The amazing thing about the proposed design for Hennepin Avenue in South Minneapolis is that it looks exactly as it should. For many years now, Minneapolis leaders have passed ambitious plans declaring a new vision for city streets and public space: There’s the Climate Action Plan (2013), the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (2019), a Vision Zero Action plan (2019), and the Transportation Action Plan (2020). And just last month, the City Council passed a new Complete Streets policy that doubles down on prioritizing transit, bicycling and walking. They all passed with near unanimous support from the City Council and mayor, and all declare that the City of Minneapolis will change how it builds its streets.
Too often, though, plans like these gather dust while status quo inertia prevails. But that’s not the case this year on Hennepin Avenue in South Minneapolis. In a bit of straightforward action, the street redesign proposal reflects promises kept.
“We start from policy plans adopted by the city council,” said Becca Hughes, a transportation planner, to the skeptical members of the Uptown Special Services District during a meeting earlier this month.
In other words, if city leaders pass enough plans prioritizing walking and transit, eventually the streets start to change. After years of engagement that has gradually narrowed down the designs, the final design proposal prioritizes safety, transit and climate action.
“We do all of our technical analysis, traffic studies and other types of analysis,” Hughes explained. “We roll that into it so that we understand the factors, then we take public input. It’s exhaustive, [with] thousands and thousands of comments. We knew this was going to be controversial, because there’s only so much space in the public right-of-way.”
Safety first
Two months ago, I wrote about how impressed I was by two Minneapolis street reconstruction efforts on Grand and Plymouth Avenues, that each show the potential of 21st century street design. The over mile-long Hennepin Avenue reconstruction will have far more impact.
[image_credit]City of Minneapolis[/image_credit]
Instead, the new design is a deluxe version of a four-to-three conversion, with left turn lanes and only one thru lane for cars. Importantly, the street design includes what traffic engineer JoNette Kuhnau calls a key safety feature: a raised center median that will slow speeds, limit turns and reduce crashes.
Prioritizing buses
To me, the most unbelievable statistic about South Hennepin is that, before the pandemic, about half the people traveling down the street during rush hour were taking the bus. It’s wild because, if you glance at the street, you see nothing but cars. Most people, business owners included, never realize that half of the people traveling down the street aren’t driving.
This is why the proposal’s dedicated bus lanes are great. Having dedicated lanes aligns perfectly with the upcoming Metro Transit E Line aBRT project, guaranteed to boost numbers a well-used route. With the new lane, Hennepin Avenue transit riders can expect to pop from Uptown to Downtown in just a few minutes. Compared to the old #6 bus, eternally mired in congestion, I am confident that the route will blow ridership estimates out of the water.
Bike lanes and sidewalks
The most controversial part of the proposal swaps out most on-street parking for safer sidewalks and a two-way protected bike lane. As a long-time student of Minneapolis bike planning, I never thought I’d see the day when a protected bike lane was proposed for Hennepin Avenue. If passed, I’ll be carefully watching how it works.
Biking down Hennepin Avenue as it is today is not something I’d recommend to anyone; it’s the kind of experience best reserved for bike messengers and the sandwich delivery crowd. Having an actual separated bike lane available should be a huge boon to getting around South Minneapolis. Watching people discover a safe bike route on what had been an inaccessible street will be fascinating.
Opposition centers on parking
Of course, not everyone is on board with the proposed design. On the one hand, there’s a grassroots campaign of residents supporting the plan that have been canvassing the area for months, gathering signatures and sending comments to City Hall. On the other hand, the business association is upset. There’s an anti-Hennepin-redesign sign hanging in the window of the Corner Balloon Shoppe and the owner of the Café Meow is a vocal opponent.
The biggest complaint revolves around on-street parking, but the existing situation has long been a classic case of mismanagement. Without parking meters ensuring turnover, and with narrow lanes making exiting a car dangerous, the existing spaces were not the best use of the public street.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Bill Lindeke[/image_credit][image_caption]For many months of the year, when the street is narrowed by snow, on-street parking on Hennepin Avenue is reserved for the daring.[/image_caption]
A national example of change
When I moved back to Minneapolis from New York City twenty years ago, Hennepin Avenue reminded me of Manhattan’s famous Broadway. Both are historic trails dating to indigenous people, predating land development and the street grid. Both run at an angle, creating triangular chaos at intersections and opening up public space that could theoretically be used in creative ways. And for most of the 20th century, thanks to mid-century engineering, both streets were dominated by private car traffic despite running through the densest neighborhoods in their respective cities.
