Bicycle Advisory Committee Minutes Wednesday, April 28, 2020, 4 PM [Online Meeting via Microsoft Teams]

Members Present: Aaron Shaffer, Janice Gepner, Dan Miller, Elissa Schufman, Bri Whitcraft, Dan Boody, Matthew Dyrdahl, Kadence Novak, Philipp Muessig, Wes Durham, Jamie Neldner, Jesse Thornsen, Arman Rajaeian, Jenny Bordon, Matthew Hendricks, Heather Gillich, John Barobs, Maya Sheikh, Tyler Pederson, Jordan Kocak, Deanna Newman, Joey Senkyr, Robin Garwood, Georgianna Yantos

Others Present: Millicent Flowers, Chris Kartheiser, Ross Tillman (Bolton and Menk), Colin Harris (Alta), Josh Potter (Hennepin County PW)

Members absent: Greg Sautter, Abdi Salah, Samuel Ferg, Kyle Larson, Marty Grimes, Steve Elmer

The meeting was called to order by BAC Chair Elissa Schufman; the March Minutes were accepted. Actions Adoption of Agenda and Acceptance of Minutes (20 ayes, 0 abstentions)

● Moved by Philipp, seconded by Aaron Reports 5E Subcommittee Report presented by Heather Gillich a. Presented survey results and member perspectives about each of the 5Es that will lead us for more opportunities for strategic planning in the future. Determining what the BAC’s role is for some of the different E, such as education in relation to other educational agencies and entities.

b. All videos of past meetings are “live” on the City’s YouTube channel. Engineering Subcommittee Report c. The Engineering Subcommittee scheduled for Tuesday, April 20, 2021 was cancelled due to the verdict reading of the Derek Chauvin trail. Summary of Discussions Discussion Hennepin Ave NE/1st Ave NE improvement project @ 15%, Luke Hanson (Hennepin County)

o Not requesting a formal resolution, but seeking feedback on preliminary concepts; design team will be back at a future BAC meeting to present progress

o Team Members include Josh Potter, Colin Harris, and Ross Tillman

o BRT overlaps with the project corridor

o MPRB also has funding for the Seam Trail connection on the river side of NE Main between Hennepin and 1st Ave

o Matthew asked about feasibility of each design concept

o Ross responded that reducing from 3 lanes to 2 lanes is feasible

o Kadence shared strong preference for one-way bikeway pair concept

o Janice also agrees that the one-way bikeway pair concept has all of the advantages over the two-way bikeway concept

o Deanna also shares support for the one-way bikeway pair concept from a safety and predictability perspective of all users

o Philipp agrees that 1st Ave NE with 2 lanes would be feasible down from 3 lanes and would help ease speeding drivers

o Joey supports the two-way bikeway concept to intercept people who will still ride against traffic on Hennepin Ave

o Wes supports the two one-way bikeway pair concept, based on daily riding experience this is a logical route that people already use and intuitive route to other major destinations such as Uptown. Important to think about the network in relation to larger, new developments on 1st Avenue and synergy between a facility on 1st Ave and future infill, redevelopment, and retail activity

o Dan asks about lane width

o Josh asks clarifying question about the bike lane width

o Colin responds that a one-way bikeway would be between 6’ - 8’ depending on narrowest portions of the corridor; ideally 6.5’ or wider. Still a number of configurations being considered in terms of number of traffic lanes, type of bike lane separation, and vertical elements. 6’ bike lane with 2’ buffer and 2 lanes of traffic lanes is an option. Minimum width for two-way bikeway would be 10’.

o Dan shares the bikeways on 8th that approach Central Ave have a difficult crossing to Monroe. Recommend that the City/County take this intersection into account for design as Monroe is a Vision Zero street. o Elissa adds that the City has driving reduction goals of 40% and reallocating driving lanes to bikes, so hopes that traffic volumes are not driving the decisions. Fewer people driving means fewer cars, fewer conflicts between mode users. Question about transit service impacts and winter maintenance.

o Josh responds to winter maintenance and shares that it will be resolved between the city and county. A buffered bike lane with vertical separation presents different challenges but is possible re: Plymouth Avenue versus Park/Portland Avenues. In terms of transit, working with Metro Transit re: transit lanes whether now or in the future. E Line has proposed stops at 1st, 2nd, etc and team is looking at a “floating bus stop.”

o Elissa was also thinking about design advantages between the two design concepts, concern about snow being deposited at intersections.

o Matthew wanted to double check BAC thoughts in a future resolution, but the range of treatment sounds like it goes from standard to protected bike lane with vertical elements.

o Josh responded that range is buffered to vertical separation, and vertical separation is what’s desired from an AAA perspective.

o Kadence shared support for transit lane with floating bus stop and bikeway in conjunction with one another in the corridor to reach 40% reduction in driving goal.

o Luke said team will return in a couple months with more specific design recommendations.

