Net Density

Image: NYCDOT

Streetsblog seems pretty excited about the proposed new busway on 34th Street in New York City.  Rightly so as it is the city’s first separated busway, and would cut travel times across the city by 35%, according to the Transport Politic.  It’s not bus rapid transit (BRT), since it is still slow according to Freemark, but it does bring a number of welcome improvements.  Bus travel lanes are separated from normal traffic, pedestrians should be safer thanks to refuges and wider sidewalks, and the middle of the route includes a block-long pedestrian plaza.

I written here before and even entertained a guest who talked about what it would take to improve transit in the crowded Hennepin/Nicollet transit corridors of Minneapolis.  The key improvement of the NYC proposal, mode separation, would be a major boost to travel time, rider experience and a market signal on par with LRT or a streetcar.  So could it work?

Hennepin Ave with a crude busway model

There seems to be enough right of way.  Including parking, there are 6 lanes along most of Hennepin between Franklin and Lake Street.  This looks to be similar to the situation in New York City.  The key difference is that in NYC, the street is a one way.  Two lanes of traffic travel in the same direction, with a third lane mid block for parking and deliveries.  So if you kept Hennepin two-way, that would mean one lane of travel in each direction, with three lanes at the intersections (I suppose for turn lanes).  Much of the on-street parking would be lost, but some would be retained mid-block, perhaps one third of what currently exists.

So could Hennepin survive with a single travel lane in each direction?  The traffic engineers would have to weigh in on that.  If you highlighted Hennepin as a transit corridor, you could potentially reduce car trips and move cars to alternate routes.  This highlights a weakness of Minneapolis.  New York City is still a highly connected grid.  In Minneapolis, many of the connections to downtown and beyond have been severed by the I-94 corridor, so any attempt to reduce the access by car on one of the few remaining connections is bound to be met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But that’s not to say it wouldn’t be possible.  Perhaps Lyndale becomes the main north-south car route through the area, and Hennepin is reconfigured to focus on transit and bicycles.  Car space would just be reduced, not eliminated, and the busway would only really need to go to Lake Street.  Drivers would soon adapt, and maybe even ride the bus a little bit more.

Tags: bus, minneapolis, new york, transit

A bike boulevard in Berkeley, CA. CC licensed by flickr user Elly Blue

The Jacobean at the City of Lakes Urbanism blog has a good summary:

2010 will bring about several new bicycle projects in Minneapolis. Thanks in large part to funding from the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTP), the city will fund the construction of 35 new miles of bikeways this year, most of which will come in the form of bicycle boulevards. Bicycle boulevards are a fairly low-cost form of bikeway which mostly involve improving existing low-traffic streets for use by cyclists. Common bike boulevard treatments include traffic-calming measures, improved crossing safety measures at high-traffic intersections, way-finding signs, and pavement markings to indicate to motorists that the space is intended for frequent use by bicyclists. The city has a nice two-pager explaining the bicycle boulevard concept (check it out here).

The city has a map of proposed improvements here.  In terms of my backyard, I applaud the improvements to Bryant, but I’m somewhat confused about the reason for not including the section between the Greenway and 49th in the bike boulevard plans.  I believe this area sees significantly more bicycle traffic than south of 49th.  My guess as to why it isn’t included is a political issue that starts with “p” and ends with “arking”.

Tags: bike, minneapolis, transportation

The two alignment choices in Minneapolis

The big news this week is that the planned Central Corridor LRT line will get three new stations between Minneapolis and Saint Paul, and the reason seems to be the new FTA rules which relax the sole focus on cost-effectiveness from travel time savings to include broader goals of “livability“.  With the three new stations, the project would not have met a “medium” rating for cost-effectiveness, and therefore would not likely not have been funded by the FTA under the old rules.

What implication might this have for the planned Southwest LRT line and its contested route?  It’s hard to say, but it certainly seems like the alternative routes should be re-assessed under the new formula before telling the feds that 3A is the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).  More below the break.

Read more »

Tags: hennepin county, lrt, met council, minneapolis, southwest, transit

The Transport Politic has the best summary of the changes to the FTA’s New Starts program funding.  In analyzing competing projects nationwide, the government:

…will eliminate a policy-making rule that gives projects’ “cost-effectiveness” primacy when choosing how to distribute transit funds. Once the shift has undergone an internal review and been submitted to public comment, the Department of Transportation will give equal weight to livability issues.

Freemark calls out Minneapolis and the Southwest Corridor alignment process as a perfect example of cost-effectiveness uber-alles mentality gone wrong.

