Minneapolis Department of Public Works

Public Works

350 South 5th Street
RM 203 City Hall
Minneapolis, MN  55415-1390

Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix F

Public Engagement

March 2008 Open House Summary

September 2008 Public Meeting Summary

Online Survey Summary

July 2009 Public Meeting Summary

March 2008 Open House Summary

Residents of Minneapolis were invited to participate in a discussion about the goals and objectives of the Pedestrian Master Plan in an open house format on March 26, 2008. Over 100 people attended the open house, which was held from 5:30-8:30 p.m. at the Central Library. The geographic distribution of attendees was as follows:

Zip Code Approximate Location Number of Attendees
55401 Downtown 17
55403 Downtown 8
55415 Downtown 3
55454 Downtown 2
55411 North 7
55412 North 1
55405 North/Southwest 5
55014 Northeast 1
55413 Northeast 3
55418 Northeast 4
55406 South 8
55407 South 3
55404 South/Southwest 3
55414 Southeast 5
55455 Southeast 1
55408 Southwest 11
55409 Southwest 1
55410 Southwest 4
55416 Southwest 3
55419 Southwest 2
  St. Paul 4
  Suburbs 4

People were notified about the open house through a news release, information on the city’s website, notices sent to all neighborhood organizations, email notices to the pedestrian list serve and individuals who had attended previous pedestrian plan meetings, and information provided to Council members. The public open house included:

The open house provided attendees with an opportunity to provide verbal comments, written comments, and enabled them to state their preference for a series of predetermined statements with respect to pedestrian-related issues in Minneapolis.

Each component of the workshop is explained briefly below. More detailed reports, including a complete tabulation of data collected, can be found in the attachments at the end of this document.

Open Comment Forum

An open comment forum was held at the beginning of the meeting where residents were invited to share their comments in order to provide insight into the most pressing pedestrian-related issues within Minneapolis from the public’s perspective. Of greatest concern among residents were the issues of snow removal, the relationship between bicyclists and pedestrians, and safety with respect to pedestrians.

Crosswalks, Signals and Intersections:

Enforcement:

Education and Public Outreach:

Safety:

Sidewalks:

Snow Removal:

Pedestrian Amenities:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Conflicts:

Accessibility Issues:

Implementation/Planning Process:

Interactive Exhibits

Twelve (12) boards were presented at the open house and are included in Attachment 2 at the back of this summary. On several of the boards, attendees were asked to mark their answers to "yes/no" questions or to state their preference on scales that ranged from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" or "very important" to "very unimportant".

On average, the interactive exhibits received between 12 and 41 individual responses. The exhibits with the highest response rates (34-41) concerned snow removal on sidewalks and at curb ramps.

The exhibit that received the next highest response rate (27-41), was the exhibit that asked questions related to motivation and encouragement efforts to increase walking.

The exhibit that generated the fewest responses (12-18) concerned alternative funding sources for sidewalk inspections and repairs. Responses were split among the "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" range for each suggested funding source. This exhibit generated a lot of discussion, however, and a comment was added to the exhibit by an attendee who recommended that the City "find a way to tax people coming into the city from outside".

In addition, many of the exhibits that showed infrastructure, sidewalk gaps, and pedestrian-related crashes generated discussion that involved adding more data to the analysis. For example, attendees felt that additional pedestrian activity generators were needed to help identify pedestrian projects, and added those generators to the map.

Other attendees noted that while crashes involving pedestrians, gaps, and pedestrian activity generators are good indicators of areas in need of pedestrian projects, the City should pay attention to areas that did not have much of this information, indicating that a lack of data might mean that some neighborhoods are underserved in terms of pedestrian projects.

