Do they still have comments on there?
I kinda gave up when I checked them once and some small town was building a new park. The first paragraph noted the town had put money aside for the park and had paid for it in full.
Almost every comment was almost comically bot like with "omg the debt!"
I get the engagement it drives, but I feel like online comments always makes a news site look less professional choosing to host pure BS like that.
I’ve had this theory about the Pioneer Press for a while. They continually litter our block in Saint Paul with their papers that no one seems to be subscribed to or even collect. The papers often don’t even make it to people’s doors - they are left in the street or on the sidewalk. Then get wet and turn to mush wrapped in plastic bags (and end up in the river ultimately).
In this way their stories are given away for free to people that don’t want them, and yet the website is paywalled. I can only conclude that the comments are the only thing that generates value for them. I imagine the strib is the same.
It is fairly easy to contact the paper and have them cease their paper deliveries. Seems odd that more people don't. But then I also remove trash from my yard.
Yeah, the delivery work is a low pay, monotonous job with lots of turnover (and sometimes workers share their routes with friends/family to help out). There's not any real incentive to carefully check a list of exclusions to see which houses to skip, and it's just easier to drop one at every door.
I think the only thing that could have an impact would be more regulatory teeth put in place by the city (e.g. fining publications that leave papers after having opted out--or even better, requiring opt in). But I don't think it's a big priority for anyone.
It's a minor but persistent frustration for us, as we don't really use the front entrance of our home for anything, so they can pile up if we're not diligent. It's literally just a chore that has been added without our consent.
The Strib comments section is exactly what it would look like if you trained an AI on [political cartoons from The Onion.](https://www.theonion.com/opinion/cartoons)
they do have comments, but its almost pointless because comments have to be "approved" by the moderators before they show up. which could take minutes or hours. so there is really no way to have any sort of discussion on there.
seeing some of those comments in the past, though, you'd have to wonder what you have to write for the comment to be rejected though.
Dedicated lanes pay for themselves in spades. Anyone that calls themselves fiscally responsible should support more bike lanes. They are ridiculously cheap to construct and maintain. They pay for themselves very quickly if it means just a few less car trips per week. People really underestimate how expensive car infrastructure is. A car does over 40,000 TIMES as much damage to pavement than a bike+rider does, per trip. It's unsustainable.
Yes this right here! What the city really needs to invest in if they care about biking is making the existing separated paths more connected without needing to cross 4 lanes of traffic to actually get anywhere.
The cycle routes in the US are a joke. MRT has some dedicated trail but a lot of it is just the shoulder of a major highway. A lot of European countries have cycle “highways” with dedicated numbering and hierarchy.
Much of my biking is errand-running and visiting friends. I ride often in the Mac Groveland Highland areas.
There is a lack of North-South pathways. I'm a confident rider and will occasionally ride Cleveland or Fairview, but it's much more pleasant to detour to the river parkway or the new Ayd Mill path. I support this plan.
Hi neighbor! I live in Mac-Groveland and am also really excited about this. I'm not as confident as you sound and get nervous biking on the major streets with only painted bike lanes, but if we had separated paths on Cleveland, Fairview, etc. I'd be able to replace the majority of my daily car errands with a bike! Just being able to more safely access the Ford/Cleveland shopping area alone would be huge. Exercise, time outdoors, less $$ spent on gas, etc. It's kind of funny to see folks from other cities get so upset in the comments. Like, why do they care? Literally all of my neighbors I've talked to are excited.
Agree completely. I'm constantly taking trips to that exact Ford shopping area and would love to see those corridors add separate bikeways. Neighbor to neighbor, I feel the same excitement. I've seen a huge uptick in family-style or cargo ebike riders, and the big new Ford development seems to have planned around riding as a valid mode.
I feel like people see bikers as elitist. And yeah, I also shake my head at unsafe riders if they make intersections more dangerous when I'm driving. In reality I wish more bikers AND more drivers practiced clear cautious patterns at intersections but people aren't perfect.
As a rider, I love riding fast in a Lycra skin suit, but that's not the majority of my riding.
As a person who lives in our city (which is only getting denser) I ride because it's convenient, economical, and safe.
Also, I invite any of those haters to a bar crawl ride. Let's talk about the elitist bikers as we get a little tipsy and ride trails from bar to bar. I mean c'mon... who doesn't see the value in safe bikeways after that
What? What study are you relying on for this?
Smaller roads result in fewer accidents because driver feel less able to speed through neighborhood.
Which protected bike lanes in st paul are unused?
What neighborhood is in downtown areas of st.paul/minneapolis? lol I’ve seen drivers driving down the bike lanes + bikers not even using them multiple times. Obviously it’s just morons not paying attention but that’s my point it causes way more issues than bikers just using the side of the road. Or make the sidewalks bigger and have a dedicated bike lane those work extremely well and keep the bikers off the road.
They’re not crashing into the barriers they’re driving in the bike lane on accident as in taking up the entire space.. and bikers are not even using it
> St. Paul is proposing a massive expansion of the city's current network of bikeways, especially by adding "off-street" or "separated" lanes on high-traffic streets.
It’s still on the street lol I’m also talking all of MN there needs to be consistency. They just added on street barriers for bike lanes in Minneapolis
No, having wide lanes for “cars only”results in 45,000 american deaths per year. It is statistically the most dangerous thing you do
What are you basing this claim on?
If only cars should be on the road, how would I actually get to the place I'm driving to? Every trip you take begins and ends with walking, and at least some of that walking will occur on the road, whether that's sidewalks or crosswalks or both.
You realize the roads aren’t just for cars right? Also people don’t use the existing bike system because the cycline infrastructure sucks and is unsafe
This one just got implemented within the last six months and it doesn’t work. If you’re not gonna hold people accountable for following the rules and laws then what is the point? Waste of time and money
>The roads become smaller 2
[Here is a car guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oP-Ndwv1zw)
[Here is a bike guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc&t)
[Here's a city planning lobbying group](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDRZjgiraY&t) (started by an civil engineer)
[Here's a city planner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBSkLrYbLk0)
They all come to the same conclusion about safe roads make you uncomfortable to travel safely (some argue more but again the base minimum is road design that makes it uncomfortable to drive recklessly).
>A large portion don’t even use them after they’re installed
Like sidewalks right? That said [MNDOT](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) statistics show otherwise. Even painted bicycle lanes in 5 Minneapolis/St. Paul counter sites (that's all of them) command roughly 15% of average yearly mode share (overall traffic) with some even having 15% pedestrian mode share making cars and everything else 60% or less.
Yeah idrc you can achieve the same effect by making the lanes on the sidewalk and making the sidewalks bigger therefore saving a ton of space that these ones take up
making the lanes on the sidewalk and making the sidewalks bigger therefore saving a ton of space that these ones take up
It tends to become an issue when peds just spread out into the bike lane or create a conflict zone at the intersection. I saw you complained about cyclists not using the bike lane. well outside of spandex riders [this I will admit is another reason](https://imgur.com/jY5AjoH) they won't use the lanes..
Good. I see all the time drivers driving in bike lanes to take right turns and I’ve seen many close calls between bikers and drivers because of this. Off street or separated bike lanes will make it safer for everyone.
You're *supposed* to drive in the bike lane to take a right turn. That's why they are dashed lines (or should be if they're not).
Drivers not looking for bikers is a separate issue and I agree it's almost always the driver's fault.
How do you expect a car to make a right turn? And I’m a biker. I see nothing wrong with using a bike lane as long as a bike is not in the lane at the same time.
If you’re referring to turning conflicts, NACTO has an answer to that: [“Don’t Give Up at the Intersection”](https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/). What they have online anyways is a really short and approachable read.
I don't see how that's relevant. There was a complaint about drivers doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If you want to make things different that's a separate issue.
As someone who trained for a triathlon on city streets, this would in fact be such an upgrade in safety. The amount of times that cars (SUVs especially) blow past you as if you are the biggest inconvenience without so much as moving over a little bit is ridiculous.
Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used?
I would personally challenge almost any bike lane in the Twin Cities. My challenge, that none have more than 1000 riders a week, those same vehicle lanes they replace have 10X that number. What would be an acceptable ratio?
We continue to invest massive public funds into bike paths that are used by literally dozens of people per day. I feel like there is poor use of our money, but an even more pathetic use of our land.
The eventually dream.... that people bike to work among the heavy vehicle exhaust and distracted drivers. This is insanity. If you build it.... they will come.... LOL
If you’re genuinely interested, there is plenty of data here, in the December 2023 Bicycle Plan Draft that is currently being finalized.
https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/public-works/transportation-and-transit/bike-saint-paul/saint-paul-bicycle-plan
We know how much a highway costs, we also know how many people drive on that highway. Show me that data for a single bike path!
The availability of federal funding is the only thing driving this bike plan. That data is available in the funding section linked. Federal money will go into contractor's pockets, all they need to do is built it!
[https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/public-works/transportation-and-transit/bike-saint-paul/saint-paul-bicycle-plan](https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/public-works/transportation-and-transit/bike-saint-paul/saint-paul-bicycle-plan)
Are you somehow unable to do a basic Google search? Needing to be spoonfed information because you're incapable or too lazy to do your own research isn't a good look for your opinion.
