DOCSLIB.ORG

2013 Count Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2013 Count Report Bike Walk Twin Cities 2013 Count Report Issued December 12, 2013 a program of transit for livable communities Executive Summary This annual report, the 2013 Bike Walk Twin Cities Pedestrian and Bicycle Count Report, provides a detailed view of bicycling and walking at benchmark locations across the Twin Cities. This ongoing to develop a more complete picture of overall travel behavior in our communities. collection of annual data about nonmotorized traffic supplements existing data on motorized traffic key findings 1. Rates of bicycling and walking Annual counts at 43 benchmark locations in the Twin Cities metro indicate that bicycling increased 78 percent and walking 16 percent between 2007 and 2013. Overall, active transportation (bicycling and walking together) rose by 45 percent from 2007 to 2013. Between 2012 and 2013, bicycling increased 13 percent, walking decreased 6 percent, and active transportation increased 4 at locations encompassing a broad range of street types and facilities and representing all areas ofpercent. Minneapolis The findings and several are based adjacent on manual communities. 2-hour Thecounts 2013 conducted counts are by thespecially-trained highest ever recorded volunteers for bicycle trips, and the second highest ever recorded for pedestrian trips (down slightly from the record high of 2012). Bike Walk Twin Cities | A Program of Transit for Livable Communities | 2013 Count Report | December 2013 | Page 1 2. Impact of new facilities 2013 key findings Count locations with new facilities (new bike lanes summary* or other improvements) showed higher increases in bicycling than locations without improvements. Trails 2007-2013 connections saw the greatest increases in bicycle where extensions were built to improve network Bicyclists: +78% to facilities improvements and more related to major destinations.use. Increased Count pedestrian data continue traffic seems to demonstrate less related Pedestrians: +16% that fewer bicyclists ride on sidewalks when there is Nonmotorized: +45% a dedicated bicycling facility available. This has safety for pedestrians and making bicyclists more visible and 2012-2013 predictablebenefits for toall motorists.road users, making sidewalks clearer Bicyclists: +13% 3. Mode share Pedestrians: -6% Nonmotorized: +4% Bridges provide a unique opportunity for the study of modes in a network. A comparison of motorized and *Based on data from 43 benchmark movement and the proportion of traffic using different locations. nonmotorized traffic on bridges over the Mississippi River shows that the nonmotorized share of traffic ranges from 11-26 percent and averages 16 percent. 4. Gender The data show that the rate of increase in bicycling and walking has been similar for men and Thewomen. gender The difference gender split, for averagingwalking is 29 percent female bicyclists from 2008-2013 (with a range of not27-32 as percent),pronounced, remains with roughlyan average the of same as it was in 2008, when gender data collection began. 45 percent women pedestrians from 2008 to 2013. 5. Seasonality In addition to annual counts, BWTC locations since 2008. The monthly has conducted monthly counts at six 2013, while absolute numbers of bicyclistscount data are indicate much lowerthat from in winter 2008- months, bicycling increased at a higher rate in winter than in summer months. Bike Walk Twin Cities | A Program of Transit for Livable Communities | 2013 Count Report | December 2013 | Page 2 I. Introduction that since 2007 bicycling has increased by 78 percent and walking by 16 percent. Since 2007, total Bike Walk Twin Cities counts of bicycle and pedestrian traffic at 43 benchmark locations reveal percent, walking declined by 6 percent, and nonmotorized trips increased by 4 percent. non-motorized trips have increased by 46 percent. From 2012 to 2013, bicycling increased by 13 as well as counts conducted by the City of Minneapolis, both of which show that trips made by walkingThe dramatic and bicycling increases have are neverconsistent been with higher. the findings of the American Community Survey (ACS) Since 2007, 7 of the 43 benchmark locations have more than doubled in the amount of observed