy to Fremouw Ave (save for an infamous gap on one side), and bike lanes in the downtown portion. But the perception is rather telling. But in fact, there are several other misconceptions:
Highway 3 is not for pedestrians or bikes
As mentioned, most of Highway 3 has sidewalk coverage. There is significant nonmotorized crossing traffic downtown. Because so much of our development is oriented toward Highway 3, it’s inevitable that walkers and bikers will want to use it to access the same destinations drivers are interested in.
Highway 3 is an important access from Faribault to Farmington (or St. Paul)
False. While Highway 3 predates Interstate 35, I-35 and 35E provide much faster access to St. Paul. Google Maps marks the difference at 58 minutes versus 1 hr 28 minutes.
As a state highway, Highway 3 has to handle a lot of traffic
False. While it does handle a lot of traffic, little of that has to do with the fact that it’s a state highway. Traffic counts for Northfield indicate that about 9000 cars a day enter and leave Northfield from the south on Hwy 3, and 9700 from the north. Even if 100% of those 9000 were through-traffic (extremely unlikely, as most people are probably going to/from Northfield), that would be less than half of the traffic flowing through the central Northfield portion of Highway 3.
Put simply: Highway 3 is Northfield’s main street, with important destinations for all users. While it happens to be part of Minnesota State Highway 3, the majority of the traffic it serves is Northfield traffic.
Stop signs do not apply to bikes. Stop signs seem to be a defining issue for American cycling, especially in a suburban context. If only cyclists would stop blowing through stop signs, or running red lights — or whatever it is that seems to offend the driving majority — then maybe cycling could be a legitimate form of transportation.
The trouble with this is, is that what is a minor inconvenience for a car becomes a major and unnecessary barrier for a cyclist. Idaho has become famous for its stop sign law, which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign.
That is not explicitly the law in Minnesota; however, accepting that I am not a lawyer, I’m not clear why Minnesota law requires a bicyclist to stop in the same sense we require a car to. Here’s why.
Subd. 4.Bicycle. “Bicycle” means every device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride, having two tandem wheels except scooters and similar devices and including any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or rear wheels.
[…]
Subd. 79.Stop. “Stop” means complete cessation from movement.
Bike law
169.222, the main bike law, says (emphasis added):
Subdivision 1.Traffic laws apply. Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter, except in respect to those provisions in this chapter relating expressly to bicycles and in respect to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to bicycles.
“Operation” of a bicycle is not defined, but it is referred to repeatedly and is essential to understanding our bicycle law. Since a bicycle is a “device propelled solely by human power upon which any person may ride,” we can reasonably assume that to operate a bicycle is to be propelling it by human power — or at the very least, to be seated upon it. A person with one or both feet on the ground, or a person walking a bicycle, is surely not “operating” it.
Argument 1: A bicyclist cannot stop while operating a bicycle
It is not at all difficult to keep a car in place while it is not moving. However, the vast majority of cyclists cannot balance on a bicycle while achieving “complete cessation from movement.” To achieve “complete cessation of movement,” they must put one or both feet on the ground, and no longer be operating the bicycle. Thus, this expectation cannot “reasonably be applied” to bicyclists.
Argument 2: A stop sign is not used with the intention of a cyclist stopping
The Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is not state law; however, it implements state law, and it is the standard used by the state Department of Transportation and local counties and municipalities for designing streets.
Minnesota traffic law clearly states that a bicycle has right of way in a crosswalk. Yet in examples where crosswalks are used, the MUTCD recommends stop signs used in addition (see above). It would be absurd to assign a true stop to the user who has right of way, while not requiring it for the user who is obligated to yield. Thus we can infer that the goal of a stop sign is for a cyclist to slow down, be alert, and be ready to react. Slow down, be alert, be ready to react.
That should be always be our goal — not making sure each cyclist achieves “complete cessation of movement.”
A couple of weeks ago, I sent an informational packet to 25 affected homeowners on Jefferson Road. Four have responded, two quite courteously. Just before leaving for Scandinavia, I received a rather aggressive letter from one resident. Since the letter was anonymous and had no return address, I cannot respond to the resident’s complaints directly. So instead I will do it here, piece by piece. The full letter is available at the bottom of this post.
