On a ride along the 29th Street Greenway (the long way home), I rode through Saint Louis Park. This is a growing first-ring suburb west of Minneapolis. It is home to the 29th Street Greenway and Cedar Lake trail extensions that connects longer regional rail-trails to those within Minneapolis. This trip, in early July, was troubling to me. The City of Saint Louis Park had replaced the former trail controls and markings (stop signs for trail users and painted crossing) with obnoxious signs that I took to say “how dare you consider riding you bicycle through this area.” In short, these new signs protects the right of crossing motorized vehicle traffic to flow unencumbered from the need to cooperate with crossing non-motorized vehicles that use the commuter way. 
These actions, that I have discovered, are Saint Louis Park’s response to a crash between a motorist and a bicycle that severely injured the bicyclist. Unfortunately, the city’s actions have further strengthened the position in the public eye that bicycling is a less legitimate form of transportation than the motor vehicle and have placed them in greater danger. These actions of the Saint Louis Park need to be reversed and in its place the City needs to implement a program that places the responsibilities to operate a vehicle (both motorized and non-motorized) to all operators.
Why is this so important?
In my opinion, the single reason is safety. I would expect that Saint Louis Park officials would say they are acting on behalf of public safety, but I will explain how their actions are actually increasing the danger to the non-motorized users of the trail.
We teach driver not to anticipate.
The culture of the United States is long in its preference to the driving public. At a young age we are taught to stay away from cars and trucks when we walk to school or the park. “Look both ways and run like hell” was the unofficial motto for my neighborhood. The reason every mother on patrol voiced this was to keep their tikes from becoming road kill. Rightfully so, but what this has inadvertently created is a mentality that once you climb behind the wheel, it’s “watch out, I’m on the move and it won’t be my fault if you do not get out-of-the-way.” What frustrates me with this way of thinking is that the car is one type of vehicle on a complex transportation system with a number of rights but also responsibilities.
To ensure greater safety for all who travel on the transportation system, our public policy should focus on changing this sense of entitled and unobstructed passage for a motor vehicle. In the long-term, given all the factors that lead to global warming, American obesity, and over consumption of finite resources, encouraging transportation alternatives is imperative to sustainability. Change is difficult especially changes in one’s mode of travel and it will be next to impossible if the other mode is less safe then strapping into to the cockpit of a multiple-ton Hummer.
What has Saint Louis Park done anyway?
By the actions of the city, Saint Louis Park has put the burden of traffic safety on the non-motorized public along a major commuter route. Given the nature of the crossings, these actions will make bicycling along this popular trail more difficult and less safe. 
The 29th Street Greenway extension connects the Southwest Regional trail to the west with the Minneapolis bicycle trail system to the east. This rail-trail essentially travels parallel to Trunk Highway 7 (about 500 ft or less to the south of the highway). Because of the proximity to the highway and limited arterial routes (Beltline Blvd and Wooddale Ave) crossing this trail, navigating to the other side of the trail is complicated without some assistance. The crossings are four-lanes where a number of vehicles stack up to wait for the semaphore at the nearby highway intersection. With this stacking, especially during the morning and evening rush, it is difficult to see all lanes of traffic and if one can see them it is rare that the all are clear at the same time. The city has removed the painted crossing marking on the pavement, so that cars are not reminded exact location of the trail crossing. To complicate matters the city has kept or added “Trail Xing” signs.
What does the law say?
In Minnesota, bicyclists (like a pedestrian) have a right to use marked crossing if the bicyclist waits for a break in the traffic. When in the marked crossing, crossing traffic must stop and provide safe passage. This puts responsibility on both with expectation of reasonable interaction. What the law also includes is an allowance for “[l]ocal authorities [to] prohibit the operation of bicycles on any sidewalk or crosswalk under their jurisdiction.” Saint Louis Park has posted signs that explain to users “[t]hat this crossing is not a crosswalk State law requires all trail users to stop and yield to vehicles.” With Saint Louis Park’s actions they are within the letter of the law (in my amateur lawyer opinion), but instead of placing responsibility on both modes, it shifted the entire burden to move across the roadway to the non-motorized party.
Why are Saint Louis Park’s actions so wrong anyway?
By shifting the burden to safely cross to the bicyclist or other trail users, Saint Louis Park has reinforced the notion that bicycling is not a legitimate form of transportation, rather a recreational activity where users can wait for the more important motorized traffic. This reinforcement increases the risk to the bicyclists that is already out matched to the larger, faster motoring public that was not trained to expect mid-block crossings. 
With no expectation of seeing crossing traffic at the trail head and the lack of protection of the painted crossing and confusion of the other posted signs, the bicyclist must take additional risk to make it through the crossing.
So, in summary, the city of Saint Louis Park has created a mid-block trail crossing where it explicitly instructs the trail users to yield to all traffic and informs them that traffic will not stop. In the other direction the city has notified the motorized public in writing to disregard the “Trail Xing” sign that would typically be placed at the locale of a sanctioned crossing. The driver can be puzzled by the actions of the trail users when it slows to obey what it believe to be a trail crosswalk(since most likely didn’t receive the written direction to disobey) while the trail user is confused on whether to proceed on not.
Some might say that there are not enough bicyclists to matter and that they will always lose in the crash with a car. While I agree that the latter is true the first is not. As those who typically read this site know, Minneapolis has the largest bicycle mode share in the country for cities of our size. One of the reasons is the ease of travel along our rail-trail system. The use of these systems continue to grow so the number of bicycles crossing will continue to increase, which increases the volume of risky bicycle crossings. This increases the chance that another tragic crash will occur.
Saint Louis Park does have a game plan
I applaud the city efforts to install medians, reducing lane widths, and the exploration of separated grade crossings. But, these changes (especially grade separations) will take a number of years to implement. Short-term attention is needed to increase safety. More importantly, these physical improvements do not relieve the need for better education on how all modes should interact on our transportation system. The city needs to act quickly to make these crossings more predictable and safer.
What should Saint Louis Park do?
The City of Saint Louis Park should resist continuing down the easy well-worn path. It should capitalize on this opportunity to lead the region down a new path to improved mode integration and cooperation. Behavioral change requires time for sure, but with appropriate leadership it could begin, as Saint Louis Park’s action will remind all users of the transportation system that there are others with similar rights and responsibilities. Which can lead to a safer system for all users.
To lead this effort Saint Louis Park should:
(1) Reverse its decision to prohibit non-motorized crossings on its streets.
(2) Restore the trail-crossing markings on the pavement.
(3) Replace current signs with ones that call out responsibilities for both motorized and non-motorized traffic in all directions.
(4) Reissue your special alert statement so that it reflects the new procedure. Fifth, conduct public notice events where volunteers, police, and/or community service officers deploy to these crossings to bring increased awareness to everyone’s rights and responsibilities.
Contact me if you need me to elaborate further on the four points or if you need assistance organizing volunteers, I am available to help.
I do, however, feel that if there is an on-street parking problem, maybe the facility should not have gone on that avenue. Especially with these lanes that hug the curb and gutter intermittent marking force the rider to move into traffic as it avoids parked cars. If the markings are removed entirely then a bicyclist would ride in the same position (about 7 feet from the curb) during the entire run of the avenue to avoid parked cars and would keep the same line of travel. Addressing the second issue is simple. Send the stripers back out and finish the job.