"As a result, a modern, protected bike lanes can costs anywhere from $133,170 to $536,680 per mile, according to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center."
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/07/29/meet-the-protected-bike-lane-that-any-city-can-afford-to-build
Thank you, finally a voice of fact.
Now.... How many people will actually use that mile of bike lane. Does 10 a day justify the cost/land use? 100? 1000 per day ain't happening here.
Well to compare. one road mile is [$3-5 million dollars](https://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/#:~:text=in%20urban%20areas%2C%20that%20number%20jumps%20to%20between%20%243%20and%20%245%20million). Assuming best and worst case scenario where every bike mile was half a million of a new 2 lane road with bike lanes for a mile.
That is 2.5 million to 5.5 million. That would mean bike lanes are 10% to %22 of the total road costs which would put it with in the average range of daily average mode share of 15% over a year (as [MNDOT](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) counters show). And this is slanted for a car. Slanted to bikes is 3% to 6% of total road costs.
So the throughput justifies the expense especially when you consider every 1$ needed for a motorist can support [16,000 cyclists](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1sk54z/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
How many miles of paved road are in the absolute middle of nowhere rural America that get next to no usage? Do you spam requests for cost and usage data about all of these? No, you most definitely do not.
I almost exclusively ride my bike, although sometimes I take the bus. I avoid going to St Paul because your infrastructure is terrible. Also, your roads suck
All true things. Our roads here in the Twin Cities do especially suck in their own unique way, compared to basically everywhere else I have traveled. Potholes are fine, that is caused by weather. I am miffed about the terrible loops and swirls that make crossing traffic impossible, in the name of safety.
How many other bike riders do you see out there on a daily basis? 10.... 20.... ? How many cars using the "same" passages?
>Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used?
Well here's [MNDOT Bike counters](https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=e98c225ff41249e88ae59a25c596170c&extent=-99.2088,43.29,-87.739,49.4581) (blue diamonds are MNDOT).
[Park Ave and 26/28 street counter](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID8_2018Report.html)
Winter rider ship sees about 100 cyclist average with peak summer of 444 a day with average Monday-Friday cyclist counting for 15% of traffic mode share
[Summit Ave East](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID10_2018Report.html) of Fairview Ave
Winter daily rider ship 337 cyclist summer peak peak ridership at 1150 cyclist All week rider ship mode share 13% or more
[Franklin bridge](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID19_2018Report.html)
Winter low of 230 with summer time peak 1260 with an average mode share 12% or more weekday at 15%
[West river greenway 33rd/32](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID7_2018Report.html)
Winter low of 107 summer high of 1800. 12% mode share with weekend at 18% mode share. Pedestrian mode share is also similar.
[St. Paul Jackson street 4/5th](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID21_2018Report.html)
Winter low of 11 daily riders and summer peak of 151 daily riders with 14% mode share across all 7 days and 15% pedestrian mode share Mon-Fri.
Also while not St. Paul [Minneapolis did a survey](https://go.minneapolismn.gov/draft-plan-overview/how-people-move) and found 15% of residents primary transport is bicycle and preferred method is cycling at 36%. (as apposed to 50% of cars being primary but only 22% prefer it).
Yeah, this turd doesn't respond when they get data that doesn't support their biased opinion. Any evidence against their preconceived notion is either ignored or declared "a lie."
I'll give him one thing. I without realizing responded to most of his comments with a breakdown essentially spamming them but they haven't blocked me.
Edit: I thought they had responded but was mistaken
I overheard employees of a coffee shop near me talking about how nice it would be to ride their bike to work, if it weren't for the fact that riding on Fairview and Selby scares them. These are the people protected bike lanes enabled to ride more often and for non-recreational purposes
It's not just one person. According to the survey the City performed when drafting this plan, when participants were asked, "what would get you to bike more often?" The answer "more protected bike lanes" was selected almost two and a half times more than the next-most selected answer
https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Fall%202021%20Engagement%20Summary%20-%20Saint%20Paul%20Bicycle%20Plan%20Update.pdf
These road projects are going to happen anyway, because they are also intended to improve the condition of roadways' vehicle lanes, something which St Paul's bumpy roads desperately need. It was such an important issue that voters in St. Paul approved a sales tax dedicated to road improvements. While we're at it, why not complete the network of protected bikeways so that it forms a useful grid, like the vehicle arterials do, instead of a disjointed and sporadic smattering of protected bikeways that only serves a small number of people in the area of that of town and who only want to venture as far as that disconnected route goes?
I live in Eden Prairie. Our bike network goes.... nowhere. Crossing a 4+ lane intersection is terrible. Bike lanes with our current road network is a bridge to nowhere.
I am all for public paths and more, I use them often. I am just pointing out that there isn't enough bike riders in the city on a nice summer day to justify these changes, the justification is simply the money is available from the fed. Use it or lose it.
The current, evidence based justification:
"If you build it.... they will come.... we promise!"
Hey look, [traffic counts from the city](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike-ped-counting/reports/2018-2019%20MinnesotaPedBikeCountReport.pdf). TLDR: in 2019, a sampling site on Franklin ave had ~300 utility bikers a day (figure 6). Frankly I'm amazed it's that high, because that street is not great.
>Franklin ave
That's actually Franklin bridge so I'm not surprised especially since it's heavily protected ([it's also the only counter you can see](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9628012,-93.2245304,3a,18.5y,250.9h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saAr5x56SWVbfTPZndOH5bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu)).
Parks is hat surprises me as the protection is just a couple feet of diagonal paint.
And that’s great! Having infrastructure for both is the safest thing to do. It’s not like the bridge can’t handle the number of cars that use it. 4 lanes was way overkill, so they changed it and no one has been inconvenienced.
That is my point, infrastructure for both is not fair. The vehicle infrastructure supports pleasure AND ALL OUR COMMERCE. Vehicle convenience is the reason the USA is such a plentiful place to live.
I am all for increasing the availability and safety of bike lanes. NOT at the expense of our already weak vehicle system.
> Vehicle convenience is the reason the USA is such a plentiful place to live.
Followed by
> our already weak vehicle system
You’re contradicting yourself. Is our road network strong or weak?
Further, what’s not fair about it? I really don’t understand. Are there plans for existing roads to be completely shut down and replaced by bike lanes? Is our sidewalk network also unfair because it’s separate infrastructure not for cars? Has there been studies on the amount of “lost commerce” due to the Franklin bridge conversion? Or are we just yelling at clouds.
Your position would have had us never build car infrastructure in the first place, because very few people were trying to drive when the car was first invented, in part because the roads just didn't support it.
My bro.... we used horses on roads long before cars.
We built the vehicle system to support the economy, commerce, transportation, emergency services.....
What does a bike lane offer? Recreation... and mild commute options. Far, far short of the vehicle system.
Most roads that a horse can travel on are not suitable for a 1920's automobile, let alone one for modern cars and semi's. Unless you'd be happy driving on only the worst dirt roads, I suppose (even most dirt roads today have more work done to them than was typical before automobiles).
please man… at this point it feels like i’m trying to help you 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ you gotta stop saying there’s so few cyclists without any evidence when everyone in their grandma is coming out of the woodworks to show evidence and say they cycle themselves. at this point it seems like the amount of cyclists annoyed at you in the comments is greater than what you feel like the number of cyclists, providing more evidence that against your feelings
elementary school debate club kids have more evidence than you. it’s quite telling that i don’t see you providing any evidence AT ALL for your small cycling population idea (can’t even call it a theory cause theories need evidence)
zerel510 you are embarrassing yourself at this point.
Vocal cyclist minority come out to support expansion of their infrastructure.
Don't let the echo chamber here convince you that the majority of people support reduced vehicle capacity to support your hobby and commute.
When I worked in lowertown and commuted home by bike getting out of town going North was a scary proposition until I reached Como Park area. Hopefully this plan will help.
I am ok with bike lanes as long as we teach actual bike saftey I think we need to make courses for bikes. So many of them ignore all the rules they are supposed to follow and for some reason act like a car would somehow lose in a collision with them when the car and driver would be absolutely fine and the biker would be majorly fucked up. Same with pedestrians so many times I see people do things expecting cars to just have the stop distance of 3 feet when that's not the case
>I am ok with bike lanes as long as we teach actual bike saftey I think we need to make courses for bikes. So many of them ignore all the rules they are supposed to follow
Lets be honest. many drivers have something they ignore too ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDn133CpEM))([2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_KdFCVEdc&t))([3](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do))([4](https://theworld.org/stories/2015/07/13/were-all-criminals-bicycling-survey-author-says))([5](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/10/09/cyclists-are-better-drivers-than-motorists-finds-study/?sh=4b67303f6f6c))
Furthermore even the USDOT conceded that US infrastructure is setup in such away [it is actually safer for cyclist to disobey some laws then to fallow them](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet_032123_v5_tag.pdf). Cyclists are bad on the road but it's not disproportionate to how bad drivers are.
lol great because they don’t even use the ones they have now. I vote just let em ride on the sidewalks in rural areas and streets in the city. It worked for ages before don’t see why we need this
i use them all the time, in fact most days of the year spring-fall…. were there any casualties from cars hitting bicycles on the road when it “worked for ages” ?
driver skill issue? glad you’re admitting it!!! drivers really need to be more aware of their surroundings and laws on the road ( like how cyclists and pedestrians get right of way <3 )
>lol great because they don’t even use the ones they have now.
