Sean Hayford Oleary

This League of American Cyclists video is informational, but...

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:42:00 -0500

This League of American Cyclists video is informational, but troublingly exclusive. The cyclist shown is probably cruising at about 20-25 mph, in full cycling gear. The behaviors shown are perfectly safe, but for the vast majority of cyclists, very uncomfortable. I consider myself fairly comfortable in “taking the lane” (or “controlling”, as they say in this video). However, even I know there are certain streets where that will evoke more hostility than it’s worth. It is not a universal strategy.

The video also fails to acknowledge that bicycles are not motor vehicles, and while they can behave as (slow-moving) vehicles, they don’t need to if their rider is not comfortable in that position. For example, the left-turning movement shown is fine. But at major intersections with a lot of lanes, I usually prefer to cross two corners (as you would as a pedestrian). On busier streets, this allows cyclists to dismount and use pedestrian right-of-way. And for most people, this is a more comfortable movement than merging across several lanes, with traffic to one’s back.

In any case: this video seems to be preaching to the choir. Those who would be comfortable riding like this are those who already know these kind of movements. Largely due to infrastructure and partially due to attitude, the 99% of the (potentially) cycling public are ignored.

A quick tour of Northfield’s ADA fails on E Jefferson...

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:59:00 -0500

Almost a refuge island. Instead, a sign.

Better marked. Still curb in the middle.

Sibley View Ln

A little angling's okay, right?

A quick tour of Northfield’s ADA fails on E Jefferson Pkwy. At at least three intersections, a median with no curb cuts blocks the crosswalk. At a fourth, the crosswalk is unlawfully angled around the median, which otherwise blocks it.

This street was built in the 2000s, well after the ADA requirements established this. Ironically, they all have the standard, ADA-required curb ramps from the sidewalks; they just aren’t actually usable for wheelchairs, strollers, etc. without leaving the crosswalk. A median can actually be a great thing for pedestrians. Not the way it was done here, however.

I’m getting very frustrated by the arbitrary use of...

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 16:51:00 -0600

Lorem Ipsum humans on Penn Ave

Enjoying the 35 mph Penn Av/American Blv

Beautiful parking lot views

6' sidewalk leaves plenty of bench space

Living in a Corbusean fantasy world

I’m getting very frustrated by the arbitrary use of “Lorem Ipsum” humans in urban designers’ work (Lorem Ipsum being the meaningless filler text used by graphic designers). Here, some absurd examples from Richfield and Bloomington redevelopment plans. My personal favorite is the multiple people just, you know, relaxing and catching up between six-lane, 35-mph American Blvd and a massive surface lot.

The Ole Store: Still not a permitted use

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:05:50 -0600

I love talking about streets, sidewalks, and traffic safety. But one of Northfield’s biggest problems when it comes to walkability is not infrastructure or driver behavior, but a lack of walkable destinations for daily needs. At my residence, I have a Walk Score of 43. The closest store is the AmCon gas station on Water Street, at 0.8 miles. The second-closest store is the Walgreens at W 5th St and Highway 3, at about a mile even. Neither store really invites walking, and Walgreens is not particularly pleasant to walk to. This situation is mediocre, but workable.

In newer parts of town, however, it is much worse. The southeast quadrant (east of Division Street, surrounding E Jefferson Pkwy) is the best example of our newest, single-use development. I always like to pick on Ontario Circle, the New Urbanist cul de sac. From Ontario Circle to the nearest grocery store, it is two miles even, or a 1.5-hour round trip. Even to a gas station or convenience store, about a mile (40-minute round trip). To the gym? 1.9 miles, at least. Even if the housing forms and streets were perfect, they really do little when you want to do more than walk your dog to the decorative New Urbanist gazebo and back. (Yes, there is actually a decorative faux-small-town gazebo in Ontario Circle.)

