CP Rail Regional Trail: Golden Valley and St. Louis Park Segment

Not Dakota

Dakota Ave is too busy for this plan. None of the residents of that street are happy, Louisiana is a better choice because the infrastructure is already there. The street are wider and more out of the way. If it going down Dakota is will be a problem and will need to be redone just like the bridge on Westwood. That bridge was poorly designed.

I agree with many of the comments below - Dakota north of Minnetonka Blvd is a neighborhood that should not be distrusted. The mature canopy of trees, narrower street, and current residents that utilize street parking needs to be considered. SLP did extensive research during their Connect the Park campaign and found much opposition from Dakota residents and settled that a shared road bike path was sufficient. SLP should not waiver on this research, feedback, and decision. I do not support a Dakota Ave trail.

Louisiana needs to be improved. Incorporating this plan in Louisiana makes more sense. There is also greater space in connecting by Louisiana Oaks Park and the light rail transit.

Please leave the trees on both sides of Dakota alone. Driving, walking, biking, and jogging down Dakota in early autumn is stunning. If they go, it would drastically change the environment.

While it's true that today Louisiana is not very bike friendly, it seems like if done properly, it has the most potential for a bike trail. The trail would need to be separated from the road, but there is much more room to do that than on Dakota.

But Cedar Lake Road and the planned Louisiana roundabout makes that direction unworkable. I'd prefer the SLP3 route, but instead of running down Cedar Lake Road, to cross the Dakota-Edgewood bridge and cut over to Louisiana on the 28th St bikeway. That would allow for a better connection with the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail and I think would negatively impact fewer trees.

Lots of commenters seem to be comparing Dakota Ave and Louisiana Ave as they exist today (as opposed to how and the extent to which they might/can be improved in the future)—and many also seem to have missed that this would be an "off-road, multi-use" trail, which I presume means that it won't use any existing on-street bike lanes. I agree with many commenters that Dakota is a more pleasant corridor, but that doesn't necessarily make it the more suitable route. In fact, I think there's far more room for improvement (both literally and figuratively) on Louisiana.

If it isn't going to be a straight path, make sure there is signage. I tried the Nine Mile Creek trail and got lost. There are so many turns, how do you know where the trail is when it gets mixed up with other local trails. More signs!

I'm very excited for for this trail, and believe the Dakota route in SLP is far superior to the Louisiana route.

However, I'd be incredibly sad if it meant loosing significant mature tree canopy; so much character, shade, and life would be lost if they were removed.

If there needs to be a compromise, my preference is to sacrifice on-street parking first, then consider limiting it to 1-way traffic car traffic if additional space is needed. Both keeping the trees and adding dedicated bike lane is the only option that fits the SLP 2040 comprehensive plan objectives.

I am an avid biker but don't want the nature tree canopy to be cut down for this regional trail. Please consider doing the route that doesn't mean trees get cut down. We need both trees and options for biking/walking transportation. I wondered if making roads one way for cars so one half of current roads could be dedicated to bikes/walkers only.

I am an avid biker but am concerned about the potential for the green areas that are currently in place being dismantled in this effort to support this regional trail master plan.Please consider having the route that keeps the mature tree canopy that is already in place and not cutting down trees for the bike route. I even wondered if it was possible to take current roads for cars and make them one way so that half of current roads could be changed over to having bikes on one side and cars on the other half.

Has the route from the north side of GV going into Crystal and New Hope been determined? That part of the route is shown by a green line but the street names are not visible. Thank you.

Guiding perspective – Bronx Park (St Louis Park) resident; a cyclist who aims to do 80% of miles on dedicated trails (average 750 + miles per summer):

DAKOTA AVE SOUTH:

Leverage Dakota Ave South (SLP 2 and SLP 4). Dakota Ave South already has many positives (compared to Louisiana Ave South):

- usable bike likes (although can be improved),
- light traffic / speed of traffic is much better,
- more people use Dakota Ave South for pedestrian activities.

