Learning from the Nonmotorized Pilot Program - Lessons in Active Transportation Implementation from...
47
Establishing Minneapolis as Na1onal Leader in Ac1ve Transporta1on: Solidifying Progress, Moving Towards an Ac1ve Transporta1on Culture Billy Fields, PhD Assistant Professor Texas State University With Assistance from Tony Hull at TLC
description
Transcript of Learning from the Nonmotorized Pilot Program - Lessons in Active Transportation Implementation from...
Establishing Minneapolis as Na1onal Leader in Ac1ve Transporta1on:
Solidifying Progress, Moving Towards an Ac1ve Transporta1on Culture
Billy Fields, PhD Assistant Professor Texas State University
With Assistance from Tony Hull at TLC
PresentaAon Overview
• How Minneapolis Became Minneapolis: Changing Culture, Changing ExpectaAons • What is culture change and why is it important? • Lessons from Minneapolis Case for Texas
SEC. 1807. NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PILOT PROGRAM
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.-‐-‐The Secretary shall establish and carry out a nonmotorized transportaAon pilot program to construct, in the following 4 communiAes selected by the Secretary, a network of nonmotorized transportaAon infrastructure faciliAes, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian and bicycle trails, that connect directly with transit staAons, schools, residences, businesses, recreaAon areas, and other community acAvity centers:
(1) Columbia, Missouri. (2) Marin County, California. (3) Minneapolis-‐St. Paul, Minnesota. (4) Sheboygan County, Wisconsin. (b) PURPOSE.-‐-‐The purpose of the program shall be to demonstrate the extent to which bicycling and walking can carry a significant part of the transportaAon load, and represent a major porAon of the transportaAon soluAon, within selected communiAes.
Current PoliAcal Background on NTPP: Jan. 31
Bike/Walk Twin Ci1es The Program
Principles of TLC Bike/Walk Approach • InnovaAon • Strategic planning • Engaged stakeholders • Fair, transparent process • Quality measurement • InsAtuAonalized change
Major Program Themes
1. Maximizing exis.ng roadway for all users
• Short trips • Year round serious transportaAon • Key network connecAons
2. Crea.ng regional legacy • Planning • Data collecAon • InnovaAon
3. Building capacity • PoliAcal leadership • TransportaAon professionals • Target populaAons
Bike Walk Twin Ci1es Engage Stakeholders
Bike Walk Twin Ci1es Process
Round 1 Planning, OperaAons, Infrastructure -‐ 2007 • Planning • OperaAons • Livable streets • Pedestrian districts/plazas • Off-‐road faciliAes
Round 2 Infrastructure -‐ 2008 • Livable streets • Bike/walk streets (Bicycle boulevards)
Final round direct awards 2009 • InnovaAve capital projects • Previous proposals, results of planning studies • EducaAon and outreach
Minneapolis Bicycle Infrastructure
Type of Facility Pre-‐ BWTC (miles)
Fall 2011 (miles) Increase
% BWTC Funded
Off-‐Street Bicycle Facili1es 75.4 86.4 15% 1% Lane Miles On-‐Street Bicycle Facili1es 46.1 129.5 181% 72%
Total Mileage 121.5 215.9 78% 64%
Key Projects: Network ConnecAons
Como Ave Saint Paul
Bicyclist Count Marshall Ave 2009 April: 277 2010 April: 297 2011 April: 406
Marshall Ave Saint Paul
Before Aeer
Bike/Walk Twin Ci1es Strategic Planning
Snapshot Minneapolis Awards for 8 planning studies • Central Avenue NE • Hennepin Avenue • Central Corridor Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan • Richfield Arterials • Xenia Ave/Park Place Blvd. Corridor • Douglas Drive Corridor & ConnecAon to Luce Line • Minneapolis Pedestrian Master Plan • Metro Transit Bike/Ped Improvements Study
Outreach Program • Bike/Walk Ambassadors
Key Projects: Outreach, Awareness
• CollaboraAon: Bike Walk Week • Maximizing capital investments: Upcoming awareness campaign
• Grassroots outreach: Bike Walk Ambassadors
• Neighborhood intensive: Smart Trips individualized markeAng
• Nice Ride: constant, high profile exposure of bicycling
Usando la Bicicleta y Caminando más
Bike/Walk Twin Ci1es Innova1on
Bring in experts to host workshops • Introduce new concepts • Expose tradiAonal myths • Generate excitement for new approaches • Build capacity for insAtuAonal changes
Key Projects: InnovaAon, Access
Community Partners Bike Library
Radio Frequency ID system installed at U of M
Accomplishments to Date: the Pilot at Work
• 70 miles of new faciliAes • doubling Minneapolis on-‐street bikeways
• 100,000 + Nice Ride trips in iniAal parAal year
• 3,200 new bike parking spaces • from 7 to 70+ cerAfied bicycle instructors
• 6 planning studies completed; legacy planning studies underway
Hiawatha Trail extension construcAon
Bicycle lee turn lane at Minnehaha and 20th St. S
Minneapolis
Accomplishments to Date: NaAonal Accolades for Minneapolis • #1 bicycling city by Bicycling Mag 2010 • Gold level bicycling community, League of
American Bicyclists • Nat Geographic 10 best summer desAnaAons
2011
Bike Walk Twin Ci1es Measurement
EvaluaAon plan • Data collecAon and analysis • Before & Aeer survey • Bike & pedestrian counts • Community wide measurement • Project specific measurement • Public health component
Count data: Significant Increases in Walking and Bicycling
• Largest insAtuAonalized count program
• From 2007 to 2010 traffic counts at 42 locaAons
• Number of bicyclists: 33% increase
• Number of pedestrians: 17% increase
RiverLake Greenway
Bike/Walk Twin Ci1es Program Results
Infrastructure improvements: • 75 miles of new bike lanes • New bike parking • Up to 3 miles of new off-‐street faciliAes mostly filling in exisAng gaps • Dozens of improvements at major crossings for pedestrians and cyclists.
