Showing posts with label engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label engineering. Show all posts

2026-07-13

St Paul's Hamline Avenue Mill and Overlay is a Street Safety Betrayal

[Aftermath of a recent car crash on four-lane segment of Hamline Avenue.]

The maddest I ever saw Barb Thoman was at a Transportation Committee meeting in 2014. I was a Planning Commissioner, and had just joined the Transportation Committee, a city-led group started under Mayor Chris Coleman (and then Council Member Russ Stark) which was intended to offer public input and guidance for the city’s Public Works and Planning departments.

[Thoman at the Grand Avenue parking meter meeting.]
If you don’t know her, Barb Thoman is a long-time St. Paul transportation advocate. She started Transit for Livable Communities (TLC) back in 1996 (!),  a literal lifetime ago. Back then, it was literally the 20th century, a stone age for transportation advocacy, the era when building freeways and parking garages was still pitched as climate action, before either city had a bicycle coalition.

Thoman's, TLC (and its successor, Move Minnesota), and her other efforts have improved transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes for so long by now, laying the groundwork for whatever change has happened over the last two decades. On top of that, Thoman is an incredibly kind, even-keeled person, the epitome of thick-skinned practical criticism. I once watched her get boo’d by a room full of rabid St. Paul drivers during a public meeting about parking meters, taking a gamut of criticism for having the gall to invoke climate change. She dealt with it all a cool, calm way, though I'm sure she was deeply upset.


[Link to source documents.]

My point is that she's not an angry person, but on this occasion, in the City Hall Annex, I was astonished to see Barb yelling full-throated at St Paul engineer John Mazko (and calling him “John”, no less). Furious, she accused him of lying directly to her face, saying something like “this bridge is going to last for 50 years, and now it’s locked in.”


(Maczko, a genial-but-old-school, i.e. condescending, transportation engineer, looked like he’d been run over by a truck. Deservedly so, it turned out.)


The issue was this: St. Paul Public Works had funded, designed, and bidded out a new bridge for Hamline Avenue (over Ayd Mill Road) without bringing it to the Transportation Committee as had been promised. Instead, the bridge was built as a four-lane road without bike lanes. The city moved ahead without considering whether or not a three-lane “road diet” might have worked better for the city and its communities. 


[See the letter at right from 2012/2013 transportation advocates, explaining the issue in great detail.] 


Instead, as multiple neighborhood groups pointed out at the time, the city designed the bridge and its road for the benefit of drivers, keeping a dangerous design in place despite low traffic counts and policies calling for safer road designs.


Well, Barb Thoman was right. St. Paul's 2013 mistake is coming back to haunt.


What Goes Around


Thirteen years later, you can read about the recent spat in the Pioneer Press, where the city repaved Hamline Avenue without doing anything to make the street less dangerous. Here’s the relevant situation, along with the surprisingly on-point pushback from the adjacent District Councils:

The Hamline Midway Coalition and Union Park District Council have sent a joint letter to St. Paul Public Works requesting a “4-to-3” lane conversion on Hamline Avenue between Selby and University avenues. The proposal calls for reducing the roadway from four travel lanes to two, adding a center turn lane and installing bike lanes. Supporters say the time is now because the street is already scheduled for repaving, which means new striping will be needed either way.

The groups cite a history of crashes, speeding concerns, pedestrian crossings near Concordia University and the lack of a direct north-south bike route as reasons for the change.

A full reconstruction of Hamline Avenue is expected around 2035 to 2039. The groups argue their proposal will improve safety until then.

However, city officials described the proposal as “not possible or practical.”

In a letter responding to the neighborhood groups, Public Works Director Deb Barber said the city would have to conduct a broader public engagement process and studies on traffic, business and public safety impacts.


Not much has changed in the last 13 years, other than that Hamline Avenue has been repaved more than once, and the thinking on road diets has vastly improved. The street remains an ideal candidate for a four-to-three conversion, with 15,000 cars a day. Furthermore, Ayd Mill Road is now smaller and traffic has been reduced. Also, the Green Line is up and running. 