Mr. O’Leary,
You state that my street is a critical bikeway from downtown to Cub/Target/multi banks, but did you know that you can take actual bike trails that go by the schools and thru neighborhood parks? This will bring you out behind Target.
This is misleading. The Parks/Trails Master Plan shows all existing trails and asphalt sidewalks. In order to take the bike “trails” to Target, a biker would have to go through about seven parks and seven streets — and that’s after getting to the Division Street sidewalk, where these trails begin. From many points in town, this could double the distance for the cyclist. Before even starting on the “trails,” the cyclist would still have to get to the Division Street walk, as well as traverse the W Jefferson Parkway crossing, which has no curb cuts or crosswalk.
If you are leaving from St. Olaf Avenue, why not take the bike trail that goes to Dundas?
Again, this is not a full picture. While a bicyclist could take the Mill Towns’ Trail to Dundas (and add more than a mile to the trip), s/he would still have to ride through Dundas streets, across the very bike-hostile County Road 1/Hwy 3 intersection, and make an awkward left turn to the Target trail just a couple dozen yards from the Hwy 3 intersection. Either of these options involves emerging and entering many trails and awkward crossings. Most bike accidents happen turning and at intersections. Using this route is considerably less safe than riding on the road.
I have never seen anyone use the new bike bridge over the Cannon River, but if you took that you could take the frontage road all the way to the Target light.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. The west frontage road (Bollenbacher Drive) winds around aimlessly for a while and ends completely at the Furlong site. The cyclist would have to ride on Hwy 3 to access Heritage Drive or the light at W Honeylocust Drive.
Maybe you can convince the powers that be to finish the actual bike trail that goes from County Road 1 to behind the church, where it abruptly ends.
This was discussed, but would have added significant cost to the project. Highway 3 is Mn/DOT’s road, and it should not be the City’s responsibility to fix their mistakes. I would love to see the Hwy 3 sidewalks completed, but that would be a lower-quality cycling facility, at a much higher cost.
So, you do not believe that removing our parking ability would be crippling. Interesting choice of words. I’m sure my brother and his disabled daughter would love to park somewhere down a side street and risk their lives to cross over to visit us. Where are lawn and snow removal contractors supposed to park?
I apologize for that choice of words. I honestly did not give it a lot of thought; perhaps I should have. Every home on Jefferson has a driveway, so I’m not sure what the issue is. If you do not have space in your driveway, a disabled passenger could easily be dropped off. Furthermore, one of my compromise options preserves short-term parking where it is currently allowed. It is quite possible to have a bikeway and still accomodate your needs.
It is absurd that we would give anything up for bicycles. When they start paying yearly licensing, insurance, and axle fees, plus use protective clothing and install headlamps and tail lamps, then it wouldn’t be so absurd. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bicyclist stop at a stop sign, so why should we take them seriously? When you pay for our street you can have a say in it. Got $4800 handy? We paid for this in 1986, too, remember?
This comment is not cogent. The fact that homeowners would have had to potentially pay $4800 indicates that those auto taxes do nothing to pay for infrastructure. The fees you and I both pay as drivers (I’m not always on a bike!) cover the cost of government to manage automobiles. Bikes do not require licensing or nearly as much management, and so, pay no fees. I would also note that they have significantly less damaging an impact on roads like yours than cars and trucks. If a good chunk of those people driving cars on your road had been on bikes, your road would probably be in much better shape. I am a strong supporter of better enforcement for bike lights, but this is unrelated.
But, I would like to thank you for reminding me to take Olaf Ave to get to Cedar. I had forgotten that fact.
I’m sure your intentions in spamming us are good, but honestly, you don’t live here. Your 100 cars a day on your street is a slow hour for us.
The Mn/DOT traffic volumes for Northfield show 2350-3200 cars per day on St. Olaf Avenue. This is less than Jefferson’s 4950, but it is certainly not night and day. I also grew up near the Roosevelt Ridge portion of County Road 1 (which has 4000 cars/day, at about half the width of Jefferson and no sidewalk on either side). I know what it feels like to be on an uncomfortably busy, uncomfortably fast street. And I know the value of slowing cars (see below).
Just last month, someone lost control on the street and ran over my garbage can that was on my lawn. 2 neighbors have had mailboxes taken out by cars. What everyone seems to forget, or ignore, is that this still is a residential street, and not a highway, and not Target Expressway, as we call it. Not all of us enjoy being flipped off, swerved at, or passed just for trying to drive the speed limit here.
