August __, 2011 Dear Council Member __________, I have been following the evolution of the conversation about

the reconstruction of Nicollet Avenue between Lake and 40th Streets, and I strongly believe that what should be built is what the City initially proposed: 42-foot roadways with bulb-outs at each intersection. A group of us have created a website to advocate for this outcome (www.nicolletfriends.org) and we are mobilizing on facebook as well. Our neighborhood needs the reconstruction of Nicollet to be a catalyst for redevelopment of the corridor Nicollet is at the heart of the Kingfield and Lyndale neighborhoods, and so we must do whats in the best interest of all of the neighborhood stakeholders, not just an outspoken few. We should be trying to maximize the boulevard space, not minimize it. The greater the boulevard space, the easier it will be to accommodate all of the lights, trees, bus shelters, etc.; the healthier the trees will be; and, perhaps most importantly, the slower and safer vehicles will likely travel. Motorists currently see a 50-foot speedway that is barely lined and has plenty of room for parking and travel. Vehicles speed regularly along stretches of Nicollet, mostly where the lack of potholes allow for it. If Nicollet is paved and the roadway is not narrowed as much as possible, speeds will likely increase along parts of the corridor since motorists will see a smoothly-paved, wide roadway. Studies have shown that motorists drive faster on these kinds of roadways compared to other, narrower roadways. As was done on Lyndale, a line should be painted between the travel and the parking lane to visually narrow the roadway as well. The roadway lane widths are, in the words of the City, more than adequate. City staff who I consider career professionals/experts on these matters call for a 11-foot travel lane and the state calls for a 10-foot parking lane. That equals 42 feet of roadway, which would allow for 12 feet of amenity space on each side of the road: 6-foot sidewalks and 6 feet of boulevard for everything else that must be accommodated with their necessary setbacks (bus shelters, lights, trees, etc.). Reducing the boulevard space to 5 feet is, also in the words of the City, doable, but accommodating everything will be tight. Why should that have to be the case? Why should the boulevard be minimized? The parking and travel lane widths are perfectly adequate at 10 and 11 feet, respectively. It seems like the best choice is for everything not to be too tight in the boulevard: 6 feet will allow for everything to be accommodated and, in addition to more stormwater absorption/diversion, will likely result in healthier, bigger trees along the corridor, which is something most everyone would like to see. Representatives of the businesses have been saying that businesses are willing to accept a roadway width of less than what they have now, but they are pushing hard to go from the initially recommended 42-foot width to not only to the current compromise of 44-foot roadway widths (which I believe is still too wide), but to 46-foot widths. Two feet more of boulevard space on each side of the roadway hardly narrows the street. And even a 44-foot width is hazardous for people along Nicollet cars, which can be seven feet wide, tend to park as close to the curb as possible. That leaves up to 15 feet open for travel, which is more than enough space even for the widest of vehicles. The hazard is that if a vehicle is turning left or is otherwise stopped in the middle of the block, a motorist may think that there is enough space to pass between them and any parked cars on the right. This may cause any number of accidents

