Hennepin Avenue is the historic artery in the middle of Minneapolis, and Uptown has been the beating cultural and activity heart of the city for a long time. However, the proposed Hennepin Avenue redesign that the city is barreling toward will be an unnecessary repeat of another failed Uptown project.
At this critical moment, we must remind city leaders, as well as those who disagree with us; it is possible to want changes to Hennepin Avenue, but also feel that the proposed plan is not the answer. The city must do better.
Many of us remember the recent “Phase One” of the Hennepin project that stretched southward from Lake Street to Lakewood Cemetery. It altered Hennepin Avenue radically in terms of its design and abruptly in terms of its implementation. By many accounts, it was a failure in many different ways. Given the disastrous outcomes of Phase One, the city owes all stakeholders residents, businesses and visitors a better plan, not a repeat of the last one.
While people of many differing viewpoints have been getting more involved recently, our organization has been involved since the beginning of the Public Works participation process. We’ve spent hours in meetings, corresponded with Public Works staff many times, suggested our own concerns and those of our neighbors, as well as proposed other options and suggestions to Public Works staff.
Just as was the case with Phase One, our concerns have not been heard, and have not been Incorporated. When asked, Public Works staff have not sufficiently provided answers to a host of critical questions that are at the heart of the goals they are claiming to be pursuing.
Since “prosperity” is one of the City’s Transportation Action Plan goals, how does the evidence from Phase One (such as reduced revenue for the businesses, decreased property values, increased assessments, job losses from closed or diminished businesses) inform the decision-making this time? What are the specifics of the climate benefits, from a plan that will likely create gridlock and idling cars on the avenue? How does this project incorporate the “new normal” that we might have once the pandemic recedes? For example, how does this plan incorporate potentially different downtown commuting patterns? What are the time benefits of 24/7 bus lanes, compared to other measures such as the current cyclical bus lanes that share with parking, the fewer stops they are proposing as part of BRT (bus, rapid transit) traffic signal timing, locations of stops, etc.? Why can’t this project accommodate electric cars, which will be a critical part of changing America’s fossil-fuel consumption patterns? Isn’t that a more realistic vision of the future than exponential increases in year-round bike ridership in the Minnesota climate?
[image_caption]Aaron Meyers[/image_caption]
Annually, thousands of visitors spend millions of dollars in Uptown. To date, Public Works staff has not taken the time to understand the economic impacts, talked to individual business owners on the avenue, or been transparent about the economic and environmental impacts. They have shown through their words, processes and, ultimately, this plan, that they just don’t want to hear ideas different from their own.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. A survey we conducted in 2021 of Hennepin retailers showed that more than 30 independent, locally-owned businesses said they would seriously consider leaving the avenue if such a radical and abrupt plan is adopted.
Many city policies have laudable goals. But implementation of those policies is critical, and the implementation of this project is missing the mark, just as it did before. The path we are on, which looks remarkably like a repeat of Phase One on a much larger scale, is a disastrous course for this vibrant commercial district unless Public Works staff realize they must meaningfully incorporate other ideas, or the leaders in the mayor’s office or city council intervene.
Many of us have new ideas for Hennepin Avenue that are different from what it is today, and have expressed them over the past year and half. The design that Minneapolis Public Works staff has produced is not the right solution. Rather than take a victory lap now as some are suggesting, it’s time for those at Public Works to roll up their sleeves and meaningfully incorporate other ideas into their plans for a more holistic Hennepin redesign. Hennepin Avenue cannot handle another massive Public Works mistake. We cannot repeat another Phase One.
Aaron Meyers is president of the board of the Uptown Association, a nonprofit organization of about 100 members that also produces the Uptown Art Fair. He is a resident of south Uptown.
Dear Aaron, You make many valid points. Consider me like your auntie–the why to your question is primarily due to 2 things-egos and most policy planners have little experience/knowledge of the full history of what they are planning. You will see this not only in the city, but also the county. This is why things go round and round with those in decision making roles usually unable to state they made a mistake. Now I am not saying their plan for Hennepin is totally wrong, but there are some issues. Another factor is that the city and county do a poor job of communicating across silos. Best regards, Auntie Lisa
I think Minnesapolis should stop right now with the bicycle centered planning. The bicycle infrastructure we have now is perfectly adequate going into the future. Of course bicyclists won’t think so but their perspective is that cars should be banned just as some car drivers think bikes don’t belong on the streets. It’s a matter of compromise. The compromise is over and as Aaron writes it is time to move on to listen to others and learn from past mistakes.
With four lanes and no turn lanes, the current design fails people in cars perhaps as much as anyone else.
The proposed design is the definition of holistic. It safely and comfortably accommodates pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and car drivers. The addition of left turn lanes should improve traffic flow from the current inefficient four lane design. The addition of parking and loading bays at key areas provides space for those uses when most needed. This is a plan that looks at the whole picture. If the author has a different and novel definition of holistic, then he should define it.