Where the cost-effectiveness index goes really wrong is in medium-density cities hoping to cash in on transit as a tool for increasing density and developing a transit-friendly environment. As demonstrated by the Minneapolis example, the index basically forces transit authorities responsible for choosing routes to pick less useful corridors within the inner-city in order to speed commutes from the suburbs. It also requires agencies to reduce spending on lines in order to meet the arbitrary limit imposed by the index, no matter the willingness of local taxpayers to contribute a higher percentage of a project’s construction costs.

Whether the locals in Minneapolis are/were willing to spend more for 3C is, in my mind, an open question, but it does seem clear that a “less useful corridor” was chosen to meet cost-effectiveness guidelines.

What “livability” means is as yet undetermined and will be part of a rule-making process to come.  The FTA press release does state livability issues include “economic development opportunities and environmental benefits”.  I assume this will mean potential for the project to spur development and the environmental impact from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, among other things.

Freemark says this will be a good change, but won’t solve the real problem: a simple lack of funding for transit projects.  Even if a new methodology for ranking projects is devised, their is still a huge gap between deserving projects and federal funds. Streetsblog summarizes Oberstar’s answer: more funding in the next omnibus transportation bill.  There is also a good back and forth about whether these changes are good or bad at the National Journal.  Transit folks basically say “yahoo!” while skeptics seem to doubt that “livability” measures will be based on rigorous analysis.

It seems to early to judge whether this is a good or bad change without seeing the rules that will guide analysis around livability.  The traditional cost-effectiveness measure used a dollar figure.  However, this dollar figure was based on travel time savings, and included no external costs.  If external environmental impact of route choices and their alternatives can be put in dollar terms, wouldn’t that be a perfectly analytical measure for this new livability category?  Economic development potential seems more squishy, but this the same kind of analysis that road project planners have to do when they are considering what property to condemn.

Tags: environment, fta, livability, minneapolis, transit

What with the holidays and all, Net Density has been on a bit of a hiatus.  Many pieces of news dropped while I was enjoying some relaxation, and in order to catch up I simply don’t have time to give them all the detail they deserve.  So, instead of skipping them altogether, I’ll try to cover them all, giving a few of my editorial comments for each.

A draft of the Minneapolis North Loop Small Area Plan was completed and put out for public comment, with a twist.  You can edit the document directly using a wiki, which the city and the neighborhood hope will encourage more participation.  Put me in the skeptical camp. Wikis work best when with a small audience who is very knowledgeable about the topic, or a really large audience (see Wikipedia) where the size of the audience enables content to be vetted and inaccurate information to be weeded out.  The North Loop plan wiki may see a small audience, which will mean little peer review, and they will also likely be unaware of the requirements for plan content.

TransForm, a transportation policy advocacy group from the Bay area, has released its GreenTRIP rating system to fill the gaps in LEED ND and rank developments based on their ability to reduce VMT.  I say hoorah for the premise, we need to tackle VMT to address climate change and other issues, but do we need another rating system?  How about some regulation?

Saint Paul adopted a requirement that all new buildings projects which receive $200,000 or more in city funding must meet the standards of one of seven ratings systems such as LEED. Projects must meet Minnesota Sustainble Buildings 2030 energy standards.  Saint Paul is a model.  Any development that receives public dollars should at least meet these basic energy requirements when the payoffs (and paybacks) are so obvious and available.

Last, but certainly not least, MNDOT released its statewide Passenger and Freight Rail Plan.  The plan lays out near and long-term corridor priorities and shockingly (or maybe not shockingly) does not clearly pick the river route as a winner for high-speed rail to Chicago.  The alignment saga will continue, but if MNDOT’s cost-effectiveness figures are correct, building a link to Chicago makes good sense (and not just because of the lack of full-body scanners).

Welcome to 2010!  I hope your best laid plans all reach the implementation stage this year!

Tags: leed, minneapolis, mndot, north loop, rail, train, transportation

Minneapolis is the #2 bicycling city in America. But up until a few months ago, there was no organized group to lobby for the rights and interests of bicyclists in the city.  Sure, there are some related groups like the Midtown Greenway Coalition and forums like Minneapolis Bike Love, but no group that was organizing cyclists to lobby the city for better infrastructure and promote cycling-related events.

Well, since they have a Facebook page, I’m calling it official.  The 4th meeting is January 9th and the Central Library.  I know that one of their top priorities will be bringing a ciclovia, or car-free day to Minneapolis in the spring to coincide with World Health Day.  This would mean opening up one of our cities major roads to pedestrians and bikes, and closing it to cars for a whole day.  Think of it as a big party in the road for a whole day. Another issue will be advocating for improvements to bike infrastructure in downtown.

Watch the video below for more information on World Health Day and check out the Facebook page.