This overlooks one of the major benefits of bike lanes and — even moreso — cyclists themselves. The more walkers and bikers on a road, the slower the traffic. Wide lanes and few perceived hazards (including bikes) means that people are comfortable driving much faster. Bike lanes would narrow the traffic lanes and, hopefully, attract many more bikers. This means cars will drive slower. This is the same strategy that was used with the bike lanes on Highway 3 downtown.
Centering the traffic lanes, as I’ve suggested, would also keep cars away from the curb — hopefully sparing your trash cans and mailboxes.
It is also worth remembering that Jefferson has never been just a “residential street.” Long before most of the existing houses were built, it was part of County Road 28, and served the role that Highway 3 now serves between Northfield and Dundas. It should absolutely remain a 30 mph street and be safe for users and residents — but, just as it always has — it must address the needs of the whole community.
Sincerely,
A Tax Paying Resident
PS: I bet your neighbors on Plum would be disappointed that you killed a tree to send us all unsolicited mail.
Unabridged letter
Mr. O’Leary,
You state that my street is a critical bikeway from downtown to Cub/Target/multi banks, but did you know that you can take actual bike trails that go by the schools and thru neighborhood parks? This will bring you out behind Target. If you are leaving from St. Olaf Avenue, why not take the bike trail that goes to Dundas? I have never seen anyone use the new bike bridge over the Cannon River, but if you took that you could take the frontage road all the way to the Target light. Maybe you can convince the powers that be to finish the actual bike trail that goes from County Road 1 to behind the church, where it abruptly ends.
So, you do not believe that removing our parking ability would be crippling. Interesting choice of words. I’m sure my brother and his disabled daughter would love to park somewhere down a side street and risk their lives to cross over to visit us. Where are lawn and snow removal contractors supposed to park? It is absurd that we would give anything up for bicycles. When they start paying yearly licensing, insurance, and axle fees, plus use protective clothing and install headlamps and tail lamps, then it wouldn’t be so absurd. Also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bicyclist stop at a stop sign, so why should we take them seriously? When you pay for our street you can have a say in it. Got $4800 handy? We paid for this in 1986, too, remember? But, I would like to thank you for reminding me to take Olaf Ave to get to Cedar. I had forgotten that fact.
I’m sure your intentions in spamming us are good, but honestly, you don’t live here. Your 100 cars a day on your street is a slow hour for us. Just last month, someone lost control on the street and ran over my garbage can that was on my lawn. 2 neighbors have had mailboxes taken out by cars. What everyone seems to forget, or ignore, is that this still is a residential street, and not a highway, and not Target Expressway, as we call it. Not all of us enjoy being flipped off, swerved at, or passed just for trying to drive the speed limit here.
Sincerely,
A Tax Paying Resident
PS: I bet your neighbors on Plum would be disappointed that you killed a tree to send us all unsolicited mail.
Northfield’s state senator, Al DeKruif, voted yesterday to put a constitutional gay marriage ban on the Minnesota ballot. Doing my best to have faith in my representation, I wrote him the following today:
Senator DeKruif: I was watching the floor debate on the marriage amendment bill, and I was intrigued by the claim of many of your fellow Republican senators who spoke. Their claim was that legislators and judges should not decide what marriage is; the people want to decide and should decide.
Some DFLers argued that, either way, gay/gender-neutral marriage would be illegal in Minnesota. But I want to have good faith in the Republicans’ intent, that they really do want to listen to the voices of the citizens of Minnesota, and that they feel this is the best way they have to determine Minnesotans’ opinion on marriage.
So to you, I make a simple request. If this amendment is on the ballot, and the people reject it, I ask that you accept and abide by the will of the people. Would you be willing, if the people reject the amendment, to take up legislation to permit gender-neutral marriage in Minnesota?
“If voting is that important to you, you should get a voting ID.”
That is what our new Rep. Kelby Woodard had to say about voting in the state of Minnesota. A co-author of a bill that requires that voters display photo identification, he apparently doesn’t believe that voting is the right and duty of all citizens. But if you really, really insist, I guess you should get an ID. The law Woodard co-authored requires that all voters have valid government photo ID and, critically, that said ID indicates the voter’s address in the district.
