The Great River Project aims to connect several different zones along the Mississippi
River. We welcome your input on the planning process as we move forward. Just
fill in the Leave a Reply form below. Thank you for your interest in the project.
Return to the blog to see what other topics you can comment on.
The key word here is access. The potential for new trails along with existing trails and nature experiences along the river are numerous and exciting. How are people going to get from the adjacent city to these experiences? An immediate inventory of existing paths to the river and potential future paths should be made with an eye to retaining the best access that can be provided. Significant barriers already exist. It does not make a lot of sense to provide a lot of parking for vehicles along the river or to add more barriers. Vehicles of even those visiting should be confined to existing city infrastructure. Overlooks can be added or enhanced for those not needing to reach the river edge. We should explore adding access paths or enhancing existing paths from surrounding neighborhoods for those who do want to reach the river? These would be perpendicular (to the river) paths that are then extended along the river to the next path out in gentle non intrusive ways that do not alter the natural river bottom. Where barriers to paths exist, perhaps tunnels for these paths across existing barriers in the limestone shelf might be more cost effective than bridges that obstruct the view.
It is interesting, and sad, that I am unable to (safely) drive my scooter from W 7th to Fort Snelling State Park (without getting on a major freeway). Let’s hope we can avoid that here.
I, too, am “pro-tunnel.” There are loads of existing caves, caverns, and cellars which other towns would love to include in their tourism repertoire. Here we plug them up and try to make people forget about them. Also, men carved miles and miles of sewers with their bare hands, practically, so it doesn’t require Swiss engineering equipment to build a tunnel.
I will be lobbying hardest for a nice, sensible “gateway” to and from the Randolph/W 7th intersection (which would include the brewery). Getting Public Works and Real Estate to provide the neighborhood with maps would be a great first start to getting a preliminary design initiated.
Andrew: You say “drive my scooter”. Are you talking about a motorized vehicle or a push scooter?
If it is motorized, use the road like you are supposed to. Hwy 5 at that location is not all that busy.
If it is a push scooter, use the Samuel Morgan Trail (along Sheppard road) and use the sidewalk along the Hwy 5 bridge to the Historic Fort. It has trail access to the park and to Minnehaha Falls Park.
You can also use the trail along the 35E bridge to get over to Big Rivers Regional trail that has a link to the Hwy 55 bridge sidewalk and trail to the Historic Fort.
The downtown pedestrian access to the river parkway is limited to Eagle Street at upper landing and Sibley at lower landing, save for the oft closed “Great Stairs” at the Science museum. It would be nice to have stair way access from Robert to the park and trails, and it would also be nice if the Science Museum stairs were open year round. Downtown is lacking a good year round connection to the river.
Yeah I agree that those stairs are closed for too much of the year. It seems like they are fenced off from the first day that the temps drop below 60 and then don’t open up again until the following May. I’m sure I’m exaggerating a bit here, but they definitely close long before snow is a problem.
FYI, you can take the Science Museum’s parking lots elevators down to the river level at all times. They don’t require you to go into the museum or the parking lot.
The maps are useless – I tried printing one in color on 11×17 inch paper (which most people cannot do) and it is still unreadable. Maybe those with D sized plotters like your planners have can print a usable copy. The photo clutter blocks any viewing of the important information.
A good PDF (so people can zoom and move around) of a street map based version (to avoid the clutter) would be a much more usable map.
Otherwise, how about making a “my maps” version with the important information on Google Maps. With a bit of programming, your web people could also use the Google Map API to make maps with the data residing completely on your server.
We’ll try that. Thanks for the input.
Two access improvements on my wish list that immediately come to mind:
– access from the High Bridge; probably from Upper Landing
– [this may be out of the master plan bounds but….] completion of the West Side green stairs!!! this is a major access route from folks on upper West Side to the riverfront.
I am very curious about the planned route that seems to follow Kellogg/Marion. There are very few safe bike routes from Saint Paul into downtown, especially if you are coming from the Midway, Frogtown, Cathedral Hill, or Crocus Hill areas. I know we can’t do anything about the steep inclines, but you are really taking your life in your hands to compete with the car traffic that is getting onto or off of the freeway at the 35 bridge on Kellogg/Marion.
Any improvements to this area for bikers and pedestrians could really help people access the river.
I think that the plan should include a public water access under the Interstate 35E bridge. This location would be ideal when considered trough both river and land based reasoning.
From the water, the area has excellent sight lines both up and down river allowing operators to easily asses oncoming traffic (Both commercial and recreational). The launch could be located outside the commercial navigation channel, where the natural current is consistently flowing in one direction (No eddies or crossing currents). All existing water access points in St. Paul offer both commercial navigation hazards (Located on bends in the river with poor visibility) and dangerous natural hazards such as crossing or eddying currents and submerged wing dams.
As far as land benefits, the location of 35E and Shepperd Road, would create easier driving directions, which could potentially increase recreational river usage and decrease vehicle impacts in other natural areas where current water access is provided (Such as Lillydale Regional Park). Finally, the area already has an established roadway and a leveled riverside lot that remain from the recent bridge construction project.
These thoughts are submitted with over 10 years of work experience as a commercial pilot in the St. Paul harbor.
I share in the previous comments about access along West Seventh – there’s lots of opportunity for better marked connections at places like around Randoph/Schmidt Brewery redevelopment site. I’m told there’s an interesting abandoned tunnel near the KochMobil site that might be an interesting way to get under Shepard Road.
