Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're a pedestrian, that's literally the end of the line.
Now, it's probably obvious, but as a full-time pedestrian I'll let the secret out that the no pedestrian sights don't really stop us. It stops me when there's a limited access highway, like the first picture. But obviously if someone doesn't have a car, and they are going somewhere, they are going to keep on walking, even if you technically need a car to get there.
I don't have any specific examples from Minnesota, but like I said, they pretty much have to exist.
That's a pretty pitiful transition. What's even more pathetic about it is that there are no interchanges that you have to cross yet they still ban pedestrians. I don't think we have anything that absurd in the Minneapolis area, that I'm aware of. I can think of some examples that are kind of similar though.
In Roseville, Har Mar mall is located roughly a half mile from Rosedale mall. A freeway seperates these 2 malls. There is a bridge that crosses the freeway and connects the 2 malls and it is known as "Snelling Avenue". On the Har Mar side there is a nice sidewalk that follows Snelling Avenue but stops at the stoplight just before crossing a freeway. After the stoplight awaits a cloverleaf that you have to cross before getting to Rosedale. Even though it is legal to do so, crossing this cloverleaf as a pedestrian is an experience that does not put one at ease. If you have any shopping plans that don't involve a car, you are better of sticking to just one of the two malls.
I guess I don't see walking to be a safety issue on 99% of suburban roads. If you want to pull out two areas that are heavily commercial, not residential at all, and use that as an example of unsafe places in the "suburbs" to walk, whatever-those roads are no less safe then walking on Snelling Ave, Cleveland, University, etc. in the cities. There isn't a single street in our town that would be banned from walking-but then again, we have these non-existent sidewalks everyone is talking about. I still can't get many people here to understand that we just don't have the traffic you have in the cities, nor do we have cars lining the streets like you have in the city so walking along the edge of the road just isn't an issue, safety or otherwise.
People here ARE cognizant of pedestrians because you FREQUENTLY see kids playing in the street, riding bikes in the street, people walking pets, etc. It is an urban perpetuated myth that no one in the suburbs walks .
I can't think of a single road in the metro, other than interstates, that have no pedestrian crossings or ban pedestrians-can anyone else??
I guess I don't see walking to be a safety issue on 99% of suburban roads. If you want to pull out two areas that are heavily commercial, not residential at all,...
But, you see, that's what the problem is. We (pedestrians) are walking places, often commercial in nature (although sometimes I walk to parks, the train station, etc.). We walk to work. The grocery store. Clothing store. Deli. Coffee shop. Whatever. Precisely the commercial destinations that tend to be harder to get to in the suburbs based on zoning practices(although not impossible, obviously). Malls, strip malls, office parks, which tend to be separate from where people live. We don't just "go for walks for fun and exercise", although some of us do, of course.
But, you see, that's what the problem is. We (pedestrians) are walking places, often commercial in nature (although sometimes I walk to parks, the train station, etc.). We walk to work. The grocery store. Clothing store. Deli. Coffee shop. Whatever. Precisely the commercial destinations that tend to be harder to get to in the suburbs based on zoning practices(although not impossible, obviously). Malls, strip malls, office parks, which tend to be separate from where people live. We don't just "go for walks for fun and exercise", although some of us do, of course.
I just disagree with your assessment. There are plenty of places in the suburbs that are perfectly walkable, commercial, industrial areas that are no less safe then walking in the cities. The two places UU mentioned both have ample sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. to get around and are no different then walking in the cities. I just don't see the issue you seem to have with zoning or what have you. In the suburbs I am familiar with, the commercial centers are all adjacent to residential areas, usually buffered by townhomes. They have sidewalks along the busiest roads at a minimum to allow walking--which I see frequently--to stores, office buildings, etc. In many ways walking in the suburbs is safer than walking in the cities because typically the boulevard is wider and the walking paths/sidewalks are farther from the road.
Golfgal, I'd suggest you get out and walk a bit before you make such a sweeping statement. It is not an "urban perpetuated myth" that no one in the suburbs walk; I walk quite a bit in the suburbs, and I know there are others of us out there. It's often very dangerous, though, because cars AREN'T looking for pedestrians. Sure, maybe they are on the side streets in residential areas, but many aren't when you get to the commercial strips. And that's where this major disconnect seems to be happening: people who like to walk TO places, not just out around the residential streets, walk on commercial roads. That's where most of the destinations are located. Even if you're walking to another house you often have to go on those strips. Many of them do have sidewalks, but it's not
I don't like walking on University much, either, but it's still a safer experience than walking along many of the bigger suburban thoroughfares. And while I'm not as up on St. Paul's streets, Minneapolis, at least, is certainly taking steps to improve its pedestrian safety and experience. I can certainly think of streets in Minneapolis that can use some safety upgrades. I can think of a lot more in the suburbs that need them, but again, not sure what to do about that: many of the suburban ones DO have okay design (other than people turning on you when you try to cross the street), and while there are often some other pedestrians out walking, the lower density, fewer people out walking, wider, busier streets, and overall car-dominated landscape makes it dangerous to be a pedestrian.
