Corridor Planning Guidebook

The questions in this section are intended to prompt input and discussion beyond the technical data considered below. People familiar with the study corridor can provide a depth of understanding that is not always captured in the technical analysis. Response themes or highlights from each should be summarized in the qualitative input section of the existing conditions report.

Agency Engagement

Coordinate with the project team to ask appropriate public agency staff questions such as these. Summarize responses as appropriate.

• Do you have recommendations for local/regional plans or resources that would inform pedestrian, bike or transit facilities on the corridor?
• Could this corridor fill a connection gap in a bikeway network that isn't served by another facility?
• Are there any long distance or regional trails within five miles of the corridor that could be opportunities to connect to?
• Are there any locations along the corridor you would highlight as working well, or as priorities to improve for people walking, bicycling, or taking transit?
• What community feedback have you heard about accessibility and connectivity when traveling as a pedestrian, bicyclist, or transit user?
• Are pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users able to comfortably access key locations in the corridor? Are there important resources or locations that are not accessible (housing, employment, services, airports, etc.)?
• Is there enough space for snow storage to allow full use of pedestrian facilities, bike facilities, and transit stops during snowy months?
• Are there transit services on or near this corridor? Are stops in the right places? Are they safe and comfortable for people using them? Are pedestrians able to cross safely at stops or to connect to sidewalks? Is the distance between transit stops and street crossing to opposite side of the street a reasonable distance as to avoid riders crossing mid-block or outside of marked crossings?
• What would make using transit more appealing and comfortable in the corridor?
• Are there safe and secure locations for bike/scooter parking along the corridor?
• If someone walks, bikes, or uses transit along or across this corridor, what, if any, challenges might they encounter?
• Is there e-bike or e-scooter usage in the corridor today? If so, do you have concerns? If not, are there opportunities or potential demand for these types of vehicles?

Public Engagement

Coordinate with the project team to incorporate questions such as these into public engagement activities. Summarize responses or themes as appropriate.

• What are the most common or important places people would like to walk or bike to? Are there safe ways to walk and bike to them? What is challenging about accessing these locations?
• Where do people walk, bike or access transit along this corridor? 
• What locations are most important for crossing the corridor as a person walking, bicycling, taking public transit or school bus?
• Where along the corridor would it be most important to provide bicycle or other micromobility parking?
• Are there needs or opportunities for e-bike or e-scooter use in the corridor? Do you have safety or other concerns about such uses today?

The table below shows the technical topic measurements and data to be included in the existing and future conditions analysis for Critical Connections: Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit. See Appendix C: Plan Type Data Matrix for direction on level of detail and items that may be optional based on corridor plan type. The items below also may be modified by the scope of work for an individual corridor plan. Also see plans and related documents gathered and reviewed in Step 2 for inputs and data to this section.

Table 11. Critical Connections: Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Technical Topics and Data 

Topic	Measurement	Data Sources
Facilities and Services	Existing or planned facilities for pedestrians, bicycles or transit	Bicycling: MnDOT Bikeways Application or local community database and plans Pedestrians and Bicycles: Map of existing and planned pedestrian and/or biking facilities provided by agencies along the corridor Transit: GIS or map data available through MN Geospatial Commons, or provided by the transit agency (local, regional, intercity, etc.) Request data from School District for bus stops and walk zones Relevant Safe Routes to Schools plans
	Completeness and directness of network facilities
	Pedestrian and bicycling conflict points
Pedestrian Access and Mobility	Level of need and demand for pedestrian facilities	PAWS Tier Map lookup of scores
	Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) is accessible and appropriate to context	MnDOT Facility Design Guide: Section 8C.9.2. Aerial imagery
Bicyclist Access and Mobility	Bicycling connectivity to local and regional network	MnDOT Bikeways Application District Bicycle Investment Routes identified in the MnDOT District Bicycle Plans or priorities identified in the forthcoming Bike+ Plan Community planning documents
	Appropriate existing bicycle facilities for corridor characteristics	MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual MnDOT Complete Streets Transportation Hierarchy Tool Level of Traffic Stress lookup
Transit	Connectivity to transit networks	Transit stops and routes along and within ½ mile of the study corridor, retrieved through MN Geospatial Commons, or provided by the transit agency (local, regional, intercity, etc.)
	Accessibility and infrastructure at transit stops	MnDOT Right of Way map, local agency data, or desktop review District ADA Coordinator, aerial imagery, MnDOT Pedestrian Infrastructure Viewer App Map Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS) – available to MnDOT staff
	Level of existing and planned transit along the corridor	For corridors outside MnDOT’s Metro District, Figure 4-7: Statewide Transit Need Index from the Greater Minnesota Transit Plan For corridors within Metro District, Metropolitan Council’s Transit Market Area (Figure G-1) and Network Now Framework
Micromobility	Availability and quality of micromobility and shared micromobility facilities	Consultation with local agencies Past community and transportation plans to identify trip generators along the corridor Useful information also may be available through General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) and Mobility Data Specification (MDS) from the micromobility provider or local agency