the passing car may not be able to see a pedestrian who is passing in front of the stopped car, the passing car may not be able to see a car traveling in the opposite direction that is making a turn in front of the stopped car, or the passing car may not see someone getting out of their parked car. Recommended travel lane and parking widths are recommended for a reason they can be hazardous if they are wider than recommended. If the business representatives succeed in getting 46-foot widths, the boulevards, and the pedestrians who use the corridor will suffer. And there are a lot of pedestrians along the corridor, and there will likely be more after Nicollet is reconstructed. Nicollet is a very busy bus route, and everyone who takes a bus has to walk on both sides of their bus trips they have to walk to the bus stop and then they have to walk from the bus stop to their destination. Also, there are a lot of pedestrians of all ages and abilities up and down the corridor: people taking kids to daycare, senior citizens in wheelchairs, etc., who need the roadway to be as pedestrian-friendly as possible. Furthermore, the motorists who stop along the corridor are pedestrians, too, since after they park they must walk to their destination. More and more people will be walking along the corridor, especially if the streetcar someday arrives. Several studies have shown that once streets like Nicollet are reconstructed, businesses along these corridors start seeing more foot traffic and sales receipts grow. Vacancies have also declined along these corridors. The boulevard space needs to be as wide as possible to accommodate not only the current amount of pedestrians, but the future amount of pedestrians as well. A pedestrian friendly street will attract more foot traffic and, in turn, more revenues for local businesses this is a win-win for everyone. Businesses are an important part of the neighborhood, but for every outspoken businessperson or business representative, there are dozens of neighborhood residents and people who use the corridor who would undoubtedly prefer a narrower roadway to more than adequate roadway widths. The neighborhood residents are not as well organized as the businesses, but there are many more of them and even though some of them might not understand the intricacies of roadway redevelopment, even the surveys showed that neighborhood residents want a narrower, more pedestrian-friendly Nicollet Ave. Plus, businesses should be pleased with wider boulevards since that equates to more snow storage so that parking near their businesses is not affected as much in the winter. For some reason that I cannot understand, some people seem to think that narrower roadways mean less snow storage that is illogical because a narrower roadway means less snow to clear off the roadway and more space to store it. Id like to now turn to bump-outs. Studies show that bump-outs make roadways much safer for pedestrians. They significantly shorten the distance pedestrians must cross to get from curb to curb. They also make pedestrians more visible since when standing on a bump-out to cross the street, they are not shielded from motorists vision by parked cars. They also significantly visually narrow the roadway: from curb to curb, the distance between bump-outs is much less than from corner to corner (without bump-outs). Nowadays people are more and more distracted while theyre driving, with cell phones, texting, and multi-tasking; the less distance pedestrians have to be on the roadway, the better, and the safer they will be. People have said that they are concerned about bump-outs because of their width for bicyclists and for snowplows to navigate. If the bump-outs protrude into the street no more than the width of a parked car, then this is a non-issue for bicyclists since bicyclists should be traveling parallel

to parked cars anyways (and not so close to them so that they might get doored). Therefore, there should be plenty of space for bicyclists to pass a bump-out and not be shifted into the travel lane. For snowplows, the City has said the plow drivers are getting better and better at navigating bump-outs. The Lyndale bump-outs may have a few nicks, but snowplowing is only one part of the entire equation, and it is becoming increasingly a non-issue. Some people are concerned about bump-outs making snow removal more difficult, thereby causing a loss of parking along the roadway. To the contrary, bump-outs (especially when coupled with wider boulevards) provide more space for snow storage, and if plow drivers are continuing to improve their navigation of streets with bump-outs, it would be a shame to not have bump-outs on Nicollet today when in a few years plowing around bump-outs may be no problem at all. Some people have expressed concern about how truck deliveries will be hindered by a narrower roadway and bump-outs. On the contrary, a narrower roadway and bump-outs may actual help truck deliveries. With a narrower roadway, the City has more space in the boulevards to design curb radii that allow for trucks to make their necessary turning maneuvers. Bump-outs at intersections help prevent cars from parking too close to the corner, so instead of a truck potentially being unable to make a turn without hitting a parked car, the truck can simply drive over the bump-out if necessary. In closing, the Council should stand up to the expressed interest of a handful of wronglyinformed yet well-organized businesses and business representatives and should stand up for the desires of the residents and for the safety of the multitudes of pedestrians that use and will use the Nicollet corridor now and in the future. This means 42-foot roadway widths, 12-foot boulevards, and bump-outs wherever possible. I believe that once a narrower roadway is constructed, many of the opposing business owners and their representatives will see that they were wrong and that a narrower, safer, and more pedestrian-friendly corridor is good for business, good for pedestrians, good for the neighborhood, and good for the City. I live, work, shop, and [insert personal statement here, if youd like] Must we compromise so much from the Citys initial plans that Nicollet Ave. doesnt reach its potential for the neighborhood and peoples safety is still in danger? Please take advantage of this opportunity and do not let the roadway be any wider than 42 feet and please vote for the inclusion of bumpouts. Sincerely,

___________________________