Innova1ons that have never been done in the Twin Ci1es: • Bike Walk Streets (aka bike boulevards) • 4-‐3 lane conversions and other “road diets” to allow for bike lanes • Advance boxes and special bike signals • Cycle-‐track (1st Avenue) • Bike donaAon/bike-‐sharing program
Goals for ins1tu1onal changes: • Revised state aid standards • Complete Streets Policy • New arenAon to bike/ped issues
The Work ConAnues
PromoAng new faciliAes CollaboraAng with partners including other federal iniAaAves: CPPW, Na(onal Park Services Alterna(ve Transporta(on Plan
Building out the network Enhancing connecAons to transit
Reaping economic benefits of bike/ped investments Rendering of proposed Twin
City Greenway
NPS MulA-‐modal planning team
Recap: BWTC Program Approach
1. Maximizing exis.ng roadway for all users
• Short trips • Year round serious transportaAon • Key network connecAons
2. Crea.ng regional legacy • Planning • Data collecAon • InnovaAon
3. Building capacity • PoliAcal leadership • TransportaAon professionals • Target populaAons
Pushing for Change Leads to More Successful Policies
Culture Marers: Changing Policy, Changing Culture, Changing ExpectaAons
• Policy: what an agency decides to do or not do about a public problem • What get’s done or not done = policy + culture • Culture change = changing basic parern of “autudes, beliefs, and values that underlie the organizaAon’s operaAon” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2009, p. 178) • Complete streets culture change = moving agencies towards rouAne accommodaAon of all users
Minneapolis Case: Changing Policy, Changing Culture, Changing ExpectaAons
• Minneapolis in 2000 had a bicycling mode share of 1.8% • In 2009, Minneapolis had nearly doubled share to 3.5%; Overall bike/ped commute mode share of 10.5% • Minneapolis began a process of culture change within organizaAons • Major focus for organizing was Pilot Program, complete streets policy, and projects like Midtown Greenway and bikeshare
Example: Organizing Around Midtown
Greenway for Economic RevitalizaAon and AcAve
TransportaAon
Midtown Greenway
5.5 Miles: Links lakes and Mississippi River • 560,000 users per year in 2008 (25% Increase) • Spurred redevelopment adjacent to Greenway
Well-‐Designed Trail Amenity (Crompton 2001)
“Walkable Urbanism”
Land Use Policy (Leinberger 2007)
+ +
Development and Redevelopment OpportuniAes (Shilling and Logan 2008)
Trail-‐Oriented Development
Trail-‐Oriented Development: Linking Land Use Planning and AcAve TransportaAon
“Amenity Value” of Greenway Lures Development
Midtown Exchange
Development Intensity: Typologies of “Desired Density”
Neighborhood
Urban-‐Oriented
Midtown Greenway Video Interlude
hrp://www.streewilms.org/minneapolis-‐midtown-‐greenway-‐good-‐for-‐biz-‐good-‐for-‐bikes/
Changing the Culture: Building the FoundaAon for Success
• Contracted by TLC to conduct stakeholder interviews • 4 open-‐ended, evaluaAon quesAons: 1. What are the opportuniAes and barriers to creaAng a full network of bicycling and walking faciliAes and programming? 2. In what areas has BWTC helped to insAtuAonalize acAve transportaAon policy, procedure or programming? 3. What are the consideraAons of a non-‐profit serving as the lead administrator of BWTC? 4. What have been the long-‐term changes for the Minneapolis-‐Saint Paul area iniAated through the BWTC?