bicycle traffic. Over that same period, 5 of the 43 benchmark locations have seen more than double Citythe amount of Minneapolis of pedestrian show tentraffic. additional There likely such arelocations, many otherof which locations eight have that areimproved not part facilities. of this count Not surprisingly,program where the non-motorized locations that have travel shown has more the greatest than doubled. increases For ininstance, bicycling counts are along conducted corridors by the that have been improved for bicycling or where trail extensions have been made to fill network gaps. downtownIn terms of Minneapolis.pedestrian traffic, the greatest increases in walking are in places where new destinations have been built: for example, near the new Twins Stadium and other recent developments in bicyclists riding on sidewalks, which is inherently dangerous both for bicyclists and pedestrians. Investments in new bike facilities have had the additional benefit of greatly reducing the rate of Pedestrian, Bike, and Total Non‐motorized Traffic in the Minneapolis NTP Study Area September, 4‐6pm Counts 2007‐2013 16000 14000 12000 10000 Bike Pedestrian 8000 Non‐motorized 6000 4000 2000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Bike Walk Twin Cities | A Program of Transit for Livable Communities | 2013 Count Report | December 2013 | Page 3 locations with increases greater than 100%, 2007-2013 Bicycling Name | Count location | Percentage 1. Bridge 9 | Loc. 3 | 546% 2. Cedar Lake Trail, under I-94 | Loc. 43 | 388% 3. 42nd St. E, east of Minnehaha | Loc. 25 | 285% 4. Cedar Lake Trail at Royalston with new extension | Loc. 70 | 278% 5. Loring Bikeway Bridge | Loc. 74 | 167% 6. 26th Ave. N, east of Penn | Loc. 15 | 114% 7. Midtown Greenway, west of Hennepin Ave. | Loc. 42 | 106% Walking Name | Count location | Percentage 1. Sabo Bridge & 28th St. crossing Hiawatha | Loc. 27 & 28 | 255% 2. Cedar Lake Trail at Royalston with new extension | Loc. 70 | 203% 3. Loring Bikeway Bridge | Loc. 74 | 200% 4. Glenwood Ave., west of Royalston Ave. | Loc. 38 | 177% 5. 26th Ave. N, east of Penn | Loc. 15 | 160% 6. U of M Transitway, east of 25th Ave. SE | Loc. 5 | 113% Bike Walk Twin Cities | A Program of Transit for Livable Communities | 2013 Count Report | December 2013 | Page 4 II. Facilities Analysis bicycling Locations with new bikeway facilities showed higher increases in bicycling than locations without Lyndale Ave. N. south of Broadway, averaged nearly the same when neither had bike lanes. In 2009, theimprovements. 7th Street location For example, had 13 two bicyclists locations in thein north two hour Minneapolis, count period, 7th Street while N. the over Lyndale I-94 andlocation had 12. After bike lanes were added in 2012, the 7th Street location doubled to 26 and was up to 33 in 2013. Meanwhile the Lyndale location (still without bike lanes) recorded only 10 in 2012 and 11 bicyclists in 2013. Trails where new extensions were built to complete network connections saw perhaps the greatest increases in bicycle use. For example, bicycling increased by 53 percent from 2012 to 2013 at nearBridge downtown, 9 along the bicycling Dinkytown increased Greenway, 278 percentwhich was from completed 2007 to 2013. in August This 2013. route Frominto downtown 2007 to 2013, bicycling increased 546 percent at the Bridge 9 location. Along the Cedar Lake Trail extension benchmark count locations.) was completed in 2011. (The Cedar Lake Trail extension was not a BWTC project, but is one of the Bike Walk Twin Cities | A Program of Transit for Livable Communities | 2013 Count Report | December 2013 | Page 5 Total Bicyclists at Locations with Improved Facilities, 2007‐2013 250 200 150 Bicyclists, 2007 100 Bicyclists, 2013 50 0 walking scarcity of counts conducted in areas where major pedestrian improvements (e.g. new sidewalks) Facility improvement did not correlate as highly with increased walking. This may be due to a Royalston,were made. near In addition, the Twins increased Stadium, pedestrian saw a 177 traffic percent seems increase less relatedfrom 2007 to facilities to 2013. improvements and more related to major destinations. For instance, the count location Glenwood Avenue, west of Some of the improvements for bicyclists resulted in an improved