Meanwhile, countless people have been impacted by a street that’s difficult and dangerous to cross. According to the (inadequate) city crash data, there are three or four bike and pedestrian crashes on this stretch of Hamline Avenue every year; I would guess that at least 50 people have thad their lives transformed for the worse since the road diet was first squashed by city staff.


The other significant disappointment from this recent repaving  decision is that it signals a walking back of St. Paul's commitment and leadership on four-to-three conversions. Also called “road diets,” these are by now a fairly straight forward safety improvement. I have some thoughts...


[The deadly four-lane design of Hamline Avenue in 2013, when it was repaved by Mayor Coleman.] 

Four-Lane Death Roads and Road Diet Conversions


Ten years ago, busy streets were thought to be impossible for a "four-to-three conversion", aka "road diet." In the Twin Cities, that changed thanks a specific tragedy on St Paul’s Maryland Avenue. It took courageous leadership from Ramsey County elected officials and Public Works staff, but it also took a terrible tragedy. I had thought we'd moved beyond blindly accepting these deadly streets.  


[worst offender "death road" streets as of 2016.]
Here’s the longer explainer: Hamline Avenue through its central section — from University Avenue south to Summit — is what I call a four-lane death road, a term I coined an antiquated, obsolete, wildly dangerous, 20th century road design that out to by now be synonymous with engineering malpractice. 


I have written about this so many times at this point, I need only cite myself:

When a decision maker says “we can’t do that because of traffic,” to me they are really saying that they value traffic volumes over safety. To me this is morally indefensible, and is not a choice we should be making as a society.

In the 20th century, four-lane death roads were common practice for engineers, who looked at busy urban arterial streets and only saw congestion. Back then, the focus was on car "stacking" and intersection efficiency (also called LOS). The result were streets that were crash magnets.


[Traffic Counts.]

Sadly, someone usually has to die before change happens. In this case, the reform movement around four-lane death roads came to a head in 2016 after a woman named Elizabeth Dunham was killed by a driver on a four-lane undivided stretch of Maryland Avenue. The details of the story are sickening: a kid saw his mother get killed by a driver out of the window of his school bus. 


As I wrote then, streets did not have to be this dangerous:

The other option is to “go smaller” with a 4-3 conversion, trading out two through-lanes for a center turn-lane. I’ve written about this many times before. (And then a few more times.) You’re trading speeds and complexity for a simpler-but-slower urban environment. This change also gets left-turning cars out of the way, to create continuous through lanes with more constant speeds. Many studies show that this kind of design improves safety for car drivers, and especially for people on foot. (Sometimes, this change can have minimal effect on overall automobile through-put.) More importantly, a road diet prevents exactly the kinds of situations that killed Dunham.

Crashes on four-lane death roads are as predictable as a thunderstorm, a straightforward outcome. Left-training cars stop, forcing / encouraging high-speed weaving between the lanes. Drivers stopping for pedestrians create the conditions for a fatal crash, which is exactly what happened to Elizabeth and many others. These risks and dangers happen constantly, every day; the only countervailing benefit is less "stacking" of traffic during rush hours, but that's a terrible tradeoff. In the meantime, these streets sit in our cities causing havoc, especially anytime pedestrians are present.


To me, it's engineering malpractice, and only the intentional obfuscation of design manuals keeps cities from being financially liable. These kinds of roads should be removed from service as quickly as is feasible.


Thankfully, the conversation around this has shifted a lot in my time advocating for street safety. Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have examples of what this looks like: The St. Paul case, Maryland Avenue, was a pioneering street design reform led by the Ramsey County Public Works, which, at the time, took a risk because the traffic counts (called ADT) were so high. 


Following that lead, other local Public Works’ engineers have followed suit: NE Broadway was converted around 2018 by the City of Minneapolis. Lyndale Avenue was converted by Hennepin County about four years ago. North Dale Street was converted by Ramsey County last year. There are many other examples.


In each case, streets became more congested during rush hours, but much safer at all hours of the day and night. These are all clear wins for public health, public salty, justice, and equity, especially for their local communities.