Let’s consider Woodard’s own district. In Northfield alone, we have about 5,000 college students, legal residents of Northfield who do not have their college address on their ID. I am one of these students. Granted, some vote absentee in their home districts, but nearly all of those who do vote here come from another district or another state. So, in advance of the election, students would need to head on down the Northfield DMV to apply for a state ID card or new voting card with their college address. We don’t know exactly what will be required, but it’s almost certain they would need to provide a certified birth certificate or passport to prove citizenship. (And I’m sure the tiny staff of that office would appreciate a few thousand applications in the month before an election.)
Is it still possible for students to vote? Yeah. Sure. At great inconvenience to both students and the city DMV office, students could vote if they’re adequately prepared and are able to get required documentation in time. But reasonable convenience matters. Even with same-day registration and no ID requirement, student political involvement groups struggle to get everyone to the polls. Now they’ll need to get them to ask their parents to mail a birth certificate, leave campus, get to City Hall, and stand in line to get an ID — just for the privilege of going to the polls weeks later. The end result of this change is that hundreds — if not thousands — fewer college students will vote. Perhaps that’s exactly the point.
Students reported the following number of sexual partners within the last 12 months:
Why the difference? Perhaps having numerous sexual partners is not considered as socially acceptable here as other places. These numbers also reflect the fact that there is less reporting of involvement in serious relationships here at St. Olaf than nationally.
I have trouble calling it a “positive” that a majority of healthy men and women of reasonable sexual age are reporting celibacy.
A couple of years ago, the Metro Airports Commission replaced signage along Minneapolis freeways to the Minneapolis airport. The signage had previously said the names of the terminals, Lindbergh and Humphrey. Deemed far too confusing by the Commission, they were replaced with signs indicating Terminal 1 and Terminal 2. How could people possibly know what a Lindbergh or a Humphrey was? Advanced signs, shown above, were also added, to show which airlines were at which terminals.
This was indisputably brilliant and necessary, but as I was leaving Terminal 1 yesterday (I was told to meet someone at Lindbergh), I saw an exit sign for Hwy 55 either west to Minneapolis or east to Hastings. I felt stuck immediately, nearly had to pull over to the side of the road. What was a Hastings? Is that like a Kmart? Or a Minneapolis? Mini-what? To resolve the confusion, I propose that all cities be numbered on freeway exits, rather than using the names that some locals prefer.
All cities could be numbered, naturally starting with Minneapolis and Hastings. Advanced signs would list the attractions available in each city, but of course avoid city names.
I was riding up to Minneapolis yesterday, a beautiful spring day. Preparing to turn on to Pilot Knob Road from Dodd Boulevard, a car came up from behind, and a 30-something man shouted out of the window of his Jeep, “get on the bike path!” Limited in my response time, I simply showed him the middle finger. That was followed by a “bike path, motherfucker!!!” and a witty “FUCK YOU” by me.
This great exchange of the minds made me realize the need to clarify why exactly I do not ride on the “bike path.” I quote it not just because the actual term is “shared-use path,” but my personal preference is to call it what it is: an asphalt sidewalk.
This is a pretty typical use of such an asphalt sidewalk. Along a higher-speed collector street in a suburban environment, it provides a space for pedestrians, joggers, rollerbladers, and — as this driver would have it — bicycles. The surface itself is actually better than a traditional concrete sidewalk for riding, because there are not expansion gaps every meter or so. However, asphalt is also a cheaper, less stable material that often develops cracks and humps; if not maintained, it can be worse than concrete. But these are not the reasons for not riding on them. These are:
1. It is dangerous to the biker
This seems counterintuitive, because after all, you have separation from cars going much faster than you. But the reality is, very few crashes happen from cars overtaking a bicycle from behind. Nearly every car-bike crash occurs at an intersection. The trouble with riding on a sidewalk at an intersection is that you end up to the right of a right-turning car, which is a very bad place to be. Often cars are turning off a 40-55 mph (65-90km/h) road onto a minor street, and they do not slow down adequately to see bike going straight. According to the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, you’re 25x more likely to be in a crash on a sidewalk than on the road itself. Specifically because cars do not have to deal with you on the road, they are not aware of you when they turn right.
2. It is dangerous to other users of the sidewalk
Depending on the area, there can be much slower users who are not aware of you and are not prepared for adult bicycle speeds. Small children learning to ride a bike with training wheels, the elderly, joggers — these are all other users forced into this space. You would have to significantly slow your ride or put yourself and others at risk on the sidewalk.
