Transportation and the Pedestrian Life of the City
Back to Home Page
John VanHeel
Downtown Resident Representative on the Steering Committee of
the Minneapolis 10 Year Transportation Action Plan
Positions and Comments regarding meeting materials for the August 2006 Steering Committee Meeting
Click here to access meeting materials for August 06 steering committee meeting
note: the alternatives presented in these documents represent only a portion of the over all plan. These documents are a work in progress and do not indicate any final decisions
Overview of August steering committee meeting: The August meeting was divided in two parts. The first part reviewed the options presented in the draft Downtown Streets Strategy document. This document focuses on a network of one-way and two-way (auto) streets and a system of primary pedestrian and bicycle corridors in the downtown area. The downtown system of transit corridors was not the focus of the document or the meeting discussion (future meetings). The second part of the meeting reviewed the group of streetcar candidate corridor segments in the city that are proposed for additional study in a second phase of the Streetcar Feasibility Study. My comments and positions on these materials are noted below starting first with the Downtown Street Strategy and followed by comments regarding the Streetcar Feasibility Study.
Draft Downtown Streets Strategy access document here
Comments and Positions regarding Draft Downtown Streets Strategy
8th Street profile alternates (view)- I am pleased with the comfortable pedestrian space illustrated in the 9th St.street profile (view) . Creating a comfortable 9th Street does not however provide an excuse for skimping on 8th Street. The reason for this is because in this scheme 8th Street functions as a primary local transit corridor. All primary local transit corridors should also be considered primary pedestrian corridors (isn't this the case with all of the other proposed local transit corridors downtown?). Corridors with a lot of transit stops are corridors with a lot of pedestrians. Few things contribute to pedestrian comfort more than trees. I think we should go the distance and institute a street profile like Alternate #1 that allows for the inclusion of trees. Note: 15 feet is understood to be the minimum width for a sidewalk to accommodate street trees. While some additional auto traffic may be forced on to adjacent streets, I am not aware of any conditions that suggest that there would be a problem with capacity on these adjacent streets or that drivers would be put through any noticeable inconvenience. Our downtown needs more greening and our transit corridors should be top priority.
Two-Way Streets - comment on introduction pg.6 - Just as the section on one-way streets (pg.3) starts with an introduction describing the purpose or role of one-way streets in the downtown system we should be provided with a similar statement in the section on two-way streets. Many of us may have an inherent understanding of the desirability of two-way streets and perhaps what their role is, however if we are to make good decisions when important trade-offs are involved, it is important that the purpose is explicitly defined. In the same way we should not be afraid to ask what the benefits are and who is benefited.
Two-way strategies on Hennepin and 1st Avenues - If the analysis of the effects on traffic and transit suggest that it is acceptable to reconfigure Hennepin and 1st Avenues as two-way streets then I can also support this change. It will be very important however that whatever configuration is chosen that there is a bicycle route that is commensurate with the quality of the one that is currently located on Hennepin Avenue.
The current Hennepin Avenue bike route is without a doubt the most popular and most well used bicycle route in all of downtown Minneapolis. Ridership on this route has steadily increased since its making several years ago. Riders, many of whom live in downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods, depend on this route as the most convenient path between the north and south sides of downtown. Riders I believe, appreciate that it is a combined two-way path and that it is separated from the obstruction prone curb. I also believe that they appreciate having a place on one of Minneapolis' great Avenues. While this bike route does have some issues it is still I believe very highly valued.
No street profile graphic was provided for bicycle plan alternate B which shows a bike route on both Hennepin and first Avenues. If this profile is more to the current Marquette and 2nd Ave. routes with bike lanes centered in the roadway it would I believe be preferable to the impractical alternate A profile with it's curb hugging lanes on 1st Avenue.
Street Profile Alternate #1 at 1st Avenue (view)- I am concerned that the two curb-side bicycle lanes will be problematic for the many entertainment businesses on the avenue that depend on curb side pick-up and drop-off. I am like wise concerned that such lanes would be prone to being obstructed for cyclists.
In regards to the west half of downtown I am afraid to say that I think both of these bicycle schemes represent a significant step down in quality for the downtown cyclist.