Identifying existing or planned facilities for pedestrians, bicycles and transit, along with gaps in facilities along the study corridor is one of the first steps for the project team to understand opportunities and needs along the corridor. The data obtained will support guidebook users in later stages of the planning process and encourage the development of the corridor for users of all modes, ages, and abilities.

Existing or Planned Facilities for Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit

Data 

Aerial imagery may be used to identify active transportation facilities. Transportation plans, including comprehensive plans, or mode specific pedestrian, bicycling or transit plans, may identify future planned facilities. Potential resources include:

• All Modes:
  • City, county, or regional (MPO, RDC)-level pedestrian, biking or transit plans often contain a map of existing facilities, along with planned facilities. Agencies may have Active Transportation Plans, SRTS plans and Walk Audits. Some may include project timeline, facility type, and location. MnDOT District offices have bike/ped counting equipment for use by local agencies. Some projects could include collecting data.
  • If the municipality is part of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the project team may identify facilities through a regional transportation policy plan, or a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) required to access state and federal funding for projects.
  • Safety-oriented efforts such as Safe Streets for All (SS4A) or Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plans may include recommendations for pedestrian or biking facility improvements
  • In some contexts, origin-destination data and documentation of pedestrian generator data will help inform existing conditions and future needs.
  • Facility data related to conformance with ADA requirements may be available from local or regional agencies or from the Pedestrian Infrastructure within MnDOT Right of Way map. Where recent data is not available, a high level desktop review or walk audit may be completed to document current conditions.
• Pedestrians:
  • Transportation plans and ADA transition plans may have information on pedestrian facilities.
  • The Minnesota Geospatial Commons, municipal data, transportation plans, and asset management plans may have crosswalk locations.
  • Existing and planned marked crosswalks.
• Bicycling:
  • The Minnesota Bikeways Map aggregates bikeway data throughout the state under one common data standard. This inventory reduces incompatibility or inconsistencies across data sets from multiple jurisdictions.
• Transit:
  • Transit agencies, the Minnesota Geospatial Commons and OTAT are a resource for obtaining data on existing and planned transit facilities, routes and service frequencies.

Documentation

Summarize existing and planned facilities as described above. The data can be summarized by creating a map highlighting the study corridor along with existing and planned facilities, which should be symbolized by type and implementation timeline. Highlight any system gaps that create barriers to walking, biking and accessing transit. The data can also be summarized with a list highlighting the facility/corridor name, facility/corridor termini, status (existing or planned), type (walk, bike, or transit), responsible agency, and implementation timeline.

Example of a Summary of Existing and Planned Facilities Table

Facility Type (ped, bike, transit)	Extent	Status	Type	Responsible Agency	Implementation Timeline

 

Identification of Gaps in Corridor Facilities (Including Crossings)

Data 

The project team can use the previously created map of existing and planned facilities to identify gaps in the pedestrian, bicycling, or transit network. Concurrent engagement with local communities may reinforce the project team's findings or highlight gaps that the team did not initially consider.

Documentation

Summarize results by creating a map of gaps in the pedestrian, bicycling, and transit network. Including the existing and planned facilities as part of the basemap will better visualize the extent of gaps in the network(s).

