Bicycle Master Plan - City of Minneapolis

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan

Access Minneapolis

June 2011

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1- Introduction Acknowledgements Elected officials: Mayor R.T. Rybak Ward 1 Council Member—Kevin Reich Ward 2 Council Member—Cam Gordon Ward 3 Council Member– Diane Hofstede Ward 4 Council Member—Barbara Johnson Ward 5 Council Member—Don Samuels Ward 6 Council Member—Robert Lilligren Ward 7 Council Member—Lisa Goodman Ward 8 Council Member—Elizabeth Glidden Ward 9 Council Member— Gary Schiff Ward 10 Council Member—Meg Tuthill Ward 11 Council Member—John Quincy Ward 12 Council Member—Sandy Colvin Roy Ward 13 Council Member—Betsy Hodges

Bicycle Master Plan Technical Review Team: Greta Alquist—MnDOT Lynnea Atlas-Ingebretson Bob Byers—Hennepin County Bob Carlson—Public Works Steve Collin—Public Works Julie Danzl—Minneapolis Schools Don Elwood—Public Works Anna Flintoft—Public Works Roy Hallanger—Minneapolis Schools Heidi Hamilton—Public Works Janee Harteau—Police Department Brette Hjelle—Public Works Rebecca Gomez—Public Works

Steve Kotke—Public Works Jenifer Hager—Public Works Haila Maze—CPED Ned Nelson—Hennepin County Paul Ogren—Public Works David Peterson—Public Works John Smoley—CPED Jennifer Ringold—MPRB Rose Ryan—Public Works Greg Schroeder—Public Works Jon Wertjes—Public Works Jack Yuzna—Public Works

Bicycle Master Plan Author: Don Pflaum, Minneapolis Public Works Bicycle Master Plan Editors: Heidi Hamilton and Jenifer Hager, Minneapolis Public Works Plan prepared in consultation with the Plan Technical Review Team, Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee, and is based on public input.

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Chapter 1- Introduction Acknowledgements 2008-2010 Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee:

2011-2012 Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee:

John Akre—Resident Appointed Voting Members: Greta Alquist—MnDOT Hope Johnson—Ward 1 Richard Anderson—Resident Bob Hain—Ward 2 Billy Binder—Resident Georgianna Yantos—Ward 3 Brad Bourn- MPRB Commissioner Jim Skoog—Ward 4 Dan Breva—Resident Billy Binder—Ward 5 Chris Budel—Business owner Ethan Fawley—Ward 6 Steve Clark—Transit for Livable Communities Richard Anderson—Ward 7 Cheyenne Erickson—Ward 3 Office Tim Larson—Ward 8 Robin Garwood—Ward 2 Office Hokan—Ward 9 Bob Hain—Resident Lisa Peterson Bender—Ward 10 (Vice-Chair) Roy Hallanger—Minneapolis Schools Paul Frenz—Ward 11 Erik Hansen—CPED Nick Mason—Ward 12 (Chair) Hokan—Resident Bill Dooley—Ward 13 Carl Johnson—Resident Janice Gepner—MPRB Kristin Klingler– Health and Family Support Matthew Hendricks—MPRB Nick Mason—Mn Bicycle Alliance Joshua Houdek– MPRB Haila Maze—CPED Planning Michael McLaughlin—Police Department Shaun Murphy—Public Works Voting Staff Members: Fred Olson—Resident Greta Alquist—MnDOT David Peterson—Bicycle Ambassador Brian Funk—Metro Transit Donald Pflaum—Public Works Robin Garwood—City Council Staff Andrew Rankin—Minneapolis TMO Roy Hallanger—Minneapolis Schools Jennifer Ringold—MPRB Tom Leighton—CPED Greg Sautter—Attorney’s Office Shaun Murphy—Public Works Mackenzie Turner—TMO Gary Nelson—Police Department Peter Wagenius—Mayor’s Office Andrew Rankin—Minneapolis TMO Georgianna Yantos—Resident Jennifer Ringold—MPRB Michelle Huettl—MnDot Sarah Stewart– Health and Family Support Lee Bennett—Metro Transit Peter Wagenius—Mayor’s Office Rob Rider—Resident Steve Sanders—U of M Everett Schell—Resident Non-Voting Committee Staff: Rachel Speck—MPRB Donald Pflaum—Public Works Sarah Stewart– Health and Family Support Greg Sautter—Attorney’s Office Kevin Upton—Resident

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Chapter 1—Introduction 1.1 Executive Summary…………………………………………………………. 1.1.1 Plan Organization……………………………………………………………... 1.1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan…………………………………………... 1.1.3 Community Process…………………………………………………………... 1.1.4 Bicycle Plan Content………………………………………………………….. 1.1.5 Highlights……………………………………………………………………... 1.1.6 Document Overview…………………………………………………………..

Page 1 1 1 1 2 3 5-6

1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2

Purpose and Vision.…………………………………………………………. 7 Plan Purpose…….…………………………………………………………….. 7 Vision……………………………..…………………………………………... 7

1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2

Guiding Principles and the Minneapolis Commitment to Bicycling……... 8 Guiding Principles………………………………………………..…………... 8 The Minneapolis Commitment to Bicycling………………………………….. 9

1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2

Community Involvement……………………………………………............. 10 Community Process…………………………………………………………... 10 Public Input………………………………..………………………………….. 10

Chapter 2—History of Bicycling in Minneapolis 2.1 2.1.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3

Page

Chapter Overview...…………………………………………………………. 11 Looking Back…...…………………………………………………………….. 11 Bicycling at the Turn of the Century ……...………………………………. 12 The First Paths.....…………………………………………………………….. 12 Bicycle Registration…………………………………………………………... 13 Century Rides…………………………………………………………………. 13

2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3

The Development of the Minneapolis Parks System……………………… 14 Park History….....…………………………………………………………….. 14 Bicycling in the 20th Century………………………..……………………... 15 1920 to 1970………………………………………………………….............. 15 1970 to 1990………………………………………………………………….. 15 1990’s…………………………………………………………………………. 15

2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.5.4 2.5.5

Then and Now……………….………………………..……………………... 10th Avenue Bridge….……………………………………………….............. Bridge #9….………………………………………………………………….. Cedar Lake Trail……………………………………………………………… Hennepin Avenue Bridge…………………………………………………….. Lake Harriet Trails…………………………………………………………….

2.3 2.3.1

i

16 16 16 17 18 19

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Chapter 2—History of Bicycling in Minneapolis 2.5 Then and Now……………….………………………..……………………... 2.5.6 Lake Nokomis Trails...………………………………………………............... 2.5.7 Martin Olav Sabo Bridge….………………………………………………….. 2.5.8 Midtown Greenway…………………………………………………………... 2.5.9 Minnehaha Creek Trail...……………………………………………………... 2.5.10 Minnehaha Park Trails…..……………………………………………………. 2.5.11 North Mississippi Regional Trails……………………………………………. 2.5.12 Stone Arch Bridge…………………………………………………………….. 2.5.13 Upper River Trails…………………………………………………………….

Page

Chapter 3—Policy Framework 3.1 Chapter Overview…………………………….……………………………... 3.1.1 Purpose…………….....……………………………………………….............. 3.1.2 Regional Planning……...….………………………………………………….. 3.1.3 Local Planning………………………………………………………………... 3.1.4 Advisory Groups……......……………………………………………………..

Page

3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3

Regional Planning…………………………………………….……………... 1997 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan…..…………………….. Metropolitan Council Regional Parks Policy Plan…...………………………. The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan……………………………………………..

31 31-32 33-34 35

3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 3.3.7 3.3.8 3.3.9 3.3.10 3.3.11 3.3.12

Local Planning…………………………………………….……….………… 2000 Bikeways Project Final Report…………………………………………. 5-Year Bikeways Plan (2001)………………………….…..…………………. 2001 Bikeways Master Plan…………………….…………………………….. Access Minneapolis: 10-Year Transportation Action Plan…………………... MPRB Bike Walk and Roll Plan……………………………………………... Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Policies…………………………………….. Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Policies……………………………….. Comprehensive Plan: Economic Policies……………………………………. Comprehensive Plan: Public Services and Facilities……………………….... Comprehensive Plan: Open Space and Parks………………………………... Comprehensive Plan: Urban Design…………………………………………. Small Area Plans………………………………………………………………

36 36 37-38 39-40 41 42 43 43-44 44 45 46 47 48-54

3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3

Advisory Committees…...……………………………………….……….….. Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)....…..…………………….. Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)…..…………………. State Non-Motorized Transportation Committee……………………………..

55 55 56 57

ii

16 20 21 22-23 24 25 26 27-28 29 30 30 30 30 30

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Page Chapter 4—Existing Conditions 4.1 Chapter Overview…………………………….……………………………... 58 4.1.1 Strategies……………………………………………………………………… 58 4.2 Education………..…………………………….……………………………... 59 4.2.1 Safe Routes to School………………………………………………………… 59 4.2.2 Minneapolis TMO…………………………………………………………….. 60 4.2.3 Professional Development……………………………………………………. 60 60 60-61 62-63 64 64-65 66 67 68-69 70 71 71-72

4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10

Encouragement……………………….………..……………………………. The Benefits of Biking……...………………………………………………… Barriers………….…………………………………………………………….. Trip Purpose……………..……………………………………………………. Bicycle Events………………………………………………………………... Tourism……………………………………………………………………….. Winter Bicycling……………………………………………………………… Bicycle Industry………………………………………………………………. Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassadors………………………………………… Advocacy…………………………………………………………………….. Bike Clubs……………………………………………………………………..

4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2

Enforcement…………………………..………..……………………………. 73 Law Enforcement…………...………………………………………………… 73 Rules of the Road…………………………………………………………….. 74

4.5 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5 4.5.6 4.5.7 4.5.8 4.5.9 4.5.10 4.5.11 4.5.12 4.5.13 4.5.14 4.5.15 4.5.16 4.5.17

Engineering.…………………………..………..……………………………. Density……………...………………………………………………………… Development Factors...……………………………………………………….. Spacing of Bikeways…….……………………………………………………. Planning and Zoning………………………………………………………….. Historic Preservation………………………………………………………….. Protecting Natural Resources…………………………………………………. Access to Destinations……………………………………………………….. Bikeways……………………………………………………………………… Minnesota State Trails………………………………………………………... Regional Trails……………………………………………………………….. Bicycle Parking……………………………………………………………….. Support Facilities…………………………………………………………….. Innovative Bicycle Facilities………………………………………………….. Safety and Security…………………………………………………………… Traffic Safety…………………………………………………………………. Maintenance………………………………………………………………….. Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTP)………………………… iii

75 75 75 75 75-78 79 79 80 81 82 83 84-85 86 87 88 88 89 90-91

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents

4.6 4.6.1

Equity……...…………………………..………..……………………………. Modal Connections…...……………………………………………………….

4.7 4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3 4.7.4 4.7.5 4.7.6

Evaluation………………………..……...…………………………..……….. Bike Counts…………...………………………………………………………. Crash Reduction………………………………………………………………. Reducing Injuries…………………………………………………………….. Toward Zero Deaths………………………………………………………….. Miles of Bikeways……………………………………………………………. Regional Parks………………………………………………………………...

Page 75 92-93 94 94 95 95-99 100 100 101-102 103-105 106-107

Chapter 5—Needs Analysis 5.1 Chapter Overview……………………....…………………………..……….. 5.1.1 Purpose……………………………………………………………………….. 5.1.2 Highlights…………………………………………………………………….. 5.1.3 Opportunities/Challenges…………………………………………………….. 5.1.4 The 6 “E’s”……………………………………………………………………

Page 108 108 108-109 109-110 110

Chapter 4—Existing Conditions 4.5 Engineering.…………………………..………..……………………………. 4.5.18 Downtown Minneapolis……………………………………………………….

5.2 Education………..……………………....…………………………..……….. 111 5.2.1 Education Needs……...………………………………………………………. 111 5.3 Encouragement…………..……………………....………………………….. 112 5.3.1 Encouragement Needs………………………………………………………... 112-113 5.4 Enforcement…………..……………………....……………………………... 114 5.4.1 Enforcement Needs………………………………………………………... 114-115 5.5 Engineering…………..……………………....……………………………... 116 5.5.1 Engineering Needs………………………………………………………... 116 5.6 Equity……...…………..……………………....……………………………... 117 5.4.1 Equity Needs…………………...……………………………………………... 117 5.7 Evaluation………………………………...…………..…………………….... 118 5.7.1 Evaluation Needs…………………... 118 Chapter 6—Goals, Objectives, and Benchmarks 6.1 Chapter Overview……………………....…………………………..……….. 6.1.1 Purpose……………………………………………………………………….. 6.1.2 Definitions…...……………………………………………………………….. 6.1.3 Acronyms……………….…………………………………………………….. iv

Page 119 119-120 121

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Page Goals…………….……………………....…………………………..……….. 121 Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Goals……………………………………… 121 Strategies…...…………….……………………....………………………….. 121 The 6 E’s……………………………………………………………………… 121 Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Strategies…………………………………. 122 Strategy #1—(Encouragement)………………………………………………. 123 Strategy #2—(Education)……….……………………………………………. 124 Strategy #3—(Equity)………...………………………………………………. 125 Strategy #4—(Evaluation)….....……………………………………………… 126 Strategy #5—(Education)…......……………………………………………… 127-128 Strategy #6—(Enforcement)………………………………………………….. 129-130 Strategy #7—(Engineering)………………………………………………….. 131-134 Strategy #8—(Engineering, Enforcement, Education)……………………….. 135 Strategy #9—(Evaluation)……………………………………………………. 136-137 Strategy #10—(Engineering)…………………………………………………. 138-139 Strategy #11—(Encouragement)…………………………………………….. 140 Strategy #12—(Equity)……………………………………………………….. 141 Strategy #13—(Evaluation)…………………………………………………... 142 Strategy #14—(Evaluation)………………………………………………….. 143

Chapter 6—Goals, Objectives, and Benchmarks 6.2 6.2.1 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.3.5 6.3.6 6.3.7 6.3.8 6.3.9 6.3.10 6.3.11 6.3.12 6.3.13 6.3.14 6.3.15 6.3.16 7.1 7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3

Chapter Overview……………………...…………….…………………….... Purpose...……………………………………………………………………… Infrastructure Topics………………………………………………………….. Non-Infrastructure Topics……………………………………………………..

Page 144 144 144 145

7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3 7.2.4 7.2.5 7.2.6 7.2.7 7.2.8 7.2.9 7.2.10 7.2.11 7.2.12

Infrastructure Projects………………………………………...……………. Access Minneapolis 10-Yr Transportation Action Plan Gap Analysis………. Hennepin County Bicycle Gap Study………………………..……………….. Present Gaps…………….…………………………………………………….. Community Connectors………………………………………………………. 5-Year Capital Program………………………………………………………. Bikeways Master Plan………………………………………………………... Opportunity Projects………………………………………………………….. Stand-Alone Projects…………………………………………………………. Corridor Improvements……………………………………………………….. Spot Improvements…………………………………………………………… System-wide Improvements………………………………………………….. Infrastructure Project List……………………………………………………..

145 145-147 148-149 150-153 154-156 157 158-162 163 163 164 164 164 165-176

Chapter 7—Project Identification and Prioritization

v

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Page Infrastructure Prioritization…………...……………………...……………. 177 Criteria...……………………………………………………………………… 177-178 Bicycle Functional Classification…………………………………………….. 179-180

Chapter 7—Project Identification and Prioritization 7.3 7.3.1 7.3.2

7.4 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives…….………………………………………... 7.4.1 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives…………………………………………………. 7.4.2 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Education)……………………………………. 7.4.3 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Encouragement)……………………………… 7.4.4 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Enforcement)………………………………… 7.4.5 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Engineering)…………………………………. 7.4.6 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Equity)……………………………………….. 7.4.7 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Evaluation)……………………………………

181 181 181 182 183 184-185 186 187

Non-Infrastructure Prioritization……...…………………………………... 188 Criteria...……………………………………………………………………… 188 Page Chapter 8—Introduction 8.1 Chapter Overview………….…………...……………………...……………. 189 8.1.1 Discussion…………………………………………………………………...... 189-190 8.2 Capital Program Funding……………….…………...……………………... 190 8.2.1 Infrastructure Funding Sources……………………………………………….. 190-191 8.2.2 Non-Infrastructure Funding Sources………………………………………….. 191-192 7.5 7.5.1

8.3 8.3.1 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2

Maintenance Funding……………….…………...………………………….. 192 Funding Sources……...……………………………………………………...... 192 Funding Matrix…….….…………...…………………………..……………. 192 Infrastructure Projects………………………………………………….…….. 192-203 Non-Infrastructure Initiatives…………………………………………………. 204-214

vi

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Figures and Tables # Figures Bikeways Master Plan………………………………………………………... 1.1 Hennepin County Bicycle System Map………………………………………. 3.1 Metropolitan Council 2030 Parks System Plan (2005)……………………….. 3.2 2001 5-Year Bikeways Plan………………………………………………….. 3.3 2001 Bikeways Master Plan………………………………………………….. 3.4 Upper River Master Plan…………………………………………………….. 3.5 Approved Small Area Plans………………………………………………….. 3.6 Northern Cities Average Temperatures………………………………………. 4.1 Existing Land Use in Minneapolis……………………………………………. 4.2 Employment Density of Minneapolis………………………………………… 4.3 Population Density of Minneapolis.………………………………………….. 4.4 Minnesota’s State Trail System………………………………………………. 4.5 Met Council Regional Parks and Trails System……………………………… 4.6 Bicycle Parking in Minneapolis………………………………………………. 4.7 NTP Projects………………………………………………………………….. 4.8 Downtown Minneapolis Bicycle Facilities…………………………………… 4.9 4.10 City of Minneapolis 24-Hour Bicyclist Estimated Daily Traffic……………... 4.11 Bicycle Crashes in Minneapolis (2005-2008)………………………………… 4.12 Existing Bicycle Facilities in Major U.S. Cities (2010)……………………… 4.13 Number of Workers Commuting by Bicycle…………………………………. 4.14 Percent of Workers Commuting by Bicycle………………………………….. Access Minneapolis Gaps…………………………………………………….. 7.1 Hennepin County Gap Study…………………………………………………. 7.2 Existing Bikeways in Minneapolis (May 2011)……………………………… 7.3 Existing Bicycle System Gaps (May 2011)………………………………….. 7.4 Existing Connections to Minneapolis (Met Council 2007)………………….. 7.5 Existing and Proposed Community Connectors……………………………… 7.6 Bikeways Master Plan………………………………………………………… 7.7 Bikeways Master Plan (Off-Street Routes)…………………………………… 7.8 Bikeways Master Plan (On-Street Routes)…………………………………… 7.9 7.10 Project Areas………………………………………………………………….. 7.11 Bicycle Functional Classification……………………………………………..

vii

Page 4 32 34 38 40 49 54 67 76 77 78 82 83 85 91 93 99 102 104 105 105 147 149 152 153 155 156 160 161 162 165 180

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Figures and Tables # Tables Bicycle Shops in Minneapolis……………………………………………….. 4.1 Twin Cities Bicycling Club Ride Types……………………………………… 4.2 Bicycle Parking Ordinance…………………………………………………… 4.3 1990 to 2007 Means of Transportation to Work……………………………… 4.4 Top 5 Count Locations Within the City of Minneapolis…………………….. 4.5 Top 5 Count Locations With the Largest Increase in Bicycling Within the 4.6 City of Minneapolis………………………………………………………….. Number of Bicyclists per Day, 2003 to 2008………………………………… 4.7 Percentage of Daily Bicycle Traffic by Hour on the Midtown Greenway at 4.8 West River Parkway, February 13th to May 24th, 2007……………………. Average Temperatures in Minneapolis/St. Paul……………………………… 4.9 4.10 Midtown Greenway Average Daily Trips, by Month (2007-2009)………….. 4.11 1999-2009 Bicycle Injuries and Fatalities in Minnesota……………………... 4.12 1996-2009 Bicycle Crashes in Minneapolis………………………………….. 4.13 % Bicycle Mode Share (2000-2009) - U.S. Census Bureau………………….. 4.14 Miles of Bikeways (2000-2009)……………………………………………… 4.15 Local visits versus Non-Local Visits…………………………………………. 4.16 Mode of Travel to Regional Parks/Trails……………………………………... 4.17 Age of Regional Trail User…………………………………………………… 4.18 Race/Ethnicity of Regional Trail User……………………………………….. Encouragement Objectives (Goal #1)………………………………………… 6.1 Education Objectives (Goal #1)………………………………………………. 6.2 Equity Objectives (Goal #1)………………………………………………….. 6.3 Evaluation Objectives (Goal #1)……………………………………………… 6.4 Education Objectives (Goal #2)………………………………………………. 6.5 Enforcement Objectives (Goal #2)…………………………………………… 6.6 Engineering Objectives (Goal #2)……………………………………………. 6.7 Engineering, Enforcement, and Education Objectives (Goal #2)…………….. 6.8 Evaluation Objectives (Goal #2)……………………………………………… 6.9 6.10 Engineering Objectives (Goal #3)……………………………………………. 6.11 Encouragement Objectives (Goal #3)………………………………………… 6.12 Equity Objectives (Goal #3)………………………………………………….. 6.13 Evaluation Objectives (Goal #3)……………………………………………… 6.14 Evaluation Objectives (Goal #3)……………………………………………… 2010 Hennepin County System Gaps………………………………………… 7.1 Off-Street Projects in the 5-Year CIP……………………………...…………. 7.2 On-Street Projects in the 5-Year CIP…………………………………………. 7.3 Downtown Projects…………………………………………………………… 7.4 North Minneapolis Projects………………………………………………….. 7.5 Northeast Minneapolis Projects………………………………………………. 7.6 viii

Page 69 72 84 90 95 96 96 97 98 98 100 101 103 103 106 106 107 107 123 124 125 126 127-128 129-130 131-134 135 136-137 138-139 140 141 142 143 148 157 157 166 167-168 169-170

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Table of Contents Figures and Tables # Tables 7.7 Southwest Minneapolis Projects……………………………………………... 7.8 South Minneapolis Projects…………………………………………………... 8.1 Downtown Projects…………………………………………………………… 8.2 North Minneapolis Projects………………….……………………………….. 8.3 Northeast Minneapolis Projects…………………………..…………………... 8.4 Southwest Projects……………………………………………………………. South Projects………………………………………………………………… 8.5 8.6 Education Initiatives………………………………………………………….. 8.7 Encouragement Initiatives……………………………………………………. 8.8 Enforcement Initiatives……………………………………………………….. Engineering Initiatives……………………………………………………….. 8.9 8.10 Equity Initiatives……………………………………………………………… 8.11 Evaluation Initiatives………………………………………………………….

ix

Page 171-173 174-176 193 194-195 196-197 198-200 201-203 204-205 205-206 207-208 208-210 211 212-214

Chapter 1- Introduction


Chapter 1 - Introduction 1.1

Executive Summary

1.1.1

Plan Organization: The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan is organized into 8 chapters; an introduction chapter, a bicycling history chapter, a policy framework chapter, a goals/objectives/benchmarks chapter, a needs analysis chapter, a project identification/prioritization chapter, and a funding chapter.

1.1.2

Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan: The purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan is to establish goals, objectives, and benchmarks that improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and increase the number of trips taken by bicycle. The Bicycle Master Plan includes bicycle policy, existing conditions, a needs analysis, a list of projects and initiatives, and funding strategies to be implemented to complete the plan. This plan will replace the 2001 Bikeways Master Plan and the 2001 5-Year Bikeways Plan.

1.1.3

Community Process: A public meeting was held in June 2008 where over 150 people attended three sessions at Minneapolis City Hall. It took over one year to prepare this plan and an additional year to prepare the Minneapolis Bicycle Design Guidelines. Five additional public meetings were held in August and September 2010 to receive public comment on the draft plan. There was a 45-day comment period beginning on August 17, 2010 and ending on October 1, 2010. The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed all comments and offered suggestions for improvement.

Above: Downtown Minneapolis skyline 1

Above: Bus on the Nicollet Mall

Above: Abandoned bicycle in Downtown Minneapolis

Above: Biker at Glenwood and 12th Ave.


1.1.4


Bicycle Plan Content: The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan includes: • A new Bikeways Master Plan Map that shows proposed facilities (see following page). • A vision statement and a list of guiding principles. • A look at the history of bicycling in Minneapolis. • A close examination of existing policies pertaining to bicycling. • Objectives, benchmarks, performance measures, and responsibilities for three bicycling goals. • An existing conditions analysis. • A needs analysis for the 6 E’s; education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, equity, and evaluation. • A detailed on-street and off-street bikeway gap analysis. • A list of proposed non-infrastructure projects and a process for prioritizing bicycle projects. • A discussion of capital and maintenance funding strategies.

Above: Cedar Lake Trail at Cedar Lake Road 2

Above: Winter biker on the Nicollet Mall

Above: Cedar Lake Trail at Glenwood Ave


1.1.5


Highlights: The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan intends to accomplish the following: • Reduces bike crashes/injuries by 10% every year and cuts fatalities in half every 5 years. • Identifies dozens of infrastructure and noninfrastructure projects/initiatives. • Adds 183 miles of bikeways at a cost of $270 million ($134 million without the Grand Rounds Completion). It will take 30 years to complete this goal. • Identifies full build-out infrastructure maintenance costs to be $1.3 million/year. • Cuts bicycle theft through targeted enforcement and education. • Adds 300 bicycle parking spaces each year through the City’s 50/50 cost share program. • Expands bike share in Minneapolis to all parts of the city; doubles the number of locations where bicycles can be rented by 2015. • Highlights existing policies that strengthen bicycling within the city. • Discusses funding sources for capital and maintenance funding. • Recommends additional bicycle education, encouragement, and enforcement. • Ensures that all residents are within 1 mile of a trail, 1/2 mile of a bike lane, or 1/4 mile of a signed bike route by 2020. The plan encourages innovative treatments where appropriate.

Above: Midtown Greenway near West River Parkway

Above: West River Parkway Trail

The Bicycle Advisory Committee Recommendations for Implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan also includes the following topics: • • • • • •

Bike Plan Amendment Process and BAC Roles. Intergovernmental Relations Topics. Policy Recommendations. A Prioritizing Criteria Chart for the BAC. Capital Program Implementation Strategies. Maintenance Program Implementation Strategies.

Above: West River Parkway at Lake Street

3

Chapter 1 - Introduction


Figure 1.1 - Bikeways Master Plan

4


1.1.6


Document Overview: The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan is organized into 8 chapters: Chapter 1—Introduction: This section states the purpose of the plan, establishes a vision, discusses guiding principles, explains the community input process, and presents how the plan is organized. Chapter 2—History of Bicycling in Minneapolis: This chapter looks at bicycling in Minneapolis through the past century. Chapter 3—Policy Framework: The policy framework evaluates the various plans currently in place including the 2001 Bicycle Master Plan, the Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Metropolitan Council Regional Trails Plan, and the Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan.

Above: Riverside Avenue Bike Lane

Chapter 4—Existing Conditions: This section examines the existing state of bicycling throughout the city. The section looks at bicycle program strengths and weaknesses with emphasis placed on what has been working well for the city. Chapter 5—Needs Analysis: The needs analysis is a staff assessment on what is needed to make the city more bicycle friendly. Although the city has demonstrated success with the bicycle program, improvement is still needed.

Above: West River Parkway ramp approaching Lake Street

Chapter 6—Goals, Objectives, and Benchmarks: Setting goals, objectives, and benchmarks are important steps in creating a bicycle friendly city. This section looks at goals, objectives, and benchmarks for each of the E’s; education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, evaluation, and equity. Chapter 7—Project/Initiative Identification and Prioritization: This section takes a look at all of the suggested projects and categorizes them by region.

Above: Minnehaha Avenue Bike Lane

5


1.1.6


Document Overview: Continued Chapter 8—Funding and Implementation Strategies: The final chapter looks at what it will take in terms of funding options to complete the plan with limited available resources. Appendix: The appendix includes public comments and other useful supporting information.

Above: Pedicab on 2nd Avenue in Downtown Minneapolis.

6


1.2


Purpose and Vision

1.2.1 Plan Purpose: The Minneapolis City Council and Mayor directed city staff to complete a new Bicycle Master Plan in 2008 as one of the recommendations from the Access Minneapolis 10-Year Transportation Plan. Unlike bike plans of the past, which were maps of proposed bicycle facilities, this plan includes policy language, goals, objectives, and benchmarks in addition to an examination and prioritization of both infrastructure and noninfrastructure projects and initiatives. The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan is intended to serve all types of bicyclists for trips of all purposes. The City of Minneapolis is committed to maintaining a safe and vibrant city where bicycling is encouraged and embraced. A comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan is the first step in achieving a better city for bicycles and creates the framework for future projects and initiatives. 1.2.2

Vision: This plan is intended to guide the city with regard to all topics relating to bicycling for years to come. The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) advises the Mayor, City Council, and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and had an active role in the creation of this document. The vision was composed by the Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee and illustrates what could become a reality if this plan is fully implemented. In order to accomplish this vision, a balanced approach needs to be taken. The League of American Bicyclists recommends that a balanced bicycle program focus on education, encouragement, engineering, enforcement, equity, and evaluation initiatives. Determining the varying needs of all bicyclists and completing an assortment of cost effective projects is also critical. It is important that all stakeholders including residents, elected officials, city staff, and bicyclists work cooperatively with a common vision.

7

The Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan: To establish goals, objectives, and benchmarks that improve safety and mobility for bicyclists and increase the number of trips taken by bicycle. The Bicycle Master Plan includes bicycle policy, existing conditions, a needs analysis, a list of projects and initiatives, and funding strategies to be implemented to complete the plan.

The Vision: All bicyclists enjoy a welcoming environment; riding safely, efficiently, and conveniently within the City of Minneapolis year-round.



1.3

Guiding Principles and the Minneapolis Commitment to Bicycling

1.3.1

Guiding Principles: The Bicycle Master Plan Guiding Principles are basic philosophies on how bicycle plan goals should be approached. Guiding principles should help guide priorities and should represent the sentiment and values of the elected officials, staff, advocates, and the public. Below are descriptions: •

•

•

•

•

•

Improve Safety—Safety is considered first and foremost. Goals, objectives, and policies must consider the safety of bicyclists and other users in a corridor. Improve Mobility—Goals, objectives, and policies should make it easier for bicyclists to move throughout the city more efficiently. Mobility should be enhanced for all types of bicyclists and projects should better facilitate trips for different purposes. Increase the Numbers of Bicyclists— Goals, objectives, and policies should facilitate more bicyclists. Increasing the number of bicyclists is one of the fundamental values that drive the bicycle program. Increase Mode Share— Goals, objectives, and policies need to work toward higher bicycle mode share. Efforts should be made to balance the needs of pedestrians, transit, freight, motor vehicles, and bicyclists. Ensure Community Support—Goals, objectives, and policies need to work toward improving the community. Efforts should be made to facilitate neighborhood input and to respect residents concerns and business needs. Ensure Wise Investments—Goals, objectives, and policies need to guide projects and initiatives that consider capital costs in addition to operation and maintenance costs. The value of a project or initiative should consider both cost and need. Both public and private funding partnerships are strongly encouraged.

Above: Bicycle in Downtown Minneapolis

Above: University of Minnesota Bike Parking

Above: Nice Ride kiosk at the Guthrie Theatre

8


1.3.2


The Minneapolis Commitment to Bicycling: The Minneapolis Commitment is a promise that the city will commit to the following: • The City of Minneapolis recognizes that bicycling is a mode of transportation that has many tangible benefits to the people of Minneapolis, including better health, a cleaner environment, less traffic congestion, and financial savings both to government and to individuals. • Minneapolis will continue to be a national leader in bicycle infrastructure and programming, investing in projects and initiatives that improve safety, increase the number of people who choose to bicycle and foster a bicycle friendly environment that supports a thriving bicycle culture. • Minneapolis will use an integrated strategy that includes education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, equity and evaluation to continue to make Minneapolis a more bicycle friendly place and to judge progress.

Above: Minneapolis is considered to be a Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists.

Above: Bike Box at the intersection of Franklin Avenue and East River Parkway.

9



1.4 Community Involvement 1.4.1

1.4.2

Community Process—The city solicits community input as part of all citywide plans and capital projects. Projects and initiatives can originate from bike advocates, elected officials, residents, businesses, neighborhood groups, or the general public. The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan is a document that will need to be updated to reflect changing conditions and needs. Updates are anticipated every 5 to 10 years. Included in the Appendix are all the comments received by the public. This plan is intended to serve the city for years to come. Public Input—This plan is shaped by the comments that have been received by the public at the June 2008 and Summer 2010 public open houses and from past bike plans. Open house participants were able to ask questions, to comment on plan content, to suggest improvements, and to learn more about the bicycle program. A survey was also conducted in 2008. As part of this process the Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee reviews public comments and recommends plan changes. The city has attempted to draft a plan that when implemented meets the needs of as many bicyclists as possible while mitigating negative impacts for those who live or work in a given improvement area. Many of the projects and initiatives in this plan have been derived from the 2001 Bikeways Master Plan process, where all 81 Minneapolis neighborhoods had the chance to suggest bicycle projects. Some of the 2001 projects have already been accomplished, however many are still in the planning or resource identification phase. Dozens of projects have been suggested over the years at community meetings, from citizen groups, from bicycle organizations, and from technical studies.

10

Above: West River Parkway Trail

Above: University of Minnesota

Above: University of Minnesota

Chapter 2- History of Bicycling in Minneapolis


Chapter 2 – History of Bicycling in Minneapolis 2.1

Chapter Overview

2.1.1

Looking Back—The City of Minneapolis has been at the forefront of bicycling since bicycles were introduced to the United States in the late 1800’s. Many of the first streets to have been paved also became the city’s first bicycle routes (many of these corridors are still bike routes). As bicycling became more popular during the turn of the century, cycle paths were added to roadway boulevards (where trees exist today). Bicycling in Minneapolis is not just a recreational activity but a way to get around. Bicycling has been and always will be part of the local culture.

Above: Powderhorn Lake in 1937. Courtesy MHS.

Above: Woman riding antique bicycle in 1938. Courtesy MHS.

Above: Cyclist in 1938. Courtesy MHS.

Above: Newspaper boy in 1950. Courtesy Minnesota Historical Society (MHS).

11

Above: Women bicyclists in 1940 Courtesy MHS.



2.2

Bicycling at the Turn of the Century

2.2.1

The First Paths—The first cycle paths were built by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in 1895 along Kenwood Parkway and along Lake Harriet in 1896. A path was also constructed along Lake St between Minnehaha Ave and the Mississippi River in 1896. The Minnehaha Creek Trail was constructed in 1897 with numerous cycle paths to follow in 1898. Within 10 years the cycling craze was over, and many of the cycle tracks disappeared.

Above: This 1905 photo shows streetcars, bicycles, horses, wagons, automobiles, and pedestrians causing traffic congestion at the intersection of 6th Street South and Nicollet Avenue in Downtown Minneapolis. Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society

Above: 1899 Twin Cities Cycling Map. Map courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society. In 1902 the City Engineer reported that there were a total of 202,718 residents in the City of Minneapolis. At that time there were 306.51 miles of graded streets, 103.11 miles of paved streets, and 43.54 miles of bicycle paths. 12



2.2.2

Bicycle Registration—Although bikes no longer need to be licensed, there was a time when the City of Minneapolis had a full-time bicycle inspector to enforce cycling laws and an ordinance requiring cyclists to buy annual tags for their bikes. By 1903, at the height of the cycling craze, 30,000 tags were sold annually in Minneapolis. The bike tags cost 50 cents per year, and proceeds helped fund cycle path construction. In 1901, there were 40 miles of paths in the city. Today, Minneapolis has 127 miles of paths. A headline in a 1900 Minneapolis Journal article read: “Bicycle Inspector Connors Has More Than He Can Handle” and went on to report that Full-time Bicycle Inspector E.M. Connors was in need of another officer to assist in the problem of “stolen wheels.” The Minneapolis-based Minnesota Cycle Pump Company opened for business in 1900 and installed 500 pump machines on street corners in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. For a penny, cyclists could get 40 cranks to fill up flats.

2.2.2

Century Rides—Women were at the forefront of the turn-of-the-century cycling craze. Female racers used to ride 100 mile, non-stop “centuries.” Here are two reports from the Sports section of the Minneapolis Journal in two 1900 articles: “Miss Blanche Boucher finished a 200-mile ride last evening in 17 hours and 30 minutes. She started from Monk’s place at Lake Calhoun, at 3 o’clock yesterday morning and was paced by tandem teams throughout the day. She stood the strain well and looked fit for another century at the finish.” “Mrs. James McIlrath Jr. started last Friday morning at 9 o’clock over the St Paul – Minnetonka century course, and, before stopping, rolled up five consecutive centuries, finishing at 8 o’clock Sunday evening, one hour within the limit of 60 hours. So far as known this is the longest ride ever made by a lady.”

13


2.3


The Development of the Minneapolis Parks System

2.3.1 Park History—Minneapolis has one of the best park systems in the US because of the planning that was done over 100 years ago. The Minneapolis Board of Park Commissioners was established in 1883 and was tasked by the legislature to develop a park system. Envisioned by Horace Cleveland and under the direction of Captain William Morse Berry, the Board of Park Commissioners began acquiring property in 1884 for the park system. Between 1884 and 1905 the Board of Park Commissioners acquired property and established parks at the Chain of Lakes, Minnehaha Falls, Saratoga-Springs-Glenwood, Powderhorn Lake, Minnehaha Parkway, East River Road, Columbia Pkwy, and the Parade.

Above: 1916 Theodore Wirth Map of Minneapolis Parkways: Courtesy of the MPRB.

Theodore Wirth became parks superintendent in 1906 and served until 1935. Wirth is credited for advancing the Minneapolis Grand Rounds system and completing numerous park projects. Numerous pathways were created during his tenure including trails along the Chain of Lakes and along the Parade corridor. Under the direction of Superintendant Christian Bossen, park and trail investment continued during the Great Depression utilizing federal funding, keeping hundreds of local workers employed during this period. The original Minneapolis Park system laid the foundation for today’s trail system. Without the investment and foresight of past commissioners and superintendents, the park and trail system would not be as vast as it is today. Left: The 1913 map above shows an early plan for the Parade, which connected Kenwood Parkway to Loring Park. Much of the land in this area was donated by Thomas Lowry and William Dunwoody. For much of the 20th Century the Parade fields were filled with people playing football, baseball, softball, and tennis. After Parade Stadium was built in 1951, the site hosted many professional football games and softball championships. Plan courtesy of the MPRB. 14



2.4

Bicycling in the 20th Century

2.4.1

1920 to 1970—The 1920’s saw a tremendous boom in the development of roadways throughout the country. With more people driving automobiles, bicycles were now seen as children’s toys. Bicycle technology improved greatly during the 1930’s and 1940’s with the introduction of quick release hubs, the cable shifted derailleur, and better tires. The development of the interstate system in the 1950’s and 1960’s allowed people to live further from the cities and most of these new suburbs did not design with bicycles in mind.

2.4.2

1970 to 1990—Increased environmental awareness and fuel shortages in the 1970’s led to more people using bicycles as a mode of transportation. The City of Minneapolis and its agency partners have been working for years to develop a system of designated bikeways throughout the city. In the 1970’s the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) improved most of the Grand Rounds trail system, creating a paved trail loop around the perimeter of the city. Although this trail system is one of the best bikeway systems in the nation, its primary purpose was to serve recreational riders. Recognizing the need to serve utilitarian and commuter bicyclists, the city added a network of bicycle route signs near the University of Minnesota Campus in the 1970’s. Many of these bike routes still exist today.

2.4.3

1990’s—In 1991 Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act, (ISTEA), which provided a dedicated funding source for bicycle projects. Utilizing this program, MnDOT refurbished the Stone Arch Bridge in 1994 and the City of Minneapolis and MPRB constructed the Cedar Lake Trail in 1995. The Kenilworth Trail was built in 1999.

15

Photo: This photo from around 1940 shows a walking path around Lake of the Isles. A bridle path was located where the bicycle trail is located today. Photos courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: This “fun map” from 1940 shows the Minneapolis Grand Rounds route. Often called the “Emerald Necklace” the Minneapolis Grand Rounds is a 50 mile National Scenic Byway. Courtesy Minnesota Historical Society.



2.5

Then and Now

2.5.1

10th Avenue Bridge—The 10th Avenue Bridge was constructed between 1926 and 1929 and was originally the Cedar Avenue Bridge. The bridge currently carries traffic and accommodates both bicycles and pedestrians.

2.5.2

Bridge #9—Bridge #9 is a deck truss bridge over the Mississippi River that was originally constructed by the Northern Pacific Railway in 1924 to replace a railroad corridor that ran parallel to Washington Avenue through the University of Minnesota campus. Bridge #9 was Above: 10th Ave Bridge and purchased by the city in 1986 for $1 after rail Bridge #9 today. service ended in 1981. The bridge was turned into a bicycle/pedestrian bridge in 1999.

Above: The map above is from the 1940 City of Minneapolis Atlas. 16


2.5.3


Cedar Lake Trail—Where the Kenilworth Trail and Cedar Lake Trail intersect, a large rail switching yard used to exist. In 1989 a group of residents formed the Cedar Lake Park Association to raise money to purchase 28 acres from the railroad. By 1991 the group had raised $1.7 million in private and state funding and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board acquired the property. This purchase facilitated the construction of the Cedar Lake Trail in 1995 and the Kenilworth Trail in 1999. The parcel has since been added to the regional park system and has been restored to a native setting with prairie grasses and wildflowers. Above: Cedar Lake Regional Park today.

Above: Cedar Lake Yard in 1914. 17


2.5.4


Hennepin Avenue Bridge—The crossing of the Mississippi River at Hennepin Avenue looked much different 100 years ago when a steel arch bridge was in place. The steel arch bridge was completed in 1891 and lasted until 1990 when the existing bridge was completed by Hennepin County. Before the steel arch bridge there were two previous bridges. The first bridge was opened in 1855 as a toll bridge and the second bridge was finished in 1876. The existing bridge is wide enough to facilitate bike lanes in both directions in addition to wide sidewalks on both sides of the bridge for bicycles and pedestrians to share. There are trail connections on both sides of the bridge.

Above: Hennepin Avenue Steel Arch Bridge in 1914. 18

Photo: The Hennepin Avenue Bridge today.


2.5.5


Lake Harriet Trails—The land surrounding Lake Harriet was acquired by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in 1885 and a parkway was completed the following year. In 1896 a separated bicycle trail was constructed around the lake located between the walking paths and the parkway. In 1914 the bicycle path was replaced by a bridle (horse) path. The current trail is one of the busiest in the state with oneway clockwise travel around the lake.

Photo: Lake Harriet path today.

Photo: The 1907 park plan above is courtesy of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. This map is oriented looking east (north is pointing left).

19


2.5.6


Lake Nokomis Trails—Property around Lake Nokomis was acquired in 1908, however it would be several years before trails would be constructed around the lake. Between 1914 and 1917 the lake was dredged and the sediment used to create a more defined shore. Lake Nokomis has became a popular swimming and sail boating destination. The lake also draws hundreds of people to baseball/softball games and is very popular with bicyclists. The trails around Lake Nokomis were constructed in 1975 and in 1976 and were widened and resurfaced in 2003

Photo: Lake Nokomis today.

Photo: The 1913 park plan above is courtesy of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Lake Nokomis was originally called Lake Amelia until 1910. 20


2.5.7


Martin Olav Sabo Bridge—The location of the existing Martin Sabo Bridge near the intersection of 28th Street and Hiawatha Avenue was once a large rail yard with a roundhouse and several maintenance facilities. The 1914 plat map below also shows a streetcar yard, the Layman’s Cemetery (Pioneer Cemetery), and the Minneapolis Steel and Machinery Company plant. The 1914 plat is courtesy of the Minneapolis Public Library Special Collection.

Above: Martin Sabo Bridge design and photo.

Above: 1914 plat of Lake and Hiawatha area. 21


2.5.8


Midtown Greenway—The Midtown Greenway trails were built in three phases. The first phase was completed in 2000, the second phase in 2004, and the third phase in 2006. Although it was constructed in a period of only a few years, it took decades of planning and a considerable amount of resources from Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis and the Federal Government. The Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority acquired property from Canadian Pacific Railway, purchased a grain elevator, and cleaned up contaminated soils to allow for trail construction. The City of Minneapolis operates/maintains the trail.

Above: CEPRO grain elevator before it was demolished. The county purchase of the grain elevator eliminated the need for rail service and allowed for Phase 2 of the trail to be constructed.

Above: The photo above shows CPERO Park today along the Midtown Greenway at 11th Avenue. In the background is the Midtown Exchange, which is a renovated Sears and Roebuck store and warehouse.

22


2.5.8


Midtown Greenway—By 1910 the east/west at- grade rail corridor located next to 29th Street was presenting safety and congestion challenges. To address these problems, it was decided to grade separate the entire corridor from Hennepin Ave to Cedar Avenue.

Above: Midtown Greenway at Humboldt Avenue (1927).

Above: Midtown Greenway at Humboldt Avenue today.

Above: Midtown Greenway at Humboldt Avenue (1927).

Above: Midtown Greenway bridges today.

Above: Bridge construction at Portland Avenue (1915).

Above: 4th Avenue bridge today.

Above: 4th Avenue Bridge (1914). 23


2.5.9


Minnehaha Creek Trails—Minnehaha Parkway is part of the Minneapolis Grand Rounds and connects Lake Harriet to Minnehaha Park. The property along the river was acquired in phases between 1887 and 1892. The parkway between Lake Harriet and Lyndale Avenue was constructed in 1889 and the remainder of the parkway to the east was finished by 1899. The trails along Minnehaha Creek Parkway were originally installed in 1897 but were converted to bridle (horse) paths in 1907 after interest in bicycling declined. Paved trails were constructed between 1972 and 1975. In 2000 and 2001 the MPRB reconstructed the paths and created separated bicycle and pedestrian trails. In 2000 a bridge with a trail was also constructed over Hiawatha Avenue.

Above: Minnehaha Avenue; 1914 Minneapolis Atlas.

Above: Minnehaha Parkway and Trail in the Fall of 1909; Courtesy Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: Minnehaha Creek Trails today 24



2.5.10 Minnehaha Park Trails Minnehaha Falls was one of the first natural features that early settlers wrote about. Minnehaha Park was to be the first Minnesota State Park, but the land was turned over to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in 1889 instead. The park once had a zoo, a busy Victorian train station, and a campgrounds. Today the park has an extensive trail system, large picnic areas, and several historical monuments. It is estimated that over 850,000 people visit each year.