Getting The Word Out - Snow Removal Yes No Total
As a property owner, were you aware of your responsibility? 16 0 16
As a property owner, were you aware of available resources? 7 9 16
311 Poster      
Were you aware of 311? 38 3 41
Have you ever used 311? 28 13 41
If yes, did you see a result? 18 11 29
Sidewalk Repair & Replacement Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree Total
I feel the current practice is equitable 9 12 4 2 27
I feel the current practice is efficient 8 9 7 2 26
I prefer the 50/50 program 3 3 9 3 18
I prefer the 100% City managed program 7 8 0 3 18
For alternative funding sources, the City should consider          
Special Assessments by City Ward 0 7 5 0 12
A tax increase (property, sales, other) 4 4 10 0 18
A fee on parking permits 3 2 11 1 17
A fee on other city services (water, trash, etc.) 4 4 5 3 16
What motivates you to walk?          
Maintain or improve health/physical appearance 1 5 11 22 39
Recreation/social 1 3 17 20 41
Primary means of travel 1 8 12 16 37
Access public transportation (bus, train, taxi) 2 4 9 20 35
To/from personal vehicle 12 5 14 0 31
Walk a pet 18 5 0 4 27
Errands/visits to local stores 1 1 7 31 40
What would encourage you to walk more often or farther?          
Desirable destinations 1 1 12 22 36
Aesthetically pleasing route 1 0 8 31 40
Safety (from traffic) 1 3 14 22 40
Direct route to destination 1 6 16 11 34
Better lighting/perception of security 1 8 11 17 37
How do you rate the following pedestrian goals?          
Promote walking to enhance the character of the community 0 0 6 29 35
Address locations where accidents have occurred 0 5 12 12 29
Facilitate access to transit 0 0 11 20 31
Facilitate access to shopping, restaurants, work, other services 0 0 8 26 34
Improve crossings at problematic locations 0 1 8 25 34
Provide facilities accessible for all users 0 3 14 18 35
Promote walking to enhance health 0 3 13 15 31
Snow Removal Responsibilities - How well does this work?          
Existing snow removal system is effective 7 22 11 1 41
Snow build-up at curb ramps are routinely cleared 24 12 5 0 41
Transit stops and stations are cleared in a timely manner 10 5 16 0 31
Property owners clear sidewalks in a timely manner 8 30 2 0 40
Sidewalks on city-owned property are cleared in a timely manner 4 9 16 1 30
The enforcement policy is effective 13 18 3 0 34
If you are given ten projects for the same general area, but only enough money for five, which issues are most important? Very High Priority High Priority Undecided Low Priority Very Low Priority Total
Fill sidewalk gaps 4 15 9 4 1 33
Reduce pedestrian crashes 16 8 7 2 0 33
Improve pedestrian access to transit 20 11 2 0 0 33
Improve pedestrian access to schools 13 6 9 2 0 30
Improve pedestrian access to parks 12 5 7 5 0 29
Improve lighting 13 10 8 3 1 35
Improve health, increase physical activity 11 8 3 7 0 29
Revitalize underserved neighborhoods 25 9 2 0 0 36

Notes Next to Snow Removal Station

Notes Next to Sidewalk Funding Station

What is Missing?

What other aspects should we observe?

Miscellaneous Notes

Not Master Plan but a Micro Plan - Pay attention to human scale/small things

Written Feedback Form

Open house attendees were provided a written feedback form that corresponded to the interactive exhibits around the room. The form consisted of open-ended questions that enabled attendees to provide more detailed responses to the interactive exhibits that could be provided directly on the exhibit. Comments received from this form were grouped into one of seven categories: (1) snow removal, (2) pedestrian amenities, (3) transit improvements, (4) sustainability, (5) social/environmental justice, (6) enforcement, and (7) education, programming, and events. Approximately 64 participants provided comments.

September 2008 Public Meeting Summary

Residents of Minneapolis were invited to the second public open house for the Pedestrian Master Plan, focusing upon capital improvement priorities and best practices for designing and maintaining the pedestrian environment. 57 people signed in for the open house, which was held from 5:30-8:30 p.m. at the Central Library. The geographic distribution of attendees was as follows:

Zip Code Approximate Location Number of Attendees
55401 Downtown 11
55403 Downtown 6
55454 Downtown 1
55411 North 4
55405 North/Southwest 5
55413 Northeast 2
55418 Northeast 2
55406 South 1
55407 South 2
55417 South 1
55404 South/Southwest 4
55414 Southeast 4
55408 Southwest 1
55410 Southwest 1
55419 Southwest 1
St. Paul   2
Suburbs   5

People were notified about the open house through a news release, information on the city’s website, notices sent to all neighborhood organizations, email notices to the pedestrian list serve and individuals who had attended previous pedestrian plan meetings, and information provided to Council members.

The content of the Open House was focused upon four topical areas:

  1. Common problems with the design of the pedestrian system, including physical network connectivity, sidewalk corridors, street corners, street crossings.
  2. Best practices for the design of the pedestrian system, including physical network connectivity, sidewalk corridors, street corners, street crossings.
  3. Physical improvement priorities, including network connectivity improvements, street crossing improvements, pedestrian environment improvements and accessibility improvements.
  4. Preliminary goals, objectives and strategies to improve the pedestrian system.

This content was presented on a series of interactive exhibits around the room, as well as through a presentation. Public comments were collected on handouts returned at the close of the meeting. These are included at the end of this document for reference. Additionally, the public was invited to ask general questions that were recorded at the time of the meeting. They are included at the end of this document, as well. The boards and PowerPoint presentation are posted on the City website ( Pedestrian Master Plan).

Public Workshop Summary of Comments

Public comments at the workshop and on written comments included the following:

Common Problems

Best Practices for Design

Capital Improvement Priorities

Goals and Objectives

Public Meeting Open Comment/Question & Answer Summary

  1.  How do you address existing poles in sidewalks?
  2.  What other solutions (besides bump-outs) are there to eliminate obstructions?
  3.  Why are non-standard/unacceptable designs permitted?
  4.  Will the plan include illustrations/graphics of best practices?
  5.  What other related planning efforts are underway?
  6.  When in 2009 will Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) be made mandatory and why?
  7.  Will the application of best practices vary by area of city?
  8.  What will the standards be for ensuring sidewalks are smooth?
  9.  How will we pay for all of this?
  10.  How will this relate to Access Minneapolis Plan recommendations?
  11.  How much of a focus will there be on barriers, isolated areas, & freeways?
  12. What will be the city’s position on APS?
  13. What changes will be made to marking unsignalized crosswalks?
  14. How will this plan relate to other efforts?
  15. What effect will these recommendations have on historically-protected areas?

