Were you riding as close to the wall as possible? If it were me I'd be almost in the middle of the lane, just to make sure no one tried anything stupid. If the city actually cared, they could put up a fence along the railing, like what they did with the 10th ave bridge. They could even designate a lane there as a bike lane :0 *surprise*

Of course, even in the great biking city of Minneapolis, cars come first, and the only place minneapolis cares to put bikes are on the greenway or other places where they don't have to sacrifice anything that drivers use.



So with that rule in place, technically the commissioner could make any road unlawful for bikers due to "safety" reasons. I'm glad they haven't put something stupid like that on County Road C or any road that I use regularly with 40 mph traffic.

Seriously, this is a load of crap. Us bikers got to do something about this.

options for doing something.
1. find an alternate route
2. find out who you can complain to, doing it here is futile.

I don't have to cross the bridge this semester, and probably won't next either. huzzah.

Um, no, he couldn't. Not unless the definition of "controlled access highway" is changed. I did not quote the law at all, just paraphrased the parts I thought were pertinent.

First, it has to already be a "controlled access highway" before a particular type of traffic can be prohibited therefrom. This is why it is typically only US highways and Interstates that are roadways whereon non-motorized traffic is prohibited. They are already controlled access. (No on grade crossings, no driveways, parking lots, etc.)

A "controlled access highway" is one where right of access of the owners of all abutting lands have been acquired and have no legal right of access except at certain points, usually, an on-ramp. As previously stated, it needs to meet special criteria before certain kinds of traffic can be prohibited.

Pretty much any roadway that has on grade crossings, driveways, parking lots, field approaches, or other randomly placed access points are not "controlled access" and therefore cannot have certain kinds of traffic prohibited therefrom.

It is interesting to note that in certain rural areas, bicycles are permitted to be used on the shoulders of Interstate highways because there is no alternate route nearby. There is a long stretch of I40 in So. Cal that allows bicycles on the shoulder. Though they must exit at the first available exit. Some Supreme Court case some time ago found that a person's right to locomotion could not be infringed upon (part of the pursuit of happiness clause) and that a sole public roadway between any two destinations (i.e. towns) could not prohibit non-motorized traffic. Sometime later, a man who had his driving privileges revoked tried to sue the state on the grounds that his right to locomotion was infringed upon. He lost on the grounds that not being able to use a car was not an infringement on said right because he could still walk, ride a bike, or ride a horse. And, that motor vehicles are too great a threat to public safety to be allowed as a right.

So, is prohibiting bikes from being ridden in the enclosure legal?

Mpls has rules against riding on the sidewalk in certain places.

Is this just a rule or a law?

I cross this bridge at 6:30 am and it seems stupid that I have to walk my bike.
at 4:30 i don't mind walking now because riding seems dangerous.

do you think they could ticket for riding a unicycle? the signs say bicycles, right?

there were joggers and rollerbladers blazing through there at a pretty good clip during the late afternoon rush yesterday that didn't get in trouble.

life isn't fair.

2. I sent an email to the commissioner. Here it is:


Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:25 AM
To: Commissioner.McLaughlin@co.hennepin.mn.us
Subject: Washington Bridge access


Hi Peter,
From what I understand, I believe you are the best person to contact regarding this issue, but if it isn't you, please let me know.

Since engineers have discovered problems with the Washington Ave bridge's structure on the upper level, bicycles are no longer allowed to cross the bridge unless they do it through the middle portion where all the pedestrians are. This requires them to dismount their bicycles.

Some of us cyclists were discussing alternatives ways of getting accross the river. The lower deck of the Washington bridge currently provides adequate connectivity, except that it is considered to be controlled access and not allowable for bicyclists under current law. Seeing that the speed limit here is only 45 mph on the bridge, 30 mph after crossing the bridge on the east side, and that Cedar Ave provides adequate access for cyclists to enter and exit on the west side, I request that cyclists not be excluded from this crucial artery. I ask that the restriction on cyclists from using this road be removed.

There are plenty of other highways like this in the metro that bicyclists are allowed to use, so I don't see why this one should be any different. With proper discretion, cyclists could use this road safely as well. Cycling ought to be promoted more to encourage alternative forms of transportation. This overall helps ease traffic congestion, reduce our dependence on oil, and increase the fitness levels of Americans who desperately need it.

I hope we can work together to make this happen. Thanks!

--Steve

Ordinarily, the signs state something about pedestrians, bicycles, non-motorized traffic, and motorized bicycles.

I suspect it is legal to prohibit bicycles from being ridden in the enclosure as it is not a road, I guess. I'm completely unfamiliar with this particular bridge's structure, so I don't really know what kind of bridge it is. Much less why the bridge deck would be a controlled access highway. That makes almost no sense at all.

State law says that bicycles may not be ridden on a sidewalk in a business district unless permitted by local authority. It then gives latitude to local authority to prohibit bicycles from being ridden on any sidewalk in their jurisdiction.