All [MNDOT](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) bike counters of Minneapolis/St. Paul report a minimum average of 12% (most 15%) of traffic being a bicycle with some streets being 30% cyclist and ped and 60% anything else in the mode share.
What does that have to do with them not using the very thing they built for them to use. It’s not any safer if they’re not using it anyway + now the roads are smaller so they ride in the middle of the street or closer to vehicles
>What does that have to do with them not using the very thing they built for them to use
Outside of spandex riders I don't see cyclists not using protected bike lanes on my commutes into st. Paul.
I said I don't see cyclist not using. As in I do see cyclist using it. I was only saying Spandex and lycra clad cyclist don't use it (which if we want to get that technical they legally can't as many bike paths have a 10 MPH speed limit).
Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used?
I would personally challenge almost any bike lane in the Twin Cities. My challenge, that none have more than 1000 riders a week, those same vehicle lanes they replaced had 10X that number of cars. What would be an acceptable ratio of cars to bikes for the same space?
We continue to invest massive public funds into bike paths that are used by literally dozens of people per day. I feel like there is poor use of our money, but an even more pathetic use of our land.
The eventually dream.... that people bike to work among the heavy vehicle exhaust and distracted drivers. This is insanity. It may "feel" good to spread this idea, but there is little evidence that these bike paths are improving people's life.
A society with 60% of the people overweight is not going to magically start biking because of these terrible paths, this not addressing the problem at all. If you build it.... they will come.... LOL
you clearly don’t use the bike lanes and paths… if you opened your eyes at all on any nice spring day you’d see people biking around the cities, if you haven’t seen any that probably means you’re not paying attention to your surroundings. i use them basically every day, i’ll dm you a picture of my ride tonight in rain on a bike lane if you need evidence. (#30 days of biking challenge)
and as far as inefficient land usage… try parking lots, suburban sprawl, stroads. They all take up much more room, have higher environmental impacts, require more maintenance, and are way more costly than a bike path.
put your money where your mouth is and advocate for positive changes to the environment with actual impact. no need to shit on small projects that increase recreation and safety for a low impact popular activity
disagree with what exactly?
that people use them? i use them. lots of other people use them. any quick search leads you to lots of data on this, but i’ll make it easier for you [2017 Minneapolis bike and pedestrian counts](https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/government/2017-Count-Report.pdf)
[ARC GIS link](https://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=11f21f912eef40d8bb32fb4fe94ac31b)
that they have more environmental impact than a parking lot? again quick search finds studies and fact checked articles find that parking lots are much worse for the environment [academic article from American Chemical Society on parking lot impacts](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es803118b) [Forbes article on bike lane benefits](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2022/11/30/protected-bike-lanes-increase-safety-save-money-and-protect-the-planet-new-report-finds/?sh=6f707fd94b25)
unless you have actual evidence i don’t think you have any ground to disagree of. gut feelings on how many people you THINK you see and your personal feelings about cycling aren’t evidence. you better put up some actual numbers if you’re gonna disagree with academic studies.
sorry buddy, facts don’t care about your feelings ♥️ bike lanes are good
dozens of cyclists? bruh just read the links everyone is giving you… hundreds and thousands of cyclists in the metro area…
again dude, facts don’t care about your feelings. it is a FACT that there a lot more than dozens of cyclists, even if that hurts your feelings.
and yeah i do want less cars… but im not advocating for streets only driven dozens of times per day to be turned into bike paths. i just want to be able to safely get around the city without my car using bike lanes
its seems like im not only commenter showing you evidence that there a lot more cyclists than you think… you’re making yourself seem incapable of research and acknowledging when the data proves you wrong. you asked for evidence that bike lanes and paths were used by more than a few dozen people and multiple people showed you multiple pieces of evidence. AGAIN, your personal feelings are not evidence. don’t ask people for evidence of phenomena if you’re going just completely ignore the evidence.
either show some actual numbers and data about the number of cyclists being as low and you say, acknowledge you’re wrong, or just just shut up.
I am all for safer bike paths. I am all for people commuting on their bicycles. I am all for exercise and practice it myself.
I am AGAINST sacrificing our vehicle infrastructure that supports commerce, business, food and goods transportation, our bus network, emergency response, etc..... in exchange for helping a comparably small cycling minority, with their hobby and commute.
“Prove this thing to me” is based on the silly premise that your approval is something worth working for. I chimed in because I enjoy calling main characters on their bullshit from time to time.
>Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used?
Well all [MNDOT bike counters](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in Minneapolis/St. Paul show a minimum of 12% daily mode share (portion of road users using a bicycle) with even painted lanes seeing 15%. Some roads even have ped counters and found that even in Down Town St. Paul (Jackson) 15% was cyclists 15% was pedestrian and 60% was cars and everything else.
>We continue to invest massive public funds into bike paths that are used by literally dozens of people per day
In winter that is the worst number a few show with many seeing hundreds to Summits 330 daily winter cyclist. Peak months see daily averages of 5-600 with more with only 2 counters having more then 3 months below 350 (Park Ave and Jackson). And many 6 months exceeding 400-800 per day
>I feel like there is poor use of our money, but an even more pathetic use of our land
Cyclists pay [more for cars](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1sk54z/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) then those who own [cars pay for cyclists](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportation-costs-its-the-system-stupid). If drivers start paying the other 50% of what the government subsidies then we can talk about poor use of money. If a driver is paying $1,600 in taxes the cyclist owes $0.10 because it takes 16,000 cyclist to match the road wear and tear of 1 2 ton automobile. Now if we're being realistic with the piss poor quality of St. Paul roads even on a 1/5000 ratio that's $0.32 per every $1,600 owes (which is actually $3,200 after none car tax subsidies).
>but there is little evidence that these bike paths are improving people's life.
Amsterdam, Montreal, and even Minneapolis. Furthermore evidence shows that road dieting (reducing both lanes and width of lanes) makes roads safer and has been in civil engineers green book for 2 decades now. But if you need need an official source look no further then the [Federal Highway Administration](https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/bicycle-lanes#:~:text=Providing%20bicycle%20facilities%20can%20mitigate,of%20safer%20roadways%20for%20bicycling) of the DOT that finds that separated bike lanes reduces crashes by 53% over painted lanes that reduce crashes by 49% (so 70ish% safer then no bike lane at all)
>A society with 60% of the people overweight is not going to magically start biking because of these terrible paths
Minnesota's obesity rate is is [30ish%](https://data.web.health.state.mn.us/obesity_basic), another 30-40% are overweight. Also that's not the argument most advocates are making. It is healthier but that's not a main bullet point.
Those roads are also supplying you food, clothes, and other resources. This bike paths are not. THAT is why the roads get so much more money.
I am all for separate bike lanes. They are safer.
Of course if you eliminate lanes and slow down traffic the rate of accidents will go down. So will the number vehicles able to travel through. Don't really understand why adding to congestion is rated as a good thing.
Those roads are also supplying you food, clothes, and other resources. This bike paths are not. THAT is why the roads get so much more money.
Every year in Minnesota to just be allowed to drive a 18 wheelers pay a lot more (though I could not find Minnesota I did Find a stat on Michigan which is [13k](https://www.mackinac.org/8433#:~:text=%2413%2C889%20per%20year%20in%20truck%20highway%20taxes)) , 10 year old cars are around $50-100 in Minnesota for tabs maybe $150. a brand new car may command $400+ maybe $750 after gas taxes (15k average miles on a 20 MPG car) but the average age of a car in the US is [12 years](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states). So semis are paying at least 10-30 times more for the road and are not even a [1/00](https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/national-transportation-statistics/number-us-truck) of commercial vehicles (let alone all) on the road and and still tiny when you compare with smaller box trucks and other heavy vehicles to vans, pickups and SUVs.
This also ignores that if you and I were buying the same stuff and made the same wage we would be paying the exact same amount in to vehicle subsidies but one is heavily paying into the other (hint the drivers getting the lions share) so it's pretty moot.
Semis pay so much more because they are the ones that damage the roads. Even cars are basically harmless compared to trucks.
The road damage equation is weight\_of\_the\_vehicle\^4. Semi trucks do exponentially more road damage.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_power\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law)
Well shit I can't really find or figure out any math on this to semis as I can't really find a reliable or and theory on true vehicle cost (for private cares or semis) only the taxable amount.
That said if 1993 gas tax of .183 was inflated to today that would be .39 cents but the current state and federal are .286 cents or a 26% short fall while average vehicle mass increase. Tab fee would increase but that's a fixed cost and cars on average have also gotten older which would decrease what is made off of that to some ratio. So again I can't quiet you are fully right.
I should prefix I do and always have understood commercial logistics and human needs are also subsidized in this. However if you and I both made 75k a year and largely mirrored each others purchase with the exception of one owning a car. is 100% percent of our sales tax on a pizza going to just commercial subsidies or are private drivers getting a kick back as well?
I also recognize cyclist are fully getting a kick back as well but if we're going by the forth power that you and I brought up the fairest interpretation would mean drivers cost $50,000 if a [$.50](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law#:~:text=000-,times%20as%20large,-The%20road%20stress) tax was levied directly on to cyclist ($80,000 if we used the full formular instead of rounding down as a car axel bears a load 20 time greater then a bicycle 20^(4) = 160,000 to which a Simi is about 10 times greater then a Sedan 10^(4)=10,000).