The Planning Commission recognized this problem, which is why the new Land Development Code (LDC) creates a “neighborhood” zone, a new type of residential zone. This allows more variation in housing density, and also allows what it calls neighborhood-serving commercial. All good, right? Well, the devil’s in the details (emphasis added):

Neighborhood-serving Commercial Small scale commercial uses, including retail, personal services, or professional offices, that are not otherwise included as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the N2-B district, that reflect the neighborhood character or the surrounding residential context with respect to form, scale, and massing. This definition does not include adult uses, auto service stations, drive through establishments, firearms dealers, and gasoline stations (fuel sales). A neighborhood-serving commercial use is intended to serve the residents of the local area and not be a destination site for the general community that would encourage motorized traffic. Commercial or retail uses intended to draw from a larger area, and/or having a substantial reliance on vehicle-based customer trips, are better located in commercial districts.

The trouble with this is that it’s not clear what actually would be allowed. I live above the Ole Store, a restaurant in a residential area, near the college. It’s also the only commercial land use north of W 5th St and west of the Highway 3 strip.

Honestly, the restaurant is a small town urbanist’s wet dream: a historic building with a great relationship to the street, a job-provider, and a community/neighborhood hub. But it’s still not compatible with the new LDC. Why? Because it is in fact “a destination site for the general community” and does “encourage motorized traffic”. The business of the restaurant is not disruptive to the neighborhood. (Having lived above it for six months, I am quite sure I would have noticed.) And while it does attract motorized traffic, that traffic is handled appropriately (with on-street parking and in a moderately sized parking lot, on the side of the building). This type of land use ought to be allowed in the Neighborhood zones, because it’s the form, not the use, that generally matters. It is nice that this allows for very small-scale commercial uses — but uses that are small-scale enough to meet the requirement for the Neighborhood zone aren’t large enough to serve as meaningful neighborhood hubs.

Concrete: think harder.

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:28:00 -0600

Concrete: think harder.

Thoughts on "elitism"

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:03:00 -0600

About a week ago, I was involved in a tense comment thread on the Northfield News website on Northfield’s new land development code (LDC), particularly as it applies to 3-car garages. (Under the new rules, attached garages are capped at 24 feet, and they must be at least six feet behind the main façade of the house.) Many citizen voices, who have apparently ignored the multi-year LDC process are now coming forward demanding their right to a 3-car garage, and quickly dismiss any safety or community effects of those garages.

This became particularly interesting when, Dundas city councilor Nathan Ryan, joined the thread to disagree with the LDC and note that Dundas permits three-car garages. I wrote cattily about Dundas’s current development situation (two nearly dead developments, one that is so disconnected from the City of Dundas that it is not possible to get to City Hall on any street without leaving the City). I said (and still believe) that many of the problems in Dundas come from giving developers and property owners too much leeway, and allowing the “market” to determine how a town should be built. Some excerpts from Ryan’s response:

You sound like someone who is an elitist

Again you sound like an elitist.

Nice Sean. Emotional Intelligence is more important and [sic] IQ, I would suggest reading up on it, it’s obvious they are not teaching it in college.

In my ever-humble opinion, the tone is inappropriate for an elected official in a public forum. But the more substantively interesting matter is his use of the term elitist. I often face accusations of being elitist. This is unsurprising, since I’ve long understood elitism basically associated with anyone who has a progressive viewpoint. But I think it’s actually different than that: what I’ve consistently found is that being “elitist” seems to have very little to do with what one believes, but rather with how snidely (or eloquently) one expresses those beliefs.

Let’s look more at Dundas. I was elitist, in Cm. Ryan’s viewpoint, because I criticized the scars of failed development (unfinished roads, sewer pipes sitting out, etc) and the fact that the entire development was poorly conceived in relation to the town.

Finding this objectionable, as a permanent state of affairs, is elitist.

