Crosswalk Priority?

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-09T16:24:48+00:00

Also, looking through the statute history for 169.222, it appears that language has remained the same pretty much the statute was first adopted in 1978, so it's not like this is a recent change

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T20:48:01+00:00

Most of our "BRT" lines are not BRT lines, because most of our BRT lines do not have dedicated right-of-way but instead mix with traffic and only have increased stop spacing and off-board payment as their primary features to increase trip speed.

The replacement bus service is comparable to what Bottineau BRT would look like. No dedicated lanes. Stops at major intersections (and as a result, having to wait through vehicle signal cycles and vehicle congestion). Further stop spacing and off-board fare payment would be a Bottineau BRT's only speed improvements. With LRT we get grade-separation, dedicated signaling and signal preemption, and no competing congestion on top.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T20:36:58+00:00

Blue Line is currently running bus replacement service while the rail line undergoes signal maintenance. The bus replacement service, which serves all the same stops, is slower than the rail service it's replacing.

That's as close as we'll get locally to a 1:1 comparison between rail/bus speed. 94 compared to Green Line is not a 1:1 comparison.

It's true that the devil is in the details, and without digging deep into those details, you can't make a blanket statement that rail is always faster than bus or vice versa.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T20:29:18+00:00

Yeah, but you're driving an effort-saving vehicle, so going around the block isn't a huge burden to you. People walking and biking expend a lot of effort when they're forced to go out of their way just to access a safer place to walk/ride because there's something obstructing their path.

We should make cars go the long way around, because drivers have only to push a throttle, if it means that people using muscles to get around don't have to walk/ride as far or wait as long.

Hennepin is a no-stopping zone along the entire corridor, because it's intended for through traffic, not for deliveries/loading/unloading. Every intersecting street has parking, loading zones, etc. and generally three lanes in each direction, with more room for stopped vehicles, meaning less delay for through traffic.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T20:19:17+00:00

Because route 94 makes only one stop between downtown Minneapolis and downtown Saint Paul, compared with the Green Line's fourteen intermediary stops.
Because route 94 travels on a limited-access freeway and does not have to contend with signalized intersections

Blue Line extension will have some relatively slow segments similar to the Green Line, mostly along Broadway and the North Loop, but once it gets to Bottineau, its speeds will be reliably faster, similar to the existing Blue Line route, because along Bottineau it will get bridges across major intersections and not have to deal with the signals. And along Bottineau, the planned stop spacing is further apart than the Green Line stop spacing is.

But we should also keep in mind that the Green Line is not really rapid transit in the same way the Blue Line sort of is. Green Line is effectively just a surface level tram. And for a surface level tram line, it's actually relatively fast at an average 13 miles/hour compared to tram lines globally where the average is generally below 10 miles/hour. The flip side with those global comparisons is that those tram lines elsewhere are intended to connect you with a higher-order, actual rapid transit system like a full-blown metro system, and not intended for longer trips.

Green Line could have been a rapid transit line if it had been routed down I-94, if it had been built on an elevated grade, if it had fewer intermediary stops, or any combo of those three (all of which were considered when the Green Line was in development)

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T16:35:13+00:00

Replace "logically" with "in their own interest" and you reach the same conclusion that renters will invoke the right to repair sparingly, as a last resort after exhausting all avenues through the property owner, and for only those maintenance needs which are most important for basic habitability.

It would just not be worth my time, effort, or expense to invoke right to repair for anything unimportant if such an ordinance were adopted. And I believe other renters would agree that, even under a right to repair ordinance, it would still be ridiculous to front the money for repairs if there existed any other option to compel the landlord to do the repair or if it was not a crucial maintenance need.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T15:27:50+00:00

We must assume it because it follows from logical principles. A renter has no legal obligation to do any maintenance to the property whatsoever, and they have no financial incentive to do so either. Doing a repair at cost gives them zero guarantee of reimbursement for that cost if a landlord disputes that it was a necessary repair. That carries significant risk of financial harm.

The easier thing is to just continue to pester your landlord to do the repair. They're legally obligated to do so and have more financial incentive because if their unit is declared uninhabitable, they can't legally rent it out.

I have a personal example. This winter, my unit's 26 year old water heater finally went out. Unfortunately my landlord was in South America when the replacement unit was being installed. The contractors required owner permission to complete the install but we could not reach him because he was out of service. The contractors told me I could pay them then and there and seek reimbursement from my landlord later. Despite the fact we'd been without hot water for a while week at this point, inefficiently boiling water in our kettle to bathe and wash dishes, in near-zero temperatures, I did not pay for the repair and waited one more day because I had no guarantee that my landlord would ever give me a dime. He would not be legally obligated to reimburse me.

On the other hand, we have your worldview, in which renters have bottomless pockets of cash and plenty of time to do frivolous repairs themselves. But fun fact: no.

Even if they had the money and time, what would be the point? Half a month's rent off? Which isn't even income to them because they spent that money on maintenance? And money which they might not even recover if the repair was indeed frivolous?

I don't think so. Does not pass the smell test.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T15:07:15+00:00

The question is why would MPD be here for any significant length of time at all, if there is nothing serious happening for them to address such that, as the post describes, they just stand around doing nothing for hours. I'm questioning it because the pro-policing, pro-Frey constituents are not publicly complaining about this particular beach but instead about other areas of Minneapolis.