More thoughts, alternate thinking- The location of the current Marquette Ave. and 2nd Ave. bike routes may be acceptable for providing access with-in the center of the downtown core, but these routes are cut off from the neighborhoods to the north and south. Because most of the users of downtown bike routes are from the surrounding neighborhoods Marquette and 2nd Aves. will never have more than a secondary importance for the downtown bike system.The two north-south routes that run on the east and west sides of the central core are more important. Ideally this transportation plan will provide improvements for all modes: auto, transit, pedestrian and bicycle. With this desire in mind it would be great if the steering committee would be provided with a scheme that not only preserves a combined two-way bike route on either Hennepin or First Avenues but also adds a couple more such two-way feature in other parts of downtown. For instance a combined two-way route on either either Chicago, Park or Portland Avenues (rather than one-way couplets) would, I believe, be an attractive draw for new bike ridership on that side of downtown.
Primary Pedestrian Network (access draft map here)
Pedestrian connections across the freeway ring - The introduction to this draft document recognizes the importance of transportation connections across the the freeway ring that surrounds the downtown core. I believe that it is essential that this be manifested in the Primary Pedestrian Network Plan Map. More than any other mode pedestrians are negatively effected by the physical nature of the infrastructure that bridges from one side of the freeway to the other. The draft downtown Primary Pedestrian Network plan identifies six pedestrian routes that cross the freeway ring. The crossing points for each of these routes should be located on the plan map and an outline of possible future improvements should be added to the text.
My Understanding of the transportation action plan is that it is being directed under management of the Minneapolis Department of Public Works. Its purview however extends across city, county and state jurisdictions in order to provide our city's leaders with a comprehensive plan that includes all elements critical to a transportation system within the city of Minneapolis. This I believe means that where there is a critical issue, like the major breakdown of the city's pedestrian fabric caused by the freeway ring surrounding downtown, that this plan explicitly give direction to how freeway infrastructure (MNDOT) should be improved at the crossing points of the primary pedestrian corridors that are being defined in this plan (Washington, Chicago, Portland, Third, Nicollet, and Hennepin)
The southern portion of downtown in the Draft Downtown Primary Pedestrian Plan appears to be incomplete. Whereas most of the downtown plan is defined by an intersecting network of north-south and east-west routes (including heavily residential areas along the river) the southern quarter of the downtown area in this plan has virtually no primary pedestrian routes running east-west. This disregards the fact that there is very heavy east-west pedestrian travel to and from places like Loring Park, Hennepin Avenue and the Walker Art Center. Critical and highly traveled pedestrian routes such 15th Street and Grant Street should be recognized in this plan. Without these, this plan is simply not complete.
The Walker Art Center is a major downtown destination. I believe it is essential that this plan define at least one primary pedestrian route that reaches all the way to this important institution. This plan includes several primary routes through park land along the river. Is there any reason why the Loring Greenway route cannot be extended through the middle of Loring Park to the Walker on the other side? This is an already established route and planning is underway for significant improvements.
Minneapolis Streetcar Feasibility Study
access draft streetcar presentation
access draft streetcar draft screening report
Comments and Positions regarding Minneapolis Streetcar Feasibility Study
General- I am very pleased with the general direction of the Streetcar study. I believe that the corridor segments that have been identified for the second phase of study represents decisions based on a good understanding of how other successful systems across the country have operated and sustained themselves. Of the different unique elements that define the function of streetcar rail systems perhaps most important is that they best serve high-density urban areas and that they work best at providing access to shorter distance destinations rather than longer commutes.
I believe the emerging system fits comfortably with-in the urban core area that could reasonably sustain possible new streetcar lines in the near future. Understanding that this urban core area is not fixed and will likely grow in the future, expansion of the initial system could certainly expand accordingly. I am also pleased that there is a recognition that this new system can function cooperatively with the larger transit system with modes such as LRT, BRT and buses which will continue to serve a vital function for both the urban core and the farther reaches of our city.
And finally, in terms of the downtown area, I am very pleased that a system is emerging that has the potential to serve as a true downtown circulator system.A Nicollet Mall-Convention Center shuttle may be a good thing, but I do not believe that by itself it constitutes a system. We have important institutions all across downtown. I believe that our future success as a city depends on better connecting together our larger urban/civic campus and not just the business core.