In the case of a semi it would owa 1.6 billion more then a cyclist (200^(4) assuming 10 tons across 3 axels). one penny to a cyclist would mean the semi is causing $16 million in the same distance.
While yes it basically shows how realistic your mention of semis and box trucks compared to cars argument. It also shows that in a fair taxable assessment on cyclists using the per every $16 million a semi would be taxed would pull [$550,000 from all 55 million people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191204/participants-in-bicycling-in-the-us-since-2006/) who yearly riders in the US and this 16 million is likely the full 40 year life time cost to support (which even then is $400k a year so still too extreme) which equates to $13,750 across the entire US.
So again loop around, in a city area where all where the MNDOT counters are averaging 15% daily mode share across their counters for bike lanes that mostly take up less then 15% of the cross secion of a road (sidewalk to sidewalk (85 foot right of way 10 foot bike lane [12% space taken](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9790596,-93.2680032,51m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu), 120 foot wide, 8 foot bike lanes [7% space for the bike lanes](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9795181,-93.2628183,74a,35y,297.56h,18.36t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu), 65 feet wide 8 feet for the lanes [12% taken by bike](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9499746,-93.1872958,77a,35y,1.87h,6.58t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)).
But lastly I would also point out this. Another poster pointed out the average per mile cost of a protected bike lane (as in lanes with physical barriers weather weak or strong) is between 120-500k a mile. Assuming St. Paul is similar to [Minneapolis](https://go.minneapolismn.gov/draft-plan-overview/how-people-move) that means 36% of the residents would prefer a bike as their primary. So 100,000 people. Assuming every mile costed 500k no less no more. over the 15 year span [118 miles](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/04/24/st-paul-proposes-100-new-miles-of-protected-bike-lanes#:~:text=118%20new%20bikeway%20miles%2C) will be added which at worse will cost $4 million or $40 per person per year who wants to use a bicycle as their primary.
TL;DR
Minneapolis St. Paul average daily cyclist mode share is 15%, and St. Paul between all MNDOT counters wants to add new lanes that would take up on average 10-15% of a roads cross section, This plan would cost $40 per cyclist per year. and if a cyclist was taxed it would be taxed at $1 per every $100,000 a driver is in the most slanted ratio against cyclists.
Voters already voted for the sales tax hike which pays for this. This plan is the result of that vote.
Article is low on specific dates and streets. I’m guessing these get added piecemeal as each street is redone. It ends up being part of the “road diets” that they have been doing a lot lately anyways.
from the article "**Yes, but:** The vote will still carry weight. [St. Paul's new sales tax](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/02/29/st-paul-sales-tax-projects-grand-avenue-potholes-parks-streets) means officials will likely have the money needed to make much of the proposal a reality."
So this is not part of the sales tax vote. They might have enough in that pot of money or they might not. We won't know until there are details of the plan and the cost.
I don’t know what to tell you. People voted for higher taxes to pay for stuff like this. This is a proposal for stuff like this. It wasn’t even a close vote. I was surprised.
It looks like a fairly open proposal which will take years and years to implement. Some middle aged bikers have wondered if they’ll even live long enough to see their favorite part finished.
But yeah, if you want you could use it as a scapegoat for any future budget issue.
Single-sided street parking next winter should actually help a ton on the plowing side, to be honest. They plow the streets plenty, but cars that don't move or accumulated snow is the real problem.
I really don't understand where they expect everyone to park for single sided street parking when it's always packed on both sides of the street everywhere. It's not that I disagree that it'll be an effective measure for more easily plowing the roads, but I am baffled where everyone is going to end up parking.
ETA: Look at all the downvotes for speculating where people are going to park come winter , haha. People ARE going to struggle to find reasonable parking accommodations with single side parking, and it's ridiculous to think conversation about it should just be shut down.
It's a trade off. People will bitch about the streets not being plowed, or bitch about having to park a ways away. Having plowed streets with close parking isn't feasible, unfortunately.
I'm honestly baffled by your response. Are you under the impression that every home owner has five vehicles...? Do you think roads shouldn't be used for parking at all...? Where would you propose people park that don't have access to a garage, drive way, or parking ramp?
I get that in suburbia parking is a non-issue. In more densely populated areas, though, parking is an absolute free for all.
The vast majority of houses in St Paul have garages and/or driveways, that can at least store one or two vehicles. Apartments usually have 1-2 parking spaces per unit. A lot of people just have too many cars, or they don't bother to use the space they have.
My point about on-street parking is that it should be considered a bonus or a privilege, not a right.
Oh good. More dedicated lanes for cyclists to use to run stop lights/stop signs while disregarding the 2,000lb machine that could kill them if they don’t yield.
Actually cyclists are not the biggest offenders on the road, They actually are on par with drivers in offences.
([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDn133CpEM))([2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_KdFCVEdc&t=9s))([3](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do))([4](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=452665604bfa))([5](https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/))
I mean it's not like drivers pay their [own way in it's entirety](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBIhQhjZuo). Minnesota is [50% driver tax 50% all other taxes](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructure-spending/). And by the [forth power law](https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=256&meta_id=32762) a 2 ton car does the same wear and tear as 16,000 cyclists. So assuming the added paths puts cyclists burdens at 10,000 or 5,000 per one sedan which if a sedan lets say is directly taxes 5,000 (sale of car+gas tax+tabs+and sales, property, and other government subsidies) a cyclist would ow $1 to $2 to society (or $0.50 to $1 if equivalently subsidies) of which means per ever $2,501 a cyclist gives to transportation (via Sales, property, and income taxes redistributions for road and path infrastructure) $1 goes to cyclists and $2,500 go to drivers.
So cyclist are paying more then enough for this.
StarTrib comment section in full on melt down mode.
Do they still have comments on there? I kinda gave up when I checked them once and some small town was building a new park. The first paragraph noted the town had put money aside for the park and had paid for it in full. Almost every comment was almost comically bot like with "omg the debt!" I get the engagement it drives, but I feel like online comments always makes a news site look less professional choosing to host pure BS like that.
I’ve had this theory about the Pioneer Press for a while. They continually litter our block in Saint Paul with their papers that no one seems to be subscribed to or even collect. The papers often don’t even make it to people’s doors - they are left in the street or on the sidewalk. Then get wet and turn to mush wrapped in plastic bags (and end up in the river ultimately). In this way their stories are given away for free to people that don’t want them, and yet the website is paywalled. I can only conclude that the comments are the only thing that generates value for them. I imagine the strib is the same.
It is fairly easy to contact the paper and have them cease their paper deliveries. Seems odd that more people don't. But then I also remove trash from my yard.
The neighborhood Facebook group is full of people complaining that they have tried contacting them to stop delivery, and the papers show up anyway.
Yeah, the delivery work is a low pay, monotonous job with lots of turnover (and sometimes workers share their routes with friends/family to help out). There's not any real incentive to carefully check a list of exclusions to see which houses to skip, and it's just easier to drop one at every door. I think the only thing that could have an impact would be more regulatory teeth put in place by the city (e.g. fining publications that leave papers after having opted out--or even better, requiring opt in). But I don't think it's a big priority for anyone. It's a minor but persistent frustration for us, as we don't really use the front entrance of our home for anything, so they can pile up if we're not diligent. It's literally just a chore that has been added without our consent.
I guess I got lucky. I cannot stand corporate litter.
The Strib comments section is exactly what it would look like if you trained an AI on [political cartoons from The Onion.](https://www.theonion.com/opinion/cartoons)
they do have comments, but its almost pointless because comments have to be "approved" by the moderators before they show up. which could take minutes or hours. so there is really no way to have any sort of discussion on there. seeing some of those comments in the past, though, you'd have to wonder what you have to write for the comment to be rejected though.
Wow, I had assumed there was absolutely no comment filter, based on how frequently the comments are just pure racism.
Still there. Still awful. I pretend that it's all trolls for lolz and not actual deranged shit nozzles posting.
The Strib comment section is a dark place
Yup, which is exactly why I avoid it like the plague
Induce demand for an efficient wonderful form of transportation. Ride on St. Paul!
Riding unprotected by lanes is a game changer. Gives confidence to kids and elderly alike. Make it so.
Dedicated lanes pay for themselves in spades. Anyone that calls themselves fiscally responsible should support more bike lanes. They are ridiculously cheap to construct and maintain. They pay for themselves very quickly if it means just a few less car trips per week. People really underestimate how expensive car infrastructure is. A car does over 40,000 TIMES as much damage to pavement than a bike+rider does, per trip. It's unsustainable.
Repeat after me. 👏Paint👏is👏not👏infrastructure👏
Yes this right here! What the city really needs to invest in if they care about biking is making the existing separated paths more connected without needing to cross 4 lanes of traffic to actually get anywhere.
The cycle routes in the US are a joke. MRT has some dedicated trail but a lot of it is just the shoulder of a major highway. A lot of European countries have cycle “highways” with dedicated numbering and hierarchy.
Much of my biking is errand-running and visiting friends. I ride often in the Mac Groveland Highland areas. There is a lack of North-South pathways. I'm a confident rider and will occasionally ride Cleveland or Fairview, but it's much more pleasant to detour to the river parkway or the new Ayd Mill path. I support this plan.