Above: A painting of Minnehaha Falls by Currier and Ives completed in 1870. Minnehaha Falls drops 53 feet. Courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: The map above is from the 1914 Minneapolis Atlas showing the Minnehaha Train Depot. 25



2.5.11 North Mississippi Regional Trails—The expansion of Camden Park to the river was originally proposed by Theodore Wirth in 1917, however it wasn’t until the 1950’s that the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board acquired much of the land that is now called North Mississippi Regional Park. A deal between the City of Minneapolis and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) in 1974 allowed for I-94 to be built on the western edge of the park land in exchange for a longer and larger park parcel along the river. Several other acquisitions in the late 1980’s occurred along the riverfront extending the park to the north. In 1997 the North Mississippi Regional Trails were constructed with connections to Brooklyn Center, to the Shingle Creek Trail, and to Camden Bridge. Three Rivers Park District Above: The North Mississippi Trails currently operates the visitor’s center and today. maintains the trails with regional trail funding.

Above: The 1918 map above shows the proposed eastern portion of Camden Park. Map courtesy of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 26



2.5.12 Stone Arch Bridge—The Stone Arch Bridge was built by the Great Northern Railway in 1883 and is one of the historical icons of the Twin Cities region. In 1963 one column of the bridge was altered to construct a new lock that allowed barge shipping to the north. Once serving passenger rail trains, the bridge was converted to a bicycle and pedestrian trail in 1994 and was the first project in the state to use federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds. The bridge is a major bicycle commuter route with over 1,300 bicyclists per day in the spring/summer/fall. The bridge offers the best view of St. Anthony Falls, which is the only falls along the Mississippi River.

Above: An 1886 poster showing the Stone Arch Bridge, which was built by railroad owner James J. Hill in 1883: Poster courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: The map above is from the 1914 City of Minneapolis Atlas.

27



2.5.12 Stone Arch Bridge—The photos below show both modern and historical photos.

Above: Modern photo of St. Anthony Falls. Photo taken from the Stone Arch Bridge looking toward the 3rd Avenue Bridge.

Above: Photo of the Stone Arch Bridge in 1890. Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: A photo of the Stone Arch Bridge today from the Guthrie Theatre cantilevered observation deck. The bridge was lit in 2005 and is now visible at night.

Above: 1918 Photo showing original 10th Avenue Bridge, Stone Arch Bridge and new 3rd Avenue Bridge. Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: A modern photo showing the deck of the Stone Arch Bridge with two bike lanes and pedestrian walkways on each side. This is one of the city’s best skyline views.

Above: The bridge had two sets of tracks and served passenger trains until 1978. 1965 photo courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society. Photo by Alan Ominski.

Above: A photo showing Mill Ruins Park today. A row of buildings used to exist in the grass area above. Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

Above: A 1885 photo showing the mill district after the 1878 Washburn A Mill explosion. Photo courtesy of the Minnesota Historical Society.

28



2.2.13 Upper River Trails—In 1999 the City of Minneapolis completed the Above the Falls: Upper River Master Plan. Within this plan is a proposal to complete the trails along both sides of the Mississippi River from Downtown Minneapolis to the Camden Bridge. Although this plan is ambitious, it recognizes that there are several land uses that will likely be in place for a long time and the completion of the proposed trails will take many years. The trails along West River Road from Plymouth Avenue to Olson Park were completed in 2007.

Above: View of BNSF Bridge today.

Above: The map above is from the 1914 City of Minneapolis Atlas. 29

Chapter 3- Policy Framework


Chapter 3 – Policy Framework 3.1

Chapter Overview

3.1.1

Purpose - The purpose of this chapter is to identify existing bicycle policies and advisory groups.

3.1.2 Regional Planning—This chapter identifies several regional policy documents that pertain specifically to bicycling in the City of Minneapolis including: • The Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan (January 1997) • The Metropolitan Council Regional Park Plan (June 2006) • MnDOT Modal Plan 3.1.3

Local Planning—The following citywide Minneapolis policy documents directly relate to bicycling and are also identified in this section: • The City of Minneapolis and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Bikeway Final report (October 2000) • The City of Minneapolis 5-Year Bikeways Plan (June 2001) • City of Minneapolis Bikeways Master Plan (December 2001) • Access Minneapolis: Citywide Transportation Action Plan (2009) • The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Bike Walk and Roll Plan (2009) • The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth (2009) • Citywide and Small Area Plans

Above: Bicyclists at a kiosk along the Nicollet Mall

Above: Bicyclist along the Nicollet Mall

3.1.4 Advisory Groups—There are several bicycle advisory groups that help elected and appointed officials make decisions including: • The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) • The Hennepin County BAC • The MN State Non-Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee Above: Bicyclist on a residential sidewalk 30



3.2

Regional Planning

3.2.1

1997 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan—The 1997 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan was created to “address the county’s role in providing bicycle planning services, in designing and constructing bicycle facilities, and in supporting the provision of other bicycle amenities. The focus of the plan is to allow the bicycle to become a viable transportation option.” The plan states a detailed vision that supports bicycling as a legitimate transportation mode worthy of infrastructure investments. Hennepin County recognizes five levels of accommodation; full Above: The Hennepin County accommodation, an independent trail, a bicycle Bicycle Transportation Plan compatible roadway, a multi-use path, and a basic was approved in January 1997. roadway. The plan suggests typical sections for rural, suburban, and urban roadway settings based on functional classification, available right-of-way, speeds, and traffic volumes. Urban sections assume curb and gutter and the inability to easily acquire right-of-way. The plan also suggests a cost share program with cities and resulted in the creation of a bicycle capital improvement program. Three types of corridor criteria are identified in the system plan: Primary Routes: “The primary routes (blue) in the system plan were identified as being corridors where the goal of full bicycle accommodation for bicyclists is focused. These corridors may be comprised of county roadways and right-ofways or they may make use of parallel lower volume city streets.” Secondary Routes: “The secondary routes (green) in the system are bikeways which have a heavy recreational focus or are lesser routes which still have an auxiliary importance to the overall system. Often these routes have another parallel alternative route nearby. The recreational routes may also serve transportation uses due to their location and proximity to bicycle trip generators. Something less than full accommodation such as on-road shoulder or a off-road multi-use path can be acceptable on a secondary route.” Independent Trails: “The independent trails (red), those trails not within roadway rights-of-way, are included because of their importance to overall bicycle system continuity in Hennepin County. Since they often span natural and man made barriers, the trails provide strong cross-county linkages that are important for bicycle transportation.”

31

Chapter 3 - Policy Framework


Figure 3.1 - Hennepin County Bicycle System Plan

Ü

Q R 42

Anoka County

Q R 36

Q R 12

" ) 101

Q R

§ ¦ ¨

144

94

Q R 13

, % 203

Q R

Q R

116

Q R

Secondary, Non-Existing

Independent, Pending

Q R

HAYDEN LAKE RD E

121

150

19

Secondary, Pending

Independent, Existing

, %

Q R

Bicycle Plan Mileage Summary

12

116

, %

(Within Hennepin County Only)

159

34

, %

203

81

Q R 101

R £ ¤ Q , %

94

La k

OR ED R SH UTH SO

Q R

" )

§ ¦ ¨ 494

Q R

62

Carver County

DR

Downtown Minneapolis Bikeplan

BREN RD E

EY VIE

W RD

VALL

Q R

EY

VIEW

" )

16TH ST E

GT ON

S

ST

S

S

ST S

35

33

35W

HOMEWARD HILLS RD

lu ffs er B

Q R 1

PRESERVE BLVD

T LR

MITCHELL RD

DELL RD

iv R N M

24TH AVE SE

SE

MP U

36

R Q 122

R Q

WE

152

55 " )

CA

R Q

WASHINGTON AVE SE

4TH ST S

Q R R Q § ¨ ¦

INT ER

MINNEAPOLIS 19TH AVE S

6T H

18TH AVE SE

SE

SE

R Q 37

AV E

RIV

ER S

ID

EA VE

ST

RI VE

R PK W

YS

M

IS

ESSEX ST SE

ST RA

Q R 61

NS ITW AY

SE

IN

S

4T HA VE S 5T HA VE S AV ES

WA SH

ND

ST

S

TS E

TS E

61

" )

§ ¨ ¦ 94

SS

IP

PI

R

IV

ER

FREMONT AVE N

Q R 1

Scott County

32

ton ing ge om rid Blo rry B Fe

FILLMORE ST NE

STINSON BLVD

E

12TH AVE S

28TH AVE S

205

70TH ST E

" )

CHICAGO AVE

77

52

76TH ST E

AIRLINE LN

Q R

TR D

" ) 55

" ) 5

Q R

§ ¦ ¨

1

Q R 35

86TH ST E

OLD SHAKOPEE RD E

" ) 77

Q R 1

34

Q R

PO S

494

Q R

28

169

R Q

Q R

17

£ ¤

R %Q ,

AMERICAN BLVD E

AMERICAN BLVD W

Q R

101

5

494

86TH ST W

PIONEER TRL

BLOOMINGTON AVE

PLEASANT AVE

LOUISIANA AVE S

§ ¦ ¨

32

5

SI

76TH ST W

169

1

4

35W

31

£ ¤

Q R

Q R

" )

62

204

84TH ST W

Q R

54TH ST E

" )

Q R § ¦ ¨

Q R

HIGHWOOD DR

BLOOMINGTON FERRY RD

TH

S

AV E

10

ST

212

5

HIGHLAND PKWY

46

55TH ST E

121

77TH ST W

" )

Q R

53

100

78TH ST W

152

Q R

" )

169

S

OAK ST SE

ST S

9T H

ST

ST

TH

TH

S

8T H

S

D

11

12

ST

2N

TL A

HE N QU

MA R 1ST AVE S

LASALLE AVE

NICOLLET AVE

§ ¨ ¦ 94

L

ST

CHICAGO AVE

ST W

N

1S T

N EP

D

4T H

7T H

TS HS 11T

ST L YA

5T HS 4T HS

152

3R

£ ¤

TH AV E

R Q

N

212

ELM ST SE

27

ST

E

HURON BLVD SE

D

394

TS

£ ¤

COMO AVE SE

TS E

TH AV E

3R

§ ¨ ¦

DS

SE

15

N

ET TE AV E DA VE 3R S DA VE S

12TH

ST N 10TH

40

15TH

E AV

2N

R Q 0

D

AV E N EP IN AV E

3R

PO R

N

65 " )

ITY AV E

E AV TA SO KA

ST

2N

AV E

N

7T H

8T HS ER S

10

ST

52

TH

H 5T

R Q

§ ¨ ¦ 35W

UN IV

N

11

R Q ST

TH AV E

1S T

N

20TH AVE S

ST

N

S

D

47 " )

23

N

KA VE

ST

ST

PA R

4T H

D

42

ay Parkw

Q R

53

RD

5

2N

3R

a

SUMMIT AVE

Q R

46

62

66TH ST W

Mile

£ ¤

39

Min

ah

" )

" )

62

Nine

212

VALL

Q R

" )

Q R £ ¤

Q R

h ne

17

re Pro g

ssiv

eR

Dakota County

ai l

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

CP Rail

RIA

Q R

61

DELL RD

TO

Q R

MARSHALL AVE

3

48

35W

GY PA RK DR

IVE RS ITY AV E

Q R

Q R

Q R

XERXES AVE S

17TH AVE N

" )

62

152

34TH AVE S

Q R

62

ENER

UN

22

158

BREN RD

101

VIC

ST W

§ ¦ ¨

21

4

101

17

44TH

55

CEDAR AVE S

Q R

Q R

INTERLACHEN BLVD

3

82

rL

) Q R"

35

PARK AVE

VICKSBURG LN N

MINNETONKA

Q R

da Ce

T

LARPENTEUR AVE W

OLD CEDAR AVE S

HOLLY LN N

PEONY LN N

HUNTER DR

HOLY NAME DR HUNTER DR

7

WILLISTON RD

HILLSIDE LN

OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N

" )

Q R

VINE HILL RD S

on et

3

LR

33

43

24TH ST E

24TH ST E

Q R Q R

Midtown Greenway

Q R

22ND ST E

35W

Q R

Rail Corridor

n in

Q R Q R

ake

Q R § ¦ ¨

3

Pleasant Avenue

LAWNDALE LN N

ZACHARY LN N

LAKE REBEC HIGHLAND RD

VINE HILL RD

M

" ) 20

36

22

Q RQ R

Q R

FRANKLIN AVE SE

ON G T AV E

La

ke

DELTON AVE

Q R

See Inset Q R

7

60

40

100

25

5

Q R

k

2

e

" )

COUNTY ROAD B W

52

MIN

7

Q R

R Q R Q

RT

27

OO

" )

L

M

ka L

UT LN WA

ST

§ ¦ ¨

Q R

BL

92

ka

RT

ar Lak

61

ton inne

88

35W

66

5

Ced

COUNTY ROAD B2 W

153

E AV

44

Q R

5

65

Q R Q R

O

7

North

r ee

Q R

WAYZATA BLVD

394

5

61

" )

23

152

94

E

Q R

" )

169

§ ¦ ¨

CEDAR LAKE RD

Q R

Q Q R R Q R R Q

Ramsey County

Q R

M CO

R

Q R

£ ¤

K R LA DA CE

D ER

BELT LINE BLVD

ta

73

16

e Lak

e in

WAYZATA BLVD

S

ko Da

lL ai

394

Q R

BLVD

tC

BLAKE RD

110

102

VD ATA BL WAYZ

Q R

101

19

125

§ ¦ ¨

47

81

Q R

12

Q R

Q R

110

66

Q R

156

e

E DR

£ ¤

Q R

51

Q R

Q R

40

ST E

Q R

Q R

15

Q R

LAKE

15

51

Q R

Luce Lin

" )

153

100

70

94

Q R

" )

15

146

Q R Q R

169

Q R

§ ¦ ¨

RD

Q R

84

L

2

136

27

ER

Q R

Q R

135

Rail

N LAK

Q R Q R

Q R

RIV

Q R

151

ota Dak

£ ¤

GLEASO

Q R

W

12

ine

57

Q R

£ ¤

RD

WAY ZATA BLVD

il Tra

Q R

81

IA VIR GIN AVE S

rail te T

tate

57TH AVE N

VE AA OT

26

L

S ine

694

100

R Q R Q

ZARTHAN AVE S

e Luc

, %

156

26TH AVE N

112

92

26

Q R

§ ¦ ¨

" )

93

9

Q R

Q R

, %

252

S KA

12

L HIL

900.6

N

£ ¤

G RIN SP

Total

ST

6

157

112

42.8%

" )

et

Q R 110

Q R

6

385.6

H 7T

UL CC M

Q R

RD

69TH AVE N

694

ss Ba

R Q R Q

12

Y LE

69TH AVE N

§ ¦ ¨

BOONE AVE N

CA RD E

£ ¤

83

130

94

DE

R Q R Q 19

17

1.3%

Non-Existing

9

) Q R Q R " 101

55.9%

12.0

As of Spring 2010

DR N

10

W DR

, % 201

29

Q R

Q R

§ ¦ ¨

Q R

Q R

494

PIONEER CREEK DR

Q R

130

Q R

BLV

12

92

§ ¦ ¨

503.0

Pending

ek

24

£ ¤

Q R

16

152

ALE

102

E LAK INE DIC ME

Q R

Q R Q R

BROO KD

10

55

Existing

re

Q R

90

Sta

, %

E LAK INE DIC ME

, %

12.5%

C

115

112.9

e gl

Q R Q R

14

8

HAME L RD

Maplewood Dr

Line

61

118

92

Q R

Q R

in Sh

, %

Q R

103

169

101

116

201

e Luc

£ ¤

Q R

e

Q R

30

Q R

Q R 81

Q R

, %

252

XERXES AVE N

c in e

" )

139

Q R

N

47

11

, %

LN

" )

Q R

Q R

55

30

CK

130

10

55

TAMARACK ST

17

Q R

LO

17.7%

Secondary

109

130

Q R HACKAMORE RD

Q R Q R

M HE

69.7%

159.8

WEST RIVER RD

N LAKE RD WEAVER

627.9

Independent

12

Q R

ed i

" )

Q R NOBLE AVE N

N

M

19

610

109

50

Q R

" )

93RD AVE N

ZANE AVE N

RD AV E

Q R

Q R 50

Q R

ZACHARY LN N

§ ¦ ¨ 83

101

Q R

97TH AVE N

610

30

89TH AVE N

Miles Percentage

Bikeway

E lm Cr ee k

30

10

92

RD

Class

WEST RIVER RD

Q R

Q R

10

Q R

ER

EMERSON AVE N

, %

Q R

50

RIV

" )

202

116

Q R

T

121

30

123

W ES

103

169

Q R

Q R

Q R

109TH AVE N

Q R

117

19

20

14

WEST RIVER PKWY

, %

Q R

Q R

103

EGRET BLVD NW

, %

Q R

, %

202

KILMER LN N

Q R

CLEVELAND AVE N

Wright County

Secondary, Existing

Bikeway, Non-Existing

D AV

144

Independent, Non-Existing

Bikeway, Pending

RAYM ON

Q R

(As of January, 2010)

Bikeway, Existing

PELHAM BLVD

241

Bicycle System Plan Status of Routes

MISSISSIPPI RIVER BLVD S

" )

Hennepin County

Printing Date: 2/23/2010 File: Bicycle_System_Plan_Status.mxd For illustrative purposes only. Not to be used as a legal document


3.2.2


Metropolitan Council Regional Parks Policy Plan—The existing regional park system includes 47 regional parks/park reserves, 22 regional trails, and both zoos. This plan identifies several new corridors and locations for inclusion into the system, identifies policies and strategies for funding the system, determines the types of facilities needed by the public, and management procedures for maintaining the system. “Trail corridors planned and operated mainly to provide bicycle transportation functions such as trips to work, shopping, etc., are not emphasized as a part of this policy plan. However, some regional Above: The Met Council Regional Parks Policy Plan trails also function as bicycle transportation was approved in June 2005. corridors and have been funded in part with federal transportation funds. In addition, the commuting trips taken on regional trails also have a recreation component inherent within the trip. The commuter on a regional trail typically enjoys a more scenic travel experience compared to the experience offered on road-based bicycle transportation lanes. Increased commuting opportunities by locating new regional trails benefit the region through reduced congestion and the health benefits associated with physical activity. Consequently, new regional trails that are projected to serve both recreation and commuting uses are desirable as part of the regional trail system.” This document strongly supports recreational facilities in high quality natural areas but also encourages bicycling for transportation purposes. Projects that have regional significance tend to score better in the federal funding regional solicitation. The plan lists several criteria that need to be followed in order for a potential project to be recognized as a regional trail: • The trail must be spaced at reasonable densities in accordance with land use. • Connections to other trail facilities or park nodes that help complete a system network. • Cooperation with local communities. Regional trails require a local funding match from communities. Local communities are responsible for trail education and enforcement. • The facility must have an approved master plan that meets several criteria including boundaries and acquisition costs, a stewardship plan, a demand forecast, a development concept, a way to resolve conflicts, needed public services/utilities, rules/regulations/ordinances pertaining to the operation of the facility, a citizen participation process, a public awareness plan, a way to address users with special needs, and a natural resources component. • The Metropolitan Council must recognize the facility in the approved system map. Community Comprehensive Plans should also reflect this plan. 33



Figure 3.2 - Metropolitan Council 2030 Parks System Plan (2005)

St. Francis

2030 Regional Parks System Plan

NW Anoka Search Area

Bethel

Linwood Twp.

Lake George

Martin-Island-Linwood

East Bethel

Regional Park Search Areas *

Regional Trail Search Corridors *

Parks and Preserves

Oak Grove

Private Non-Profit Regional

Recognition of Regional Status Recognition of Regional Status

Burns Twp.

Federal Land

Boundary Adjustment

Boundary Adjustment

Rum River Central

State Land New Unit

Rum River Central

Completing the System

New Unit

Regional Trails ANOKA

Existing

Completing the System

Columbus Ramsey

Planned

* Search areas (parks) and corridors (trails) as shown are for planning purposes only and are not indicative of specific proposed park boundaries or trail alignments.

Andover

Ham Lake

Proposed

Scandia

Forest Lake

Columbus Lake Headwaters

State Existing Mississippi West (Planned)

Bunker Hills

Anoka

Other Park In-holdings to be Acquired Rogers

Crow-Hassan

Marine on St. Croix

Big Marine

Dayton

Other Trail In-holdings to be Acquired Coon Rapids Hassan Twp.

Champlin

Rice Creek Chain of Lakes

Blaine

Lino Lakes

Regionally Important Natural Resource Areas (MnDNR)

Hugo

Centerville

Elm Creek

May Twp. Square Lake

Hanover Coon Rapids Dam

Upland

Circle Pines Lexington

Wetland

Pine Point

Osseo

Generalized Metro Conservation Corridors Lakes and Major Rivers Minor Rivers and Streams Trout Streams

Corcoran

White Bear Twp.

Mounds View

Greenfield

Dellwood

North Oaks

Stillwater Twp.

Rockford Fridley

Fish Lake

2020 Metro Urban Service Area TLG Street Centerlines (2006)

Arden Hills

Anoka County Riverfront Hilltop Silverwood North Mississippi Columbia Heights

New Hope Crystal

Medina

Shoreview Vadnais-Snail Lake

New Brighton

Eagle Lake Loretto

Grant

Hwy 96 RT

Long Lake Brooklyn Center

Lake Sarah Lake Rebecca

Gem Lake

Vadnais Heights

Tony Schmidt Park

Mahtomedi Birchwood Village White Bear Lake Willernie

Stillwater

Pine Springs St. Anthony

Clifton E. French

Plymouth Morris T. Baker

Little Canada

RAMSEY

Above the Falls (Planned)

Maple Plain

HENNEPIN

Roseville

Maplewood

Baytown Twp. Lauderdale Falcon Heights

Theodore Wirth

Golden Valley

Lake Elmo Phalen

Como Zoo and Conservatory Como

Long Lake

Watertown

Woodland

Minnetrista

Gale Woods

Mound

Spring Park

Vento Sanctuary

Central Mississippi Riverfront

St. Louis Park

Landfall

Lakeland Shores

St. Paul

Minnetonka Beach Deephaven

Big Island

Minnetonka

Lakeland

Mississippi Gorge

Minneapolis Chain of Lakes

Hopkins

Battle Creek Lake St. Croix Beach

Lilydale-Harriet Island

Nokomis-Hiawatha

Tonka Bay

Minnehaha

Greenwood

St. Marys Point Lilydale

St. Bonifacius

Shorewood

Woodbury

Excelsior

Afton

West St. Paul

Hidden Falls-Crosby Farm

Lake Minnetonka Edina

Mayer New Germany

South St. Paul

Mendota

Bryant Lake

Lake Minnewashta

Carver

Fort Snelling (unorg.)

Mendota Heights

Richfield

Newport

Sunfish Lake Victoria

Coney Island Lake Waconia

Chanhassen

Waconia Twp.

Camden Twp.

Lake Elmo

Vento RT

Minneapolis Noerenberg Gardens

Watertown Twp.

Oakdale

West Lakeland Twp.

Wayzata

Orono

Bayport

North St. Paul

Keller

Medicine Lake

June 2006

Oak Park Heights

WASHINGTON

Robbinsdale Independence

Hollywood Twp.

Pine Point Park

Bald Eagle-Otter Lake

Spring Lake Park Brooklyn Park

Maple Grove

Hyland-Bush-Anderson

Eden Prairie

Waconia

Laketown Twp.

Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes St. Paul Park Bloomington

CARVER Baylor

Inver Grove Heights

LRT South RT - Seminary Fen

Chaska

Baylor

Eagan

Cottage Grove

Cottage Grove Ravine

Denmark Twp. St. Croix Bluffs

Grey Cloud Island Twp.

Miller Lake Search Area Grey Cloud Island (Planned)

Shakopee

Norwood Young America

Lebanon Hills

Cologne Benton Twp.

Burnsville

Dahlgren Twp.

Carver

Jackson Twp. Savage

Spring Lake

Young America Twp.

Rosemount

Apple Valley

Nininger Twp.

Louisville Twp. Hamburg

Hastings Prior Lake

Murphy-Hanrehan

MN River Bluff and Ravines SA Hancock Twp.

Coates

Vermillion Twp.

DAKOTA

San Francisco Twp. Cleary Lake

Empire Wetlands Lakeville

Sand Creek Twp.

Ravenna Twp.

Empire Twp.

Credit River Twp.

Jordan

Vermillion

Marshan Twp.

Spring Lake Twp.

St. Lawrence Twp.

Farmington

SCOTT

Belle Plaine

Doyle-Kennefick (Planned) Hampton New Market Twp.

New Trier

Miesville

Cedar Lake Twp. Helena Twp.

Blakeley Twp.

Eureka Twp.

Belle Plaine Twp.

Hampton Twp.

Castle Rock Twp.

Douglas Twp.

Cedar Lake Blakeley Search Area

Elko New Market

SW Dakota Search Area

Miesville Ravine

New Prague

0

2.5

5

10

15

20 Miles Randolph

Randolph Twp. Lake Byllesby

Greenvale Twp.

Waterford Twp.

Northfield

34

Sciota Twp.


3.2.3


The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan—The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan was established in 2005 to create a safer and more welcoming environment for bicyclists statewide. The following vision and mission were established as part of the planning process: Bicycle Modal Plan Vision: “The MnDOT vision for bicycle transportation is a “place where bicycling is a safe and attractive option in every community. Bicycling is accommodated for daily transportation and for experiencing the natural resources of the state.” MnDot Mission for Bicycle Transportation: “MnDOT will safely and effectively accommodate and encourage bicycling on its projects in Minnesota communities, and in other areas where conditions warrant. MnDOT will exercise leadership with its partners to encourage similar results on their projects.”

Above: The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan was approved in 2005.

The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan recommends more cooperation between government agencies, creating a scenic bikeway system, and ensuring that all MnDOT planning and design manuals provide guidance to accommodate bicycles. The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan also sets measures and targets to reduce crash rates, to increase bicycle modal share, and eliminate fatalities. This policy document has become the basis of the MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines, which was approved in 2007. The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan includes a design matrix that suggests appropriate bicycle treatments based on roadway volumes, posted speeds, functional classification, and heavy vehicle mix. There is also a catalogue of common bicycle facilities and treatments for use in urban, suburban, and rural conditions. The catalogue includes guidance on when or where to use a treatment in addition to guidance on how to implement it. The MnDOT Bicycle Modal Plan recognizes that bicycling is a legitimate transportation mode and recommends the use of a number of innovative treatments including colored bike lanes, back-in angled parking, signal progression for bicycles , and combined turn lanes. Perhaps the most important statement within this document is the reinforcement of Federal Highway Administration guidance that states “bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in all new construction and reconstruction projects in urban areas.” MnDOT and the City of Minneapolis work collaboratively to furnish bicycle facilities based on approved plans.

35


3.3


Local Planning

3.3.1 2000 Bikeways Project Final Report—The 2000 Bikeways Project Final Report was a collaboration between the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to identify maintenance needs and maintenance responsibilities for bicycle facilities within the city and was adopted in October 2000. Recommendations: Five recommendations came out of this report including: Recommendation #1: Adopt a joint planning process for Minneapolis bikeways. Recommendation #2: Approve the shifting of maintenance responsibility from PW to MPRB staff for certain off-street bikeways. Recommendation #3: Approve the “Bikeway Maintenance Standards” developed by Public Works and MPRB staff. Recommendation #4: Direct the Public Works Department and MPRB staff to work with the Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee in reviewing the BAC’s scope and membership and to submit any needed revisions for Mayor/City Council and MPRB approval. Recommendation #5: Revise the Minneapolis Five Year Bike Plan to reflect the existing, planned, and proposed bikeways and submit the Bike Plan to the Mayor/City Council and the MPRB for approval by May 2001.

Above: The Bikeways Project Final Report was approved in October 2000.

Above: Nice Ride Bike Share in Downtown Minneapolis.

Policy: Some of the policy language outlined in this document includes: • Projects must disclose proposed operations and maintenance funding expenses to elected officials before pursuing capital funding. • Public Works and the MPRB need to collaborate so that projects connect. • In general, off-street bikeways will be maintained by the MPRB and on-street facilities will be maintained by Public Works. Routine maintenance and extraordinary maintenance are defined. Maintenance expectations are also defined in the report. • The Bicycle Advisory Committee’s membership, roles, and responsibilities were defined as part of the last bicycle master planning process in 2001. In 2010 the BAC also revised its membership and bylaws. As prescribed in this document, the bicycle master plan needs to be updated on a regular basis. The Bikeways Project policies will remain, but the project appendix needs an update. 36


3.3.2


5-Year Bikeways Plan (2001)—The 2001 5-Year Bikeways Plan was instigated by the fact that it had been 5 years (1997) since a previous plan had been approved and many of the previously identified projects had been implemented. Previous plans primarily focused on completing the arterial bicycle system with many of the suggested projects were located in railroad corridors or along the Mississippi River corridor. Above: Downtown Riverfront.

Community Process: In January 2001 every neighborhood group throughout the city was sent a letter asking to identify where they would like to see bicycle accommodations. Most neighborhoods replied with great interest and ideas for how to make the city more bicycle friendly. When the suggested corridors were mapped there were discrepancies across neighborhood boundaries. For example, one neighborhood wanted to see a bike route on Franklin Avenue, whereas the adjacent neighborhood felt that 24th Street was a safer route. To create a seamless system without conflicts, each neighborhood was asked to send a delegate to one of four different quadrant meetings throughout the city. At these meetings were staff from the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to assist with technical questions. The group evaluated each candidate route and recommended a seamless grid of bike lanes, trails, and signed bike routes. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Council, and Metro Transit staff examined traffic volumes, crash history, speeds, right-of-way availability, funding criteria, and jurisdictional standards to ensure the plan made sense. Upon the completion of the community process it was decided that 2 plans were needed; a 5-year plan that showed short term projects, and a master plan that showed a full build-out of the bikeways system. The 5-Year Bikeways Plan was approved in June of 2001 and the Bikeways Master Plan was approved in December 2001. In addition to a map, several mode share and bicycle parking goals were set as part of the Master Plan process. Criteria: In order for a project to be listed on the 5-Year Bikeways Plan the following criteria needed to be satisfied: • Ownership and maintenance responsibilities defined. • The bikeway is funded, partially funded, or identified as a project that will most likley be funded within 5 years. • The bikeway must meet Bicycle Master Plan criteria. Since 2001 almost all identified projects in the 5-Year Bikeways Plan have either been completed or are funded. This plan will replace both the 2001 5-Year Bikeways Plan and the 2001 Bikeways Master Plan.

37



Figure 3.3 - 2001 5-Year Bikeways Plan

38


3.3.3


2001 Bikeways Master Plan—The 2001 Bikeways Master Plan was approved by the Minneapolis City Council, Mayor, and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board in December 2001. The plan included a map of all existing and proposed bikeways within the city. Criteria: In order for a project to be listed on the Above: Bicyclist on the West Bikeways Master Plan the following criteria needed River Parkway Trail to be satisfied: • Bikeway is reasonably spaced from existing bikeways and other candidate bikeways (what is reasonable is based on existing or future housing density, physical or natural features, or land use). • Scope of candidate bikeway must be technically and economically realistic based on existing or proposed conditions. • Bikeway does not conflict with city transportation goals and policies. A candidate bikeway must meet one or more of the following criteria: • Connects to transit hubs (i.e., LRT, bus stops, commuter rail stations). • Is needed to improve safety on a given street or area. • Is combined with economic development of an area. • Enhances, improves, or replaces an existing bikeway. • Closes a gap in the existing bikeways system. • Removes a significant barrier to bicyclists. • Is in reasonable proximity to popular destination spots including parks, schools, office zones, retail/shopping areas, or cultural centers. Bikeway ownership, maintenance responsibilities, or funding do not have to be defined in order to be included in the Bikeways Master Plan. Before a candidate bikeway can be constructed the following criteria must be met: • Designed to acceptable MnDOT, County and/or City of Minneapolis standards and safety considerations. • Ownership and maintenance responsibilities must be determined. • Right-of-way secured and project fully funded. • Neighborhood support in addition to Park Board or City Council approval. Goals: When the 2001 Bikeways Master Plan was adopted, several goals were presented to the City Council. The first was a 4% bicycle mode share by 2010, a 5% bicycle mode share by 2015, and a 6% bicycle mode share by 2020. Coincidentally Census information revealed that the city met the 4% mode share goal by 2008. In addition, a goal to keep up with bicycle parking spaces to meet the mode share goals was also presented.

39



Figure 3.4 - 2001 Bikeways Master Plan

40


3.3.4


Access Minneapolis: 10-Year Transportation Action Plan—In 2009 the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor approved the Access Minneapolis: Citywide 10-Year Transportation Action Plan. The 2009 citywide plan provides a significant amount of guidance with regard to bicycle facilities. The report includes a bicycle gap analysis in addition to policy statements that support bicycle use. The gap analysis examines both on-street gaps and off-street gaps and is the source of many projects identified in this plan. The 2008 Streets and Sidewalk Design Guidelines suggest roadway cross sections that include bike lanes. The guidelines identify several street typologies including commuter streets, commerce streets, activity area streets, community connector streets, neighborhood connector streets, industrial connector streets, parkway streets, and local streets. The Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks recommend bicycle facilities contingent on whether or not the corridors are identified in the Bikeways Master Plan map. The Bicycle Master Plan is an extension of the work that occurred with the Access Minneapolis Plan. Section 11 of the document suggests the following proposed content for the Bicycle Master Plan and is covered in the Minneapolis Bicycle Design Guidelines: • Trails (including safety/security/lighting, widths, hours, etc) • Bike Lanes • Intersection Treatments • Shared Use Lanes (including a discussion on lane widths) • Trail Crossings • Bikeway Detours • Wayfinding and information signage • Development requirements • Innovative treatments • Maintenance This plan addresses some of the items above. The majority of the topics are covered in the 2010 Minneapolis Bicycle Facility Design Guidelines, which is a technical companion document that covers design considerations, off-street facilities, on-street facilities, bicycle parking, support facilities, transit connections, maintenance, and innovation. Originally, technical topics were to be addressed in the Bicycle Master Plan. However, as both documents developed it became apparent that separating them made the most sense.

41


3.3.5


MPRB Bike Walk and Roll Plan—In 2008 the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board initiated a study report to determine the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and roller-bladers using the park system. The planning process included input from neighborhoods, from bicyclists, and staff. The plan will outline goals to make the park system more bicycle friendly by adding additional facilities and better maintaining the facilities already in place. Perhaps the most ambitious park system goal is the completion of the Minneapolis Grand Rounds in Northeast Minneapolis. This project will complete a century old vision but would come at an estimated price of over $100 million.

Above: Bicyclist on the West River Parkway Trail

Above: Bicyclists using a parkway during the annual September bike ride. 42


3.3.6


Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Policies— The City of Minneapolis has a number of comprehensive plan policies that deal with land use, four of which directly relate to bicycling. As a bicyclist, it is important that the city maintain mixed use nodes at regular intervals to minimize trip length. Above: Bicyclist in Uptown Minneapolis Plan: Land Use Policy 1.3 - Ensure that development incorporate appropriate transportation access and facilities, particularly for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit. Minneapolis Plan: Land Use Policy 1.3.2 - Ensure the provision of high quality transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to and within designated land use features. Minneapolis Plan: Land Use Policy 1.16 - Support a limited number of Major Retail Centers, while promoting their compatibility with the surrounding area and their accessibility to transit, bicycle, and foot traffic. Minneapolis Plan: Land Use Policy 1.16.4 - Ensure the provision of high quality transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access to Major Retail Centers.

3.3.7

Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Policies— Strong policies that support the ability to easily and safely get around on bike is very important. The following policies support bicycling as a legitimate transportation option: Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.1 - Encourage growth and reinvestment by developing a multi-modal transportation system that includes light rail, commuter rail, intercity high speed rail, high frequency buses, and other modes. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.1.1 - Address the need of all modes of transportation, emphasizing the development of a more effective transit network. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.1.2 - Coordinate land use planning and economic development strategies with transportation planning. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.1.3 - Ensure continued growth and investment through strategic transportation investments and partnerships. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5 - Ensure that bicycling throughout the city is safe, comfortable, and pleasant. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5.1 - Complete a network of on and off-street primary bicycle corridors where bicycles are given priority. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5.2 - Strive to accommodate bicycles on all streets but, when other modes take priority in a corridor, provide accessible alternate routes. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5.3 - Continue to integrate bicycling and transit facilities where needed, including racks on transit vehicles and bicycle parking near transit stops.

43


3.3.7


Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Policies— Continued Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5.4— Implement and expand zoning regulations and incentives that promote bicycling, such as racks, storage lockers, and changing facilities. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5.5 Provide public bicycle parking facilities in major Above: Bicyclist in Downtown destinations such as downtown, activity centers, and Minneapolis growth centers. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.5.6 - Identify sources of funding for long term maintenance of facilities, education, and outreach. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.8 - Manage parking in line with objectives for improving the environment for transit, walking, and bicycling. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.8.1 - Implement off-street parking regulations, which provide parking for nearby uses, while still maintaining an environment that encourages bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.8.8 - Support the use of incentives that promote transit, walking, and biking while reducing parking requirements. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.10 - Support the development of a multi-modal downtown transportation system that encourages an increasingly dense and vibrant regional center. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.10.4 - Improve the pedestrian environment downtown, to ensure it is a safe, enjoyable, and accessible place to walk. Encourage strategies such as wider sidewalks for pedestrian movement, trees and street furniture, improved transit facilities, additional bicycle facilities, and on-street parking and other curb-side uses. Minneapolis Plan: Transportation Policy 2.10.8 - Manage the growth and pricing of the parking supply consistent with objectives for transit, walking, and bicycling.

3.3.8

Comprehensive Plan: Economic Policies— A strong and vibrant local economy is good for everyone. Below are several economic development policies that support bicycles: Minneapolis Plan: Economic Development Policy 4.13 - Downtown will continue to be the most sustainable place to do business in the metro area. Minneapolis Plan: Economic Development Policy 4.13.2 - Encourage existing Downtown buildings to retrofit for improved sustainability, including energy efficiency, additional green space, and bicycle facilities. Minneapolis Plan: Economic Development Policy 4.13.6 - Provide efficient transportation options for Downtown users to get around within the district.

44


3.3.9


Comprehensive Plan: Public Services and Facilities— There are dozens of opportunities to improve conditions for bicycling that come up as part of public projects, whether it is a new public building or a street reconstruction. Below are policies that pertain to public services and facilities: Above: A pair of Bicyclists in Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Downtown Minneapolis Policy 5.2 - The City of Minneapolis will support the efforts of public and private institutions to provide a wide range of educational choices for Minneapolis students and residents throughout the city. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.2.5 - Encourage the use of public transportation, walking, and bicycling as a means of connecting students to educational opportunities throughout the city. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.2.8 - Provide infrastructure (sidewalks, crosswalks, etc.) to ensure safe routes to neighborhood schools. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.4 - Minneapolis will enhance the safety, appearance, and effectiveness of its infrastructure. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.4.1 - Maintain and improve the quality and condition of public streets, sidewalks, bridges, water systems, and other public infrastructure. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.4.2 - Plan for and provide public facilities which anticipate growth needs, use fiscal resources efficiently, and meet realistic timelines. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.4.3 - Prioritize capital improvements according to an objective set of criteria consistent with adopted goals and policies, including those of the Minneapolis Plan. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.4.4 - Encourage the creation of special service districts downtown and in other business districts in order to enhance streetscapes, provide security services, and maintain the public realm. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.7 - Minneapolis will protect and improve individual, community, and environmental health. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 5.7.2 - Integrate physical activity into the everyday life of residents through land use and transportation planning. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 6.2 - Minneapolis will protect and enhance air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 6.2.4 - Endorse the use of alternative modes of transportation such as public transit, bicycles, car and bike share programs, and carpools, as well as promote alternative work week schedules. Minneapolis Plan: Public Services and Facilities Policy 6.2.6 - Support the development of multi-modal transportation networks.

45



3.3.10 Comprehensive Plan: Open Space and Parks— The Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan includes a number of Open Space and Parks policies that encourage bicycling: Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 7.1– Promote the physical and mental health of Above: An Elliot Park resident residents and visitors by providing safe outdoor riding her bike. amenities and spaces that support exercise, play, relaxation, and socializing. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 7.1.3– Promote safe pedestrian and bike routes to parks and open spaces. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 7.6– Continue to beautify open spaces through well designed landscaping that compliments and improves the city’s urban form on many scales - from street trees to expansive views of lakes and rivers. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 7.6.7– Maintain multi-modal transportation corridors to link parks and open spaces with surrounding neighborhoods. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 7.8– Strengthen existing and create new partnerships, including public-private partnerships, to deliver the best park and open space system possible. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 7.8.2– Support the preservation of former transportation corridors that are intact or largely intact and use them to connect neighborhoods to each other and major amenities. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 8.5– New multi-family development or renovation should be designed in terms of traditional urban building form with pedestrian scale features at the street level. Minneapolis Plan: Open Space and Parks Policy 8.5.6– Integrate transit facilities and bicycle parking amenities into the site design.

Above: West River Parkway Trail near West Broadway Ave. 46



3.3.11 Comprehensive Plan: Urban Design— Public projects need to fit in within the context of the surrounding area. Bike projects need to adhere to the following policies. Minneapolis Plan: Urban Design Policy 8.1.1 – Protect historic resources from modifications that are not sensitive to their historic significance. Minneapolis Plan: Urban Design Policy 8.1.2 – Require new construction in historic districts to be compatible with the historic fabric. Minneapolis Plan: Urban Design Policy 8.19 – Promote an attractive environment by minimizing visual clutter and confusion caused by a proliferation of signage. Minneapolis Plan: Urban Design Policy 8.19.4 – Develop a consistent city-wide way-finding signage design and maintenance plan for neighborhoods, trails, etc. Minneapolis Plan: Urban Design Policy 8.22 – Preserve the natural ecology and the historical features that define Minneapolis’ unique identity in the region. Minneapolis Plan: Urban Design Policy 8.22.3 – Increase public recreational access to and across the river in the form of parks, bike/pedestrian bridges, greenways, and trails along the river.

Above: Twins Ballpark with the Cedar Lake Trail and Northstar Commuter Rail interface. 47



3.3.12 Small Area Plans— The City of Minneapolis has a number of detailed policy plans that are site specific. These plans solicit significant public input and in most cases include recommendations for both on-street and off-street bicycle facilities. Small area plans include: 38th Street Station Area Plan—This plan promotes multi-modal connections to the light rail Above: A bicyclist on the station. This plan includes a discussion about a trail Stone Arch Bridge. on the east side of Hiawatha that could be possible with redevelopment. 38th Street and Chicago Avenue Small Area Plan/Corridor Framework Plan— This plan calls for bike lanes on both 38th Street and Chicago Avenue without widening either street. This plan also recommends bike racks at nodes and focusing resources on areas that improve access for bicycles and pedestrians. There is also emphasis on connections to both the RiverLake Greenway and to the Midtown Greenway. 46th and Hiawatha Station Area Master Plan– This plan supports trail connections to the Hiawatha LRT station with a future linear parkway/trail in the existing railroad right-of-way. Additional bike racks are also needed. Above the Falls: A Master Plan for the Upper River in Minneapolis– This exhaustive plan evaluates future land uses along the Upper Mississippi River from the Camden Bridge to Downtown Minneapolis. The plan proposes to complete the trail gap on both sides of the River and also recommends east/west trail connections to the adjacent neighborhoods. Recommends creating a new trail (Bottineau Trail) along the BNSF spur on the east side of the river. Audubon Park Small Area Plan—The community would like to see better connections to the Grand Rounds, a local bike shop, additional bicycle parking, and streetscape improvements. Bassett Creek Valley Master Plan 2007— This plan supports bicycling as a mode of transportation and connections to regional trails such as the Cedar Lake Trail via Van White. Bryn Mawr Neighborhood Land Use Plan—This plan acknowledges the good trail connections currently within the neighborhood. The plan also recognizes the low bicycle commuter mode share in the neighborhood compared to others. The plan strongly promotes additional bike racks in the area.

Next Page: The Above the Falls: Upper River Master Plan is a good example of a detailed small area plan. 48



Figure 3.5 - Upper River Master Plan

Trail Connection with North Mississippi Regional Park Cam

den

Br id

ge

Boat Launch Athletic Field Fishing Pier

Pedestrian/Bike Deck Attached to Soo Line Bridge

St. Anthony Parkway

RIVER RIVER

Restoration Park

Dowling Ave

31st Ave NE

NSP Restore Bank and Trail

TERRACE TERRACE Marshall Terrace Park

I-94 Pedestrian Deck and Grand Straircase

35th Ave Linear Park Nodes - Gateway Entrance - Overlooks - Picnic Shelters or Pavillion - Restrooms - Fountains - Artwork - Emergency Phones

Perkins Hill Park

27th Ave NE Neighborhood Park

NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD

Botanical Garden - Riverbank Restoration Trail - Formal Gardens - Residential Landscape Demonstration

R

Lowry Bridge Park

LOWRY LOWRY

Lowry Ave

Botanical Conservatory Retail and Riverfront Entertainment

E

PLLA AZZA A P

Edgewater Park

I

V

31st Ave

22nd Ave NE

R

I-94 Pedestrian Deck

29th Ave

Polish Palace

MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI

Gluek Park

Farview Park

I

PROMENADE PROMENADE

Gabby’s

P

Riverfront Promenade

Burlington Northern Bridge Pedestrian/Bike Boardwalk

P

26th Ave

Fishing Pier

I

Boat Tie-ups

S

9 4

Marshall Street Boulevard Grain Belt Dock & Boat Rental

E eN Av h t 14

S

I

S

I N T E R S TAT E

Skyline Park and Amphitheater

Bottineau Trail Linear Park Node

West River Parkway

NE ve hA

Northeast Arts Park

S

13t

Grain Belt Center Low Density Residential

I

LEGEND

Broadway

M

Mid - High Density Residential Planned Unit Development Commercial Business Park Light Industrial/ Business Park Utility Existing Park/ Active Recreation New Park

NE Ave 8th

Higher Intensity Use Park/Plaza Water Filtration Park Public-Facilities Parkway Riverway Street Regional Riverway Street Local Railroad

Boom Island Park

Plymouth

Trail

49



3.3.12 Small Area Plans— Continued Cedar-Riverside Small Area Plan—This plan recommends bicycle lanes on Riverside Avenue, bike lanes on 19th Avenue, and improvements to the bike lane on 20th Avenue. In general the plan supports bicycle connections to the U of M and to other neighborhoods within the city in addition to development that supports bicycling. There are opportunities for better bicycle connections to both the Central Corridor and Hiawatha LRT stations, and for more bike parking. Central Avenue Small Area Plan—The plan recommends bicycle parking nodes along Central Avenue NE at 18th Ave NE, 22nd Ave NE, and 29th Ave NE. Bicycle lanes on Central Avenue are recommended with east/west connections along 18th Ave NE, 22nd Ave NE, 27th Ave NE (to the west), and 29th Ave NE (to the east). There are existing connections to St. Anthony Parkway. Corcoran Midtown Revival Plan– This plan suggests traffic calming measures to help bicyclists get to and from destinations. There are also opportunities for good connections to the Midtown Greenway.

