1. Establishing
Minneapolis
as
Na1onal
Leader
in
Ac1ve
Transporta1on:
Solidifying
Progress,
Moving
Towards
an
Ac1ve
Transporta1on
Culture
With
Assistance
Billy
Fields,
PhD
from
Tony
Hull
Assistant
Professor
Texas
State
University
at
TLC

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Current
PoliAcal
Background
on
NTPP:
Jan.
31

5. Bike/Walk
Twin
Ci1es
The
Program
Principles
of
TLC
Bike/Walk
Approach
• InnovaAon
• Strategic
planning
• Engaged
stakeholders
• Fair,
transparent
process
• Quality
measurement
• InsAtuAonalized
change

6. 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

7. Bike
Walk
Twin
Ci1es
Engage
Stakeholders

8. 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

9. Minneapolis
Bicycle
Infrastructure
Pre-­‐
BWTC
Fall
2011
%
BWTC
Type
of
Facility
(miles)
(miles)
Increase
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%

10. Key
Projects:
Network
ConnecAons
Before
Como
Ave
Saint
Paul
Aeer
Bicyclist
Count
Marshall
Ave
2009
April:
277
2010
April:
297
2011
April:
406
Marshall
Ave
Saint
Paul

11. 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

12. Key
Projects:
Outreach,
Awareness
• CollaboraAon:
Bike
Walk
Week
• Maximizing
capital
investments:
Upcoming
awareness
campaign
• Grassroots
outreach:
Bike
Walk
Ambassadors
• Neighborhood
intensive:
Smart
Usando
la
Bicicleta
y
Caminando
más
Trips
individualized
markeAng
• Nice
Ride:
constant,
high
profile
exposure
of
bicycling

13. 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

14. Key
Projects:
InnovaAon,
Access
Radio
Frequency
ID
system
installed
at
U
of
M
Community
Partners
Bike
Library

15. Accomplishments
to
Date:
the
Pilot
at
Work
• 70
miles
of
new
faciliAes
• doubling
Minneapolis
on-­‐street
bikeways
• 100,000
+
Nice
Ride
trips
in
Hiawatha
Trail
extension
iniAal
parAal
year
construcAon
• 3,200
new
bike
parking
spaces
• from
7
to
70+
cerAfied
bicycle
instructors
• 6
planning
studies
completed;
legacy
planning
studies
Bicycle
lee
turn
lane
at
Minnehaha
and
20th
St.
S
underway
Minneapolis

16. 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

17. 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

18. Count
data:
Significant
Increases
in
Walking
and
Bicycling
• Largest
insAtuAonalized
count
program
• From
2007
to
2010
traffic
counts
at
42
RiverLake
Greenway
locaAons
• Number
of
bicyclists:
33%
increase
• Number
of
pedestrians:
17%
increase

19. 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

20. The
Work
ConAnues
PromoAng
new
faciliAes
CollaboraAng
with
partners
including
other
federal
iniAaAves:
CPPW,
Na(onal
Park
Services
Alterna(ve
NPS
MulA-­‐modal
planning
team
Transporta(on
Plan
Building
out
the
network
Enhancing
connecAons
to
transit
Reaping
economic
benefits
of
bike/ped
investments
Rendering
of
proposed
Twin
City
Greenway

21. 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

22. Pushing
for
Change
Leads
to
More
Successful
Policies

23. 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

24. 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

25. Example:
Organizing
Around
Midtown
Greenway
for
Economic
RevitalizaAon
and
AcAve
TransportaAon

26. Midtown
Greenway
5.5
Miles:
Links
lakes
and
Mississippi
River
• 560,000
users
per
year
in
2008
(25%
Increase)
• Spurred
redevelopment
adjacent
to
Greenway

27. Development
and
Well-­‐Designed
“Walkable
Redevelopment
Trail
Amenity
Urbanism”
OpportuniAes
(Crompton
+
Land
Use
Policy
+
(Shilling
and
2001)
(Leinberger
2007)
Logan
2008)
Trail-­‐Oriented
Development

28. Trail-­‐Oriented
Development:
Linking
Land
Use
Planning
and
AcAve
TransportaAon

29. “Amenity
Value”
of
Greenway
Lures
Development
Midtown
Exchange

30. Development
Intensity:
Typologies
of
“Desired
Density”
Neighborhood
Urban-­‐Oriented

31. Midtown
Greenway
Video
Interlude
hrp://www.streewilms.org/
minneapolis-­‐midtown-­‐greenway-­‐
good-­‐for-­‐biz-­‐good-­‐for-­‐bikes/

32. 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?