In New York City, the last fifteen years have seen a sea change on Broadway, with the addition of bike lanes, the transformation of much of the space into plazas, and other tweaks that have made Broadway a far better place to spend time. If this proposal passes, I believe South Minneapolis’ Hennepin Avenue will see a similar transformation to a street that centers around transit and walking. If so, it’ll set a stellar example for how mid-size cities can lead the way on equity and climate change.
Here’s an idea. Eliminate all of the on street parking. That gets rid of all of the small businesses along the Avenue, so there’s no longer any need to drive there, and Hennepin Ave can be reclaimed by all the bike and transit riders. Sounds like a perfect solution.
This same debate occurred on St. Paul’s Cleveland Avenue a few years ago, when the city installed a bike lane in place of most of the parking. I listened to lots of testimony about how removing the on-street parking was going to kill the businesses. It hasn’t happened; if anything, the street is thriving more than it was before in my opinion. (At least, it was before COVID.)
And your next piece should be on how this plan and the business owners came to be so far apart on what needs to be done:
Are they just a bunch of complaining neanderthals, incapable of comprehending the needs of modern thoroughfare design?
Did the planners just assume that their wisdom is so complete that time spent trying to convince the business owners early on in the project was a waste of time?
Was any kind of compromise impossible to achieve? Based on? How hard did folks try to get there?
The recent articles on this sure shows a wide gap: each side complaining of the “total failure” of the othersides’ preferences. The density of commercial activity on this street makes it different than Lyndale, Grand, Plymouth or Cleveland.
Inquiring minds want to know…
As someone who has done business engagement, I have some possible answers for this:
1. Getting the time and attention of business owners is hard. You know how hard it is to get public input from people who work two jobs and require childcare? Double that in difficulty. Business owners are BUSY, they rarely have a way to directly contact them, the pandemic and racial uprisings have them reeling, and…
2. Business owners sometimes think in their busy-ness and the ways they contribute to the local economy, that their connections to City Hall are more valuable than being civically engaged personally or joining a business association that shares their values. That calculation–thankfully for socioeconomic and racial equity–isn’t working so well for the solo-flyer-type of businessperson, who only comes out to organize when they’re angry.
3. Contrary to popular belief, business owners are just as divided in their worldviews as the rest of the population. Polarization is massive, with different competing business associations cropping up even within small commercial corridors. These two camps coalesce along the lines of collectivist values vs individualist values–with the latter often opposing Business Improvement Districts, bike lanes, and planning schemes informed by climate-change.
We’re hearing the usual laments about “lost parking,” but if half the traffic is by bus and much of the rest is neighborhood residents patronizing businesses on foot or by bicycle, this may be a non-issue in real life. The cries of “but where will our customers park?” is an example of being stuck in an auto-oriented mindset, an assumption that no one gets around or wants to get around any other way.
I am currently without a car, and once I take the bus to Uptown, it is extremely walkable, only not very pleasant, due to all the automobile traffic.
I remember Lyndale between 31st and 50th before it was reconstructed with a center median and turn lanes. The reconstructed design was lambasted before it was built, with people (including me) wondering how on Earth reducing ~4 lanes to 2 could possibly work on an already crowded artery.
The reality is that Lyndale is far safer than it used to be, more relaxing to drive on, and far more attractive.
I expect the same of the proposed change to Hennepin.
And now, the last time I drove down Lyndale, before I sold my ancient car for scrap, there were Metro Transit signs posted that said, in effect, “Better transit is coming to Lyndale.” And on several of these signs, someone had written in big black letters, “NO!”
Exactly, Erik. It happens literally every time. “We’d like to make things better for everyone.” “No, we can’t change, what about…” Every time. As though it’s never happened before.
One way or another, I doubt that I’ll become less reluctant to go there: parking likely to remain a problem, too far to go on foot from the West Bank, and too much time to get there and back by public transit.
I frequently visit a shop on Hennepin near Franklin, and after having my driver-side mirror removed by a passing motorist, I would rather park a block or two away than leave my car on Hennepin anyway. So they might as well get rid of most on-street parking on Hennepin anyway (I’d leave some restricted spots for people with mobility concerns).
A thought occurs to me, however, that the Masonic Temple and the Lowry, between them, have a rather vast parking area, large enough so I’ve never seen it full. I wonder if there’s any possibility of a small ramp in that location. Combined with the ramp near Hennepin and Lake, it might ease the parking anxiety experienced by some visitors to the area.
Your mirror experience mirrors my own, what I think about when I’ve parked there. As for buildings ramps, it’s just very expensive: millions of dollars. Is that how the city should be spending money?