LOUISANA AVE SOUTH:

Louisiana Ave South is the most poorly designed street – for both cars and pedestrians in St. Louis Park. It would need a major overhaul to make it work. With the planned roundabout on Cedar and Louisiana and the million other roundabouts on Louisiana would make it a challenge for pedestrians to feel safe.

LEVERAGE DAKOTA-EDGEWOOD BRIDGE:

It will make the investment in the pedestrian bridge create a greater return for the community. The bridge will make it easier to go North / South as well as East / West. All other routes planned along Louisiana will make it a challenge for most to connect to North Cedar Lake Region Trail.

SLP2 vs SLP4:

I went back and forth between the two but after much thought, SLP2 is the clear favorite.

I believe it will connect more of St Louis Park together as many neighborhoods will have direct access.

GOLDEN VALLEY:

GV4 already has much of the path built so If you build out GV1 – you are able to connect GV1 and GV4 together via Laurel Ave (which should improve its infrastructure between the two since there is plenty of space to do so) to create a loop. This creates options for those to connect back to GV1.

Pedestrian paths are always enjoyable when next to parks.

Guiding perspective - a cyclist who aims to do 80% of miles on dedicated trails (average 750 + miles per summer):

DAKOTA AVE SOUTH:

Leverage Dakota Ave South (SLP 2 and SLP 4). Dakota Ave South already has many positives (compared to Louisiana Ave South):

- usable bike likes (although can be improved),
- light traffic / speed of traffic is much better,
- more people use Dakota Ave South for pedestrian activities.

LOUISANA AVE SOUTH:

Louisiana Ave South is the most poorly designed street – for both cars and pedestrians in St. Louis Park. It would need a major overhaul to make it work. With the planned roundabout on Cedar and Louisiana and the million other roundabouts on Louisiana would make it a challenge for pedestrians to feel safe.

LEVERAGE DAKOTA-EDGEWOOD BRIDGE:

It will make the investment in the pedestrian bridge create a greater return for the community. The bridge will make it easier to go North / South as well as East / West. All other routes planned along Louisiana will make it a challenge for most to connect to North Cedar Lake Region Trail.

SLP2 vs SLP4:

I went back and forth between the two but after much thought, SLP2 is the clear favorite.

I believe it will connect more of St Louis Park together as many neighborhoods will have direct access.

GOLDEN VALLEY:

GV4 already has much of the path built so If you build out GV1 – you are able to connect GV1 and GV4 together via Laurel Ave (which should improve its infrastructure between the two since there is plenty of space to do so) to create a loop. This creates options for those to connect back to GV1.

Pedestrian paths are always enjoyable when next to parks.

Love the GV4 route the best. SLP3/4 look great! Thank you!

Really excited to see this happen, prefer GV3/SLP4. This connects Cedar Lake and North Cedar Lake closer to the city and at an LRT station.

I don't know how you can do this to Louisiana Ave extremely busy road there are so few bikers

On the live map, there are a massive amount of dots for "safety concerns" but no explanations. Are these legitimate concerns that should have explanations or just people along the east route claiming them because they don't want to say NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
Overall, I would prefer the west most routings for this as the way to get between the north and south end.

Please avoid Louisiana Ave. I don't think it will be safe for bikers, especially with the Louisiana Avenue "improvements" that are planned for 2024 - 2025. The roundabout that is planned to replace the stoplight is going to create constant traffic flow and make it nearly impossible for residents (guests, delivery drivers, etc) to back out of their driveways where the proposed bike path is mapped out. Adding a bike path in addition to the planned sidewalk + the semi-trucks that already use Lousiana Ave instead of hwy 100 or 169, + the buses + the Firetrucks going on emergency calls = too many variables, someone is going to get hurt.

I can’t imagine choosing a route that involves Louisiana Ave. The traffic is staggering now and will continue to grow worse. Having to coexist that traffic with bike lanes is a recipe for disaster!