Above: A winter cyclist wearing warm gear.

Above: East River Parkway Trail.

Development Objectives for the Hi-Lake Center– Secure bicycle parking is needed at this location as well as good connections to the Midtown Greenway, to Hiawatha Avenue, and Lake Street. Development Objectives for North Nicollet Mall– This 1999 plan does not address bicycles. Downtown East/North Loop Neighborhood Master Plan—This plan puts significance on bicycle movement throughout Downtown and the North Loop Neighborhood. Some of the priorities include the completion of the Cedar Lake Trail to the Mississippi River, bike lanes on 3rd St, bike lanes along the Hennepin Ave into NE, and bike lanes along 7th St into North Minneapolis. In 2010 a supplemental plan was prepared to reflect the changing conditions in the area, as a result of the new Twins Ballpark and the proposed Intermodal Station. Elliot Park Neighborhood Master Plan—This plan mentions the need to strengthen bicycle connections to Franklin Steele Park, complete streets/traffic calming, and bicycle amenities.

50



3.3.12 Small Area Plans— Continued Franklin-Cedar/Riverside Transit-Oriented Development Master Plan—This plan suggests that the bike network be completed by extending into other neighborhoods via 24th St and 11th Ave. 6th St provides a direct connection to 20th Ave, which is an existing bike route. The plan highlights the need for bicycle parking, lockers at transit nodes, and constructing bike lanes within existing street widths.

Above: A pair of bicyclists riding at night.

Grain Belt Brewery Area Development Objectives—The Grain Belt site presents opportunity for improving movements to the river from the neighborhoods. The plan strongly supports the goals outlined in the Above the Falls Master Plan, including a greener Marshall Street. Hiawatha/Lake Station Area Master Plan—The Midtown Greenway is a dominant feature of this plan. There are opportunities for connections to the Lake Street station on both sides of Hiawatha Avenue. Industrial Land Use and Employment Policy Plan—Although this study does not mention bicycles, it has a direct impact on two major local plans; the Above the Falls Master Plan and the Park Board Grand Rounds Completion. The Industrial Land Use Plan reaffirms the need to keep industrial land use districts in the city to keep jobs and tax base. It is recommended that those working to implement the Upper River Plan and Grand Rounds completion work closely with local businesses to minimize any negative impacts to business in the study areas. Lowry Avenue Corridor Plan– Bicycle lanes and wide sidewalks are an integral part of this master plan. This plan suggests that bicycle lanes from Victory Pkwy to Stinson Blvd. Lyndale Avenue: A Vision– Bicycle facilities are not being considered on this roadway north of 58th Street. Connections to Richfield via bike lanes on Lyndale Ave have been recently discussed. Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan—Biking and walking are strongly encouraged in this plan, especially due to the proximity of the Midtown Greenway. Bike racks are needed in this area. Master Plan for the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood—The plan states the need for Share the Road signage on all bike route corridors in addition to accommodations on all roadway bridges over the freeway. The Marcy Holmes Neighborhood has a significant number of signed bike routes in addition to the Stone Arch Bridge, the 15th Street SE bike lanes, and bike lanes along University/4th Ave SE.

51



3.3.12 Small Area Plans— Continued Midtown Greenway Land Use Plan—The Midtown Greenway is the defining feature of this land use plan. The plan strongly supports good bicycle and pedestrian connections to the Midtown Greenway and enhancements to the trail corridor. Midtown Minneapolis Land Use and Development Plan—The Midtown Greenway is a significant neighborhood asset. The plan supports transit connections, public promenades, and bicycle parking throughout the area.

Above: A Seward resident with her bicycle.

Minneapolis Near Northside Master Plan—The plan generally supports bicycling and projects that support bicycling. Minneapolis Warehouse Preservation Action Plan– This pertains to historic preservation and may limit certain types of bicycle facility improvements. Nicollet Avenue: The Revitalization of Minneapolis Main Street—This plan presents an option for bike lanes along Nicollet Avenue. Bike lanes come with trade-offs however, such as loss of parking or traffic capacity. 1st Ave and Blaisdell Ave are alternative bike routes. Nokomis East Station Area Plan—Bike racks and kiosks are recommended for 50th St. Bike lanes on 50th St have also been discussed. Northside Jobs Park Design Guidelines Guidelines and Development Framework—This land use plan goes into significant detail regarding sidewalks and pedestrian amenities, but does not discuss bicycling. Phillips West Master Land Use Plan—Solar access (sunshine on the trail) to the Midtown Greenway and traffic calmed roadways with on-street bike lanes are strongly desired. The plan also recommends 11 foot traffic lanes on minor arterials as a traffic calming measure. Seward Longfellow Greenway Area Plan—The plan goes into significant detail on how to capitalize on the Midtown Greenway as a major neighborhood asset. There is also a fair amount of discussion about local bike routes and how connections to the Midtown Greenway can be achieved. South Lyndale Corridor Master Plan—A combined bicycle and pedestrian trail from Grass Lake to Lyndale Avenue is recommended in addition to more bike parking.

52



3.3.12 Small Area Plans— Continued Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI)/Bridal Veil Refined Master Plan—This is an exhaustive plan that essentially looks at all of SE Minneapolis, especially east of the U of M campus. Planned trail corridors include the U of M Trail, Granary Parkway Trail, and a bridge over the BNSF corridor Above: A Bancroft resident serving bicycles, motorists, and pedestrians. The rides his bike. plan calls for bike connections to Central Corridor stations. University Ave SE and 29th Ave SE Development Objectives—Bike parking is needed in this area. There are also opportunities to connect to the U of M Transitway Trail, which is close by. Update to the Historic Mills District Master Plan— This plan recognizes a number of existing and proposed bicycle connections in the riverfront vicinity. The plan mentions the need for bicycle accommodations to newer attractions such as the Guthrie, Mill City Museum, and the Metrodome.

Above: A pair of bicyclists at Bike to Work Day.

Uptown Small Area Plan—One of the primary goals of this plan is to improve streets for bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. One specific need is to connect the Uptown core to the Midtown Greenway. Adding bike lanes to Hennepin Ave, Above: Lake Street Bridge at Lake St, and Lagoon Ave were considered as part of sunrise. this plan. There are 17 specific recommendations for improving bicycling and walking in Uptown including additional bike parking, intersection improvements, and wider sidewalks. West Broadway Alive Plan—There appears to be consensus that additional bike parking is needed in this area. As part of the planning study many participants wanted to see a bike lane added to Broadway Ave, however there are capacity and parking trade-offs.

Above: Bicyclist on the Hennepin Avenue Bridge. 53

Figure 3.6 - Approved Small Area Plans Small Area Plans 134

13, Lyndale Avenue: A Vision 15, Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI)/Bridal Veil Refined Master Plan 16, Nicollet Avenue: The Revitalization of Minneapolis Main Street 18, Corcoran Midtown Revival Plan 33, Franklin-Cedar/Riverside Transit-Oriented Development Master Plan

134

34, 46th and Hiawatha Station Area Master Plan

146 41

35, Development Objectives for the Hi-Lake Center

143

40

40, Lowry Avenue Corridor Plan 41, Above The Falls - A Master Plan for the Upper River in Minneapolis 45, Development Objectives for North Nicollet Mall

114

134

141

48, Minneapolis Warehouse Preservation Action Plan

134

49, Elliot Park Neighborhood Master Plan

53

52, Update to the Historic Mills District Master Plan 53, Northside Jobs Park Design Guidelines and Development Framework

115

48

126

55, Downtown East/North Loop Neighborhood Master Plan

15

52

55

140

54, Hiawatha/Lake Station Area Master Plan

87

45

114, Grain Belt Brewery Area Development Objectives

131 49

115, Minneapolis Near Northside Master Plan

139

142

126, Master Plan for the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood

33

131, Bryn Mawr Neighborhood Land Use Plan 132, Midtown Minneapolis Land Use and Development Plan 133, South Lyndale Corridor Master Plan

148 144

135

138

134, Industrial Land Use and Employment Policy Plan 135, Midtown Greenway Land Use Plan

54

132

147

134

136, Nokomis East Station Area Plan

18

137, 38th Street Station Area Plan

145

138, Seward Longfellow Greenway Area Plan

137

139, University Avenue SE & 29th Avenue SE Development Objectives

13

140, Bassett Creek Valley Master Plan 2006

16

141, West Broadway Alive Plan 142, Cedar-Riverside Small Area Plan

34

143, Central Avenue Small Area Plan 144, Uptown Small Area Plan 145, 38th Street and Chicago Avenue Small Area / Corridor Framework Plan

136

146, Audubon Park Small Area Plan 147, Lyn-Lake Small Area Plan 148, Phillips West Master Land Use Plan

133

54

1 mile



3.4

Advisory Committees

3.4.1

Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)- The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) was created in 1990 to advise the Mayor, City Council, and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board on bicycling related issues. The BAC was reorganized in 2010 with 27 voting Above: A Bicycle Advisory members representing citizens, staff, and elected Committee meeting at officials. The Bicycle Advisory Committee meets Minneapolis City Hall. monthly and discusses a number of bicycling projects and issues. BAC Mission: • Help advance the state of bicycle infrastructure by reviewing proposed bicycle facilities and other projects likely to have an impact on bicyclists, as a voice for end users. • Encourage more people to bicycle both to meet their daily needs and for recreation, through such activities as participation in bike/walk celebrations and coordination with the Bicycle Ambassador program. • Educate the public on safe bicycling. • Work towards more compliance with traffic laws by both bicyclists and drivers through better enforcement. • Help the City and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board make bicycle plans and evaluate progress. • Work to increase equity between bicyclists and other modes of transportation, especially equity in resource allocation. • Review and suggest legislative and policy changes that will have an impact on bicyclists. • Recommend priorities for the use of public funds on bicycle projects, both infrastructure and programming. • Help ensure that Minneapolis keeps and improves its status as a League of American Bicyclists’ Bicycle Friendly City. • Serve as both a liaison between Minneapolis communities and the City and Park Board. • Coordinate between different agencies that interact with bicyclists.

55

Above: A Bicycle Advisory Committee mobile workshop.

Above: Several city staff members who work with the BAC.

Above: Winter bicyclist.


3.4.2


Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) - The purpose of the Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee is to advise the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and county staff with ideas on how to incorporate bike accommodations into roadway and transit projects. Staffing: The group is staffed by Hennepin County Above: Bicycle lanes on 26th Public Works. Avenue South. Membership: The Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee consists of 7 appointed members, one from each of the County Commissioner districts in Hennepin County. The Bicycle Advisory Committee also has a number of exofficio members that represent other biking interests, government agencies, and a liaison member to the Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee. A number of the Bicycle Advisory Committee members are affiliated with area biking organizations and advocacy groups such as the Twin Cities Bicycle Club, Minnesota Coalition of Bicyclists, the Cedar Lake Park Association, and the Midtown Greenway Coalition. BAC members also participate in a number of area bicycling conferences and seminars. Meetings: The Bicycle Advisory Committee meets on a monthly basis at various locations around Hennepin County. Discussion items include the status of current projects, bicycle issues, and planning studies. A bicycle tour of the local area often follows each meeting. Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings frequently have guest speakers that include local and regional park representatives, city trail coordinators, construction project engineers, and members of bicycle advisory groups. Minutes from Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings are posted on-line. On occasion, members of the Hennepin County Bicycle Advisory Committee will report on county projects at Minneapolis BAC meetings or vice/versa. Topics: Past topics have included trail crossing issues, bicycle system gaps, construction project review, and funding discussions. The group often discusses how to capitalize on existing opportunities to add bicycle facilities. For example, if a county road is being paved, the group will weigh-in on whether or not to add bike lanes. Topics are balanced geographically throughout the county, however the group spends a considerable amount of time looking at Minneapolis projects and issues. Most of the meetings typically have an infrastructure item, announcements of upcoming events/seminars, and policy discussion.

3.4.3

Above: Gateway Trail in Ramsey County. 56


3.4.3


State Non-Motorized Transportation Committee—The group’s mission is to promote non-motorized transportation in Minnesota. Vision Statement: Individually and collectively we will strengthen and encourage community support for non-motorized transportation throughout the state. We will do so through continuous and active participation with government agencies, and allied organizations, through education, public affairs, campaigns, and political initiatives.

Above: Minnesota State Flag.

Background: Appropriation law instituted the State Bicycle Advisory Committee in the mid 1980's to advise the Commissioner of Transportation and other state officials on issues pertaining to bicycle transportation in Minnesota. Over the ensuing years, it has operated under its own bylaws and with registration by the Secretary of State. In 2008, the committee was put into statute and asked to advise on non-motorized transportation modes. The committee then became the State Non-Motorized Transportation Committee (SNTC). The committee currently has 15 citizen members and 12 agency members and conducts 5 meetings per year. The executive committee and various short-term issue committees work on specific priority projects. The SNTC and Mn/DOT bike staff work to coordinate work plans and objectives. Purpose of the Committee: • Review and analyze issues and needs relating to operating non-motorized transportation on public rights-of-ways, and identify solutions and goals for addressing identified uses and needs. • Work toward the goal of making non-motorized transportation a viable transportation and recreation option available to the citizens of Minnesota, recognizing the importance of action at all levels of decision-making and funding, including the local community level, in order for this goal to be realized. • Assess and identify non-motorized transportation needs in the State’s social and physical environments. • Develop plans to meet the needs identified. Membership: Membership consists of 18 appointed representatives by the MnDOT Transportation Commissioner. The committee also includes 7 citizen members who represent a non-profit trail organization, the bicycle industry, a bicycle club, and law enforcement. The committee shall also include representatives from state agencies including the Department of Administration, Department of Education, Department of Health, DNR, Department of Public Safety, Explore Minnesota, Department of Transportation, MPCA, Met Council, and from higher education.

57

Chapter 4- Existing Conditions


Chapter 4 – Existing Conditions 4.1

Chapter Overview

4.1.1

Strategies: This section looks at the existing state of bicycling in Minneapolis. This chapter is divided into 6 sections, one for each of the “E’s”. The 6 E’s are defined and discussed in Chapter 1. The purpose of this chapter is to evaluate what is currently being accomplished throughout the city so that an accurate baseline can be established. Later chapters identify program needs and priorities, which are based on what is currently being done. This chapter will also look at strengths and weaknesses within the bicycle program and will recognize the various agencies and departments that are taking the lead. Above: A bicyclist on the Cedar Lake Trail ramp near Royalston Avenue

5.2

Education

Above: Bicycles parked at the University of Minnesota.

58


4.2


Education

4.2.1 Safe Routes to School—Safe Routes to School is a program that focuses on getting as many children as possible to bike or walk to school in a safe manner. As part of the SAFETEA-LU bill, Safe Routes to School is now a federal program with funding awarded to each state. MnDOT administers this process and awards funding to schools and cities for education and safety projects. In Minneapolis, every elementary and middle school has been evaluated by a professional engineer to identify all needed infrastructure/safety improvements in the immediate vicinity of the school. Many of these schools have already seen signage, striping, and signal changes around the school. Approximately half of all Minneapolis students live within a 20 minute bike ride of their current school. According to the Safe Routes Strategic Plan, the Minneapolis School District spends anywhere from $319 to $1,127 per elementary school student per year, between $658 and $1,792 per middle school student per year, and between $552 and $824 per high school student per year on transportation costs. Many schools have also started teaching bicycling safety in the classroom, and in many cases riding skills are taught in gym class. Some schools including Lake Harriet Upper, Anthony Middle, and South High have a high number of kids biking to school, whereas others have little or no bicycling at all. Bicycling barriers vary widely by school, however common challenges include distance, safety concerns, and bicycle theft. About half of the public schools have received new bicycle parking within the last 5 years. It is critical that parents, principals, teachers, students, and communities work together to make sure that Safe Routes to School is a success in the city.

Above: Bike lanes along North 7th Street. 59

Above: Children biking on a sidewalk along Minnehaha Parkway

Above: Children arriving at Lake Harriet School.

Above: A mother teaches her child to how to ride a bike.

Above: A promotional logo by Ken Avidor


4.2.2


Minneapolis TMO -The Minneapolis Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is an organization that works to promote alternative transportation modes including transit, carpooling, telecommuting, bicycling, and walking. Convenient transportation choices are no longer a barrier for most in the city with access to buses, LRT, and plentiful bicycle and pedestrian facilities. TMO staff often attend commuter fairs and work with Downtown employers to reach out to Downtown employees. Commuter fairs are usually held in skyways or lunchrooms and are set up to distribute information like bike maps or bus schedules. Programs like the Guaranteed Ride Home and Metropass are helpful options for a bicyclist with a flat tire, stuck in bad weather, or too tired to make the trip by bike. The Bike 2 Benefits Incentives Program offers prizes for those who bike once a week for eight weeks. In addition to the Minneapolis TMO, St. Paul Smart Trips and the I-494 Commuter Services offer similar services in the region.

4.2.3

Professional Development: The Twin Cities has been host to several national bicycling conventions and meetings including the bi-annual Pro Bike Pro Walk Conference, the National Railsto-Trails Conference, and the Mid-America Trails and Greenways Conference. The city has also hosted national meetings for engineering and planning disciplines with mobile workshops featuring the local bicycle network. The City of Minneapolis has worked closely with educational institutions and with professional organizations to promote educational seminars, research, webinars, and workshops that benefit bicycling in the region.

4.3

Encouragement

4.3.1

The Benefits of Biking—There are four primary reasons the City of Minneapolis encourages residents to bike; health benefits, improving the environment, reducing traffic congestion, and

60

Above: A TMO event at Wells Fargo.

Above: A public meeting to discuss a proposed plan.

Above: This bicyclist is getting exercise while saving money.


4.3.1


The Benefits of Biking (Continued) saving money. The vast majority of utilitarian bicyclists who have been surveyed feel healthier and happier than they did before they biked. Health Benefits: Bicycling is good for your health. According to the Center for Disease Control, obesity amongst both children and adults is at an all time high. Over 25% of adults in Minnesota are now considered obese. An active lifestyle which includes activities like bicycling helps prevent diabetes, stroke, and heart disease. Almost 700,000 people die each year in the United States of heart disease. Diabetes claims another 75,000 people per year nationally. Environmental Benefits: Bicycling is good for the environment. Based on past surveys the average commuter bicyclist travels about five miles to get to work. A person bicycling 5 miles (10 miles both ways) 3 times per week will keep almost 1,500 lbs of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere each year given they had traveled in a vehicle that gets 20 mpg instead (freedombicycle.com). Minneapolis is a leader in environmental initiatives and bicycling is one of the performance measures tracked. Traffic Congestion Benefits: Bicycling improves traffic congestion. On an average spring, summer, or fall day there are approximately 15,000 bicyclists that traverse the City of Minneapolis. To put this number in perspective, roughly 100,000 vehicles per day use I-394 entering the city limits. Even though only 25% of all bicyclists bike year-round, the city still has a 2.5% bicycling mode share (US Census), which creates enough reduction in driving to improve traffic congestion. Financial Benefits: Bicycling saves money. Given the cost of fuel, bicycling can save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars every year in transportation costs. According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, transportation expenses are only second to housing expenses when it comes to the amount an average family or individual spends each year. According to Kiplinger.com a bicyclist can save $4.04 per day taking a bike, given a 10 mile round trip. When parking is factored in, this number can be considerably higher.

61

Above: A bicyclist riding near Lake Nokomis

Above: The lagoon between Lake Calhoun to Lake of the Isles

Above: Traffic approaching NE 35th Street

Above: Bicycling saves money by avoiding driving expenses


4.3.2


Barriers—Removing or mitigating barriers to bicycling is key to increasing bicycle use and improving safety: Physical Barriers: Railroads, rivers, and freeways are huge physical barriers for bicyclists. In some cases existing bridges can be retrofitted to accommodate bicycles, but in many cases bicyclists must either travel out of their way to cross a physical barrier or use a roadway or bridge that may feel uncomfortable or unsafe. A number of bicycle and pedestrian bridges have been constructed throughout the city to help reduce barriers, which improves safety and increases bicycle use. Safety Barriers: Many people choose not to bike because they do not feel safe. In some cases it is because of the lack of bicycle facilities or poor roadway design, but in other cases it is because of crime and personal safety concerns. The lack of safe and secure bicycle facilities is the leading reason for why people choose not to bike according to Minneapolis Public Works surveys. In some cases personal security barriers can be mitigated with better lighting or surveillance. Time, Weather, and Convenience Barriers: When cyclists are surveyed about why they choose not to bike, common responses include “too far”, “can’t bike in bad weather”, and “does not fit into my schedule”. With nearly every transit vehicle in the Twin Cities now equipped with bike racks many bicyclists are now reconsidering bicycling as a mode of transportation. There are nearly 20 bicycle shops within the city that sell bicycles and clothing for Minnesota’s extreme climate. Social Barriers: Bicycling is a social activity. There are a number of bicycling clubs throughout the region and many companies offer incentives to bike to work. The environmental, transportation, health, and financial benefits of biking have been effectively marketed and it appears that bicycling is more widely accepted according to the Minneapolis TMO.

62

Above: A full trail closure

Above: Interstate-94 near the Camden Bridge

Above: 40th Street Bike Lane in the Kingfield Neighborhood

Above: Midtown Greenway in winter


4.3.2


Barriers - Continued 2001 Survey—The last bicycle survey that asked about barriers to bicycling was completed in 2001 as part of the last Bicycle Master Plan process. 188 bicyclists were surveyed and responded to the question: “What barriers prevent you from bicycling?” Making the decision to bicycle: • Weather (27% of the responses) • Time (4% of responses) • Distance (3% of responses) • Impractical or Inconvenient (3% of responses) • Laziness (1% of responses)

Above: Riding with traffic is not a barrier for this bicyclist

Barriers getting to the destination: • Safety concerns/fear of drivers (28% of the responses) • Not enough off-street trails and on-street bike lanes (17% of responses) • Poor maintenance of roadways, bridges, bikeways (8% of responses) • Construction activities (4% of responses) • Poorly planned bikeways and lack of signs (2% Above: This taxi is parked in of responses) the bike lane, a physical barrier • Inadequate lighting (2% of responses) • Transportation mode integration options (1% of responses) Barriers at the destination: • Adequate and secure bicycle parking (6% of the responses) • Locker and shower facilities (less than 1% of responses) • Attitude of others (less than 1% of responses) Above: The sub-zero • Restricted Routes (less than 1% of responses) temperatures are not a barrier for this bicyclist • Vehicles in bike lanes (less than 1% of responses)

63


4.3.3


Trip Purpose—Day to day activities make up a significant amount of all trips regardless of mode. Trips to the grocery store, bakery, post office, schools, exercise club, convenience store, library, hardware store, churches, and community centers can easily be done on a bike. However, only 1.3% of all transportation trips in Minneapolis are made on a bike according to the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). Although the city has a high bicycle mode share with regard to commuting to work, there are relatively few people using a bicycle for running errands. According to the National Bicycling and Walking Study published by the Federal Highway Administration, 9.9% of bicycling trips relate to earning a living, 19.7% for personal/family business, 55.4% for Above: Mackenzie Turner uses social/recreational purposes, and 14.1% for school, her bike to run errands. church, or civic purposes. 1% of bicyclists bike for other purposes than what was mentioned. In city surveys, adult bikers have indicated that they will travel up to 10 miles on a bike. According to the National Household Travel Survey, the average trip distance for all purposes is 10.14 miles. The NHTS also reveals that only 8.8% of American households are car-free. According to the European Union the average American cycles 0.06 miles every day as opposed to 1.5 miles each day for Dutch residents, 1 mile each day for Danish residents, and a half mile per day for Belgian and German residents. Higher densities and a high number of mixed use nodes in the city help to create an environment where most necessary goods and services are available within a reasonable biking distance from most residences.

Above: Paul Smith’s Dutch Cargo bicycle will haul as many groceries as a car trunk.

4.3.4 Bicycle Events—There are dozens of bicycle events throughout the City of Minneapolis each year. The following are several examples of bicycle related events throughout the city. Above: Blessing of the Bikes at the Basilica.

64


4.3.3


Bicycle Events – Continued

Above: Great River Energy Bicycle Festival/ Nature Valley Grand Prix.

Above: Bike-In at the Bell. Events such as this help bring the community together.

Above: Midtown Greenway Arbor Day event.

Above: Bike Giveaway at Lake Harriet.

Above: Bike Walk to Work Day event.

Above: Minneapolis Bicycle Tour.

65


4.3.5


Tourism—Tourism is an $11.2 billion dollar per year industry in Minnesota with over half of that being generated from out-of-state visitors. The leisure and hospitality industry for the state employs over 250,000 workers with almost 75,000 of those jobs located in Hennepin County. Over 39 million people visit the state each year. Many of those individuals participate in outdoor recreational Above: Minneapolis Sculpture activities including hunting, fishing, boating, Garden snowmobiling, skiing, hiking, and bicycling. A 2009 study conducted by the University of Minnesota in collaboration with the State of Minnesota determined that bicyclists spend $481 million annually while recreating, creating 5,880 jobs and $40.6 million in state and local taxes. Meet Minneapolis and Explore Minnesota are two agencies that help promote the city and state and bring tourism and convention funding to the area. The Sheridan Hotel along the Midtown Greenway offers special rates and lodging packages to those who are seeking an urban bicycle adventure. Customers receive a “bicyclists welcome” package that includes local bike maps Above: Great Rivers Trail in and other goodies. They also offer free bicycle Lilydale valet service and 25% off bicycle rental at the nearby Freewheel Midtown Bicycle Center. Minneapolis has one of the best off-street trail systems in the world. With over 700 miles of trails in the Twin Cities region not even Copenhagen or Amsterdam have the abundance of off-street facilities. By promoting the region as a world class bicycling city, more people will choose Minneapolis and Minnesota as their next vacation destination.

Above: Luce Line Trail

Above: There are numerous book by several authors that promote recreational bicycling in Minnesota.

66


4.3.6


Winter Bicycling—Minnesota is known for its weather extremes. Most long-time residents have experienced temperatures in excess of 100° F and – 30° F. With such temperature extremes it is surprising to learn that Minneapolis has very high bicycle use compared to most US cities. According to a recent study completed by Transit for Livable Communities, 20% of all bicyclists ride in all winter conditions and 36% of all bicyclists ride during fair winter weather. There are several winter bicycling seminars that are taught each year, and local bike shops sell winter clothing and gear (such as studded tires). Most trails and bike lanes are plowed, sanded/salted, and swept. Adequate winter maintenance remains a huge concern for year-round Above: A winter bicyclist in front of the TCF Bank Tower bicyclists. Figure 4.1 Northern Cities Average Temperatures

90 Minneapolis Paris Montreal Moscow Portland, OR London Tokyo Stockholm Amsterdam Copenhagen Beijing Berlin

80 70

Degrees F

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Month

Above: The graph shows average temperatures for several cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Most of the cities that have higher bicycle mode shares including Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Portland have more moderate climates. Minneapolis can best be compared to Moscow and Montreal in terms of climate. Montreal is a very bicycle friendly city with excellent infrastructure whereas Moscow lacks bicycle accommodations. On average, Minneapolis receives 50 inches of snow per year, Montreal receives 86 inches, and Moscow receives 60 inches.

67


4.3.7


Bicycle Industry— Minnesota has one of the strongest bicycle industries in the nation and is home to a number of local bicycle shops and corporations that provide parts and services for bicycles. According to Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, the bicycle industry in Minnesota generates over $200 million annually. Over 250,000 bicycles are sold in Minnesota each year. 80% of bikes sold are at large retail chains including Wal-mart, Toys R Us, and Target (incidentally the Target corporate headquarters is located in Downtown Minneapolis). 20% of bicycles in Minnesota are sold at independent bicycle dealers. Located within the region are several large retailers including Penn Cycle and Eric’s Bike Shop, which have 7 and 13 bike shops respectively. According to the National Bicycle Dealers Association, 18.5 million bicycles were sold nationwide in 2008. Over 60% of these bicycles were under $400. Quality Bicycle Products located in Bloomington, Minnesota is one of the largest bicycle parts distributors in the world with approximately 450 employees. Park Tool of St. Paul is the largest bicycle tool manufacturer in the US and Dero Bike Rack Company is based in South Minneapolis. Kurt Manufacturing located in NE Minneapolis produces and sells bicycle training gear. There are dozens of other small businesses throughout the area that specialize in bicycle parts and manufacturing in addition to bicycle related services including bars, restaurants, and clothing shops that cater to cycling.

Above: Even though there is a high number of bike shops in Minneapolis, the majority of bicycles are purchased at Target, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Sears. The photo above is the entrance to the Target at the Quarry Shopping Center. 68



Table 4.1 – Bicycle Shops in Minneapolis Bike Shops in Minneapolis

Address

Offers Bicycle Rentals

Alternative Bike and Board Shop

3013 Lyndale Avenue

Yes

Angry Catfish

4208 28th Ave S

No

Behind Bars

208 13th Ave NE

No

Calhoun Cycle

3342 Hennepin Avenue South

No

Calhoun Rental

1622 Lake Street

Yes

Carlson’s Cycles

316 West 48th Street

No

Kvale Chris Cycles

2637 27th Avenue South

No

Curt Goodrich Bicycles

2010 E Hennepin Ave

No

Erik’s Bike Shop

1312 4th Street SE

Yes

Flanders Brothers Cycles

2707 Lyndale Avenue South

No

Freewheel Bike Shop

1812 South 6th Street

No

Freewheel Midtown Bike

2834 10th Avenue South

Yes

Full Cycle

3515 Chicago Ave S

No

Grease Pit Bike Shop

1507 South 6th Street

No

Hiawatha Cyclery

4301 East 54th Street

No

Hub Bike Coop

3020 Minnehaha Avenue

No

Hub Bike Coop

301 Cedar Avenue

No

Nokomis Cycle

4553 Bloomington Avenue South

No

One on One Bicycle Studio

117 Washington Avenue North

Yes

Penn Cycle

710 West Lake St

Yes

Re-Cycle

2327 Hennepin Ave

No

Sunrise Cyclery

901 W Lake Street

No

Varsity Bike Shop

1306 SE 4th Street

No

Above: The table above is a list of all of the bicycle shops in Minneapolis, their location, and whether they offer bicycle rentals. Many of the local bike shop including the Hub Coop, Flanders, Behind Bars, and Penn Cycle have bike racing teams that compete regionally and nationally.

69


4.3.8


Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassadors— Minneapolis is one of a handful of American cities with a Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassador Program. The mission of this program is to increase bicycling and walking as a part of transportation in Minneapolis and its neighboring communities. This is done by providing grassroots biking and walking education and outreach, encouraging people to drive less and bike and walk more. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassador Program is funded through the Federal NonMotorized Transportation Pilot Program and has been funded for three years. Four full-time city employees currently staff this program with several youth ambassadors that assist part-time. Staff work with several target audiences to increase cycling mode share. The program provides education and outreach to Minneapolis and all of the adjoining cities. Its work plan priorities include: • To deliver an effective marketing campaign. • To promote a culture of courtesy, acceptance, and safety, for all modes including motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. • To build a program with long-term committed Steering Committee members. • To foster a social norm where walking and biking are part of everyday routines. • To work with community leaders to frame program strategies, build community based partnerships, and work with volunteers. • To leverage existing governmental and community efforts to maximize results. • To create a program with clear and measurable outcomes, as well as a built-in evaluation that fulfills the grant’s intent.

Above: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassadors meet with dignitaries

Above: Bike Walk to Work Day event

Above: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassadors participate in a number of events

Above: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassadors

70



4.3.9 Advocacy—Minneapolis has a number of groups that advocate for better conditions for bicyclists. The primary role of advocates is to provide a forum in which members can work together to ask elected officials for specific infrastructure improvements and policy changes that improve cycling. Some of the most active advocacy groups in the area include the Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota, the Minneapolis Bicycle Coalition, the Midtown Greenway Coalition, the Minneapolis Off-Road Cycling Advocates, Transit for Livable Communities, and the Cedar Lake Park Association. According to the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking, advocacy capacity may be linked to higher levels of biking.

Above: A bicyclist helps another bicyclist fix his bike

4.3.10 Bike Clubs— The Twin Cities region has a number of bicycle clubs that travel the area on organized recreational bicycle rides. The following bike clubs are the most active: • The Twin Cities Bicycle Club: One of the largest clubs in the nation with over 2,500 members and over 2,000 organized rides each year. • Major Taylor Bike Club: An African American bicycling club named after world champion racer Marshall “Major” Taylor. • Hiawatha Bike Club: Local bicycle club with over 150 participating members with over 400 rides per year. • Minnesota Cycling Federation: Comprised of several bicycle racing clubs throughout the region. Its purpose is the education and Above: A number of bikes at a promotion of bicycle racing skills and safety, bicycle facility grand opening and the promotion of bicycle races for bicycle racers.

Above: Nice Ride kiosk in Downtown Minneapolis.

71



Table 4.2 – Twin Cities Bicycling Club Ride Types Ride Type

Description

Minimum Average Riding Speed

Riders Must Have

Rest Stops

Repairs

Leader Rides

A

Very Strenuous

About 18 mph-riders may ride faster or slower

Advanced cycling skills, spare tube, patch kit, pump

At leader’s discretion

Riders fix their own bikes

Anywhere

Intermediate to About every advanced cycling 20-30 miles skills, spare tube patch kit, pump


Anywhere

Fast Paced, most difficult terrain, or longer distance Strenuous

A/B

Swift, more difficult terrain, or long distance Brisk

B

About 16 mph— riders may ride faster or slower About 14 mph

Intermediate to more advanced cycling skills; spare tube, patch kit, pump

About every 15-20 miles

Leader helps

At the rear of the riders who are riding at a B pace.

About 12 mph

Intermediate cycling skills; spare tube, patch kit, pump


Leader helps

At the rear of the riders who are riding at a B/C pace.

About 10 mph

Entry level to intermediate cycling skills; spare tube, patch kit, pump


Leader helps

At the rear

About 10 mph

Generally intermediate About every cycling skills; spare 10-15 miles tube, patch kit, pump, front

Leader helps

Front and rear (must have 2 leaders) Night Ride

About 1220 mph; must finish within time limits

Intermediate to About every advanced cycling 30 miles skills; spare tube, patch kit, pump, spirit of self-sufficiency


Anywhere

Social, but emphasis is on riding– A good choice for experienced group riders generally intermediate or greater pace, terrain and distance. Moderate

B/C

Social emphasis, but for those with riding experience—generally intermediate pace, terrain and distance Relaxed

C

Easier, for a more laid back time, perfect for newer riders, slower pace and flatter terrain, shorter distance. N (Night)

Night

B/C pace, social, safety stressed, lights required

R (Randonneur)

Strenuous

Long distance “brevet” ride with time limits and required checkpoints . Randonneur USA rules apply. Cooperative Spirit.

Table 4.2: Table 5.2 is used by the Twin Cities Bicycle Club (TCBC). The table is based on the AASHTO classification system and demonstrates the need to accommodate different bicyclist’s skills and abilities. Table 5.2 is also more specific with A/B and B/C riders defined.

72



4.4

Enforcement

4.4.1

Law Enforcement—Police officers receive general training regarding bicycle-related traffic laws in the police academy and are constantly keeping up with changes in state statute and city ordinance. The projects and programs below are a sampling of the commitment to bicycling and bicycling safety from local law enforcement. Bicycle Recovery Program: Police officers have created a program to recover hundreds of stolen and lost bicycles throughout the city. The police department sponsors bicycle auctions on a regular basis to sell the bicycles that can’t be returned. Decreasing Bicycle Theft: Bicycle theft is going down, especially at the U of M. More U-locks and the Bike Bait program have helped to deter thieves. Bike Cops for Kids: Police officers in North Minneapolis have started a program where the department gives bicycle helmets to kids. If officers later spot these kids wearing their helmets while on patrol, they are awarded a new bike. National Bicycle Unity Tour: Several Minneapolis Police officers have participated in the National Bicycle Unity Tour, which supports the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Police officers have also sponsored local rides to honor local officers who have died . This fund is used to assist family members of fallen officers. Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program: Federal dollars are being used for targeted enforcement along road and trail corridors that are being improved as part of this program.

73

Above: Police officers on bicycles. The Minneapolis Police Department has 229 of out 825 officers (28%) who are certified by the International Police Mountain Bike Association to be bicycle officers. Approximately 35 officers per year receive this certification. In 2010, the Downtown Precinct regularly uses 14 full-time and 6 part time bicycle patrol officers.



4.4.2 Rules of the Road—The State of Minnesota and City of Minneapolis have established a number of statutes and ordinances that pertain to bicycling. Below are some statutes and ordinances that are specific to Minnesota and to Minneapolis. • In Minnesota, bicycles are considered vehicles and can legally ride two-abreast in a traffic lane. • Minnesota is currently one of 14 states that require motorists to give three feet of space to bicyclists when they pass. • In Minnesota, a bicyclist is not required to use a bike lane or path if one is provided. • Although wearing a helmet is recommended, it is not required by statute. • Bicyclists are prohibited from using freeways in Minnesota. Some western states allow bicycling on freeways. • State statute states that bicyclists are not allowed to ride on a sidewalk in a business district unless the local community allows it. By ordinance, Minneapolis does not allow riding a bicycle on a sidewalk in a commercial district to protect pedestrians. • Bicycle registration is no longer required in the City of Minneapolis. • Bicyclists riding on a sidewalk must give audible signal when passing a pedestrian. • Bicyclists must provide hand signals. Minneapolis ordinances also have provisions for bicycle parking at planned developments, impounding bicycles, bicycle parking regulations, permits for bicycle parades/races, showers and clothing locker requirements, and pedicab operation. Bikes are allowed to use the Nicollet Mall 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Biking is permitted on the 2nd and Marquette bus lanes during off-peak periods (6AM-9AM and 3PM-7PM). Above (Right): To the upper right is a brochure that the Minnesota Department of Transportation prepared based on current statutes. This is distributed to the public to promote safe bicycling.

74

Above: Rachel Speck demonstrates how to signal a left turn.



4.5

Engineering

4.5.1

Density—Dense communities typically result in more bicycling. Bike projects that are located in areas that connect high population densities to high employment densities are very desirable because they are likely the projects that will serve the highest numbers of bicyclists. These areas also tend Above: The Midtown to be the most congested and tend to generate the Exchange most crashes. Population and employment density are two factors often used to prioritize regional funding.

4.5.2

Development Factors—Minneapolis was platted in a grid before the invention of the automobile. Most of the surrounding first ring suburbs were constructed between 1940 and 1965 in the height of the interstate era with little consideration for bicycles. Many of the bicycle accommodations in Minneapolis are the result of redevelopment. Newer communities (second and third ring suburbs) have also included bicycle facilities into new streets and developments. A map of all bicycle facilities in the metropolitan area was completed a few years ago and a striking observation can be made. There are relatively few bicycle facilities in first ring suburbs, creating a donut around both Minneapolis and St. Paul. Several regional trails have been completed within the last 15 years that have helped bridge this gap including the SW LRT Trails, the Luce Line Trail, the Gateway Trail, and the Bruce Vento Trail. Many of the first ring suburbs now also have policies that support bicycling and walking.

4.5.3

Spacing of Bikeways —To ensure a safe and reasonable bicycle facility network, it has been concluded that trails should be spaced approximately 2 miles apart, bike lanes 1 mile apart, and local signed routes 1/2 mile apart. This density ensures that no one within the city is more than 1 mile from a trail, a 1/2 mile from a bike lane, or 1/4 mile from a signed route. In denser areas including Downtown and the U of M, facilities may be spaced more closely together.

4.5.4 Planning and Zoning—The Minneapolis Comprehensive Plan addresses land use and planning policy for the city. The zoning code implements those policies through the regulation of new building development. The zoning code encourages and gives incentives for the integration of bike friendly design and amenities by requiring public and private bike parking within new developments. City of Minneapolis staff review all new projects and developments to make sure that the goals, policies, and ordinances of the city are met. Building proposals are typically taken to the Minneapolis Planning Commission for approval. The city has also taken on a number of small area plans, which are site specific land use plans. Small area plans typically evaluate a given corridor, node, or district. Most small area plans address transportation issues including bicycling by offering suggested bikeway improvements.

75



Figure 4.2 – Existing Land Use in Minneapolis

76



Figure 4.3 - Employment Density of Minneapolis

77



Figure 4.4 – Population Density of Minneapolis

78



4.5.5

Historic Preservation—Historic preservation is currently enforced by the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission, MnDOT Cultural Resources, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Projects, including bike projects, with federal funding must undergo a review to protect the historical character of an area. There are a number of historic districts throughout the city including: • The South Ninth Street Historic District • The St. Anthony Falls Historic District • The Stevens Square Historic District • The Victory Memorial Drive Historic District • The Washburn Fair-Oaks Historic District Above: Historic St. Anthony • The Fifth Street Southeast Historic District Main • The University of Minnesota Greek Letter Chapter House Historic District • The Harmon Place Historic District • The Healy Block Historic District • The Milwaukee Avenue Historic District • The Minnehaha Historic District • The North Loop Warehouse Historic District

4.5.6

Protecting Natural Resources—Protecting natural resources is a high priority for the city. The City of Minneapolis, in partnership with several watershed groups works to improve stormwater quality and manage stormwater quantity. Capital projects, including bike projects, must mitigate stormwater runoff and need to follow best practices with regard to erosion control. In addition to protecting water quality, the Department of Natural Resources reviews all federal projects to see if any endangered or threatened species are impacted by the project. Bicycle facilities are often coupled with Above: Mississippi River near environmental projects, presenting a number of Coon Rapids funding opportunities for new bike projects.

Above: Mississippi River near the University of Minnesota 79


4.5.7


Access to Destinations—Access to destinations is important for all travel modes, especially for popular locations that attract large numbers. Colleges/universities, shopping malls, stadiums, and central business districts require planning and accommodations for bicycles. Not every destination is easy to get to by bike. Above: Guthrie Theatre There are often physical barriers or lack of safe facilities in the vicinity of popular destinations that inhibits or prevents bicycling as a transportation mode. A classic example of this can be found at the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Until the opening of the Hiawatha Light Rail Line, it was impossible to get to the Lindbergh Terminal (Terminal 1) by a bicycle. It is also difficult for many to bike to most regional malls, to find safe routes that cross rivers and freeways, and to get to Above: Minneapolis Institute business nodes along minor arterials. Progress has of Art been made in Minneapolis to easily get to major bicycling destinations including the U of M, Lake Street, Uptown, and Downtown through the addition of trails, bike lanes, and signed bicycle routes. It is estimated that there are 15,000 bicyclists traveling throughout the city on an average spring, summer, or fall day. This number is closer to 4,000 Above: Chain of Lakes in the winter months. Over 50% of bicyclists within the city are destined for the U of M and 25% of all bicyclists are destined for Downtown Minneapolis. The remaining 25% of bicyclists are traveling to schools, community business/retail nodes, parks, cultural attractions, and to other residential areas within the city. These estimates are based on cordon (perimeter) counts, citywide bike counts, census data, and surveys. Above: St. Paul Riverfront

Above: Downtown St. Paul

Above: Mall of America 80

Above: Lake Minnetonka


4.5.8


Bikeways—Currently there are several types of bikeways that can be found throughout the city: Trails: There are close to 84 miles of off-street paved trails throughout the city. This does not include unpaved trails or mountain biking trails throughout the city. Some of the most prominent trails include the Minneapolis Grand Rounds, the Midtown Greenway, Cedar Lake Trail and Minneapolis Diagonal Trail. Most of these trails are plowed in winter, and are open to the public 24/7. Bicycle Boulevard: The City of Minneapolis is adding several miles of bicycle boulevards, which are local streets adjacent to minor arterials that are traffic calmed to give preference to bicycles.

Above: Stone Arch Bridge

Above: RiverLake Greenway

Bike Lanes: There are over 44 miles of on-street bike lanes throughout the city. Most of the bike lane mileage is in Downtown Minneapolis or connections to Downtown. Some of the highest used bike lanes are located near the University of Minnesota campus. Many of the bike lanes are located on minor arterial roadways including University Ave, Park/Portland Ave, Plymouth Ave, Above: North 7th St Bike Lane and Riverside Ave. On-Street Greenways: Streets like Milwaukee Avenue have been closed to cars and are for bicycles and pedestrians only. Signed Bike Lanes: There are several miles of signed routes throughout city (marked with a bike route or share the road sign). Most of the signed routes are located in the Como Neighborhood, Prospect Park Neighborhood, Audubon Park Neighborhood, and Marcy Holmes Neighborhood.

Above: A greenway along Milwaukee Ave

Shared Use Pavement Markings (Sharrows): Bryant Ave was the first roadway in the city to have shared use pavement markings installed. Several new corridors are being implemented as part of the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program. Left: Shared Use Pavement Markings

81

Above: A Share the Road sign. There are several of these signs In Audubon Park.


4.5.9


Minnesota State Trails—Minnesota has more miles of paved rail-to-trail bikeways than any other state. There are a total of 14 state trails with 523 miles of paved trails in the system. Map below courtesy of the Minnesota DNR. Figure 4.5 – Minnesota’s State Trail System

Above: A DNR State Trail 82



4.5.10 Regional Trails—The regional park system in the Twin Cities consists of 49 regional parks and regional park preserves, 29 trails, and 6 special recreation areas. There are several regional trails in Minneapolis, some of which are the busiest in the region. A 2008 regional park survey found that 48% of regional trail users in Minneapolis are visitors from other parts of the region. Only 8% of regional park visitors in Minneapolis arrived by bicycle. Right: Regional trail connection at the Coon Rapids Dam Below: Map of existing regional trails. Courtesy of the Metropolitan Council

Figure 4.6 – Met Council Regional Parks and Trails System

Right: Regional trail connection at the Coon Rapids Dam Below: Map of existing regional trails. Courtesy of the

83



4.5.11 Bicycle Parking: The City of Minneapolis completed an exhaustive bicycle parking inventory in Fall 2007. The study found that there were 4,169 bicycle racks with 17,026 bicycle parking spaces available to the public. The city also counted 331 locker spaces, most of which are located in Downtown, at the U of M, and at Metro Transit stations Since 2007, approximately 300 racks have been added within the city. A special Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTP) grant will add an additional 200 bike racks to parks, schools, post offices, and business nodes throughout the city. Approximately 50% of existing parks and schools currently have adequate bicycle parking. Above: Bicycle Parking at the The 2007 map shows bicycle parking locations. Central Library

Table 4.3 - Bicycle Parking Ordinance New Buildings (as of 1/09)

Minimum Bicycle Parking Requirement

Non-residential uses < 1,000 square feet

Exempt

Residential—Single family to 4 units

Exempt

Multi-family dwellings (5 or more units)

1 space per two dwelling units

Schools (K-12)

3 spaces per classroom

Community Centers

6 spaces

Theatres

3 spaces

General retail sales and services

3 spaces or 1 space per 5,000 sq ft of general floor area

Offices


Restaurant or coffee shop

3 spaces

Indoor or outdoor recreation facility

3 spaces

Sports and health facility


Medical clinic

3 spaces

Industrial uses

2 spaces or 1 space per 20,00/30,000/40,000 sq ft

Post office

3 spaces

*This table is a summary. Additional standards exist mandating the location of long-term and shortterm bicycle parking, and there are separate rules for Downtown Minneapolis. For the full version, see Table 541-3 of the City of Minneapolis Zoning Code (Title 20, Chapter 541).