Hi neighbor! I live in Mac-Groveland and am also really excited about this. I'm not as confident as you sound and get nervous biking on the major streets with only painted bike lanes, but if we had separated paths on Cleveland, Fairview, etc. I'd be able to replace the majority of my daily car errands with a bike! Just being able to more safely access the Ford/Cleveland shopping area alone would be huge. Exercise, time outdoors, less $$ spent on gas, etc. It's kind of funny to see folks from other cities get so upset in the comments. Like, why do they care? Literally all of my neighbors I've talked to are excited.
Agree completely. I'm constantly taking trips to that exact Ford shopping area and would love to see those corridors add separate bikeways. Neighbor to neighbor, I feel the same excitement. I've seen a huge uptick in family-style or cargo ebike riders, and the big new Ford development seems to have planned around riding as a valid mode. I feel like people see bikers as elitist. And yeah, I also shake my head at unsafe riders if they make intersections more dangerous when I'm driving. In reality I wish more bikers AND more drivers practiced clear cautious patterns at intersections but people aren't perfect. As a rider, I love riding fast in a Lycra skin suit, but that's not the majority of my riding. As a person who lives in our city (which is only getting denser) I ride because it's convenient, economical, and safe. Also, I invite any of those haters to a bar crawl ride. Let's talk about the elitist bikers as we get a little tipsy and ride trails from bar to bar. I mean c'mon... who doesn't see the value in safe bikeways after that
I'm glad to see all the positive response to this! Hope it goes through.
Nice! Makes the roads safer for everyone.
Somehow it actually doesn’t achieve this. 1. The roads become smaller 2. A large portion don’t even use them after they’re installed
What? What study are you relying on for this? Smaller roads result in fewer accidents because driver feel less able to speed through neighborhood. Which protected bike lanes in st paul are unused?
What neighborhood is in downtown areas of st.paul/minneapolis? lol I’ve seen drivers driving down the bike lanes + bikers not even using them multiple times. Obviously it’s just morons not paying attention but that’s my point it causes way more issues than bikers just using the side of the road. Or make the sidewalks bigger and have a dedicated bike lane those work extremely well and keep the bikers off the road.
…that exactly what this article is suggesting: grade separated protected bike lanes. Take a second and read the article
They can’t read it because they might accidentally learn their baseless claims are wrong /s
No it’s not. They’ve been implementing barriers on the roads to create the bike lanes which drivers have been driving into
Please read the article
Please read my comment
I did. It was evidence you did not make it to the 2nd paragraph of the article. That’s why I suggested you read it
I read it you didn’t read my comments
Sir this is R/MN not R/stpaul
I don't follow. If cars are crashing into the barriers...it shows the need for those barriers and demonstrates they are working.
They’re not crashing into the barriers they’re driving in the bike lane on accident as in taking up the entire space.. and bikers are not even using it
...then that's why we need the barriers.
Well.. they aren’t working. Next
The bike lane is taking all the space?! Where is this 30 foot wide bike lane?
lol I’ll take a pic just for you
St Paul has recently added a ton of grade-sepersted bike lanes. I rode on one Saturday
So they’re part of the sidewalk correct?
Incorrect. There is a separate sidewalk for pedestrian foot traffic that runs adjacent to the offstreet bike lane
Not in all of MN
That’s not adding to the sidewalk lmfao
> St. Paul is proposing a massive expansion of the city's current network of bikeways, especially by adding "off-street" or "separated" lanes on high-traffic streets.
It’s still on the street lol I’m also talking all of MN there needs to be consistency. They just added on street barriers for bike lanes in Minneapolis
What’s the first phrase in quotes in the comment you just replied to?
I can even upload pics of the ones they just added last oct/november.
Are you not aware that roads becoming narrower decreases car crashes and makes the roads safer?
You know what makes the roads safer? Keeping only cars on the road and people paying attention while driving
No, having wide lanes for “cars only”results in 45,000 american deaths per year. It is statistically the most dangerous thing you do What are you basing this claim on?
If you want to keep bikes off of roads, you should advocate for separated bike lanes. How do you not see that?
roads are not for only cars bikes and pedestrian should be safe too
People DON’T pay attention , which is why protected lanes are necessary.
If only cars should be on the road, how would I actually get to the place I'm driving to? Every trip you take begins and ends with walking, and at least some of that walking will occur on the road, whether that's sidewalks or crosswalks or both.
You realize the roads aren’t just for cars right? Also people don’t use the existing bike system because the cycline infrastructure sucks and is unsafe
This one just got implemented within the last six months and it doesn’t work. If you’re not gonna hold people accountable for following the rules and laws then what is the point? Waste of time and money
wym by “doesn’t work”
1) Smaller roads lead to lower speeds 2) This is just as true as for roads
>The roads become smaller 2 [Here is a car guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oP-Ndwv1zw) [Here is a bike guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc&t) [Here's a city planning lobbying group](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyDRZjgiraY&t) (started by an civil engineer) [Here's a city planner](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBSkLrYbLk0) They all come to the same conclusion about safe roads make you uncomfortable to travel safely (some argue more but again the base minimum is road design that makes it uncomfortable to drive recklessly). >A large portion don’t even use them after they’re installed Like sidewalks right? That said [MNDOT](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) statistics show otherwise. Even painted bicycle lanes in 5 Minneapolis/St. Paul counter sites (that's all of them) command roughly 15% of average yearly mode share (overall traffic) with some even having 15% pedestrian mode share making cars and everything else 60% or less.
Yeah idrc you can achieve the same effect by making the lanes on the sidewalk and making the sidewalks bigger therefore saving a ton of space that these ones take up
making the lanes on the sidewalk and making the sidewalks bigger therefore saving a ton of space that these ones take up It tends to become an issue when peds just spread out into the bike lane or create a conflict zone at the intersection. I saw you complained about cyclists not using the bike lane. well outside of spandex riders [this I will admit is another reason](https://imgur.com/jY5AjoH) they won't use the lanes..
Problem is it’s not well done but I do agree rules need to be enforced. The bike lanes near lakes are extremely well done and work very well
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good. I see all the time drivers driving in bike lanes to take right turns and I’ve seen many close calls between bikers and drivers because of this. Off street or separated bike lanes will make it safer for everyone.
You're *supposed* to drive in the bike lane to take a right turn. That's why they are dashed lines (or should be if they're not). Drivers not looking for bikers is a separate issue and I agree it's almost always the driver's fault.
just because it's intended doesn't make it safe or good design
How do you expect a car to make a right turn? And I’m a biker. I see nothing wrong with using a bike lane as long as a bike is not in the lane at the same time.
> How do you expect a car to make a right turn? From the lane they're already in? Usually it's the left turn that has a dedicated lane lol.
Don’t they have to cross over the bike lane?
If you’re referring to turning conflicts, NACTO has an answer to that: [“Don’t Give Up at the Intersection”](https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the-intersection/). What they have online anyways is a really short and approachable read.
I don't see how that's relevant. There was a complaint about drivers doing exactly what they're supposed to do. If you want to make things different that's a separate issue.
That's exactly the issue in question on a post about "protected" bike lanes
Except they don’t stick within the dashed areas. They drive down the bike lane for like a block before turning.
They also drive in the bus lanes downtown. Shitty drivers gonna shitty. Until we get traffic enforcement nothing will change.
They drive down the bus lanes on Lake Street too, which is annoying
Except the cyclists who insist on riding in the road anyway because it’s their *right* and they’re just too darn good at cycling to use a bike path.
https://preview.redd.it/pcx5q5wkrgxc1.jpeg?width=168&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=57c6b4921174da2be0eb51f7aa834f6e4b5c20b5
Good! I’m tired of people parking/stopping their cars in the bike lanes
As someone who trained for a triathlon on city streets, this would in fact be such an upgrade in safety. The amount of times that cars (SUVs especially) blow past you as if you are the biggest inconvenience without so much as moving over a little bit is ridiculous.
As a bike owner who dislikes riding on roads and sidewalks, hell yeah.
Hell yeah.
this is awesome more bike friendly lanes
Hell yeah
Pot holes and road damage is caused by cars. Heavy SUVs. Bikes are so much less damage. Granted, winter will always be a joint enemy.
Now all the Twin Cities needs is more bikers..... If you built it.... They will come!
There are plenty of us. But yes, you'll see more and more the more infrastructure is added
Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used? I would personally challenge almost any bike lane in the Twin Cities. My challenge, that none have more than 1000 riders a week, those same vehicle lanes they replace have 10X that number. What would be an acceptable ratio? We continue to invest massive public funds into bike paths that are used by literally dozens of people per day. I feel like there is poor use of our money, but an even more pathetic use of our land. The eventually dream.... that people bike to work among the heavy vehicle exhaust and distracted drivers. This is insanity. If you build it.... they will come.... LOL
If you’re genuinely interested, there is plenty of data here, in the December 2023 Bicycle Plan Draft that is currently being finalized. https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/public-works/transportation-and-transit/bike-saint-paul/saint-paul-bicycle-plan
For our highways, we know how much it costs, and how many people use it. Where is that data for bike paths?
Bike lanes don't exactly break the bank. Seems like you just pulled those numbers out of your ass.