Transportation projects are an opportunity for agencies and the community to consider the level of priority given to users of various modes along the study corridor. By considering the accessibility of existing pedestrian infrastructure and the level of need and demand for pedestrian facilities, the project team can better identify the level of priority for pedestrian infrastructure developments in relation to other modes. The results will also help the project team plan for facility improvements that support pedestrian access and mobility for users of all ages and abilities.

Level of Need and Demand for Pedestrian Facilities along the Corridor

Data 

MnDOT has developed the Priority Areas for Walking Study (PAWS) analysis that acts as a starting point for considering walking in MnDOT decision-making processes. The analysis incorporates 19 factors that indicate demand for walking and need for improvement to the walking environment, dividing the state into half-mile wide hexagons. The hexagon scores are then divided into five tiers, with Tier 1 (hexagons with the highest scores) indicating areas with the highest demand and need for improvements to walking environments and infrastructure and Tier 5 the lowest.

The PAWS output does not provide recommendations for specific pedestrian treatments but rather suggests locations where pedestrian comfort and safety should be prioritized based on demand and need for improvements.

Documentation

Obtain the PAWS analysis scores for the half-mile hexagons that are inclusive of the study corridor. These scores can be accessed through the publicly available MnDOT PAWS Score GIS Map. While a study corridor may include hexagons in various tiers, it is still important to identify the general level of need or demand for walking infrastructure for the entire corridor and utilize the PAWS score to potentially advocate for pedestrian facilities improvements in high-need areas at later stages of the study process. Summarize the scores given to the hexagons by providing a table of the distribution of hexagons by their PAWS tiers and a brief summary.

Example Summary Table: Level of Importance of Pedestrian Facilities along Study Corridor

PAWS Tier	Number of Half-Mile Hexagons in Study Corridor	Percentage of Total Hexagons in Study Corridor
1	3	33%
2	3	33%
3	2	22%
4	0	0%
5	1	12%
Total	9	100%

 

Pedestrian Access Route (PAR)

Data 

MnDOT creates and maintains the Facility Design Guide, which aims to be a central resource for designers working on projects of various scales and jurisdictions. The use of the Facility Design Guide as a basis for design considerations and requirements allows the project to comply with MnDOT’s best practices and support its multimodal mission.

• The MnDOT Facility Design Guide: Section 8C.9.2. provides design definitions and guidance for pedestrian facilities along roadways of a variety of volumes and contexts. The project team should review pedestrian facilities and identify where they may not meet the guidance highlighted in the Facility Design Guide, either through aerial image review or a walk audit. As relevant, the assessment should be inclusive of the full sidewalk width, buffer and frontage.
• See also Step 2: Community Development Context review for identification of potential origins and destinations in the corridor.

Documentation

Summarize the results by creating a map highlighting the study corridor. Identify pedestrian facilities and routes, locations of crossing, conflict points, system gaps. Identify segments of bicycling facilities not in compliance with the need or the facility guidance and highlight locations for improvements. Augment the data with input from community members.

 

Evaluating bicycling facilities should include assessing their ability to serve users of all ages and abilities. This involves a review of the connectivity of existing bicycle facilities to the local and regional bicycling network and the type of existing facilities in relation to the corridor characteristics.

Bicycling Connectivity to Local and Regional Network

Data 

The following resources can be used to identify the level of connectivity of existing infrastructure to local and regional networks:

• The MnDOT-maintained MnDOT Bikeways Application
• District Bicycle Investment Routes identified in the MnDOT District Bicycle Plans and priorities identified in the forthcoming MnDOT Bike+ Plan
• Local and regional planning documents, which may contain information highlighting gaps in the bicycling network

Documentation

Summarize the results by creating a map highlighting the study corridor and bicycling networks near or adjacent to the corridor.

Appropriate Bicycling Facilities for Corridor Characteristics

Data 

The MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual highlights policies, aspects, and strategies for selecting the desired bikeway type based on design users, roadway contexts, and roadway volumes.

Use Chapter 3 of the MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual and the MnDOT Complete Streets Transportation Hierarchy Tool (see results from Step 2: Context) to determine the preferred bikeway type based on the study corridor context, volume, and potential users. By comparing this preferred bikeway type to the existing facility types along the corridor, the project team can begin to identify locations for potential improvements. Summarize the results by indicating whether each existing facility (or portion) does or does not align with the recommended types in the guide.