But what about the development itself? Like many suburban developments, Dundas’s Bridgewater Heights is set up in the “pod” format, meaning that the different product offerings are wholly separate. Put a bit less delicately, this mandates that all the too-poor, too-young, or too-old are placed in a single ghetto, with literally one way in or out. The single-family homes (read: middle class or above) are safely outside this area, and need not be directly exposed to the squalor of townhomes. This is unambiguous economic discrimination, waged by private developers to create what they believe to be a higher-value product.

Actual view of the completed portion of Bridgewater Heights. The single-family homes are safely to the right, with a 80’-wide street safely separating them from the multi-family pod.

There are rigid standards to ensure that the too-poor, too-young, or too-old don’t muck up the single-family home area. These are called covenants, which is a contract tied to the lot, and is essentially land development standards set by a private industry rather than an open, public process. Bridgewater Heights’ covenants for single-family homes regulate, among other things:

All homes must be at least 1350 square feet
Two-story homes must be 1500 square feet
A min. 400 sq ft attached garage must be included
Clotheslines and green roofs are prohibited

I might come off as elitist, and at times I might be elitist. But wanting communities to have a physically pleasurable, sustainable environment is not elitist. Writing into a contract that a home cannot be too small or accomodate too few cars (read: that the owner is not too poor)… well, I’ll avoid the “e”-word, that seems like a more troubling form of exclusion and judgment.

Reading Northfield's Rental Ordinance

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:32:00 -0600

I gave Northfield’s controversial rental ordinance a quick read before I signed my first lease a year ago. Now that it’s being challenged in court — and I prepare to find housing for June 1 — I thought I’d give it a more thorough read. So, the highlights:

Sec. 14-78. Purpose and scope.

To the extent that any standards of this article apply only to rental properties in R-1 and R-2 districts of the city, such standards are based on a finding by the city council that low density residential neighborhoods in the city are comprised primarily of owner-occupied single family dwellings and are designed and intended to be quiet, orderly, and safe neighborhoods for children and others, and that the quiet enjoyment and value of properties in such neighborhoods may be adversely impacted by the existence of rental properties occupied by groups of unrelated adults, where occupants tend to have more motor vehicles, generate greater traffic and parking congestion, and generate other adverse impacts on the neighborhood such as noise and disorderly conduct.

I appreciate that they make no attempts to hide that they assume all renters and rental properties to be a drain on the community.

Built-in deficiencies.

Okay, this bit seems reasonable: despite fairly nit-picky building standards, they do acknowledge that certain things can’t easily be helped in existing properties.

Right of entry. When it is necessary to make an inspection for purposes of this article, or when the building official has reasonable cause to believe there exists on a rental property a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this article, the building official may enter the rental property or any part thereof at reasonable times to inspect and otherwise perform the duties imposed by this article, provided that if such rental property is occupied, city credentials must be presented to the occupant and entry requested. If such rental property is unoccupied, the building official shall first make a reasonable effort to locate the owner or other person having charge or control of the property and request entry. If entry is refused, the building official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.

I’m not a lawyer, but this seems like a questionable search. It is reasonable to say that rental permits cannot be renewed without inspection; however, saying that the City may enter at any “reasonable times” just to make sure everything is in compliance doesn’t seem like a legitimate search. Update: I’m not the only one with these concerns, apparently. There’s an ongoing case between the City of Red Wing and renters/landlords in the city. The Supreme Court of MN recently ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge this rule, but it hasn’t yet been decided whether the searches are, in fact, unconstitutional. I would note that Red Wing’s language actually isn’t as strong as Northfield’s. Anyway, back to Northfield. On to definitions:

Let is to give the use of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit by an owner, agent or manager to an occupant in return for rent.

This suggests that an owner renting to a roommate requires a rental license (and is presumably subject to the same quotas — more on that below). This seems like it could be especially problematic for unmarried couples, if only one is the legal owner of the property.