The "cars lining the street" complaint is an odd one, given that generally they serve to slow down traffic, provide a buffer from street and sidewalk, and overall contribute to GREATER, not less, pedestrian safety.
The problem with the traffic engineers (and this goes for many of the ones working in the city, too) is that their goal is to keep traffic flowing; people walking gets in the way. I assume that's why there all those push-buttons to get a walk sign, as opposed to an automatic walk signal. And while I do understand that with all the snow it's going to take a long time to dig them out, wouldn't that suggest that in a snowy climate we shouldn't have them at all? (we have some of those in city limits, too, which I equally hate; at least in the city, though, they're generally closer to the intersection and not so set back so there's a better chance of reaching them even if not clear)
Also, golfgal, you said your suburb has sidewalks; in that case, people here aren't talking about your neighborhood. We are talking about those neighborhoods that DON'T have sidewalks. And, realistically, that's an issue that many, many Twin Cities suburbs are grappling with. Once you build without sidewalks it's a major hassle (and expense) to get them put in, which is an issue that many suburbs are dealing with right now. They're a controversial issue, as not everyone likes them, wants to pay for them, wants to maintain them, or wants them taking up land in the street or in their yard.
There are many, many intersections in the Twin Cities that have no crossing for pedestrians. The roads themselves usually do have stoplights at some point -- it's just that sometimes they are some distance apart, and people either have to rush across during a break in traffic or walk blocks out of their way just to safely cross.
My bigger personal peeve (simply because it's near where I'm currently living) is the lack of pedestrian crossings over 62 from Minneapolis into Richfield; I often have to backtrack nearly half a mile simply to cross at Penn, as there are no pedestrian crossings or bridges for a mile (maybe more). Distances like that are insignificant in a car, but for a pedestrian they add on a great deal of time and hassle. I'm willing to do it, but understandably most people just hop in their car to make what could be an easy and quick walk to amenities just on the other side of the highway.
Anyone who seriously believes that the suburbs do not have traffic needs to get out and walk along some of the major streets in said suburbs. Car ownership rates are higher in the suburbs, public transportation use is lower, and fewer people live within walking distance of work or shopping; all statistics point to more people using cars for more trips. I think the issue, though, is that there's this tendency to look at commercial roads as not counting somehow. If we're comparing apples to apples, many residential streets in the city are just as quiet as residential streets in most suburbs. I don't mind walking on streets in either of those areas, although I do much prefer to use a sidewalk whenever available.
Our neighborhood in Stillwater had sidewalks. In the winter, though, I would end up using the road to run on because the sidewalks were always too slippery from freeze and thaw. Our neighborhood in Texas does not have sidewalks, but the streets are REALLY wide. We bike and walk a lot of places.
But, you see, that's what the problem is. We (pedestrians) are walking places, often commercial in nature (although sometimes I walk to parks, the train station, etc.). We walk to work. The grocery store. Clothing store. Deli. Coffee shop. Whatever. Precisely the commercial destinations that tend to be harder to get to in the suburbs based on zoning practices(although not impossible, obviously). Malls, strip malls, office parks, which tend to be separate from where people live. We don't just "go for walks for fun and exercise", although some of us do, of course.
The entire commercial district where I live in the suburbs has sidewalks. The residential areas have them on a few main roads and the other residential roads really have no need for them in my opinion. I probably could have taken a 6 hour nap during the day in the middle of the street that I grew up on.
I just disagree with your assessment. There are plenty of places in the suburbs that are perfectly walkable, commercial, industrial areas that are no less safe then walking in the cities. The two places UU mentioned both have ample sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. to get around and are no different then walking in the cities. I just don't see the issue you seem to have with zoning or what have you. In the suburbs I am familiar with, the commercial centers are all adjacent to residential areas, usually buffered by townhomes. They have sidewalks along the busiest roads at a minimum to allow walking--which I see frequently--to stores, office buildings, etc. In many ways walking in the suburbs is safer than walking in the cities because typically the boulevard is wider and the walking paths/sidewalks are farther from the road.
You're free to disagree, but I'd suggest getting out and walking those two areas, along with several comparison areas in the city. I've spent a great deal of time walking in many different parts of the Twin Cities, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is a VERY different experience out there. Edina near Southdale sticks out in particular as an interesting example because they are really, really trying; they DO have sidewalks (and were even clearing out their bus benches the other day), but the drivers out there are NOT, as a rule, looking for pedestrians. They streets are busier and wider with more lanes of traffic, and drivers are looking for other cars or for their turn-ins into parking lots. This despite the close proximity of homes and commercial uses, and ambitious efforts by the city to integrate the two.