84

BENJAMIN ST NE MCKINLEY ST NE

ARTHUR ST NE

ULYSSES ST NE

VD BL BR IG HT ON

GODWARD ST NE

INDUSTRIAL BLVD

STINSON PKWY

ARTHUR ST NE

NE W

HAYES ST NE

CLEVELAND ST NE

PIERCE ST NE

BUCHANAN ST NE

MONROE ST NE

6TH ST NE

33RD AVE SE

HOOVER ST NE

TAFT ST NE

21ST AVE SE

24TH AVE SE

SE

SE

HA VE

27 T

37TH AVE S

34TH AVE S

EMERALD ST

48TH AVE S

43RD AVE S

40TH AVE S 42ND AVE S

46TH AVE S

44TH AVE S 45TH AVE S

39TH AVE S 41ST AVE S

aha C ree

k

53RD ST E

54TH ST E 55TH ST E

57TH ST E

HIGHWAY 62 MILITARY HWY

47TH AVE S

38TH AVE S

eh

42ND AVE S

36TH AVE S

36TH AVE S

nn

44TH AVE S

35TH AVE S

33RD AVE S

31ST AVE S 32ND AVE S 33RD AVE S

31ST AVE S 32ND AVE S 32ND AVE S 33RD AVE S 34TH AVE S

40TH AVE S


21ST AVE S

27TH AVE S

IS P KW YE

18TH AVE S

HIGHWAY 77

BLOOMINGTON AVE

14TH AVE S

NO KO M

Miles 2

30TH AVE S

a h

85

1.5

38TH AVE S

36TH AVE S

32ND AVE S

30TH AVE S

28TH AVE S

30TH AVE S

27TH AVE S

29TH AVE S

NOKOMIS AVE S


31ST AVE S 32ND AVE S 33RD AVE S

26TH AVE S 27TH AVE S 28TH AVE S 29TH AVE S

21ST AVE S 22ND AVE S STANDISH AVE 23RD AVE S 24TH AVE S 25TH AVE S

CEDAR AVE S

17TH AVE S

15TH AVE S


14TH AVE S 1

Mi

46TH AVE S

OAK ST SE

19TH AVE S

18TH AVE S

16TH AVE S

14TH AVE S

12TH AVE S

12TH AVE S

10TH AVE S

CHICAGO AVE

14TH AVE S

PARK AVE PORTLAND AVE 5TH AVE S

MCKINLEY PL STINSON BLVD NE 18TH AVE SE

13TH AVE SE

HA VE

15 T

CHURCH ST SE

S

AV E

H

10 T

S

AV E

H

12 T

ELLIOT AVE 10TH AVE S 11TH AVE S 13TH AVE S 14TH AVE S

10TH AVE S

ELLIOT AVE

ELLIOT AVE

11TH AVE S

COLUMBUS AVE

OAKLAND AVE

CLINTON AVE

5TH AVE S

CLINTON AVE

CLINTON AVE HAMPSHIRE DR

3RD AVE S CLINTON AVE

2ND AVE S

2ND AVE S

1ST AVE S

4TH AVE S

INTERSTATE 35W 3RD AVE S

INTERSTATE 35W STEVENS AVE

1ST AVE S

WENTWORTH AVE BLAISDELL AVE

GRAND AVE S

BRYANT AVE S

LINCOLN ST NE

CENTRAL AVE NE

POLK ST NE TAYLOR ST NE FILLMORE ST NE

GRAND ST NE

STEVENS AVE 1ST AVE S

NICOLLET AVE

PILLSBURY AVE

GRAND AVE S

2ND AVE S

HARRIET AVE

GARFIELD AVE

ALDRICH AVE S

COLFAX AVE S

12 1 W AY GH HI

PILLSBURY AVE

DR

PARK AVE

16TH ST N

GRAND AVE S PLEASANT AVE WILLOW ST PILLSBURY AVE BLAISDELL AVE LASALLE AVE NICOLLET AVE

EMERSON AVE S

DUPONT AVE S DUPONT AVE S

FREMONT AVE S

LYNDALE AVE S

BRYANT AVE S

HOLMES AVE S

GIRARD AVE S

IRVING AVE S

JAMES AVE S

SU NR IS E

NEWTON AVE S

PENN AVE S

POLK ST NE

MAIN ST NE

BRYANT AVE N

W LYNDALE AVE N

W AV E EN LI N D

LOGAN AVE S EU L CL AKE ID PL PL HUMBOLDT AVE S GIRARD AVE S

E CALHOUN PKWY

MORGAN AVE S

a h

QUEEN AVE S

MAIN ST NE

GIRARD AVE N FREMONT AVE N

IRVING AVE N

ALDRICH AVE N LYNDALE AVE N 6TH ST N 4TH ST N 3RD ST N INTERSTATE 94 INTERSTATE 94 WASHINGTON AVE N 2ND ST N

COLFAX AVE N

DUPONT AVE N

EMERSON AVE N

IRVING AVE N

GIRARD AVE N

OLIVER AVE N

QUEEN AVE S

SHERIDAN AVE S

VINCENT AVE S

XERXES AVE S

3RD ST N

LOGAN AVE N

LOGAN AVE N

IRVING AVE N

RUSSELL AVE S

THOMAS AVE S

ZENITH AVE S ABBOTT AVE S

BEARD AVE S

BRYANT AVE N

QUEEN AVE N

SHERIDAN AVE N

VINCENT AVE N UPTON AVE S

D

UPTON AVE S

11TH AVE S

HUMBOLDT AVE N

JAMES AVE N

PENN AVE N

RUSSELL AVE N

VICTORY MEMORIAL DR XERXES AVE N WASHBURN AVE N VINCENT AVE N UPTON AVE N THOMAS AVE N

PARK R D

DREW AVE S

BL V R SI O EX CE L FRANCE AVE S

DREW AVE S

NI 3 CO H EN 1S 2ND RD LL ET A 2N N T MA EP A AV VE D LL 3R AVE IN VE E N N D N S AV A HIGHWAY 65 VE E S

0.5

r

62ND ST E

e

Mother Lake

v

59TH ST E

i

Taft Lake

H

58TH ST E

S

0.25

61ST ST E

2 AY 6 IGHW

51ST ST E

R

59TH ST E

57TH ST E

WY PK EY FR 46TH ST E D GO

CROSBY PL

52ND ST E

i

57TH ST E

56TH ST E

44TH ST E

45TH ST E

49TH ST E

p

Lake Nokomis

58TH ST E

60TH ST E

43RD ST E

p

Diamond Lake

i

54TH ST E

55TH ST E

41ST ST E

C r e e k

e

s

52ND ST E 53RD ST E

n

s

TE HS

in

i

h a

s

M

56TH ST E

37TH ST E

Y WEST RIVER PKW

49TH ST E

T 50

36TH ST E

MINNEHAHA PKWY E

48TH ST E

50TH ST E

s

47TH ST E

Lake Hiawatha

i

45TH ST E

AV E

31ST ST E

39TH ST E

40TH ST E

43RD ST E

DO RM AN

M

44TH ST E

33RD ST E

34TH ST E

39TH ST E

42ND ST E

R TE

38TH ST E

46TH ST E

51ST ST E

SE

33RD ST E

ER IV R

41ST ST E

E AV

E

35TH ST E

39TH ST E

IN RL O

0

E AV

62ND ST W

TA

62ND ST W

SO KA

W

Lake 60TH ST W Mead

61ST ST W

E

Grass Lake

D

ST

59TH ST W

R

58TH ST W

RD W

37TH ST E

E DS

57TH ST W

LAKE

LV NB RO HU

55TH ST W

36TH ST E

32ND ST E

VE AA TH E WA AV HIA HT DIG VE AA TH WA HIA

54TH ST W

DIAM OND

LAKE ST E 31ST ST E

Powderhorn Lake

27TH ST E

29TH ST E

29TH ST E

29TH ST E

AV E

28TH ST E

E AV

HIGHWAY 62

61S T

52ND ST W

Mi r nnehaha C eek

53RD ST W

56TH ST W

57TH ST W 58TH ST W

49TH ST W

25TH ST E

ING

55TH ST W

48TH ST W

24TH ST E

L EL SN

46TH ST W

ER IV R

45TH ST W

51ST ST W

e e k C r

27TH ST E

SE AB UR Y

22ND ST E

E AV

44TH ST W

HA HA NE MIN

a

ST NUT WAL

55 AY HW

40TH ST E

HIG

h

26TH ST E

41ST ST W

42ND ST W

E VE

DREW AVE S

DA AN

40TH ST W

50TH ST W

e

65

34TH ST W

35TH ST W

24TH ST E

25TH ST E

29TH ST E

32ND ST W

36TH ST W

22ND ST E

28TH ST E

47TH ST W DR RK PA

HIGHWAY

EWING AVE S

ISL

FRANKLIN AVE E 22ND ST E

27TH ST E

43RD ST W

47TH ST W

27TH AVE NE

14TH AVE NE 13TH AVE NE

NE ST IN MA T NE NE S T LL E Y S HA RS AMS R MA

Lake Harriet

nn M i

r

52ND ST W

53RD ST W

e

28TH ST W

46TH ST W

51ST ST W

v

44TH ST W

49TH ST W

i

TW

48TH ST W

54TH ST W

Jo Pond

45TH ST W

R

26TH ST W 27TH ST W

32ND ST W

41ST ST W 42ND ST W 42ND ST W

43RD S

i

24TH ST W 25TH ST W

LAKE ST W

40TH ST W

p

22ND ST W

31ST ST W

39TH ST W

p

FRANKLIN AVE W

THE MALL

Lake Calhoun

i

KWY DEAN P

PARK LN

Lake of the Isles

38TH ST W

N

2ND AVE N

DOUGLAS AVE SUMMIT AVE LINCOLN AVE

24TH ST W

N

k

5TH AVE N 4TH AVE N

Spring Lake

21ST ST W

s

8TH AVE N

LAUREL AVE W

W DR R VIE CEDA

s

12TH AVE N 11TH AVE N

ST

e

14TH AVE NE

13TH AVE NE

Locker

26TH AVE NE

LOWRY AVE NE 24TH AVE NE 24TH AVE NE 23RD AVE NE 22ND AVE NE 20TH AVE NE 19TH AVE NE 19TH AVE NE 18 1/2 AVE NE 18TH AVE NE

D

e

i


S ST S TH T 12 H S T 13

394 HOV LNINTERSTATE 394

r

s

C

s

s s e t t

BikeRack

33RD AVE NE

i

a

Legend

BROADWAY ST NE NE VE NE SUMMER ST NE A E H 8T H AV SPRING ST NE 7T NE VE WINTER ST NE NE HA NE 5T VE A VE H DA HENNEPIN AVE E 4T 3R N 9T NE E HS VE T AV 7T TA 6 S H H 1 TH 8T SE 1S S T 4 COMO AVE SE HS T ST T T S 5 10 TH S TH E TS S ST ST ST E E NK N A SE N B 7T 29 HS 7T TH MA 6T H 2N UNIV M 17 IN ELM ST SE H S T SE AV D ST i T S E 5 T S ST s RS H E TH T S 1S s N AV SE S E IT Y E TS i ST E s E TS AV s SE i S ES p E p E i 3R WA S D R ST HIN i v 4T GT 2ND e r HS 4T S ON ST TS H 5T AV S E H ST S ES ST S 7T H S ST 1ST ST 6TH S ST S 8T H 5TH ST SE 9T ST S H 10 ST 4TH TH S ST FULTON ST SE ST SE 6T WE S RI Loring ST HS VE Pond RIV R T E SID 15TH ST E RP S K EA WY 7TH ST S VE 17TH ST E 17TH ST E 8TH ST S 18TH ST E 8TH ST S 18TH ST E FRANKLIN AVE SE 9TH ST S 19TH ST E 19TH ST E

18TH AVE N

ST

B

34TH AVE NE

M

25TH AVE N 24TH AVE N 23RD AVE N 22ND AVE N 21ST AVE N

H 5T

ek

5TH AVE N

GLENWOOD AVE

35TH AVE NE


33RD AVE N

OLSON MEMORIAL HWY

Wirth Lake

36TH AVE NE

29TH AVE NE

3R

8TH AVE N

31ST AVE NE

N

14TH AVE N

17TH AVE N 16TH AVE N 15TH AVE N

N

16TH AVE N

T 1ST S

GOLDEN VALLEY RD

SAINT ANTHONY PKWY

34TH AVE N

27TH AVE N


T 4TH S

XERXES AVE N

e

AY W AD XERXES AVE N

r

O BR

27TH AVE N

Bassett C re

FRANCE AVE S

C

T ES W

29TH AVE N

N

AVE

D 42N


LONGFELLOW AVE

e

36TH AVE N

LOWRY AVE N

17TH AVE N

Cedar Lake

Webber Pond

35TH AVE N

30TH AVE N

37TH AVE NE

44TH AVE N

37TH AVE N

OAK PARK AVE N

VD BL ET NS U W S T HS 29T

k

DOWLING AVE N

PLYMOUTH AVE N 12TH A VE N

Brownie Lake

e

January 2007

2ND ST NE 3RD ST NE UNIVERSITY AVE NE 4TH ST NE

l

VINCENT AVE N

g

O SS EO 46TH AVE N R D 45TH AVE N 44TH AVE N

43RD AVE N

Birch Pond

48TH AVE N

CAMDEN AVE N

49TH AVE N

n

Ryan Lake

Bike Racks and Lockers 5TH ST NE

h

2 1/2 ST NE

51ST AVE N

S

4TH ST NE

6TH ST N

50TH AVE N

LYNDALE AVE W

51ST AVE N

53RD AVE N 52ND AVE N

i

UPTON AVE N

52ND AVE N

GARFIELD AVE

XERXES AVE N

53RD AVE N

KNOX AVE N

MORGAN AVE N

Figure 4.7 - Bicycle Parking in Minneapolis



4.5.12 Support Facilities—There are several types of bicycle support facilities that can be found throughout the city. These facilities include: Bike Corrals: All major bicycle events with more than 100 people have staffed corrals. Some of the local major events include the State Fair, Taste of Minnesota, and Bike to Work Day. Bicycle Shower and Locker Facilities: There are public shower and locker facilities at the Hawthorne Transportation Center and at the Midtown Bike Center. City and County employees can use the showers and lockers at the Federal Courthouse for a Above: Bicycle in Downtown fee. Several Downtown corporations including Ameriprise and Target have showers and lockers for Minneapolis their employees. Bike Share: Minneapolis is one of the first cities in the United States to roll out this program. It is also one of the largest systems. Users rent bikes at a kiosk and are able return them to a different kiosk. Bike Station: Minneapolis has the only Bike Station in the state of Minnesota (located along the Midtown Greenway) and will soon get another one at the University of Minnesota campus. Services include showers/lockers, rentals, repair, and retail. Maps: Both the city and county distribute free bike maps to the public both on-line and at some events. Bike maps can also be purchased at local book stores and gas stations. Pedicabs: The city has a number of operating pedicabs that operate when the weather is nice. Special ordinances govern their use.

Above: Bike share in the Warehouse District

Above: Bicycle Corral in Washington D.C.

Above: Midtown Bike Center 86



4.5.13 Innovative Bicycle Facilities: Innovative facilities are used in situations where traditional methods or treatments do not adequately address a given problem or situation. Below are examples of innovative and experimental treatments used or proposed in the City of Minneapolis: Bicycle Boulevard: The City of Minneapolis has received funding to add several miles of bicycle boulevards, which are local streets adjacent to minor arterials that are traffic calmed to give preference to bicycles.

Above: Bicycle Box at Franklin and E River Parkway

Bike Box: Advance stop lines, commonly know as bike boxes, allow bicyclists to make a transition at an intersection when the light is red. This better positions a bicyclist to make a left turn. The first bike boxes in the city were installed on 1st Ave N. Colored Bike Lanes: Colored bike lanes have been installed on several routes in Downtown Minneapolis. 4th street is the only bike lane corridor left with a red sealcoat. Green will be used in the future. Above: Pavement markings

Monolithic Gutter Pan Bike Lanes: A 60-inch (5along Hennepin Avenue foot) monolithic gutter pan can be used to meet CSA and MSA lane width standards. This has been done on Hennepin Avenue, Como Avenue, and 10th Street. Separated Trails: First installed around the lakes, this treatment has become common throughout the region. Separating bicycles from pedestrians not only improves safety, but also improves capacity where there are a lot of cyclists.

Above: Pavement markings along Hennepin Avenue

Above: Separated trail along the Midtown Greenway

87

Above: Signage along 1st Avenue North



4.5.14 Safety and Security—A handful of trail corridors, including the Midtown Greenway and Lake Calhoun, have Code Blue Emergency Phones. These devices are directly linked to 911 dispatchers. In the case of the Midtown Greenway, the emergency phones are supplemented by security cameras. The cameras have been very helpful in solving crimes and for prosecution. These devices are expensive to install and maintain and were funded/installed before it became common for most to carry cell phones. Lighting and regular patrol are also effective tools in fighting crime. Most of the commuter trails have been designed to allow for emergency vehicles to drive on the trails for easy Above: A Code Blue Phone rescue and patrol. near Lake Calhoun 4.5.15 Traffic Safety– One of the most important considerations in bicycle facility design is safety, particularly along on-street corridors. Unless special situations warrant, bicycle lanes should be striped on the right side of the road, should be 5-6 feet in width, and should not be placed in a door zone. There is considerable debate with regard to how streets should be designed. Lane widths, number of traffic lanes, and whether bike lanes should even be placed on some minor arterials are frequently discussed topics. A traffic engineering study should be conducted before changing a roadway to ensure safety and modal balance. More information on this topic can be found in the Minneapolis Bicycle Design Guidelines. Above: A surveillance system at the 5th Precinct.

Above: Traffic safety is an important consideration when building and maintaining transportation infrastructure. 88

Above: A fiber optic cabinet along the Midtown Greenway



4.5.16 Maintenance: The City of Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board maintain trails and on-street bikeways throughout the city. The October 2000 Bikeways Report defines what regular maintenance and extraordinary maintenance should be. The document also assigned maintenance responsibilities. The following existing bikeways are maintained by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board: • Bridge #9 • Cedar Lake Trail • Kenilworth Trail • Loring Bikeway • Minneapolis Diagonal • Minneapolis Grand Rounds • Humboldt Greenway • Stone Arch Bridge The following existing bikeways are maintained by the Minneapolis Public Works: • All on-street bike lanes • Midtown Greenway • Van White Memorial Trail

Above: A street sweeper in Downtown Minneapolis

Above: A snow plow along the Midtown Greenway

The following existing bikeways are maintained by the University of Minnesota: • Harvard Street bike lane • Pillsbury Drive bike lane • Union Street bike lane • U of M Transitway Trail (not plowed in winter) • Washington Avenue Bridge Bike lane striping on county roads is maintained by Hennepin County and the signage is maintained by the City of Minneapolis.

Above: A snow plow along the Midtown Greenway

89



4.5.17 Non Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTP)—In 2005 Congress authorized $25 million to be spent in Minneapolis and surrounding communities on a pilot project “to demonstrate the extent to which bicycling and walking can carry a significant part of the transportation load, and represent a major portion of the transportation solution, within selected communities.” The program is a partnership between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Transit for Livable Communities, and the City of Minneapolis. The program is scheduled to add 35 miles of new trails, bike lanes, and bicycle boulevards to the existing bikeways network within the city (see page 5-33). The NTP program has also Above: A new fleet of bicycles funded the Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassador Program, the Nice Ride Bike Share initiative, several planning studies, and the proposed Bike Station at the U of M. The results of this program will be reported to Congress in 2010. Table 4.4 – 1990 to 2007 Means of Transportation to Work

90

t

Richfield 73rd St

77th St

77

¬ «

70th St

h 75t

St

Po s

tR d

5

¬ «

13

¬ « le Sib

Jackson St

Jackson St

903

37

dd Do

CR 67

CR 8

110

« ¬ « ¬

ky rP Ke lle Edgerton St

Ave Payn e

e Av

6

E

rd

St

Co nc o

Rd CR 2

St

CR 6

ve E Marie A

705-Central Avenue NE Planning Study 706-Hennepin Avenue Planning Study 707-Central Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 708-Richfield Arterials Study 709-Xenia Ave/Park Place Blvd Corridor Planning 710-Douglas Dr Corridor Planning Study 711-Riverside Avenue - Western Segment - Bicycle Operations 712-19th Avenue S - Bicycle Operations 713-Minnehaha/20th Avenue S - Bicycle Operations 714-Franklin Avenue E - Bicycle Operations 715-7th Street/10th Avenue N - Bicycle Operations 716-27th Ave SE - Bicycle Operations 717-Plymouth Avenue N/8th Avenue NE - Bicycle Operations 718-1st/Blaisdell Avenues - Bicycle Operations 719-5th Street NE - Bicycle Operations 720-14th/15th/16th Street S - Bicycle Operations 721-Riverside Avenue - Eastern Segment - Bicycle Operations 722-Bryant Avenue S - Bicycle Operations 723-10th Ave SE - Bicycle Operations 724-Glenwood Avenue - Bicycle Operations 725-22nd Avenue NE - Bicycle Operations 726-Lowry Avenue Corridor Project - Bicycle Operations 727-Emerson/Fremont Avenue N - Bicycle Operations 728-Como Avenue SE - Bicycle Operations 729-LRT Trail Downtown Connection 730-University of Minnesota Trail 732-Como Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 733-Marshall Ave: Miss R Blvd (MRB) to Cretin Ave 734-Riverlake Greenway 801-NE Suburban Campus Connector 802-Oliver Avenue Bicycle Street 803-Filmore & 6th Avenues Bike Blvd 805-Richfield Parkway Stage 2 Pedestrian/Bikeway Trail 901-City of Minneapolis Bike Sharing Program 902-University Bike Center 903-Jefferson Avenue project 904-Wooddale/54th St/Valley View Road project 905-The Southern Connector 908-Smart Trips Union Park 909-U of M (RFID) commuter validation system 910-Douglas Drive Complete Street 911-Griggs Street Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities 912-Cedar & Washington (7 Corners) Intersection Projects not mapped: 701-Metro Transit Bike/Ped Improvements Study 702-Minneapolis Pedestrian Plan 703-Minneapolis Bike Parking Project 704-Bike and Pedestrian Ambassador Program 907-Cycloplan 913-Sibley Bike Depot Bike Library Legend

Bike Walk Funded Projects STREET PROJECT TRAIL PROJECT

CR 14

PLANNING STUDIES

^ Ã

902 - University Bike Center

d 909 - University RFID Readers !

wy yH

Figure 4.8 - NTP Projects

or e

CR 4

§ ¦ ¨

494 CR 18

Mendota Heights Rd

91

lm Fil

George St W

Rd rd

110

3 CR

Robert St S

ton Pk yS

a ep

Otto Ave

94

Stat e

Victoria St N

Dale St N

903

§ ¦ ¨

Stryker Ave

Victoria St N

Hamline Ave N

Victoria St S

CR

CR 63

Fort Snelling (unorg.)

Edgerton St

W Bl vd O w as so Dale St N

Hamline Ave N

CR 48

Prior Ave N

Lexington Pky N

Grand Ave

35E

CR 43

Bloomington Ave

805 Longfellow Ave

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Portland Ave

Penn Ave S

Transit for Livable Communities Bike/Walk Twin Cities This map contains information obtained from various sources believed to be reliable S:\GIS\BWTC\NTP projects\Project map.mdx SEPT 2009

66th St

708 76th St

12th St W

Marie Ave W

34th Ave S

77th S

Lexington Ave N

Fairview Ave N

CR 46

Sh

2

100

¬ «

France Ave S

70th St

York Ave S York Ave S

¬ «

802

707

§ ¦ ¨

Lexing

Portland Ave

CR 46 Cleveland Ave S

4th St

Park Ave

CR 4 6

Lyndale Ave N Fremont Ave N

pi n

28th Ave S

S

Ave ha

Nicollet Ave

34th Ave S

Sheridan Ave S Queen A ve S

Cedar Ave S

Calhoun Pky

Xerxes Ave S

France Ave S

Av eS

e Av

lvd

Saint Paul Ave

33

CR 31 Maryland Ave E

CR 73

51

¬ «

aul tP

er B

on

CR 38

Ford Pky

i R iv

54th St

CR

Jefferson Ave

in Sa

dfre Go

d yR

Co mo Av e

Ave

46th St

eha

Ve rn

Marshall Ave

903

p ssip

Tracy Ave

St. Paul

Arlington Ave E

le Oakda

46th St

911

Saint Clair Ave

Pk y

way Dr

Wheelock Pky

Arlington Ave W

Pierce Butler

Summit Ave

n Min

62

Cahill Rd

734

38th St

49

¬ «

Energy Park Dr

University Ave W

si Mis

Tracy Ave

733

CR B E

St

38th St eH arr i et

721

707

Gat e

CR 31

CR 75

35E

Eva

905

35th St

d ! d !

da R dE

CR 26

Victoria St S

La k

54th St

Edina

Antrim Rd

718

50th St

904

Benton Ave

713

714

801

d ! ! d !

River Pky

¬ «

711

Falcon Heights

Energy Park Dr

d ! ! d ! ^ Ã d 716 !

e Av

100

712 d ! d !

d !

732

730

aha

Ave

912

d !

CR 30

Com oA ve

Lake St

36th St

44th St

n Ede

729

d !

Lagoon Ave

722

38th St

Interlachen Blvd

729 720

§ ¦ ¨

He nn e

St

723

Lauderdale

Can a

§ ¦ ¨

CR B W

Roselawn Ave W

280

eh

¬ «

706

728

280

¬ « ¬ «

n Min

7

Av e

S Ave Ew i ng

e Lak

Lake St

St. Louis Park

715

94

Minneapolis

S France Ave

Minnetonka Blvd

717

36

Little

CR 2

Douglas Dr N

Penn Ave N

§ ¦ ¨ 394

705

Broadway St NE

Funded Projects July 2009

CR C

Roseville

¬ «

CR 46

dS eR Lak

Penn Ave S

Pky

709 dar Ce

724

719

CR C W

Victoria St N

Glenwood Ave

725

CR C W

Victoria St N

710

727

r Te

Blvd

Golden Valley

d yR

Lowry Ave NE

ie

CR 94

CR 94

thony

910

nz Ke

35W

n Saint A

le Val

Golden Valley Rd

Theodore Wirth

Go

n lde

726

St. Anthony

803

t NE

¬ «

all S

101

88

¬ « § ¦ ¨

46th Ave S

e Av

Dowling Ave N

36th Ave N

¬ «

h Mars

y wa

Robbinsdale

47

Industrial Blvd NE

d oa Br

42nd Ave N

CR 23

Transit for Livable Communities - Bike Walk Twin Cities

901 - City of Minneapolis Bike Sharing Program 908 - St. Paul Smart Trips - Union Park



4.5.18 Downtown Minneapolis—Biking in Downtown Minneapolis still remains a challenge for many bicyclists. Although great strides have been made over the years to build a bicycle lane network and to add bicycle parking, there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to make downtown more bicycle friendly. Currently many of the bike lanes are located on the left side of the roadway to avoid conflicts with buses and to allow for rush hour parking removal on the right side. Many bicyclists have asked for left sided bike lanes to be re-evaluated and for the city to explore more innovative ways to accommodate bicycles. Below is a list of current bicycle routes. A map can be found on the following page.

Above: ATT Tower with Foshay Tower reflection

Existing North/South Bicycle Routes: • 1st Avenue North—Cycle track bike lanes off-peak; bike lanes during peak. • Hennepin Avenue—Shared use lane with buses in both directions. • Nicollet Mall—Shared use lane with buses in both directions. • Marquette Avenue—Bicycles may use shared use lanes with buses during offpeak hours; bicycles can also share the road with vehicle traffic in a wide curb lane. • 2nd Avenue South—Bicycles may use shared use lanes with buses during offpeak hours; bicycles can also share the road with vehicle traffic in a wide turn lane. • 4th Avenue South—Right-sided bicycle lanes in 2010. Bicycle lane travels southbound. • 5th Avenue South—Right-sided bicycle lanes in 2010. Bicycle lane travels northbound. • Portland Avenue—Left sided bicycle lanes. Bicycle lane travels southbound. • Park Avenue—Left sided bicycle lanes. Bicycle lane travels northbound. • 11th Avenue South—Bicycle lanes in both directions. Existing East/West Bicycle Routes: • 2nd Street South—Bicycle lanes in both directions • 3rd Street South—Right-sided westbound bicycle lanes in 2010. • 4th Street South—Reverse flow eastbound bicycle lane; left side of traffic. • 5th Street South—Left-sided bike lane in 2011. Bike lane travels westbound. • 6th Street South—Left-sided bike lane in 2011. Bike lane travels eastbound. • 9th Street South—Left-sided bicycle lane. Bike lane travels westbound. • 10th Street South—Left-sided bicycle lane. Bike lane travels eastbound. • 11th Street South—Right-sided bicycle lane. Bike lane travels westbound. • 12th Street South—Left-sided bicycle lane. Bike lane travels eastbound.

92

Figure 4.9 - Downtown Minneapolis Bicycle Facilities

93



4.6

Equity

4.6.1

Modal Connections—Distance and weather are two common barriers for bicyclists. By ensuring good modal connections, bicyclists can travel seamlessly from place to place using public transit for part of their trip. Buses and trains can be easily retrofitted to accommodate bicycles and many of the major transit stops have bicycle parking for those who do not wish to take their bike with on a round trip.

Above: Metro Transit bus with a bike rack

All Metro transit buses are equipped with bike racks and most SW Metro Transit, Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, and Maple Grove Transit buses also have bike racks. Currently Metro Transit allows drivers to use discretion to allow bicycles on the bus when the racks on the front of the bus are full. Above: Bicycle locker at Hiawatha LRT Station

Metro transit bus drivers conducted a special regional bike count in the fall of 2008. Results indicated that customers loaded 870 bicycles on an average weekday, 586 bicycles on an average Saturday, and 378 on an average Sunday. Surveyors counted bicycles being loaded and unloaded on Hiawatha light-rail trains during a similar study period (weekends were not included). Above: Bikes must be walked On average, about 2.5 bicycles were loaded on each on all platforms. Photo trip. A similar count was performed in May 2007 courtesy of Metro Transit. and it was found that the number of bikes on buses doubled and the number of cyclists riding on Hiawatha LRT trains rose by 41% in 1 year. All trains including the Hiawatha Line and the Northstar Line allow bicycles at all hours (including rush hours) to be brought onto a train. Future rail lines including the Southwest Corridor and Bottineau Corridor will have the ability to accommodate bikes as well. As high speed rail projects progress, taking a bike by rail to Chicago or Duluth may also be possible

94

Above: Bike rack in a Northstar Commuter Rail Train. Photo courtesy of Metro Transit.



4.7

Evaluation

4.7.1

Bike Counts—Bike counts are a good way to find out how many people are bicycling and what routes bicyclists use most. Each September, Public Works (PW) coordinates an extensive 12-hour bicycle count, which is supplemented by numerous 2-hour PM peak counts performed by Transit for Livable Communities (TLC). These values are interpolated Above: A count being using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) conducted at the Washington methods to estimate 24-hour daily counts. The Avenue Bridge results of these counts have been mapped by location and can be found on the following page. Below are key observations based on the Minneapolis PW and TLC counts: • On average bicycling went up 15% between 2007 and 2008 based on 30 count locations (PW counts). • 74% of bicyclists are using lights after dark (TLC Counts). • 64% of cyclists are wearing helmets (TLC Counts). • Males represented 72% of cyclists counted and women represented 28% of cyclists counted (TLC Counts). • Only 2% of those counted were children (TLC counts). • Only 18% of bicyclists ride on sidewalks when an on-street bike lane is provided (PW). • 78% of bicyclists use off-street paths along roadways when provided (PW Counts). Table 4.5 – Top 5 Count Locations Within the City of Minneapolis Top 5 count locations within the City of Minneapolis. Count Location

Sept 2008 Daily Count

1

15th Avenue North of 5th Street Southeast

3,570

2

Washington Avenue West of Union Street

3,350

3

15th Avenue North of University Avenue

2,990

4

Midtown Greenway West of Hennepin Avenue

2,860

5

Midtown Greenway Sabo Bridge

2,800

95



Table 4.6 – Top 5 Count Locations With the Largest Increases in Bicycling Within the City of Minneapolis Top 5 count locations with the largest increases in bicycling within the City of Minneapolis. Count Location



% change

1

Bridge 9 over the Mississippi River

130

440

238%

2

Hiawatha LRT Trail East of 11th Avenue

800

2110

164%

3

42nd Street East of Minnehaha Avenue

70

180

157%

4

Central Avenue North of Lowry Avenue

110

280

155%

5

Cedar Lake Trail East of Royalston Avenue

510

1170

129%

Table 4.7 – Number of Bicyclists per Day, 2003 to 2008 Number of Bicyclists per day, 2003 to 2008 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

3445

2 4 74

16 4 0

13 6 0

12 0 0

9 56

940

680

4 9 0 58 0

680

2 50

Midtown Hennepin Ave 3rd Ave over Greenway W over Mississippi of Hennepin Mississippi River Ave River

Above: 18th Ave NE Trail after a snowfall

96

Stone Arch Bridge over Mississippi River

2003 2007 2008



Table 4.8

Above: Midtown Greenway near 29th Avenue. 97



Table 4.9 – Average Temperatures in Minneapolis/St. Paul

Average Temperatures in Minneapolis/St. Paul 90 83.4

80

78.5

70

63.1

Degrees

57.9

56.3

50

60.8

39

30

59.3 50.8

47.9

40

39.6

36.1

27.5

40.8 25.2

22.1

21.7

26.8 11.6

10.1

10 0

71.2

68.8

60

20

80.8

4.4 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun Jul Year Highs

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Lows

Table 4.10 – Midtown Greenway Average Daily Trips, by Month (2007-2009)

98

Chapter 4 - Existing Conditions


Figure 4.10 - City of Minneapolis 24-Hour Bicyclist Estimated Daily Traffic

Legend

Ryan Lake

Count Locations

Bicyclist EDT

Year Conducted

Webber Pond

St. Anthony Pkwy

S

No Data

2006

1 - 249

2007

250 - 499

2008

500 - 999

2009

1000 - 7000

2010

The map also illustrates the level of bicycling on various streets and paths. Darker and wider green lines depict higher levels of traffic, while lighter and thinner green lines represent lower levels of traffic. The geographical extent of these lines was made using anacedotal knowledge of the author. Locations in which counts have not been conducted should not be presumed to have zero bicycle traffic.

Wirth Lake

Birch Pond

Spring Lake Loring Pond

Brownie Lake

Cedar Lake

Lake of the Isles

Powderhorn Lake

Lake Calhoun

ke E La

w Pk un lho Ca

y

Jo Pond

Lake Hiawatha

Lake Harriet

Lake Nokomis

Diamond Lake

Grass Lake

Lake Mead

Taft Lake

Mother Lake

0 0.25 0.5

1

1.5

2 Mile

99



4.7.2

Crash Reduction—Both Public Works and the Minneapolis Police Department monitor crash trends. Targeted enforcement and engineering improvements are used as needed in addition to public education to reduce crashes. Bicycle crashes have stayed steady the past several years, however Above: North 7th Street bike the crash rate is actually going down due to an lane increasing bicycle mode share.

4.7.3

Reducing Injuries—Currently over 90% of documented bicycle crashes result in an injury in Minneapolis. According to the Brain Injury Association of Minnesota: • More children ages 5 to 14 go to the hospital emergency room with injuries related to biking than with any other sport. • The average bicycle injury in Minnesota costs $49,000, including hospitalization, loss of productivity, and pain and suffering. • 8% of Minnesotans regularly use a helmet. • Each year, about 567,000 people go to hospital emergency rooms with bicycle-related injuries; about 350,000 of those injured are children under 15. Of those children, about 130,000 sustain brain injuries. • In Minnesota, approximately 13% of traumatic brain injury related injuries are caused by bike crashes in children ages 5 to 14. • Wearing a properly fitted bicycle helmet can decrease the probability of a brain injury by 88%. Several agencies have sponsored helmet giveaways and HCMC has started a “save your brain” campaign. Minnesota does not have any laws that require helmet use.

957 963

942 981

979 1020

908 944

734

800 Bicycle Crashes

952 965

937 985 808

1000

860 909

960 1016

1060 1106

1200

1080 1137

Table 4.11 – 1999-2009 Bicycle Injuries and Fatalities in Minnesota

600

400

200

8

14

7

7

6

10

7

8

4

13

9

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

Bicycle Fatalities

Bicycle Injuries

100

Bicycle Crashes


Toward Zero Deaths—Better response times and improvements in vehicle safety technology have improved overall fatality rates, however bicycle fatalities are still of concern. The charts below show Minneapolis bicycle crash statistics. According to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety: • Most bicycle fatalities occur between June and Above: A ghost ride after a September. bicycle fatality • Most deaths are people over 40. • Males are 3 times more likely than females to be killed on a bicycle. • More than 60% of bicycle fatalities occur in urban areas. • Almost 40% of fatalities were at crossings. Reducing fatalities is a shared responsibility between drivers and cyclists. The City of Minneapolis continues to work with partner agencies on educational, enforcement, and engineering initiatives that make the streets safer. Achieving zero bicycle deaths is very achievable if agencies work together and if everyone pays attention on the roadways. Table 4.12 – 1996-2009 Bicycle Crashes in Minneapolis

400 375 358 350 345

348 328

326 314

300

304

296

296

279

278 259

Number of Bicycles

4.7.4


250

267

263

253 235 232

234

231

252

241

211 200

200

241

216 196 164

150

100

50

0

0

3

2

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

2

2

1

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Bicycle Crashes

Bicycle Injuries

101

Bicycle Fatalities

Chapter 4 - Existing Conditions

5 3rd Av N

53rd Av N

53rd Av N

4th St N

52nd Av N

49th Av N

C Sh

le

e r Cree k

N

e Av

6th St N

46th Av N

wy N

e

k

Pierce Place NE

Lincoln St NE

Pierce St NE

Fillmore St NE

Buchanan St NE

NE

Monroe St NE

chi t

Ar

Valley St NE

Madison Place NE

5th St NE

e NE lac

in P Spa

1

E

ny P kw y

Polk St NE

Tyler St NE

Taylor St NE

Central Av NE

Av N

Av

Stinson Pkwy

Brig ht

McKinley St NE

Benjamin St NE

Arthur St NE

3

E

Blv dN E on

Johnson St NE

Harding St NE

E

s on St NE

nB

lvd N

W il to gh w

30th Av SE

SE il C ircle Ve al

E Av S rd

SE

23

St M ar y 's

m Av SE

co l

E

29th Av SE

Mal

th A vS Se ym

ou

Mal

A

Thornton St SE

31st Av S

37th Av S

34th Av S

35th Av S

36th Av S

29th Av S

30th Av S

40th Av S

39th Av S

38th Av S

33rd Av S

31st Av S

32nd Av S

Cecil St SE

Warwick St SE

Emerald St SE

32nd Av S

Bedford St SE

Huron St SE

Superior St SE

30

25 th SE Av 26

th

Ontario St SE

Oak St SE

Harvard St SE

E

Av

SE

Walnut St

Union S t 27th Av S 27th Av S

26th Av S

33rd Av SE

29th Av SE

26th Av SE

Brid

E

St S

Av th 18

Oak

SE

Av th 17

27th Av S

25th Av S

26th Av S

25th Av S

26th Av S

24th Av S

28th Av S

29th Av S

20th Av S

28th Av S

21st Av S

30th Av S

31st Av S

37th Av S

36th Av S

34th Av S

35th Av S

el

Av S

46th Av S

41st Av S

45th Av S

44th Av S

43rd Av S

42nd Av S 41st Av S

39th Av S

40th Av S

38th Av S

31st Av S

27th Av S

26th Av S

Morrill Lane E 46th Av S

45th Av S

L a ne S

C offman

Burt on L a n e S 48th Av S

47th Av S

44th Av S

43rd Av S

42nd Av S

37th Av S

34th Av S

36th Av S

35th Av S

30th Av S

re Sho

Nokomis Av S

29th Av S

28th Av S

wn is P kwy Blv vie E dE w Av S

om ok

W oo

dla

ah

iew

aP

ar k

Roa

D

d

riv

eS

41st Av S

40th Av S

38th Av S

31st Av S

33rd Av S

55th St E

55th St E

56th St E

56th St E

58th St E

45th Av S

46th Av S

43rd Av S

44th Av S

57th St E

42nd Av S

37th Av S

36th Av S

rive S rD

35th Av S

eE rrac

34th Av S

e

Bo ss

n Te

Sa nd e

57th St E

28th Av S

57th St E

58th St E

58th St E

Hwy 62 Frontage Road S

26th Av S

23rd Av S

22nd Av S

Standish Av S

58th St E

32nd Av S

26th Av S

27th Av S

25th Av S

55th St E

56th St E

56th St E

St

59th St E

59th St E

59 1/2 St E

Mother Lake

62nd St E

y

62

Taft Lake

h St E

E

21st Av S

20th Av S

57th St E 19th Av S

18th Av S

y kw

W o odlawn Blv d E Longfellow Av S

Nokomis Circle S

E

No ko

e

sP

24th Av S

Cedar Av S

55t

L ak e No ko mi

E

14th Av S

13th Av S

1 5th Av S

Fro n

11th Av S

12th Av S

10th Av S

Elliot Av S

Pk

33rd Av S

32nd Av S

31st Av S 30th Av S

Nokomis Av S

29th Av S

28th Av S

wy W

Pk

is No ko m ke La

17th Av S yW

Pk w is

m Lake Noko

16th Av S mis La n

15th Av S

14th Av S

13th Av S

12th Av S

11th Av S

10th Av S

Bloomington Av S

Columbus Av S

Chicago Av S Elliot Av S Chicago Av S

Columbus Av S

39th Av S

37th Av S

36th Av S

34th Av S

35th Av S 35th Av S

34th Av S

30th Av S

Nokomis Av S

29th Av S

28th Av S 27th Av S

h 16th Av S

Bloomington Av S

15th Av S

14th Av S

13th Av S 12th Av S

11th Av S

10th Av S

Woodlawn Blvd E

a 11th Av S

10th Av S inn

M

12th Av S

Elliot Av S Chicago Av S

Elliot Av S

Columbus Av S

Park Av S Park Av S Park Av S

Oakland Av S

Portland Av S

Dia mon d Lake L a

4th Av S

5th Av S

Clinton Av S

3rd Av S

2nd Av S

Cedar Av S

Chicago Av S

Columbus Av S

Park Av S

Oakland Av S Oakland Av S

Portland Av S

inn ehah a P k wy E re Av S Av S

e

S

Clinto n Av S

3rd Av S

Nicollet Av S 1st Av S

Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Wentworth Av S

40th Av S

38th Av S

33rd Av S

33rd Av S

31st Av S

32nd Av S

Bloomington Av S

15th Av S

14th Av S

13th Av S

Chicago Av S

Columbus Av S

Park Av S

Oakland Av S

Portland Av S

5th Av S

4th Av S

Clinton Av S

3rd Av S

2nd Av S

2nd Av S

Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Wentworth Av S

Pleasant Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Garfield Av S

18th Av S

4th Av S

3rd Av S

Clinton Av S

2nd Av S

5th Av S Portland Av S

1st Av S

Nicollet Av S

Stevens Av S

Stevens Av S

1st Av S st

W

1st Av S

Nicollet Av S

Stevens Av S

Pleasant Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Garfield Av S

Ham pshir e Drive

Ha

Nicollet Av S

E

rrie t Av S

Garfield Av S

Lyndale Av S Lyndale Av S S

Aldrich Av

Lyndale Av S

Lyndale Av S

on t Av S

Du p

27th Av SE

25th Av SE

24th Av SE

23rd Av SE

SE

th

Church St SE

P l easant St SE

24th Av S

Milwaukee Av S

22nd Av S

23rd Av S

Longfellow Av S

Cedar Av S

24th Av SE

SE Av th 12 SE Av th

v SE

13

SE

th A 14

th Av 15 SE Av

20th Av S

19th Av S

21st Av S

S Av da r Ce

28th Av S

Cedar Av S 18th Av S

18th Av S

17th Av S

16th Av S

11th Av S

12th Av S

11th Av S

12th Av S

10th Av S

Elliot Av S

5th Av S

4th Av S

3rd Av S

Clinton Av S

2nd Av S

1st Av S

Nicollet Av S Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Wentworth Av S

Pleasant Av S

Bryant Av S

Colfax Av S

King's Hwy

Aldrich Av S

yE Pkw

Ha r rie t L ake

S

Hum bol dt Av

Stevens Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Garfield Av S

Fremont Av S

Lyndale Av S

W

Emerson Av S

eh

e rv

Boardman St E

39th Av S

Chicago Av S

Park Av S

Oakland Av S

Portland Av S

1st Av S

Nicollet Av S

Stevens Av S

Van Nest Av S

Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Wentworth Av S

Pleasant Av S

Colfax Av S

Bryant Av S

Aldrich Av S

King's Hwy

o R Ro se wa y

an S

Pkw y

et

Hills Blvd

arri

n Av S ee

Qu

22nd Av SE

t h Av S E

Av S E 11 th

SE Av th 11

S 23rd Av

20th Av S

21st Av S

22nd Av S

S Av th 17th Av S

16th Av S Bloomington Av S

15th Av S

14th Av S

13th Av S

Chicago Av S

Columbus Av S

Park Av S

10th Av S

4th Av S

C linton Av S

5th Av S

Columbus Av S

Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Garfield Av S

Lyndale Av S

32nd Av S

1st Av S

Nicollet Av S

Grand Av S

Stevens Av S

Garfield Av S

Lyndale Av S

Harriet Av S

Pleasant Av S

Colfax Av S

Bryant Av S

Aldrich Av S

King's Hwy

16

1 0th Av

h Av S

19t 19th Av S

Cedar Av S

S Av th 15 16 16th Av S

14th Av S

15th Av S

13th Av S 11th Av S

12th Av S

10th Av S

Elliot Av S

Oakland Av S

Portland Av S

vS dA 2n

1st Av S

Stevens Av S

Nicollet Av S

Findley Place S Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Pleasant Av S

Colfax Av S

3 rd Av S

Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Pleasant Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Garfield Av S