Sec. 14-97. Limitation on rental properties in low density neighborhoods. In R-1 and R-2 districts in the city, no more than 20 percent of the houses on a single block shall be granted rental housing licenses. For purposes of this section, the word house shall mean a single structure containing one or more rental units. A single block shall be defined as the houses on both sides of a street between successive intersecting streets or between other such boundaries including college campus boundaries, railroad rights of way, corporate limit lines, or physical features such as rivers, outcroppings, ponds or lakes.

This is the most problematic part of the whole ordinance. Besides setting an arbitrary limit on rental properties, the definition of block is potentially problematic for most of the city. Does a 3-way intersection count as a separation of blocks? Certainly long blocks (like N Linden St or N Plum St) aren’t divided. If block quotas must be set, it seems to make more sense to use address blocks than the actual intersecting streets.

And now for some fun stuff:

Sinks shall be of nonabsorbent materials.

Bathrooms shall be separated from food preparation areas by a tight fitting door.

Heating. All units shall be provided with heating appliances capable of maintaining a room temperature of 68 degrees F at a point 3 feet above the floor in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments.

That one would be news to my landlord. Of course, it really depends on how cold it is outside, doesn’t it?

Every habitable room shall be provided with at least one switched light and 2 duplex outlets.

That would also be news to my landlord. Guess the City hasn’t been keeping up with its random rental searches.

Security locks. All exit doors from all units shall provide security from unlawful entry and shall be provided with a dead-bolt lock which is operable from the inside without the use of a key, special knowledge, or extraordinary effort.

Ha.

Energy conservation. Doors and windows shall be maintained in tight and draft free condition. Holes and cracks in foundations and exterior walls shall be filled.

This is a lovely requirement, but it is so far from reality, I literally laughed out loud. My back door currently has two layers of duct tape, a sheet of window insulation, and another thing of duct tape to keep that on (because it gets too cold for the regular clear adhesive strips to hold). My landlord isn’t alone in this kind of oversight: a Spring St home I looked at was far worse in this regard.

Number of [parking] spaces. Each rental dwelling unit shall have a minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces, and as many additional off-street spaces as may be desired so long as they meet the dimensional, surface, location, and other requirements of this section.

This is unnecessary, particularly since a large section of our rental market is college students, who may be able to store their cars on campus, or — like me — may not own one at all. I’d far prefer to see our abundance of wide streets used for parking, year-round, than have landlords pave over back yards to comply with this. In any case, at the risk of sounding Republican, this seems like something the free market can regulate: if you need off-street parking, get a rental place with off-street parking. If you don’t, then your options are open.

Sec. 14-125. Occupancy. No rental unit shall be occupied by more than the number of persons for which the unit is approved, based on International Residential Code (IRC) or International Building Code (IBC) requirements, which number shall be designated in conjunction with the issuance of the rental license. In addition to that limitation, rental properties in an R-1 or R-2 district may not be occupied by more than 3 adult persons who are unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption, provided that a property owner may apply for a special permit to allow 4 or 5 unrelated adult persons to occupy a rental unit […].

Potentially problematic for domestic partners (samboer) and gay couples. But, the City is indeed exploring the idea of a Domestic Partner Registry this year.

Sec. 14-126. Conduct on licensed premises.

This whole section contains impacts on rental properties by violations of a list of 15 local and state laws (including “Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.185, 609.19, 609.195, 609.20, and 609.205, which prohibit murder and manslaughter,” just in case you were planning on doing that on your rental property). This is another instance of double-standards for rentals: these things are already illegal, and already have penalties associated with them. It’s problematic on its face, but there’s also an impact that may not have been considered: to safeguard against losing their rental licenses, landlords put illegal requirements in their lease to discourage disorderly behavior.

The first draft of my current lease (which my landlord told me was his “standard lease”) contained provisions requiring fees to the landlord and possible eviction for any police call to the residence. (Of course, these are unenforceable — but that won’t keep a sucker from paying a fee because s/he think s/he has to. Or, heck, keep a domestic abuse victim from calling the police because she doesn’t want to get evicted.)

