Results from the District 6 Community Workshop
Summary
The District 6 Statewide Bicycle Planning Study Community Workshop was held at the University Center Rochester, Heintz Center, 1926 Collegeview Drive SE, Rochester from 4-6 PM on March 1, 2012. Approximately 30 people participated in the workshop.
Findings
Workshop participants completed a S.W.O.T. (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of bicycling facilities in our State. Following the S.W.O.T. analysis, participants worked in small groups to organize their responses in themed categories. The themes were prioritized by the participants, unless otherwise noted, with theme prioritized as #1 being the the most important.Strengths
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Quality System of Regional Trails
- One of best rec systems in US!
- Like paved bike trails in MN as compared to crushed limestone trails in WI
- Interconnectivity; off-system
- Local and regional trail system (cities and counties and parks)
- Cannon Valley Trail strength – partnership with state
- Many bike trails and projects to be completed exist in Minnesota
- Trail in former [fed] Oberstar’s are all wonderful
- Minnesota has the opportunity to become the nation’s biking Mecca with safe trails and many miles
- Current trails in place
- Minnesota is 4th in the nation with trail miles
- Paved bike trails
- Bike trails not associated with roads
- Minneapolis’s bike routes are well planned
- Trail system history belief in economic development
- State trail systems (off road)
- State off-road trails
Theme (noted as Priority #2): MnDOT
- The fact that MnDOT is active in pursuing opportunities for increased cycling - both on-road and off
- MnDOT is embracing “complete streets”
- MnDOT has good policies in place to support multimodal – please honor them
- Minnesota has a new law enhancing wider shoulders on newly constructed roadways
- MnDOT adoption of complete streets
- Bike carriers on mass transit forms of transportation, ie. buses and trains
- ADA and peds have become important to MnDOT
- MnDOT is generally supportive of including accommodations for bicycling in project planning
- MnDOT support for the Mississippi River Trail
- MnDOT Metro and #6 worked together!! to federally fund the Byllesby Bridge for MillTowns Trail connecting Goodhue and Dakota Parks
- Willingness of MnDOT to get input from all stakeholders
- I think the current design standards are accurate. They provide safety for both autos and peds
- Complete Streets
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Public Support at All Levels
- Focus on trail connectivity and filling in missing segments
- Metro area large city support and integration of policy change into implementation
- Many opportunities for many stakeholders to have a voice
- Public is actively engaged and supportive of bicycling in Minnesota
- Active bike groups
- Larger communities more support
- The publicity is getting more – and maps for routes
- Bike events in [places]: Tour de Pepin – 22 miles around Lake Pepin
Theme (noted as Priority #4): Funding Support!!
- Rails-to-trails (is a great program nationwide)
- Already have many good bike networks
- Legacy Amendment
- As transportation costs increase bicycling is a great option and big cities are accommodating to that change
- The Transportation Enhancement Program is a good resource for financial support of bicycle accommodations
- Seem to be providing continued funding for the trail system
[Ungrouped and unthemed]
- MN has non-motorized departments in DOT – had planning and policies about bicycling such [as] state bicycling design guide
Weaknesses
Theme (noted as Priority #1a): Attitude
- Lack of public
- Collaboration/state/county/city
- More communication in rural community
- Bicycle education and awareness
- Honor B/Ped section of MnDOT and their findings
- Continue the positive “P.R.”
- No buy in by government agencies
- Apathy amongst citizens
- MnDOT culture of speaking trails and then design intersections and bridges without adequate consideration
- Lack of education of cyclists and motor vehicle drivers as to safe practices and state guidelines (ex. Give 3 ft to cyclists)
- Process matters – include public in the beginning especially all stakeholders
- Don’t understand the new bike lanes in the streets
Theme (noted as Priority #1b): Funding
- Needs consistent funding for trail planning, creation, construction and maintenance separate from Transportation funds
- Funding is limited!