A few other things stood out to me:
This piece compares the project to earlier work done on Hennepin south of Lake. But the designs are completely different and cannot be compared. This design has a curb level cycletrack while that design had unprotected bike lanes. This design has dedicated transit lanes while that design had none. This design has three vehicle lanes and some parking bays while that design had two vehicle lanes and no parking. It’s a comparison between apples and oranges.
This piece repeats a debunked assertion about the emissions from idling cars. A simple Google search would’ve revealed that the question of congestion-related emissions has been extensively studied (for example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920912000727) and the results clearly show that reducing VMT (strongly correlated with overall lane miles) offsets any increase in emissions from idling. At any rate, three lane roads often show superior performance than four lane roads, because left-turning cars are separated out. Giving stop and start buses their own lane should also help and not hinder traffic flow.
This piece also questions the time benefits of bus lanes. It seems incredible to believe that the author would not have consulted the project’s own FAQ page (https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/documents/4_Hennepin-recommended-design-FAQ.pdf), but it’s hard to come to any other conclusion when the exact numbers he suggests are missing are actually found on that page.
There is a difference between not being listened to and not being agreed with. This piece raises several objections to the project that are either disproven by rigorous research or have already been addressed by the project staff. The author claims that his organization has presented Public Works with new ideas for Hennepin, but doesn’t actually mention what any of these ideas are or what tradeoffs they would make instead. The author and his organization may not like the results of the relevant research, the answers given by project staff, or the tradeoffs that have been made in accordance with the city’s policies, but that does not mean these issues have not been sufficiently addressed.
Mr. Meyers makes no assertion about emissions from idling cars. Rather, he asks a valid question: “What are the specifics of the climate benefits, from a plan that will likely create gridlock and idling cars on the avenue?” What do you mean when you assert that Mr. Myers questions the “time benefits of bus lanes”? I read the transit section of your link and could find nothing about this topic/issue/problem.
According to feedback data on the city project site, 50% of the respondents did not live in neighborhoods affected by the redevelopment. You strongly imply that Mr. Meyers represents a generic, unnamed organization, hinting that it may have questionable motives. In fact, he is president of the board of the Uptown Association, a nonprofit that represents more than 500 businesses and four neighborhood associations that reside in Uptown’s boundaries, which includes Hennepin Avenue. The Association also produces the annual Uptown Art Fair which has attracted artists and visitors nationwide for 58 years. Its annual average attendance is 375,000 for a THREE-DAY event. Mr. Meyers is also a resident of Uptown. I have lived in Lowry Hill and East Isles for 44 years. I’m interested in knowing your connection.
City planners on a recent Zoom open house made repeated references to “working with stakeholders” in developing the proposal. If this occurred, why does the resulting proposal consist of only two plans, which are virtually identical? It seems that the ill-conceived goal was to “be all things to all people,” with little regard for actual stakeholders — neighborhood residents and business owners. Approval of the plan by the City Council and Mayor should be delayed until questions raised by Mr. Meyers and neighborhood residents are addressed and unambiguously answered.
Nope. He isn’t asking a valid question at all. He is stating a falsehood and phrasing it as a question. The idea that gridlock and idling cars increases emissions is a lie often repeated by pro-road/car interests.
This whole piece is bad-faith, dishonest nonsense.
Trying to hide bald assertions in questions is disingenuous at best.
The author provides zero evidence of his assertions and no other plan. Is his proposal to just leave it the way it is? I don’t know, he didn’t say.
Mr. Terry, it would be helpful if you would provide the source of your information. What the U. S. Department of Energy says about idling car emissions is contrary to your assertion:
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf
Nope. You are completely wrong.
The issue isn’t that idling cars produce lots of emissions – that isn’t in dispute. The issue is whether the changes being proposed here increase emissions. Alex’s links above address that.
What the author is doing is taking a bald-faced lie that gets trotted out in opposition to these kinds of road changes, and frames it as a question. Its pure dishonesty.
I agree with you Sandra. When they say “stakeholders” they are talking about:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON: AGING
“ ” ” PEOPLE W/DISABILITIES
“ ” ” BICYCLES
“ ” ” PEDESTRIANS
“ ” ” PUBLIC HEALTH
“ ” ” TREE PLANTING/PARK BOARD
Stakeholders NOT consulted:
– Fire Dept.
– Police Dept.
– Ambulance and EMT drivers
– Business owners
– cab, uber, limo etc. drivers
– private citizen drivers in general
– The general population overall
– SHIPPING INDUSTRY COMPANIES & DRIVERS – trucks, vans & cars – Independent contractors
– DELIVERY DRIVERS & BUSINESSES THAT EMPLOY OR USE THEM – UPS, Post Office, Fed-Ex, food, retail etc.
– GOV’T VEHICLES
– BUS DRIVERS
in other words – 80% OF THE POPULATION & THOSE WHOSE GAS TAX PAYS FOR THE STREETS WE’RE TALKING ABOUT were not in on the planning & design but were “informed” after the fact
I’m curious as to how you know that.