Online Survey Summary

120 people completed the online survey between 6/16/08 and 8/30/08. Survey responses are summarized below.

Section 1: About You

1. What is your age?

Ages Responses
20-29 22
30-39 41
40-49 22
50-59 25
60-80 8

2. Gender? 57% female, 43% male

3. Zip code?

Zip Code Approximate Location Responses
55401 Downtown 5
55403 Downtown 9
55415 Downtown 1
55454 Downtown 3
55430 North 1
55411 North 2
55412 North 9
55405 North/Northwest 9
55413 Northeast 5
55418 Northeast 5
55417 South 6
55406 South 17
55407 South 6
55404 South/Southwest 5
55414 Southeast 3
55455 Southeast 1
55408 Southwest 11
55410 Southwest 11
55416 Southwest 2
55419 Southwest 7
Outside Mpls   2
TOTAL   120

Section 2: Existing Conditions for Pedestrians

What are your favorite places to walk or the places you most frequently walk (be specific)?

Parks/Lakes/Parkways: Chain of Lakes (Lake Calhoun frequently reported), Minnehaha Creek/Parkway, Lake Nokomis, River Parkways, Columbia Golf Course, Wirth Park, Minnehaha Falls, Pershing Park, Loring Park, Logan Park, Northeast Park, St. Anthony Parkway, Victory Memorial Parkway, Weber Park, North Mississippi Regional Park, Powderhorn Park, Boom Island, Eloise Butler Gardens, Quaking Bog, Mill Ruins Park, Gold Medal Park, Linden Hills Park

Neighborhoods: Dinkytown, CARAG, Windom, Audobon, Howe, Stevens, Whittier, Loring Park, Wedge, Lowry Hill, East Isles, Longfellow, Cedar Riverside, Seward, Uptown, Linden Hills, ECCO, Kingfield, McKinley, U of M, Windom Park, Marcy-Holmes

Downtown: Nicollet Mall, Farmers Market, 2 nd St, Guthrie, Loring Greenway, River Parkway, Orchestra Hall, skyways, St. Anthony Main, Hennepin Av, Walker Art Center

Streets: Franklin Av, West Broadway, Lake Street, Lyndale Av S, Hennepin Av S, France Av, Excelsior Blvd, Garfield Av S, Oak Grove St, 54 th St S, Washington Av S, King’s Highway, 34 th St S, SE Main St, Penn Av S, Nicollet Av, Chicago Av, Cedar Av, Thomas Av N, 38 th St, Minnehaha Av, Lowry Av, Washington St NE

Destinations: grocery store, kids school, coffee shop, video store, fitness center, walk dog, library, church, restaurants

Bridges: Stone Arch Bridge, 46 th St/Ford Bridge, Franklin Bridge, 10 th Street Bridge

Trails: Midtown Greenway, Hiawatha LRT Trail

Are there places where you don't walk now but would walk if the physical conditions were different (be specific)?

Locations: Hennepin/Lyndale interchange (frequently reported), 50 th St W (frequently reported), Xerxes, Loring Park, Lake Street, Lake Street @ 35W, 46 th/46 th, Johnson/18 th, Lake/Lyndale, Kmart @ Lake/Nicollet, Loring Park, Lake Street, Cedar/42 nd, Penn/Osseo, SEMI area, Washington Av S, St. Anthony Blvd, Boom Island, Cedar Avenue (Cedar-Riverside), Hiawatha Ave, Cedar/Franklin, 4 th & University, Broadway Ave E, Hennepin Ave NE, Broadway NE, Lyn-Lake, Shingle Creek Park, Nicollet Avenue (south of Lake), Diamond Lake Rd, Cedar/Franklin/Minnehaha, Lyndale (Franklin to 24th), Nicollet (Franklin to 29 th), Washington Ave, 4 th Ave along freeway wall, Diamond Lake Road

Other Concerns: garbage, crumbling sidewalks, poorlyl cleared snow, trees and grass need watering, construction sidewalk closures, walk signals don’t give enough time to cross street, missing sidewalks, lack of street level destinations downtown, streets without boulevards

Are there any missing sidewalks in areas where you walk (be specific)?

Downtown:

North:

Northeast/Southeast:

South:

Southwest:

South/Southwest

• Diamond Lake Rd @ Pearl Park

Are there sidewalks that are too narrow in places where you walk (be specific)?

Generally

Downtown

Northeast/Southeast

South

Southwest

South/Southwest

Are there other physical barriers to walking in places where you walk(be specific)?

Generally

Downtown

South

Southwest

Are there any specific locations where you have encountered traffic safety dangers while walking(be specific)?

Downtown

North

Northeast/Southeast

South

Southwest

South/Southwest

Generally

Are there any specific locations where you have encountered personal security dangers while walking (be specific)?

Generally

Downtown

Northeast/Southeast

South

South/Southwest

Southwest

What other problems related to walking have you observed (be specific)?

What opportunities for increased walking have you observed (be specific)?

Recent improvements

Opportunities

Last updated Mar. 8, 2012