Compared to those higher-volume streets, Hamline Avenue is a no-brainer. Its dangerous design should be treated in the same way as these other clear policy wins, and more so given the history of crashes and advocacy. 


But it’s really hard to shift engineering practices and the automotive myopia of some decision makers.



"Just Pave It"


Incoming mayors tend to adopt a “just pave it” attitude, looking for quick solutions to problems where they can put their imprimatur on the city. This is the kind of thing that, for example, Zohran Mamdani has been doing in New York City. In his first few weeks in office he was out there personally shoveling asphalt onto a long-standing problematic bike lane bridge entrance.


St. Paul is trying to copy Mayor Mamdani, only they're doing it wrong. Mamdani has been choosing projects that advance equity and justice in New York City: A dedicated bus lane. A bike lane fix. Removing unnecessary roads through parks.  


Instead, Mayor Her’s administration here is literally repaving the status quo, using a short-term fix to paper over what should be a long-term solution. 


In her defense, this is a common mistake. It repeats the short-sighted solution that Mayor Chris Coleman once made with some penny-wise repaving back in 2014. He launched a campaign against what he called the “Terrible Twenty,” replacing the surface asphalt -- and just the asphalt -- on the city's most pothole'd arterial streets. 


(Particularly ironic, Mayor Coleman's dramatic asphalt gesture did a "mill and overlay", i.e. surface repaving, on exactly same stretch of Hamline that Mayor Her has just completed.)


There were two problems with Mayor Coleman's “terrible twenty” approach. First, it was a short-term fix to a long-term problem. It looked good for a few years, but the aging streets quickly degraded worse than before. In the meantime, the long-term street reconstruction budget had been drained. 


The second problem was that the mill and overlay projects did not fix any of the pedestrian sidewalk or safety measures, terrible situations that the city has been desperate to resolve. This was a borderline violation of ADA laws, but it was also the wrong thing to do from a social justice, climate action, or equity perspective. 


In fact, Mayor Coleman's blinder'd repaving was so egregious that it prompted a shift in city policy. Now, at least theoretically, any time the city does a repaving project they also go in and, at much added expense, improve the sidewalks with ADA ramps, bump outs, curbs cuts and the like. (This is why some property owners balk at the costs and sue the city.)


Unfortunately, Mayor Her did not follow that policy. Instead, she has brought us back to the worst paving practices from 15 years ago, throwing asphalt on a problem without doing jack squat to fix streets, sidewalks, or improve safety. 


The fresh pavement might look nice, but it does not bode well for the list of voter-approved Comment Cent projects, city-funded reconstructions where there's great opportunity to improve streets . Under the Carter Administration, Hamline Avenue (one of the sales tax projects) was going to be a textbook case of reconstruction and redesign with equity in mind. That would mean a road diet and separated bike lane along its entire length, from the railroad tracks on the north all the way to Highland.


Under the Her Administration, I'm not optimistic. I guess we’ll see. City policies and plans are technically on the books, but in the end, those are just paper.


[Aftermath of the 2012 Hamline Avenue crash that killed Cleo Louise Marie Thiberge.]

In Conclusion: Dangerously Bass Ackwards


To make a long story short, the neighborhood groups are exactly right to be pissed off here. The myopic repaving is a short-term solution to a long-term problem, and leaves in place the dangerous status quo conditions, the uncrossable street next to a populated university, the needless traffic sewer that will predictably lead to violent crashes. It will inevitably lead to someone being hurt or killed by drivers who are incentivized, by design, to drive dangerously.   


In the meantime, the city is in the midst of a death spike. Just the recent examples: Barbara Mork-Woodford was killed crossing Hamline Avenue two weeks ago, and Ricki Larson was killed riding a bicycle on Highland Parkway this week. They join the six (and counting) deaths of pedestrians and cyclists on St. Paul streets this year, an alarming increase.


Smooth pavement looks nice but papers over serious problems. I know we can do better in St. Paul, because not too long ago we were! It sure seems like that progress in St. Paul these days has to happen the hard way. 


