Results from the St. Paul Community Workshop
Summary
The Metro District Statewide Bicycle Planning Study Community Workshop was held at the Hamline Midway Public Library at 1558 West Minnehaha Avenue, St. Paul, 55104 from 4-6 PM on February 29, 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): Infrastructure
- Strong trail system
- Cedar Lake Trail
- Great off-street recreational paths
- Great statewide trail system in place and expanding
- Off-road bike trails
- State trails for bikes are well done
- Rail to trail, especially Stillwater to Gateway
- Volume of off road trails
- Solid trail system
- Minn. is famous and national leader in biking and trails
- Recreational bike trails
- Widespread use of shoulders
- Minnesota’s extensive system of paved bicycle trails
- Midtown Greenway
Theme (noted as Priority #2): [No theme was included but ideas were grouped]
- Broad network of off road trails across metro area
- Strong opportunities and linkages in metro area
- River and Parkway system is great!
- Intra-connectivity in metro
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Amenities
- Good areas to visit on bike
- Bathroom facilities Minneapolis provides are really appreciated!
- Love when there are playgrounds near a route as breaks for kids
[Ungrouped and unthemed]:
- Fair support via mass transit
- Rails-trails connect small towns
- Seems to me most bicycle facilities are being implemented at the local level, or by DNR, not by MnDOT
- Great climate for biking
- Well maintained bike trails – often plowed first after snow!
Weaknesses
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Barriers/Connect
- Riding next to a highway is not pleasant for rec rider. Example: 35E bridge at Mississippi really loud and Shepard Road
- Light rail has a policy of removing bikes locked to things other than bike racks, but there aren’t free racks at all stations
- Rail trails can bypass important commercial areas
- Putting bike routes on bridges but not connecting them to adjacent trail or shoulder systems
- Infrastructure to accommodate long bikes at intersections and corners. Ex: Hamline bridge is great but it is hard to make the turns with a trailer
- Community to park connections lacking
- Trail outside metro that do not connect to each other
- When commuting by bike there is a lack of continuity of bike lanes, etc. (often a bike lane ends at a community boundary)
- Gaps between similar-level bike facilities
- Bad crossing I-94 Century Ave
- Bad crossing I-94 Radio Drive
- Bad crossing I-94 McKnight Road
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Signage
- Maps to denote utility routes vs recreational scenic routes. Highways vs. Parkways
- Wayfinding – consistent signage, maps on routes
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Safety
- Snelling Ave design is horrid for bicycling
- High traffic roads without bike and pedestrian infrastructure
- Using actual motor vehicle speed data to determine speed limits instead of what makes sense or what community wants
- Bikes not as “visible” in suburbs – suburbians don’t look for bikes as much as in city
- Drivers don’t look for bikes
- Enforcement of car bike routes
- Many bikers ride unsafely. Stress safety in posters and promos
- Bike trail on 35+ MPH roads not appropriate and doesn’t feel safe when biking with child in trailer or tag along, ie. Pierce Butler Rd is 40 MPH with a bike trail and no separation [ utility?]
- The need to identify recommended bicycle routes-along road shoulders-with a rating system good-fair, etc
- The need to connect paved trails to bicycle routes on roads, creating a bikeway system statewide
- Poor signage in places makes it hard to follow the routes. This is especially a problem during road construction and detours. Are cyclists considered when deciding on a detour?
- Legal protections for bikers are poor – unless the vehicle driven can be identified no enforcement of assaults is taken
Theme (noted as Priority #4): [No theme was included but ideas were grouped]
- Rumble strips make it easier to get across them
- Short neighborhood trails with many stopsigns
- Lack of local engagement in project scoping and design
- Tendency to push bicyclists off as a local transportation issue when state roads often are the only continuous routes
- Use of motor vehicle free right turns
- Bad design for tandems and recumbents
- Unwillingness or difficulty to work across agencies and city, state, county agencies
- Inability to deviate beyond ASHTO Guidelines
- Bridge accommodations
- Vehicle centric road design principles
Theme (noted as Priority #5): MnDOT Planning
- Knowing MnDOT plans, for example when work is being planned
- Inconsistency in vision across MnDOT Departments
- MnDOT plans roads without public input into design process. Citizens react to plans, are not at the table during design
- Lack of implementation of Complete Streets policy
- “Warrants” dogmatic adherence by MnDOT
- Creating Context Sensitive Solutions
- Need for greater transparency, earlier notification of public when a project is coming up
- MnDOT doesn’t use SNTC to help design projects
- Biking is not considered a default but as an add on. Should be considered at the beginning of each project
- Plan/policies treat all metro areas the same; Twin Cities Metro District is unique and very different from out-state areas
Theme (noted as Priority #6): Maintenance
- Many of the state trails need to be improved and resurfaced. Getting unsafe
- Winter
- Winter maintenance in some areas (strength in other areas)
Theme (noted as Priority #7): Perception
- Bikes are not treated as integral to urban transportation. Ex: with north-south bike lanes in St Paul east of downtown (Como to Marshall) Snelling is not bikeable
- Perceptions of “us vs. them” with limited funding – change perceptions
- Perception that bike transportation is not a core piece of transportation
- In transportation projects bikes are treated as optional add-ons if low cost and ignored if not
Opportunities
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Wayfinding
- Wayfinding improved and what is at the end of trails or adjacent
- Wayfinding signage
- Create route system across metro with signage
- Advertise/publicize trail access near trailhead
- Following trails – some signage is poor – it can be hard to know where to go (even when using a map) – improve signage
- A network of numbered state bike routes with wayfinding signage
- Alternative routes when paths are closed due to weather/flooding
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Bridges
- Add trails on road bridges and connect to a trail nearby
- All new bicycles should have bike lanes
- Bike lanes on (all new) bridges and overpasses
- Add barrier separated bike lane to bridges due for replacement to achieve critical connections or remove system gaps
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Map
- I miss the old 44 maps for Minnesota from 1990. They are still helpful and I wish they could be updated
- Maps should have you cross major roads and controlled intersections, ie. cross University at Victoria not Grotto
- Automated route planner like Google Maps but with level of auto traffic listed
- Creating a bike map will point out where bike lanes end or other barriers to bike travel
- Electronic map would be okay, but a printed version is critical
Theme (noted as Priority #4): Advocacy/Promotion
- Set target mode split for non-motorized transport
- Changing teenager mindset – independent travel
- Stress that biking is one way to deal with rising gas prices
- Great bicycling culture
- Emphasize positive exercise benefits
- Incorporation of public health in bike efforts
- Higher transportation costs
- Denser population concentration
- Serve long distance cyclist
- Use Legacy funds for new trails?