It’s in earlier planning documents for Complete Streets in City Council records.
And when you replied to Sandra that she was completely wrong saying “The issue isn’t that idling cars produce lots of emissions – that isn’t in dispute. The issue is whether the changes being proposed here increase emissions. Alex’s links above address that.” YOU are completely wrong. Check out my response to Alex – those links show zero conclusions as to idling emissions in this case. What you and the other truth-denying folks in this discussion keep trying to do is dismiss this article because I assume you’re invested in the “bikes only” movement and now the people who were not consulted on the front end who actually have to pay for it – and that IS approximately 80% of the population of Minneapolis – are finally speaking out because of the way Complete Streets was planned and implemented under the radar on purpose so the response time would be so delayed that by the time the majority found out what was really happening you all hoped it would be too late to stop it. Nice try. Another little tidbit I found in the same group of documents was a quote from Lisa Bender saying “we talked to about 1000 people before implementing this plan”. Really? 1000 out of about 400,000? So .025%? And were they part of the “street survey” where only passing bicyclists and pedestrians were polled? This was not done in good faith at all but is a deliberate and deceptive plan using people with disabilities, the elderly and the poor to artificially inflate numbers of “concerned citizens” a.k.a. “stakeholders” in order to gain sympathy for a tiny group of people whose main agenda is to get rid of cars and force unnecessary, unjustified, traffic-impeding bike lanes on the city to displace cars. This movement is rooted in envy of people who you think are better off than you because they make the very real sacrifices to afford a vehicle that’s by far the safest, most functional form of transportation currently available and selfishly, cynically and arrogantly “massaging” data to validate your claims. Now the backlash is finally coming and all you can do is point to inconclusive studies, deny facts and criticize someone’s writing style to deflect the truth of what he’s saying. Enough already – you’ve done nothing but waste very valuable public resources, time and attention when we have real problems to deal with – violent crime, poverty, homelessness, Covid 19, police reform etc. All so you can feel “comfortable” riding a bike in heavy traffic with no regard for the vast majority’s rights, time and tax dollars. Let’s hear some real safety statistics – I’m unaware of any rash of pedestrian or bike rider deaths or injuries. And if you think that “zero deaths” is achievable then you’re more out to lunch than I imagined. Try thinking “harm reduction”, compromising and recognizing that there’s a point where childproofing the world becomes not worth the cost.
Mr Alex, your response is flawed. I read the plan.
Parking
“Parking
14. Why isn’t there more on-street parking in the recommended design?
The city’s Climate Action Plan and Transportation Action Plan prioritize the use of the street right-of-way
for people rather than for parking and loading. The design of Hennepin Ave is looking forward 50 years …”
Basically, how is this plan holistic. If you’re a business owner who depends on parking availability, your business is screwed. There is no parking. That’s not in the “vision”. Now how is that holistic….
Bike Lanes
Also please show us the use ratio of bike lanes vs car lanes. You’re putting all these bike lanes at the expense of parking and traffic. There is no proof, absolutely no proof that so many bikers will use these lanes. That comes at the expense of car traffic, ability to park and business owner who will be screwed. How is that holistic….
Apples vs Oranges
If Phase 1 was a disaster and you’re saying apples vs oranges, the Phase 2 is being designed by the same people who designed Phase 1. How is that apples vs oranges ?
There are a lot more flaws in your argument. I will post later.
Parking. The average store on Hennepin has 2 or maybe 3 parking spots in front of it. How often are they used by actual patrons of that particular store? It is so rare to park in front of the store we want to visit that it has a name…rock star parking.
Car lanes come at the expense of pedestrians, mass transit and bicycles. How are they holistic?
As for the pollution of idling cars…you have to prove that congestion will get worse before you can even trot out that canard.
“How often are they used by actual patrons of that particular store? ” – If this study was so thorough and holistic it would have measured that. It would have measure the average distance and cost of parking as compared to the current and its effect on the business. For a coffee shop a distance of more than two blocks may be disastrous.
“you have to prove that congestion will get worse” – If you reduce lanes, there will be more congested lanes. I’m open to that if you can prove this study shows that bike usage was going to jump so much more.
3,600 parking spaces within half a block of Hennepin Avenue. 340 are being removed. Less than 10 percent!
Oh the horror of a tiny reduction in parking!
“If you reduce lanes, there will be more congested lanes.”
That is just an assertion. Study after study have shown that a 4 lane to 3 lane either helps congestion or doesn’t add to it while improving safety. Study after study have shown that bike lanes get used.
“3,600 parking spaces within half a block of Hennepin Avenue. 340 are being removed. Less than 10 percent!….Oh the horror of a tiny reduction in parking!”
How many of those 3,600 are public parking rather than expensive private parking….Oh the horror someone is asking a question regarding parking…how dare they…in our vision of utopia everyone rides a bike….so why bother. Wanna support a small business, rather than parking nearby go pay $10 and then go to buy a $5 dollar item. Yeah, i’ll be doing that.