In most cases, it will be helpful to understand and convey the current facility bicycling level of traffic stress to inform facility improvements. The MnDOT Level of Traffic Stress tool can be used to provide information regarding traffic stress to users of a roadway. The tool considers characteristics of street segments and assigns a value of 1 (lowest stress) to 4 (highest stress).

Assessing bicycling safety and level of traffic stress can be informed by completing a Design Flag Analysis, identifying alternative improvement strategies and evaluating how they compare.

Documentation

Summarize the results by creating a map highlighting the study corridor. Identify bike facilities and routes, crossing locations, conflict points, system gaps. Identify segments of bicycling facilities not in compliance with the need or the facility guidance and highlight locations for improvements. Augment the data with input from community members.

Connectivity to Fixed Route Transit and Passenger Rail Networks

Existing transit services along or near the study corridor can include fixed route services (local or intercity) or on-demand services (dial-a-ride or deviated route service). This analysis of connectivity to transit networks focuses primarily on fixed route and passenger rail services and facilities. On Demand transit service areas and school bus routes and stops should be considered and informed through engagement with local agencies and the public.

Data 

Transit stop data provided by local and regional transit agencies or transit stop data retrieved through Minnesota Geospatial Commons are sources of transit stop locations.

Documentation

Summarize the results in a map highlighting the following information:

• Study corridor
• ½-mile buffer around the study corridor
• Transit stops within the ½-mile buffer (symbolized by transit type: fixed route or inter-city bus)
• Connectivity and/or gaps to transit stops from local sidewalk or trail network
• Curb ramp availability and condition
• Shelter location, access, and presence of furniture or other amenities
• Accessible pedestrian signals

This map acts as a basis for project team members to assess the locations of existing or needed safe and accessible routes (primarily walking) for transit users to access transit services along or near the study corridor.

Accessibility and Infrastructure at Transit Stops

Data

Facility data related to conformance with ADA requirements may be available from local or regional agencies or from the Pedestrian Infrastructure within MnDOT Right of Way map. Where recent data is not available, a high-level desktop review or walk audit may be completed to document current conditions. See also ADA information collected in Step 3 System Stewardship: Asset Management.

Documentation

Summarize the results by creating a map highlighting transit stop-related facilities (curb ramps, sidewalks, pedestrian signals at nearby intersections, etc.). Note locations where facilities are not accessible and improvements are needed. Include the following:

• Study corridor
• Transit stops within 1/2 mile of the corridor (as identified in the previous measurement)
• Crosswalks

Level of Transit Need Along the Corridor

Data 

The Greater Minnesota Transit Plan (GMTP) outlines transit needs in the Greater Minnesota region. It identifies factors that influence a need for transit (such as household density, job density, demographic information, etc.) and highlights the MnDOT-developed Statewide Transit Need Index Transit Need Index that quantifies where people are the most dependent on transit services. This data should serve as the basis for the project team to identify the level of priority for transit users in relation to other modes as the project progresses.

In the Twin Cities Metro Area, the Metropolitan Council Transit Market Area (Figure G-1) map identifies the level of transit service and areas where transit developments and infrastructures are the most cost effective. The project team should consult this data to identify the level of need for transit users in relation to other modes for projects within MnDOT's Metro District. Also, the Network Now Framework provides a vision for transit service that best meets the needs of the Metro region through 2027.

Documentation

Describe transit needs along the corridor within Greater Minnesota by consulting Statewide Transit Needs of the GMTP. Summarize the results obtained by citing the Transit Need Index. For example: "Corridor Census tracts are rated Moderate on the Transit Need Index scale. This means that demographic characteristics for the corresponding Census tracts indicated a Moderate level of need for transit along the study corridor."

Describe transit needs along the corridor within the MnDOT Metro District: Consult Figure G-1: Transit Market Areas of the 2050 Transportation Policy Plan. Summarized the results obtained by citing Table G-2: Transit Market Area Transit Demand and Typical Services. For example: "The areas the study corridor resides in Market Area III. This indicates that demand for transit service along the study corridor is oriented towards commuter express services, with some suburban fixed routes services and complementing on-demand transit."