Lyndale Av S

Aldrich Av S

Bryant Av S

Emerson Av S

Girard Av S

Fremont Av S

10 9t

E Av S

/2

91 SE Av 10 th

ge SE Brid

21st Av S

14

th

Av

20th Av S

13 S Av th 12

vS

S

12 th A

Av 13 th

11th Av S

10th Av S

Chicago Av S

Park Av S

Oakland Av S

Portland Av S

5th Av S

4th Av S

3rd Av S

Clinton Av S

2nd Av S

1st Av S

Nicollet Av S

Grand Av S

Aldrich Av S

Bryant Av S

Emerson Av S Dupont Av S

Stevens Av S

Harriet Av S

Colfax Av S

Dupont Av S

Garfield Av S

Lyndale Av S

Emerson Av S

Girard Av S

Fremont Av S

Hennepin Av S

Fremont Av S

Girard Av S

Hennepin Av S

Holmes Av S James A

SE

6th SE

8th

SE Av 6th

S Av th

S Av

Av 10

Chicago Av S

Elliot Av S

Columbus Av S

4th Av S

3rd Av S

Clinton Av S

2nd Av S

1st Av S

Stevens Av S

Nicollet Av S

Blaisdell Av S

Pillsbury Av S

Pleasant Av S

Colfax Av S

Bryant Av S

Dupont Av S

Aldrich Av S

S Av pin Hen ne

W e S ldt Av

H Humboldt Av S

Irving Av S

Lak e Calhoun Pk wy

h Av

E vS Av

SE

5th A

Av

E 4th A

vS

7th

Av SE

v SE 3rd A

S 9th Av

S Av th

11 th A vS

10

McG rew Nor m

D riv eS

S

Car ew

th

S Av

S Av 9th

Pla ce S ia l tenn

Park Av S

Portland Av S

vN

tra lA

Cen

E lA vS tra

v SE

Cen

Av S nd Por tla Av S

Av S

Par k

Chi ca go

5th Av S

Pla ce

S

S 4th Av Av S nd S k Av Par

Chi ca go

5th Av

Cen

5th Av S

Por tla

S

S

4th Av

4th Av S

2n dA

E 1st

S d Av 2n

S Av ette

S

3rd

Av

2n

S

d Av

qu Mar

3rd Av S

Av S

N Av d 2n

N

S

1s tA v

Av pin ne H en

Av S

Mar qu ette

Ma ll

Nic oll et

S Av La Sal le

S

Av S

all

tM

lle

Nic o 1st Av S

Nicollet Av S

Willow St S

Spruce Place S

LaSalle Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Garfield Av S

Lyndale Av S

Emerson Av S

Girard Av S

Fremont Av S

Humboldt Av S

Irving Av S

ke La Pla c Eu clid E Pk wy

le s e Is

Av S

th

of

in g

um bo

I rv

La ke n Pkwy E

Knox Av S

James Av S

L ake C al o u

Av N

N A v 4th

N Av 6th

N Av 5th

N N v

S

1s tA

Av pin

9th St N

ne He n

10th St N

alle

L aS

Av S

epin

Henn eW la c

ne Bryant Av S pin Av S Hen

Colfax Av S

Dupont Av S

Av d 2n

N 3 rd

Av

Lyndale Av N NB B

N

Lynd al e

Lyndale Av N SB

Aldrich Av S

Lyndale Av S

Emerson Av S

Northrup Lane S

eW

Pla c

Su

3rd Av S

N Av 9th

N

N ap co Av

Oak Lake Av N

Lyndale Av N NB

Lyndale Av N SB

Aldrich Av N

Colfax Av N

Border Av N

Lakeside Av N

lace N Lyndale P

Bryant Av N

N

Dupont Av

Fremont Av N

Girard Av N

Irving Av N

W P la ce

Penn Av S

E Sheridan Av S

Road S field Rich Linden H ills

Av S

Q u e en

Av S

11 th

SB

Av N Lynd ale

Ald ric h Av N

e Pl ace N Lyn dal

Emerson Av N l vd N

lB

Humboldt Av N

Gir a r d W hit an

Knox Av N yA vN erc

N

Gr a m

Ro ad ake ar L

Ce d

James Av N

Logan Av N

Morgan Av N S

oa d

Oliver Av S

S

v

to n

an

Ne w

org

Morgan Av S iv e r Av S

Ol

Pk w

th L ak e of

Russell Av S

e Sh a s Av S

Av S Upton

Thom

Lin den

L ake H

Av S

Min n

Av S

S

Road S

ha

L ane S

ge

aw at

54th St E

54th St E

54th St E

53rd St E

S Av

Mondamin St E

ha

ta

53rd St E

ha wat Hia

54th St E

53rd St E

ha

ce S

Ro ad Hi

eN

53rd St E

v Ri

k La

52nd St E

52nd St E

ne Min

nt

ag

W

nt

61st St E

Fro

eS

51st St E

S Av

Fremont Av S

51st St E

a th

51st St E

wa ia

Du po

H

S

50th St E

50th St E

S

D riv e

n

ve

ak eT e

S

Mi 4 9t h St E

D ri

ss L

49th St E

rk

G ra

wy

Pa

v

Pk

haha Cr eek ne ha ha

Irv in gA

om is

Av

ne

Su nri se

ia wa th a

in M

Kn o x Av S

Minnehaha Pkwy E

Minnehaha Pkwy E

H

J a me s A v S

Ford Bridge

vS

u Pla

Noko mi s Court E

o min gton Av S

a n Av S

S

dE Blv

hA 38t

E vd a Bl y w adah Naw y G o d fre

Av

ha da wa

47th St E

46th Av S

Na

57th St E

B lo

L og

r

46th St E

46th St E

Crosby Place E

a ehah Minn

a

e

er Pkwy W R iv m und Bl v d Ed S

45th St E 47th Av S

43rd Av S

45th Av S

45th St E

44th Av S

42nd Av S

S

h

v

S

R u ss el l

i

Av

Av

S

R

S

ah a

44th St E

S

atha

S

S

Ed mund Blvd

i ve Dr

46th Av S

41st Av S

40th Av S

39th Av S

Av

Hiaw

ing Snell

eh Minn

ad

i

E

ru p

W R iver Pkwy

43rd Av S

44th Av S

45th Av S

42nd Av S

S

R

p

S

S

Av

eN ok

E

Cu r ve

p W

lv d

h Av S

Av

atha

S 43rd St E

44th St E

Weenonah Place E

S Av rby De

Rich mon d

i

d

48t

36th Av S

ha S

Av

Hiaw

ht

g Av

Dig

ellin

37th Av S

ha

Sn

30th Av S

Nokomis Av S

2 2nd Av S

Cumberland

s wy

un

46th Av S

41st Av S

40th Av S

ne Min

39th Av S

38th Av S

Thomas Av S

s

ve Ri

m Ed

47th Av S

29th Av S

erid

i

eE

S

S

45th St E

iv e

No r t h

42nd St E

43rd St E

52nd St E

E

iv

Folw e ll D r

41st St E

42nd St E

27th Av S

26th Av S

25th Av S

24th Av S

Sh

s

rac er

Av

Av

Upton Av S

s Rive r P kwy W Edmund Blvd S

48th Av S

47th Av S

44th Av S

45th Av S

43rd Av S

haha

S

atha

S

t Av

Hiaw

g Av

Digh

ellin

28th Av S

23rd Av S

20th Av S

Upton Av S

W N

La

3rd St

C k Lyn Park L a

u r ve N

Bryant Av N

Aldrich Av N

Dupont Av N

Fremont Av N

Emerson Av N

Bl

Fremo n

l Van White M e m o ri a

Humboldt Av N

Knox Av N

James Av N I rv ing Av N

Oliver Av N Oliver Av N

Penn Av N Penn Av S

Queen Av S

en

W

y

dan A Sheri vS

Kenwo od

Thomas Av S

an rid Av

Up to nA vS

a De

B

n Pkwy De a

yW kw un P

i

46th Av S

ho

S

M

Av an

yW kw

45th Av S

ne

Sn

Vincent Av S

44th Av S

43rd Av S

Min

rP k

B

fey Lane E Co f

Keewaydin Place E

d lv

61st St E

39th St E

40th St E

41st St E

50th St E

Lake Nokomis

B er

62nd St W

42nd Av S

36th Av S

37th Av S

35th Av S

34th Av S

30th Av S

29th Av S

28th Av S

27th Av S

26th Av S

25th Av S

24th Av S

21st Av S

ea

6 0t h

r

Wentworth Court E

La k

59th St E

60th St E

nD

62 nd S t E

37th St E

38th St E

e

E

L or e

62nd St W

Lake Mead 61st St E

ha Pkwy E

49th St E

52nd St E

at gew

60th St W

ne S

Is a b

36th St E

37th St E

39th St E

43rd St E

53rd St E

55th St E

E St

60th St E

Wentworth Court W

h a

54th St E

7th

Chester St E

Cedar Av S

52nd St E

Ed

S Av nd

vS

2nd Av S

Roslyn Place S

M i n n eh a

kwy E

C r e e k

58th St E

60th St W

61st St W

St

33rd St E

P a rk T

35th St E

38th St E

46th St E

E

58th St E

59th St W

ha P eh a inn

e

n

51st St E

5

58t h

41st Av S

S

37th St E

47th St E

at

P or t l a

Diamond Lake

Cli n to n A

57th St E

32nd St E

36th St E

42nd St E

Lake Hiawatha

50th St E

th St

56th St E

58th St W

Colfax Lane S

50

n Mi

E wy

54th St E

ad E e Ro ak Diam o n d L

Lake St Bridge

36 1/2 St E

40th St E

43rd St E

Ch

W

Riv er P

D or m

34th St E

35th St E

39th St E

41st St E

Longfellow Av S

r iv e E dD var

53rd St E

53rd St E

42nd Av S

Av

Washburn Av S

S

31st St E

33rd St E

36th St E

38th St E

18th Av S

n

40th Av S

haha

27th Av S

23rd Av S

37th St E

39th St E

22nd Av S

Vincent Av S

Do rm an Av

34th St E

35th St E

36 1/2 St E

Standish Av S

Washburn Av S

Bloomington Av S

Lyndale Av N

Irving Av N

Girard Av N

Logan Av N Morgan Av N

Newton Av N

Logan Av N

Penn Av N

Thomas Av S

Upton Av S Up ton Av S

Bu rn Bur nham Ro a

Xer xe s Av S

er P

S

26th Av S

25th Av S

20th Av S

Cedar Av S

Longfellow Av S

ha

er

Bo ule

Pk

51st St E

56th St W

59 1/2 St W

15th Av S

Road

Bloomington Av S

ha

o

L uv

y e ha h a P kw

Lake

ah a

Ta rr y m

y

54th St E Diam ond

16th Av S

ne

St W Pra tt

nn

Minneh

17th Av S

M in

w Pk

39th Av S

Cal

SE

ne

La ke

Av

32nd St E

34th S t E

24th Av S

Xerxes Av S

y

Lake St E

31st St E

33rd St E

40th St E

19th Av S

Xerxes Av S

on

E

L an e P ar k

th

yW

S

An

kw

v

St

e

Riv

29th St E

38th Av S

e

S

37th Av S

36th Av S

35th Av S

Exc

Av

28th St E

33rd Av S

32nd Av S

Min g Av

S

Zenith Av S

y

ac rr Te

ab ur

Lake St E

31st Av S

27th Av S ellin

Av

23rd Av S

21st Av S

Zenith Av S

E

er iv R

Se

32nd St E

33rd St E

35th St E

22nd Av S

Abbott Av S

S St

Sharon Av SE

27th St E

29th St E

31st St E

Sn

32nd St E

atha

20th Av S

York Av S

il ec C

Lake St E

Hiaw

21st Av S

Abbott Av S

SE

S

34th Av S

29th St E

22nd Av S

18th Av S

Zenith Av S

ne N

Knox Av N James Av N

Oliver Av N

Newton Av N

Morgan Av N

Penn Av N

Queen Av N

Thomas Av N

Sheridan Av N

Russell Av N

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Sheridan Av N

Thomas Av N

Vincent Av S

Washburn Av S Av S

Wa shbur n

Av S

N

Xerxes Av S Pkw y

Xerxes Av S

ke

La kevie

La

Ced ar

d Ce

Drew Av S

Water St NE

Ilio

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Xerxe s Av

Sheridan Av N

Upton Av N

Upton Av N

Vincent Av N

Washburn Av N

V

Av

River Road

N Av es

N

Ja

N ce Pla on W alt

Av n

Upton Av N

Vincent Av N

o do re

T he

Washburn Av N

Vincent Av N Washburn Av N

Xerxes Av N o d ore T he W

N

S

vd

k e P kwy

ce

E

a r Sh ore Drive W

la rP

kwy rP

C ed

ou

e Riv

Drew Av S

ym

v

Ewing Av S

SE

Se

S

Chowen Av S

E

Av

Chowen Av S

v

E

aA ah

ha

Cedar Av S

Beard Av S

Av S

Prospec t Terrace SE Av SE

Franklin Av SE

E

e ac

neh

wat

France Av S

c

e

l

rr Te

Min

Hia

gA v

S t SE

ve rsity

ren Cla

Or

S t SE

r Av S E

rA hu Art

Pk wy

28th St E

28th St E

36th St E

Longfellow Av S

16th Av S

S

61st St W

17th Av S

Av

ace W s Lak e T e rr

SE

Melbourne Av SE

ive r

er iv R

S

18th Av S

Bloomington Av S

wood Plac eE

r n e Av S

50th St E Minneh ah a

a ah eh

E

t on

r as

M

L uv

Grass Lake G

lm Be

S

wy W Pk

urt

Bryant Av S

Co

59th St W

Colfax Av S

Dupont Av S

W

S

61st S tW gan

Colfax Av S

ce

El m

Valleyview Place W

kw y W

57th St W

Gir ard Av

Russell Av S

Thomas Av S

Sheridan Av S

Mor

Bryant Av S

r ra

neha ha P

50th St E

St E

51

e

54th St W

57th St W

Girard Court S

59th St W

60th St W

Aldrich Av S

Dupont Av S

Fremont Av S

Irving Av S

Oliver Av S

Morgan Av S

Newton Av S

Penn Av S

Queen Av S

Upton Av S

Xerxes Av S

Vincent Av S

Washburn Av S

W 62nd St

55th St W

58th St W

59th St W

52nd St W

48th St E

49th St E

E Terrace wy Pk

y

Av S

E

nehaha Min

56th St W

58th St W

60th St W

Emerson Av S

Humboldt Circle S

Knox Av S

Logan Av S

Russell Av S

Sheridan Av S

Thomas Circle S

59th St W

James Av S

57th St W

Uni

ce

E

S

42nd St E

47th St E

M

s

W ace wood P l lm

13th Av S

ad

Mi

Girard Av S

Upton Av S

Thomas Av S

Vincent Av S

Xerxes Av S

Washburn Av S

56th St W

Av S

26th St E

27th St E

46th St E

47th St E

i c Lodge E

w Pk

ect A v S

ne to

sp

St W

S

Gl

Humboldt Av S

Oliver Av S

Newton Av S

Morgan Av S

Penn Av S

Queen Av S

55th St W

lm co

u r Plac e S E rth

S

44th St E

45th St E

48th St E

53rd St W

54th St W

56th St W

Av

5th St SE

4th

Frankli n Av SE

R

26th St E

29t h S t E

41st St E

43rd St E

46th St E

47th St E

49th St E

v

w Pk

M in

53rd St W

54th St W

sitw ay

SE

W

in ne ap olis

25th St E

44th St E

14th Av S

Wentwort h A

Pleasant Av S

Fremont Av S

Emerson Av S

Pr o

50 th

Longview Terrace W

a

Irving Av S

Knox Av S

Cro mw ell Drive W

James Av S

Logan Av S

York Av S

Zenith Av S

Beard Av S

Abbott Av S

Av S

R us t

Went worth Av S

49th St W Busch Terrace W

M Mi i nn ehaha P kw y W r nnehaha C eek

yW

r Av

y kw

M

24th St E

24th St E

42nd St E

45th St E

48th St E

50th St W

51 st S t W

53rd St W

rthu

Yale Av SE

e dg Bri

Riv er Se ab ury Av

22nd St E

31st St E

19th Av S

Cedar Av S

Longfellow Av S

17th Av S

16th Av S

15th Av S

13th Av S

Grand Av S

Harriet Av S

Colfax Av S

Bryant Av S

Aldrich Av S

Dupont Av S

Oliver Av S

Newton Av S

Morgan Av S

Upton Av S

Penn Av S

Girard Av S

Logan Av S

M innehaha Pkwy W

Knox Av S

James Av S

Irving Av S

Queen Av S

Russell Av S

Thomas Av S

Sheridan Av S

Vincent Av S

Washburn Av S

Xerxes Av S

Drew Av S

Ewing Av S

Chowen Av S

a

lin nk

Av

an

Sid ne yP la

SE Av

Te

s Tr

in

nkl in

Franklin Av E

40th St E

41st St E

43rd St E

46th St E

47th St W

48th St W

Min ne ha h

SE

A

9th St S

38th St E

40th St E

44th St E

46th St W

47th St W

51st St W

52nd St W

lace

pu

v SE

Fra

rcam

Pautz Place E

37th St E

39th St E

42nd St E

43rd St E

45th St E

Rustic Lo dge W

ee k C r

SE

Dowling St S

41st St E

44th St E

45th St W

48th St W

50th St W

y's P

W

8th St S S

25th St E

38th St E

14th Av S

43rd St W

44th St W

W St

49th St W

Av

Bedford

E

S Av

on A

wy

SE

Mar

SE

Ba rt

r Pk

St

Av SE

7th St S

St

Inte

SE

SE

27th Av SE

kw y

Av

are

ms

St rP

rsity

aw

Ess ex

Dartmouth Av SE

36th St E

38th St E

39th St E

4 2 nd St E

42nd St W

Garfield Av S

k

W

Del

a illi

Riv e

Riv e

6th St S

34th St E

35th St E

37th St E

40th St E

4 0th St E

Bloomington Av S

11th Av S

12th Av S

39th St E

15th Av S

14th Av S

13th Av S

37th St E

10th Av S

Elliot Av S

41st St W

Lyndale Av S

tP

Abbott Av S

Beard Av S

York Av S

Zenith Av S

49th St W

rive

4th St

Uni ve

W

yW

22nd St E

Av

E win

Beacon St SE

Evergreen Drive E

33rd St E

36th St E

38th St E

39th St W

Chicago Av S

5th Av S

4th Av S

37th St E

38th St W

43rd St W

Fremont Av S

e rri Pa

rk D

SE

Fulton St SE

24th St E

34th St E

35th St E

36th St E

3rd Av S

37th St W

Columbus Av S

Park Av S

Portland Av S

35th St E

36th St E

36th St W

Emerson Av S

Ha

Upton Av S

yW

St

P

ha

W

6th

on Blv d SE

neha S

d

SE

Washington Av SE

v er Pkwy E

Av

th

SE

le

SE

E

Min Av

34th St E

18th Av S

lv

St

Av

De laware St SE

de

irc aC

E

rsity

SE

Franklin Av E

19th Av S

Powderhorn Lake

33 1/2 St E

34th St E

35th St W

Cedar Av S

33rd St E

17th Av S

16th Av S

els io rB

ve

Washington Av SE

32nd St E

32nd St E

33rd St E

Oakland Av S

35th St W

31st St E

10th Av S

Exc

St S

4th Uni

Lake St E

Longfellow Av S

Powderhorn Terrace E

Elliot Av S

5th Av S

France Av S

E

30 1/2 St E

Bloomington Av S

31st St E

15th Av S

13th Av S

14th Av S

Chicago Av S

Columbus Av S

Park Av S

Portland Av S

Oakland Av S

4th Av S

33rd St E

2nd Av S

Drew Av S

5th

Fra

Lake St E

32nd St E

32nd St E

40th St W

kw

29

ot Kas

9th St S

ling

29th St E

Lake St E

31st St E

34th St W

36th St W

tP

Industrial Blvd NE

eS

Riv ersi

28th St E

28th St E

Lake St E

Clinton Av S

Ewing Av S

strial Blvd NE

SE

E

ri v

S

29th St E

3rd Av S

33rd St W

39th St W

r ri e ke Ha

Ind u

lvd

S Av

ry D

Butler Place S

S

SE

Elm St SE

Bridge

kw

sA v

Weeks Av SE

na lB

Erie St SE

St E

st Locu 5th St S

Av S

ee k

SE

Elm St SE Frontage Road

go

Hur

rP

4th St S

de

Av

ota K as

Pi l ls bu

Talmadge Av SE

Como Av SE W

Elm St SE

26th St E

27th St E

34 1/2 St E

E

R St NE

SE

Ri

lace aP

Cecil Newman Lane E

31st St W

34th St W

W ad

Godward St NE

Av

3 r d St S

em Og

Andersen Lane E

Delano St NE

rsity

r

26th St E

28th St E

28th St E

SE

E

E.M. Stately St E

26th St E

27th St E

Hoover St NE

SE

S

Sn el

26th St E

Harding St NE

St

g to n St SE Arl in

n Av E

22nd St E

25th St E

St

19th Av SE

1st St S

24th St E

25th St E

St S

20th Av SE

ve

Av ngton Washi

v

23rd St E

24th St E

8th 7th

21st Av SE

R iv e

2nd St S

th A 17

24th St E

Hennepin Av E

Co le

Fairmount Av SE

ce rra

21st St E

Taft St NE

Uni

6th St S

Frankli

22nd St E

Wilson St NE

E

E

R iv ersi

Franklin Av E

Roosevelt St NE

E

th

S

18th Av SE

18th St E

Crash Data from 2005 through 2008 Map Created: 11/17/09 by Jesse Sonju

Winter St NE

Como Av SE

Brook Av SE

D ia

7th St S

19th St E

NE

S

S tinson Blvd

St

Spring St NE

Rolli n s Av SE

9th

Stinson Bl vd NE

15th Av SE

4th

S

St

17th Av SE

St S

S 4th

16th Av SE

Av

15th Av SE

gton

15 St

Benjamin St NE

Was hin

6th St S

St S

tS

Bluff St S

tS

McKinley Place NE

3rd S

St S

dS

R i v e r

dS tS

14th Av SE

2n

Cleveland St NE

Arthur St NE

7th

tS

Como Av SE

SE

E

S

Avionics Blvd NE

te

St

7 1/2 St S

19th St E

22nd St E

25th St E

27th St W

6th 5th

8th St S

2nd Av S

France Av S

Ce n

SE

wy

Av

18th St E

Clinton Av S

France Av S

Q uarr y

SE

i

5th

8th

Franklin Av E

22nd St W

32nd St W

S

SE

13th Av SE

p

k wy W S

Garfield St NE

Av

St

12th Av SE

vers ity

St

er P k Riv

Av W

Lincoln St NE

7th

14th St E

17th St E

Ulysses St NE

hing ton

15th St E 16th St E

Lincoln St NE

E

SE

Mai nS

p

Ri v er P

S

S

8th

SE

17th St E 18th St E

19th St E

Lake St W

31st St W

33rd St W

J ohnson St NE

S

14th St E

16th St E

i

12

Hennepin Av E

Talmadge Av SE

ve

St

St

St

E

2n

s

9

Traffic St NE

Ri

Gra nt

St

St

St S

SE

W

9th

S

Grant St E

Uni

Ke n nedy St NE

Hennepin Av E

Talmadge Av SE St

wy

S

5th 4th

SE

Summer St NE

Pk

St S

Pierce St NE

S

Fillmore St NE

St

St

d St

Buchanan St NE

7th St S

th

2n E

Broadway St NE

Winter S t NE

8

Broadway St NE

NE

NE

6th

14th St W

s

5th St S

10

nS tS

R i d g e w a y P kw y

E

St

4th

S

5th

St

St

i

W as St

Hennepin Av E

St

Av

e dg Bri

tS

3rd

epin

9th

SE

dS

NE nn

6th

St

th

th

an rtm

13

SE

S

St S

O

2n

St

He

NE

K e n nedy St NE

Winter St NE

E

S

8th

St N

St

NE

S

4th

St

St S

Av

St

sity

12

W

25th St W

32nd St W

Lake Harrie t Pk wy

Cromwell Court W

o

Fillmore St NE

NE

iver

3rd

hing ton Av S

7th

NE

Spring St NE

Harrison St NE

Monroe St N E

St 6th

Un

Was

ace Pl

St S

11 th

es

th

rd

SE

N St

9th St S 10

u Lo

St

th 11 ce Pla

NE St 2nd

er

N

SE

St

nk Ba

St SE

Av 3rd

s

S

S

NE

E

W

St

S

s

Av NE

3rd

8th

Av

1st

Mai

i

y kw

8th

Wild

St

St N

6th St

riam Mer

E

Av

Taylor St NE

E

NE

Madison St N E

NE

St

NE

M

R

P er iv

N

N

7th

Av

N

St

St

n St

SE pi

1s tS tS

Polk S t N

St

4th Mai

d Islan

St vW dA an

ne Hen

Tyler St NE

5th

NE

NE

NE

Av

pin ne Hen

ge rid vB nA

Summer St NE

Spring St NE

NE

Av

ew N

Broadway St NE

Cemetery St NE

Van Buren St NE

Quincy St NE

NE

Av

let

SE St

ve

Jackson St NE

St

sity

ol Nic Is l

N

Central Av NE

6th

iver d St

NE

N

St

7th

ad Ro

Van Buren St NE

Monroe St NE

Adams St NE

Jefferson St NE

Washington St NE

Un 2n

l St

NE

shal

n St

NE

Mar

Mai

St

NE

ey

y St

ffic

N

le

Jackson St NE

Madison St NE

6th St NE

5th St NE

4th St NE

University Av NE

3rd St NE

2nd St NE

Main St NE

mse

St

N

St

Lagoon Av S

y

57th St W

61st St W

Ya

vW

Lake St W

Lake

Vincent Av S

Washburn Av S

Xerxes Av S

Chowen Av S

France Av S

e

Robbins St W

58th St W

Av

4th

Franklin Av W

28th St W

29th St W

h 44 t

h

54th St W

55th St W

Ra

Tra

5th

Thomas Av S

York Av S

Zenith Av S

Abbott Av S

Beard Av S

Drew Av S

Ewing Av S

France Av S

54th St W

n

n

G ro

DeLaSalle Drive SE

W

Highview Place S

Mi n

8th

S

29th St W

Conairis Way W

52nd St W

Brookwood Terrace W

mon Har

ce Pla

S

51st St W

Red Cedar Lane W

gto

St N

26th St W

ry Ber

Pkw

Russell Court S F or est Dale W 53rd St W

r

N

ld fie

50th St W

52nd St W

NE

SE

ce Pla

N

Av

dA

le M ap

Av

ch

La

51st St W

n

28th St W

W

50th St W

Av

ne

S

S St

lan

Ri dgewood

27th St W

34th St W

48th St W

49th St W

as hin

N

Av

5th

W

N

W

Lake Harriet

wy

W

d

3rd

St

eW

St

46th St W

48th St W

53rd St W

12t h

27th St

46th St W

47th St W

2n

th 13

m

44th St W

49th St W

Cli fton Gro ve

Plac

Dell

k Gr ov e

42nd St W

W

45th St W

eS Plac

tW

Jo Pond

l ia

Chowen Av S

E

45th St W

P on Clift

22nd St W

Lake St W

42nd St W

43rd St W

Place

W 44th St

15th St W Oa

yW

1s tS tN

3rd

Grant St W

Loring Pond

eA vW

38th St W

W il

w

43rd St W

Av

pin

ruce

n Pk wy lho u W Ca

D re M otor

W

41st St W

42nd St W

ne

Sp

L ak e

40th St W

irc

12th Av NE

rive

t gh B ri

Autumn St NE

Old St Anthony Lane NE

NE

Av 7th

5th

N

24th St W

25 1/2 S

Lagoon Av S

W

40th St W

Ri

vd Bl

thor

S St

d lv

39th St W

C sey

7

Avionics Blvd NE Connector rD

13th Av NE

E

Calhou n B

Av S

38th St W

39th St W

le

s Pkw y

W

35th St W

wy

Hen

Map

Isle St

vS

Pk

Place W

Av

6th

Harmon Place S

and T e rr

24th St W

31st St W

lho un

Haw

Laurel Av W

W

the of

W

Lak e Ca

N Av

ace

ke La

22nd St W

The Ma ll Pkwy

Rose Lane W

36th St W

N

Franklin Av W

25th St W

W

Lake Calhoun

W

S

Knox Av S

Irving Av S

Logan Av S

Pkwy

Ivy Lane W

34 1/2 St W

Av

nd

G rovel

Mount Cur v

Lincoln Av W

Lake St W

P kwy

Blvd

or lsi

List Plac e W

de

Kenwood Pkwy

R iv er P kw

4th

Glenwood Av N

26th St W

h

32nd St W

ysi nn Su

t

Douglas Av W

James Av S

eS

Lake of t h e I s l

es

28th St W

n ea

A

Market Plaza S Abb ott

30 1/2 St W

Glendale Terrac e W

mi

29th St W D

is ou tL

th

S

tW th S

31st St W

Av S W win ce gA rra Te vS Co lga te Av W

m

Douglas Av W

he Isl es P kw y W

W

S

41st St W

Spring Lake

Mount Curve Av W

Lake of the Isles

Pk w y

n

s Isl e Pk w

e

Lake St W

av W

kw y

26

Kenilworth Place W

B l vd

Oliver P la c

vS

W

W

29

W

Blvd

l Av au

St

S

set

St P

pot De

th St 28

Sun

t on en

21st St W

t on Av S Ne w

W

C

ed a Cedar Lake Av W r L a ke Pkw y

d elan

P od wo

Franklin Av W

d St W

24th St W

lv ham B d W

d

Ho lden St

16th Av NE

Broadway St NE

Summer St NE

Av 6th

E le N

u

yW

Cedar Lake

2 2n

S

28th St W

Q

21st St W

S

3rd Av N

Colf ax Av S

Summit Av W

a

Cesar Chavez Av N

16th St N

N

aB lvd S S

Av

Av

Vin e l a

d e ira

Ram

N

Av

6th Av N

W

Dunwoody Bl d v W

Way z at

v e A Ma

N 7th

Currie Av W

Ontario Av W

M

Cedar View Circle S

St

5th Av N

15th St N

n de Lin

ive W

nA bu r Wash

25th St W

ke

A

Summit Av W

24th St W

Basswood Road W

La

N

Av

3rd

Linden Av W

R

of t

ar L

od Av N

8th

8th Av N

k

Lake

C ed

Cedar Lane S

M

ar

Vie w Av W

nt ou

n e e Av S

W

e

K

S

21 st St

W

nd

vS

ett

S

ata B lvd

Franklin Av W

St

22

4th Av N

N 8th

Chestnut Av W

ce la yP

v tA

in g Ew

Antoin

en ew Dr

W

5th Av N

Laurel Av W

S ad

n Av

Glenw o

2nd Av N

Currie Av W

e rl Wav

Vi n c

Frankli

St N

7th Av N

Gertrude Brown Place N

Wa y z

y

Lake R o

Ced ar Vi

ce W Pla Edlin

sA

Th oma

ke La ar ed

Ced

Russell Av S

w irt h Pk

ar

Sheridan Av S

eW

France Av S

Wayzata Blvd S Road S Brow Cedar Lake nie Roa dS S w Av

7th

Olson Memorial Hwy N

N rrace a Te Me m o ri e

St

gto

vN

or

C

Wayza ta Blvd N

d oa R

NE Av

NE

Av

Av 3rd

2n d N

Av

th 10

St

sA

y

Laurel Av W d

Brownie Lake

e

St N

Royalston A v N

kw

Th o m a

th P W ir

r

Chestnut Av W

eo

9th Av N

d

ek

Th e odo re

C

Birch Pond Th

8th

4th

4th

oo

N

Glenwood Av N

3rd Av N 2nd Av N 1 1/2 Av N

6th N 11th Av

N St

Elw Av

8th Av N

7th Av N

N

s s e t t

Hawthorne Av W

Av

9th

NE 7th

NE

Av

Plymouth Av N

hin as W

10th Av N

Av N

Thomas Place N

5th Av N

Glenwood Av N ood Av Inglew

9th

NE

12th Av NE

Broadway St NE

NE

th Av 10

ge Brid

Av outh Plym

5th

P a rk

4th Av N

a

Av

8th

14th Av N

5th St N

t Av N

Olson Memorial Hwy N Frontage Road N

B

15th Av N

12th Av N S tN

11th Av N

Ol son Memorial Hwy N

2nd Av N

16th Av N

N

vi s

NE

Sibl

7th

Banneker Av N

Barnes Place N Oak

8th Av N

Wirth Lake

v

12th Av NE

Broadway St NE

Av 11th

17th Av N

dW R oa River

H arry Da

NE

Av

13th

e

y

Van White Lane N

ge Road S Olson Memoria l Hw y N Fronta

dA

ne

H a ll C

14th Av N

12th Av N

12th Av N

Oak Park Av N

Heaner Terrace N

wo o

Hall L a

Broadway Bridge

Plymouth Av N 12 1/2 Av N

Bassett Cre

Gle n

ne N

Prentice Lane N

15th Av NE

13th Av NE

v

kw

14th Av N

ircle N

r

2nd St N

hP

15th Av N

Lyn C u rve Av N

W irt

Lyn P a Elizabeth Lane N

Washington Av N

18th Av N

Ly n Par k Av N

dor e

16th Av N

4th St N

18 1/2 Av N

Givens La n e N

Grand St NE

i

Broadway Av W

18th Av N

17th Av N

California St NE

21st Av N

5th St N

Theo

17th Av N

Plymouth Av N Farwell Place N

rw e l l Av N

Ol son Memo rial Hwy N

NE Marshall St

A

21st Av N

Broadway Av W

15th Av NE

17th Av NE

14th Av NE

R

Girard Av N

es m

N

W

15th Av N

12th Av N

8th Av N

2nd St N

N

v

y Av

6 NE Walnut St

17th Av NE

16th Av NE

NE

Av 14th

c e NE

18th Av NE

14th Av NE

22nd Av N

Plymouth Av N

Fa

Washington Av N

Av

dwa

18th Av N

16th Av N

uth Av N

6th St N

e

Br o a

17th Av N

P ly m o

4th St N

N

sid Hill

Av

N

Golden Valley Road N

18th Av N

kwy hP ir t

24th Av N

23rd Av N

22nd Av N

Ja

21st Av

Golden Valley Road N

14th Av N

3rd St N

23rd Av N

Bryant Av N

Av N

m

25th Av N

24th Av N

Aldrich Av N

N Av

N Av

Dupont Av N

n ga Lo

Lyndale Av N

N

Fremont Av N

Av

Emerson Av N

illo w

d

air McN

W

18th Av NE

18th Av NE 17th Av NE

25th Av N W

n 22

21st Av N

18th Av NE

26th Av N

25th Av N

Av

N

McNair Av N N

26th Av N

g Irv in

23rd Av N

ad wa y

Pla ce

Penn Av N

W irth Pkwy

Bro Fe rra nt

24th Av N

26th Av N

5

Ne Walden Pl a

18th Av NE 26th Av N

Taft St NE

Roosevelt St NE Stinson Pkwy

McKinley St NE

Benjamin St NE

22nd Av NE

19th Av NE

Ne w

Hayes St NE

Garfield St NE

Ulysses St NE

19th Av NE

Cleveland St NE

Arthur St NE

Lincoln St NE

Pierce St NE

Buchanan St NE

Fillmore St NE

22nd Av NE

Johnson St NE

Polk St NE

18 1/2 Av NE

Taylor St NE

Central Av NE

19th Av NE

4

Bri

23rd Av NE

NE

23rd Av NE

Lowry Av NE

nB lv d

Lowry Av NE

Coolidge St NE

NE

to

1/2

Cleveland St NE

Hayes St NE

Ulysses St NE

Johnson St NE

25

Lowry Av NE

24th Av NE

Jackson St NE

Quincy St NE

Garfield St NE

on

2

26th Av NE

Bri gh

3rd St NE

2nd St NE

University Av N E

i

Jefferson St NE

Washington St NE

3rd St NE

2nd St NE

p

Monroe St NE

3rd St N

4th St N

6th St N

Lyndale Av N

dore Wirth P kw y

Stinson Blvd NE

p

Colfax Av N

Dupont Av N

Bryant Av N

Aldrich Av N

Humboldt Av N

Irving Av N

Knox Av N

James Av N

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Sheridan Av N

Xerxes Av N

19th Av NE

Lincoln St NE

eo Th

Stinson Blvd NE

An th o

23rd Av NE

22nd Av NE

20th Av NE

27th Av N

McKinley St NE

Hayes St NE

Ulysses St NE

Johnson St NE

7th St NE

6th St NE

5th St NE

4th St NE

University Av NE

Grand St NE

i

California St NE

Marshall St NE

1st St NE

s

24th Av NE

23rd Av NE

22nd Av NE

20th Av NE

28th Av N

Pierce St NE

Taylor St NE

Polk St NE

Central Av NE

Monroe St NE

Howard St NE

Madison St NE

Jefferson St NE

Washington St NE

s

29th Av N

27th Av N

24th Av NE

23rd Av NE

27th Av NE

26th Av NE

Lowry Av NE

22nd Av NE

Pacific St N

29th Av N

27th Av N

31st Av N

30th Av N

2nd St N

29th Av N

27th Av N

30th Av N

Washington Av N

30th Av N

Emerson Av N

Fremont Av N

Girard Av N

Oliver Av N

Newton Av N

29th Av N

Morgan Av N

Penn Av N

Bro

Upton Av N

N Vincent Av N Av rn vW bu sh yA Wa wa ad

31st Av N 30th Av N

26th Av NE

Lowry Av NE

Lowry Av NE

Lo wry Av Bridge

Lowry Av N

3rd St NE

2nd St NE

i

33rd Av N

Lowry Av N

27th Av NE

27th Av NE

26th Av NE

Fillmore St NE

27th Av NE

26th Av NE

Buchanan St NE

s

Bryant Av N

Colfax Av N

Lowry Av N

Aldrich Av N

Dupont Av N

Knox Av N

Lowry Av N

Irving Av N

Logan Av N

James Av N

N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Av

Sheridan Av N

32 nd

Taylor St NE

Grand St NE

California St NE

NE Marshall St

Randolph St NE

s

2nd St N

34th Av N

33rd Av N

28th Av NE

28th Av NE

26 1/2 Av NE 33rd Av N

Bicycle Related Crashes

29th Av NE

29th Av NE

St

28th Av NE

Legend

30th Av NE

i

Washington Av N

34th Av N

4th St N

6th St N

35th Av N

3rd St N

34th Av N

33rd Av N

Polk St NE

29th Av NE

Lyndale Av N

Fremont Av N

Emerson Av N

Girard Av N

35th Av N

30th Av NE

Benjamin St NE

31st Av NE

St Anthony Pkwy

Tyler St NE

37th Av N

36th Av N

Humboldt Av N

Oliver Av N

34th Av N

Morgan Av N

Newton Av N

Penn Av N

Upton Av N

Vincent Av N

Washburn Av N

Xerxes Av N

Victory Memorial Pkwy

35th Av N

Central Av NE

36th Av N

30th Av NE

M

Bryant Av N

Colfax Av N

36th Av N

Aldrich Av N

37th Av N

Arthur St NE

Garfield St NE

NE

31st Av NE

32nd Av NE

Cleveland St NE

y

P

ny

Lincoln St NE

kw yP t ho S t An

Pierce St NE

Fillmore St NE

on

32nd Av NE y kw

Buchanan St NE

St A nth

4 th St NE

Av University

St NE

N

California St NE

Columbia Av NE

all Marsh

NE

31st Av NE

Port of Minneapolis Drive N

33rd Av NE

33rd Av NE

nd Av 32

McKinley St NE

y P kw

St 1st

Dowling Av N

Dupont Av N

Knox Av N

Logan Av N

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Sheridan Av N

37th Av N

35th Av NE

34th Av NE

St Anthony Pkwy Service Road

37th Av N

ield St NE

ny

N

6th St N

Dowling Av N

34th Av NE

Ga rf

35th Av NE

E

St Anthony Pkwy

Av ton hi ng Was 4th S t N

Lyndale Av N

Fremont Av N

Emerson Av N

Girard Av N

Humboldt Av N

Penn Av N

Upton Av N

Vincent Av N

Washburn Av N

Xerxes Av N


39th Av N

NE

d Av

Av NE

hi re Place NE Wil s

m lu

36 th

ye s St NE

Co

Av NE

y

Ha

eN

37th Av NE

H o l lywo o

Ulysses St NE

th o

Pl ac

Pkw b ia

36 1/2 Av NE

36th Av NE

Johnson St NE

St A n

N

40th Av N

Dowling Av N

Edge

37th Av NE

ect

Benjamin St NE

36th Av NE

Cleveland St NE

St NE

e NE ogy Driv

2 1/2 St NE

36 1/2 Av NE

Un iversity Av NE

E

35th Av NE

S oo A v

Bryant Av N

Aldrich Av N

Colfax Av N

Dupont Av N

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Sheridan Av N

40th Av N

Dowling Av N

N

35th

41st Av N

39th Av N

Av

e Bridg

en Camd

42nd Av N

th

Marshall

37

Technol

Fremont Av N

Lyndale Av N

W ebWebber be rP Pond kw yN

Emerson Av N

Irving Av N

James Av N

42nd Av N

Girard Av N

43rd Av N

37th Av NE

37th Av NE

44th Av N

Humboldt Av N

Oliver Av N

42nd Av N

Morgan Av N

Newton Av N

Penn Av N

Upton Av N

Vincent Av N

Washburn Av N

Xerxes Av N


43rd Av N

Quincy St NE

45th Av N

44th Av N

Av

Pk w

Van Buren St NE

ial

Main St NE

vN

Victory Me mo r

y

44th Av N

Irving Av N

Knox Av N

James Av N

Logan Av N

45th Av N

Victory A

Lyndal

ing

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Sheridan Av N

N

Bryant Av N

ad Ro

Colfax Av N

o

Aldrich Av N

se

Dupont Av N

Emerson Av N

e

Os

Xerxes Av N

Washburn Av N

Pk

45th Av N

41st Av N

Camden Av N

Girard Av N

N

Fremont Av N

Hum boldlt Av N

g

Av

46th Av N

Victory Memorial Drive N Victory Memorial Pkwy

Anderson Place N

ississippi Drive N

n 48th Av N

47th Av N 47th Av N

M

4 th Court N

49 1/2 Av N

49th Av N

48th

Ryan Lake

Lyndale Av N SB

4th Court N

Figure 4.11 - Bicycle Crashes in Minneapolis (2005-2008)

Lyndale Av N NB

51st Av N

50th Av N

i

49th Av N

Mississippi Drive N

6th St N

Camden Av N

Colfax Av N

Bryant Av N

Emerson Av N

Girard Av N

Fremont Av N

boldt Lane N Hum

Penn Av N

Oliver Av N

Queen Av N

Russell Av N

Thomas Av N

Sheridan Av N

Upton Av N

h

Aldrich Av N

52nd Av N

51st Av N

S 50th Av N

53rd Av N

Dupont Av N

Humboldt Av N

Irving Av N

Knox Av N

51st Av N

50th Av N

James Av N

Logan Av N

Morgan Av N

Newton Av N

Vincent Av N

Xerxes Av N

Washburn Av N

52nd Av N


w H

0

Bicycle Crashes 102

2,050

4,100

8,200

12,300

16,400 Feet


Miles of Bikeways—Several bikeways have been added in the last decade. Over 15 miles of trails have been constructed in addition to 17 miles of onstreet bike lanes since 2000. The Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTP) is funding several additional miles of bikeways in 2010. Above: Midtown Greenway

Table 4.13 - % Bicycle Mode Share (2000-2009) – U.S. Census Bureau 9000

4.3% 3.9%

8000

3.8%

# of Commuters

7000 6000 2.4%

5000

2.5%

1.9% 4000

8,160

8032

2008

2009

7,200

3000 2000

3,860

4,590

4,840

2005

2006

1000 0 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Number of Cyclists

2007

Percent Mode Share

Table 4.14 – Miles of Bikeways (2000-2009) 140 120

Miles of Bikeways

4.7.5


100 80

39.7

39.7

39.1

44.2

30.9

31.5

71

75.4

75.4

78.3

82.6

83.6

83.6

2003

2004 Year

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

27.4

28.7

28.8

29.4

68.1

68.8

71

2000

2001

2002

60 40 20 0 1999

Miles of Trails

103

Miles of Bike Lanes


4.7.5


Miles of Bikeways - Continued

Figure 4.12 – Existing Bicycle Facilities in Major U.S. Cities (2010)

Above: This graph from the Alliance for Bicycling and Walking 2010 Benchmarking Report shows the miles of facilities per square mile for 47 major cities in the United States. Minneapolis has one of the highest densities of bicycles facilities when compared to other cities.

104



Figure 4.13 - Number of Workers Commuting by Bicycle

Figure 4.14 - Percent of Workers Commuting by Bicycle

105


4.7.6


Regional Parks—A 2008 Met Council survey found that 48% of regional trail and parks users in the Minneapolis Park System are visitors from other parts of the region. Only 16% of regional park visitors in Minneapolis arrived by bicycle (41% came by walking, skating, or running). The 2008 Met Council survey also analyzed demographic information including age, race/ethnicity, and gender.

Above: Lake Calhoun Trails

Table 4.15 – Local visits versus Non-Local Visits

Table 4.16 – Mode of Travel to Regional Parks/Trails

106



Table 4.17 - Age of Regional Trail User

Table 4.18 – Race/Ethnicity of Regional Trail User

Table 5.15 – Race/Ethnicity of Regional Trail

Above: Lake Calhoun 107

Chapter 5- Needs Analysis


Chapter 5 – Needs Analysis 5.1

Chapter Overview

5.1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this section is to identify specific bicycling needs and suggest action items needed to improve bicycling in Minneapolis. Below is an overview of some of the existing Above: Stone Arch Bridge problems and recommendations that have been suggested to make the city more bicycle friendly. The comments in this chapter are based on existing conditions and support the goals, objectives, and benchmarks established in Chapter 4. 5.1.2

Highlights – Below are some suggestions for improving the bicycle program based on the needs outlined in this chapter. • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

It is recommended that more attention be given to non-infrastructure projects and initiatives. Safe Routes to School curriculum needs to be expanded to include all private and charter schools. Minneapolis has one of the most developed trail systems in the United States, but the system still lacks sufficient off-street facilities in North Minneapolis, Northeast Minneapolis, and south of Minnehaha Creek. The bicycle plan needs to identify projects in these parts of the city in order to ensure geographic equity. Adding a variety of on-street and off-street routes in a reasonably spaced grid will help attract bicyclists of all ages and abilities. More innovative solutions may be needed to attract new bicyclists. Projects that close gaps, remove barriers, or complete networks should be given priority. Substandard bicycle facilities should be corrected or removed as soon as possible to address system gaps and discontinuities. Improve maintenance of the existing system. Projects should be environmentally responsible with consideration of impervious surfaces, erosion control, and maintaining wildlife habitat. Decisions should include all effected stakeholders and there should be no predetermined outcomes. Try to take advantage of free media opportunities to promote bicycling. There is a need for better data to evaluate the success and progress of the bicycle program. Bicycle theft continues to be a problem in Minneapolis. Theft rates will likely be reduced by installing secure bicycle parking and through targeted enforcement.