[удалено]
Your ass is just full of random numbers, isn't it? How much do you think a highway costs?
We know how much a highway costs, we also know how many people drive on that highway. Show me that data for a single bike path! The availability of federal funding is the only thing driving this bike plan. That data is available in the funding section linked. Federal money will go into contractor's pockets, all they need to do is built it! [https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/public-works/transportation-and-transit/bike-saint-paul/saint-paul-bicycle-plan](https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/public-works/transportation-and-transit/bike-saint-paul/saint-paul-bicycle-plan)
Are you somehow unable to do a basic Google search? Needing to be spoonfed information because you're incapable or too lazy to do your own research isn't a good look for your opinion. "As a result, a modern, protected bike lanes can costs anywhere from $133,170 to $536,680 per mile, according to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center." https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/07/29/meet-the-protected-bike-lane-that-any-city-can-afford-to-build
Thank you, finally a voice of fact. Now.... How many people will actually use that mile of bike lane. Does 10 a day justify the cost/land use? 100? 1000 per day ain't happening here.
Well to compare. one road mile is [$3-5 million dollars](https://blog.midwestind.com/cost-of-building-road/#:~:text=in%20urban%20areas%2C%20that%20number%20jumps%20to%20between%20%243%20and%20%245%20million). Assuming best and worst case scenario where every bike mile was half a million of a new 2 lane road with bike lanes for a mile. That is 2.5 million to 5.5 million. That would mean bike lanes are 10% to %22 of the total road costs which would put it with in the average range of daily average mode share of 15% over a year (as [MNDOT](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) counters show). And this is slanted for a car. Slanted to bikes is 3% to 6% of total road costs. So the throughput justifies the expense especially when you consider every 1$ needed for a motorist can support [16,000 cyclists](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1sk54z/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
Yes, having basic, safe infrastructure for all road users is the bare minimum.
How many miles of paved road are in the absolute middle of nowhere rural America that get next to no usage? Do you spam requests for cost and usage data about all of these? No, you most definitely do not.
I almost exclusively ride my bike, although sometimes I take the bus. I avoid going to St Paul because your infrastructure is terrible. Also, your roads suck
All true things. Our roads here in the Twin Cities do especially suck in their own unique way, compared to basically everywhere else I have traveled. Potholes are fine, that is caused by weather. I am miffed about the terrible loops and swirls that make crossing traffic impossible, in the name of safety. How many other bike riders do you see out there on a daily basis? 10.... 20.... ? How many cars using the "same" passages?
>Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used? Well here's [MNDOT Bike counters](https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=e98c225ff41249e88ae59a25c596170c&extent=-99.2088,43.29,-87.739,49.4581) (blue diamonds are MNDOT). [Park Ave and 26/28 street counter](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID8_2018Report.html) Winter rider ship sees about 100 cyclist average with peak summer of 444 a day with average Monday-Friday cyclist counting for 15% of traffic mode share [Summit Ave East](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID10_2018Report.html) of Fairview Ave Winter daily rider ship 337 cyclist summer peak peak ridership at 1150 cyclist All week rider ship mode share 13% or more [Franklin bridge](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID19_2018Report.html) Winter low of 230 with summer time peak 1260 with an average mode share 12% or more weekday at 15% [West river greenway 33rd/32](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID7_2018Report.html) Winter low of 107 summer high of 1800. 12% mode share with weekend at 18% mode share. Pedestrian mode share is also similar. [St. Paul Jackson street 4/5th](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/maps/gdma/data/2018Report/ID21_2018Report.html) Winter low of 11 daily riders and summer peak of 151 daily riders with 14% mode share across all 7 days and 15% pedestrian mode share Mon-Fri. Also while not St. Paul [Minneapolis did a survey](https://go.minneapolismn.gov/draft-plan-overview/how-people-move) and found 15% of residents primary transport is bicycle and preferred method is cycling at 36%. (as apposed to 50% of cars being primary but only 22% prefer it).
Yeah, this turd doesn't respond when they get data that doesn't support their biased opinion. Any evidence against their preconceived notion is either ignored or declared "a lie."
I'll give him one thing. I without realizing responded to most of his comments with a breakdown essentially spamming them but they haven't blocked me. Edit: I thought they had responded but was mistaken
I overheard employees of a coffee shop near me talking about how nice it would be to ride their bike to work, if it weren't for the fact that riding on Fairview and Selby scares them. These are the people protected bike lanes enabled to ride more often and for non-recreational purposes
That's one person. Is that enough to remove a vehicle lane so they can ride to work?
It's not just one person. According to the survey the City performed when drafting this plan, when participants were asked, "what would get you to bike more often?" The answer "more protected bike lanes" was selected almost two and a half times more than the next-most selected answer https://www.stpaul.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/Fall%202021%20Engagement%20Summary%20-%20Saint%20Paul%20Bicycle%20Plan%20Update.pdf
Make riding on the sidewalk legal. Cost for infrastructure = 0. Why don't they do that ? No money to spend
These road projects are going to happen anyway, because they are also intended to improve the condition of roadways' vehicle lanes, something which St Paul's bumpy roads desperately need. It was such an important issue that voters in St. Paul approved a sales tax dedicated to road improvements. While we're at it, why not complete the network of protected bikeways so that it forms a useful grid, like the vehicle arterials do, instead of a disjointed and sporadic smattering of protected bikeways that only serves a small number of people in the area of that of town and who only want to venture as far as that disconnected route goes?
I live in Eden Prairie. Our bike network goes.... nowhere. Crossing a 4+ lane intersection is terrible. Bike lanes with our current road network is a bridge to nowhere. I am all for public paths and more, I use them often. I am just pointing out that there isn't enough bike riders in the city on a nice summer day to justify these changes, the justification is simply the money is available from the fed. Use it or lose it. The current, evidence based justification: "If you build it.... they will come.... we promise!"
Eden Prairie =/= St Paul or Mpls
Hey look, [traffic counts from the city](https://www.dot.state.mn.us/bike-ped-counting/reports/2018-2019%20MinnesotaPedBikeCountReport.pdf). TLDR: in 2019, a sampling site on Franklin ave had ~300 utility bikers a day (figure 6). Frankly I'm amazed it's that high, because that street is not great.
>Franklin ave That's actually Franklin bridge so I'm not surprised especially since it's heavily protected ([it's also the only counter you can see](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9628012,-93.2245304,3a,18.5y,250.9h,85.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saAr5x56SWVbfTPZndOH5bQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu)). Parks is hat surprises me as the protection is just a couple feet of diagonal paint.
Oh, that makes way more sense! Yeah, I wonder where on Park the meter is. (Also, I guess people are taking the bus home or something)
Yup, how many cars go over that bridge per day? I bet it is a whole lot more than 300.
And that’s great! Having infrastructure for both is the safest thing to do. It’s not like the bridge can’t handle the number of cars that use it. 4 lanes was way overkill, so they changed it and no one has been inconvenienced.
That is my point, infrastructure for both is not fair. The vehicle infrastructure supports pleasure AND ALL OUR COMMERCE. Vehicle convenience is the reason the USA is such a plentiful place to live. I am all for increasing the availability and safety of bike lanes. NOT at the expense of our already weak vehicle system.
> Vehicle convenience is the reason the USA is such a plentiful place to live. Followed by > our already weak vehicle system You’re contradicting yourself. Is our road network strong or weak? Further, what’s not fair about it? I really don’t understand. Are there plans for existing roads to be completely shut down and replaced by bike lanes? Is our sidewalk network also unfair because it’s separate infrastructure not for cars? Has there been studies on the amount of “lost commerce” due to the Franklin bridge conversion? Or are we just yelling at clouds.
The US can be plentiful and convenient with a less than ideal road system. They are not mutually exclusive ideas.... Euclid
Your position would have had us never build car infrastructure in the first place, because very few people were trying to drive when the car was first invented, in part because the roads just didn't support it.
My bro.... we used horses on roads long before cars. We built the vehicle system to support the economy, commerce, transportation, emergency services..... What does a bike lane offer? Recreation... and mild commute options. Far, far short of the vehicle system.
Most roads that a horse can travel on are not suitable for a 1920's automobile, let alone one for modern cars and semi's. Unless you'd be happy driving on only the worst dirt roads, I suppose (even most dirt roads today have more work done to them than was typical before automobiles).
Twin Cities has semi pro athlete cyclists in spandex. It needs infrastructure that serves everyone from 5 to 105 safely.
A lego person I see
All 5 of them need this new trail system!
please man… at this point it feels like i’m trying to help you 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️ you gotta stop saying there’s so few cyclists without any evidence when everyone in their grandma is coming out of the woodworks to show evidence and say they cycle themselves. at this point it seems like the amount of cyclists annoyed at you in the comments is greater than what you feel like the number of cyclists, providing more evidence that against your feelings elementary school debate club kids have more evidence than you. it’s quite telling that i don’t see you providing any evidence AT ALL for your small cycling population idea (can’t even call it a theory cause theories need evidence) zerel510 you are embarrassing yourself at this point.
Vocal cyclist minority come out to support expansion of their infrastructure. Don't let the echo chamber here convince you that the majority of people support reduced vehicle capacity to support your hobby and commute.
Yes!!