There’s lots of opportunity for new connections downtown, as has already been noted. Vertical access near Wabasha Street is a critical part of redevelopment there, as would be a thoughtful knitting together of Lowertown, Riverfront, and Vento Sanctuary in and around Lowertown. Anything that can make the rail through this area more of an attraction and less of a physical and visual barrier and distraction would be very welcome.
More consistent wayfinding within the city seems a priority. I know there’s been some initial work on this issue, but there’s opportunity for more. Minneapolis has some long-standing wayfinding signage kiosks and the like around the Grand Rounds, and building on that system would seem to help us take a critical step forward in defining and orienting people to our riverfront and its virtues.
For regional bike trails particularly, it’s worth thinking more deliberately about expanded wintertime plowing and maintenance to make them more of a year-round amenity. I don’t have a complete sense of what is maintained, just thought I’d identify the issue.
Finally, here’s a longer-term goal that I think very much deserves to be very much “on the map” so to speak. The Pig’s Eye Lake area could very surely benefit from more public access. So much of that land is public – but it has not been the center of many people’s attention, partly because it is “out of sight, out of mind”. Improving access to that land might go a long way to helping build long-term support and interest to improve the substantial amount of public parkland the City and County already own in the area. Perhaps that challenge should be identified front and center is to find a way to surmount the barriers and create better connections to the area. This surely is a priority that has a longer time horizon, but now would seem the time to be a little visionary.
Sorry to be exceptionally long-winded, but I had to miss the meeting for the birth of my son, so I thought I’d just get it out… Nice work!
I appreciate Mr. Spaulding’s emphasis on access. It seems to me this is the correct emphasis for this final master plan effort. Access will lead to more use of the of the amenities already built – leading to more amenities driven by demand which in some cases private entities would fund. Master plan recommendations and zoning should control for desired and limited development.
I believe trails and bike paths are a great way to expand access. Many of these trail and path amenities, should I say most, are parallel to the river with significant barriers ie, Shepherd Road, railroads, lack of way finding signage to actual access. Sadly, the access that is available is biased to the young, but not too young, and the able of our citizens. We should have more access that is perpendicular to the river and less emphasis on parallel at this point. Bridges that don’t destroy the valley view, tunnels and overlooks should be explored and expanded where ever possible.
Can we take a second to think bigger in this planning opportunity?
Wayfinding along the trails in and to/from the river is a great start, but if we’re talking long term, we need signage and directions on Major Highways, in airport hotels, at Como Zoo and State Fair, Twins stadium, Xcel Center, Light Rail Stations, bus stops, public bldgs, local universites etc. Make it easy for locals & tourists to get to/from River.
In major tourism desitnations like Paris, Orlando, San Fran, and Tokyo, there are you-are-here map kiosks and X miles/KM’s to ABC destination avery 2 or 3 blocks.
When you visit the Alps, Andes, Ankor Wat, Pacific Coast Trail or similar trekking destinations, there is a whole industry of guides, outfitters, excursion opportunities, and locals that support getting tourists & locals the experiences they desire. Plus there are plenty of rest huts, camp areas, B & B’s and Hostels to choose from. We could be like Moab UT for bikers, Bozeman MT for climbers, or Ely MN for canoeists.
Lets be a place where you can stay for a week, get lots of hardy outdoor fun and experiences, and then cool down at night in a hotel or under the stars. Come winter, you change up to other experiences. Would work for families, 20 something’s and Golden Agers in retirement. Would bosst our image internationally and help draw employers and entice the internationals coming in for college/university work.
Why not build some hostels that are also hooked up with major retailers like REI, Coleman, Gander Mountain, Cabela’s etc and create a WORLD CLASS trekking and outdoor adventure destination in Saint Paul?
Do we have to limit ourselves to simplying adding a few more trail connections, a few overlooks, or upgrading a few picnic shelters? Our we allowed to think bigger and ask the question “Why would someone from L.A. or Berlin or Johanesburg want to spend time & money in our back yards over any other vacation destination?”
I LOVE your big thinking Jimmy! and whole heartedly agree… there is no reason we can’t offer an outdoor “immersion” experience for our residents and visitors that encourages diverse offers for year round use and enjoyment including: designated mountain bike trails, paved walking/biking trails, groomed cross country ski trails, snow shoe trails, fishing, natural play areas, rock climbing, nature camps and field trips for kids, etc. We should partner with or provide outfitting resources, educational services, entertainment/food and beverage offerings etc. There are lots of great examples as Jimmy mentions. I have been driving out to Lebanon Hills in Eagan for skiing and that park is world class…skiing through the woods on gentle rolling, well groomed trails is better than anything. A totally different experience than golf course skiing (which is akin to running on a treadmill IMO). Don’t let the folks who want to preserve the status quo as their own private backyard (Crosby Farm…Highland District Council) dissuade you City staff… We can do all these things AND offer historical educaiton and be environmentally sensitive. This is a resource that should and can be open to all… The best way to preserve nature and grow conservationists for the future is to get kids and families outside doing fun stuff together! They won’t go to CF now because it is way too creepy… not enough other people around midweek.
To have expanded the discussion of way-finding and access to such large scales, namely developing the river-experience into an internationally recognized destination as Jimmy and Katie are suggesting, is exactly the direction our planning efforts need to be headed in, though perhaps not for the obvious reasons.