I honestly have no idea why anyone would ever use the parking spaces on Hennepin. The only explanation I can come up with is that they’re so mired in car-centric culture that they’re blind to how insanely dangerous it is to exit and enter your car while other cars pass inches away at speed. People have no idea the forces involved and that they could be instantly killed or sustain life changing injuries if anybody involved screws up or isn’t paying close enough attention.
What is a “raised center median”? Is that what we used to call islands?
Think Snelling Ave. between Ford Parkway and Randolph (although think these are smaller).
This article and comments highlight how equity (and to a lesser extent climate) is used as an excuse, label to force ones utopian vision onto another. Once you use the word equity, then theres no reason to provide any statistics, rationality
What exactly is the climate action, equity that is being trotted out in this article. With regards to climate this action will narrow lanes for cars. Not one car will be off the street. The author points to Cleveland Avenue. However if you notice, he doesn’t tell us if bike usage has gone up substantially. Neither does he tell us if automobile usage has declined. My guess is neither. Additionally he points to more than half the people traveling were taking the bus. Read carefully, that is only for two hours in a day. The rest of the day that statistic doesn’t exist.
If i’m correct Hennepin Ave had an exclusive bus lane on certain stretches. Why am i wondering as to why it’s not being talked about.
Equity. What exactly is the equity here. One section of the population; those whose livelihoods depend on their business have been brushed aside. Equity ? If it were done to a minority population the same set of persons would be howling racism.
There are alternatives i’m sure, but not one is being discussed. Alas, this is not Urban Planning. It is Urban Politics. I have my vision of utopia and so sad you don’t fit in it.
One major quibble about the Hennepin Avenue redesign story.
The business associations are not the only segment against this plan.
For every resident collecting signatures to approve this design you will find just as many residents circling a petition to stop its implementation.
Groups with elders, disabled, parents with kids. All need cars. All need parking near the business they wish to access.
I see no problem with applying rhe road diet if it moves traffic aand allows for easier turns. IF traffic keeps moving. I’m not thoroughly convinced this will happen here
A 24/7 protected bus lane seems pointless as we ridership has cratered and no one envisions a return to busy downtown business crowds.
Use the extra space to keep parking while adding some greenery.
Bike Lanes DO NOT need to be on every major thoroughfare in the city. The city is installing a bike freeway just a couple blocks over in Bryant. A much safer road for bikes.
Broadway Ave (the one in mpls not nyc) underwent extensive study and input from the Broadway Ave redesign committee. Comprised of members representating every effected neighborhood. Our concerns were accepted and incorporated in the final product
Why was this not done for Hennepin Avenue?
BTW ~ Broadway NE is working fine.
A road diet. No bike lanes.
Limited but available parking.
Win win win
Hennepin Avenue promoses to be a major fail.
I guess that with my Social Security and Medicare, I qualify as an “elder,” but I’m getting around by bus exclusively now since ditching my super-annuated car, and a plurality of my fellow passengers fall into the categories of elderly or disabled. Teens who are too young to drive and families with children also ride the bus.
It is precisely the notion of Car As King that disenfranchises non-drivers. When I lived in Portland, Oregon, I was on that city’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee. We had only advisory input, not veto power, and it was astonishing and enlightening to see how even in that transit-conscious city, developers still proposed projects that were accessible only by car. In one case, a major commercial development whose property abutted a major light rail transfer point had no plans for pedestrian access from the station, just automobile access from a freeway off-ramp. The most vocal objections to this plan came from a committee member who used a wheelchair and who said that the buses and trains took him around town well enough and that the obstacles were always at the end points.
Excellent transit actually *liberates* the elderly and disabled and children from needing someone to chauffeur them. Good pedestrian amenities, such as smooth, wide sidewalks, street islands, and safe crossing points, are also helpful for people who need canes or wheelchairs.
But so many people in this country wear car-shaped blinders.
If you need to be able to drive on every major thoroughfare in the city, then it stands to reason that you also need to be able to walk or ride a bike on that same thoroughfare. If motor vehicles have a complete network of arterials and streets, without gaps, all other transportation methods should have one too.
Bike lanes are only built to satisfy drivers, who would otherwise be frustrated driving 10 – 15mph behind a cyclist in the general purpose lane. Were it not for driver impatience and recklessness when passing, bike lanes aren’t technically needed, since the general purpose lanes are legally ascribed for both cars and bikes. So take your pick: no bike lanes, and you share the general purpose lane, or bike lanes, and everyone can travel independently.