o Draft resolution: The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee supports the paired one-way option on Hennepin and 1st Ave, favors protected bike lanes, in conjunction with transit lanes and floating bus stops designs, to contribute mode shift goals in accordance with the City’s climate action goals.

o Philipp makes the motion, Robin seconds. (18 ayes, 4 abstentions) Hennepin Ave S project, Elissa Schufman (Chair); meeting chairship transferred to Philipp Muessig (Co-Chair)

○ Elissa shares context for the project, which the committee has seen several times of the past few months and the BAC has passed resolutions in favor of option 1 with a bikeway on between Franklin Avenue and Lake Street. The construction timeline has been pushed back to 2024 partially due to pushback from businesses in the corridor that do not want a 24 hours bus only lane or a bikeway.

○ Janice shares that understanding was that businesses would like to recover from COVID impacts by delaying construction a year

○ Elissa shared that this delay could drag out the project altogether to the point that no project redesign moves forward ○ Robin asks if folks want the decision of layout and construction delayed

○ Elissa responds that its both delayed layout and construction

○ Robin thinks the decision about the layout should still be reach soon since there’s no justifiable COVID impact there, but could see construction being delayed into the future. However, budget issues could impact the possibility of delay.

○ Elissa says that part of the consideration is that this is the route of the future METRO E Line BRT, and this would impact E Line construction and adds another layer to the implementation schedule being pushed back.

○ Robin agrees that this is a compelling reason to not delay construction.

○ Matthew agrees that these are two separate conversations (re: layout and construction). The discussion of the layout decision being delayed is relatively recent - construction delay was previously brought up.

○ Hennepin Ave S Timeline Draft Resolution: The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee supports a timely 2021 approval of DesignOption 1 in the Hennepin Ave S reconstruction project. The committee opposes delays to the schedule around design approval. The committee encourages the City to align as closely as possible with the implementation timelines of Metro Transit’s E Line.

■ (14 ayes, 1 nay, 3 abstentions)

○ Hennepin Ave S Dynamic Parking Draft Resolution: In order to improve parking access and address business concerns around Design Option 1, the committee further recommends that the project team develop and widely publicize a dynamically metered and signed parking plan that assure continuous 15% street parking availability on each block face for all blocks within one to two blocks of the parking spaces to be removed on Hennepin Ave S.

■ (15 ayes, 0 nays, 3 abstentions)

○ Moved by Janice, seconded by Joey.

○ Deanna shared that this sounds like two different resolutions. Text split into “Hennepin Ave S Timeline” and “Hennepin Ave S Dynamic Parking” resolutions.

○ Arman (Metro Transit) points out that the E Line construction date was pushed from 2023 to 2024 to align better with this project.

○ Elissa asks if the E Line construction aligns better with the original Hennepin Ave construction timeline or not.

○ Arman says it would be easier if reconstruction and BRT construction occur at the same time; BRT schedule was pushed to 2024 to better align with the construction delay proposed on Hennepin.

○ Matthew suggests that the dynamic parking resolution be made clear that it is in support of all interested parties.

20-year streets funding meeting, Elissa Schufman (Chair)

○ 20 Year Streets Funding Plan to catch up on paving projects and it is not in alignment with the Transportation Action Plan and how we fund projects. None of the 20 Year Streets Funding Plan allows funding towards bike lanes. Elissa requests PW present on the plan and that other key stakeholders be involved with the process to make sure the plan aligns with other plans and goals.

○ Robin adds CMs will be having more conversations about the funding items.

○ 20-Year Streets Funding Plan Draft Resolution: The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee asks Minneapolis Public Works to commit to amending the 20 Year Streets Funding Plan to align with the Transportation Action Plan (TAP). The TAP calls for transformative changes within the same timeframe as the 20 Year Streets Funding Plan, and should directly influence all plans for uses of transportation funding. Amending the plan must be a and strategic priority for PW and should be completed before the Council’s consideration of the 2022 budget. The Minneapolis Bicycle Advisory Committee requests that Public Works come to our committee in May 2021 to...

○ Moved by Elissa, seconded by Janice. (18 ayes, 1 abstention)

38th and Chicago Resolution, Kadence Novak

○ Moved by Kadence, seconded by Maya. (10 ayes, 0 nays, 7 abstentions)

Open meeting law and meeting practices online, Chris Kartheiser

○ Delayed to next meeting

Engineering meeting date discussion, Dan Miller

○ Move from 3rd Tuesday to 2nd Tuesday each month at the same time, before the following day is the executive committee meeting on 3rd Wednesday of the month to allow more time to turnaround committee meeting minutes for the full BAC meeting the following week.

○ Dan moved, Phillip seconded. 14 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstentions. Announcements Changes to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Matthew Dyrdahl Robin shares that the TDM passed out of the council committee and will likely be passed during the next council meetings

Adjourned 6:16 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted by Kadence Novak.