Creating such a world class waterway destination would inevitably instigate organized river stewardship, tourism and service related revenue, and a regional branding similar to the great-place-destinations Jimmy cites. Instead of these benefits being the driver of design, I see such big-thinking as being the first step to really preparing our cities to be sustainable, low energy demand places that we all want to live in.
In a few short years very few among us will be able to afford or even have access to the degree of motorabilty we currently enjoy and depend on. As more and more of us need to make the shift to public and human powered transportation the river is going to begin to become a barrier to mobility. However, planning our metro river front as a great natural transport experience, (hiking, walking, bike, water-vehicle networks), doesn’t have to be done at the mercy of the fiscal driver of getting-the-tourist-bucks-in, it could be done simply for us, the residents and commuters of the city.
Copenhagen did not develop its bicycle infrastructure to become an internationally known destination, that condition arose from designing well for the people who live there. So the scale of big thinking is vital and certainly may benefit the region fiscally but to take a river that has suffered terribly at the hands of industry and develop it into another industry, one of tourism, is not approaching the river with the respect it is due. If we design a great space for ourselves, that focuses on access between the rivers edge communities, is respectful of ecological systems and works to become our natural transportation corridor we’ll have developed a world class destination whether we intend to or not.
That would be something to advertise.
Cheers–Chris
We need a variety of transportation options to, along and on the river.
Wayfind, wayfind, wayfind!
Short loops: Along the river. To increase safety and ease of use we need short loops that can be done along the river. My options to get to the river are 1 mile apart. We need the ability to do shorter loops so people of all abilities and time lines can get to and use the river. And yes, that includes vertical circulation. Run a boardwalk along the river between Crosby park and Island Station (somehow by passing the ADM land issue).
Make recreation loops: Combine NiceRide with canoe or biking boat rentals so one can paddle from one side of the river to another or down stream and still get back to their point of entry. Encourage shuttles for events like the Flutag. Have small boat racks for rent for kayaks and canoes at various locations along the river.
Shepard and Warner need to be quieter roads. Biking and walking along them is unpleasant and trying to have a conversation with a companion is sometimes difficult. And with only a guard rail between you and your kids/dogs and 50+ mile an hour traffic less than 20 feet away is disconcerting. I don’t walk with my child along the river near my house because of this. The main users of this part of the trail system are people who live along the river, turkeys, our resident nudist and committed exercisers. No one goes for a stroll along Shepard between Randolph and 35E, except to see the ice break or flooding. Parkways are viable streets for traffic to be on, slow Shepard down. And make Shepard, Warner and Lilydale Rd inhospitable to illegal drag racing late at night.
Here are some photos of ski trails in Crosby.
http://picasaweb.google.com/amhine2/CrosbyFarmSkiTrails#
(Bill, I meant a 125cc Stella scooter, which is not very safe to drive from Sibley Plaza to Post Road.)
People using Crosby trails:
http://picasaweb.google.com/amhine2/PeopleInCrosbyFarmPark?authkey=Gv1sRgCLqNk6DdxqqbFw#
Some of us know of the wonderful newly dedicated stretch of Sam Morgan trail from 35E going west along the north side of the river. A wonderful project for those that are able to get to the river. Some of you may not have noticed that from end to end of this newly developed stretch a very substantial guardrail has been installed between users of the path and Shepherd Road. I have not been able to verify this yet, but I have it from a reliable source that not a single opening in the guardrail exists the entire length of this new section of the trail. For anyone able enough to take on a grade crossing of Shepherd Road, they now have another barrier to deal with west of 35E. Why you might ask would the trail developer not have an opening in the guardrail? When asked the paraphrased answer was, we didn’t think it was safe to encourage anyone to cross Shepherd Road in that area.
It is a shame that access is frustrated in the face of the GRP Master Plan goal of more access. Even so, I understand this completely and agree grade crossings are very problematical. No, actually they are unsafe! I could think of many reasons why, but try this one.
We build up the river and get a young family in the West End interested in going to the river. Mom and dad take the kids to the river and they have a great time. The next day, the six year old wants to go back and takes off to the nearest crossing that mom and dad walked across but without mom and dad. This time the kid is alone and takes on high speed traffic and gets hit. Will that have to happen more than once before proper crossings friendly to all are undertaken to the river? I don’t think we have to talk about it much at all. Proper and frequent crossings must be an integral part of any GRP final plan.
I have been able to field verify myself and wish to correct my comment of Sept. 28. The new guardrail installed along the new stretch of Sam Morgan Trail has one opening instead of none from Davern going east to Rankin. The older existing guardrail going further east to 35E has fairly frequent openings for walkers or bike riders to pass onto the trail after crossing Shepard at grade. The stretch east of Rankin on Shepard where the openings exist has very little housing, while that going west from Rankin where only one opening exists in the guardrail has many residential buildings.
GRP Proposal for Core City Connection to the River
One of the goals of the Great River Park Master Plan is to connect the city to the River. Removing existing barriers to safe access to the River is necessary to achieving that goal.
My request of the Design Team is that a study be done to determine the feasibility and cost associated with the goal of implementing the following:
A- Designation of Shepard Road as a “modified parkway” using Mississippi River Boulevard as a model. As Shepard Road is currently configured, from Fort Snelling to Warner Road, it is a barrier to safe access to the River. This modification should be sensitive to the needs of major industry and truck traffic.
