Results from the District 8 Community Workshop
Summary
The District 8 Statewide Bicycle Planning Study Community Workshop was held at the Willmar Municipal Utilities Building located at 700 SW Litchfield Avenue, Willmar, MN 56301, from 4-6 PM on March 12, 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 most important.Strengths
Theme (noted as Priority #1): General Support
- Greater metro bikeway environment, resulting in high national ranking
- History of past success
- Reaching out to public (public input)
- Staff helping to answer questions regarding policy
- Input from bike riders – public
- Positive community support for bikes and trails development
- Everyone can bike
- Recognize the need for bike routes
- The fact that biking is getting attention means biking is valued
- Lots of citizens who would like to ride bike more if it was safer
- Lots of MN residents enjoy biking
- MN is trying to develop a “plan” for cycling
- Lots of interest in biking in the state
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Existing trails
- # of trail miles
- There are now some plans being implemented
- State trails found throughout state
- Trail system
- Local city trail implementation
- DNR state trail system
- Existing state trails are nice
- State parks that have bike trails are great
- The existing bike trails are a great asset
- Rail trails work well
- Excellent trails and trail facilities
- LCCMR
- State Trail System
- Regional Trails
- Local Trails
- Understanding by many of the values of biking
Theme (noted as Priority #3): MnDOT
- Available STIP Enhancement Funds
- MnDOT has developed guidelines for trails and on road bicycling
- MnDOT support
- MnDOT and DNR Legacy staff helpfulness and communication
- MnDOT have a good record for having a design manual for bikeways
- MnDOT employee who talked to mother nature this winter did a good job
Theme (noted as Priority #4): Funding Sources
- Legacy Funding of state/regional significant trails
- Legacy
Theme (unranked by participants): Health
- Health aspect of biking
- Ground based support! Heath, wellness
Theme (unranked by participants): Design
- Shoulders and bike lanes work well
Weaknesses
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Coordination
- Merging planned road improvements and reconstructions with bicycle planning
- Perceived lack of willingness to partner with other stakeholders
- Multiple groups working on similar projects
- Interagency coordination
- DNR/MnDOT should jointly do this plan
- Need to better coordinate discussion between city-county-state on the topic
- The “Minnesota Way” – everyone does their own thing
- Enthusiasm for biking by teens-twenties vs cars
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Policies and Standards
- I don’t know MnDOT’s current policy on bicycling
- Regulatory requirements in state rights-of-way
- Loss of shoulders – no standards for classes of Hwys or roads. Willmar MnDOT said it all depends on clout of State Senator or Rep
- No current plan or standard on how to design
- Inconsistency of policies
- Some argue that ASHTO standards for bike routes are not good 44 ft roads with parking is too narrow for “door zones”
- Roads and trails are in different state agencies (MnDOT and DNR). They should be controlled by one agency – MnDOT
- Agreements with MnDOT require removal of facilities if MnDOT needs R/W for any other purpose!!!
- Need more organized events – advertise
- Not enough trails go through varying terrain – prairie to rolling hills to wetland areas to wildlife areas... all along the same trail
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Connectivity
- Fewer trails in some regions of the state
- Trails do not always connect to communities as well as they could
- Need more connections between trails
- No way to have city-county-state plans connect
- General-connection from one trail to another – like from Green Lake to Co 4 – up 40 – back toward New London
- Non-linkage with other districts
Theme (unranked by participants): Education Information
- Advertise and keep current. Post construction zones
- Bike education
- Communication on planning for bikes
- Lack of identified bike ways
Theme (unranked by participants): $ Resources
- MnDOT cooperative agreement process – all initial costs and future maintenance delegated to cities with no negotiation
- Never enough resources to meet needs
- Cost to communities
- Cost
Theme (unranked by participants): Safety
- [Local?] area trail is full of holes and dog dung – don’t take kids there. How are trails maintained?