Specific Comments (access phase II Candidate Streetcar Line Map Here)
Connecting streetcar lines from opposite sides of downtown- The Hennepin-University Line illustrated in the Phase II Candidate Line Evaluation Map (candidate line "A" ) has one attribute that the other other lines lack, it extends out from downtown in two directions rather than just one. I believe that this configuration may provide some specific advantages that the other candidate lines which terminate downtown do not have. As we study the viability of the various candidate lines I believe we should consider that connecting additional north bound lines to south bound lines may improve the viability of both the north and south bound stretches.
For instance the Central and the Broadway-Washington lines could be connected to either the Chicago or Nicollet lines. This would not only reduce the need for the number of maintenance/storage facilities it would also provide the lines going to the less developed north with a built in market base from the lines from the south. In addition a configuration of lines extending from opposite sides of the center city would provide a needed service for the numerous people who live and work on opposite sides of our urban core.
Candidate Broadway-Washington Ave. Line (green line 'B' view here)- If this line does terminate on Washington Avenue rather than linking to a south bound line than every effort should be made to make a clear link to the West Bank Theater District. Perhaps the terminus station could be located on top of a new Washington Ave. I-35W bridge.
Hennepin and Lake Street Streetcar Line(s) (red line 'A' view here) - While I find the combined West Lake Street and Nicollet Avenue Line(Candidate Line "C") very attractive I am concerned that it could reduce the viability of a line extending further east from Nicollet on Lake Street. Unless it would be possible to intermingle lines on Lake Street it seems that a line starting at Nicollet Avenue and running east on Lake Street would lack the critical mass to be built because the section west of Nicollet would already be incorporated in another line. Could two lines intermingle? or am I missing something?
Of any of the candidate streetcar corridors it would seem to me that Lake Street is the one line that could possibly succeed without a direct connection to downtown. I think this is in part because it could serve a similar function as downtown by the fact that it could link together multiple lines creating multiple access loops with downtown and south Minneapolis commercial corridors.
Frequency- Using the Primary Transit Network minimum standard of a 15 minute wait time between trains makes sense for conducting a reasonable streetcar feasibility study. However I believe the study should include an overview of the issue of frequency and the different ways in which it my effect cost, operation and usage. My sense is that a system that operates at one train every 15 minutes offers possibilities that are different from a system that operates at, say, every 9 or 10 minutes. What are the costs and possible rewards for increased frequency?
More thoughts, alternate thinking- Center City mapping and planning Concept - I believe that in our study of a potential future streetcar system that there is emerging an additional layer to the urban core, one that has not yet been recognized in project mapping. Our current maps show two cores, Downtown and within that area a Downtown Core. I believe that another layer that raps around the outside of downtown is now coming into view and should perhaps be recognized as a tool in mapping out our city's future.
This larger urban core, this center city area is not defined by a freeway but rather by a concentration of great civic and private institutions. And while this area is not fixed, what I believe constitutes this area today was largely laid out over one hundred years ago. Unlike the majority of our city's major businesses who concentrated tightly in the center of the core, the major civic institutions followed the more romantic leanings of the day and located there institutions out on the land, a mile or two outside the central core. With the addition of a century of relatively dense residential/commercial urban fabric filling in the the spaces in between we have what I understand to be the primary urban campus of our city today.
We have some very important institutions all across our city and metro. Good access to these destinations is important, but I think that density and land-use maps illuminate a well defined urban core. I believe that this area has a particularly special potential for the cultivation of a highly sustainable transit and pedestrian oriented life style. It is within this area that I think that we have the best hope of adding the density with which to build a high service inner urban transit system. The entire city and state can benefit because the the true economic engine that is Minneapolis does not reside in just its downtown but rather in this larger campus. If we can more efficiently, comfortably and more beautifully tie the major parts of this campus together I believe that we will be set for success for the rest of the 21st century.
|
|
|
I would be happy to post anyone's responses to my comments, or anyone's additional thoughts regarding the evolution of the transportation plan on this site. Dialogue that can enlighten anyone's view including my own is welcome. E-mail me here and I will post your message (only message and name will be included in posting)
Transportation and the Pedestrian Life of the City
Back to Home Page