Any information I have regarding bikes and traffic can be found here in the various sections and subdivisions of this chapter. Most things regarding bicycles can be found in 169.222, but there's other stuff scattered around in other sections.

This is the part where I get confused. You mention the idea of no "at grade crossings" being a part of the controlled access (to the point of excluding cyclists) requirement. I've noticed that there are some roads which have at grade crossings but are still off limits to cyclists. For example, Highway 36 still has an At Grade crossing at English street but is considered controlled access up to Century Ave.

I wonder how far the locomotion argument can be extended. How far does one have to walk/bike out of there way before it infringes on their pursuit of happiness? For instance, it's somewhat unfair that people who live near the MN river at the 35w crossing have to travel 15 miles just to get to the otherside, whereas if they were allowed to use the shoulder on I35W, they could do it in less than a mile.

I just am a little worried because I use Highway 51 multiple times a week to get from Roseville to Arden Hills and it shaves about a mile off of my trip and is completely safe for me to do so. There are no restrictions imposed on this road yet for cyclists, but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to do something sometime in the future, being that they will be redoing the 694 interchange with 51 in the next 5 years. And of course, cloverleafs aren't safe for bikers *rolls eyes*, we'd rather go miles out of our way than inconvenience a few cars who can't gun it down the off ramp because it takes us a second to cross it.

Controlled access doesn't necessarily preclude on grade crossings, they just usually don't have them. What sets them apart is that there are only certain points at which entry can be made. Or, as defined in the law, the rights to access have been acquired by the state, i.e., purchased the land abutting the roadway and removed driveways and such from the ditches, more or less. And a controlled access highway doesn't necessarily prohibit non-motorized traffic, but it has to be a controlled access highway before non-motorized traffic can be prohibited.

As far as the locomotion argument, that would depend on the opinion of courts and their willingness to set precedent.

I'd be worried about 51 too, if I were you. If they're going to build a cloverleaf-type ramp instead of the typical overpass, it might very well prohibit bikes in the area of the interchange. Let's find out what the plan is regarding that. Then, if need be, get the bicycle advocacy groups and transportation lobbyists involved to change the plan to accomodate bikes. Incidentally, it is probably not a bad idea to join bicycle advocacy groups. Numbers of members in an area is the only way for the group to gain the political clout to sway politicians. (MORC doesn't have trails in Roseville because of insufficient membership in that area to sway politicians.) In short, the group doesn't represent enough people to be significant. This point was made in the articles about "bicycle neglect". How many million motorists belong to the AAA simply for the towing? How many bicyclists belong to LAB? (I'm guilty of non-membership. I really ought to remedy that.) The AAA says "jump" and the politicians say "how high?", the LAB says "jump" and the politicians say "did you hear something? must've been the wind."

I think "nearby" is too ambiguous a term for how far away I have to go to transport myself around a public place that is for the exclusive use of a particular group. Which (refers to public properties for the exclusive use of a particular group instead of everyone as indicated by the term "public"), by-the-way, I happen to think not only unjust, but unconstitutional, if not explicitly, then in principle.

And a "well you could drive" is an insufficient argument because driving is not a privilege extended to everyone, neither should it be. I'm very much against specific use public lands, either everyone ought to be able to use it, or it shouldn't be public. By specific use I mean to the exclusion of all but a particular user group.

I received a response from someone in the City Commissioner's office about my idea of using the lower deck:

Hi Steven:

Thanks for writing. Upon receiving your e-mail, Commissioner McLaughlin asked me to forward your suggestion to our Transportation Department for consideration. Unfortunately, our staff conveyed that the barriers along the inside and outside are not sufficiently high enough to meet safety standards required for bicyclists -- the barriers are 2'8", and standards for bicycle use require a barrier or railing height of 4"6".

We continue to work closely with the University of Minnesota to make the best of the situation and provide safe conditions for all travelers crossing the bridge and the upper level pedestrian deck. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch and forward any additional comments, ideas or questions via e-mail or by phone (my office and cell numbers are listed below).

Kind regards,
Katie

(continuation from post before) My reply that I sent back:

Hi Katie,

Thank you very much for your response. The railing height definately sounds like an important safety concern. Would it be possible to construct a taller railing? On the 10th/Cedar Ave Bridge, there is a fence setup that is anchored by metal posts (that are bolted to the cement barrier) along the west side wall where pedestrians could stand and observe the construction of the 35w bridge. This fence was setup after the 35w bridge collapse to provide better safety for the observing pedestrians. Could a similar fence like that be constructed along the walls of the lower deck of the Washington Ave Bridge in order to provide better safety for cyclists?

--Steve

They have a fence up on top that they aren't using. Could they move it down?

now you're just being logical...

i'm loving the #9 bridge. suckas.