“Study after study have shown that bike lanes get used.” – Any study after Phase 1 that bike lanes got increased density ? ….I guess nope, none at all. As long as it fits in with my utopian vision, why bother.
“Study after study have shown that a 4 lane to 3 lane” – Where is the middle 3rd lane ?
Since free parking is of such concern to you, I would think you would already know the answer to your question.
Bike lanes get used.
The 3rd lane is the left turn lane.
Talk of dishonest responses.
Theres no answer to he Parking question, cause you know that there’s no parking. Furthermore the dishonesty continues when the claim is made that bike lanes get used. There’s no proof of that.
There is abundant parking along the corridor and will continue to be.
Raj, there are very few bicyclists on Hennepin today because Hennepin is an extremely unsafe and uncomfortable road to ride a bicycle on. That’s why what bicyclists do travel on Hennepin tend to go on the sidewalk. If Hennepin is made into a safe and comfortable road to ride on, people will bicycle there for the same reason that people drive and walk there: because it’s a street that gets them where they want to go.
You cannot determine whether there is demand for a bridge by counting the number of people swimming across a river. In the same vein, you cannot determine demand for a bikeway by counting the number of people willing to risk death or injury by biking where it’s unsafe.
The design is holistic because it accommodates all modes of travel and does not privilege one mode at the complete exclusion of another, which is what you are proposing to do.
Alex, other parts of the city have had bike only lanes in recent years. There has been no marked increase in the use of those lanes. One cannot simply ignore that.
This design is not holistic, cause it privileges the political preferences of a few over the lively hood and commutability of many. Giving equal preference to a bike lane when prior experiments have show they don’t increase use, displays political preference, not equal preference.
“This piece repeats a debunked assertion about the emissions from idling cars.” – This study was done for city wide urban metro transit. In those cases, yes the study could be considered valid. However now you are erroneously transposing those results onto a highly micro road project. That is incorrect.
If you wish to do that you will have to prove that the transit patterns on that stretch of roads is the same as the ones in the urban metro study. For ex. If you increase car lanes on this project, will it cause more auto use on that stretch. You have provided no proof of that. This is an inter urban route.
I’ve read the first study you cited. Your assertion that reducing VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) would offset extra idling emissions created by this design would be true if this design actually did that. But it doesn’t. It does decrease VMT on Hennepin – but those vehicles you force off of Hennepin or delay access to it don’t magically disappear. If you damn up a river the water either stops or finds a different way around which is exactly what will happen to traffic. It will be backed up & idling trying to get onto Hennepin or will spill onto parallel residential side streets. Due to that, it will further increase idling emissions in the area.
Furthermore, this study as included here cuts off at numerous points and is, therefore, incomplete. Also – most of the variables it mentions that would offset idling emissions are not guaranteed to come true. They are dependent on future projections such as fewer people choosing to drive, increase in electric vehicles etc. Can you tell us if and when these changes are slated to occur? Dealing with the here & now and the foreseeable future, this plan INCREASES GREENHOUSE GASES. Your claim that this plan sees “50 years into the future” is inaccurate to say the least.
This study also emphasizes congestion mitigation for better traffic flow to decrease emissions. This plan(and all other bike-centric traffic plans completed so far) IMPEDE TRAFFIC FLOW and therefore increase emissions.
You also say “the addition of parking and loading bays” – there is no “addition” of either. There is only a small percentage of that space left over after you ELIMINATE THE BULK OF PARKING AND LOADING SPACE.
You insist that “adding” (again deceptively false) left turn lanes will increase traffic flow. In what universe? What you’re actually doing is REMOVING AN ENTIRE LANE. Most of the time no one is taking a left & that lane is free-flowing so you’re in fact eliminating a mostly free-flowing lane. On the other hand, if enough people decide by chance to make a left at the same time, traffic will back up and either completely block the only through lane or back up behind itself so as to impede left turns from the other direction. And what about right turns? Every time a pedestrian, bike or bus stops a vehicle turning right ALL TRAFFIC BEHIND THAT VEHICLE MUST STOP because there’s only one through-lane.
You ask for a better plan – here it is: combine sidewalks with bike lanes – complete with no-walk/no-bike lights to allow for vehicle right turns. Use left-turn signals instead of left-turn lanes(left turns are already illegal at many of the current intersections anyway). Leave the buses, car lanes and parking the way they are (unless you can squeeze a dedicated bus lane into the space between parked cars and other traffic).
I’ve been a professional driver for 30 years, ride a bike, ride the bus & got straight A’s in Math and Physics.
Math & Physics are proven constants in the universe – not subject to opinion, trends or popularity. There is only so much physical space available. Here’s a fact of Physics: when a vehicle drives from point A to point B emitting greenhouse gases, then stopping or slowing that vehicle increases total emissions. The study you cite doesn’t “debunk” that because that would be impossible.