Bryant Ave is a bypass route to Hennepin not an alternative route. Especially closer to Lake Street, Bryant is too far away from Hennepin to be a reasonable alternavtive route.
Bill… is it really your contention that meetings and planning occurred BEFORE this plan was unveiled? Surely you jest sir!
Even successful business owners can actually be kind of dense on an intellectual level (note the “My Pillow” guy for instance). Any business owner on Henn Ave. who thinks their customers are parking the street in front of their business is simply not paying attention. I’ve driving down there since I got my license in 1979; from Stereo Land to Dudley Riggs, the Uptown Theater, and Calhoun Square I don’t recall EVER finding a parking spot on the street in front of a place I went to down there ever in 40 years. You always look just in case… and then find somewhere else to park. And it’s been developers not city planners that have been obliterating parking spaces for decades so I don’t know why you would get bent out of shape about this now. Your customers won’t miss the parking spots they can’t find now anyways so ya’ll can calm down on THAT front.
I’m not against bike lanes, but I’ve been cycling around this town for 40 years, and I was commuting by bike in and out of Uptown decades before any bike trails or lanes were built (except for the parkways). I can’t imagine why anyone would ever want to ride down Henn Ave in the first place for more than a couple blocks. I know this is heresy but one of the biggest advantages of bicycles is that you don’t have to drive them like a car, and you can’t think like your driving a car when you ride. Sure, a main thoroughfare like Henn Ave. may be your only and most logical choice to get from Lakewood to the Basilica in a car, but parallel residential side streets will always get you there faster and safer on a bike, even if they do create a bike lane on Henn. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be building some of these bike lanes, but sometimes I think we create unnecessary conflict with different kinds of drivers when we do. The majority of people going into Uptown from outside the area will be driving for the foreseeable future, you make enemies of those people at you own risk. I’m not saying they should scrap the plan but there are different ways of mediating tensions and conflicts between different modes of travel and transit.
” is it really your contention that meetings and planning occurred BEFORE this plan was unveiled”
I’ll answer for Bill: yes, there were literally years of them.
Paul, I remember while commuting on bike from Uptown to the then named Minneapolis Community College, I marveled at the bike riders on Hennepin (I was on the side streets) and their apparently casual concern with being flattened. This was the early/mid 1990s.
I share your concern about biking Hennepin even with bike lanes.
Great piece Bill!
It’s time for the City of Minneapolis to turn talk into action.
Funny how the word “equity” is used, but no clear explanation about that. Just kinda tossed in to make it seem like that is somehow a consideration. They only thing this works for a certain demographic that this city is always catering to. Note; it’s never actually anyone that is not a middle/upper class white liberal.
If you want a good explanation of equity in this case, check out the Vision Zero studies: https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/visionzero/vz-data-stats/vz-studies/
Well, Bill, I hate to say but your response to Ms.(?) Sargent confirms their observation. Sure the studies you point to identify minority populated neighborhoods as places of poor traffic safety… But this portion of Henn ave. isn’t in those neighborhoods. Instead of redesigning Broadway up in N. MPLS, you picked one of the most gentrified streets in the city to “re-vision” and claim it’s all about equity?
Equity definitely HAS become a buzz word among the affluent in the last decade or so. It’s sprinkled into policy discussions all over the place to create a veneer of awareness that simply puts a facade of pseudo consideration on the same status quo projects that have always catered to the affluent and connected among us. Here in my little suburban paradise of SLP the just reduced the residential speed limits to 20 MPH (20 is plenty eh?) and even THAT was described as a nod of some kind to “equity”. Whatever.
What we see here is the same white entitled male mentalities on foot, bikes, and in cars fighting with each other over who the streets belong to… this has little or nothing to do with racial, social, or gender equality or justice. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea or plan, but let’s be honest about what this is.
Really? Won’t frequent and dependable bus service, enhanced cycling infrastructure, and better pedestrian facilities be helpful to people who can’t drive, due to physical disabilities or frailty, or people.who can’t afford a car?
As I have noted elsewhere, we sometimes see opposition to reduction of automobile travel framed as looking out for interests of the elderly and disabled, but we don’t hear such things from the elderly and disabled themselves or from other regular users of transit.
One phenomenon I see in both European and Asian countries with comprehensive multimodal transit systems is groups of seniors, some of them looking very old and frail indeed, going out together, perhaps for lunch or to see a matinee movie, play, or concert. They’re not driving with possibly failing minds or senses, they’re not bothering anyone else for a ride, and they’re not tied to the schedule of a senior residence’s van.