- Many unfair [?] rural bad deal
- Right on the road car vs bike
- Combined vehicle/bicycle facilities don’t work well for the bicyclist
- Riding bikes on county or state roadway is very dangerous – roads too narrow
- Busy highways are barriers to bike travel to get across
Theme (unranked by participants): Lack of Shoulders/Space
- Road shoulders need maintenance, sweeping, patching, etc
- Trying to force bike ways on all roads vs. ones that make sense
- Roads with narrow shoulders – not safe for biking and pedestrians
- No/limited shoulders on county highways/state highways
- Existing infrastructure bridges, narrow streets cause barriers
- Move away from paved shoulders
Opportunities
Theme (unranked by participants): Complete Streets
- Complete street implement
- Moving toward complete streets concept
- Complete Streets coordinated efforts
- MnDOT truly implements Complete Streets and share in costs/maintenance with Cooperative Agreement process
Theme (unranked by participants): Partnership – Legislative and Stakeholders
- More dedicated resources than ever before to impact need
- Lots of public interest with high gas money in cycling – key time to expand
- Partner with others – DNR/Counties....
- Work closer [with] DNR and local gov. and other stakeholders
- Opportunity changing/new Federal Transportation Bill
- Complete trails – human scale design, water, bike racks, trees, shelters, benches, lights
Theme (unranked by participants): Safety
- Improved safety
- Senate transportation chair is Joe Gimse of Willmar. He says he bikes trails with his kids in this District.
- Help small towns with state roads incorporate bike lanes
- In District #4 when they redo Hwy 29 from Alex to Glenwood this summer make a bicycle lane
- Motorist education about cyclist rights need improvement [with] signs/flyers at auto and drivers license offices?
Theme (unranked by participants): Planning
- Make most paths for all – make some for special riding
- As bicycle planning develops highway and Complete Street planning will develop also
- Develop a plan and policies
- Kiosks at trailheads giving city bicycle route info
- Develops easy-riding trails and more difficult riding trails [in] future
- The statewide map would be great – I use my parks and trails magazine – not complete!
- Post suggestion box for public input along trails
- With current interest and need for bike routes, we can plan properly
- Now is a good time for increased discussion – less money can mean more discussion!
- Great chance to look at what improvements can be made
- Partnerships developing or possible
- Paving shoulders on identified routes
- To have a centralized location for data
- Engage bike shops and participants in Tour de Everywhere in organized sustained lobbying
Theme (unranked by participants): Health
- Trails could be multiple use for summer and winter use – more cost effective appeal to more users
- Lots of opportunities – the “green” discussion/gas prices/health issues all help!
- Wellness health initiatives
- Increased health, increased economic benefit, increased environmental benefits, ie. pollution and carbon
- Link to national issue of obesity especially among children
Theme (unranked by participants): Connectivity
- Lots of programs that support trails (transportation enhancements, DNR, etc)
- Link up trail system with good-shouldered roads
- Design focused on connections edge to edge or edge to city center
- Connectivity needs – State Parks to cities – economic benefit
- Improve biking for communities in rural areas
- Link Sibley S.P. to Glacial Lakes bike trail through New London
- Link trails with bikeways on road shoulders with improved shoulders and signage
- Create more outside bike lanes
Theme (unranked by participants): Promotion Economic
- Future: special days for promoting biking – for adult and children. The children are our future bikers
- Bike tourism – include awareness of bike tourism in all planning
- Funding from major partners for Greater MN, ie. BC/BS
Threats
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Policy
- Changing/new Federal Transportation Bill
- Policy to application – how-when-where it will happen-work
- Politicians and access to resources
- Republicans
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Infrastructure
- Coordination with railroad can be a barrier
- Other MnDOT projects? Bridges
- Infrastructure
- Unpaved shoulders along rural TH system ie. TH 7 ([Cosmos?] to TH 7)
- Other agencies lakes that don’t allow trails because the water is protected from soil disturbances
- Streamlining of vehicle roadways are not in best interest of cyclists
- Declining or stagnant revenue for roads, due to fewer miles driven and better MPG effect on gas tax
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Funding
- Future maintenance costs to keep adequate routes
- Financial support?? All levels state, regional, local
- Funding – legislative action is easement abandonment preventing trail development
- Lack of funds
- Money
- Lack of support by some elected officials local, county, state, fed
- Budget cuts short sightedness
- The discussion will get “bogged down” at the legislature! Money is only a small part of the issue!
- Budgets/funding
- Funding and other legislature priorities
- MnDOT funding levels – “easy excuse”
- More projects than money
- Funding
- Funding
- Tight budget
- Issues
- Gas for less than $1/gallon
Additional comments may also be provided to Greta Alquist through March 30, 2012.
.