Mayor Her’s Public Works department is off to a bad start, and I predict more people will get hurt.


Links of previous articles on this topic:



2020-03-20

Still Further Thoughts on Ayd Mill Road

[Ayd Mill drone shot!]
It might seem incongruous to write about Ayd Mill Road in these trying times, but now more than ever, this road continues to be a thorn in the side of the city of Saint Paul. The public meeting, the existence of which was an outcome of the heated conversation at City Council three weeks ago, was supposed to take place this week. In its place, we have a 30-minute youtube video from Public Works explaining a few things.

The point here, though, is that this moment of social distancing and quarantine is the PERFECT TIME to send in a thoughtful comment in support of progressive low-car / no-car changes to Ayd Mill Road. So take some time out of your humdrum working-from-home schedule, brush your cat off your keyboard, and comment today!

Obviously a lot has happened since I last wrote about this concrete quagmire, and how Saint Paul “fixes” this road has rightly faded into the background. But the road must go on, and public works is still going to spend its allocated budget this year on maintenance and construction. So I wanted to post an update with some of the new information I've learned since I last wrote about Ayd Mill Road.

But first, let's watch this informational video!



OK well. Here are my quick takaeaways from the presentation and survey:
  • It is very nice that "repaving the status quo", i.e. the initial Public Works / current CM Thao proposal, is not one of the options mentioned in the video. Indeed, it is not mentioned at all. 
  • The "timeline" of Ayd Mill Road really glosses over former Mayor Randy Kelly’s highly-controversial "test connection" back in 2003, which is a key reason we're in this mess today.
  • Wow those renderings are cheesy!
  • Why does the 3-lane option require fewer drainage improvements than the two-lane option? Inquiring minds want to know. I'd imagine the drainage issues would be the same, regardless.
  • What is the reason for the claim that the Jefferson ramp is a minor adjustment for one, but not the other? 
  • They talk about reconstruction as a cost driver, but don't mention the reason, which is the the turn lanes. I wonder what the range of possible stacking length for the turn lanes was, and how that might have affected costs for the two-lane option.
  • What is the design speed of the new road going to be? And what will be the posted speed of the new road? That seems super important because...
  • The video glosses over the safety issues. Decreasing speed should be a major goal of this project. And yet the focus here is  “separating” cars going each direction with a median? That's a key design feature if you have a high-speed road (>40mph, like it is now), but if you are designing a low-speed road (<30mph a="" bikes="" boulevard="" buffer="" case="" design="" don="" especially="" have="" if="" important="" in="" is="" li="" like="" lower="" median.="" mississippi="" nbsp="" nearby.="" need="" or="" pedestrians="" river="" safer.="" speed="" t="" than="" that="" the="" this="" two-lane="" with="" you="">
  • A quote here from the second presenter: “It stands to reason that the three-lane operates more efficiently than the two-lane.” ...hm, does it? I don't see why that would necessarily be true. If you create more crashes with a three-lane road due to weaving traffic and contrasting speeds, it is less efficient and less safe.
  • Finally, I hate to say this, but the survey is terrible. I've never seen a worse one from anyone other than a hack PR firm. 
So, yeah. Well at least this video and survey is still better than an in-person meeting about Ayd Mill Road would have been. I can only imagine how terrible that experience would be. The focus groups alone would have set a new state record for mansplaining.

The Big Picture on Ayd Mill Road

Since I last wrote about Ayd Mill Road, and expressed my opinion that the best option for the City of Saint Paul would be to remove it completely from the city-funded motor vehicle network, I've had a few in-depth conversations with folks close to the project, both within advocacy groups and within City Hall.

While my mind hasn't really changed, and I stand by most everything that I have previously written about this project, I do want to share a few things I've learned. Here are a few things that I've learned.

First, the concrete roadbed underneath the degrading is in better shape than people (and myself) had thought. That means that a mill and overlay will theoretically last longer than one might have initially expected (maybe 15-20 years instead of 7-10).