Granted, some seniors disdain public transit, perhaps out of fear of looking “low class” or fear of encountering people unlike themselves. But making better transit available throughout the region (and not placing senior residences in the middle of suburban and exurban nowhere) would certainly alleviate the problem of seniors who insist on driving, even though their minds and/or bodies are failing.
Let’s see how it works – or doesn’t. I don’t have a dog in this fight, living far away and rarely visiting Hennepin Avenue for any reason, big or small, but I find myself wondering how many of the obviously sincere comments on both sides of this might be greatly altered, or might become irrelevant, half a decade after the project is complete.
Mr. Schoch, thank you for admitting that you do not live in the neighborhoods that will be affected by the Hennepin redevelopment plan. I suspect that a good number of commenters do not live in Hennepin-adjacent neighborhoods, Minneapolis or perhaps even in the state. I have lived six blocks from Hennepin for 30+ years; I am well into “seniorhood,”
and will be materially and negatively affected by the Hennepin plan currently proposed. A small example, I cannot pick up my dry cleaning and return home on a bike, on foot or by bus; the dry cleaner has no off-street parking.
It’s frustration that we even have to have the climate discussion, because it shouldn’t matter. As is, Hennepin Avenue is a terrible street. It doesn’t work well for anyone. It’s slow and unpleasant to drive, hostile and dangerous to anyone who isn’t driving, and an unpleasant place to spend any amount of time, like visiting any of the local businesses. The most basic notion of a livable, thriving city mean we should change it to be more pleasant or literally everyone, as the city proposes doing.
Yet we have to have stupid debates over vastly-over supplied free parking.
Thanks, Bill! If the new conservative city council and “strong” mayor somehow don’t kill this, I look forward to spending much more time along south Hennepin Ave than I currently do. Heck, I might even be tempted to move back to the neighborhood.
This all reminds me of a great line in a song by the now defunct local band The Hawaii Show:
Check my hair
Roll through Calhoun Square
I earned my wings at Famous Daves
Bill based on the headline of your article if appears that we agree that Climate Change is a real issue that needs to be addressed with affirmative action. I suspect that with a PhD in Geography you would agree that when it comes to Climate Change results count more than what sounds good. Can you help me out with my concern that the proposed project is about what sounds good instead of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Specifically, since US DOT data indicates that estimated Bus Transit CO2 emissions per passenger mile are similar to or greater than cars, do you have any data showing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with the proposed increase in bus service on Hennepin Avenue (To date Minneapolis Public Works has been unable to provide any data.)? How do you reconcile Public Works’ estimated 1.5 minute average increase in travel time for 26,588 vehicles per day (Minneapolis Traffic Data Management System), which is equivalent to adding two idling vehicles 24 hours per day 7 days per week on every block of Hennepin Avenue, with our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Please recheck your US DOT data claim.
The US DOT says re CO2: 0.96 lbs/mile for single occupancy vehicle and 0.64 lbs/mile for bus transit. -PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010
In addition to that error (or misrepresentation) if it were made more convenient, more people would leave their cars at home. In NY, Chicago and SF, it’s crazy to drive a car and expect a place to park it near your destination. Minneapolis is not those cities, but it’s not Des Moines either.
Your reference “The US DOT says re CO2: 0.96 lbs/mile for single occupancy vehicle and 0.64 lbs/mile for bus transit.” is the same data that I used. What you missed is the need to divide the .96 lbs/mile for a single occupancy vehicle by the average 1.67 occupants per vehicle for all household vehicles in the 2017 National Household Transportation Survey to obtain .57 lbs per passenger mile for household vehicles or less than the .64 lbs/mile for bus transit. This calculation shows slightly under 90% of the CO2 emissions per passenger mile for personal vehicles as compared to bus transit.
In regards to your second statement I would hope that the City would try to make it more instead of less convenient for residents and visitors to live, work, shop, and dine on the Avenue. For example, it is often forgotten that 80 to 90% of apartment residents on Hennepin Avenue own at least one vehicle and that the classic brownstone buildings typically have limited if any parking. The goal of the reconstruction should be a win-win for both transit riders and vehicle users.
I am curious if the City has taken into account any of the lower traffic flows that happened since Covid hit. It isn’t just Covid impacting the traffic counts, it is the rise of crime as well. Are these long term trends? If so, why are we headed down the same path?
I’ve worked uptown for 12 years, commuting 5 miles each way, not too far, by bike & bus. I agree with Karen S. that most of us have car blinders on. It’s unsurprising to see anti-equity comments here, or people saying that more buses will cause more pollution than cars, but clear to those of us actually using the neighborhood that something has needed to be done for too long.