B- Implement improved connecting links to the River. These links should safely carry walkers and bicyclists across Shepard Road and the rail lines. Drivers do not always follow speed limits and rail lines would still remain as barriers. I suggest that a set of safe connects at grade, over or under Shepard Road and the railroad tracks be considered at Mounds Park, Bruce Vento Park, Lowertown, Downtown, Walnut Street, the High Bridge, Randolph Avenue, Victoria Park, Elway, Davern and the Ford Plant (for other reasons).
Here is some of the rationale in support of implementing my request:
1. Designating Shepard Road as a “modified parkway” should be relatively affordable and would have immediate benefit.
2. The implementation of the “parkway” approach to Shepard Road is in keeping with a Master Plan for safe core city connections to the River.
3. The 2006 District 9 Area Plan, page 23, has the following recommendation. “Explore the redesign of Shepard Road from Homer Street to Davern Street like a parkway with planted median and ornamental lighting.” In connection with this larger Master Plan, I suggest that this local recommendation be expanded to improve River access for the entire city core.
4. It is my contention that Shepard Road currently is unsafe for most pedestrian and bicycle crossing. The new guardrail barrier along Sam Morgan Trail from Davern to Rankin with only one opening for pedestrian or bicycle passage says that public officials do not think that crossing Shepard at grade is safe.
5. As a parkway Shepard Road would be safer in reality and perception.
6. As a parkway Shepard Road would become an amenity to the River rather than a barrier.
7. Shepard Road as an element of the Grand Round should be a parkway.
8. Travel route alternates to Shepard are available on 35E, I 94 and 7th Street.
Kent: thanks for your input – we are definitely aware that Shepard Road as it currently exists is a barrier to access to the riverfront trail system. There are several ways that changes to allow better access can be developed. We hope you continue to provide input as we develop those alternatives.
A (poor) pedestrian/bike connection exists between St Paul and Ft Snelling via hwy 5. the connection needs improvement. A simple start: signage. Many people do not even know this crossing exists. A ramp on both sides of the river will allow cyclist a ride-tru experience. Let’s improve the experience with a connector for riding/walking between River Blvd and an option to go up to the Historic Ft or down into Ft Snelling State Park / Minnehaha park via the old RR grade.
good comment Dennis. We’ve heard that from others as well. An important connection. Thanks
Improved access to the river from the West Side neighborhood are a must-pedestrian and bike. Currently, the zoning is the main obstacle as the flats were zoned industrial and so you now have this barrier of industrial buildings which weren’t created with pedestrians in mind, between the neighbhorhood and the river. Complete, green streets are a must.
Old staircases from the bluffs down are no longer an option with maintenance concerns and ADA accessibility issues, making it even more important to provide pedestrian trails, sidewalks, and bike paths.
I think serious thought needs to be put in about fishing access along the river. For both bank anglers and boat anglers. Pool 2 has limited access to the river, particularly for anglers that fish at night. There is one 24 hour boat access that is free on Pool 2 and it might as well be a carry in ramp. Catfish anglers have limited public access to fish for what are largely nocturnal species.
The few access points that anglers have on Pool 2 can often result in them being in parks after hours and subsequently being kicked out or having their vehicle ticketed.
Being the DNR fisheries biologist that works on this section of the river, I am well aware of the quality fishery that swims here like flathead and channel catfish, walleye, and white bass. Not to mention the dozens of other fish species that provide recreational opportunities by simply throwing a line in the water with a nightcrawler on it.
The large metro population needs fishing access on the area rivers, and this could help address it. These anglers need parking, bank access, a boat launch, and need not be discouraged from using it.
Joel: Thank you for your comment. You mention “pool 2” several times. Not being a fisherman or from the area, can you describe where this is and where some potential access points might be? Thanks again.
The upper end of Pool 2 is Lock and Dam #1 (Ford Dam), the lower end is Lock and Dam #2 (Hastings Dam). The 32 river miles impounded by Lock and Dam #2 is referred to as Pool 2.
I wish I could provide more detailed ideas about fishing access points, but unfortunately I do not know the entire scope of property. Some anglers are pretty determined to get to shore fishing spots. Access many times just needs to be easier, allowing those less adventurous anglers opportunities. It’s not so much about having access to ideal fishing waters. It’s more about having a spot to stand on shore and cast (without having to worry about who’s walking behind you on a pedestrian trail) or sitting in a chair on a fairly level spot waiting for a bite with a rod resting on a forked stick stuck in the mud.
Walking across rip rap to get access to the river to fish is common, but those less agile individuals can’t handle the rough terrain. Bank anglers need parking too, many times simply pulling off the road to fish near a bridge in areas where they aren’t supposed to be parking or where “no parking” signs quickly arise when anglers start utilizing those spots regularly.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
We both strongly agree with Kent Petterson’s comments concerning Sheppard Road as a barrier to pedestrian access to the river. His suggestion to start with a cost/feasibility study makes sense.
However, the problems of access to the river go beyond Shepperd Road. For example, accessing the little park at the base of the High Bridge, from the west side of Smith, is a risky endeavor for any pedestrian. The angle of the bridge, and the high-speed traffic coming off the bridge, make crossing Smith dangerous. Nevertheless, pedestrian residents continue to cross. Because there are no crosswalks, perhaps the City also considers it unsafe. In effect, this makes the park an “attractive nuisance”. Marked crosswalks at Goodrich and Smith, and/or at McBoal and Smith, would at least give drivers a visual reminder that they have re-entered a residential neighborhood.