Last notes: How are emergency vehicles supposed to navigate through traffic when cars have nowhere to pull over? Why is there so much consideration given to bike traffic? My educated guess based on observation is that bikes make up the smallest portion of traffic and are supposed to ride on the street. If they’re not comfortable riding on the high-traffic corridors they can easily take side streets which wouldn’t increase emissions. Correct me if I’m wrong.
You got A’s in math and physics.
What was your grade in engineering and traffic management?
Tim, I notice you haven’t challenged any of James’s assertions regarding traffic patterns. Also you haven’t provided answers for Parking and bike lane usage.
It all points to one fact. Your speciality is your political preference.
James,
Your analogy of traffic to water is incorrect. While the amount of water flowing down a river or through a pipe is a fixed variable, the amount of traffic traveling through a road network is highly elastic. It is sensitive to costs, whether through tolls or time. It is also sensitive to alternatives. Most people are mode agnostic, meaning that given a fair choice between multiple modes of travel, they will choose the one that makes the most sense for the trip or chain of trips they are embarking upon. So if Hennepin were to be rebuilt along the lines of the proposed design, decades of urban economics research suggests we should expect VMT to decrease across the entire road system in this area, while ridership on transit, bicycling, and walking should see increases.
Your assertion about this design impeding traffic flow is also not likely to be accurate. Traffic will likely travel at slower speeds, but it should flow (less stop and start) much more efficiently. This is because the proposed design puts buses and left turning cars into their own lanes. These two types of vehicles currently stop and start in general travel lanes, creating cascading traffic issues along the corridor. By taking them out of the stream of through traffic, flow should be improved. Traffic engineers know that three lane roads perform better than four lane roads for this exact reason, counterintuitive as it may be.
You object to my characterization of the parking and loading bays. But I think I am correct. Currently on Hennepin there is a lot of unmetered and unregulated parking. Many cars on the Avenue do not belong to people visiting businesses, something that is apparent a couple days after a snowstorm, when many cars have clearly not moved. The redesign would lead to less parking on the street, it’s true, but it would add spaces that would be metered and regulated. This will increase turnover and ensure that these spaces are available for their intended purpose.
The questions you ask at the end are easily answered. Emergency vehicles will use the bus lane and move much faster as a result. There is consideration given to bike traffic because bicyclists are people too, and they also like to get where they are going. Currently Hennepin is a death trap for bicyclists and if that were to change, many more people would then bike on the street.
Your proposed design for the road looks a lot like the present condition, which satisfies nobody. Given that this road is being reconstructed and will not be reconstructed again for fifty years, your proposal would represent a massive lost opportunity to create a road that is safe and comfortable for all users.
I’ll address your responses in approximately the order written.
The water analogy was a figure of speech – not meant to be 100% literal. So to classify it as “incorrect” is incorrect. Your use of the term “fixed variable” is also incorrect. A “fixed variable” is something that is variable but assigned a fixed value determined by a scientist or researcher to prove or analyze other properties of an experiment or study. In the real world something is either “fixed” or it’s “variable”. Water is completely variable (subject to rainfall variation, rates of use etc.) and so is traffic. So both are also “elastic”.
I don’t believe most people are “mode agnostic”. Drivers have valid reasons to justify the expense & responsibility of owning a car and why they choose that mode of travel. Carrying cargo – groceries, equipment, work tools, passengers etc., also protection from weather, 4-wheel stability & safety, speed/efficiency/time etc. Professional drivers don’t have a choice – whatever vehicle is required is the only choice. Toll roads increase congestion, emissions & people’s personal expense. Time is precious – and no one wants to sacrifice it for this design. But if, as you claim, some people ARE “mode agnostic” then they can take a bus up & down Hennepin and every other high-traffic commercial corridor and even mount their bike on the bus! That’s another reason that bike lanes are unnecessary. Riding a bike is a more dangerous choice in city traffic and like any choice you make you must take responsibility for it. It’s not the city’s job to support bad choices like riding in bad weather and taking high-speed roads with heavy traffic. We cannot childproof the world. I’ve ridden a bike in this city for over 40 years & never felt the need for a bike lane. I ride defensively, choose the safest routes, know the rules of the road and watch out for bad actors.
You admit your design will make traffic slower but say there’ll be fewer stops. Untrue – slower traffic doesn’t reach lights as quickly and therefore increases stops. Because of that, the slowing also increases backups until cars are stopped farther and farther back = gridlock. Hybrids actually produce more emissions when they’re moving slowly than if they’re stopped or going faster. Faster speeds mean LESS TIME EMITTING GREENHOUSE GASES.
If pedestrian crossings are really that dangerous, why not a tunnel or skyway instead of further clogging the road?
This is a commercial corridor and truck route. There is no need for green boulevards or medians of any kind to further clog the space. There is already an abundance of greenery and popular lake recreation in the immediate area – another source of congestion that isn’t going away – unless part of this plan includes moving the lakes.
Trying to make every road “all things to all people” is a Utopian pipe dream. The problem with Utopia is everyone has their own idea of it. How many Utopias can we afford? ZERO.