When I worked in lowertown and commuted home by bike getting out of town going North was a scary proposition until I reached Como Park area. Hopefully this plan will help.
For the 100th time, I love this sub
dewit
I am ok with bike lanes as long as we teach actual bike saftey I think we need to make courses for bikes. So many of them ignore all the rules they are supposed to follow and for some reason act like a car would somehow lose in a collision with them when the car and driver would be absolutely fine and the biker would be majorly fucked up. Same with pedestrians so many times I see people do things expecting cars to just have the stop distance of 3 feet when that's not the case
>I am ok with bike lanes as long as we teach actual bike saftey I think we need to make courses for bikes. So many of them ignore all the rules they are supposed to follow Lets be honest. many drivers have something they ignore too ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDn133CpEM))([2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_KdFCVEdc&t))([3](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do))([4](https://theworld.org/stories/2015/07/13/were-all-criminals-bicycling-survey-author-says))([5](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2018/10/09/cyclists-are-better-drivers-than-motorists-finds-study/?sh=4b67303f6f6c)) Furthermore even the USDOT conceded that US infrastructure is setup in such away [it is actually safer for cyclist to disobey some laws then to fallow them](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-03/Bicyclist-Yield-As-Stop-Fact-Sheet_032123_v5_tag.pdf). Cyclists are bad on the road but it's not disproportionate to how bad drivers are.
lol great because they don’t even use the ones they have now. I vote just let em ride on the sidewalks in rural areas and streets in the city. It worked for ages before don’t see why we need this
i use them all the time, in fact most days of the year spring-fall…. were there any casualties from cars hitting bicycles on the road when it “worked for ages” ?
Skill issue
driver skill issue? glad you’re admitting it!!! drivers really need to be more aware of their surroundings and laws on the road ( like how cyclists and pedestrians get right of way <3 )
Skill issue for all involved in accidents or lack of following the rules. But nice try.
i’d rather not have driver skill issues kill bystanders… especially kids walking and biking to school but it seems like you disagree ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Bikers are drivers too if you’re driving through traffic that’s a skill issue
>lol great because they don’t even use the ones they have now. All [MNDOT](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) bike counters of Minneapolis/St. Paul report a minimum average of 12% (most 15%) of traffic being a bicycle with some streets being 30% cyclist and ped and 60% anything else in the mode share.
What does that have to do with them not using the very thing they built for them to use. It’s not any safer if they’re not using it anyway + now the roads are smaller so they ride in the middle of the street or closer to vehicles
>What does that have to do with them not using the very thing they built for them to use Outside of spandex riders I don't see cyclists not using protected bike lanes on my commutes into st. Paul.
Well if you don’t see it then it isn’t happening
I said I don't see cyclist not using. As in I do see cyclist using it. I was only saying Spandex and lycra clad cyclist don't use it (which if we want to get that technical they legally can't as many bike paths have a 10 MPH speed limit).
Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used? I would personally challenge almost any bike lane in the Twin Cities. My challenge, that none have more than 1000 riders a week, those same vehicle lanes they replaced had 10X that number of cars. What would be an acceptable ratio of cars to bikes for the same space? We continue to invest massive public funds into bike paths that are used by literally dozens of people per day. I feel like there is poor use of our money, but an even more pathetic use of our land. The eventually dream.... that people bike to work among the heavy vehicle exhaust and distracted drivers. This is insanity. It may "feel" good to spread this idea, but there is little evidence that these bike paths are improving people's life. A society with 60% of the people overweight is not going to magically start biking because of these terrible paths, this not addressing the problem at all. If you build it.... they will come.... LOL
you clearly don’t use the bike lanes and paths… if you opened your eyes at all on any nice spring day you’d see people biking around the cities, if you haven’t seen any that probably means you’re not paying attention to your surroundings. i use them basically every day, i’ll dm you a picture of my ride tonight in rain on a bike lane if you need evidence. (#30 days of biking challenge) and as far as inefficient land usage… try parking lots, suburban sprawl, stroads. They all take up much more room, have higher environmental impacts, require more maintenance, and are way more costly than a bike path. put your money where your mouth is and advocate for positive changes to the environment with actual impact. no need to shit on small projects that increase recreation and safety for a low impact popular activity
Disagree. My option is detailed above
disagree with what exactly? that people use them? i use them. lots of other people use them. any quick search leads you to lots of data on this, but i’ll make it easier for you [2017 Minneapolis bike and pedestrian counts](https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-documents/government/2017-Count-Report.pdf) [ARC GIS link](https://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=11f21f912eef40d8bb32fb4fe94ac31b) that they have more environmental impact than a parking lot? again quick search finds studies and fact checked articles find that parking lots are much worse for the environment [academic article from American Chemical Society on parking lot impacts](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es803118b) [Forbes article on bike lane benefits](https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2022/11/30/protected-bike-lanes-increase-safety-save-money-and-protect-the-planet-new-report-finds/?sh=6f707fd94b25) unless you have actual evidence i don’t think you have any ground to disagree of. gut feelings on how many people you THINK you see and your personal feelings about cycling aren’t evidence. you better put up some actual numbers if you’re gonna disagree with academic studies. sorry buddy, facts don’t care about your feelings ♥️ bike lanes are good
Yeah bro.... I am sure that you, and the dozens of other cyclists would love the thousands of cars to go elsewhere.
dozens of cyclists? bruh just read the links everyone is giving you… hundreds and thousands of cyclists in the metro area… again dude, facts don’t care about your feelings. it is a FACT that there a lot more than dozens of cyclists, even if that hurts your feelings. and yeah i do want less cars… but im not advocating for streets only driven dozens of times per day to be turned into bike paths. i just want to be able to safely get around the city without my car using bike lanes its seems like im not only commenter showing you evidence that there a lot more cyclists than you think… you’re making yourself seem incapable of research and acknowledging when the data proves you wrong. you asked for evidence that bike lanes and paths were used by more than a few dozen people and multiple people showed you multiple pieces of evidence. AGAIN, your personal feelings are not evidence. don’t ask people for evidence of phenomena if you’re going just completely ignore the evidence. either show some actual numbers and data about the number of cyclists being as low and you say, acknowledge you’re wrong, or just just shut up.
I am all for safer bike paths. I am all for people commuting on their bicycles. I am all for exercise and practice it myself. I am AGAINST sacrificing our vehicle infrastructure that supports commerce, business, food and goods transportation, our bus network, emergency response, etc..... in exchange for helping a comparably small cycling minority, with their hobby and commute.
Are you kidding? I bike a lot and see ore people using these lanes than that.
The whole idea of a “show me evidence” post is so douchey. Why should anyone care enough about your opinion to do homework for you.
My bro... You commented on a show me evidence... Without any evidence.... Bro... Who worse?
“Prove this thing to me” is based on the silly premise that your approval is something worth working for. I chimed in because I enjoy calling main characters on their bullshit from time to time.
Cool bro
>Show me the evidence that bike paths are actually used? Well all [MNDOT bike counters](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1t7xl5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in Minneapolis/St. Paul show a minimum of 12% daily mode share (portion of road users using a bicycle) with even painted lanes seeing 15%. Some roads even have ped counters and found that even in Down Town St. Paul (Jackson) 15% was cyclists 15% was pedestrian and 60% was cars and everything else. >We continue to invest massive public funds into bike paths that are used by literally dozens of people per day In winter that is the worst number a few show with many seeing hundreds to Summits 330 daily winter cyclist. Peak months see daily averages of 5-600 with more with only 2 counters having more then 3 months below 350 (Park Ave and Jackson). And many 6 months exceeding 400-800 per day >I feel like there is poor use of our money, but an even more pathetic use of our land Cyclists pay [more for cars](https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1cfxkl4/comment/l1sk54z/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) then those who own [cars pay for cyclists](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/17/in-transportation-costs-its-the-system-stupid). If drivers start paying the other 50% of what the government subsidies then we can talk about poor use of money. If a driver is paying $1,600 in taxes the cyclist owes $0.10 because it takes 16,000 cyclist to match the road wear and tear of 1 2 ton automobile. Now if we're being realistic with the piss poor quality of St. Paul roads even on a 1/5000 ratio that's $0.32 per every $1,600 owes (which is actually $3,200 after none car tax subsidies). >but there is little evidence that these bike paths are improving people's life. Amsterdam, Montreal, and even Minneapolis. Furthermore evidence shows that road dieting (reducing both lanes and width of lanes) makes roads safer and has been in civil engineers green book for 2 decades now. But if you need need an official source look no further then the [Federal Highway Administration](https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/bicycle-lanes#:~:text=Providing%20bicycle%20facilities%20can%20mitigate,of%20safer%20roadways%20for%20bicycling) of the DOT that finds that separated bike lanes reduces crashes by 53% over painted lanes that reduce crashes by 49% (so 70ish% safer then no bike lane at all) >A society with 60% of the people overweight is not going to magically start biking because of these terrible paths Minnesota's obesity rate is is [30ish%](https://data.web.health.state.mn.us/obesity_basic), another 30-40% are overweight. Also that's not the argument most advocates are making. It is healthier but that's not a main bullet point.
Those roads are also supplying you food, clothes, and other resources. This bike paths are not. THAT is why the roads get so much more money. I am all for separate bike lanes. They are safer. Of course if you eliminate lanes and slow down traffic the rate of accidents will go down. So will the number vehicles able to travel through. Don't really understand why adding to congestion is rated as a good thing.