With pedestrian issues, you really need to get out there and walk them, ideally at different times of the year and at different times of the day, to get a sense for what those of us who walk for a purpose (and not only for pleasure) are talking about. Having a sidewalk on a busy street is nice, and certainly MUCH better than not having one, but it is not, in itself, proof of being walkable. I've participated in some interesting community surveys (although not in MN) where we split into teams and walked stretches of sidewalks, recording all sorts of information documenting the pedestrian experience. It was a wonderful experience, and something I think all neighborhoods and communities could really benefit from. The information was all compiled into a document used by the city to help identify problems and solutions, and in the meantime just getting out there and looking at the issue in a systematic way was a good way to raise awareness among the community, both among those who walk all the time as well as those who don't.
I just disagree with your assessment. There are plenty of places in the suburbs that are perfectly walkable, commercial, industrial areas that are no less safe then walking in the cities. The two places UU mentioned both have ample sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. to get around and are no different then walking in the cities. I just don't see the issue you seem to have with zoning or what have you. In the suburbs I am familiar with, the commercial centers are all adjacent to residential areas, usually buffered by townhomes. They have sidewalks along the busiest roads at a minimum to allow walking--which I see frequently--to stores, office buildings, etc. In many ways walking in the suburbs is safer than walking in the cities because typically the boulevard is wider and the walking paths/sidewalks are farther from the road.
I'm not really anti-suburb in the grand sense of the word, so unless anyone has a specific question for me, I think I'll duck out of the debate. I think most people who are anti-suburbs tend to be anti-zoning policy. The zoning policy that separates residential from offices from retail. This varies from place to place, but it's pretty similar. Here in Philadelphia, for instance, it's a very big geographic city. There are places within city limits, in the far northeast, that date to the typical suburban period, that actually have subdivisions and malls and office parks and are not walkable, in my opinion. And there are also some really old suburbs that are legitimate towns that people can live in without ever having to leave or get into a car.
So, for me, it's not some abstract suburban versus urban thing. It's just a matter of real places, real neighborhoods. I would obviously live in West Chester, PA before I lived in far northeast Philadelphia, because West Chester is a real place, despite being a suburb. And far northeast Philly is not a real place, despite being in the city.
Two points on what you said, though. The first one is that wide streets do not make for safer pedestrian life. Wide streets are harder to cross. Wide streets allow cars to drive faster, which is a hazard for pedestrians. If the sidewalks are far back from the street, it is to make up for the inherent danger of having such wide streets. In the city, cars *should* (although this doesn't work in Minneapolis all the time) be forced to slow down. Additionally, protection for pedestrians in the city come in the form of street parking and trees, which form a physical barrier between the street and sidewalk. Funnily enough, your incorrect point about why suburban walking is safer is precisely where Minneapolis and Saint Paul fail, as several major corridors (the ones that come to mind are Lake Street, which I used to live on, Hennepin Avenue, and University Avenue) are too wide, and cars use these streets as expressways practically, passing each other and ignoring speed limits. It was not fun crossing Lake Street in Powderhorn everyday, for the same reason it's not fun crossing Snelling Avenue in Roseville. Additionally, downtown one-ways in both cities are a pedestrian hazard, encouraging fast driving. The fact that there are some dangers in the legitimate city is a testament to poor planning going back to the early 20th century, and it's not an excuse for continued poor planning. It also doesn't outweigh the obvious benefit of the city, which is that you can have an apartment on Lake Street and also do everything you have to do outside of your apartment...on Lake Street.
I have walked in those areas-Golf Galaxy is a frequent stop of mine and I often go there and hike over to other places along American Blvd-Southtown area. I will give you that the parking lot at Southtown is a mess, but that isn't what we are talking about and many of the so called "busy" suburban areas and I really don't understand your issue, at all. Like I said, there are sidewalks-wide bike path size sidewalks--in most areas. There are crosswalks with stoplights at almost every intersection or at least every other intersection, people DO watch for pedestrians-at least I have never had an issue with getting run over by a car or even nearly hit. Maybe the crossing signals work differently here .
As far as the cars lining the streets comment-I say that because I think the city dwellers picture car lined streets with no sidewalks and having to walk on the street side of the cars which is NOT the case-people walk where cars would be parked along the side of the road.
Like I have said many times, most suburbs are MORE walkable then the cities-for reasons you have just stated-limited crossings, heavy traffic, etc. Someone posted here a while back about the Cleveland/Ford Parkway intersection showing that it carries TWICE the car traffic that our busiest street here carries each day yet that area is considered one of the "most walkable" in the metro??
I can walk to the grocery store from my house and see MAYBE a dozen cars the entire trip-unless I go at 5:30 when everyone is coming home from work. There are times I will walk there and not see a single car--THIS is what people don't understand about the suburbs. You never have to step foot on a 'busy' road if you don't want to and you can still get to what you need.
I could do the same thing in Apple Valley, Burnsville, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, Stillwater, Woodbury, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
