On April 15th, the Minneapolis City Council voted to install a protected bikeway on 3rd Avenue S through downtown Minneapolis. This is a much-needed north-south connection that many people, including myself, have been anticipating after years of construction and torn up bike lanes. Many folks were very excited about the project on 3rd Avenue, because the initial proposal was to have a very green, human-scale street with medians and greening. And yet, the design that was approved by a narrow 7-6 margin did not include any of the most exciting elements of the original design. There was extensive engagement around this project, but in the end the public process was flawed and the city went against recommendations from its own Bicycle and Pedestrian advisory committees, as well as neighborhood and other community groups.

The public process

Initially, Minneapolis Public Works staff proposed a design that would leave medians installed south of 7th Street, allowing for a 3-lane design including one lane for car travel in both directions and a median turn lane, while accommodating protected bikeways and pedestrian space. This is the streetscape depicted in the cover photo, taken from this document. This plan would’ve changed the street from 4 lanes to 3, something known as a road diet. This three lane design would replace what has been called a four-lane death road by Bill Lindeke at streets.mn. The four-lane design is what you’ll see on Broadway Avenue, Franklin Avenue, Hennepin Avenue north of Central, and many other places. These are roads with two lanes of traffic in each direction, and no middle turn-lane. That means there’s a wide variety of speeds on these roads, with some cars stopping and waiting to turn left, and other frustrated drivers speeding up to swerve around them. They’re dangerous. Three-lane designs are safer because they moderate speeds and make roads narrower, creating a better crossing environment for pedestrians.

On 3rd Avenue, Public Works proposed a 3-lane design for the south section of the street, with a 4-lane design to accommodate heavier traffic volumes on the north end of the street. Both designs included a protected bikeway, but the 3-lane design would’ve slowed traffic and kept the medians and greenery while creating more space for people biking and walking. The Bicycle (BAC) and Pedestrian (PAC) Advisory Committees supported the 3-lane design south of 7th Street because it would’ve created an overall safer, greener, and more pleasant experience for everyone while not negatively impacting car traffic.

Even though the above design was the one presented to all committees, on April 15th the Council voted on an entirely different design. It seems that a number of business owners in downtown Minneapolis became concerned that the road diet would negatively impact traffic, which would negatively impact their business. Public Works engineers presented designs based on their own analysis of what would work, but it was the unfounded concerns of business owners that influenced the introduction of this new design. The new design called for four lanes of traffic from the Convention Center to the Mississippi River, which would require tearing out the medians on 3rd Avenue and including two lanes of traffic in each direction.

The chairs of both the PAC and BAC co-wrote an editorial for the Minneapolis Journal where they stated:

“The Council will vote on a four lane street design that was never shared with the public or the City’s advisory committees… nor was it shared with the local neighborhood organizations. The BAC and the PAC were presented a vastly different design recommendation by Public Works staff on multiple occasions over the past six months, but this concept has not been shared with the Council as an option. […] The BAC and PAC reviewed a three lane concept that, on the southern end, preserved the beautiful greening that Council Member Goodman and the downtown community invested in not so long ago. The design would also enhance that area by creating a safer, more comfortable experience for all road users without compromising traffic flow. Staff emphasized that the three lane configuration would work well for motor vehicle traffic on southern end. The lack of process and transparency in the recommendation of a hasty, less safe and comfortable design has been disheartening and confusing. City Council should discuss and approve the design that was recommended by public works staff to the BAC and PAC, as appointed resident and stakeholder advisors to the City. The original design presented and recommended by public works staff and supported by the BAC, PAC, Downtown Minneapolis Neighborhood Association, and Citizens for a Loring Park Community preserves planted medians and makes the street safer for all: people who walk, bike, and drive.”

The vote and aftermath

By the narrowest of margins, the new, less safe design passed City Council in a 7-6 vote. Council Members Cameron, Frey, Glidden, Cano, Bender and Andrew Johnson voted for the original three-lane design, while Council Members Goodman, Barb Johnson, Reich, Palmisano, Quincy, Warsame, and Yang voting for the last-minute four-lane design.

I was very disheartened when I heard the news. First, we need to acknowledge that creating safe infrastructure is more than just throwing in some bollard-protected bikeways when we redo a street. We need to bring creativity to new projects and be willing to experiment with new road designs. We’re just starting to get the hang of this protected bikeway thing here in Minneapolis, and there’s much more to it than just bollards. The original design for 3rd Avenue was safer, greener, and more pleasant for people biking and walking. And that design isn’t happening. And second, the public process around this entire project has been skewed and shady. What’s the point of having Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committees if you don’t even present the correct designs to them for approval? What’s the point of having Public Works staff who tells you a certain design will work in a certain area if you’re just going to cave and give in to unsupported concerns from business owners who don’t even live in Minneapolis?

Council Member Cam Gordon wrote about the result on Facebook:

This [outcome] was disappointing for many reasons, but chief among them was the complete lack of any meaningful argument (other that the fact that a few businesses or building owners were concerned) in favor of four lanes given by any member of the Council majority this morning. That’s because all of the facts pointed to the superiority of a 3-lane layout. It would be safer, it would move traffic equally well, it would increase greening, and it would make for a more vibrant street. It’s clear that we made the wrong decision and we made it based on feelings, not facts, and the connections and influence of a few powerful non-Minneapolis residents to one or more Council Member. That is not a healthy dynamic. Another unhealthy dynamic: our professional staff brought forward the 3-lane version for this portion of this street because, in their professional analysis, it would have worked just as well for traffic management. The Council majority ignored that analysis. Worse, someone from the Council majority (perhaps with help from business interests) appears to have pushed our staff into bringing forward a different recommendation. I am worried that we sent a bad message to our staff this morning: politics, not factual analysis, are what matter in the decisions we make. […] A slimmest of possible Council majority voted for a layout with nothing to recommend it but the feelings of a few building managers, ignoring facts, our professional staff’s analysis, and the voices of all of the other stakeholders, including our own Council appointed advisory groups. And that’s disappointing.”

Why we should be only medium upset

As everyone’s been saying as consolation in this situation, we will have a high-quality protected bikeway on 3rd Avenue. It won’t be as high-quality as it could’ve been, but it’s still a step in the right direction and it’s an important missing connection in our bike system. And yes, you can look at it that way.

But I’m heartened by something else. I’m heartened by the fact that you can’t throw a stone lately without hitting someone on a bike. People are out biking, even in poor weather. People are participating in 30 Days of biking. People are riding racing bikes, Dutch bikes, beat-up single speeds, commuters, and Nice Rides. Everyone is seriously killing it out there on their bikes.

What does this have to do with 3rd Avenue? Well, it’s evidence of a culture shift. Eventually, more and more people will be riding bikes. This influences our road designs in a couple ways. One, Council Members will see the increased ridership in their wards and perhaps that will shift their thinking to prioritize cycling more. Two, more people biking means more constituents who can contact their Council Member to support progressive bike infrastructure. And third, hopefully, eventually all the increased bicycle traffic will begin to shift long-held views by business owners. The evidence shows that bikes are good for business, but it’s taking a lot longer for perceptions to catch up to the data.

So yes, you can be disappointed and disheartened by the outcome of the 3rd Avenue project. I know I have been. But I hope that in the not-too-distant future, the fact that many more regular folks are out biking will make our elected officials much more amenable to taking risks that will pay off in better streets for all.