108


5.1.2

Highlights - Continued •

• •

5.1.3


An “opportunity fund” should be created to acquire and maintain property for trails from willing landowners when it becomes available. Eminent domain should be avoided. Consistent enforcement of laws is needed throughout the city precincts and between motorists and bicycles. Continue to build on past success. The 50/50 cost share is a good example of a successful initiative, which has helped allow the city to be a national leader in the number of bicycle parking spaces per capita.

Above: Bridge Square

Opportunities/Challenges - Below are a list of opportunities and challenges facing the bicycle program today. The comments below are generalizations made by city staff based on surveys, phone calls, and e-mails received by the public. Opportunities: • There is considerable support by elected officials to complete bicycle related projects. There is also willingness by the elected officials to try new and innovative things. • Transit accommodations throughout the region are improving. • Health and wellness partnerships bring additional promotion and funding. • Environmental awareness has never been higher and there is a public appetite for bicycle facilities. • The number of people who travel by bicycle is on the rise. • Despite the fact that bicycling is on the rise, bicycle crash rates have remained steady in Minneapolis for the last decade. • Funding opportunities for bicycle facility construction have increased and the city and MPRB have secured numerous grants for the bicycle program. • Citizens, business owners, and neighborhoods play an active role in project development. • Minneapolis has become a regional and national leader in bicycling and has the ability to influence other communities. • There is a willingness by staff and elected officials to make constant improvements to the bike program. • Despite the fact that resources are becoming scarce, there are still several federal and state funding sources available for bicycle related projects.

109


5.1.3


Opportunities/Challenges Challenges: • There is no clear vision or direction for the city to take with regard to bicycling due to the lack of a bicycle plan (not just a map). • The demand for resources far outweighs available resources. There is also significantly more competition for regional funding. • There are only a few easy projects left. The “low hanging fruit” is gone. • Bicycles are still seen by many as a secondary transportation mode when compared to other modes. • Right-of-way constraints rival complete streets policies against State and County standards. On many projects there is significant competition for space in the public right-of-way. It is often difficult to balance the needs of all stakeholders including bicyclists. • There are often disagreements on how limited f

5.1.4

The 6 “E’s” – This section will examine the needs for each strategy; education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, equity, and evaluation.

Above: A bicyclist on West River Parkway 110


5.2


Education

5.2.1 Education Needs—Whether it’s understanding the rules of the road or discovering the best places to ride, education is a fundamental component of the Minneapolis Bicycle Plan. The comments below will strive to support the two primary educational objectives, which are to improve safety and increase the number of bicyclists. There are several audiences that should be considered for targeted education. The following programmatic needs should be addressed to further education efforts: Bicycle education for children: It is beneficial for children to be exposed to bicycle safety education at an early age. Minneapolis Safe Routes to School needs to be expanded to include a uniform curriculum for all students, including students attending private and charter schools. Education for adult drivers: The general public needs more exposure to bicycling laws. Working with the Department of Public Safety to add more bicycling questions to driver education exams would be a good start, however this does not target those who have had a driver’s license for years. A public bicycle safety campaign on at least a yearly basis is required to keep motorists and bicyclists from forgetting the rules of the road. Education for professional drivers: Identify outside funding to educate professional drivers including bus drivers, taxi drivers, truck drivers, and emergency services personnel about their role in keeping the street safe for bicyclists. Education for adult bicyclists: All bicyclists should be encouraged to take bicycle safety courses. Special events for bicyclists are also good opportunities to distribute educational materials. Education for adults with special needs: Support programs that help adults with special needs get Above: Students from a around by bicycle. Minneapolis school take a field Education for Senior Citizens: Support programs trip by bike. that help senior citizens make short trips by bicycle.

111



5.3

Encouragement

5.3.1

Encouragement Needs—Many bicyclists don’t need much of an incentive to bike, however others require more encouragement. Getting information to the general public that sends a positive message is critical to attracting new bicyclists. On the front line of this effort are the Minneapolis Bicycle Ambassadors. This group of Minneapolis Above: Mayor Rybak with the Bicycle and Pedestrian staff members is funded by a 3-year federal grant Ambassadors. program that ends in 2011. The Minneapolis Bicycle Ambassadors have helped hundreds of businesses, non-profit groups, schools, neighborhoods, and families learn about the benefits of biking and helping to remove barriers for those who are not comfortable riding a bicycle. The following programmatic needs should be addressed to further encouragement efforts: Encouragement for Minorities: An increase in targeted marketing toward communities of color and immigrant groups including those who speak English as a second language. Encouragement for Seniors: Expanding involvement with seniors. Encouragement for Youth: Intensifying the youth ambassador program particularly within the public schools, at recreation centers, and at charter schools. Create regional community training centers where people can go to learn basic bicycling skills. This should include an obstacle course for children and a classroom for adult curriculum. This concept could also include a bicycle shop for learning bicycle maintenance. This could be sited at existing schools or community centers at minimal cost. Encouragement for Business: Corporations and small businesses continue to need assistance with providing information for its employees. Encouraging bicycling as a transportation option helps to improve congestion and alleviate parking demand in addition to health and environmental benefits. More resources are needed to help groups like the Minneapolis TMO keep up with the demand for commuter fairs, printed materials, and customer service requests.

112

Above: Bike Walk to Work Day activities.

Above: A community event to promote bicycling

Above: The Bike and Pedestrian Ambassadors help children with their bikes


5.3.1


Encouragement Needs - Continued Encouragement for Tourists: Minnesota is a tourist magnet for those who enjoy the outdoors. The bicycle tourism market needs to be further exploited by marketing Minneapolis as a premier bicycle riding destination. The local economy could benefit significantly if Minneapolis bicycling was better marketed nationally and internationally. Encouragement for Women: Recent census statistics show that men outnumber the number of women who bike 2 to 1. Existing bicycle clubs, bicycle advocacy groups, non-profit groups, and government agencies need to take note. There are clearly barriers that keep many women from biking that don’t pertain to men. Realizing and mitigating those barriers are key to a higher bicycle mode share in Minneapolis. A survey geared toward women would be a good first step in determining those barriers. Encouragement for the Inactive: According to the Center for Disease Control, heart disease is the number #1 cause of death for Americans. Obesity has reached epidemic proportions with over 24% of Minnesotans now considered obese. Approximately two thirds of U.S. adults and one fifth of U.S. children are now obese or overweight. Active living initiatives that encourage activities such as bicycling are critical in reversing this trend and must be expanded. The role of implementing encouragement initiatives requires further discussion. Non-profit groups and volunteer organizations may be better situated to take on implementation roles, and in some cases encouragement is best accomplished through incentives sponsored by businesses.

Above: A bicycle near Lowry Ave

Above: West River Parkway

Above: Bicyclists near Minnehaha Avenue 113



5.4

Enforcement

5.4.1

Enforcement Needs—Keeping our streets safe through enforcement is often overlooked when developing a bicycle plan, but it is an important element that can not be omitted. Police officers not only keep the peace but also help deter poor behavior. Enforcing laws pertaining to bicycling is a high priority for Minneapolis, which requires commitment and resources. The following A delivery truck in a comments reflect the need to improve enforcement Above: bike lane in Minneapolis: Need for Targeted Enforcement: Additional resources are needed to oversee targeted enforcement. Targeted enforcement may include speed management along a specific bike route, ensuring that the 3-foot passing law is respected, and making sure that motorists are not parking in a bike lane. Targeted enforcement may also include issuing citations to bicyclists for not stopping for signals or stop signs, riding at night without a light, and traveling the wrong way on one-way streets. Need for Collaboration/Need for Improved Design: Public Works needs to better inform the Police Department about infrastructure improvements. Police officers should also have input into the design of a trail. Better collaboration between the two departments may also be useful in reducing crashes through targeted enforcement, public education, and better engineering. Project engineers need to think about how to prevent crime as part of a project. Will a new trail project create hiding spaces? Will a new trail be adequately lit? How can an emergency vehicle access a non-motorized facility? What components of a project could be used as a weapon? Crime (and perceived crime) continues to be a barrier for bicyclists. Need to Reduce Theft: More emphasis needs to be placed on preventing bicycle theft through targeted enforcement and through by adding more secure bicycle parking. Education is needed, especially with youth to use u-locks instead of chains. Need for Better Information: A clear map of where you can and can’t ride a bike on a sidewalk needs to be developed. Detailed crash reports for bicycle crashes are needed. Some bicycle crash reports are well documented and easy to comprehend; others are not. Crash diagrams are an essential tool in determining whether engineering countermeasures are required. Need for Improved Policies: Ordinances pertaining to bicycling need to be reevaluated on a regular basis. This pertains to zoning ordinances in addition to ordinances pertaining to moving vehicles. A citywide trail use ordinance is needed to define rules and regulations including hours of use (24/7 in most cases), types of users permitted, and a pet policy.

114


5.4.1


Enforcement Needs - Continued Need for constancy: With regard to bicycle laws, consistent enforcement approaches by the Minneapolis Police Department, U of M Police, MPRB Police, and Metro Transit Police are needed. A bicycle training program should be offered to all officers in all four departments. It is important that officers keep up to date on statute changes and know all of the rules of the road. A sworn Police officer should be invited to attend Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings. Finally, Police officers need to lead by example. In many corridors it is common to see squad cars parked in bike lanes. Some bicyclists have also complained about misinformed officers reprimanding bicyclists for breaking laws that were not really being broken.

Above: West River Parkway Trail at the I-35W Bridge 115



5.5

Engineering

5.5.1

Engineering Needs—Engineering relates to the design, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure and includes all bicycle facilities including trails, bike lanes, bicycle parking, and support facilities. Infrastructure needs can be sorted into three categories; corridor improvements, system-wide improvements, and spot improvements. Improvement types are described below: Corridor Improvement Needs: These needs are based on a number of factors including existing bikeway gaps and discontinuities, bikeway spacing, adjacent land use, available right-of-way, potential use, topography, and minimizing conflicts with other modes. The Bikeways Master Plan Map is the result of considerable public input and includes guidance for specific corridor improvement needs. The map includes suggestions for both off-street and onstreet facilities throughout the city and should be referenced to determine corridor improvement needs. System-wide Needs: These improvements resolve citywide problems that are not specific to one location or corridor and can be approached more holistically. There is a need to retrofit many of the actuated signals in the city so that they can detect bicycles. There are a number of outdated signs and pavement markings within the system that still need to be upgraded. There is also a need to improve the quality of pavement along many bike routes within the city. Spot Improvement Needs: Spot improvements are specific to a given intersection or roadway segment. Most of the spot improvements are needed to address safety concerns at a given intersection or segment of roadway. There are also a number of small gaps and discontinuities within the bikeway system.

Above: Warning signage near Camden Bridge

Above: Signage near Camden Bridge 116


5.6


Equity

5.6.1 Equity Needs—The Minneapolis Bicycle Program must be fair and present opportunities for all. There are three areas of emphasis with regard to equity; geographic, demographic, and modal equity. Need for Geographic Equity: Geographic equity ensures that all parts of the city will see the same types of facilities at the same density and quality. Need for Demographic Equity: Demographic equity ensures that people of all age, race, ethnicity, and gender are treated equally. Need for Modal Equity: Modal equity is achieved when bicycling is treated as an equal mode of transportation alongside autos, trucks, motorcycles, buses, and pedestrians.

Above: Bicyclist near St. Thomas campus.

117

Above: Nicollet Mall bicyclist



5.7

Evaluation

5.7.1

Evaluation Needs—Evaluation is all about measuring success. By creating and tracking evaluation measures, limited resources can best be directed to projects and initiatives that work. There are four target areas that pertain to evaluation; safety, bicycle counts, public involvement, and research. Safety Needs: Evaluating safety on a regular basis Above: Midtown Greenway Counter needs to be a high priority. Over 200 bicyclists each year are involved in a bicycle crash, with 90% of reported crashes involving an injury. Crash statistic reports need to be done yearly, with statistics checked on a monthly basis. If negative trends are recognized, appropriate countermeasures may be pursued to help curb the number or type of crashes occurring. Need for Better Count Data: Conducting bicycle counts is a necessary and valuable way to evaluate bicycle use. Bicycle count information can be helpful in determining project needs and can also be used to prioritize resources. 12-hour bike counts are needed during all 4 seasons. 50 locations need to be counted on a regular basis to maintain a good sample of system-wide bicycle use. Need to better engage the public: Involving the public by reporting results helps to achieve bicycling goals. Need to Participate in Research Initiatives: Research can result in new and exciting improvements for bicyclists.

Above: Bicyclists riding on a downtown sidewalk 118

Chapter 6- Goals, Objectives, and Benchmarks


Chapter 6 – Goals, Objectives, and Benchmarks 6.1

Chapter Overview

6.1.1

Purpose - This chapter presents new goals, strategies, objectives, and benchmarks that represent the 6 E’s.

6.1.2

Definitions —The Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan creates goals, objectives, and benchmarks for the bicycle program that are defined below:

Above: Bicyclist in the Longfellow Neighborhood.

Goals - Goals are the desired end result, general in nature, the product of a specific objective or objectives. A goal is finished when the desired end result has been achieved. Strategy – The method in which a goal is achieved. In this plan, strategies are the 6 E’s, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering, Equity, and Evaluation. Each of these E’s are defined in Above: Bicyclists in Stadium Chapter 1 of this plan. Village. Objectives - How the desired end result is achieved. The specific path to reach the goal is defined as an objective. There are usually many ways to achieve a goal. Objectives involve specific projects and initiatives, whereas goals are the desired product of those specific projects/initiatives. Selected Initiatives – An initiative is defined as a specific non-infrastructure idea or program that supports a given objective. While most initiatives are identified in Chapter 7, the initiatives in this chapter have been selected for benchmarking.

Above: A mother and her daughter next to their bicycles.

Benchmarks - Checkpoints to measure progress in the process of achieving a desired end result. Benchmarks are significant events such as the end of a given project or initiative and often measure the success of objectives. It is recommended that benchmark goals be set in 5-year increments to coincide with the Bicycle Master Plan Above: There are a number of bicycle murals within the City planning update process. Achieving benchmarks of Minneapolis. will be dependent on available resources.

119


6.1.2


Definitions (Continued) Performance Measures – Means of measuring success. Typical measuring tools could include bicycle counts, bike rack inventory, crash reports, surveys, number of maps/brochures distributed, or miles of facilities completed. Responsibility – Identification of agency or group responsible for carrying out objectives, benchmarks, and performance measures. In many cases, partner agencies will need to assist the lead agency by providing additional resources. Although, the goals and objectives identified in this plan are very ambitious, they are consistent with other benchmarking reports including the annual City of Minneapolis Green Print Report and the Results Minneapolis efforts. It is very important to note that achieving the mentioned goals, objectives, and benchmarking will be contingent on available resources. The ability to measure progress toward goals in this chapter is contingent on available resources.

Above: Martin Olav Sabo Bridge along the Midtown Greenway. 120



6.1.3 Acronyms DPW – Minneapolis Department of Public Works TMO – Downtown Minneapolis Transportation Management Organization BAC – City of Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee T&PW – City of Minneapolis Transportation & Public Works Committee DHFS – Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support MPD – Minneapolis Police Department MPS – Minneapolis Public Schools CPED – Community Planning and Economic Development

6.2

Goals

6.2.1

Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Goals – There are three primary goals. The first goal attempts to increase the number of bicyclists and to increase bicycle mode share. The second goal focuses on safety and the quality/comfort of the trip. The third goal ensures that all locations within the city can be easily and conveniently reached by bicycle.

Above: A number of bikers riding along 5th Street SE in the Marcy Holmes Neighborhood.

Above: The RiverLake Greenway has a number of traffic calming devices including this diverter at 11th Avenue and 40th Street.

Goal #1 – Increase bicycle mode share. Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable. Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle. Above: The majority of the trail system in Minneapolis consists of separated paths.

6.3

Strategies

6.3.1

The 6 E’s – The League of American Bicyclists recommends that a balanced bicycle program consist of projects and initiatives that support one or more of the following categories: • Education • Encouragement • Enforcement • Engineering • Equity Above: Public art along the • Evaluation Midtown Greenway. Each of the E’s are defined in Chapter 1.

121


6.3.2


Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan Strategies14 specific strategies support the three primary master plan goals and one of the “E’s”:

Above: A sign along the RiverLake Greenway.

Goal #1 Strategies (Increase bicycle mode share): Strategy #1 (Encouragement) - Encourage and facilitate bicycling as an important mode of personal transportation and recreation in Minneapolis. Strategy #2 (Education) - Educate community members and visitors about the benefits of bicycling. Strategy #3 (Equity) - Ensure that bicyclists of different backgrounds and experiences feel safe and comfortable bicycling throughout the city. Strategy #4 (Evaluation) - Monitor, measure, and evaluate the implementation of the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan. Goal #2 Strategies (Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable): Strategy #5 (Education) - Disseminate information and support comprehensive education for bicyclists, motorists, professional motor vehicle operators, city engineers, elected officials, and the general public. Strategy #6 (Enforcement) – Focus on enforcement initiatives pertaining to bicycle theft and the rules of the road. Strategy #7 (Engineering) – Use the Minneapolis Bicycle Design Guidelines to design and maintain bicycle facilities. Using these guidelines will help ensure bicycling is safe, convenient, and comfortable for all travelers. Strategy #8 (Engineering, Enforcement, Education) – Improve bicycle safety. Strategy #9 (Evaluation) - Monitor, measure, and evaluate the implementation of the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan. (Same as Strategy #4 above, but has different objectives). Goal #3 Strategies (Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle): Strategy #10 (Engineering) - Ensure bikeway connectivity throughout the city by implementing the Bicycle Master Plan. Strategy #11 (Encouragement) - Encourage developers to evaluate the need for bicycle support facilities at new developments and construction projects and to install facilities where appropriate. Strategy #12 (Equity) - Ensure that bicyclists of different backgrounds and experiences feel safe and comfortable bicycling throughout the city. (Same as Strategy #3 above, but has different objectives). Strategy #13 (Evaluation) - Ensure that the city qualifies for and pursues the maximum amount of available outside funding for bikeways, other biking facilities, bicycle programming, and staffing. Strategy #14 (Evaluation) - Monitor, measure, and evaluate the implementation of the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan. (Same as Strategies #4 and #9 above, but has different objectives).

122



Goal #1 - Increase bicycle mode share 6.3.3

Strategy #1 – (Encouragement) - Encourage and facilitate bicycling as an important mode of personal transportation and recreation in Minneapolis.

Above: A couple participate in a September bike event.

Table 6.1 – Encouragement Objectives (Goal #1) Objective

1-1

1-2

Support projects and initiatives that encourage people to bike to school, work, and other destinations.

Increase the number of students biking to school.

Selected Initiative

Continue to support Bike/ Walk Week. (ENC-1)

Work with organizations and businesses to promote and expand bicycle share/rental locations within the city. (ENC-2) Implement policies that encourage students to bike to school (K-12 & Colleges/ Universities). (ENC-3)

Benchmark Increase the number of participants with destinations in Minneapolis by 10% by 2015, 20% by 2020. Based on 2010 locations, double the number of locations where bike share or rental bikes are available by 2015 and triple the # of locations by 2020. 10% of students bike to school by 2015, 15% bike to school by 2020, and 20% of students bike to school by 2025.

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Number of participants with destinations in the City of Minneapolis.

Primary: TMO Secondary: DPW Non-profit & Advocacy Organizations

Number of locations with bike share or rental bikes available.

Primary: Private/Non-Profit Sector (Such as Nice Ride) Secondary: DPW CPED

% of students biking to school.

Primary: MPS, Private/Charter Schools, Post-Secondary Schools Secondary: DPW

Goal #1 - Increase bicycle mode share

Above: Nice Ride bikes in the Warehouse District.

123



Goal #1 - Increase bicycle mode share

6.3.4

Strategy #2 – (Education) – Educate community members and visitors about the benefits of bicycling.

Above: Bike Walk to Work Day event.

Table 6.2 – Education Objectives (Goal #1) Objective

2-1

Ensure a consistent message and improve the distribution of information.

Selected Initiative Complete, distribute, and update regularly a citywide bicycle map for public distribution that includes bicycle facilities, amenities, destinations, parking locations, connections to regional bikeways, and other information. (ED-1) Facilitate the creation of a bicycling tourism packet to be distributed by organizations and businesses. (ED-2)

Benchmark

Citywide bicycle map created and distributed by 2010 and updated every two years thereafter.

Bicycling tourism packet created by 2012 and updated every two years thereafter.

124

Performance Measure

# of entities distributing the map. # of maps distributed.

# of entities distributing the tourism packet. # of packets distributed.

Responsible Party

Primary: DPW Secondary: Communications Non-Profits TMO

Primary: Meet Minneapolis




Strategy #3 – (Equity) – Ensure that bicyclists of different backgrounds and experiences feel safe and comfortable bicycling throughout the city.

Above: Bike Share Map.

Table 6.3 – Equity Objectives (Goal #1) Objective

3-1

3-2

Provide education and information resources that reach diverse groups.

Facilitate inter-agency and intercommunity cooperation in a culturally appropriate way.

Selected Initiative Provide bicycle educational, informational, and promotional materials in multiple languages and formats. (EQ-1)

Reach out to minority groups to facilitate networking and collaboration. (EQ-2)

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

City produced bike map available for distribution in Somali, Spanish, and, Hmong by 2020.

% of cityproduced materials available in multiple languages and formats.

Primary: All city departments producing bicycle-related materials.

Increase bicycle mode share among underrepresented groups 5% faster than citywide bicycle mode share increases.

% modes share increase among underrepresente d communities such as (gender, socio-economic status, race/ethnicity, age). % increase in citywide bicycle mode share.

Above: A bicyclist along 1st Avenue in Downtown Minneapolis. 125

Primary: All departments and agencies.




Strategy #4 – (Evaluation) - Monitor, measure, and evaluate the implementation of the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan.

Above: A presentation about bike counting in Minneapolis.

Table 6.4 – Evaluation Objectives (Goal #1) Objective

4-1

Better understand bicycle flow within the city.

4-2

Better understand who is bicycling.

4-3

Regularly evaluate the bicycle program to ensure progress.

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Perform, analyze, and report annual bike count data. (EV-1)

Report including bicycle count data and analysis is created annually.

Completed report.

Primary: DPW

Report including bicycle mode share data and analysis is created annually based on American Community Survey information.

Completed report.

Primary: DPW

DPW staff report to T and PW Committee annually.

Completed report.

Primary: Staff

Analyze and report available bicycle mode share data broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and income when possible. (EV-2) Publish a report on the progress of the Bicycle Master Plan’s implementation. (EV-3)

Above: Franklin Avenue bicyclist. 126



Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable

6.3.7

Strategy #5 – (Education) - Disseminate information and support comprehensive education for bicyclists, motorists, professional motor vehicle operators, city engineers, elected officials, and the general public. Above: Nice Ride Kiosk.


5-1

Instill bicycling at a young age.

5-2

Facilitate community education opportunities.

5-3

Focus on staff development to improve the quality of infrastructure

Selected Initiative Expand and maintain bicycle education curriculum in Minneapolis K-12 schools as part of the Safe Routes to School Program. (ED-3) Establish and maintain a community bicycle education course available at no cost to participants. (ED-4) City of Minneapolis and MPRB planners and transportation engineers receive opportunities for professional development on planning and design for bicycle facilities. (ED-5)

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

By 2020, all public and private schools will have a basic bicycle curriculum.

Number of Schools.

Primary: MPS Charter and private schools Secondary: DPW

By 2020, increase by 25% the number of community bicycle education courses taught.

Number of community bicycle education courses taught.

Primary: Non-Profit Groups Secondary: DPW

1 voluntary class offered each year by 2015, and 2 voluntary classes offered per year by 2020.

Percent of planners and engineers receiving professional development.

Primary: DPW MPRB

Benchmark

127



Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable 6.3.7

Strategy #5 – (Continued)

Above: Youth in training


5-4

5-5

Target professional drivers to prevent conflicts between modes.

Increase helmet use.

Selected Initiative Assist entities that employ professional drivers (such as transit operators, ambulance, taxi, and truck drivers) in developing and implementing training materials about sharing the road. (ED-6) Educate and encourage the use of helmets and other safety equipment by developing and distributing informational materials. (ED-7)

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Develop and implement training materials by 2015.

Number of entities implementing the training materials.

Primary: TMO Non-Profits Secondary: Entities that employ professional drivers.

Number of informational materials distributed.

Primary: TMO Non-Profits Health care organizations, DHFS. Secondary: DPW

Bicycle safety informational materials developed and distributed by 2015.

128




Strategy #6 – (Enforcement) - Focus on enforcement initiatives pertaining to bicycle theft and the rules of the road. Above: According to the University of Minnesota, Ulocks significantly reduce bicycle theft.

Table 6.6– Enforcement Objectives (Goal #2) Objective

6-1

6-2

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Reduce crashes through improved enforcement.

Establish a bicycle crash safety and enforcement campaign targeted at bicyclists and motorists. (ENF-1)

Bicycle crash safety campaign established and launched by 2015.

Reduce bicycle theft through improved enforcement.

Establish a bicycle antitheft campaign including a bike bait program, antitheft brochures, and press releases to reduce the number of bicycle thefts. (ENF-2)

Anti-theft campaign implemented by 2015.

Above: A bicycle lane along 20th Avenue South.

129

Performance Measure # of campaign impressions. Amount of funding secured. Total police officer hours dedicated to the campaign.

Total police officer hours dedicated to the campaign.

Responsible Party Primary: Nonprofit agencies, health care organizations, DHFS TMO MPD Other enforcement agencies in Minneapolis DID Secondary: DPW

Primary: Minneapolis Police Department, other enforcement agencies in Minneapolis, DID.





Above: Many unregistered bicycles are auctioned since the owner can not be found.

Table 6.6– Enforcement Objectives (Goal #2) Objective

6-3

6-4

Increase bicycle registration.

Encourage citizen feedback.

Selected Initiative Encourage bicyclists to register their bicycle through the National Bicycle Registry by including registration information on city-produced bicycle-related materials and websites. (ENF-3) Encourage citizens to call 311 to report behavior or conditions that endanger bicyclists by including a message about 311 on cityproduced bicycle-related materials and websites. (ENF-4)

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Bicycle registration information included on 100% of cityproduced, bicycle-related materials and websites by 2015.

% of cityproduced, bicycle-related materials and websites with registration information.

Primary: TMO Communications MPD Secondary: DPW

311 information included on 100% of cityproduced, bicycle-related materials and websites by 2015.

% of cityproduced, bicycle-related materials and websites with 311 information.

130

Primary: TMO Communications 311 Secondary: DPW



Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable 6.3.9 Strategy #7 – (Engineering) – Use the Minneapolis Bicycle Design Guidelines to design and maintain bicycle facilities. Using these guidelines will help ensure bicycling is safe, convenient, and comfortable for all travelers. These objectives require major budget commitments. The ability to achieve these objectives will depend on what becomes available in terms of resources. Above: A bus along the Nicollet Mall with a bike rack.

Table 6.7– Engineering Objectives (Goal #2) Objective

7-1

Ensure that bikeways have a safe and smooth riding surface.

7-2

Ensure that all existing and future bikeways are designed and constructed to a high standard.

7-3

Make biking to transit a convenient transportation option.

Selected Initiative Expand pavement condition assessment to include offstreet bikeways. (ENG-1) Ensure that all existing and future bikeways are safely marked, signed, appropriately lighted, and address personal safety as per the Minneapolis Bicycle Design Guidelines. (ENG-2) Ensuring that all major transit hubs in Minneapolis have adequate bike parking. (ENG-3)

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

PCI database. 100% of trails inspected on a 5-year schedule.

% of bikeways inspected and recorded in database annually.

50% of miles of bikeways meet guidelines by 2015 and 100% of miles of bikeways meet guidelines by 2020.

% of miles of bikeways that meet the guidelines.

50% of all major transportation hubs have adequate bicycle parking by 2015, 100% by 2020.

% of major transportation hubs with adequate bicycle parking.

131

Primary: DPW

Primary: DPW

Primary: DPW Metro Transit





Above: A changeable message sign along 2nd Avenue.


7-4

7-5

7-6

Improve bicycle safety at intersections

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Accommodate bicycles at actuated signals. (ENG-4)

50% of all actuated signals within the city with detection by 2015, 75% by 2018, and 100% by 2020.

% of intersections updated, repaired, or adjusted.

Primary: DPW-TPS

Improve bicycle safety along corridors

Evaluate the use of traffic calming along bike routes and evaluate all mid-block trail crossings. (ENG-5)

Improve bicycle detour guidance

Develop and implement standard detour strategies based on the MMUTCD for construction projects to ensure safe passage for bicyclists. (ENG-6)

Evaluate 25% of existing onstreet bikeways by 2015. Evaluate 50% of existing onstreet bikeways by 2020. Evaluate 50% of existing midblock crossings by 2015. Evaluate 100% of existing midblock crossings by 2020. Use the 2010 MUTCD to develop more specific guidance by 2012. Upon completion, 100% of detour routes to comply with the guidelines.

132

% of on-street bikeways evaluated. % of suggested improvements implemented.

% of detour routes that follow the standard and allow for safe passage of bicyclists.

Primary: DPW

Primary: DPW





Above: A bike lane along 40th Street South in Minneapolis.


7-7

7-8

Selected Initiative

Improve bicycle wayfinding

Secure funding and install comprehensive wayfinding and informational signage. (ENG-7)

Consider innovative solutions when designing bicycle facilities.

Design bicycle facilities that meet or exceed Minnesota Bicycle Design Guidelines and AASHTO guidelines and apply innovative treatments where appropriate. (ENG-8)

Performance Measure

Benchmark 25% of miles of bikeways meet signage guidelines by 2015 and 50% of miles of bikeways meet signage guidelines by 2020. 100% of new bikeway miles meet or exceed the guidelines and standards by 2012. At least 5 experimental treatments are advanced/ explored by 2015; 10 treatments by 2020.

Above: Mayor Rybak and the Minneapolis Bicycle and Pedestrian Ambassadors at a Bike Share event.

% of miles of bikeways meeting signage guidelines.

% of bikeway miles meeting or exceeding guidelines and standards.

Responsible Party

Primary: DPW Secondary: Neighborhood Groups

Primary: DPW

# of experimental treatments tested.

Above: Bicyclists at a Bike to Work Day in Spring. 133





Above: Road closure signs along a new bike route.


7-9

Facilitate private investment in bicycling.

Selected Initiative Encourage office building managers and owners to install shower/locker facilities and secure bicycle storage facilities. (ENG-9)

Benchmark 5 new public shower/locker facilities by 2020. Bicycle storage facilities at 50% of public buildings by 2020.

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Number of facilities installed.

Primary: CPED DPW Secondary: TMO

Above: The Federal Courthouse has showers and lockers for bicyclists. 134



Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable 6.3.10 Strategy #8 – (Engineering, Enforcement, Education) – Improve Safety.

Above: Bicyclist crossing 26th Street at the LRT Trail.

Table 6.8– Engineering, Enforcement, and Education Objectives (Goal #2) Objective

8-1

8-2

8-3

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Reduce bicycle fatalities.

Implement Toward Zero Death Initiative. (ENG/ ENF/ED-1)

Cut fatality rate in half every 5 years.

Number of bicycle fatalities.

Reduce bicycle crashes.

Implement the Crash Reduction Project (ENG/ ENF/ED-2)

Reduce crashes by 10% each year.

Number of bicycle crashes.

Reduce bicycle injuries.

Implement the Crash Reduction Project (ENG/ ENF/ED-2)

Reduce crashes by 10% each year.

Number of bicycle injuries.

Above: Wearing a helmet greatly reduces head injuries.

135

Responsible Party Primary: MPD DPW Secondary: Hennepin County Three Rivers Park District MnDOT Primary: MPD Public Works Secondary: Hennepin County Three Rivers Park District MnDOT Primary: MPD Public Works Secondary: Hennepin County Three Rivers Park District MnDOT



Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable 6.3.11 Strategy #9 – (Evaluation) – Monitor, measure, and evaluate the implementation of the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan. Above: Pavement markings along the Midtown Greenway.

Table 6.9– Evaluation Objectives (Goal #2) Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

9-1

Improve safety by using crash data.

Continue to collect, analyze and report crash statistics. (EV-4)

Evaluate top 10 crash locations annually and implement countermeasure s for top 3 intersections each year.

Number of locations evaluated.

Primary: DPW Secondary: MPD

9-2

Reduce bicycle theft by using theft data.

Continue to track bicycle theft statistics. (EV-5)

Targeted enforcement at 5 locations per year by 2015.

Number of locations targeted.

Primary: MPD

9-3

Reduce the number of bicycle system complaints by using 311 data.

Reduce complaints by 50% by 2015 and 75% by 2020.

Number of complaints.

Primary: Minneapolis 311 DPW

Signs are replaced every 10 years, pavement markings a minimum of every two years, and light fixtures changed within a month of being reported out.

Number of pavement markings, signs, and light fixtures.

Primary: DPW MPRB

Objective

9-4

Ensure that high quality bicycle facilities are preserved.

Continue to track 311 calls pertaining to bicycling. Reduce the number of bicycle system complaints. (EV-6) Collect, analyze, and report current level of quality for all bikeways and identify key indicators such as pavement marking condition, lighting, signage and others. (EV-7)

136



Goal #2 - Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable Table 6.9– Evaluation Objectives (Goal #2) Objective

9-5

Monitor and build upon education and outreach events.

Selected Initiative Track and report the number of bicycling education and outreach events in the city. (EV-8)

Benchmark

Increase the number of events by 10% each year.

Above: Midtown Greenway at Anne Sullivan School. 137

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Number of events.

Primary: Public Schools Non-Profits Secondary: DPW MPRB



Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle 6.3.12 Strategy #10 – (Engineering) – Ensure bikeway connectivity throughout the city by implementing the Bikeways Master Plan.

Above: Bike lane along 20th Avenue South.


10-1

10-2

Build and maintain a system of bikeways to increase bicycling and to improve safety.

Fund capital and operations bicycle projects to increase bicycling and to improve safety.

Selected Initiative

Complete all of the routes identified in the Bikeways Master Plan map. (ENG-10)

Ensure that there is adequate funding to build and maintain new projects within the Bicycle Master Plan. (ENG-11)

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

33% of proposed improvements by 2020. 66% of proposed improvements by 2030.

% bikeway plan map complete.

Primary: DPW Hennepin County MPRB Three Rivers Park District

100% of proposed improvements by 2040. 33% of proposed improvements funded by 2020. 66% of proposed improvements funded by 2030. 100% of proposed improvements funded by 2040.

138

% of funding secured.




Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle Table 6.10– Engineering Objectives (Goal #3) Objective

10-3

Facilitate bicycle friendly design on all streets.

Selected Initiative Roadway design should take into consideration the safety needs of bicyclists (eg. bicycle friendly manholes, gutter pans, and bicycle safe catch basins). (ENG-12)

Benchmark

25% of all streets compliant by 2020. 50% of all streets compliant by 2030. 75% of streets complaint by 2040. 100% compliance by 2050.

Above: A bicycle facility pavement marking.

139

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Miles of roadway.




Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle 6.3.13 Strategy #11 – (Encouragement) – Encourage developers to evaluate the need for bicycle support facilities at new developments and construction projects and to install facilities where appropriate. Above: Bicycle Parking along the Van White Trail.

Table 6.11– Encouragement Objectives (Goal #3) Objective

11-1

Encourage private investment in bikeways and support facilities.

11-2

Encourage private investment in bicycle parking.

11-3

Facilitate public/ private partnerships to maximize the number of bicycle racks installed throughout the city.

Selected Initiative Encourage developers to evaluate the need for and to install bikeways and/or support facilities that facilitate bicycling. (ENC-4) Encourage developers to install bike parking (as per ordinances) and other bicycle amenities. (ENC-5) Increase the amount bike parking by continuing the 50% cost share program for schools, community groups, businesses, multi-unit residential properties, and places of worship. (ENC-6)

Benchmark 25% of developments have a bicycle facility component by 2015. 50% of developments have a bicycle facility component by 2020.

100% of developments comply with the bicycle parking rule by 2012.

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

% of developments where bicycle support facilities are considered and installed as appropriate.

Primary: CPED

Number of violations issued by Regulatory Services.

Primary: Regulatory Services

Increase bicycle parking by 300 spaces per year. 100% of schools, parks, post offices, and city owned buildings to have bicycle parking by 2015.

140

Primary: DPW Number of parking spaces.

Secondary: Neighborhood Groups Business Groups



Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle 6.3.14 Strategy #12 – (Equity) – Ensure that bicyclists of different backgrounds and experiences feel safe and comfortable bicycling throughout the city.

Above: Kiosk along the Minneapolis Diagonal Trail.

Table 6.12– Equity Objectives (Goal #3) Objective

12-1

Support bicycle facilities that provide connections and remove barriers.

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Ensure that all city neighborhoods are connected to a bicycle facility. (EQ-3)

100% of neighborhoods connected to a bicycle facility by 2020.

% of neighborhoods connected to a bicycle facility.

Primary: DPW

Above: West River Parkway Trail is part of the Grand Rounds National Scenic Byway. 141



Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle 6.3.15 Strategy #13 – (Evaluation) – Ensure that the city qualifies for and pursues the maximum amount of available funding for bikeways, other biking facilities, bicycle programming, and staffing.

Above: Bike Share kiosk at TCF Stadium.

Table 6.13– Evaluation Objectives (Goal #3) Objective

13-1

Maximize available funding for bicycle facilities.

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Allocate city resources to leverage outside funding. (EV-9)

Maintain and expand current funding levels.

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Dollars secured.

Primary: DPW CLIC Mayor’s Office City Council

Above: Bike Share kiosk along 2nd Avenue in Downtown Minneapolis.

142



Goal #3 - Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle 6.3.16 Strategy #14 – (Evaluation) – Monitor, measure, and evaluate the implementation of the Minneapolis Bicycle Master Plan.

Above: Midtown Greenway Bridge Over Hiawatha.

Table 6.14– Evaluation Objectives (Goal #3) Objective

14-1

Monitor the progress of the bicycle program to ensure success.

Selected Initiative

Benchmark

Performance Measure

Responsible Party

Regularly update the Bicycle Master Plan. (EV-10)

Consider an update to the plan every 10 years.

Number of years.

Primary: PW

Above: Midtown Greenway at Minnehaha Avenue.

143

Chapter 7- Project/Initiative Identification and Prioritization


Chapter 7 – Project Identification and Prioritization 7.1

Chapter Overview

7.1.1 Purpose—This chapter identifies infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects in addition to creating Above: West River Parkway criteria for prioritization. These projects and initiatives support the goals and objectives outlined in this document, build on existing conditions, and attempt to adequately address the needs analysis. 7.1.2

Infrastructure Topics – This chapter addresses the following topics: Infrastructure Projects - This section addresses the identification of physical infrastructure needs, which lead to a list of infrastructure projects. • Access Minneapolis 10 –Yr Transportation Action Plan Gap Analysis: This plan created a list of system gaps in 2009. • Hennepin County Bicycle Gap Study: In 2002 Hennepin County conducted a gap analysis. Many of these gaps still exist today. • Present Gaps: A current gap analysis was conducted identifying the existing gaps in the system. Many of the gap projects previously identified in the Access Minneapolis Gap Analysis and the Hennepin County Bicycle Gap Study have been constructed. • Community Connectors: Connections to other communities. • 5-Year Capital Program: List of funded projects in the 5-Yr Capital Program. • Bikeways Master Plan Map: The Bikeways Master Plan Map shows all of the proposed bikeway projects needed to complete the bicycle system and is based on the 2001 Bikeways Master Plan. The Bikeways Master Plan Map also reflects extensive community input. • Opportunity and Stand-Alone Projects: This section identifies which projects are opportunity projects and which projects are stand-alone projects. • Corridor Improvements/Spot Improvements/System-wide Improvements: This section looks at all three types of corridors and suggests candidate projects. • Project List: The project list shows all proposed projects by quadrant. Prioritization—Due to limited resources, projects and initiatives must be prioritized. Several criteria have been developed to help fairly classify candidate projects. The BAC will advise on project prioritization. • Project Criteria: These criteria are used to help prioritize bicycle projects. • Bicycle Functional Classification: This is a tool to help prioritize bikeways.

144


7.1.3


Non-Infrastructure Topics Non-Infrastructure Initiatives—A well balanced bicycle program should pursue initiatives that satisfy all 6 “E’s” not just engineering/infrastructure projects. To address this, both long-term and shortterm initiatives have been identified. Long-term initiatives tend to be more expensive whereas shortAbove: Minneapolis Riverfront term projects tend to be cheaper and easier to implement.

7.2

Infrastructure Projects

7.2.1

Access Minneapolis 10 –Yr Transportation Action Plan Gap Analysis —As part of the Access Minneapolis 10 –Yr Transportation Action Plan a bicycle gap analysis identified the following system gaps and discontinuities: Gaps in Off-Street Facilities: #1 49th Avenue Trail Corridor #2 Osseo Road Trail Corridor #3 Ryan Lake Trail Corridor #4 Upper River Trail Corridor #5 Upper River Trail Corridor #6 27th Avenue NE Trail Corridor #7 Upper River Trail Corridor #8 University Avenue Trail Corridor #9 Central Avenue Trail Corridor #10 St. Anthony Parkway Trail Corridor #11 Stinson Parkway Trail Corridor #12 East River Parkway Trail Corridor #13 NE Cedar Lake Trail Corridor #14 East River Parkway Trail Corridor #15 Oak Street Trail Corridor #16 Chicago Avenue Corridor #17 Dunwoody Trail Corridor #18 Emerson/Freemont Trail Corridor #45/46 I-35W Tunnel Corridor #47 Washington Ave Trail Corridor #48 CP Rail Corridor #52 26th Ave N Corridor

Above: Stone Arch Bridge

Above: Bike lane on Lowry Avenue

145


7.2.1


Access Minneapolis 10 –Yr Transportation Action Plan Gap Analysis (Continued) Gaps in On-Street Facilities:

#19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #49 #50 #51 #53 #54 #55

37th Avenue On-Street Corridor Marshall On-Street Corridor Fillmore Street NE On-Street Corridor Lowry Ave NE On-Street Corridor Como On-Street Corridor Emerson/Freemont On-Street Corridor Glenwood Avenue On-Street Corridor 10th Ave On-Street Corridor Riverside Ave On-Street Corridor 24th Street On-Street Corridor Minnehaha On-Street Corridor 32nd Street On-Street Corridor Nicollet Avenue On-Street Corridor Hennepin Avenue On-Street Corridor Upton/Sheridan Avenue On-Street Corridor France Avenue On-Street Corridor Bryant Avenue On-Street Corridor Diamond Lake Road On-Street Corridor Portland Avenue On-Street Corridor Bloomington Avenue On-Street Corridor 7th Street North On-Street Corridor 14th/15th/16th On-Street Corridor Franklin Avenue On-Street Corridor 44th Street On-Street Corridor 1st Ave S On-Street Corridor 29th Street On-Street Corridor 30th Ave On-Street Corridor 10th Street Bridge Corridor Lasalle On-Street Corridor 2nd Street On-Street Corridor 3rd Street On-Street Corridor Washington Ave Over I-35W

Above: Bike lane around Lake Harriet 146

Above: St Anthony Parkway Bridge Trail



Figure 7.1 - Access Minneapolis Gaps

147


7.2.2


Hennepin County Bicycle Gap Study—This study was originally completed in 2002 and recognized a number of gaps in Minneapolis. This study was updated in 2010. Above: Martin Sabo Bridge

Table 7.1 – 2010 Hennepin County System Gaps Gap #

System Gap

Project Limits

On-Street or Off-Street

10

Lyndale Avenue/5th St N

Webber Pkwy to 2nd Ave N

Off-Street

11

BNSF Railway Corridor

Mississippi River to St. Paul

On-Street

12

Marshall Street NE

Hennepin Ave to 27th Ave NE

On-Street

13

Ridgeway Parkway

Stinson to St. Anthony Pkwy

Off-Street

13A

Stinson Blvd

Stinson Pkwy to 18th Ave NE

On-Street

13B

Hennepin Avenue NE

Main Street to Stinson Blvd.

On-Street

14A

St. Anthony Parkway

Stinson to Ridgeway Road

Off-Street

15

East River Trail Missing Link

Stone Arch Bridge to Bridge 9

Off-Street

16

6th Ave SE

Main Street to Hennepin Ave

On-Street

30A

France Avenue

Ewing Avenue to City Limits

On-Street

31

West 39th Street

France Avenue to Richfield Rd

On-Street

32

West 42nd Street

Lake Harriet to Nokomis Ave

On-Street

33B

Portland Avenue

60th Street to City Limits

On-Street

48

East 60th Street

Portland Ave to Bloomington

On-Street

54A

36th St/King’s Highway/RiverLake Greenway

Lake Calhoun to Mississippi River

71

Fort Snelling Trail Gap


Off-Street

73

Bloomington Avenue


On-Street

75

Portland Avenue

Minnehaha Pkwy to 60th St

On-Street

80

Lowry Bridge

2nd Street to Marshall Street

Off-Street

84

Minnehaha/26th Avenue

31st St to Franklin Avenue

On-Street

148

On-Street



Figure 7.2 - Hennepin County Gap Study

Hennepin County Q R

§ ¨ ¦

12

94

101 " )

85

241 " )

Bicycle Gaps Spring 2010

Q R

36

Existing Bike Routes

Q R 144

Q R

144

RO

, %

ER

121

Q R 12

, %

Champlin

159

, %

Q R

YN N HW JEFF

D RD N

OO

Q R

GW ED W

S

88

88

SE AV E

42

152

WALNUT ST

Q R 46

48

" )5

48

204

205

53

Msp Intl. Airport 70TH ST E

73

77 " )

§ ¨ ¦

74

30B

Ft. Snelling Cemetery

494

Q R

84TH ST W 84TH ST E

OLD

Q R

PO

ST

RD

70

55 " )

" )5

SHAK

OP

EE

RD

E

Q R

35

32

Q R

SHEPARD RD

R ,Q %

52

Q R

Ft. Snelling Terr.