Tags: bike, car-free sundays, health, minneapolis

The future? photo by flickr user: Mulad

The routing decision for the Southwest LRT is basically done.  I’ve previously bemoaned what seemed like the inevitable choice of Route 3A by the County because I (and others) had unanswered questions about ridership and the long-term logic of bypassing Uptown.  Critics of 3C suggested that a more appropriate transit solution for Uptown would be a Greenway streetcar, and that transit advocates in Uptown should really wait their turn for what was surely a better alternative.  However, this argument doesn’t make sense, because the major destinations LRT would connect are the U of M and Downtown with Uptown, not Hiawatha Avenue with Uptown.

After some disparaging for the future, I decided that I should try to be positive and proactive, rather than gloomy and snide.  So Uptown and south Minneapolis are not going to benefit from the new LRT line.  So what would it take to get substantial improvements to the transit system in the Hennepin/Lyndale/Nicollet corridors?  Is there a cost-effective way to overcome, or at least minimize, the limitations now faced by the bus system (traffic congestion, inclement weather and slow fare collection)?  Can we create a bus corridor that would rival LRT for speed and desirability?

I have some ideas, but I don’t pretend to be an expert.  So, in a Net Density first, I’ll be asking a few very knowledgeable (and gracious) individuals to describe how they would improve the existing system in the Uptown/LynLake area.  I will ask that they restrain themselves to improvements that could really be implemented, and are not wildly expensive (no subways). And, of course these improvements should have the potential to significantly increase ridership and make the overall transit experience in the area better.

The first guest post comes from a Metro Transit planner who has been involved in transitway planning throughout the region.  From the conversations we’ve had so far, his post promises to be intriguing and give clear strategies for greater ridership and better service.  He’ll also have some good real world examples of how improvements he is suggesting have been implemented in other cities.  Stay tuned.

Tags: bus, metro transit, minneapolis, streetcar, transit, transportation, uptown

What, no Kennilworth alignment?

From City of Lakes Urbanism, a link to Brett McKean’s map of the 1933 streetcar routes in Minneapolis and Saint Paul.  We do still have a lot of this infrastructure, it’s just in the form of buses now.  If someone could dig up the old time schedules, that would be an interesting comparison.  The busiest routes in the metro look to be Hennepin Avenue north and south of downtown, with three lines running all the way to Uptown and East and West 7th Street in Saint Paul.

Tags: minneapolis, saint paul, streetcar, transit, transportation

From TC Streets For People and Minneapolis Bike Love:

There are several transportation advocacy goups in the metro, but one does not yet exist to represent cyclists of Minneapolis. Given the recent redesign of Downtown’s streets, the vibrant local bicycle culture, the high density of bicycle commuters, and the fact that Minneapolis is touted as the #2 Bicycle city in the US, it seems the time has come to develop an organized advocate for our interests.

An organizational meeting will be held at the TC Streets for People offices to get the ball rolling. Anyone interested in helping develop this organization is welcome.

Saturday, October 31st
11am
Colonial Warehouse
212 3rd Avenue N., Suite 515

Tags: bicycle, bike, minneapolis

The new bike lanes on First Ave in downtown Minneapolis are a complete disappointment and drivers don’t seem to even notice they are there.  The bike lane is much too narrow and the “buffer” between parking and the bike lane may as well be non-existent.  As TC Streets For People points out, this design has been used successfully in other cities, but the buffer and bike lanes are much wider.  As the picture to the right shows, in Portland, there is a much clearer separation between parking and bike lane, maybe 3 or 4 feet, so even if drivers miss the mark, they are not in the bike lane.  This extra space also allows automobile passengers to open their doors without endangering a cyclist.

Portland's Cycle Track

Part of this “failure” is undoubtedly due to drivers confusion about the new design, and their desire not to park in what they think is a driving lane.  The city didn’t help matters in this regard by making the right lane no parking on weekdays and allowing parking during evenings and weekends.  Hopefully in the future, they will be much stricter about enforcement of parking in the bike lane, but its discouraging to have a facility open only to have it immediately fail.  Roads would never be designed in such a way.

So what could be better?  In an effort not to be totally negative, here are some ways the city could make the First Avenue bike lanes better:

1. Get rid of the on-street parking.  If the parking doesn’t need to be there during the week, why does it need to be there during the weekend?  The ramps nearby are less full on the weekend anyway.  This would also make the design less confusing.  Without the parking, you could narrow the thru-lanes and maybe add a bike median.
2. Bollards.  A simple solution that would require no reconfiguring or re-stripping would simply be to add some bollards along the double white line that is supposed to separate the parking from the bike lane.  Drivers would understand not to cross the line if there was a physical barrier.  These wouldn’t even have to be substantial, maybe just some plastic ones with reflectors.
3. More paint.  Paint the entire bike lane yellow or green, or some solid color.  Drivers know that they aren’t supposed to drive or park on painted things.  This is a cheap way to make people pay more attention to the lane if the current design can’t be changed.

Tags: bike, bike lanes, minneapolis, portland