environment for lane conversions with bike lanes) have been pedestrians. For instance, “road diets” (4-3 crashes (and all other crash types) by simplifyingfound to significantly the roadway decrease and reducing car-pedestrian what ais buffer known zone as the for “multiple pedestrians. threat” BWTC pervasive funding andwith encouragement 4-lane roadways. resulted Bike lanes in road also diets provide at the following locations: Riverside Ave., Douglas10th Ave. Drive, SE, Franklin and Marshall Ave. Bridge, Ave. 27th Ave. SE, Fremont Ave. N., parts of Glenwood Ave., Bike Walk Twin Cities | A Program of Transit for Livable Communities | 2013 Count Report | December 2013 | Page 6 sidewalks of bicycles riding on the sidewalk. BWTC 2013 count data again show a high incidence of sidewalk An especially salient count finding demonstrates that bike lanes significantly reduce the incidence do not feel safe on the roadway, a high percentage will use the sidewalk. Yet, research shows that riding on thestreets sidewalk with high may traffic actually volumes be more and dangerous no dedicated for cyclists
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Corridor Supplemental DEIS Chapter 9: Indirect and Cumulative
    Central Corridor LRT Project Chapter 9 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 9.0 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This chapter identifies the potential indirect and cumulative impacts that could occur with implementation of the Central Corridor LRT Project. Section 9.1 introduces the concepts of indirect and cumulative impacts, and how and why the analysis is done. Section 9.2 presents the methods used to decide what data was needed, how it was collected, and how it was analyzed. This section also describes some general trends in the study area and provides a table of the significant and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the study area. Finally, this section demonstrates how each topic was selected according to its potential for indirect and cumulative impacts. Section 9.3 presents a discussion of potential indirect impacts for each topic and a discussion of cumulative impacts. Section 9.4 summarizes the potential indirect and cumulative effects of the AA/DEIS LPA and the Key Project Elements and lists available mitigation measures that could be applied where indirect and cumulative impacts may occur. 9.1 Introduction The Central Corridor Alternatives Analysis and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) did not include a separate section for an indirect and cumulative effects analysis (ICEA). This section, therefore, is intended to provide a basic discussion of ICEA and to describe the potential for indirect effects and cumulative impacts from the AA/DEIS Locally Preferred Alternative (AA/DEIS LPA), as well as to the Key Project Elements, in combination with other past, present, and future actions. For this chapter, the AA/DEIS LPA and the Key Project Elements are referred to as the Central Corridor LRT project.
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3)
    Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3) Email Comment Topic Comment # The recommendations in this submission expand on this principle and support the overall Transportation Action Plan goals of designing transportation to achieve the aims of Minneapolis 2040, address climate change, reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and improve racial and economic equity. In line with these goals, our most significant recommendations for the Prospect Park area are to • Invest in the protected bike network: extending the Greenway over the River, and building the Prospect Park Trail along railroad right-of- way • Transform University Avenue and Washington Avenues • Complete the Grand Rounds and use the Granary corridor to redirect truck traffic Priorities for transportation improvements in Prospect Park 1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community including safe crossings of University Avenue SE (Bedford, Malcolm, 29th and 27th), Franklin Avenue SE (Bedford, Seymour) and 27th Avenue SE (Essex, Luxton Park to Huron pedestrian overpass). We encourage the city to narrow residential intersections, particularly in Bicycling, the Tower Hill sub-neighborhood where streets do not meet at right Walking, 1 angles, and crossing distances are significantly longer than needed. Additional Planters and plastic delineators could be used to achieve this ahead of Comments reconstruction. Maintenance and improvements should focus on public safety, adequate lighting and landscape upkeep. Throughout the neighborhood residents have cited safety (particularly at night), sidewalk disrepair, narrowness, snow and ice issues, and have expressed support for full ADA compliance. 