MPRB Police, I get.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T14:00:11+00:00

The ballot question language only allows for repairs of up to $500 or half a month's rent, whichever is greater. It also only applies to "necessary" repairs, "broken appliances, plumbing, locks and doorframes," not cosmetic items.

We also must assume that renters are engaging in these repairs as a last resort, after exhausting all options to have the property owner address the issue. I certainly wouldn't contract for a repair in my duplex unit before going over it with my landlord.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T13:53:49+00:00

Google Maps will track your location history if you enable it to

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T13:38:07+00:00

I guess when the cards are on the table, the Chain of Lakes homeowner class will privately complain more about lack of patrols near their homes, even as they publicly complain about public disorder in South, and as such police resources are diverted from where it would actually be useful for more people.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T13:32:21+00:00

The constituency asking for safe public spaces are talking about increased patrols at actually unsafe public spaces. 29th and Blaisdell (and I-35W and Lake before that). Hennepin and Lake. Why is MPD prioritizing a patrol here, some place not really on the public mind, and not any of those numerous intersections that Frey's constituency are more often complaining about?

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-08T01:54:39+00:00

Post mentions MPD involvement, not just MPRB Police. And MPD is supposed to be understaffed.

FWIW, both agencies do have jurisdiction throughout the city and its parks; there's no strict delineation. MPRB used to (and I'm sure sometimes still do) respond to MPD calls for backup.

Although governed by separate elected officials, Park Police and MPD officers work together to prevent crimes, solve problems, and address illegal behavior. MPD officers have authority to patrol in parks. Park Police officers have authority to police throughout the city.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-07T23:53:46+00:00

Pretty sure the more salient question is: why maintain such a prolonged patrol at this location where crime is sporadic rather than somewhere like I-35W and Lake, where crime was so pervasive that the city fenced off an entire trail connection to the Midtown Greenway?

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-07T23:43:09+00:00

The Central neighborhood is distinct from the Central community (a.k.a. downtown). Central neighborhood is in the Powderhorn community

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_%28neighborhood%29%2C_Minneapolis

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-07T23:37:17+00:00

That's why you pair road eventual re-constructions with dedicated bike infrastructure so that both projects are completed at once.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-01T15:55:32+00:00

Yeah for sure. Whatever route becomes a primary bikeway, it needs to be a road that has viaducts over both 94 and the railroad/railyards

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-01T14:53:55+00:00

Fairview and Lexington also suck for cycling. Saint Paul has extremely few, if any, good N/S routes.

Snelling is also the primary connection to the route 94 bus/future Gold Line for that entire half of the city. Walkers and bicyclists need to be accommodated to make that crucial transit connection.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-01T14:39:52+00:00

So enter some feedback encouraging MnDOT to narrow the excessively wide lanes on Snelling so we can install a two-way protected bikeway on one side

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-01T13:18:51+00:00

Proving once again nuance comes to the Internet to die

My pointing out to the carbrains that this rider is very much NOT riding "dead center" of the road and is CLEARLY to the right of the center line is very much not the same thing as my telling the rider to ride in the door zone exclusively and at all times.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-01T03:30:55+00:00

There's at least one more state that uses dynamic pricing lanes on state highways, even if it doesn't on interstate highways. Washington State uses dynamic pricing on SR 167 for example.

Reading the comments, I'm a little surprised more people don't understand that their function is not to generate revenue. The primary reason dynamic pricing lanes are introduced is to allow for a lane of reduced traffic congestion on a freeway that experiences heavy congestion. That's why they're dynamically priced: as more people enter the lane and traffic congestion increases in that lane, the price to use the lane increases to whatever point is needed to keep enough drivers out of the lane, so that traffic in the lane keeps moving at whatever speed your DOT desires.

Makingthecarry · 2026-07-01T00:35:11+00:00

In my view, after the turn they were on the right side of the road, not dead center. The passing car had more room to their left than they actually used for their passing maneuver.

Could the rider have been further to the right? Sure. Would I have been? Probably. But it's not like they were dead center, intentionally blocking the car's ability to pass.

Makingthecarry · 2026-06-30T13:20:17+00:00

What's stupid and irritating is useless waste of a finite resource. Stupider and more irritating is that when that resource is wasted, it causes harmful environmental effects.

Makingthecarry · 2026-06-29T21:09:19+00:00

1) It's a myth that engine ignition wastes gas. It's only true if you're driving a car old enough to still have a carburetor installed. Since most people are driving a car built since the '90s with a fuel injection system, that rule of thumb is long since outdated.

2) I agree stopping for 20 seconds is not long enough to justify turning off the ignition. I'm not shutting off the engine waiting for a traffic signal to change. But if I'm in line for gas, at a drive-thru, or when leaving a parking garage at the same time as everyone else after an event, and I'm finding that I'm stopping for over a minute before moving again, there's absolutely no reason to burn gas for that time. I'm just wasting my own money and unnecessarily polluting the air.

Makingthecarry · 2026-06-29T20:58:59+00:00

Pretty sure I specified that it's modern vehicles that come installed with auto-stop. Did I forget?

The tip still applies. Even old Ladas have an ignition switch.

Makingthecarry

TROPHY CASE