3. It may force you to ride on the wrong side of the road
To save money, many roads — despite very high speeds — only have an asphalt sidewalk on one side; it would be even more dangerous to ride against traffic on a bike path, as drivers are even less likely to look to their left when turning right.
4. It can be damaging to a bicycle
Since the roads are designed to prioritize a smooth ride for the motorized vehicle, not the bicycle, an asphalt sidewalk generally goes down to street level to cross (as opposed to car going over a raised crosswalk at bike/ped level). This means, at every intersection (including strip mall/gas station/etc. entrances), a bike needs to cross a curb ramp, a gutter, and an asphalt edge — and then go up the other side. Put more simply: KERKLUNK. Again and again.
There are some situations where bike paths — true paths for bikes — are very useful. They can provide a shortcut that is not possible for motor vehicles. They can provide a scenic ride through the woods. But when they simply follow the street, as a sidewalk, they are a dangerous substitute for road riding.
So, as the Jeep driver would phrase it, get off the sidewalk, motherfucker!
On Thursday, a cyclist was killed on the University of Minnesota campus. She was riding on a street with a designated bike lane, following traffic laws, and riding as predictably as possible: going in a straight line through an intersection. A truck at this intersection turned right across her right of way and struck and killed her. This category of accident — driver failing to yield right of way to bicycle — is the #1 cause of bicycle deaths in Minnesota.
So how might you imagine reporting on this would look? “A driver has struck and killed a cyclist in Dinkytown today”? “A tragic reminder for drivers to be more alert around bicycles”? Nope. Instead, a written report begins:
A 25-year-old woman is dead after her bicycle collided with a semi-truck Thursday morning.
No, actually, false. She would not have died if she had collided with the truck. Human + bicycle generally weighs <100 kg, and is itself of lethal threat to almost nobody, including its rider. It was rather the fact that the truck collided with her that’s the issue here.
The video is even worse. The reporter snottily notes that “she wasn’t wearing a helmet, but she was wearing headphones.” Neither of these behaviors is illegal in Minnesota. Potentially, it is not advisable to wear headphones in city traffic, but the problem with pointing that out is that it suggests that the victim’s distraction was a cause of the problem. She was behaving correctly. And anyone who has ever ridden a bicycle in a city knows that you notice a semi-truck. There is no doubt in my mind that she was this truck. Her (reasonable) assumption is that the truck both saw her and legally yielded to her.
So whose fault is it? The driver’s, obviously; he may have not been able to see the cyclist, but that reminds his and the truck’s fault. If a vehicle that large and dangerous going to be operating adjacent to a bike lane (and turning across it), it needs to be able to see cyclists.
But it’s not just the driver. The other fault lies with the road designers and engineers. In Minnesota, the preferred way to handle right turning traffic on a street with bike lanes is to provide a right turn lane to the right of the bike lane. This means that cars have 30-50 meters to negotiate with cycles and get into the right turn lane. At the intersection, there is no conflict, because they have already crossed the bike lane. In this case, there was no dedicated right turn lane, so right turning traffic had to cross the bike lane at the intersection.
Copenhagen has a different attitude, that keeps bikers closer to sidewalk and less mingled with traffic. Copenhagen has no one standard intersection, but many approaches. The above diagram, according to a paper called Livable Copenhagen, is a fairly optimal intersection: the separated cycle track ends before the intersection, but bikes have a narrow painted lane to proceed without being blocked by cars. The staggered stop lines means that, on a red light turning green, cyclists are far more visible to right-turning cars (also bear in mind that, unlike in Minnesota, standard intersection behavior does not allow for right turns on red). The intersection itself also has a very clearly marked bicycle crosswalk to indicate the path of cycles and remind cars of their presence.
Minneapolis needn’t adopt all of these things, but at least a couple of them could have prevented this accident:
A marked bike crosswalk would have reminded the driver that there is through-traffic of cycles.
Staggered stop lines (only possible with no right turn on red) would have potentially kept him a bit further back before entering the intersection.
In any case, while it’s important cyclists behave appropriately, it always behooves the bigger and stronger to watch out. These are not tragic accidents; they’re tragic symptoms of bad design and bad behavior.