The rest is fairly unexceptional. And I should note, none of the councilors who approved this ordinance is currently on the City Council. This is a deeply and dangerously flawed ordinance, and I hope for its prompt rewrite.

A letter to Walgreens

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:09:00 -0600

I was recently in your Walgreens store in Northfield and noticed the lovely display you had for “Walk with Walgreens.” This campaign seems to encourage healthy walking as a part of daily life. Among other things, your brochure suggests “walk[ing] when you run an errand.”

I think it is great that Walgreens is encouraging walking. However, I think you have an obligation to put your money where your mouth is. Despite its young age and excellent downtown location, the Northfield Walgreens does not have access from the main pedestrian routes along W 5th St and Highway 3 S. This is very apparent during the winter, as the logical route (which is grass underneath) is clearly trodden. Even during the summer, you can see the dead grass in the path of the pedestrian “desire line” — from the intersection of W 5th St and Highway 3.

This image depicts the situation:

On the upper half of the image, you can see the path of the many pedestrians who trudge through the snow and dirt across your lawn to access the store. On the lower image, you can see the green line (which is where the grass/snow is walked on) and the red line — the official, designated, paved pedestrian route.

I am glad that you are dedicated to healthy people and enabling walking. So I ask that you provide direct, paved access from the Highway 3/5th St intersection to the front door this year. Both streets are owned by the Minn. Dept of Transportation; I imagine they will be quite willing to permit you to build this, as it has no impact on automotive traffic. Providing dignified, reasonable access to pedestrians is critical if you want them to walk as a part of daily life. A convenience store/pharmacy like yours is an ideal walking destination, since people mainly make small, easy-to-carry purchases.

Thank you, and I appreciate your evaluating this suggestion.

The red indicates areas in Northfield’s downtown dedicated...

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:56:55 -0600

The red indicates areas in Northfield’s downtown dedicated exclusively to the storage of the automobile. Thoughts:

We currently have a significant amount of space dedicated to parking — possibly more square footage in parking than in building.
We can never hope for downtown to compete, in terms of convenience, with the Targets and Cubs of the world.
People do not go downtown for good parking. They go downtown despite the fact that they may have to parallel park, or walk a block. This is not a problem; this is an asset.
So let’s stop trying to be as convenient as Target, and instead strive to be as desirable as any good downtown. We should strive for a downtown with an environment that’s worth walking a block or two for — and pleasurable to make that walk.

Highway 3: It starts with a name

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:48:00 -0600

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.

Highway 3: A problem of perception

Mon, 26 Dec 2011 00:16:00 -0600

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.

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:36:05 -0500

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.

Definitions

Minnesota 169.011 (definitions) says:

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 letter from Jefferson Road

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 05:53:00 -0500

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.

A letter to Sen. Al DeKruif

Thu, 12 May 2011 19:00:00 -0500

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?

Thank you for your time.

ID law discriminates against college students

Sat, 07 May 2011 13:41:15 -0500

Letter to editor in today’s Snooze:

“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.

Sean Hayford O’Leary
Northfield

Keep it moral, St. Olaf

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:28:00 -0500

From the BORSC report on Health at St. Olaf, in a section called “Positives”:

Sexual Behavior

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.

City names are confusing

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:14:51 -0500

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.

This is what progress looks like.

Get on the bike path, motherf***er!

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:16:00 -0500

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!

The Victim's Fault

Sat, 23 Apr 2011 23:44:00 -0500

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.

Mikael Colville Andersen of Copenhagenize had an awesome photo...

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:49:20 -0600

Cyclists and pedestrians

Cyclists, sans bikes

Mikael Colville Andersen of Copenhagenize had an awesome photo set here, trying to demonstrate that cyclists should be treated as fast-moving pedestrians. That’s in stark contrast to the standard US treatment of bikes as slow-moving vehicles.

Of course, without the girl bikes (what Colville-Andersen snottily calls “the most anthropologically-correct bicycle”), the effect is a bit less dramatic. But very cool here.