If you want to ride a bike in Downtown, there’s a map for that. If you want to catch a bus in Downtown, there’s a map for that too. But what if you’re not sure yet if you want to bus or bike? Wouldn’t it be useful to compare the streets where specialized facilities are dedicated to these modes (or pretendicated, in the case of Hennepin’s Green Lanes)?
Actually, if that was your goal, you might as well use Hedberg‘s amazingly comprehensive yet readable official Minneapolis Bike Map, which shows transit (although it doesn’t differentiate between Hiawatha, which is mostly separated from traffic, and a bus that runs in mixed traffic). My goal was more theoretical – I just wanted to see at a glance which streets had been specialized for which modes. I used Visio to alter a base map created by Public Works that was the most detailed map I could find in black & white. Color was used to differentiate between the different modes in which the streets specialized, and line thickness was used to show degree of separation from other modes, which in Downtown conveniently corresponds to directionality (i.e. all of the separated facilities are also two-way; the old two-way bike lane on Hennepin would have been more complicated to symbolize). I also included pedestrian specialization, which I considered to include bikes unless specifically banned (as on the typically deserted Fed plaza) or physically prevented from using the space (mostly because of stairs, like on Chicago’s connection to West River Pkwy). Because Public Works’ attention is defaulted to car traffic, the base map included freeways in light green – luckily they are another form of specialization, but they don’t conform to my symbology.
Now that I’ve made this map of street specialization in Downtown Minneapolis, here’s some thoughts on the transportation network:
- Downtown’s defining feature is a grid of around 20 blocks long by 10-15 blocks deep wedged into a triangular area. Ok, that’s obvious, but you gotta start somewhere. Also noteworthy is that the grid bends in the center-west and on the south, creating irregularities there, and is frequently interrupted along its periphery.
- The heaviest activity is in the center of the grid, but there is intense activity throughout, with the only exceptions in an eastern area bounded by 5th & 11th Avenues and 3rd and 6th or 7th Sts, and a western area bounded by I-94, the 4th St viaduct, and I-394.
- On average, there are ten blocks to a mile, but entry to Downtown is limited to about 12 gateways, mostly evenly distributed (about 3 to a cardinal direction) but not evenly spaced. These gateways are created by the barrier function of the freeway ring directly limiting access but also dividing the surrounding city into separate communities defined by freeway boundaries. The river does something similar.
- There is more real specialization for bikes than any other mode. This makes sense, since people seem to like to get their bikes as close to their destination as possible rather than leave them at a central terminal and walk to their destination (people also don’t like to do that with cars, and maybe not with transit either).
- Transit actually has more specialization than bikes if you count nominal specialization, in the form of bus stops and shelters. There are a dizzying array of downtown streets with bus lines on them, but they aren’t really specialized because there is no advantage for transit to run there as opposed to anywhere else (a dedicated lane would be an example of an advantage). The spread of nominally specialized transit streets is a weakness for the network, since transit benefits from clustering onto spines in order to compound frequency and increase system legibility.
- Another caveat – looking at the map and assuming 6 lanes per freeway, there appears to be more specialized facilities for cars than for bikes. The majority of the streets on this map also have specialized facilities for pedestrians lining them.
- There is a huge network gap on the south end of downtown, basically from Hawthorne to Portland between 12th and 15th. (Technically you could bike on the Loring Greenway but I rarely see that happen, maybe because you have to ride on the sidewalk to get to it.) Do the conditions that require specialization further north not exist here, or have they just not gotten around to specializing? The south end of Nicollet is not congested, but the high levels of transit service and use here would likely benefit from a modified transit mall, for example one that would prohibit cars from going through but allow access for parking and drop-off. The south end of Hennepin, on the other hand, is similar to the Green Lanes segment, and the only rationale for not extending them is to allow unfettered gratification of suburbanites’ desire to drive Downtown. In other words, Hennepin Ave south of 12th St is duplicated by 394 so there’s no good reason to continue its present prioritization of cars. Extend the Green Lanes and enforce them.
- Another gap basically cuts off the North Loop. Local transit operates well there, with wide stop spacing and few stoplights, but the heavily-used transit service to the northern suburbs would benefit from exclusive lanes – I’ve mentioned before converting one of the viaducts to a two-way transitway and making the other a reversible two-lane highway. As for bikes, the gap in the 2nd St bike lane can only be attributed to disinterest on the part of Public Works – the two blocks lacking lanes shares the same width as its neighbors with lanes. The North Loop has actually lost bike lanes lately, as the lanes on one side of 5th Ave were converted to parking. This neighborhood has obvious problems with street connectivity in this direction, so this lane should be restored and connected to 7th St N, maybe as part of the Interchange project.
- The third gap is in Elliot Park, where the city is reluctant as usual to remove parking to add bike lanes. It seems reasonable, though, to add a lane each to 7th and 8th on the stretch east of Portland where demand for turning is low. I have also called for a transit mall on 8th St – 9th or 10th might work too.
I’d like to pin a tangential coda onto this already long-winded post. From the above it can be gathered that there is already a great deal of specialization on Downtown streets but I’d like to add even more. To understand why, I offer the chart below, showing that the population of Downtown as measured by the 2010 census is greater than all but 25 of the Metro’s 90-some municipalities:
Ok, so # 26 wouldn’t seem to be a big deal, except for the fact that at 2.6 sq mi Downtown is a third the size of the next smallest city on the list, Richfield. In addition, only 5 cities on the list had a similar or higher growth rate to Downtown, which is poised to overtake Brooklyn Center, Andover, Roseville, and Richfield assuming the same growth rate in this decade. Of course, that won’t happen, but if the first two years of this decade are any indication, it’s certain that Downtown’s growth rate will outpace all but a few of the Metro’s large municipalities.
High population in a small area means density, something that isn’t very common in the Twin Cities. That means we should expect the transportation system to look different Downtown as well, and a reasonable response is to specialize street space so the different modes can perform their best. Unsurprisingly I have an idea of what the ideal specialization would look like, and I’ll get around to posting that map sooner or later.