Overarching Themes
InnovaAon: What an AT Leader Does
Innova1ve Ac1ve Transporta1on Treatments
Minneapolis
Formalized Policy:
Minneapolis Your City Formalized
Policy?
1. Use of lane width reduc1ons (road diets) Yes Yes
?? ??
2. Use of bicycle boulevards Yes Yes ?? ?? 3. Use of pedestrian countdown signals Yes Yes ?? ?? 4. Use of con1nental crosswalks Yes Yes ?? ?? 5. Use of bike lanes Yes Yes ?? ?? 6. Use of sharrows Yes Yes ?? ?? 7. Use of cycle tracks Yes Yes ?? ?? 8. Use of trail connec1ons Yes Yes ?? ?? 9. Use of bike boxes Yes Yes ?? ?? 10. Use of colored pavement markings Yes Yes ?? ?? 11. Use of bike sharing system Yes Yes ?? ?? 12. Use of bicycle centers Yes Yes ?? ?? 13. Use of bicycle racks on buses Yes Yes ?? ?? 14. Use of secure bicycle parking Yes Yes ?? ?? 15. Use of traffic calming devices Yes Yes ?? ?? 16. Use of ac1ve transporta1on sensi1ve signals Yes Yes
?? ??
17. Use of medians for crosswalks Yes Yes ?? ??
Bicycle Boulevards
Linked Trail Network
Colored Lanes/ Sharrows
Trail-‐Oriented Development
Bikeshare: NiceRide
Thee/Vandalism Small Problem: Infamous “Glirer Bike”
High Quality Pedestrian Districts
ConnecAons: Bike/Ped Bridges
Bike Box and Road Diet
Cycle Track
NaAonal Expert Training
Community Bike Library
Programming
Ambassadors
Funding: How Much Does it Take and Where Does it Come From
Area
Funding in Dollars (2005 to 2011)
Percentage of Funding
Minneapolis Ac1ve Transporta1on Funding
$66 million of $1.6 billion 4%
Na1onal N/A 1.50%
Ac1ve Transporta1on Funding Type
Funding in Dollars (2005 to 2011)
Percentage of Funding
Minneapolis NTPP Funding $21 million 32% Minneapolis Total Ac1ve Transporta1on Funding $44.8 million 68% Minneapolis Ac1ve Transporta1on Funding $66 million 100%
Small Shie in PrioriAes= Big Results
Relied Mostly on Non-‐NTPP Funding Sources
Source: FMIS 2011
1. Tension between innovaAon and risk avoidance in the transportaAon engineering
2. Tension between an outside non-‐profit agency/ advocates and DPW
3. Tension between internal culture change within an organizaAon and the wider acceptance of change with the public at large
3 Key Tensions in Culture Change Process in Minneapolis
Culture Change from the Inside
Professional 2: "Story now not ‘should we have bikes’, but how should we put in bike faciliAes” and “how do we live together… this is the culture change”
Agency 5: “We’re not big on taking risks, we need to be pushed”… “it’s not a negaAve push”… "we need to have our thought process challenged”
Agency 2: changing culture= “changing insAtuAonal focus of the City”... “retrofiung city for bicycling is a design challenge and poliAcal challenge”
Elected Official 2: “transiAon period in terms of the definiAon of what type of bike and ped access we provide…the bike plans of the last generaAon idenAfied key corridors and put in bike paths…the evoluAon in the last decade and in this program is that the default posiAon is that there are bike faciliAes on every street unless there’s a compelling reason..”… "we’re in the middle of that transiAon"
“Push”
“PoliAcal Challenge”
“Default PosiAon”
“How do we live together”
AcAon ImplicaAons for Texas
• Need to decide to be a leader • Need to leverage excitement from mulAple projects/programs in your city • Need to build a construcAve culture change process within agencies: “Managing the push” • Need to celebrate victories to leverage success into long-‐term policy change
QuesAons/Discussion
Exercise: What will it take in your community?
Innova1ve Ac1ve Transporta1on Treatments
Used Prior to BWTC
Currently Used in Twin Ci1es
Used in Your City?
Opportuni1es to Encourage Use?
Bike Sharing System No Yes
Colorized and priority bike lanes No Yes
Buffered bike lanes No Yes
Road diets No Yes
Off-‐street facili1es Yes Yes
Bike/walk centers and trail-‐oriented development
No Yes
Ubiquitous bike parking No Yes
Bicycle boulevards No Yes
Improved crossings No Yes
Advisory bike lanes No Yes