33. Overarching
Themes

34. InnovaAon:
What
an
AT
Leader
Does
Innova1ve
Ac1ve
Transporta1on
Minnea
Formalized
Policy:
Your
City
Formalized
Treatments
polis
Minneapolis
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
??
??
7.
Use
of
cycle
tracks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
??
??
8.
Use
of
trail
connec1ons
9.
Use
of
bike
boxes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
??
??
??
??
10.
Use
of
colored
pavement
markings
11.
Use
of
bike
sharing
system
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
??
??
??
??
12.
Use
of
bicycle
centers
13.
Use
of
bicycle
racks
on
buses
Yes
Yes
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
??
??

35. Bicycle
Boulevards
Linked
Trail
Network

36. Colored
Lanes/
Sharrows

37. Trail-­‐Oriented
Development

38. Bikeshare:
NiceRide
Thee/Vandalism
Small
Problem:
Infamous
“Glirer
Bike”

39. High
Quality
Pedestrian
Districts
ConnecAons:
Bike/Ped
Bridges

40. Bike
Box
and
Road
Diet
Cycle
Track

41. Programming
Ambassadors
Community
Bike
Library
NaAonal
Expert

42. Funding:
How
Much
Does
it
Take
and
Where
Does
it
Come
From
Small
Shie
in
PrioriAes=
Big
Results
Funding
in
Dollars
(2005
Percentage
of
Area
to
2011)
Funding
Minneapolis
Ac1ve
$66
million
of
Transporta1on
Funding
$1.6
billion
4%
Na1onal
N/A
1.50%
Relied
Mostly
on
Non-­‐NTPP
Funding
Sources
Funding
in
Ac1ve
Transporta1on
Dollars
(2005
to
Percentage
of
Funding
Type
2011)
Funding
Minneapolis
NTPP
Funding
$21
million
32%
Minneapolis
Total
Ac1ve
Transporta1on
Funding
$44.8
million
68%
Minneapolis
Ac1ve
Source:
FMIS
2011
Transporta1on
Funding
$66
million
100%

43. 3
Key
Tensions
in
Culture
Change
Process
in
Minneapolis
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

44. Culture
Change
from
the
Inside
“Push”
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”
“PoliAcal
Challenge”
Agency
2:
changing
culture=
“changing
insAtuAonal
focus
of
the
City”...
“retrofiung
city
for
bicycling
is
a
design
challenge
and
poliAcal
challenge”
“Default
PosiAon”
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
“How
do
we
live
together”
faciliAes
on
every
street
unless
there’s
a
Professional
2:
"Story
now
not
‘should
we
compelling
reason..”…
"we’re
in
the
middle
have
bikes’,
but
how
should
we
put
in
bike
of
that
transiAon"
faciliAes”
and
“how
do
we
live
together…
this
is
the
culture
change”

45. 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

46. QuesAons/Discussion

47. Exercise:
Innova1ve
Ac1ve
Transporta1on
Treatments
Used
Currently
Prior
to
Used
in
Twin
Used
in
BWTC
Ci1es
Your
Opportuni1es
to
What
will
it
Bike
Sharing
System
No
Yes
City?
Encourage
Use?
take
in
your
Colorized
and
priority
bike
lanes
No
Yes
community?
Buffered
bike
lanes
No
Yes
Road
diets
No
Yes
Off-­‐street
facili1es
Yes
Yes
Bike/walk
centers
and
trail-­‐oriented
No
Yes
development
Ubiquitous
bike
parking
No
Yes
Bicycle
boulevards
No
Yes
Improved
crossings
No
Yes
Advisory
bike
lanes
No
Yes