Theme (noted as Priority #5): Connections
- More dedicated bike lanes needed
- Fill gaps in state and regional trail systems for short and long term
- More connections between bike networks
- Connect, connect, connect. System wide smooth connections between paths/route important
- MnDOT design standards should be the guideline for all safe roads; should reflect current best practices
- Connect major trailways
- Develop rail corridor from Ford Plant to downtown
- Celebrate transportation corridor at Warner and Mississippi River the only travel [limit] is time and space – rail, car, bike, walk
Theme (noted as Priority #6): Education
- We need to educate cyclists and motorists regarding rules of the road
- Educating the public and policy makers on reasons for bicycle improvements
Theme (noted as Priority #7): Support
- Water is not freely available in many areas (to refill bottles) – would love to see more places (free or pay) to refill
- Bike commuters need to be able to get help (from a person) to plan their route to work
Theme (noted as Priority #8): Policy/Law
- Laws giving preference to bikers and walkers, for safety and convenience to encourage active transport
- Include bike-ped planning when projects come up, not as an afterthought
- Give greater consideration to bikes and peds over vehicles
- All projects should include bike facilities as bikers need to bike everywhere that cars drive
- Define minimum bicycle and pedestrian accommodations using vehicular traffic volume (greater volume requires more safety features)
- Provide SNTC with greater role in project planning and designs
- Seize scale of economy by expanding project scopes to improve biking during other projects (ie. mill and overlay)
- Better interface between agencies
Theme (noted as Priority #9): Safe Routes to School
- Use Safe Routes to School as part of effort
- Safe Routes to School
- SRTS is excellent program. Keep and increase
Theme (noted as Priority #10): Guidelines
- Funding should reflect strategic investment to move more trips to bike/walk
- NACTO guidelines for urban projects should be basis of design standards
- Become more flexible with design guidelines
- Residential speed should be reduced to 25 MPH
- Looking to other cities and states as models
- MnDOT urban highways that function as arterials/neighborhood streets should safely serve all users
- Make 35E a truck route
- The Complete Streets policy must be enforced
- The public needs to have better access to transportation planning to include bikes
- Quicker approval for local improvements
- Uniform rumble strips
- All MnDOT planners and engineers should ride a bike on projects they are managing
Threats
Theme (noted as Priority #1): Vision
- Federal Transportation Bill
- Motorized road lobby
- Continuity of Federal funding
- Internal MnDOT worldview oriented toward auto-dominance
- Political opposition to bicycle facilities
- Payment structure of bike lanes during resurfacing – community has to raise the funds
Theme (noted as Priority #2): Money
- Budgets
- Construction/project cost
- Funding
- Limited funding
- Budget is limited
- Maintenance cost
- Loss of federal funding
- Inadequate maintenance funding
- Funding
- $
- Bike projects adversely impact motorized transportation funds
- Limited influence/funding (MnDOT) for local routes/trails
- Lack of long term funding source for local routes/trails
- Funding being taken away and used for other projects that do not include biking
- Congress has removed all funding for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure – this will make it harder to get federal funding
- Loss of dedicated funding for non-motorized transportation
Theme (noted as Priority #3): Land Use/Competing Interests
- Lack of storage for bicycles
- Natural impacts of expansion/new projects
- Not considering future housing developments
- School closing/consolidating
- Freight strategy in urban areas
- Areas of refuge along trails and paths at appropriate intervals. It rains periodically here
Theme (noted as Priority #4): Traffic Law Compliance and Education
- Cyclist compliance with traffic laws
- Backlash to overuse
Theme (noted as Priority #5): NIMBY
- NIMBY groups that haven’t seen how great trails can be for community
- Possible nimbyism re project
Theme (noted as Priority #6): Resources (non $)
- Volume of work needed to create effective mapping
Theme (noted as Priority #7): Right of Way
- Accessibility requirements for public rights of way
- Available right of way
- State trunk highways in urban areas have limited right of way – not room to add facilities
Additional comments may also be provided to Greta Alquist through March 30, 2012.
.