The use of micromobility devices such as e-modals (e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.), cargo bikes, and similar are increasing. Facilities and infrastructure, including for shared micromobility such as station-based bike shares and dockless bikeshares, along with micromobility parking facilities, support the use of micromobility devices by making them more accessible and providing safe parking spaces. As relevant to the corridor location, the project team should consider the availability and quality of micromobility and shared micromobility facilities in relation to existing and planned levels of multimodal transit use along the study corridor. These may also include end of trip facilities, bike lockers and repair equipment. Consider also potential origins and destinations that may have higher demand for micromobility.

Availability of Quality of Micromobility Parking or Rental Facilities

Data 

Agencies may provide data on the location of existing or planned micromobility parking/rental facilities or locations of bikeshare stations if such services are available in or near the study corridor.

In locations without existing micromobility services and facilities, the project team may consider whether such facilities would be appropriate or beneficial. This can be done by reviewing local transportation plans, through discussions with local agency staff, or by observations of corridor land uses including community destinations and trip generators along the corridor. The project team can focus on locations or areas where the presence of micromobility infrastructure may reduce motor vehicle use.

Documentation

Identify locations of micromobility services or infrastructure based on data sources described above. Summarize the results obtained by creating a map highlighting the following information:

• The study corridor
• Locations of micromobility supporting facilities, symbolized by type (bikeshare docking stations, rental facilities, city- or privately-owned micromobility parking spots).
• Local origins or destinations that may have higher demand

This section identifies topics that are typically relevant only to select corridors or locations. They should be considered and included if determined to be relevant by the project team. 

Transit Facilities and Services

In addition to the measures of transit service and facilities identified above, the following could be considered.

• Population or job density per transit stop for more precise understanding of transit usage and coverage
• Evaluate whether changes to locations of existing transit stops could improve transit service and/or pedestrian access to the service. Look at scheduled vs real time transit data. 

Job Accessibility

Topic	Measurement	Potential Data Sources/Resources
Job Accessibility by Bicycle	Number of jobs accessible within 30 minutes of bicycle on medium stress roads	MnDOT Performance Dashboard: Average Jobs Accessible on Low and Medium Stress Roadways by 30 Minute Bike
Job Accessibility by Transit	Number of jobs accessible within a 30 minute transit trip	MnDOT Performance Dashboard: Average Job Access by 30 Minute Transit Ride

 

Multiple strategies may be used in an analysis aimed at fostering healthy and vibrant places that reduce disparities and promote healthy outcomes for people, the environment, and the economy. Guidebook users should prepare a summary of how healthy equitable communities were considered and include it in the memorandum or report that documents the assessment of pedestrian, bicycle and transit conditions.

Healthy Equitable Communities

Use a combination of demographic information (Step 2), technical input and input from community members and agency staff to provide responses or observations related to the questions below.

• Are pedestrian, bicycle, transit, micromobility and/or shared mobility facilities along the corridor safe, complete, and comfortable to use or access, including for members of underserved communities??
• Are there desired crossings to key destinations?
• Do these facilities provide access for underserved populations? Are there sufficient numbers of safe crossings along the corridor? Are there transit services utilizing the corridor?
• Is the transit network serving areas along the corridor that include underserved populations? If it does, do the walking facilities in those areas allow people to comfortably and easily access the transit network? If served by fixed-route transit: What type of transit stop improvements should be considered along the corridor? [signs, benches, shelters, heated shelters, schedules, bicycle parking] 
• Are there issues with the walking, bicycling or transit facilities along this corridor that prevent or inhibit corridor users from shifting away from driving?
• Are there issues with the walking, bicycling or transit facilities along this corridor that make it difficult or uncomfortable for users to access jobs, businesses, and other important locations? For example, is there adequate protection from heat and wind, benches, accommodations for older adults, etc.?
• Does the corridor include a Main Street, business district or other commercial uses that could benefit from streetscape features, wider sidewalks, areas for outdoor dining, or crosswalk improvements?