The caveat is that there’s a particular spot near Grand Avenue where there’s a natural spring (that presumably once fed Ayd Mill Creek). There, the city needs to do something -- re-grading, or installing a new drain -- that will cost at leastr  $1M. I'd imagine that, in any roadbed re-paving scenario, including re-paving the status quo, that would would have to happen to keep the project from quickly degrading.

That said, I imagine that with a theoretical park/trail-only option, this cost could be avoided. Or maybe, the money could be spent instead on rainwater or daylighting.)

Second, the main cost driver of the two-lane road option is installing turn lanes, which would require pouring new concrete to create enough stacking capacity to allow people to wait for the light before exiting.

(More on this in a moment.)

#3. Finally, the city’s process has been admittedly flawed, with some missed opportunities to communicate and/or come up with consistent options over the last year or so. It’s understandable, as Public Works projects are constantly evolving and often the timelines are improvised depending on what money and resources are available.

But, that said, the current proposal is better than a lot of other outcomes.

Ranking The Options

Speaking of which, here’s my ranking of the options that are currently on the table…

  • #4. The $4m four-lane status quo repaving — as I’ve said, this sucks.
  • #3. Doing nothing — Honestly, this could be great or terrible, depending on what ends up happening. If the city “kicked the can” once more and didn’t repave it this fall, likely the road would have to be shut down over the winter. At the very least, though, that would give people a chance to think through the situation more completely, as well as demonstrate what traffic impacts might look like.
  • #2. The $9m 2-lane option — this is the best outcome, but it’s just costs too much money. For example, $9m could get you a long way toward completing the Capital City Bikeway, which would have many times the benefits of the Ayd Mill Road connection for bicyclists and for the city's economy.
  • #1. The $7m 3-lane option — Well, it’s a compromise, and at least it’s a change that would finally eliminate any freeway-connection pipe dreams. That said, I find it hard to believe that the bike lane would be very pleasant or useful in the short term, but it's better than nothing.
But, I still feel that there are two options that are not on the table, and that’s frustrating. Here's one...
  • #?. Closing the road, building a recreational trail and fundraising for a park —  I’ve already written about this, as have others. If you ballpark $2m for the trail, this would truly be the best choice, but sadly many people in Saint Paul are yet not ready to create a future with fewer cars on the city streets.
And there's this, lingering around in my head...
  • #?. A cheaper 2-lane option, somewhere in the existing $7m range — I still think, stubbornly, that there should be a way to design a two-lane road that falls close to the consensus budgetary range for this project.

[The St. Clair intersection is pretty useless.]
One way to do this might be to eliminate one of the access points. The obvious choice here would be the St. Clair on- and off-ramps. For one thing, this entire road offers only marginal benefits to the transportation network, but that’s especially true for the St. Clair intersection, where they’re less than a mile (and a 2-minute drive) away from the nearest 35E on-ramps and even closer to the Jefferson ramp. Simply closing this intersection has to shave a million bucks off the project cost.

I’d also be really curious about pricing out intersection alternatives, like a roundabout. In theory, it could save money on traffic signals, decrease speeds, and reduce the need for any turn lanes.

Conclusions

In short, I wish the City could have done more to come up with a more affordable, less compromised plan. I’m sure the consultant did their best with a very limited budget and the set of scope parameters they were given, but there have to be more design choices out there that could provide a quality recreational trail at a reasonable price tag.

This is to say that I reluctantly support the existing compromise, but the takeaway for me is that it’s a shame that we can’t make better decisions with city money and on city-controlled projects. Saint Paul is hampered right now by its lack of resources, both being short on critical staff in Planning and Public Works, and with a lack of tax base and revenue more generally. With a project of this size and budget, with such long-term implications, and with so many ambitions and idealistic plans on the city's books, this three-lane compromise project, while better than the status quo, seems like a missed opportunity. If we really want to make meaningful changes to our city, we need to do better.

So, go forth and take the "survey". At the very least, when this passes, I'll never have to write about Ayd Mill Road again!