You say we “should expect” Vehicle Miles Traveled throughout the entire area to decrease. What area? The little segment of roadway you’re currently trying to overhaul? And if more people are forced off Hennepin where will they go? Either to side streets or to other similar business districts. Or is the plan to screw all business districts up equally so people will just have everything delivered? But wait – then delivery trucks will increase proportionally! You say this design is “not likely” to impede traffic. That’s also false. This design is DESIGNED TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC! That’s the hidden goal of the “bikes only” movement. That’s why the plan includes unnecessarily widening sidewalks and making bike lanes wider than needed. Physics & Math are what traffic design & engineering are based on – and the numbers just don’t add up.
As I said in other comments, I’ve been a pro delivery driver for 30 years – 10 exclusively in Mpls. I’ve driven this stretch of Hennepin about 5000 times in every road/weather condition and time of day & night. I always avoid congestion if possible but must go where the delivery takes me. Speed & efficiency as well as safety are paramount to making a living. I’ve also observed & driven every type of road configuration there is thousands of times. Your traffic flow theory has no basis in fact or reality. Did these engineers mention that right AND left turn lanes were needed to make any road a truly “through” lane? And what roads were they talking about and with what level of VMT? I’m guessing wide suburban & rural roads with no bus lanes. This design eliminates 50% of what are, even presently, only semi-through lanes due to turns and bus/pedestrian parallels and leaves one lane that is still not a true through lane due for the same reasons. That automatically doubles congestion! Nothing in this design adds back that 50%. Plus there are no right turn lanes due to exclusive bike & bus lanes which, combined with projected increase of parallel bike & pedestrian traffic, will stop and slow traffic much more than it is now causing more stopping & slowing in the ONE REMAINING CAR LANE.
You say parking meters will help so the spaces are used for their “intended purpose” – according to who? People live on Hennepin. Are they supposed to take their car up in the elevator with them? What happens in a snow emergency? What will the city do with all the revenue from meters and the tickets they issue? Finance the removal of more car lanes and parking? Is that how they plan to pay for this project? So part of the plan is to take drivers money to make their lives miserable.
Look at all the freedom & amenities bikers already have: minimum upkeep, no gas tax, no license fees, no driver’s license tests, virtually zero accountability, few safety requirements, no tickets, no tows, no insurance, thousands of miles of bike paths within the metro, paved streets to ride on (for which they pay nothing), commuter trails, nature-lined recreational trails, the greenway (which I personally helped bring about, planted trees on and use regularly) As a bike rider myself I prefer to keep those freedoms and if you keep pushing for more bike privilege new regulations could change that.
This plan shows complete disregard of zoning or anyone else’s rights or needs.
Sorry – but your “should”’s, “likely”’s, “I think”’s and “expect to”’s aren’t enough to justify the cost and guaranteed problems that come with this design. The entire Complete Streets plan – of which this design is a prime example – is extremely punitive to every licensed driver in the metro, increases greenhouse gases and slows emergency vehicles. It should be abandoned immediately and all car lanes that have been taken to provide bike lanes should be reinstated. Demanding special, costly privileges for such a small number of bikers is unjustified and unwarranted.
If anything, electric cars are the “50 years into the future” of personal transportation – not bikes. This design is more like 1870 than 2070. Where is the planning for charging stations?
This plan calls for Emergency Vehicles to use the bus lanes. How is that going to work? There’s a bus running every 6 minutes on Hennepin, they have nowhere to pull over and now this plan clogs up the one remaining car lane leaving no good options for emergencies meaning response times for EMTs, ambulances, police and fire will all be increased (not to mention snow emergencies & plowing problems). If you’re touting the “safety” of this plan I would say that’s a pretty major thing to overlook.
If Hennepin is such a death trap why do you insist on riding there? You mention that bikes often ride on sidewalks for safety. Doesn’t that tell you that combining bikes & pedestrians makes more sense than cars & bikes? It seems to work fine on the greenway.
You expect cars to park on side streets – no big deal. What about the residents of those side streets? Maybe they’d rather have a few bikes ride on their streets than constant noisy cars filled with people and meters where their visitors could once park for free. And just because you build bike lanes doesn’t mean more people will come on bikes – especially in this climate with a potential for winter weather 6-8 months out of the year. And if they do come that causes more of a different kind of congestion. Like people waiting even longer for bike traffic in order to take a right while the entire fleet of cars behind them idle.