Cliff Street, from Smith to St. Clair, offers a great view of the river, if you dare cross it. Like Shepperd Road, it serves as a shortcut to bypass West 7th, and motorists consistently exceed the posted speed limits on both. In an ideal world, Cliff Street would be a greenway (on the river side), and a one way (east to west), with parking bays. At a minimum, a few stop signs on Cliff Street would allow pedestrians to cross safely, and would help slow speeders.
A few years ago, we moved to St. Paul from Minneapolis, partly because of the charm of the West 7th neighborhood, and its proximity to the river. Sadly, we have discovered that unlike Minneapolis, St. Paul is less pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and more interested in automobile traffic flow. Your efforts to improve access to the river, if successful, should help reverse this situation. Better access to the river would greatly add to the viability and livability of the city.
Sincerely,
Naomi Austin and Mark Hegnauer
A walking bridge across the railroad track and Shepard road to Chestnut Park would be a great addition to bring people from downtown to the river. We winter in California and several of the places we rent are next to walking bridges that take pedistrians across busy roads and rail tracks to the ocean beaches. I urge the city to move in this direction.
Shepard road is a wonderful and efficient alternative to the congestion of west 7th street. I drive on it daily. Reducing the speed to 35 mph would only compound the problem of an already congested west 7th street. This quick and convienient transportation route was a large factor in my decision to purchase a Home near the Otto Ave crossing. Id hate to see the speed limit reduced too much. Slowing the speed limit down to 45 mph and adding more well marked, designated crossings would be a good compromise.
I cross to the trails at Otto Ave & Shepard Rd. and I have never felt unsafe or had a problem crossing in the crosswalk.
I’d love to see some softscaping with plants along the trails & in the median, but too many plantings can make it more difficult to see pedestrians. The landscape design would need to be such that it ehances the visibility of the major pedestrians crossings rather than just making the parkway look lush and green.
–David
I also own property very near the Otto/Shepard intersection. I am very concerned about the speeds on Shepard Road. I agree, it is a great alternative to West 7th… but I don’t believe it is an appropriate location for a highway, which it has become.
I did some research at the Historical Society, and there have actually been citizens fighting to keep this part of the river natural for over a hundred years, claiming was their “sacred duty” to do so. There was much resistance to Shepard Road going in in the 1950’s because they had to “fill in” Fountain Cave which was the true birthplace of St. Paul… My point is – the part of the river bluff is precious, and is not an appropriate location for a “highway” or highway speeds. We must find a way to connect the people in the neighborhood to the river – and Shepard Road is in fact a gigantic barrier.
Much of what has already been written here appears to be spot on. The quantity and quality of access points along this stretch of the Miss. River (Ford Dam downstream to downtown, specifically) seems rather limited given the wonderful resource we get to live with and enjoy.
Looking at Hidden Falls Park, there are two vehicular access points; two pedestrian access points (just above the Falls themselves, and then coming upstream from Crosby; two others if you want to walk down the vehicle access roads); three bicycle access points, if you include the southern pedestrian path and the two auto routes; and one boat ramp for those who might be traveling by watercraft. Written out, that seems like plenty, but when you actually try to access the area, there is a lack of signage, significant deterrents for bicyclists and pedestrians (have you tried to bike up the North Entrance hill? – It isn’t the easiest!), and the paths to do exist within the park itself all follow the river – very few actually bring you to the water’s edge.
I think that implementing more – and better – signage, indicating where those access points are, opening up some of the existing viewsheds by trimming back some overgrown brush and trees, (see Boston’s Charles River waterfront as an example), and perhaps introducing two or three additional access points to Hidden Falls Park could really serve the city well.
I would like to support Alex’s post about the need for better access and way finding to Hidden Falls Park. Many people have brought up the need for improved access and way finding. Shepard road has been focused on and undoubtedly there are connection and access issues present there. However, consideration should also be given to the northern stretch of the River, namely Hidden Falls Park. The way finding to the Falls is currently sub-par. The only sign directing visitors to the falls is a small funky sign at the top of the bluff between the Ford Plant and the North Gate entrance to the Park. Access is also limited to poorly maintained stairs and a hard to find trail. Way finding is always a tough issue within a multi-jurisdictional area, like the Mississippi River through the metro area. But other areas with even more confusing jurisdictions, like the multi-state jurisdiction of the Quad Cities, have implemented new and improved way finding (http://www.americantrails.org/resources/trans/QuadCitiesWayfind.html). Furthermore, if the Falls themselves were improved by softening the concrete edges around the creek and storm-drain outlet to the Falls, Hidden Falls Park could become a premier recreation area where local and out-of-town visitors could get some “hardy outdoor fun” as described in Jimmy Hosta’s post. Horace Cleveland, one of the original park designers in the Twin Cities, envisioned Hidden Falls as one of Saint Paul’s premier parks. Improving way finding, access, and landscaping is a way to make this vision a reality; creating a Park that can be enjoyed by the Highland neighborhood, the city of Saint Paul, and the entire metro area.
I have traveled around many different areas and have seen trails and the natural environment come together to create a great combination. The Great River Parks system has a large system that many people want to gain better access to. Unfortunately, this is a daunting task to complete with the steep landscape. With ADA in place, most are looking to build more roads and hardscapes, which would end up destroying some of the habitat. I would propose that the Great River Park system works with the steepness of the landscape and creates canopy walkways that work with the landscape and curtain plant communities. The canopy walkways can slowly lead down to the riverfront. There would be little destruction involved in creating great access to the river and help meet ADA regulations. These canopy walkways would be great for scenic views and bird watching. Once the pathways get to the flood plain areas, pathways should be raised above ground to reduce the ecological footprint and keep a vast amount of vegetation. This idea has taken place in McLane Creek, Washington and Atlanta Botanical Garden Canopy Walk where implementation has been successful and allowed for humans and nature to come together.