62 " )

82

30A

118

28

54A

1

§ ¨ ¦ 35W

17

34

Bloomington

34B

A

77 " )

NIC

OL

S

SI LV

BEL

1

RD

34C

XERXES AVE S

Q R

RAHN RD

77

ER

U B RD

CLIFF

O CL

LAKE

HENNEPIN TOWN RD

Q R

Q R

76

B TER DR

RIE C EN

PR A I

12 0

13 13A

10

30A

BLAKE RD S

24

84

GENERAL MILLS

TEXAS AVE S

21B

A W

120

RI STA

TH

22A BLVD BOONE AVE N

21A

ET

MITCHELL RD

S STABLE PATH

108

20A

26

L RD

HA VE SE 27 T

HURON BLVD SE

OAK ST SE

Q R

34

A UT

R

15

LARCH LN N

WOODHILL RD

68

VINE HILL RD S

DE

24TH AVE SE

E AV ES E

HA 15 VE TH S

15 T

§ ¦ ¨

5

46

Richfield

78

Q R

20TH AVE

BOONE AVE N

PINEVIEW LN N

47 WILLISTON RD

VINE HILL

RD

18TH AVE SE

E

SE

ES AV

AV E

TH 11

TH 10 E AV ES

11

20TH AVE S

AV E

AVE N 10 TH 19TH 19TH AVE S

19TH AVE S

S

TH

AV E

11

S

TH

AV E

S

4T HA VE S 5T HA VE DA S VE S AN

KA VE

PO RT L

PA R

S

DA VE

3R

X EN

I FERNBROOK LN N

VICKSBURG LN N

TONKAWOOD RD

39D

NIAGARA LN N

114 19B

FERNDALE RD S

OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S

19A

BROWN RD N

OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N

WILLOW DR N

39A

42 12 3 N

AV E IN

AV E T

N EP

1S

IN

EP

H EN

N

EN H

EA VE TT

AV ES

2N D

RQ UE MA

1ST AVE S

NICOLLET AVE

ZACHARY LN N

62 PEONY LN N

COUNTY LINE RD

LASALLE AVE

M IS SI SS IP PI RI VE 94 R

29

Q R

N

YS

22

SUMMIT AVE

55 " )

RD

PKW

TW

MI

VD

VER

HS

Q R

Q R

RD

BL

EA VE

TR

ER

R

SID

LINDS

RD

RIV

L

55

ER

S

ST

71

" )

RIV

N

§ ¨ ¦ 94

EA

E IV

35W

152

LSO

4

E

P PI R

35

Q R

ESSEX ST SE

Q R

D

SI

E

61

R

IS

RD

WES T RI

Q R

R

SS

R I V ER

SIT WA Y

Q R VE

RD

122

AN

84T

36

Q Q R R § ¦ ¨

TR

E

36

RI

54A

Q R 21

28

OM DR

AV

RD E

35W

32

31

WY

TA

Q R

4TH ST S

33

US

ON LAKES P K

SO

S

CA MP

AR

40TH ST W

Q R

118

Q R 11

ER

35

Q R

L

M ARTH RD

RIV

Q R Q R Q Minneapolis R

31

" ) Y

E

37

Q R 122

S

§ ¨ ¦

54A

100

HILAR

COMO AVE SE

15

KA

S

INT ER

Q R 36

WASHINGTON AVE SE

CH

S

14A

ST

MINNEAPOLIS

1

ST S

ST

73

S

S

16TH ST E

N

AV E

Q R

D

48

3

62 " )

ilway

ST

H

37

2 6A

52

ELM ST SE

33

121 " )

Ra Pacific

ST S

6T

W

D

HS TS

100 " )

n Canadia

TH

S

EST

Q R

124

Edina

119

10

H

ST

CR

SE

Q R

N

9T

H

ST

B 27

Y LAKE P KW

L

ST

S

8T

6TH

Q R

HOMEWARD H I L

TH

ST

Q R

SE

DR

12

H

ST S

GT ON

5TH ST

R

S

H

HIN

SE

C

A ND E R S

NG

D

S

9T

S

Eden Prairie

R

ST

ST S

ST

ST

212

R

H

TH

TH

D

WA S

t u

ELM ST SE ELM ST SE

E

TE

2N

SE

RI

EN

S

ST

ST

ST

43

88

212

I

ST

5T H 4T H

H

Q R

17

t u

DR

A

H 6T

D

S

CHICAGO AVE

94

ST

YA VE SE

TE

S ST

§ ¦ ¨

D

ER SIT

D

N

TH

ST W

2N

S3 R

UN IV SE

O

11

ST

15TH

ST

4

T ST 4TH H S T S ST S S

SE

E AV

O

N

L EP

H

ST

SE

S

2N

3R

9T ST

5

Q R

61

E AV TA

ST

12TH L YA

3R D 5T

7T 10

11

2N D ST

RD C EN IC HEIGHT S

SO

H

12 T

IN

D

MA

S

Q R

" )5

KA

" )

152

ST N

0

Q R

N

SE

E AV TA SO

12T

10TH

40

ST

ST

SE

VIE W R

LE Y

39

COMO AVE SE

KA

Q R

D

394

ST

SE

ROB E RT V AL

N

E AV

5T

SE

158

494

TE CH N O L OGY DR

SE

3R

§ ¦ ¨

5T H

AV E

tern es &W

46

20

Q R

¨ ¦ Q R § 60

EN

TH

Q R

DS ER

Q R

28

126 Twin Cities

66

25

Hopkins

27A

62 " )

y an mp Co ad ilro Ra

H

12

IN

ST

KENWOOD PKWY

S CEDAR L AK

E RD

INTERLACHEN BLVD

26A

L

AK

61

62

LR

N N

RS ITY

RD

100 " )

Q R

3

Q R

DEL

ST E AV

IVE

M ST

R L A KE

" )7

Q R

ST

" )

RL

2

Minnetonka

25

Chanhassen

B LVD

82ND ST W

17TH AVE

RIA MER

52

D 3R

11

Q R

EP

IN

394

DA

St. Louis Park

60

PR

UN

Q R

N

111

D

5

COMO AVE SE

35W

N

H 5T ST

LAK E R

D

C O U L TER

§ ¦ ¨

" )

§ ¨ ¦

CE

27

13B

E NE

MA

12TH

N AVE

V ALLE Y VIEW RD

8T H

65

7T H

R

Q R

R § ¨ ¦ Q 494

101 " )

Q R

) Q R " ST

DA

AV

10

55

40

R

T

T A BLV D

8TH

PLYMOUTH AVE N

22 B

D

N

N

WA YZA

Q R Q R

66

Golden Valley

CEDA

CE

79

LAKE LUCY RD

47

1S

TA BLVD

65 " )

Q R

56A

COUNTRY CLUB DR

N

Q R 82

" )7

23

N

Y ZA

Q R 23

N

LA

ST

73

16

D

D

Q R

Q R 81

55

66

VE S

Q R

79

2N

H AVE

A VE N

W

Excelsior

63

ST

N

56B

EA

D E L TO

117

ST

TH

Q R

S

Q R

7

11

ST

10

O R

Shorewood

" )7

SANDBURG RD

Q R 88

80

F R A NC

19

44

RBike Gaps Downtown Minneapolis Q D

§ ¨ ¦

70

N

Greenwood

Q R

Q R

41

" )7

D

PLYMO UT

RIDGEMOUNT AVE W

394

Q R

D

AVE

Tonka Bay

St. Bonifacius

2N

BL V

UNITY

Deephaven

110

3R

KE

153

106

53

101

Q R

LA

E

Woodland

92

4T H

IN

Mound

Q R

S UN

47 " )

§ ¨ ¦

Q R

102

146

Minnetonka Beach

Spring Park

DIC

Minnetrista

c.

12

Wayzata

EM E

In Rail, ota Dak

t u

15

1 9C

9 10

15

Q R

22A

Union Pacific Railroad

47

2

Q R

VD

87

51

Q R

N

Q R

R LN

VD W

Q R

Q R

84

Q R

ATA BL

15

Orono

135

151

BL

Q R

Q R

E

26

WAYZ

Q R

Robbinsdale

94

E

L

93

136

27

9

Medicine Lake

TR

Q R Q Q R R St. Anthony

156

LA K

3B

59

49TH AVE N

152

9

Q R

W

, %

26

112

Long Lake

494

20B

,4 %

Q R

8

NC

32ND AVE N

K E DR

84

58

12

§ ¨ ¦

CHESHIRE LN N

Q R

157

t u

Q R

Q R

Q R

Crystal

36TH AVE N

LA

110

Q R

Plymouth

E

112

LA

IN

Q R

6

19

6

UM

New Hope

N

IC

Q R

R Q R Q

Q R

125

57

N

TE

55

LN

ED

83

17

Brooklyn Center

8

" )

M

201

Q R

Q R

694

100

45TH AVE

CAMPUS DR

, %

38Plain Maple 38 Q R29

69TH AVE N

§ ¨ ¦

K E RD

9

24

19

HM IDT LA

Q R

Q R

Q R

121

12

S C HMIDT LAK E RD

SC

MEDI C I NE

, %

101

24

t u

92

RD

Q R " )

201

Q R

Independence

Q R

SCHMIDT LAKE

6

Medina

90

69TH AVE N

4B

Q R

4A

Q R3

AS

Q R

O K DALE DR N

252 " )

81

VICKSBURG LN N

6

118

HOLLY LN N

, %

BRO

152

12

N

LN G BUR

VIC KS

169

11

115

109

10

101

Q R

Q R

A L E DR N

N

Q R

139

Q R

Loretto

17

252 " )

110

t u

2

47

March 2002 Original Gap Study Spring 2004 Fall 2004 March 2007 December 2008 Spring 2009 Spring 2010

YN

DUPONT AVE

Q R % ,

, %

KW

WEST RIVER RD

92

KP

130

§ ¨ ¦

Q R

Q R

Q R

94

61

55 " )

Q R

OO

16

C

103

BR O OKD

4B

LAWNDALE LN N

Q R BOONE AVE N

55 " )

N

LN

130

E

19

K

LO

Q R

E RD

Q R

BR

Brooklyn Park

HEM

AK HL

DU

F IS

ED

IN

Revision History 610 " )

11TH AVE S

N RD W

MA

IN

N

E

N

N

97TH AVE N

PARK AVE

RD

LAK

N

KL

12

Osseo

109

FI SH

IR

Q R

N

ST

L

KE

P K WY

N

R A

OVE

Q R

W LN

Maple Grove

E

PIN EVI E

AV

89TH AVE N

88TH PL N

94

ZACHARY LN N

§ ¨ ¦ WE

K

O AK G R

610 " )

202

30

10

50

, %

Ra ilw ay

75

Fe

33B

nta

Q R

Q R

Q R

Sa

33B

he rn

R

2ND ST N

ort

PK

I VE

Progressive Rail Inc.

VE

TR

100

RO

ES

103

DUPONT AVE N

EG

Q R

XERXES AVE N

PL

169

NOBLE AVE N

Q R

MA

30

LAWNDALE LN N

1

116

W

t u

ERSO

YN

99TH AVE N

nN

W

, %

82ND AVE N

50

Q R O XBOW CREEK DR N

RUSSELL AVE N

Q R

89TH AVE N

Q R

Gap Not On Plan

117TH AVE N

103

Y

109TH AVE N

Q R

10

Corcoran

, %

Gap On Plan

Sub-Standard

RD

30

KW

109TH AVE N

81

Bu rlin gto

Q R

KP

109TH AVE N

101

123

C R EE

114TH AVE N

117

Q R

LM

E P KW Y N

Both On-Road & Off-Road

14

, %

Hanover

Rockford

LAK

HAMPSHIRE AVE N

122

GO O S E

202

121

Greenfield

Secondary

Bicycle Route Gaps

Pending Off-Road

150

Hassan Twsp.

Q R

10 1

Q R

E

19

19

Independent

Off-Road

103

Q R

DR

Q R

116

Dayton

S

Rogers

Q R

Q R

Bikeway

Pending On-Road

G

203

County Bicycle Plan

On-Road

13

DIAMOND LAKE RD S

102

Q R

IV

ER

R

D

Printing Date: 5/20/2010 File: Bicycle_System_Gaps_Spring_2010.mxd For illustrative purposes only. Not to be used as a legal document

E

149


7.2.3


Present Gaps—Many of the gaps that have been identified by both the Access Minneapolis Plan and the Hennepin County Gap Analysis have been funded or completed. The Present Gap Study uses a 2 mile spacing requirement for trails, 1 mile spacing for bike lanes or bike boulevards, and 1/2 mile spacing for signed routes. The study also requires that there be a bicycle facility connection on both ends of the gap so there are no discontinuities created when a gap project has been completed. To determine system gaps, a map showing fully funded Above: West River Parkway facilities was overlaid onto a map of existing facilities. The following gaps still remain: Gaps in Off-Street Facilities: •

49th Avenue North Trail Corridor

•

Osseo Road Trail Corridor

•

Ryan Lake Trail Corridor

•

Crystal Lake Trail Corridor

•

Dunwoody Trail Corridor

•

Central Avenue Trail Corridor

•

Waite Trail Corridor

•

Upper River Trails

•

27th Ave NE Trail Corridor

•

University Ave NE Trail Corridor

•

St. Anthony Parkway Trail Corridor

•

Stinson Parkway Trail Corridor

•

Grand Rounds Trail Corridor

•

NE/Cedar Lake Trail Corridor

•

East River Parkway Trail Corridor

•

Chicago Avenue Trail Corridor

•

Washington Avenue Trail Corridor

•

LRT Trail Gap

•

CP Rail Trail

•

Inter-City Trail Corridor

Above: Minnehaha Creek Trail

Above: Upper Mississippi Trails

150


7.2.3


Present Gaps - Continued Gaps in On-Street Facilities:

•

Thomas Avenue Corridor

•

27th Ave NE Corridor

•

Lowry Avenue Corridor

•

Marshall Street Corridor

•

Como Avenue Corridor

•

24th Street Corridor

•

32nd Street Corridor

•

Diamond Lake Road Corridor

•

44th Street Corridor

•

France Avenue Corridor

•

Upton/Sheridan Corridor

•

Nicollet Avenue Corridor

•

Portland Avenue Corridor

•

Bloomington Avenue Corridor

•

38th Avenue Corridor

Above: Marshall Street NE

Above: Marshall Street NE Bridge with striped shoulder

Above: Park Avenue at 14th Avenue. 151



Figure 7.3 - Existing Bikeways in Minneapolis (May 2011)

152



Figure 7.4 - Existing Bicycle System Gaps (May 2011)

153


7.2.4


Community Connectors—Both on-street and offstreet connections to surrounding communities are just as important as completing internal system gaps. Below is a discussion about existing and proposed connections to adjacent communities. A Above: Downtown Bicyclist map showing all of these connections is included. Brooklyn Center: The Shingle Creek Trail and the North Mississippi Regional Trails are the primary bicycle facility connectors into Brooklyn Center. There does not appear to be a need for additional off-street facilities, however on-street connections via Humboldt Avenue and Bryant Avenue may be further explored. Columbia Heights: There are currently no trail connections to Columbia Heights. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for a future trail is along Central Ave NE. Onstreet bike lanes have also been recommended for 37th Ave NE and would require cooperation from both cities. Edina: There does not appear to be any opportunities for trail connections into Edina, however both the 44th Street corridor and the France Avenue corridors present opportunities for on-street improvements. France Avenue is a county road and would likely require the removal of parking to facilitate bicycle lanes. Fort Snelling/MSP Airport: Currently there is an off-street trail that connects to Fort Snelling, with a spur to the historic barracks. There is currently a trail gap between 54th Street and the MnDOT trail near the Bureau of Mines buildings. There also continues to be challenges with getting a trail to connect with the Lindbergh Terminal at MSP Airport. The agencies in this vicinity will need to collaborate to determine the best alignment for these connections. Fridley: There is an existing off-street trail that runs parallel to East River Road. This facility addresses most cyclist’s needs in this area. Golden Valley: The Wirth Parkway Trail is technically located in Golden Valley. Perhaps the most important connection is the Luce Line Trail, which is now completed. On-street routes including 26th Avenue North, Glenwood Avenue, Golden Valley Road, and Plymouth Avenue intersect with Wirth Parkway. Lauderdale: A future bike connection via Hennepin Avenue is currently the only proposed connection. Richfield: The CP Rail Trail and Inter-City Trail along Bloomington Avenue are proposed to address off-street users. Portland Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Lyndale Avenue, and Penn Avenues have been identified as on-street bike routes. Robbinsdale: The Crystal Lake Trail will provide a valuable off-street trail connection. St. Anthony: The NE Diagonal Trail now provides an excellent off-street connection into St. Anthony. The proposed Waite Park Trail would make a second connection into St. Anthony. St. Louis Park: Both the Cedar Lake Trail and SW LRT Trails connect to St. Louis Park. St. Paul: There are several existing and proposed off-street connections including Granary Road, the U of M Transitway, East River Parkway, and the Midtown Greenway. Como Ave, Kasota Ave, Marshall Street, and Hennepin Avenue provide existing and proposed on-street connections to St. Paul.

154



Figure 7.5 – Existing Connections to Minneapolis (Met Council 2007)

Above: Above is a Metropolitan Council map of existing bikeways showing connections to/from Minneapolis. Green lines are trails and red lines are bike lanes/paved shoulders.

155



Figure 7.6 - Existing and Proposed Community Connectors

156


7.2.5


5-Year Capital Program – There are a number of projects that have been identified for construction between 2011 and 2015. The projects that have been identified in the infrastructure project list (later in this chapter) as based on the assumption that the projects below will be completed by 2015. Above: The Plymouth Avenue Bridge will have bike lanes installed in 2011.

Table 7.2 – Off-Street Projects in the 5-Year CIP On-Street Facility

Year

18th Avenue NE Trail Cedar Lake Trail (Phase 3) Hiawatha Trail Connection Hiawatha LRT Trail Lighting University of Minnesota Trail Van White Bridge Trail Total

2011 2011 2011 2014 2012 2012

New Miles 1.5 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.5 4.0

Table 7.3 – On-Street Projects in the 5-Year CIP On-Street Facility

Year

New Miles

1st/Blaisdell 3rd St S (Hennepin to Norm McGrew) 5th St NE 7th St/10th Ave N 10th Ave SE 14th/15th/16th St 19th Ave S 22nd Ave NE 26th Avenue S 27th Ave SE Bryant Ave S Central Avenue Bikeway Como Ave SE th DDIR Projects (4 Avenue, 5th Avenue, 6th Street) Emerson/Fremont Aves N Fillmore/6th Avenues Franklin Ave E Glenwood Ave Marshall/Main Minnehaha Avenue S Plymouth Ave N/8th Ave NE RiverLake Greenway (40th - I35W to 30th Ave, 30th - 38th to 42nd, 42nd - 30th to W River Pkwy) Riverside Ave Total

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011

4.4 0.8 2.0 2.8 0.8 1.6 0.7 2.4 0.6 0.6 3.2 2.3 1.0 1.8 4.7 3.9 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.5 1.1

2011

4.0

2011

1.3 47.9

157


7.2.6


Bikeways Master Plan —The Bikeways Master Plan is a map of how the bikeways system in Minneapolis may look fully built out. There are several types of facilities that have been identified on this plan including off-street trails, bicycle and pedestrian bridges, bicycle boulevards, shared bus/bike lanes, signed routes, routes with shoulders, and routes with shared use pavement markings. The purpose of so many types of facilities is to allow different facility choices at a reasonable spacing to attract bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Working together, this proposed facility network would allow for a cost-effective transportation Above: LRT Trail Crossing at network that anyone can use to get from place to Cedar Riverside Station place. Process: The Bikeways Master Plan builds upon the 2001 Bikeways Master Plan, which is based on community suggestions. Although there are some route changes in the new plan, most of the routes have remained unchanged since 2001. New types of bicycle facilities have since emerged and many of the on-street corridors are now identified as bicycle boulevards or use shared use pavement markings. Routes that have shared use pavement markings should consider bicycle lanes when the street is reconstructed. Routes that are not on CSA or TH routes may use shared use pavement markings (sharrows) to bridge small gaps where the road is not wide enough to accommodate bicycle lanes. It is important to note that this map is guidance for the design process and that community input or technical factors may result in a different design. It is important to note that many of the routes identified in this plan may take years before the projects are ready for implementation due to land use changes or changes in public opinion. The rate at which new facilities can be constructed will depend on available resources and the cities capacity to fund and maintain existing facilities.

Above: U of M Transitway Trail

158


7.2.6


Bikeways Master Plan - Continued Factors: Before placing a bicycle route on the Bikeways Master Plan a number of factors were considered including (detailed analysis has not been done): • Potential use • Traffic safety and personal safety • Directness of route • Access to destinations and land use • System connectivity • Removing system gaps and barriers • Connections to transit/bus routes • Types of users and skill levels to be served • Available right-of-way/available space • Proximity to other bicycle facilities • Jurisdictional responsibility/function • Community support • Truck volumes/potential truck conflicts • Proximity to parks and schools • Location of existing traffic control devices • Motor vehicle parking impacts • Bicyclist comfort/scenic route locations • Number of at-grade locations • Motor vehicle volumes and speeds Above: Eastside CO-OP Bike • Grades/topography Racks

Above: Webber Park Trail

159



Figure 7.7 - Bikeways Master Plan

160



Figure 7.8 - Bikeways Master Plan (Off-Street Routes)

161



Figure 7.9 - Bikeways Master Plan (On-Street Routes)

162


7.2.7


Opportunity Projects—Opportunity projects consist of bicycle improvements that piggyback on other capital projects such as a mill and overlay project or total reconstruction project. The bicycle component is not the primary reason for the project and the timeline of the project is typically not dictated by the bicycle improvement. This type of project simply takes advantage of the opportunity to make conditions better for cyclists. Many on-street bike lane corridors fit into this category. In most cases on-street bike lanes can not be added to a given corridor unless geometric changes are made. Opportunity projects are Above: Minneapolis Diagonal designated in the project list. Trail

7.2.8

Stand-Alone Projects—Stand-Alone projects are capital bicycle projects independent of other projects. The primary purpose of a stand-alone bicycle project is to improve bicycle safety and/or increase the number of bicyclists. Stand-alone infrastructure projects primarily consist of trails, bike lane striping projects, bicycle boulevard projects, trail enhancement projects, support facilities, and bicycle parking projects. Stand-alone projects can also be very large spot improvements such as improving an intersection. Stand-alone projects are typically added to the capital budget and must compete with other projects for funding, based on merit. Because of the high number of stand-alone projects, a fair and equitable prioritization system is needed. Small stand-alone projects may be batched with other like projects and put into a funding package to improve the chances of receiving money and to complete smaller Above: Minneapolis Diagonal improvements more quickly. Stand-alone projects Trail are designated in the project list.

Above: Sharrow along 19th Avenue NE 163


7.2.9


Corridor Improvements—The Bikeways Master Plan reflects corridor improvements that span from one point in the city to another. Corridor improvements can be an off-street, trail, bike lane, or shared use facility. Examples of past corridor improvements include the Kenilworth Trail, the Richfield Road bicycle lanes, and the RiverLake Greenway. Corridor projects can also be maintenance projects such as a trail mill and overlay project or a crack-seal project. The Bikeways Master Plan does not address spot improvements or system-wide improvements. Examples of needed corridor projects found on the Bikeways Master Plan include the extension of Bridge #9 through the I-35W tunnel, completion of the Upper River Trails along the Mississippi, adding bicycle lanes to Harmon Place, and installing a bicycle boulevard on Pleasant Avenue South. All proposed Corridor Improvement Projects are identified in the project list.

7.2.10 Spot Improvements—There are several infrastructure projects that pertain to one location. Typically these are roadway intersections or trail nodes that require some work to address a safety concern or to make bicycling more convenient. These projects also tend to have a lot of benefit for what the improvement costs. Examples of past spot improvements include the enhancements at 31st/Chowen along the Midtown Greenway, the Freewheel Bicycle Center, and the addition of bicycle parking at the Twins Ballpark. Examples of needed spot improvements include the development of a bicycle center at the University of Minnesota, adding bicycle parking to Central Avenue NE, and adding a ramp to the Midtown Greenway at Fremont Avenue. All proposed Spot Improvement Projects are identified in the project list 7.2.11 System-wide Improvements—Small capital projects that are similar in scope can be batched together to create a system-wide improvement. Batching small projects with a similar theme greatly increases the chances of receiving funding. Batching projects also accelerates the improvement timeline. Examples of needed system–wide improvements include the addition of bicycle parking at all schools, adding bicycle detection to all actuated signals, and installing way-finding signage along all bicycle routes. If projects can not be batched together to form a larger capital project, it is recommended that the improvement occur when the opportunity arises. For instance, the improvement may be done when a road is reconstructed, when a signal is replaced, or when an area is redeveloped. All proposed System-wide Improvement Projects are identified in the project list.

Above: Lake Nokomis Trail 164



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - The project list includes all proposed bicycle infrastructure projects within the City of Minneapolis. The project list is organized by area of the city. The project list denotes whether the project is an opportunity project or stand-alone project. The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) will prioritize this list on a regular basis and will add new projects as needed. Their recommendations will be presented to the City Council for further action. Most projects identified are likely to be programmed after 2015. Figure 7.10 – Project Areas

165



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.4 - Downtown Projects

ID #

Project Name

D-1

2nd Street Gap

Project Limits

D-2

2 Ave and Marquette Ave

D-3

3rd Avenue Bikeway

D-4

5th/6th Street Bikeways

D-5

13th Ave Gap

D-6

Downtown Bike Lane Cleanup

D-7

Dunwoody Blvd Trail

D-8

Groveland Ave/ Pillsbury Ave Bikeway

Hennepin Ave to Marquette 2nd Street to 12th Street Mississippi River to 24th Street 5th Avenue to 11th Avenue 2nd Street to West River Parkway 9th St, Portland Ave, 10th St, 11th St, 12th St Lyndale Avenue to Cedar Lake Trail Lyndale Ave to Franklin Ave

D-9

Harmon Bike Lanes

Loring Park to 9th Street

Hennepin Avenue Extension Loring Bikeway Extension

10th Street to Lyndale Avenue I-94 Ramp to Lyndale Avenue Bridge 9 to 11th to 13th Avenue 11th Avenue to 19th Avenue Loring Park to 12th Street

nd

D-10

D-11

D-12

U of M Trail Extension

D-13

Washington Avenue Gap

D-14

Yale Bikeway

Total

Length (FT)

On-Street or OffStreet

Corridor, Spot, or Systemwide

Opportunity or StandAlone Project

900

Both

Corridor

Stand-Alone

10,380

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

9,023

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

10,410

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

970

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

12,865

On-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

2,900

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,760

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,600

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,700

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

500

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,200

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,130

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

1,200

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

59,538 ft (11.3 miles)

166



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.5 - North Minneapolis Projects

ID #

Project Name

N-1

8th Ave N Bikeway

N-2

16th Ave N Bikeway

N-3

26th Avenue North Trail

N-4

33rd Ave Bike Blvd

N-5

37th Avenue North

N-6

49th Ave N Trail

N-7 N-8 N-9

N-10

N-11

N-12

N-13

53rd Avenue Bikeway Bryant Avenue Bike Lanes Camden Bridge Approaches Humboldt Ave Bike Blvd/ Greenway Golden Valley Road Bikeway Irving Bike Boulevard/ Greenway Knox Avenue Bike Boulevard

N-14

Luce Line Extension

N-15

Lyndale Ave Bike Lane

Length (FT)




5,040

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

On-Street

Corridor

10,760

Off-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,850

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,305

On-Street

Corrdior

Stand-Alone

5,065

Off-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

6,700

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

5,720

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

Camden Bridge

1,225

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

33rd Ave N to 44th Ave N

7,440

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

6,490

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

12,246

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,839

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

3,515

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

5,400

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

Project Limits Luce Line to Van White Trail Penn Avenue to Lyndale Ave Wirth Parkway to Mississippi River Victory Parkway to 3rd Street Queen to Xerxes Osseo Road to Humboldt Avenue Penn Avenue to I-94 45th Ave to 53rd Ave

City Limits to Emerson Avenue Olson Highway to 33rd Ave N Olson Hwy to Glenwood Ave Plymouth Avenue to Hwy 55 41st Ave N to 49th Ave N

4,820

167

Stand-Alone



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.5 - North Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name

N-16

Oak Park Bike Boulevard

N-17

Osseo Road Trail

N-18

Queen Avenue North Bikeway

N-19

Penn Avenue Bikeway

N-20 N-21

Ryan Lake Trail Thomas Avenue Bike Boulevard

N-22

Upper River Trails

N-23

Webber Parkway Bike Lane

N-24

West Broadway

Total

Project Limits Luce Line to Irving Avenue Ryan Lake Trail to 49th Ave N 49th Avenue North to 53rd Avenue North I-394 Frontage Road to 44th Avenue Ryan Lake to Osseo Road Oak Park Blvd to 42nd Avenue BNSF Bridge to Camden Bridge Humboldt Avenue to Lyndale Avenue Golden Valley Road to Mississippi River

Length (FT)




5,025

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,580

Off-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

2,560

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

23,720

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

2,600

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

15,865

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

16,130

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,275

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

5,238

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

162,408 ft (30.8 miles)

Above: Construction equipment along the RiverLake Greenway. 168



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.6 - Northeast Minneapolis Projects

ID #

Project Name

th

NE-1

4 St S

NE-2

4th St SE

NE-3

4th St SE

NE-4

5th Avenue NE

NE-5

5th Street NE Bike Lanes

NE-6

18th Ave NE Trail

NE-7

27th Ave Bike Bridge

NE-8

27th Ave NE Trail

NE-9

29th Ave Bike Blvd

NE10

33rd Ave Bikeway

NE11

37th Avenue NE Bike Lanes

NE12

BNSF Corridor

NE13

Bottineau Trail

NE14

Cedar Lake Trail Bridge

NE15

Church Street Bike Lanes

NE16

Emerald Bikeway

NE17

Grand Rounds Missing Link

Project Limits 19th Ave to West River Pkwy 1st Ave NE to Oak Street 25th Ave SE to City Limits Main St to 5th St NE Columbia Parkway to 37th Ave NE Washington Street NE to Stinson Blvd 27th Ave N Mississippi River to Central Ave NE Central Avenue to Stinson Blvd Central Avenue to Stinson Blvd Main Street NE to Stinson Blvd Mississippi River Marshall Street to 27th Ave NE Mississippi River Bridge Washington Ave to U of M Trail University Ave to Franklin Ave Elm to City Limits

Length (FT)




2,146

On-Street

Corridor

Both

4,980

On-Street

Corridor

Both

4,800

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,795

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,930

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,790

Off-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

1,040

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

5,400

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

5,300

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

5,300

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,526

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,780

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

8,935

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,790

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,660

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

1,232

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

10,650

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

169



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.6 - Northeast Minneapolis Projects

ID #

Project Name

NE18 NE19 NE20

Hennepin Ave Bike Lane Hennepin Bike Bridge Kasota Bike Lanes

NE21

Marshall Street Bike Lanes

NE22

Minneapolis Diagonal Pavement Renovation

NE23

Pleasant Ave SE

NE24

Spring Street Bikeway

NE25

Stinson Blvd

NE26

University Avenue Bike Lanes

NE27

Upper River Trails

NE28


Total

Project Limits Central to City Limits Hennepin Ave NE Elm to City Limits 37th Avenue to Broadway Avenue City Limits to Broadway, 18th Ave NE to Hennepin Washington Ave to Pillsbury Ave 5th Street NE to Johnson 37th Ave NE to NE Diagonal TCF Stadium to 27th Ave NE Boom Island to Camden Bridge LRT Trail to Washington Avenue Bridge

Length (FT)




11,975

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

1,080

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

3,775

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

13,688

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

11,725

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

1,542

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

5,110

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

10,955

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

2,515

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

13,475

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

3,025

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

162,919 (30.9 miles)

Above: Construction equipment along the RiverLake Greenway. 170



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.7 - Southwest Minneapolis Projects

ID #

SW-1 SW-2

Project Name 24th Street South Bikeway 31st Street Bikeway

SW-3

35th/36th Street Bikeway

SW-4

36th Street Bikeway

SW-5 SW-6 SW-7 SW-8 SW-9 SW10

42nd Street Bike Lanes 46th Street Bikeway 49th St Bike Boulevard 50th Street Bike Lanes 54th Street/ Diamond Lake Bikeway 58th/60th Bikeway

SW11

Cedar Lake Parkway Trail Reconstruction

SW12

Cedar Lake Trail Reconstruction

SW13

Douglas Ave Bikeway

SW14

Ewing Avenue Bikeway

SW15

Excelsior Blvd Bike Lanes

SW16

France Ave Bike Lanes

Project Limits Hennepin to I35W Lake Calhoun to I-35W Bryant Avenue to I35W Richfield Road to Bryant Ave Lake Harriet to I-35W Lake Harriet to I-35W France to Nicollet France to I35W Penn to I-35W City Limits to Nicollet Wirth Parkway to Kenilworth Trail Highway 100 to Royalston Avenue Kenwood Parkway to Hennepin Ave 22nd Street to Cedar Lake Parkway City Limits to Dean Pakway 54th to Excelsior Blvd

Length (FT)




6,190

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

7,965

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

7,000

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

2,770

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

6,090

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

6,060

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

13,233

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

14,245

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,790

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

11,120

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,320

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

18,986

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

5,305

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,013

On-Street

Corridor

Both

4,518

On-Street

Corridor

Both

12,885

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

171



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.7 - Southwest Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name

Project Limits

SW17

Franklin Avenue Bike Lane

Logan Ave to I-35W

SW18

Fremont Avenue Ramp

SW19

Irving Bikeway

SW20

Kenwood Parkway

SW21

Kenilworth Trail Reconstruction

SW 22

Lake of the Isles Routes

SW 23 SW24

Lake Street

SW26 SW27

Linden Hills Signed Routes Midtown Greenway Renovation (Includes Security System Upgrades) Nicollet Ave Bike Lane Penn Ave Bike Bridge

SW28

Pleasant Avenue Ramp

SW29

Pleasant Avenue Bike Blvd/ Greenway

SW25

Midtown Greenway Ramp at Fremont 58th to Minnehaha Parkway Loring Bikeway to Lake of the Isles Cedar Lake Trail to the Midtown Greenway 21st St, Irving, Dean, 24th St, and Logan Ave City Limits to Dean Parkway 38th St, 42nd St, 47th St

Chowen Avenue to 5th Avenue

40th St to City Limits Penn Ave LRT Station Midtown Greenway Ramp at Pleasant Franklin to Minnehaha Creek

Length (FT)




8,815

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

400

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

5,367

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,875

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

8,545

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

16,148

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,756

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

11,183

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

13,728

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

14,879

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

500

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

400

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

20,246

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

172



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.7 - Southwest Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name

SW30

Soo Line Trail

SW31 SW32 SW33 Total

Upton/ Sheridan Bikeway William Berry Trail Reconstruction Zenith Ave Bikeway

Project Limits Minnehaha Parkway to City Limits 54th to Richfield Road Lake Harriet to Lake Calhoun 54th to Lake Calhoun

Length (FT)




27,020

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand Alone

10,945

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

2,223

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

12,200

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

299,750 ft (56.7 miles)

Above: Construction equipment along the RiverLake Greenway.

173



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.8 - South Minneapolis Projects

ID #

Project Name

S-1

10th Avenue Bikeway

S-2

12th Ave Bike Blvd

S-3

17th Bike Blvd

S-4

21st Ave Bike Route

S-5

29th Ave Bike Route

S-6 S-7

28th Street/Dorman Bikeway 31st Street Bikeway

S-8

11th Ave Trail

S-9

32nd Street Bike Blvd

S-10

35th and 36th Street

S-11

38th Ave Bike Route

S-12

38th Street Bikeway

S-13

42nd Street Bike Lanes

S-14 S-15 S-16

46th Ave Bikeway 46th Street Bike Lane 46th Street Bike Lane

Project Limits 24th Street to 31st Street Minnehaha Parkway to 60th St Franklin Avenue to Minnehaha Parkway Midtown Greenway to 40th Street Franklin Avenue to Minnehaha Minnehaha Ave to 46th Ave I-35W to 20th Avenue Andersen School to Powderhorn Park 20th Avenue to West River Parkway Bryant Ave to Bloomington Ave 28th Street to 42nd Street Bloomington to West River Pkwy Lake Harriet to Nokomis Avenue Dorman to 46th I-35W to Cedar Ave Minnehaha Ave to City Limits

Length (FT)




4,560

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

6,460

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

15,695

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

9,830

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

7,370

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

7,392

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

16,390

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

2,632

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

7,302

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

9,920

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

9,125

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

12,632

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

24,609

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

10,762

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

7,100

On-Street

Corridor

Both

3,310

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

174



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.8 - South Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name

S-17

50th Street Bikeway

S-18

54th Bikeway

S-19

60th Street/ Cedar Frontage Road Bike Lanes

S-20

Bloomington Bikeway

S-21

Bloomington Avenue Ramp

S-22 S-23 S-24 S-25

S-26

S-27 S-28

Chicago Ave Bike Lanes Diamond Lake Road Bike Lanes Edgewater Blvd Franklin Avenue Bike Lanes Hiawatha Trail East Hiawatha Trail Lighting Lake Hiawatha Trail

S-29

LRT Station Area Improvements

S-30

LRT Trail Gap

Length (FT)




1,470

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

3,850

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

8,764

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

20,950

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

400

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

9,269

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

I-35W to Portland Ave

2,015

On-Street

Corridor

Both

54th St to Cedar Ave

2,570

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

I-35W to Minnehaha

6,459

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

13,011

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

-

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

9,250

Off-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

-

On-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

5,882

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

Project Limits I-35W to Minnehaha Parkway Portland Ave to Bloomington Ave Nicollet Avenue to Lake Nokomis Franklin Avenue to 54th Street Located at the Midtown Greenway 46th Street to 60th Street

32nd Street to 46th Street on the east side of Hiawatha 11th Avenue to 28th Street Around Lake Hiawatha Improvements to/from Cedar Riverside, Franklin, Lake, 38th, 46th, and 50th Street Stations 28th Street to 32nd Street

175



7.2.12 Infrastructure Project List - Continued Table 7.8 - South Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name

Project Limits

S-31

Midtown Greenway Renovation (Includes Security System Upgrades)

5th Avenue to Mississippi River

S-32

MG Bridge over the River

S-33

MG Bloomington Ramp

S-34

Nokomis Bikeway

S-35

Nokomis Signed Routes

S-36

Oakland Bike Lane

S-37

Portland Ave Bike Lanes

Midtown Greenway Bridge over the Mississippi River Midtown Greenway Ramp at Bloomington 42nd Street to 50th Street 31st Ave S, 43rd Ave S, 54th St E, 56th St E Bikeway Franklin to Minnehaha Parkway Minnehaha Creek to City Limits

Total

Length (FT)




13,728

Off-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

2,242

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

400

Off-Street

Spot

Stand-Alone

5,210

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

5,611

On-Street

StandAlone

Opportunity

20,240

On-Street

Corridor

Stand-Alone

8,340

On-Street

Corridor

Opportunity

281,022 ft (53.2 miles)

Above: Bicyclists near Lake Harriet.

176


7.3


Infrastructure Prioritization

7.3.1. Criteria—In order to ensure fairness, striving for a citywide system approach, and to focus on projects suitable for the bicycle program, the proposed criteria have been developed to help the BAC with reviewing stand-alone projects, ranking the projects, and advising the city on what projects to submit funding requests for. The criteria support each of the 3 goals in Chapter 6. Goal #1 – Increase bicycle mode share: • Numbers/trips: Is the project expected to increase the number of people bicycling and/or increase the number of trips taken by bicycle? • Travel Demand: Does the project meet or help create a demand for bicycling in population and employment concentrations, with a focus on high trip generation areas? Is the project anticipated to serve travel needs in all seasons? Goal #2 – Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable: • Safety, Appeal: Does the project provide a safer and more appealing alternative to what currently exists in a given corridor? Goal #3 – Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle: • Barriers/Gaps: Does the proposed project supplement the existing bicycle system by removing barriers and closing system gaps? • Geographic Equity: Does the proposed project supplement the existing bicycle system by removing barriers and closing system gaps? • Demographic Equity: Does the proposed project serve populations with lower than average rates of bicycling? Considerations will include race/ethnicity, class, gender and age. • Regional Benefit: Does the project connect Minneapolis to surrounding communities and facilitate the ability to take longer trips by bicycle? • Access to Popular Destinations: Does the project provide bicycle access to popular destinations such as schools, parks, and public spaces (such as museums, theatres, community centers, government buildings, and shopping districts)?

Above: A bicyclist using bike lanes on Roseway Road 177


7.3.1


Criteria (Continued) Additional Criteria • Timeliness: Is the project timely and will it be ready for construction in the funding cycle? Timeliness will depend on external factors such as redevelopment projects, street reconstructions, availability of external funds and timelines from funding sources. Project readiness will depend on internal factors such as planning, design, right-of-way acquisition, and City funding. • Cost Effectiveness: Is the project cost effective? How much will each project cost, how many users will it benefit and what level of safety and convenience benefit will it provide to users? Are the operations and maintenance responsibilities defined? Are there differences between projects in the ability to maintain the facility over time? Does the project leverage funding from external sources? • Adopted Plan: Is the project part of an approved regional, city, agency or neighborhood plan? • Public Support: Has there been or is there public outreach planned for the project? What is the level of community support for the project? • Innovation: Does the project allow the City to pilot a new approach or design element to improve safety, comfort and/or accessibility that is not currently used in Minneapolis? Does the project incorporate a successful approach that has been tried in other cities but not used in Minneapolis?

Above: Stone Arch Bridge 178


7.3.2


Bicycle Functional Classification—Bicycle functional classification can be used as a tool to help prioritize stand-alone bikeway projects. Many of the qualifying and prioritizing criteria including system connectivity, travel demand, cost effectiveness, operations/maintenance, regional benefit, regional equity, and access to destinations can be graphically portrayed. By assigning designations for every bikeway in the 2010 Bikeways Master Plan, limited resources can be applied appropriately. Modeled after roadway functional classification, corridors within each travelshed are assigned as arterial bikeways, collector bikeways, and neighborhood bikeways. It is important not to confuse roadway functional classification with bicycle functional classification as many arterial bikeways are located on collector streets and some collector bikeways are located along minor arterial roads. Travelsheds: Travelsheds are geographic zones that are bound by significant barriers such as freeways, rivers, and railroads. Travelsheds are oriented to fan out from Downtown Minneapolis like slices of pie. Travelsheds ensure that all parts of the city are treated equally and that the bikeway network maximizes mobility/accessibility. Arterial Bikeways: Arterial bikeways have regional significance and attract the highest numbers of bicyclists. Principal arterial bikeways are like freeways with grade separation corridors and faster speeds. Principal arterial bikeways should be spaced about 2 miles apart with minor arterial bikeways spaced 1 mile apart. It is also important that each travelshed include at least one arterial bikeway. Ideally arterial bikeways should form a spider web throughout the city, crossing travelsheds and becoming the spine for the bikeway network. Since different types of bikeways accommodate different bicyclists’ needs, there may be situations where arterial bikeways are located on two parallel routes within close proximity. Due to limited resources, the strategy is to maintain arterial routes at a high standard, but give lesser attention to collector and neighborhood bikeways. Collector Bikeways: Collector bikeways feed into arterial bikeways similar to how smaller rivers flow into larger ones. Collector bikeways should be spaced about 1/2 mile apart to capture bicyclists in every part of the city. Neighborhood Bikeways: Neighborhood bikeways feed into collector routes and can be found in just about every neighborhood. Neighborhood bikeways are intended to provide local connections and are not eligible for regional funding.

Above: Lake Calhoun is a popular place to bike on nice days. 179



Figure 7.11 - Bicycle Functional Classification

180



7.4

Non-Infrastructure Initiatives

7.4.1

Non-Infrastructure Initiatives - In addition to the selected initiatives identified in Chapter 6, there are a number of new initiatives that have been identified in each of the six “E” categories.