My plan is not “the same” as things are now. It’s just much more practical and less expensive & extreme. When you say “satisfies nobody” you’re wrong again. I, for one, and, I’m betting, all other drivers, will be satisfied that driving conditions are not made far worse. But if bikers aren’t satisfied I’d say it’s because what they have been promised is simply too detrimental in too many ways to be implemented. This WILL be a disaster and it’s built on ideas started by the “bikes only” coalition. Their “manifesto” (their word – not mine) was published around the turn of the century in City Pages. This philosophy was somehow unbelievably enabled, perpetuated and amplified by the previous City Council and NOW IS THE TIME TO BOMBARD THE MAYOR AND NEW CITY COUNCIL WITH DEMANDS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LETTING THIS HARMFUL, UNWORKABLE POLICY BE FOISTED ON AN UNWITTING PUBLIC. It’s a Trojan Horse that was smuggled past 80% of the populace in the name of fighting climate change by reducing emissions while actually doing the EXACT OPPOSITE! As for pedestrians & transit, especially on this small stretch of road, detriments far outweigh any benefit. THE UNDERLYING AGENDA IS TO ELIMINATE CARS BY 2030. They currently say this out loud at the meetings of “Our Streets” – a small, highly organized group that constantly harasses every level of government with their narrow agenda and of which the members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee to the City Council are also members. Where’s the Advisory Committee on motor vehicles? The perception that Boomers have ruined the world for generations that follow them and now they can’t afford a car, house etc. drives many look for revenge by making driving as slow as riding a bike or taking a bus. I’m not disputing that there is some truth to their claims of being born into a messed-up society – but the Boomers didn’t inherit a perfect world either. And bike lanes instead of car lanes is a horrible, harmful response that only makes the world worse. If you really want to make meaningful change I suggest attacking Big Oil & car manufacturers. They’ve been relentlessly manipulating the transportation market to make obscene profit even though they’ve known for 50 years about emissions & climate change (SEE: The Carter Administration).
Bottom line is your plan INCREASES GREENHOUSE GASES AND ENDANGERS EVERYONE WHO MAY NEED EMERGENCY SERVICES. These facts negate any claims of improved “safety” from the Complete Streets policy. A small increase in bus efficiency is also not worth that or the extra money to do it. Sadly, THE ONLY WAY TO CURRENTLY GUARANTEE AN IMMEDIATE REDUCTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES IS TO FACILITATE FASTER, MORE EFFICIENT MOTORIZED VEHICLE TRAFFIC FLOW. This is the hand we’ve been dealt – like it or not. At the very least, care should be taken not to impede efficient transportation further – “first – do no harm”. And decent traffic flow will benefit the change to electric cars as well.
TRANSPORTATION POLICY HAS SERIOUS, FAR-REACHING, VERY REAL EVERY-DAY EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES AND CANNOT BE LEFT TO A ONE-AGENDA GROUP TO DICTATE. Again – this city is in serious crisis with major problems: Violent crime, addiction, poverty, police reform, homelessness, Covid etc. And these self-appointed “experts” want us to waste time & resources to deal with an ill-conceived and detrimental movement which, if the former City Council had bothered to vet or even use common sense, should have never seen the light of day.
James Riley – Minneapolis
The median will also help out traffic flow for motorists considerably. It will force non-signalized intersections and curb cuts to be right-in-right-out, significantly reducing blocking by people queued to turn left onto or off of the street.
As someone who lived on Hennepin Avenue along this stretch, I can tell you that just trying to cross Hennepin on foot to grab some Indian food or a burrito is risking one’s safety. It will good a very good thing to calm traffic in this area of the city which has one of the highest residential populations in the the city.
More pedestrian neighborhood residents will soon be crossing the street to grab that palak paneer and naan in the near future once this project is completed. This will help, not hinder, the local businesses.
I hate to say Mr. Meyer’s but your article is remarkably short on actual content. This is kind of ironic because you spend so much time complaining about not being listened to, but leave the reader wonder what if anything you actually have to say?
I’ve driven down phase 1, and it doesn’t look like a disaster to me so you need to explain that declaration, not just repeat it over and over again. What exactly makes it a disaster? One or two examples would go a long way.
Likewise a few specific criticisms of the next phase would be helpful.
I agree. I’ve been without a car since September, but I have both driven and ridden the bus down that section of Hennepin There is nothing disastrous about it.
In the matter of the allegedly vital and sacred parking spaces, driving between 31st and Lake Street used to be an irritating prospect, due to people who insisted on parking on that block at rush hour, holding up traffic as they backed into their space, because they couldn’t be bothered to walk a block or two to where there was ample parking, and no, these weren’t handicapped spaces that they were trying to sashay into.
Phase One led to significant redevelopment along it’s route, which is pretty strong evidence that it was not a “disaster.” Something you can confirm on your own for driving, walking or biking along it. If that’s a disaster, we need a lot more of them.
Lots of interesting comments here. One must have compassion for the post Boogie Smith disaster that has befallen Uptown. Not a reason that they should automatically get their way, but folks go to Uptown because of the commercial appeal created by the merchants along the street. Not like Minnehaha Falls or some other solely public venue.