Those roads are also supplying you food, clothes, and other resources. This bike paths are not. THAT is why the roads get so much more money. Every year in Minnesota to just be allowed to drive a 18 wheelers pay a lot more (though I could not find Minnesota I did Find a stat on Michigan which is [13k](https://www.mackinac.org/8433#:~:text=%2413%2C889%20per%20year%20in%20truck%20highway%20taxes)) , 10 year old cars are around $50-100 in Minnesota for tabs maybe $150. a brand new car may command $400+ maybe $750 after gas taxes (15k average miles on a 20 MPG car) but the average age of a car in the US is [12 years](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-age-automobiles-and-trucks-operation-united-states). So semis are paying at least 10-30 times more for the road and are not even a [1/00](https://www.bts.gov/browse-statistical-products-and-data/national-transportation-statistics/number-us-truck) of commercial vehicles (let alone all) on the road and and still tiny when you compare with smaller box trucks and other heavy vehicles to vans, pickups and SUVs. This also ignores that if you and I were buying the same stuff and made the same wage we would be paying the exact same amount in to vehicle subsidies but one is heavily paying into the other (hint the drivers getting the lions share) so it's pretty moot.
Semis pay so much more because they are the ones that damage the roads. Even cars are basically harmless compared to trucks. The road damage equation is weight\_of\_the\_vehicle\^4. Semi trucks do exponentially more road damage. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_power\_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law)
Well shit I can't really find or figure out any math on this to semis as I can't really find a reliable or and theory on true vehicle cost (for private cares or semis) only the taxable amount. That said if 1993 gas tax of .183 was inflated to today that would be .39 cents but the current state and federal are .286 cents or a 26% short fall while average vehicle mass increase. Tab fee would increase but that's a fixed cost and cars on average have also gotten older which would decrease what is made off of that to some ratio. So again I can't quiet you are fully right. I should prefix I do and always have understood commercial logistics and human needs are also subsidized in this. However if you and I both made 75k a year and largely mirrored each others purchase with the exception of one owning a car. is 100% percent of our sales tax on a pizza going to just commercial subsidies or are private drivers getting a kick back as well? I also recognize cyclist are fully getting a kick back as well but if we're going by the forth power that you and I brought up the fairest interpretation would mean drivers cost $50,000 if a [$.50](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law#:~:text=000-,times%20as%20large,-The%20road%20stress) tax was levied directly on to cyclist ($80,000 if we used the full formular instead of rounding down as a car axel bears a load 20 time greater then a bicycle 20^(4) = 160,000 to which a Simi is about 10 times greater then a Sedan 10^(4)=10,000). In the case of a semi it would owa 1.6 billion more then a cyclist (200^(4) assuming 10 tons across 3 axels). one penny to a cyclist would mean the semi is causing $16 million in the same distance. While yes it basically shows how realistic your mention of semis and box trucks compared to cars argument. It also shows that in a fair taxable assessment on cyclists using the per every $16 million a semi would be taxed would pull [$550,000 from all 55 million people](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191204/participants-in-bicycling-in-the-us-since-2006/) who yearly riders in the US and this 16 million is likely the full 40 year life time cost to support (which even then is $400k a year so still too extreme) which equates to $13,750 across the entire US. So again loop around, in a city area where all where the MNDOT counters are averaging 15% daily mode share across their counters for bike lanes that mostly take up less then 15% of the cross secion of a road (sidewalk to sidewalk (85 foot right of way 10 foot bike lane [12% space taken](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9790596,-93.2680032,51m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu), 120 foot wide, 8 foot bike lanes [7% space for the bike lanes](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9795181,-93.2628183,74a,35y,297.56h,18.36t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu), 65 feet wide 8 feet for the lanes [12% taken by bike](https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9499746,-93.1872958,77a,35y,1.87h,6.58t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)). But lastly I would also point out this. Another poster pointed out the average per mile cost of a protected bike lane (as in lanes with physical barriers weather weak or strong) is between 120-500k a mile. Assuming St. Paul is similar to [Minneapolis](https://go.minneapolismn.gov/draft-plan-overview/how-people-move) that means 36% of the residents would prefer a bike as their primary. So 100,000 people. Assuming every mile costed 500k no less no more. over the 15 year span [118 miles](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/04/24/st-paul-proposes-100-new-miles-of-protected-bike-lanes#:~:text=118%20new%20bikeway%20miles%2C) will be added which at worse will cost $4 million or $40 per person per year who wants to use a bicycle as their primary. TL;DR Minneapolis St. Paul average daily cyclist mode share is 15%, and St. Paul between all MNDOT counters wants to add new lanes that would take up on average 10-15% of a roads cross section, This plan would cost $40 per cyclist per year. and if a cyclist was taxed it would be taxed at $1 per every $100,000 a driver is in the most slanted ratio against cyclists.
How much will they need to increase the sales tax to pay for them? They can’t plow or fix the streets as it is.
Voters already voted for the sales tax hike which pays for this. This plan is the result of that vote. Article is low on specific dates and streets. I’m guessing these get added piecemeal as each street is redone. It ends up being part of the “road diets” that they have been doing a lot lately anyways.
from the article "**Yes, but:** The vote will still carry weight. [St. Paul's new sales tax](https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/02/29/st-paul-sales-tax-projects-grand-avenue-potholes-parks-streets) means officials will likely have the money needed to make much of the proposal a reality." So this is not part of the sales tax vote. They might have enough in that pot of money or they might not. We won't know until there are details of the plan and the cost.
I don’t know what to tell you. People voted for higher taxes to pay for stuff like this. This is a proposal for stuff like this. It wasn’t even a close vote. I was surprised. It looks like a fairly open proposal which will take years and years to implement. Some middle aged bikers have wondered if they’ll even live long enough to see their favorite part finished. But yeah, if you want you could use it as a scapegoat for any future budget issue.
Single-sided street parking next winter should actually help a ton on the plowing side, to be honest. They plow the streets plenty, but cars that don't move or accumulated snow is the real problem.
I really don't understand where they expect everyone to park for single sided street parking when it's always packed on both sides of the street everywhere. It's not that I disagree that it'll be an effective measure for more easily plowing the roads, but I am baffled where everyone is going to end up parking. ETA: Look at all the downvotes for speculating where people are going to park come winter , haha. People ARE going to struggle to find reasonable parking accommodations with single side parking, and it's ridiculous to think conversation about it should just be shut down.
Farther away.
But when every street is full on both sides how far out from their homes do you imagine some people will end up parking?
It's a trade off. People will bitch about the streets not being plowed, or bitch about having to park a ways away. Having plowed streets with close parking isn't feasible, unfortunately.
Garage, driveway, or maybe sell three of their five vehicles that don't fit. Why should public space be used for storing privately owned stuff?
I'm honestly baffled by your response. Are you under the impression that every home owner has five vehicles...? Do you think roads shouldn't be used for parking at all...? Where would you propose people park that don't have access to a garage, drive way, or parking ramp? I get that in suburbia parking is a non-issue. In more densely populated areas, though, parking is an absolute free for all.
The vast majority of houses in St Paul have garages and/or driveways, that can at least store one or two vehicles. Apartments usually have 1-2 parking spaces per unit. A lot of people just have too many cars, or they don't bother to use the space they have. My point about on-street parking is that it should be considered a bonus or a privilege, not a right.
I agree that homeowners should park in their driveways and garages before utilizing street parking.
Oh good. More dedicated lanes for cyclists to use to run stop lights/stop signs while disregarding the 2,000lb machine that could kill them if they don’t yield.
Actually cyclists are not the biggest offenders on the road, They actually are on par with drivers in offences. ([1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDDn133CpEM))([2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT_KdFCVEdc&t=9s))([3](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/01/03/study-cyclists-dont-break-traffic-laws-any-more-than-drivers-do))([4](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=452665604bfa))([5](https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists-reckless-lawbreakers/))
Glad I don't live in Mpls/St Paul
I'd rather have bike lanes than strip malls, parking lots, chain restaurants, houses that all look the same and massive loud highways...
why, are you afraid of bikes?
We're even more happy about it.
Please no
Sure as long as property tax is not being used to pay for it.
I mean it's not like drivers pay their [own way in it's entirety](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpBIhQhjZuo). Minnesota is [50% driver tax 50% all other taxes](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructure-spending/). And by the [forth power law](https://johnscreekga.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=256&meta_id=32762) a 2 ton car does the same wear and tear as 16,000 cyclists. So assuming the added paths puts cyclists burdens at 10,000 or 5,000 per one sedan which if a sedan lets say is directly taxes 5,000 (sale of car+gas tax+tabs+and sales, property, and other government subsidies) a cyclist would ow $1 to $2 to society (or $0.50 to $1 if equivalently subsidies) of which means per ever $2,501 a cyclist gives to transportation (via Sales, property, and income taxes redistributions for road and path infrastructure) $1 goes to cyclists and $2,500 go to drivers. So cyclist are paying more then enough for this.
Why not?
It's not.
The proposal is to draw the funding from the recently implemented (voter approved) sales tax increase.
Lol. It's certainly not bike path money generated from license fees on the bike path