Sources:
http://www.arborguard.com/canopy.php#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/2526676449/in/set-72157605275432536
http://www.greenguidenetwork.com/article-detail/May-11-2010—Top-5-Finalists-Announced-for-Safe-Trestles-Competition-200/
When there is a lot of congestion in an area, safety is extremely important. On one hand, the city wants to draw more people to the downtown St. Paul/Minneapolis area, but on the other hand, it needs to be safe in order to get these people to come once and feel safe and comfortable enough to continue to come. One way to do that would be to make sure that the area is completely safe, but it would not be smart to lower the speed limits by too much. We are in the Twin Cities after all, it is supposed to be busy and the reduction of the speed limit might lead to more congestion.
I like the idea of a pedestrian bridge across the railroad track and Shepard road to Chestnut Park in St. Paul. That seems like it would be the best option without messing too much with the speed limit. If a bridge is added and there are clearer and better marked crossings, there should not be a problem. Making this city more for those who enjoy biking and walking will show that it is not all about vehicular traffic, but there are also things to do and see during a sunny afternoon. The Twin Cities should definitely follow more in making the area more bike/pedestrian friendly direction, not just at Shepard road and Chestnut Park. It is so beautiful here and it is crucial that more people see that than just those who live in the area.
When thinking about access and the river there are two main things I think about, one the access for boats on the River and two the trails from St. Paul to the river itself. Access is important when trying to incorporate the city and people to use the river is a meaningful way. You need to have a way to get there before you can try and get someone to use whatever it is that’s down by the river whether it is bike trials, or a boat launch. If we can add trails along the river towards the east site of the river I think specifically in the St. Paul region or by the boat launch on East bank of the University. I know there is the crew launch but by adding a bike path or running trail we can get more interaction which then can lead to more interaction by others and increasing the use of the river with fishermen and other sports activist. With this access you can then lead to adding other activities and economic venues near the river by increasing the access it will allow people to interact with one of the greatest rivers in the country, without access we are just wasting this great place.
Connecting parks that are relatively hidden to nearby neighborhoods, such as Hidden Falls and Crosby Farm, is a difficult thing to do. I think that just “connecting” them with signs and trails won’t be enough to draw people in to the parks. Blurring the edges between the urban and natural environments will probably be a more effective method.
The most obvious method that I can think of is the use of parkways. I think of them as tentacles of the park stretching out into the urban environment. We can’t expect people to visit a park that isn’t even connected to their neighborhood, so breaking through industrial/commercial “barriers” that block some parks off, such as Crosby Farm will be another important step in increasing access to the parks. Another approach that I feel is important is making the streets around the parks walkable and bikeable. Currently, at least for me, Shepard Road is not easy to cross on foot, and in talking to different people, this is a common problem. Having to cross a road like this does not make getting to parks any easier.
I agree, the key is access. People need to be able to get to these trails. But to add more parking sites is not the way to go about it. The trails need to be built to go to already located parking sites. Having the trails and access points being built to accommodate parking sites that are already there will make it easier for people to get to these trails. Also if the trails are built to access parking sites already there, than people will not need to go out and figure out how to get to the river, especially if they already are going to these parking ramps for work, school, or other reasons. Connecting the trails to these parking sites is more of an “addition” than a “build”, and to add a connection like this would help the community also feel more connected to the river. If they have an easy way to get to the river that is near them or a place they have to go, or have gone before, then they will be more likely to use them and go to the river. Because they have an easier access point than something they’ll have to look up before they try to find it.
Access from downtown St. Paul is the most important feature to focus on. The Mississippi River is such a great amenity to the area and all residents and tourists should have easy access to it. A carefully designed set of bike trails, walking trails, and roads will also connect the neighborhoods so residents can experience different areas of St. Paul. Biking is a major form of transportation in St. Paul and the best way for the city to flow is to include bike trails. Easier access to the downtown St. Paul area will increase the social asset of the area. The increased social asset will make the city officials invest in the area due to the increase in attendance to the area.
The Mississippi River is the greatest amenity St. Paul has and the Master Plan should emphasize on building the city’s relationship to the river. Easier and more comfortable access to the Mississippi River is the best way to do that because more people will be drawn to the area. The more often a person visits an area is directly related to how much that person cares about the area, and a welcoming way of accessing the river is the best place to start.
The plan for the Great River Parks has been extremely impressive. The idea to have the river be ‘More Connected’ is one of the most important key issues, and once this is achieved the other two mottos; ‘More Urban’ and ‘More Natural,’ will fall into place.
The PDF diagram that shows access and connections demonstrates proposed bike paths and walking trails. But these paths are on a large scale with bike paths on major roads. Although this is important, what are the plans on a smaller scale to connect the neighborhoods to the river? In order to achieve connectivity, the smaller paths or social paths are just as important as the larger ones.
The park that needs help for connectivity is Harriet Island. In the overall plan, it was suggested to create Harriet Island to be an ‘everyday use’ park that would include a barge pool and a skate park. These are awesome ideas! But what about including more bike and walking path to connect to Harriet Island. There are bike paths and walking trails that runs parallel to the Island, but nothing that runs into it. There family neighborhood that is separated by a small industrial area. If more paths could run through this to connect the park and neighborhood it would then connect a community.