The article apparently represents the sentiments of those folks (Uptown Association) and they should have significant input into the process. Seems they don’t and they are not happy. And in the “more than you want to know” category, here they are:
Ackerberg
Amazing Thailand Uptown
Amore Uptown
Andy’s Diner
ArcStone
ARTrageous Adventures
Barbette
Be @ The Calhoun Greenway / Bigos Management
Black Walnut Bakery
Bridgewater Bank
Coldwell Banker Burnet – Judith Shields
Combine
Continuum Center
Corner Coffee
Daymark Uptown Apartments
Denison Parking
Diamond Stone Oriental Medicine, Inc.
East Isles Farmers Market
Entourage Events Group
Everett & Charlie
Familia Skateshop
Gavin Victor Hair Artisan
Granada Theater
Gray Fox Coffee
Greenway Vision
Hennepin Lake Liquors
Highpoint Center for Printmaking
Isles Bun & Coffee
Joyce Uptown Food Shelf
Kuva
Lake & Irving Restaurant & Bar
Lakes Area Realty of Minneapolis
LaLa Homemade Ice Cream and Luncheonette
Landreau Group
Little Luxuries Nail Lounge
Loop Parking Company
Lowry Hill Liquors
Lowry Hill Meats
Luna Massage and Wellness
Magers and Quinn Booksellers
Maven Commercial Real Estate
McDonald’s
MentorMate
Mesa Pizza
MidWestOne Bank
Minneapolis Chiropractic Center
Minuteman Press Uptown
MN Food Truck Festival
Moxy Minneapolis Uptown
Nico’s Taco & Tequila Bar
PeachyClean
Penzeys Spices
Peterssen/Keller Architecture
PhotoPixels
Pizza Shark
Planned Parenthood – Minneapolis Clinic
PrairieCare Institute
Red Cow
Salons by JC Uptown
SEE Eyewear
Seven Points Uptown
Sooki and Mimi
Spectacle Shoppe
St. Mary’s Greek Orthodox Church
Stella’s Fish Cafe
Stutsman Realty Inc.
Target Uptown
The Calhoun Park Companies, LLC
The UPS Store
The Fremont Restaurant & Bar
The Lowry
Third Space Café
Vail Place
Walker Library
We Push for Peace
Williams Pub & Peanut Bar
YWCA of Minneapolis
YogaFit Studio
I’d be willing to bet a fair number of businesses/groups on that list would not agree with this article.
They should take it up with the association they chose to join and represent them.
The article is completely consistent with the association website where I found the list: Should not be a surprise to any of them.
Everyone has a voice but frankly business owners aren’t necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer. Any owner who thinks their customers are currently parking on Henn in front of their stores simply isn’t paying attention. Any group that makes this all about parking on Henn is really missing the point.
For an example of lack of on-street parking, look at the 50th and France neighborhood. I have lived in Southwest Minneapolis for 18 years, and I cannot recall EVER having found on-street parking on either France or 50th. However, thanks to the large free parking ramps behind the buildings, I have never needed to.
As a Minneapolis resident who has lived in either downtown or uptown neighborhoods since 2007, I can say Hennepin has always been treacherous especially in Uptown (and I say this as someone who has been a motorist, a user of public transit, and a pedestrian). The goal – and I think this redesign accomplishes that – should be to get all traffic – motorists, public transit, pedestrians, and cyclists – through more efficiently. If you want to frequent a spot on Hennepin it’s far simpler to park on a side street and walk a block or two … not that big of a deal
Well, I can tell you parking has been an issue in Uptown for decades. I used to work in Calhoun Square back in the 1980’s at one hour photo shop next to Tony Roma’s rib joint (Now Famous Dave’s). Parking was a hassle for everyone eve back then, I always had find a spot blocks away (I’m sure the local’s appreciated this by the way) when I wasn’t riding my bike or using the bus. Back then I was one of the few adults you’d actually see commuting on a bike, and hitch-hiking was way faster than taking the bus.
I’ve always thought that Uptown began a slide into decline in the late 80’s when a nimrod developer and some investors bought Calhoun Square with a big development plan that never actually “developed”. Calhoun Square was a vibrant shopping hub for shopping and dining with dozens of stores and several popular restaurants until those developers bought it and turned it into a ghost town. One by one venders walked away from their leases because no one knew when the project would start… and by the time it never started the place was practically empty.
As for parking, I want to say hundreds of spaces have been lost to residential development all up and down Henn. In the old Square area alone several parking lots have been obliterated by apartments and condos. I’m not saying that’s a “bad” thing but this has been a trend long before anyone started planning a new street design. Those spaces are gone and they’re not coming back so if you want anyone other than locals shopping and dining down there you better figure out how they’re going to get there. My wife and I used to be regulars at Famous Dave’s but the parking hassle eventually ended that, and no- a bus or a bike is not a viable substitute. We’re 15 minutes away by car in SLP, but that’s over an hour round trip by bike, and two hours by bus (depending how long we have to wait at a bus stop).
So just to complete my thought: I think you have two issues here- there’s the street itself, and the problem of connecting THAT street and the businesses on it to the larger community. The parking problem is part of the latter problem and it goes well beyond the issues of redesigning the street.
TLDR: This is quite the rant all to say nothing can change or the world will end.