- Money is needed to maintain the trails to keep them safe and inviting
- Funding! Ped facilities are safest when separated from vehicle traffic. Adding 4’ to paved shoulders to standard lane should be minimum accepted. How to pay for this[?]
- No consistent funding stream for maintenance of constructed bike trails
- As always – funding is inadequate
- No separate state funding source
- Funding (inadequate)
- Funding; utilize funding for BIP to ints maximum potential, ie. federal $ vs. state
- Funding is very limited and there is competition for funding the various modes
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Planning
- Consistency in guidance and mapping
- Coordination DNR trails and MnDOT road trails. Both are part of a transportation system
- Acquisition of land for trail facilities is too difficult. If condemnation is necessary for road infrastructure, it is for trails
- Relationship between good land use planning at the local level allowing for more reasonable commutes for ped/bikes – need better compact land use
- Project boundaries matter; scope complete project for BIP especially border states
- Complete Streets implementation (still working it out)
- Complete Streets for new construction, not old narrow roads
- Cooperation with relevant organizations, ie. DNR-local trail group
- There is not a consistent approach to bicycle planning throughout the various offices within MnDOT
- Address inconsistencies for between regions – especially rural vs. city
- No consistency between towns on signage
- No consistency between towns on bikeways (lanes, routes, trails)
- Bike trail development not truly considered a transportation perogative – DNR does trails
- Context sensitive design implementation (not applied in all projects)
- MnDOT speaks multi-modal...are bike advocates included in every project planning TEAT (PAC)
- No consistent planning for trial connectivity
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Infrastructure
- Signage bike-related
- Most county roads where I’m from have less than 1 ft of shoulder paved out side of “fog line”
- Rumble strips on “fog lines” cause narrowing of already narrow shoulders
- State and county roads have poor shoulders for biking
- BIP should be included on major routes that converge with other trails
- Some trails in terrible condition so that tourists won’t come back
- Ped/bike facilities on bridges are creating unsafe conditions on some roads
- Length of time to see the changes
- Traffic control device activation
- Patch surfaces
- Local signage
- Lack of safe routes
- On road system improvements as roads are repaved or rebuilt – inconsistent application of policy
- Road seams
- Lack of shoulders
Theme (noted as Priority #4): Education Resources “Pull”
- Some on-system inconsiderate riders
- Wrong mix of modes
- Don’t need specific lanes for different modes of transportation
- Perceived reduction in safety on the existing system
- Lack of information on trail type, including facility type as well as surface type
- Updated resources (e.g. statewide maps and integration of current technology)
- Portable mapping for smartphones
- MnDOT to share their reports and findings on 3/8 with all stakeholders. Share openly
[Ungrouped and unthemed]
- Weather is not working 100%
- We need to work on uniform guidelines throughout MN
Opportunities
Theme (unranked by participants): Legislation
- Look at roadway width, ie. rural CASH with eight to 10 inches more roadway. A road bikers heaven
- Complete Streets policy (adopted)
Theme (unranked by participants): Safety
- Adequate shoulders
- Adding bike shoulders on rural highway roads when they receive a maintenance upgrade (eg. mill and overlay)
Theme (unranked by participants): Marketing
- Bicycle trails to enhance tourism. Become destination for trail/bicycle use
- Tourism $s
- Market new maps on line
- “Public” bicycles strategically placed for use in the community
- High oil prices – good opportunity to market biking as an alternative
- Bike facilities – at other transportation hubs – railroad stations, bus depots. Permitted bikes on board – for longer trips
Theme (unranked by participants): Funding
- Need buy-in, financially and planning, from all when reconstructing roads. If possible $ is needed to construct off-road trails during road construction
- “Tax”
- “License”
- User fee
- Income from tourists
- Funding may increase from taxes associated with higher gas prices
- Dedicated consistent source of revenue for maintenance
Theme (unranked by participants): Education
- The promotion of good health and greater use as a commuting and/or transportation mode
- Increasing recognition of the healthful benefits of cycling – justification to treat trail as basic infrastructure
- Public perception of human powered vehicles
- Education of cyclists with rights of pedestrians