I strongly think that the Mississippi riverfront parks are beautiful places, however, feel sad that not many people are enjoying the opportunity they have and that is why the riverfront parks need better access. First of all, I like ideas offering trolley systems along the Mississippi river Boulevard to improve connections between neighborhoods and bus users. To neighborhoods, this trolley system can provide a great service to travel around to other riverfront parks. Also if the trolley stops near bus stops, bus users can have better access to enjoy the site. Or changing some bus route to pass the Mississippi river Boulevard and making some bus stops on the street can be another way to provide people better view and access. Moreover, signage has to be improved especially in hidden falls area. When visiting the place, I was almost could not noticeable the access of the stone stair that leads to falls directly. A clear signage is definitely needed in this area to boost people’s visit.
I think connection is the most important part of the entire Great River Park Master Plan. We need to think about how to bring people to the river, and how they can travel throught the river and the different parks once they get there. I think that bike and walking paths are the most important because they are a green method of transportation which is a key factor in the whole park plan. With the connectivity there should be way finders also. People need to know where to go and how to get there. If signs are installed in mulitiple areas of the park then it will be easier for new visitors to travel through out the parks and will be less intimidating to new visitors. I know if I wanted to go to a park but there weren’t any signs to inform me of where I was headed or of attractions around me then I wouldn’t want to stay long because I would be a little scared of getting lost or going somewhere completely unknown. So signs, multiple trails, and connecting each park and it’s amenities is very important when designing these parks.
As a resident living in the twin cities who enjoys biking to get from point A to B, I think access is key in any redevelopment plan. Bikers, and any pedestrian for that matter, should feel access to parks along the river is safe and easy. I think there are a lot of areas that have good access but one thing I think would be beneficial would be creating a separation between bike and walk paths. It can often be difficult to ride around on a bike when there are a mass amount of people around and on the other side of that, it can be very difficult to walk when there are a lot of bikers in the area. Also, I think signage is ideal. Unless you know where you are going, it can often be difficult to find bike paths. I do appreciate the efforts being made here and I think that connectivity to the river is a huge step in creating a successful riverfront.
Saint Paul is defined by impressive built forms as well as open spaces. While some elements are individually successful, most are generally disconnected from each other and from surrounding neighborhoods. Hidden Falls Regional Park is an example that contains difficult topography, creating barriers for movement, but it still has the opportunity to provide critical linking elements and physical connections with better design practices. Such practices include more signage, more trails and safer trails. The signage will inform residents about the area and places worth seeing. Highlighting the entrance sign is also key! Additionally, Hidden Falls does not provide many trails down to the park (they are hidden). Adding more trails/stairs that are safe will attract a greater amount of people, increasing the social aspect of the park. The Upper River Master Plan addresses the need for new trails and parks connecting to existing neighborhoods through a Riverway Street System. The Confluence in St. Louis additionally implemented more trails and bike paths for improved connectivity.
Another potential idea for improvement is implementing a trolley system that would connect all parks in St. Paul. Re-routing bus stops will also increase diversity to the parks as well as being economically beneficial (less cars on the road). A possible precedent is Quad Cities, Galena, IL in particular.
Additionally, adding a lookout point directly above the falls to get a complete panoramic view is a good idea. This would establish connections to key natural features and neighborhoods.
In the Hidden Falls I believe preserving the natural amenities within the park is essential. It is important to protect certain aspects (as much as possible) of the park; it is difficult to recreate a natural river environment once destroyed. Possible ideas to highlight this asset include a bird sanctuary with walking trails. Itasca, IL did a great job by developing acres and trails for wildlife viewing.
I agree with previous folks. Access is a big issue regarding getting people to use and enjoy the riverfront. If it is not easily accessible, or in many cases for the parks along the riverfront, very well known, the riverfront will not be utilized to its fullest potential.
They system of parks existing along the riverfront from above St. Anthony Falls in Minneapolis to beyond Battle Creek in St. Paul are already a tremendous asset to the Twin Cities. They provide such wonderful green space in our central cities, however many of them are not being enjoyed to their fullest potential.
I believe access to these parks is the key issue. Not only access from the neighborhoods down to the river where there is often significant grade changes, but also trails within the parks and connecting the parks to each other. Issues of access extend beyond physically accessing the site, but also visual access and knowledge of where these parks are and what they have to offer.
For example, in Hidden Falls Park, the trail to the falls is undefined and understory brush makes the falls virtually invisible from the top of the bluff on the trail even though it is only feet away. Improving trail conditions as well as information about the trails and park amenities would be a low cost improvement that could go a long way to get people to enjoy the parks.
The Mississippi River is a great public amenity and provides the community with numerous assets. I think enhancing connectivity is important to the riverfront, as it would allow for these spaces to become more utilized and create easier access to the surrounding neighborhoods and downtown. For example Harriet Island could be an even greater social asset if it is was more accessible. It would be beneficial if there was more connectivity within bike trails and paths. Also, creating a bus stop would improve accessibility within the neighborhood and downtown area. Creating more public amenities would be beneficial in enhancing this space as a social asset such as adding a skate park and recreational fields. Making this space a valuable public amenity and easily accessible would improve this public space and encourage this area to become more utilized as well as establish a connection from the river into local neighborhoods and the city.