7.4.2

Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Education) Below are some moderate to high cost/high benefit education initiatives that are likely to result in higher bicycle mode share and increased safety: • Create radio and television public service announcements. Topics could include bicycle Above: One of the Bicycle and helmet safety, sharing the road, and following Pedestrian Ambassadors helps a student with a bike. bicycling laws. (ED-8) • Use utility bill inserts to reach residents. (ED-9) • Purchase on-line advertising space. (ED-10) • Rent local billboards to send messages to both bicyclists and motorists pertaining to bicycle safety and following the rules of the road. (ED-11) • Hire a marketing firm to help promote bicycling and bicycle safety. (ED-12) Below are some low cost/high benefit education initiatives: • Work with local television stations and newspapers to run stories on biking. Topics can vary widely from bicycle safety to tourism. Using local media outlets is perhaps the best way to reach the highest number of people with the least amount of money. (ED-13) • Support on-line tools such as Cyclopath that help bicyclists plan their trip. Cyclopath also features the ability for bicyclists to share real-time information about bike routes with other bicyclists. (ED-14) • Work with local businesses and neighborhood groups to distribute free educational materials at point of sale. Businesses could sponsor an educational initiative or may even offer discounts or promotions to those who bike. For example, Minneapolis Police officers have distributed coupons for free ice cream to kids when they spot good bicycling behavior such as wearing a helmet. A local restaurant sponsored the promotion. (ED-15) • Support programs such as earn-a-bike where teens learn how to work on donated bikes and are rewarded with a bike of their own. (ED-16) • Create videos for educational purposes. Topics could vary widely from videos on bicycle commuting tips to bicycle safety videos. It is recommended that bicycle education videos be conducted in Spanish, Somali, and Hmong to reach the majority of non-English speakers in Minneapolis. (ED-17) • Expand the number of bicycle rodeos throughout the city. Many bicycle friendly cities have created obstacle courses or “street skills bicycle education areas” to teach young bicyclists how to interact with traffic before actually biking on the streets. These could be placed at several school playgrounds or parks throughout the city. (ED-18)

181


7.4.3


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Encouragement) —Encouragement initiatives can often provide quick results at minimal cost. Nonprofit groups, neighborhood groups, and volunteers often take the lead with encouragement related initiatives. Below are some low cost/high benefit encouragement initiatives that may result in higher Above: A booth at an event bicycle mode share and increased safety: • Have a bicycle kit giveaway including a bike light, patch kit, and local bike map. (ENC-7) • Encourage bicycle commuting contests between businesses or schools. (ENC-8) • Encourage more contests with a bicycle theme. (ENC-9) • Encourage employers to conduct commuter fairs. (ENC-10) • Implement Ciclovia, where streets are closed to motorized vehicles on Sundays and opened up to non-motorized users. (ENC-11) • Provide U-Lock discounts through a 50/50 public-private partnership. A bicyclist gets a bike lock 50% off and the remaining 50% is funded through grants or corporate sponsorships. (ENC-12) • Promote a membership club similar to AAA where a bicyclist pays an annual fee to have access to basic maintenance services at local bicycle shops. For an increased fee a bicycle repair maintenance crew could be sent to either pick up a bicyclist or repair the bike on-site. (ENC-13) • Continue to improve the City of Minneapolis bicycle program website. The website includes a calendar of events, maps, safety tips, and project updates. • Expand bike to work activities/incentives. (ENC-14) • Encourage youth to participate in bike trips abroad through private scholarships. (ENC-15) • Start an amateur bike race for the general public. This can be done as part of the existing June racing events on a closed course and could include cash and prizes (from corporate and private sources) for the top racers. (ENC-16) • Create a children's bike map. (ENC-17) • Commission a public art mural with a bicycle theme. There are currently a handful of bicycle murals on private property throughout the city. (ENC-18) • Pursue a BAC exchange where members travel to other cities to learn about bicycle infrastructure. (ENC-19) • Continue bicycle giveaways. In the past, Bicycling Magazine and Shimano partnered in the Bike Town program where bicycles were given away to dozens of local residents who committed to riding a bike. (ENC-20) • City and county employees could use a fleet of bicycles to conduct work that is currently done using a motor vehicle. The city could contract with Nice Ride Minnesota to use bicycles to conduct their business. (ENC-21)

182


7.4.4


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Enforcement) —Below are some low cost/high benefit initiatives that will result in higher bicycle mode share and increased safety: • Expand the bike bait program to deter thieves. Modeled after the DNR program to catch deer poachers, a high quality bike is cable locked to a bike rack. When a thief clips the cable, officers are waiting to apprehend the individual. Cameras are often used to document the crime and for prosecution. (ENF-5) • When a bicyclist is pulled over by officers for not having a bicycle light, first time offenders should be given a warning and a complimentary bike light. Other bicycle law offenses should also result in the distribution of educational literature. (ENF-6) • Multiple bicycle law offenses (by either bicyclists or drivers) should result in having to take a bicycle safety education course. Coordination between the city and the courts would be needed to ensure success. (ENF-7) • Encourage officers to patrol trails by bicycle instead of by squad car. (ENF-8) • Increase the cost of a ticket for moving violations pertaining to bicycle laws (for both bicyclists and drivers). (ENF-9) • Work with the Minneapolis Police Department, U of M Police Department, and MPRB Police to establish a program where all precincts have officers patrolling the streets by bicycle. Currently only a couple of precincts use bicycle officers on a regular basis. (ENF-10) • Expand Police Department involvement in the Safe Routes to School program. Officers can play an integral role in the education of children, especially when trying to install good habits at a young age. Grant funding could be secured to supplement the Police budget. (ENF-11) • Utilize the Downtown Improvement District (DID) employees to combat bicycle theft and to help educate the public about bicycle laws. (ENF-12) • Work with the local truck unions, shipping handlers, and postal employees to reduce the amount of stopping/parking in bicycle lanes. Currently much of this behavior is tolerated by the police and is not enforced. (ENF-13) • Create targeted enforcement and educational initiatives that focus on specific bicycle law violations including riding a bicycle on a sidewalk in a commercial district, motorists not abiding by the 3-foot passing law, riding a bicycle without a light at night, motorists parked/stopped in bike lanes, and vehicles speeding along corridors with marked bicycle lanes. (ENF-14) • Expand the citizen watch patrol program along the Midtown Greenway and LRT Trail where Police officers work directly with residents to monitor trails. Residents who volunteer in shifts would be given the training and tools to help prevent assaults/robberies. Watch volunteers could also be trained in first-aid and could be trained in conflict resolution. The perception that Minneapolis trails are not safe is a huge barrier for many who are contemplating bicycling as a mode of transportation. (ENF-15)

183


7.4.5


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Engineering) – Below are some ideas for systematic improvements within the city: • Several trail crossings need crosswalk improvements, signals improvements, and curb cut improvements. All trail crossings need to be Above: Bike Racks at the evaluated. Trail crossings in need of correction Green Institute could be systematically improved. (ENG-13) • Add bicycle curb cuts to all existing cul-de-sacs and diverters. (ENG-14) • Replace manhole covers and storm sewer grates. (ENG-15) • Install shared use pavement markings (sharrows) and wayfinding signage on all corridors that have been identified on the Bikeways Master Plan Map as on-street routes. There are several corridors that have been identified for future bike lanes, but existing conditions will not allow them. Installing sharrows as a temporary measure (until bike lanes can be installed as part of a reconstruction project) will help improve safety and mode share. (ENG-16) Below are some spot improvement ideas: • Implement crash reduction program where individual intersections with high numbers of bicycle crashes are evaluated and needed countermeasures implemented. A top 10 list is used to prioritize spot improvements. (ENG-17) • Continue the Bikeways Cleanup Project, which corrects substandard bicycle facilities at specific locations. Add wayfinding kiosks at the intersection of two regional trails and at trail access points. (ENG-18) Below are some moderate to high cost/high benefit ideas that will result in higher bicycle mode share and increased safety: • Create a network of “greenways” or “green streets” where roadways are converted to bicycle and pedestrian only corridors. Milwaukee Avenue is a good example of this concept. “Greenway” corridors may be constructed in collaboration with stormwater management projects. Care must be taken to ensure that the street grid is not severely compromised. (ENG-19) • Continue to expand the network of “bicycle boulevards”, which are traffic calmed streets that give preference to bicycles and pedestrians. (ENG-20) • Complete the regional trail system in Minneapolis. Although most of the regional system is complete, there are still several projects that are needed in North Minneapolis, Northeast Minneapolis, and south of Minnehaha Parkway. There are also a handful of trail projects that connect to surrounding first ring suburbs. As the arterial trail system is completed, attention needs to shift to completing the on-street bikeway system. Increasing the density of both onstreet and off-street bicycle facilities is a commonly used strategy amongst bike friendly cities to create higher bicycle mode share and increased safety. To conserve on capital and maintenance funding, it has been determined that trails should be installed at a 2 mile spacing interval and on-street bike lanes should be installed at a 1 mile spacing interval. (ENG-21)

184


7.4.5


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Engineering) Continued • • •

•

Expand the bike share program to include kiosk locations throughout the entire city. (ENG-22) Increase preventative maintenance for trails and improve maintenance along streets with bicycle facilities, especially in winter. (ENG-23) Above: Midtown Greenway at 5th Avenue Continue to evaluate infrastructure needs and implement infrastructure improvements around schools as part of the Safe Routes to School Initiative. (ENG-24) Encourage private developers to construct a bike station in Downtown Minneapolis. (ENG-25)

Low cost/high benefit initiatives can often be implemented more quickly than more expensive initiatives that usually require more coordination Above: Hennepin Avenue and fundraising. Below are some additional low Bridge cost/high benefit ideas that will result in higher bicycle mode share and increased safety: • Explore “green wave” corridors where signals along major bike routes are timed based on the speed of a bicycle instead of motor vehicle speeds. (ENG-26) • Install bike racks at all schools, parks, and public buildings that do not have them. Replace old or dysfunctional racks. (ENG-27) • The 50/50 cost share program for bicycle racks. adds hundreds of bicycle parking spaces per year in front of businesses, churches, and neighborhood offices. Continue to allow creative/artistic styles to be placed in the public Above: Lowry Avenue North right-of-way. (ENG-28) • Ensure that bicycle lanes are considered as part of reconstruction (entire rightof-way is improved) project per the Bikeways Master Plan Map. Renovation (mill and overlay) projects may also present opportunities for adding bicycle facilities. (ENG-29) • Continue to work with all transit providers to ensure that all transit vehicles have bike racks, especially with opt-out providers. (ENG-30) • Replace non-conforming signs and pavement markings. (ENG-31) • Implement bicycle detour routes and install wayfinding signage and/or a trail bypass when a corridor is under construction. (ENG-32)

185


7.4.6


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Equity) To ensure geographic equity, the following areas have been targeted for improvement: • Regional trail connections are lacking in North Minneapolis, NE Minneapolis, and south of Minnehaha Parkway. (EQ-4) • Expand the bike share program beyond Downtown, Uptown, and U of M. (EQ-5) To ensure demographic equity, the following areas have been targeted for improvement: • Create cycling programs for children and seniors. (EQ-6) • The ratio of men to women cyclists is currently 2:1. Projects and initiatives need to consider how to remove bicycling barriers for women. (EQ-7) • Making bicycling appealing for minority communities, especially for those whose primary language is not English. (EQ-8) To ensure modal equity the following areas have been targeted for improvement: • All street reconstruction projects and improvements in the public right-of-way need to consider how to accommodate bicycles per the Bikeways Master Plan Map. (EQ-9) • The public and elected officials need to be presented with various trade-offs when deciding upon a roadway cross-section. (EQ-10)

Above: 49th Avenue North Trail 186


7.4.7


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives (Evaluation) • • • • •

• • •

•

• •

Monitor the number of students biking to school at all schools throughout the city. (EV-11) Count the number of bicyclists using parkways and parkway trails. (EV-12) Continue to conduct bicycle parking counts in on a quarterly basis. (EV-13) Create more opportunities for public suggestions. Advertise 311 to bicyclists. (EV-14) Continue Results Minneapolis and Sustainability Reporting. Miles of trails, miles of bicycle lanes, and number of crashes are currently monitored and evaluated. (EV-15) Continue to work with Colleges/Universities to conduct research projects. (EV-16) Work with other agencies to install and evaluate innovative bicycle treatments. (EV-17) Work with other agencies to determine systemwide crash trends and create a combined strategy to reduce crashes including the Toward Above: Nicollet Mall Zero Deaths initiative. (EV-18) Work with local hospitals and emergency rooms to track the type and severity of bicycle injuries. Local hospitals may be able to help educate the public about preventing injuries and may have resources to help with these efforts. (EV-19) Obtain insurance data to supplement police reports to better monitor property damage. (EV-20) Perform bicycle counts at all local Colleges and Universities including MCAD, Minneapolis Community Technical College, Dunwoody Institute, Augsburg College, Capella University, and the University of St. Thomas. The University of Minnesota is the destination for 25% of all bicyclists in the city. The U of M count program should also be expanded. (EV-21)

Above: Shaun Murphy and his dog Jefferson 187


7.5

Non-Infrastructure Prioritization

7.5.1

Criteria – The criteria for non-infrastructure initiatives are similar to infrastructure project criteria, but focus on program initiatives and not facilities. The criteria support each of the 3 goals in Chapter 6. Goal #1 – Increase bicycle mode share: • Numbers of people impacted: How many people does the initiative serve? • Behavior change: Can people relate to the message? Will the initiative result in more people riding a bicycle and fewer people driving alone?


Above: Sidewalk marking in Uptown

Goal #2 – Bicycling in Minneapolis is safe and comfortable: • Safety, Appeal: Will the initiative result in fewer crashes, injuries, and fatalities? Will people take the message seriously? • Behavior change: Does the initiative provide a positive message that promotes bicycle safety? Is the message effective enough to change habits? Goal #3 – Destinations in Minneapolis are reasonably accessible by bicycle: • Targeted marketing: Does the initiative affectively reach out to the targeted group? Are there targeted groups or geographic areas inadvertently left out? • Behavior change: Will the initiative result in better accessibility to information? Will the message be remembered or forgotten? Additional Criteria: • Timeliness: Is the initiative timely based on community need and political will? Bicycle initiatives need to be ready to take advantage of funding when it becomes available. • Cost Effectiveness: Is the initiative cost effective? How many people does the initiative reach for the money spent? Does the initiative leverage funding from external sources? • Adopted Plan: Is the initiative part of an approved regional, city, agency or neighborhood plan? • Public Support: Has there been or is there public outreach planned for the initiative? What is the level of community support for the initiative? • Innovation: Does the initiative allow the City to try something different? Does the initiative incorporate a successful approach that has been tried in other cities but not used in Minneapolis?

188

Chapter 8- Funding and Implementation Strategies


Chapter 8 - Introduction 8.1

Chapter Overview

8.1.1

Discussion—The Minneapolis Bicycle Program has had tremendous success in attracting new bicyclists and reducing the bicycle crash rate. Past bicycle program success has been due in large part to the cooperation of public agencies including the U of M, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Three Rivers Park District, MnDOT, and Hennepin County in addition to the work of several non-profit groups advocating for bicycle funding, community Above: Public art along the involvement, and good urban design. Midtown Greenway

To date, the bicycle program strategy has been to focus on arterial trails first with on-street connections to the arterials second. This strategy has produced significant results in terms of attracting new bicyclists and providing popular routes that are separated from motor vehicles. Significant federal investment through the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot (NTP) Program has supplemented the existing capital budget, resulting in several miles of new trails, bike lanes, and bicycle boulevards. From 2000 to 2009, total bikeway mileage in the city increased from 95.5 miles to 127.8 miles, contributing to bicycle commute work trips doubling from 1.9% in 2000 to 3.8% in 2009 based on Census statistics. In terms of capital funding, over $50 million was spent between 2000 and 2009. Over $284 million worth of bicycle projects have been identified in this plan ($134 million total excluding the Grand Rounds completion) in addition to $3 million dollars worth of non-infrastructure initiatives. If all of the projects listed in this plan are to be completed by 2040, then $9.8 million per year will need to be secured to keep pace with that goal. When completed, $1.8 million will be required on an annual basis to operate and maintain the bikeway system. An additional $2.6 million per year will be needed to implement all of the suggested non-infrastructure initiatives. The pace in which bicycle projects and initiatives can realistically be implemented in the future will be based on available funding. Current economic conditions have resulted in revenue reductions, which have presented difficult choices for local communities, including Minneapolis. State cuts in Local Government Aid have resulted in significant maintenance budget reductions. These budget challenges present an opportunity to re-evaluate project/initiative priorities and to pursue innovative funding arrangements. Many of the initiatives listed in this plan are intended to be funded with private dollars and not funded with public dollars. Although there are many benefits to bicycling (including personal health, air quality, reduced congestion, reduced traffic damage to roadways, reduced expenditures on motor vehicles/fuel, increased livability, and increased bicyclerelated tourism), this chapter will focus on the costs.

189


8.1.1


Discussion – Continued The implementation of this plan will include the funding and construction of a variety of new bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, and trails. The cost for these projects varies widely depending on whether they are completed independently or in coordination with other maintenance and reconstruction efforts. Acquisition costs, engineering challenges, or unanticipated conditions may drive the budget for a project beyond what was originally projected. The list below gives a general sense for the cost to Above: 18th Ave NE Trail in implement various types of infrastructure: winter • • •

Off-street Trails – Approximately. $3 million/mile Bicycle Boulevards – Approximately $100,000 - $500,000 per mile Bike lanes – Approximately. $30,000 - $50,000 per mile

Each type of infrastructure has advantages and disadvantages. For example, bike lanes can be implemented quicker and cheaper than trails. Although off-street trails take longer to plan and cost more, trails appeal to a broader range of people and can function as bicycle freeways. This chapter examines funding and implementation strategies that pertain to both capital and maintenance programs. The goals/objectives/benchmarks in Chapter 6 will only be met if the resources to pursue them are identified. Much of this chapter focuses on the identification of existing funding sources for both infrastructure projects and non-infrastructure initiatives.

8.2

Capital Program Funding

8.2.1

Infrastructure Funding Sources—Many infrastructure funding sources require a local match or have other conditions that go with the funding. It usually takes multiple funding sources to fully fund a bicycle infrastructure project. Some of the most common capital funding sources are: Federal Funding—Federal SAFETEA-LU Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds have been used to fund most major trail projects in Minneapolis. The program is administered by the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT. The Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council awards projects on a bi-annual schedule and MnDOT supervises project construction. Most federal STP and TE projects in the Twin Cities region require a 20% match plus design/engineering fees to be paid with local sources. Based on past projects it takes 65 cents of local money to match a dollar in federal funding when factoring in all project costs. Once a project is awarded funding it is programmed 5 years into the future for construction.

190



8.2.1. Infrastructure Funding Sources - (Continued) Federal Earmarks—In the past, members of Congress have been allowed to set aside funding for special projects in their district. It appears that this funding option has been terminated, however there is still discussion about restoring the practice in a more competitive manner. The Midtown Greenway, Cedar Lake Trail, and Martin Sabo Bridge have all received earmarks in the past. Federal One-Time Programs—The Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program and TIGER grants are two examples of recent federal programs that have appropriated significant funding toward bicycle projects in a number of cities. Rules on how to spend the funds vary widely and the funding opportunities typically do not reoccur. State Bonds—On a bi-annual basis, the State of Minnesota creates a bonding bill with specific projects and programs included. There is typically no funding match needed, however there may be other conditions applied to this funding by the legislature. DNR Funding—The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers a number of grant programs including the Local Trail Connections Program and Regional Trail Grant Program. The DNR administers yearly solicitations for projects to be built within a year of the award date. Legacy Funding—This new funding source was created when voters passed a sales tax referendum to improve the outdoors and the arts. There is a yearly solicitation for trails and the program is administered by the DNR. Net Debt Bonds—Net Debt Bonds are local property tax funds managed by the City of Minneapolis. Perhaps the most flexible of the capital funding sources listed, these funds can be used for a local construction match, for design and engineering fees, and internal overhead. Net Debt Bond projects are determined as part of the annual city budget process. Private and Corporate Donations—Private donation and corporate gifts can be accepted by the city for capital projects. These funds must be accepted by the City Council and Mayor. 8.2.2

Non-Infrastructure Funding Sources—There are several funding sources that are commonly used for education, enforcement, and encouragement initiatives in addition to infrastructure: Health Industry Funding—BCBS funding, HCMC. Bike Industry Funding—This funding is often used for encouragement projects.

191



8.2.2

Non-Infrastructure Funding Sources - Continued Safe Routes to School Funding—Federal funding that is passed through the states for education and infrastructure improvements. Many schools also dedicate staff time toward this effort. Private and Corporate Donations—Funding from individuals and businesses. Foundations and Industry Groups—Groups such as Bikes Belong and the McKnight Foundation often fund programming projects. Fundraisers—Bike rides and bike races make excellent fundraisers for noninfrastructure projects. NRP Funding—Neighborhood funds can be used for educational and enforcement initiatives.

8.3

Maintenance Funding

8.3.1

Funding Sources—There are not as many maintenance funding sources as there capital funding sources for bicycle projects. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board and City of Minneapolis currently maintain trails, streets, and parkways with operating dollars that come from state and local sources. To ensure adequate upkeep over the long term, the City should pursue dedicated sources for the maintenance of off-street trails.

8.4

Funding Matrix

8.4.1

Infrastructure Projects – The projects identified in Chapter 7 are further defined in the project matrix. Completing the Bikeways Master plan will add approximately 183 miles of bikeways at an estimated cost of $270 million (2011 dollars). The capital costs were estimated based on past project costs per mile and are based on known conditions. Typically it costs about $50,000 to stripe a bike lane, $100,000 per mile to install a bicycle boulevard, and $3,000,000 per mile to construct a trail. It currently costs $2 per linear foot to maintain a trail, bike boulevard, or bike lane. Maintenance costs include signage replacement, new pavement markings, sweeping, plowing snow, sand/salt applications, and minor pavement restoration. It is estimated that when the system is complete (357 miles of bikeways) it will cost $1,320,000 to maintain it on an annual basis. As can be seen in the project matrix, there are substantial costs to constructing and maintaining the proposed system. It will take at least 30 years to complete the bicycle network and considerable resources to properly maintain it. The project matrix identifies which agency will take the lead on project construction and which agency will need to maintain the facility when completed. Most routes will need to be maintained by Minneapolis Public Works or the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County also construct and maintain bicycle facilities within the city. It is also important to note that several existing trails will need to be resurfaced within the next 30 years. While the capital cost for those projects are shown, no new mileage will be created. Because of this, maintenance costs will not increase.

192


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.1 - Downtown Projects

ID #

Project Name

Estimated Capital Cost

D-1

2nd Street Gap

$300,000

D-2 D-3 D-4

2nd Ave and Marquette Ave 3rd Avenue Bikeway 5th/6th Street Bikeways

$50,000 $25,000 $25,000

Federal Grant/ Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds

Estimated Annual Operating Cost

Project Lead/ Facility Owner

Maintenance Responsibility

$1,800

City

MPRB

$20,760

City

City

$18,046

City

City

$20,820

City

City

$1,940

City

City

Existing bikeways-no additional cost.

City

City

D-5

13th Ave Gap

D-6

Downtown Bike Lane Cleanup

$25,000

City Net Debt Bonds

D-7

Dunwoody Blvd Trail

$1,000,000

Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds

$5,800

City

City

$15,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$5,520

City

City

$50,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$3,200

City

City

$25,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$5,400

City

City

$500,000


$5,400

City

City

$1,000,000

Federal Grant

$2,400

City

City

$4,260

City/ County

City/County

$2,400

City

City

D-8 D-9 D-10

D-11 D-12

Groveland Ave/ Pillsbury Ave Bikeway Harmon Bike Lanes Hennepin Avenue Extension Loring Bikeway Extension U of M Trail Extension

$5,000

Capital Funding Source

D-13


$25,000

D-14

Yale Bikeway

$10,000

Total

City Net Debt Bonds/ Hennepin County Funding City Net Debt Bonds

$3,055,000

$97,746

Above: Bicycle parking in Downtown Minneapolis 193


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.2 - North Minneapolis Projects

ID #

N-1 N-2

Project Name 8th Ave N Bikeway 16th Ave N Bikeway

Estimated Capital Cost $25,000 $25,000

Capital Funding Source City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds




$10,080

City

City

$9,640

City

City

$21,520

City

City

$17,700

City

City

$4,610

City

City

$10,130

City

City

$13,400

City

City

N-3

26th Avenue North Trail

$3,000,000

N-4

33rd Ave Bike Blvd

$250,000

N-5

37th Avenue North

$300,000

N-6

49th Ave N Trail

$1,500,000

N-7

53rd Avenue Bikeway

$25,000

N-8

Bryant Avenue Bike Lanes

$50,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$11,440

City

City

$500,000


$2,450

City

City

$3,100,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$14,880

City

City

$100,000

City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds

$12,980

City/ County

City/County

$1,200,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$22,140

City

City

$10,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$3,678

City

City

$7,030

City

City

$10,800

City

City

N-9

N-10

N-11

N-12

N-13

Camden Bridge Approaches Humboldt Ave Bike Blvd/ Greenway Golden Valley Road Bikeway Irving Bike Boulevard/ Greenway Knox Avenue Bike Boulevard

N-14

Luce Line Extension

$500,000

N-15

Lyndale Ave Bike Lane

$50,000

Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds

Above: A parked bicycle in Downtown Minneapolis 194


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects – Continued Table 8.2 - North Minneapolis Projects (Continued) Capital Funding Source




$10,050

City

City

$3,160

City/ County

City/ County

$5,120

City

City

$47,440

City/ County

City/ County

$5,200

City

City

ID #

Project Name


N-16

Oak Park Bike Boulevard

$100,000

N-17

Osseo Road Trail

$100,000

N-18

Queen Avenue North Bikeway

$10,000

N-19

Penn Avenue Bikeway

$100,000

N-20

Ryan Lake Trail

$250,000

N-21

Thomas Avenue Bike Boulevard

$50,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$31,730

City

City

N-22

Upper River Trails

$15,000,000

Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds/ Legacy

$32,260

MPRB

MPRB

N-23

Webber Parkway Bike Lane

$25,000

MPRB Funding

$4,550

MPRB

MPRB

N-24

West Broadway

$300,000

City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds

$10,476

City/ County

City/ County

Total

City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds

$26,570,000

$337,464

Above: Lowry Avenue North bike lanes 195


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects – Continued Table 8.3 - Northeast Minneapolis Projects

ID #

Project Name


NE-1

4th St S

$15,000

NE-2

4th St SE

$25,000

NE-3

4th St SE

$10,000

NE-4

5th Avenue NE

$5,000

NE-5

5th Street NE Bike Lanes

$10,000

NE-6

18th Ave NE Trail

$4,000,000

NE-7

27th Ave Bike Bridge

$5,000,000

NE-8

27th Ave NE Trail

$3,000,000

NE10

29th Ave Bike Blvd 33rd Ave Bikeway

NE11

37th Avenue NE Bike Lanes

$150,000

NE12

BNSF Corridor

$15,000,000

NE13

Bottineau Trail

$4,000,000

NE14

Cedar Lake Trail Bridge

$5,000,000

NE15 NE16

Church Street Bike Lanes Emerald Bikeway

NE-9

NE17

Grand Rounds Missing Link

$250,000 $75,000

$250,000 $10,000 $150,000,000 (includes trail, parkway construction, property acquisition, and new park)

Capital Funding Source City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Funding/ MPRB Funding

196

Estimated Annual Operating Cost $4,292 $9,960

Project Lead/ Facility Owner City/ MPRB City/ County

Maintenance Responsibility City/MPRB City/County

$9,600

City

City

$3,590

City

City

$3,860

City

City

$17,580

City

City

$2,080

City

City

$10,800

City

City

$10,600

City

City

$10,600

City

City

$17,052

City

City

$17,560

City

City

$17,870

City

City

$3,580

City

City

$3,320

City

City

$2,464

City

City

$21,300

MPRB

MPRB


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects – Continued Table 8.3 - Northeast Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name


NE18

Hennepin Ave Bike Lane

$300,000

NE19

Hennepin Bike Bridge

$6,000,000

NE20

Kasota Bike Lanes

$50,000

NE21

Marshall Street Bike Lanes

$250,000

NE22 NE23 NE24

Minneapolis Diagonal Pavement Renovation Pleasant Ave SE Spring Street Bikeway

$1,000,000

$25,000 $25,000

NE25

Stinson Blvd

$100,000

NE26

University Avenue Bike Lanes

$250,000

NE27

Upper River Trails

$10,000,000

NE28


$5,000,000

Total

Capital Funding Source City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds/Legacy City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds

$209,775,000




$23,950

City/ County

City/ County

$2,160

City

City

$7,550

City

City

$27,376

City/ County

City/ County

No additional cost

City

City

$3,084

U of M

U of M

$10,220

City

City

$21,910

City/ County

City/ County

$5,030

City

City

$26,950

MPRB

MPRB

$3,025

City/ County

City/ County

$297,363

Above: A shoulder and sidewalk along the 3rd Avenue Bridge. 197


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.4 - Southwest Minneapolis Projects

ID #

SW-1 SW-2 SW-3 SW-4 SW-5

Project Name 24th Street South Bikeway 31st Street Bikeway 35th/36th Street Bikeway 36th Street Bikeway 42nd Street Bike Lanes

Estimated Capital Cost $100,000 $125,000 $200,000 $50,000 $100,000

SW-6

46th Street Bikeway

$150,000

SW-7

49th St Bike Boulevard

$250,000

SW-8

50th Street Bike Lanes

$250,000

SW13 SW14

54th Street/ Diamond Lake Bikeway 58th/60th Bikeway Cedar Lake Parkway Trail Reconstruction Cedar Lake Trail Reconstruction Douglas Ave Bikeway Ewing Avenue Bikeway

SW 15

Excelsior Blvd Bike Lanes

$25,000

SW16

France Ave Bike Lanes

$150,000

SW-9 SW10 SW11 SW12

$200,000 $200,000 $500,000

$200,000 $50,000 $15,000

Capital Funding Source City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Funds/ MPRB Funding City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds

Above: Bike rack at Green Central Park. 198




$12,380

City

City

$15,930

City

City

$14,000

City

City

$5,540

City

City

$12,180

City

City

$12,120

City/ County

City/ County

$26,466

City

City

$28,490

City/ County

City/ County

$17,580

City

City

$22,240

City

City

No additional cost

City

City

$37,972

City

MPRB

$10,610

City

City

$4,026

City

City

$9,036

City/ County

City/ County

$25,770

City/ County

City/ County


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.4 - Southwest Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name


SW17

Franklin Avenue Bike Lane

$250,000

SW18

Fremont Avenue Ramp

$250,000

Irving Bikeway

$50,000

SW19 SW20 SW21 SW 22 SW 23 SW24

Kenwood Parkway Kenilworth Trail Reconstruction Lake of the Isles Routes

$1,500,000

Lake Street

$25,000

$50,000

$50,000

$1,000,000

SW26

Linden Hills Signed Routes Midtown Greenway Renovation Nicollet Ave Bike Lane

SW27

Penn Ave Bike Bridge

$3,000,000

SW28

Pleasant Avenue Ramp

$250,000

SW29

Pleasant Avenue Bike Blvd/ Greenway

$3,300,000

SW25

$75,000

$250,000




$17,630

City/ County

City/ County

$800

City

City

$10,734

City

City

MPRB

$17,750

MPRB

MPRB

Metropolitan Council/ SW LRT MPRB Funding City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds

No additional cost

City

MPRB

$32,296

City/ MPRB

City/MPRB

$5,512

City

City

$22,366

City

City

No additional cost

City

City

$29,758

City

City

$800

Met Council

City

$800

City

City

$40,492

City

City

Capital Funding Source City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds

City Net Debt Bonds

Above: Bike rack at Annunciation School. 199


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.4 - Southwest Minneapolis Projects (Continued) Capital Funding Source


Project Lead/ Facility Owner Three Rivers Park District

ID #

Project Name


SW30

Soo Line Trail

$4,000,000

Federal/ Three Rivers Park District

$54,040

$50,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$21,890

City

City

$500,000

MPRB Funding

No additional cost

City

City

$150,000

City Net Debt Bonds

$24,400

City

City

SW31 SW32 SW33 Total

Upton/ Sheridan Bikeway William Berry Trail Reconstruction Zenith Ave Bikeway

$17,315,000

$532,808

Above: Downtown Minneapolis 200


Three Rivers Park District


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.5 - South Minneapolis Projects

ID #

S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 S-13 S-14

Project Name 10th Avenue Bikeway 12th Ave Bike Blvd 17th Bike Blvd 21st Ave Bike Route 29th Ave Bike Route 28th Street/Dorman Bikeway 31st Street Bikeway 11th Ave Trail 32nd Street Bike Blvd 35th and 36th Street 38th Ave Bike Route 38th Street Bikeway 42nd Street Bike Lanes 46th Ave Bikeway


Estimated Capital Cost $500,000 $250,000 $500,000 $50,000 $25,000 $75,000 $100,000 $500,000 $100,000 $50,000 $75,000 $75,000 $250,000 $50,000

S-15

46th Street Bike Lane

$100,000

S-16

46th Street Bike Lane

$100,000

City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds

Above: Park Avenue Bike Lane at 25th Street. 201




$9,120

City

City

$12,920

City

City

$31,390

City

City

$19,660

City

City

$14,740

City/ County

City/County

$14,784

City

City

$32,780

City

City

$5,264

City/ County

City/ County

$14,604

City

City

$19,840

City

City

$18,250

City

City

$25,264

City

City

$49,218

City

City

$21,524

City

City

$14,200

City/ County

City/ County

$6,620

City/ County

City/ County


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.5 - South Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name


S-17

50th Street Bikeway

$7,500

S-18

54th Bikeway

$50,000

S-19

S-20 S-21 S-22 S-23 S-24 S-25

60th Street/ Cedar Frontage Road Bike Lanes Bloomington Bikeway Bloomington Avenue Ramp Chicago Ave Bike Lanes Diamond Lake Road Bike Lanes Edgewater Blvd Franklin Avenue Bike Lanes

$75,000

$250,000 $500,000 $50,000 $25,000 $15,000 $250,000

S-26

Hiawatha Trail East

$3,000,000

S-27

Hiawatha Trail Lighting

$1,000,000

S-28 S-29

S-30

Lake Hiawatha Trail LRT Station Area Improvements LRT Trail Gap

$1,500,000 $1,000,000

$500,000

Capital Funding Source City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds/ Metro Transit MPRB Funding Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds

Above: Minnehaha Avenue Bike Lane at 35th Street. 202




$2,940

City

City

$7,700

City

City

$17,528

City

City

$41,900

City

City

800

City

City

$18,538

City

City

$4,030

City

City

$5,140

City

City

$20,730

City/ County

City/ County

$26,022

City

City

$7,000

City/ Metro Transit

City/ Metro Transit

18,500

MPRB

MPRB

$10,000

City/ Metro Transit

City/ Metro Transit

$11,764

City

City


8.4.1


Infrastructure Projects - Continued Table 8.5 - South Minneapolis Projects (Continued)

ID #

Project Name


S-31

Midtown Greenway Renovation (Includes Security System Upgrades)

$1,000,000

S-32

MG Bridge over the River

$12,000,000

S-33 S-34 S-35

MG Bloomington Ramp Nokomis Bikeway Nokomis Signed Routes

$500,000 $50,000 $25,000

S-36

Oakland Bike Lane

$3,000,000

S-37

Portland Ave Bike Lanes

$150,000

Total





City Net Debt Bonds

No Additional Cost

City

City

$4,484

City/ County

City/ County

$800

City

City

$10,420

City

City

$11,222

City

City

$40,480

City

City

$16,680

City/ County

City/ County

Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds Federal Grant/ City Net Debt Bonds City Net Debt Bonds/County Funds

$27,947,500

$572,072

Above: Whitney Bridge over I-94 between Loring Park and the Sculpture Garden. 203


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Non-infrastructure initiatives identified in Chapter 7 are further defined in this section to suggest estimated maximum annual costs, a potential lead agency, likely partner agencies, and potential funding sources. Table 8.6 – Education Initiatives

ID #

Project Name

Estimated Maximum Annual Cost

ED-1

Bike Map

$10,000

City

ED-2

Tourism Packet

$10,000

ED-3

Development and implementation of Safe Routes to School curriculum

Potential Lead Agency

Likely Partner Agency

Potential Funding Source Private or non-profit funding

Meet Minneapolis

MPRB State of MN Local Businesses

$250,000

Minneapolis Schools

Public Works

Federal, School District funding

ED-4

Community Bike Course

$10,000

Non-profit groups, Neighborhood groups

ED-5

Staff Development

$10,000

City

ED-6

Education for Professional Drivers

$10,000

Local businesses

ED-7

Helmet Education

$10,000

Hospitals and Health Industry

Public Works Minneapolis Schools MPRB State of MN State of MN, Minneapolis Schools State of MN, Minneapolis Schools

$1,200,000

City

$200,000

City

ED-8 ED-9

Radio and TV Public Service Announcements Utility Bill Inserts

MPRB State of MN Public Works Minneapolis Schools Public Works, Minneapolis Schools Public Works, Minneapolis Schools

Private funding

Private funding

Non-profit grants Private funding Private or non-profit funding Private funding Private funding

ED-10

Advertising Bicycle Initiatives On-Line

$100,000

Non-profit groups, local businesses

ED-11

Rent Billboards to Promote the Rules of the Road

$100,000

Non-profit groups, local businesses

ED-12

Marketing to Promote Bicycling and Bicycle Safety

$50,000

State, nonprofit groups

$0

City, Media

State, MPRB

No additional cost

$100,000

Non-profit groups

Local Cities, Met Council

Private funding

$10,000

Local businesses

Neighborhood groups

Private funding

ED-13 ED-14 ED-15

Positive TV and Radio Stories on Biking Cyclopath/ Cycloplan Free educational materials for bicyclists

204

Private funding

Private funding

Private funding


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Continued Table 8.6 – Education Initiatives

ID #

Project Name


ED-16

Earn-a-Bike program

$50,000

Non-profit groups

ED-17

Bicycle videos for educational purposes

$25,000

Non-profit groups

ED-18

Expand the number of bicycle rodeos

$50,000

Non-profit groups

Total


Likely Partner Agency Minneapolis Schools, MPRB City, MPRB, Minneapolis Schools MPRB, MPD

Potential Funding Source

Private funding

Private funding

MPRB funding

$2,195,000

Table 8.7 – Encouragement Initiatives

ID #

Project Name





Non-profit groups, local businesses, neighborhood groups

Private funding

ENC-1

Bike/Walk Week

$25,000

TMO

ENC-2

Expand Bike Share

See Table 8.9

ENC-3

Policies to Increase Biking to School

$0

Non-profit groups Minneapolis Schools

ENC-4

Developers install bicycle facilities

ENC-5

ENC-6

Developers to install bicycle parking Continue 50/50 Cost Share Program

ENC-7

Bicycle Kit Giveaway

ENC-8

Bicycle Commuting Contests Between Businesses or Schools

Neighborhood groups

Private funding, nonprofit grants To be done with existing resources

Local businesses

-

Private funding

Local businesses

-

Private funding

$40,000

City

Local businesses

City funding, private funding

$25,000

Bike shops, bicycle industry

U of M, MPS City

Private funding

$10,000

Local businesses, Minneapolis schools

-

Private funding

Varies; costs not calculated. Varies; costs not calculated

205

-


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Table 8.7 – Encouragement Initiatives Estimated Maximum Annual Cost

ID #

Project Name

ENC-9

General Bicycle Themed Contests

$10,000

ENC-10

Commuter Fairs

$5,000

ENC-11

Implement Ciclovia/Open Streets

$75,000

ENC-12

U-Lock Cost Share Program

$10,000

ENC-13

Bicycle Maintenance Club

$25,000

ENC-14

Improve Bike Program Website

$5,000

ENC-15

Youth Bike Trips

$25,000

ENC-16

Amateur Bike Race

$50,000

ENC-17

Children’s Bike Map

$10,000

ENC-18

Public Art Mural

$10,000

ENC-19

Bicycle Advisory Committee Exchange

$5,000

ENC-20

Bicycle Giveaways

$20,000

ENC-21

Fleet Bicycles for Employees

$10,000

Total

Potential Lead Agency Local businesses, Neighborhood Groups TMO, Local Companies Non-profit groups Local bike shops, bicycle industry Local bike shops, bicycle industry, business City Non-profit groups, local businesses Non-profit groups, local businesses Non-profit groups, local bike shops Non-profit groups, neighborhood groups Bicycle Advisory Committee Local bike shops, bicycle industry City

$360,000

206



-

Private funding

City

TMO

City, County

Private funding

-

Non-profit grants

-

Private funding

-

City funding

-

Private funding

-

Private funding

-

Non-profit grants

-

Private funding

City

Private funding

-

Bicycle industry

Nice Ride MN

Non-Profit grants


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Continued Table 8.8 – Enforcement Initiatives

ID #

Project Name


ENF-1

Crash and Safety Campaign

$20,000

City

ENF-2

Anti-Theft Campaign

$25,000

City

ENF-3

Bicycle Registration

$0

City

ENF-4

Promote 311

$0

City

ENF-5

Bike Bait Program

$25,000

Minneapolis Police

ENF-6

First Time Offender Program

$5,000

Minneapolis Police

ENF-7

Bicycle Safety Education Course

$5,000

Minneapolis Police

ENF-8

Trail Patrolling by Bike

$10,000

Minneapolis Police

ENF-9

Ticket Fees for Moving Violations

$0

Policy Makers

ENF-10

Bicycle Patrol Program

$10,000

Minneapolis Police

$25,000

Minneapolis Police

$0

Downtown DID

ENF-11

ENF-12

Enforcement Needs for Safe Routes to School Downtown Improvement District Ambassadors


ENF-13

Parking in Bike Lanes

$0

Minneapolis Police

ENF-14

Targeted Enforcement

$0

Minneapolis Police

207

Likely Partner Agency State, County, MPRB State, County, MPRB State, County, MPRB MPRB Police, U of M Police MPRB Police, U of M Police MPRB Police, U of M Police MPRB Police, U of M Police Court System MPRB Police, U of M Police MPRB Police, U of M Police City Truck Unions, Shipping Companies, Postal Service MPRB Police, U of M Police


Federal and state grants Public safety budgets, non-profit grants This should be a cost/revenue neutral initiative Existing city budgets Non-profit grants

Non-profit grants

Non-profit grants

City funding To be done with existing resources City funding

Non-profit grants

To be done with existing resources




8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Continued Table 8.8 – Enforcement Initiatives

ID #

ENF-15

Project Name

Citizen Watch Patrol

Total


$0




Volunteers

Minneapolis Police, MPRB Police, U of M Police

Volunteers

$125,000

Table 8.9 – Engineering Initiatives

ID #

ENG-1

ENG-2

ENG-3

ENG-4

ENG-5

ENG-6

ENG-7

ENG-8

Project Name Pavement Condition Ratings for Trails Ensure Bikeways are Marked, Signed, Lit, and Address Personal Safety Adequate Bicycle Parking at Transit Hubs Accommodate Bicycles at Actuated Signals Traffic Calming along Bike Routes and Mid-Block Trail Crossings Implement Bikeway Detour Strategies Install Wayfinding and Informational Signage Design Bicycle Facilities to Meet or Exceed Standards, Pursue Innovative Treatments





$5,000

City

-

City funding

$5,000

City

-

City funding

$2,000

City

Metro Transit

City funding, Metro Transit funding

$10,000

City

-

City funding

$25,000

City

-

City, private funding

$0

City

-


$10,000

City

-

City funding

City

Hennepin County, MnDOT, MPRB


$0

208


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Continued Table 8.9 – Engineering Initiatives

ID #

ENG-9

ENG-10

ENG-11

ENG-12 ENG-13 ENG-14

ENG-15

ENG-16 ENG-17 ENG-18 ENG-19 ENG-20 ENG-21 ENG-22

Project Name Encourage Building Owners to Install Bicycle Parking, Showers/Lockers, and Bicycle Storage Complete all of the Routes in the Bikeways Master Plan Ensure that there is Adequate Funding to Build and Maintain Projects Within the Bikeways Master Plan Bicycle Friendly Road and Bridge Design Trail Crossings Curb Cuts at Culde-Sacs and Diverters Replace manhole covers and Storm Sewer Grates Sharrows and Wayfinding Signage Crash Reduction Program Bikeways Cleanup Project Greenways Network Bicycle Boulevards Complete Regional Trail System Bike Share Program Expansion





Varies annually; no cost calculated

City

Private Businesses

Private funding

City


Federal, state, county, city, private funding

City


Federal, state, county, city, private funding

Costs shown in funding matrix.

Costs shown in funding matrix.

$0

City

$50,000

City

Hennepin County, MnDOT, MPRB -

$50,000

City

-

City funding

$25,000

City

-

City funding

$50,000

City

-

City funding

$50,000

City

-

City funding

$50,000

City

-

City funding

See funding matrix See funding matrix. See funding matrix.

Non-Profit Groups

City

Private funding

City

-

Federal grants

City

MPRB

Federal and state grants

Nice Ride MN

City

Federal and private grants

$2,000,000

209

To be done with existing resources City funding


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Table 8.9 – Engineering Initiatives

ID #

ENG-23

ENG-24 ENG-25 ENG-26 ENG-27 ENG-28

Project Name Preventative Maintenance/ Improved Maintenance Infrastructure Needs for Safe Routes to School Downtown Bike Station Operations Green Wave Corridor Bike Racks 50/50 Bike Rack Cost Share Program

ENG-29

Renovation/ Reconstruction

ENG-30

Bike Racks on Buses

ENG-31

Replace NonConforming Signs and Pavement Markings

ENG-32

Totals

Bicycle Detour Routes





$100,000

City

MPRB

City funding

$50,000

City

Minneapolis Schools

Federal grants

$50,000

Bike Industry

-

Private funding

$50,000

City

-

Non-profit grants

$50,000

City

-

City funding

$40,000

City

-

City funding

City

-

City funding

Metro Transit

Suburban Opt-Out Providers

Transit Provider Funding

City

MRPB, County, MnDOT

City funding

City

MRPB, County, MnDOT

City funding

Varies; no cost calculated. Costs have not been determined. $50,000 Varies; done as part of capital project budgets $2,722,000

Above: Bicycle symbols on a trail sign.

210


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Table 8.10 – Equity Initiatives

ID #

EQ-1 EQ-2

EQ-3

EQ-4

EQ-5 EQ-6

EQ-7

EQ-8

EQ-9

EQ-10 Totals

Project Name Materials in Multiple Languages Reach out to Minority Groups Ensure that City Neighborhoods are Connected to a Bicycle Facility Add facilities in North Minneapolis, NE Minneapolis, and South of Minnehaha Parkway Expand Bike Share Program Cycling Programs for Children and Seniors Improve ratio of men to women cyclists Make bicycling more appealing to minorities Reconstruction and Renovation projects to accommodate bicycles per the Bike Plan Map Present Elected Officials with project trade-offs





$5,000

City

-

City funding.

$0

City

-


$0

City

-


$0

City

MPRB, Three Rivers Park District


See Table 8.9

Nice Ride MN

City

Federal and private grants

$25,000

Non-Profit Groups

Community Groups

Non-profit funding

$0

Non-Profit Groups

Community Groups


$0

Non-Profit Groups

Community Groups


Varies; no cost calculated.

City

County, MPRB, MnDOT

City funding

$0

City

-


$30,000

Above: Trail approaching Target Field.

211


8.4.2


Non-Infrastructure Initiatives – Table 8.11 – Evaluation Initiatives

ID #

Project Name


EV-1

Bike Counts

$0

City

EV-2

Analyze Bicycle Mode Share Data

$0

City

$5,000

City

County, MPRB, MnDOT

City funding

$0

City

County, MPRB, MnDOT


$0

City

U of M, Hennepin County, MPRB


$0

City

-


$0

City

MPRB


$0

City

MPRB, Minneapolis Schools


EV-3

EV-4

EV-5

EV-6 EV-7

EV-8

Publish a Progress Report on the Bicycle Master Plan’s Progress Continue to Collect, Analyze, and Report Crash Statistics Continue to Track Bicycle Theft Statistics Continue to Track Bicycle Related 311 Calls Evaluate Bikeway Quality Track and Report the Number of Bicycling Education and Outreach Events in the City


EV-9

Allocate City Resources to Leverage Outside Funding

Varies

City

EV-10

Regularly Update the Bicycle Master Plan

$25,000

City

EV-11

Monitor the number of students biking to school.

$0

Minneapolis Schools

EV-12

Count the number of bicyclists using parkways and parkway trails.

$0

MPRB

212

Likely Partner Agency Non-Profit Groups County, MPRB, MnDOT, Non-Profit Groups

MnDOT, Hennepin County, U of M, MPRB Bicycle Advisory Committee Non-Profit Groups, Community Groups Volunteers

Potential Funding Source Use volunteers



City funding


Use volunteers


8.4.2



ID #

EV-13

EV-14

EV-15

EV-16

EV-17

EV-18

EV-19

EV-20

Project Name Continue to conduct bicycle parking counts on a quarterly basis. Create more opportunities for public suggestions. Advertise 311 to cyclists Continue Results Minneapolis and Sustainability Reporting Continue to work with Colleges/ Universities to conduct research projects. Work with other agencies to install and evaluate innovative bicycle treatments. Work with other agencies to determine systemwide crash trends and create a combined strategy to reduce crashes including the Toward Zero Deaths initiative Work with local hospitals and emergency rooms to track the type and severity of bicycle injuries. Obtain insurance data to supplement police reports to better monitor property damage.





$0

City

Volunteers

Use volunteers

$0

City

-


$0

City

-


$0

City

Colleges and Universities


$0

City

County, MnDOT, MPRB


$0

City

County, MnDOT, MPRB


$0

City

Local Hospitals


$0

City

Insurance Companies


213


8.4.2



ID #

Project Name


EV-21

Perform Bicycle Counts at all Colleges and Universities

$0

Totals




Colleges and Universities

Volunteers

Volunteers to perform counts

$30,000

Above: Minneapolis Booth at the Minnesota Bicycle Expo. 214