- Top ten rules for bike lanes
- The helmet programs with bike rodeos. I find they bring in many adults with the youth including grandparents. Adults were given helmets also
- Higher gas prices will cause people to have increased desire for more and safer accommodations
- Multi-use education
- 3-foot law
Theme (unranked by participants): Involvement
- Regional trail groups working together to connect separate local trails to a system
- Local citizen involvement
- There are many local trail groups in place that know what needs to be done
- Engagement of other government/non-government entities to create “critical mass” interest on improving and expanding cycling opportunities
- Greenway connections park to park. Springfield, MO
Theme (unranked by participants): Connections
- Connectivity around existing trail systems and city systems and future system elements
- Connection of trails/corridors between communities and destinations
- Fully integrated statewide system with no barriers to connections between municipalities
- Connect trails to each other and to safe routes
- State highways link “all” places and can affect almost everywhere if bike facilities added
- A statewide comprehensive map – showing not only existing trails but also showing (color coded) roads – low volume traffic – friendly for biking. Divide into 4 parts – have on website-printable updated annually
Theme (unranked by participants): Plans
- Get into city comprehensive plans
- The bike plan could provide guidance for consistency of approach at all levels of MnDOT staff
- Cooperation between citizens, cities, counties and DOT in planning
- MN GO 20[??] Multimodal Plan
- Give greater local control, ie. MPO’s, BPAC’s
- They sky is the limit for opportunity. If you can dream it, anything is possible
- To be national leader in progressive multi-modal project
- Plan with head – not your heart
- Use of existing rail right of way, there is no substitute for fully exclusive trails
[Ungrouped and unthemed]
- Almost all cities in MN has some kind of a staff working on bicycling
Threats
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Funding
- Infrastructure maintenance
- Future reductions in federal and state transportation funding will increase competition among modes
- Loss of funding is causing local DOT planning to use non-bike friendly forms of sealer coat
- Funding of non-motorized trails
- With reducing funding availability, trails and complete streets being removed from projects to cut costs
- No money or funding
- Funding at all levels (state, local)
- Lack of funding sources
- Transportation funds being reduced
- Gas tax funding for non gas modes use less get less $
- Money
- Potential for lack of funding when there are tight budgets
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Cooperation/collaboration
- Don’t allow possessiveness to interfere in doing the right thing for our future generations
- Need to continue to work with local governments to set priorities at the regional and local levels
- Low level communication between/among MnDOT Departments (ie. public safety wants more rumble strips – awful for road cycling) unless shoulder width is adequate
- Legislative (state and national) indifference to bicycling accommodations
- No collaboration amongst agencies (silo effect)
- Each city/county has their own rules/regulations
- Lack of cooperation between municipalities
- Get the local county highway engineers involved
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Local Transport
- Lack of comprehensive buy in into bike and ped considerations (not applied in all projects)
- Local support from residents
- Landowner opposition to trail development
- Continues to be acquisition for land or right of way
Theme (noted as Priority #4): Education and Information
- Work with community to lessen non-bicyclists issue when roadway is absorbed by bike lanes
- Misinformed public reacting to bad information about bike trails and their economic impacts
- Uninformed legislators who need to be educated to the infrastructure needs of tourism-supporting bicycle facilities
- Bike and ped facilities change quickly and difficult to keep maps current
Theme (noted as Priority #5): Mixing transportation modes
- Doesn’t fix the auto driver before mixing with the 2 wheelers
- Over-zealous advocates
- Facilities for bikes and peds are widely variable and the [appropriateness] of a given facility is also challenging to rate
- Seemingly inflexible design standards (practice of designing to desirable dimensions)
- Trying to mix peds and autos will likely lead to fatalities. Not good P.R.
- Personal experience. High speed passing of motorcycles, ie. staying in same lane move over only one wheel track
[Ungrouped and unthemed]
- Funding
Additional comments may also be provided to Greta Alquist through March 30, 2012.
.