The latest plan roll out is very impressive but unless I’ve missed something, the oversight of any access to: Downtown St. Paul, Lowertown, the Wabasha and Robert Street bridges, as well as Harriet Island from Upper Landing to Lower Landing is disappointing. The only currently available options are a circuitous walk via Eagle Parkway, the Science Museum stairs, (when they’re open) or Sibley and Jackson Streets. This omission should become quite obvious with the scheduled 4th of July Fireworks this year at Upper Landing Park, (10:15 p.m.). There is no easy, (or safe) way to get there by walking or riding a bike. Given the limited parking available, it would be nice to have improve access along this stretch of river front.
SAY NO to 35 mph on Shepard road!
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33082780&postID=7398620553358325065
Eastside Riverfront Park
The Great River Park concept plan show the Eastside Riverfront Park. The Eastside Riverfront Park must be clearly identified in the Great River Park plan.
Neighborhoods west of Downtown enjoy almost continuous accesible riverfront park. The Eastside has no accessible riverfront park. The Eastside is 1/3 of the City. The Eastside Riverfront Park is proposed for the 5 acre former Harvest States grain elevator site at Warner and Childs Roads and some adjoining parcels including public right of way. The City acquired and removed the other Harvest States grain elevator to create parkland and housing at Upper Landing. The Eastside Riverfront Park would provide a much needed accessible riverfront park where the riverfront is currently used for dumpster and old equipment storage. This is certainly not the highest and best use for this prime site at the bend of the river with dramatic views of the river, Downtown and the State Capitol.
In 2009, City Council President Kathy Lantry, Parks, Public works, and County Commissioner Jim McDonough, Parks, Public works, Senator Mee Moua and Representative Sheldon Johnson held meetings to come up with riverfront parkland along Warner Road. City plans have long called for moving the road back to provide a riverfront park and the County was working on plans for bridge work. Our Public Works and Parks Departments came up with the Eastside Riverfront Park plan. There was a consensus agreement to support and advocate for the Eastside Riverfront Park plan. The plan was vetted with Dayton’s Bluff District 4 Community Council and District 1 Community Council and received strong support. It uses the 5 acre old Harvest States site at 935 Childs Road and adjoining parcels to create a riverfront park for the Eastside that is centered on our riverfront. Dayton’s Bluff District 4 and District 1 join at this point of the river. It is also a key location for providing a trailhead that will connect the Mounds Park Pavilion trail, Pig’s Eye Lake Parkway trail, Battle Creek Park trail at a riverfront location.
According to St Paul Parks, the Great River Park is about increasing river access, improving trail connections, and establishing gathering places along the river. The proposed accesible riverfront park property is in the far corner of the City next to Newport. There is no trail or sidewalk access. To get to the property, you have to drive to Newport and then through an area of heavy industry. Parking is prohibited and there is a railroad track you have to cross. I participated in the Great River Park planning and I do not remember anyone ever proposing this as access for the Eastside. When the public got a chance to vote at the Rivercenter on recommendations, the Eastside Riverfront Park at the old Harvest States site received the most votes of support. The Eastside should not have to access the river from Downtown or Newport. When Parks talks about increasing river access, improving trail connections and establishing gathering places along the Mississippi they are talking about the Eastside Riverfront Park. The Eastside Riverfront Park provides an excellent gathering place on the river’s edge in the center of our riverfront which abuts both Dayton’s Bluff District 4 and District 1.
The Eastside deserves a park where we can access the river like all other Saint Paul neighborhoods that have riverfront. The Eastside Riverfront Plan provides accessible riverfront park at a central location and stunning views of the river corridor. The City deeded this property to the Port Authority for a dollar and it should be returned to the City. The Eastside deserves the same access to the river that other neighborhoods enjoy. Public access to the river should be a higher priority than dumpster storage.
The Eastside should not be treated as a second class citizen. We deserves the same amenities as other parts of the City. City Council policy calls for the Grand Round to have a unified design. Shepard/Warner Road is part of the Grand Rounds.Reconstruction of Shepard/Warner Road should be built to the same road profile, landscaping,lights and other standards as the area recently reconstructed west of Eagle Street and the Great River Park plan for Shepard Road. Shepard/Warner Road are the same road and it should have a unified design. One of the drafts calls for west of downtown to be rebuilt as a parkway and the Eastside section to be redeveloped as a rural highway. The Eastside deserves better.
Plans have long called for rebuilding Pig’s Eye Lake Road as Pig’s Eye Lake Parkway with accompanying bike and pedestrian trails. It serves as the north entrance to the regional park. Pig’s Eye Parkway and trail access from the north and trail access from Henry Park that will provide the south entrance to the park are high priorities for accessibility. The Eastside has some wonderful parkland but access to Pig’s Eye is currently difficult at best and certainly is not attractive, convient or welcoming. Another major access issue is the Eastside has no accessible Riverfront Park.
I live in the West Seventh Street neighborhood in St. Paul, and I am strongly opposed to any reduction in speed limit on Shepard and/or Warner Roads. Please do not further restrict transportation options in my neighborhood.
Thank you.
I live directly above shepherd road on the bluff (next too little sisters of the poor) and between the train tracks right below, and the road noise coming from the traffic on shepherd, i think it would be a great, and logical idea to reduce the speed limit too 30 mph between randolph ave, and and bring it back up too 50 mph where the robert st bridge begins (or vica versa). Slowing traffic down for that 2 mile stretch is going to restrict your movement at all. It might take you an extra minute or two for you to get to where it is your going, but that’s definitely a minor inconvenience for anybody.