2. Complete the Minneapolis Grand Rounds and the Granary Corridor (see Map 2) to enhance community access to city and regional parks and trails as well as to adjoining neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 Transportation Improvement Program for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area
    2006 - 2008 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA September 14, 2005 Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Metropolitan Council Members Peter Bell Chair Roger Scherer District 1 Tony Pistilli District 2 Mary Hill Smith District 3 Julius C. Smith District 4 Russ Susag District 5 Peggy Leppik District 6 Annette Meeks District 7 Lynette Wittsack District 8 Natalie Haas Steffen District 9 Vacant District 10 Georgeanne Hilker District 11 Chris Georgacas District 12 Rick Aguilar District 13 Song Lo Fawcett District 14 Daniel Wolter District 15 Brian McDaniel District 16 General phone 651 602-1000 Data Center 651-602-1140 TTY 651 291-0904 Metro Info Line 651 602-1888 E-mail [email protected] Web site www.metrocouncil.org Publication no. 35-05-060 Printed on recycled paper with at least 20% post-consumer waste. On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 651 602-1140 or TTY 651 291-0904. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................1 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................2 Federal Requirements.......................................................................................................................2 Regional Planning Process ...............................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to the Get-Together! ★
    GETTING TO THE GET-TOGETHER! ★ EXPRESS SERVICE – PARK FREE 35W 1 35E 94 10 Express buses travel directly to and from the fair- EVERY DAY AUG. 21-SEPT. 1 694 grounds, operating from 8 a.m. to midnight daily. SERVICE EVERY 15 MINUTES 2 Find the lot closest to you: call 612-341-4287 for 494 11 automated information or use the State Fair Park 1 Northtown Mall – Blaine 694 & Ride Finder at metrotransit.org. University Ave. & Hwy. 10 7 Brookdale Shopping Center 3 394 4 ROUND-TRIP 2 – Brooklyn Center 94 94 $ Shingle Creek Pkwy. & Bass Lake Rd. 5 FOR ALL CUSTOMERS 35W 8 I-394 & Co. Rd. 73 Park & Ride 35E Exact fare, please. Children under five ride free. 3 – Minnetonka 12 5 SW corner of I-394 & Co. Rd. 73 494 BUSES OPERATE 13 494 6 9 4 Dunwoody Institute – Minneapolis 15 8 A.M. – MIDNIGHT DAILY I-394 & Dunwoody Blvd. Express buses drop off/pick up customers at fair Gate #20 (on 14 Southdale Shopping Center the south side of Como Ave. across from the Warner Coliseum). 5 – Edina NE corner of lot near 66th & York Ave. All express service is wheelchair accessible. ADDITIONAL EXPRESS SERVICE Bus departure times are approximate. 6 Bloomington – 82nd St. & 24th Ave. So. Across from Mall of America East parking ramp SouthWest Transit RIDE ON Wooddale Church, Weekdays only SERVICE EVERY HALF HOUR 12 “Hop On Transit Day” 6630 Shady Oak Rd., Eden Prairie Oakdale Center Park & Ride WEDNESDAY, AUG. 27 7 – Oakdale 13 SouthWest Station, Weekends & Labor Day West of I-694 on 10th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Westgate Business Center I Under New Ownership!
    OFFICE/WAREHOUSE SPACE FOR LEASE > Westgate Business Center I 2561 - 2631 Territorial Road | St. Paul, MN 55114 Untitled map Untitled layer Under New Ownership!1045 Westgate Dr BUILDING AMENITIES > High-image office/warehouse space > 18’ clear height SITE > 78,945 SF office/warehouse building > Close proximity to public transportation; just two short blocks from the Green Line LRT (Westgate Station) and Metro Transit bus routes along University Avenue > Excellent access to I-94 / I-35W and Highway 280 > Located in high-image Westgate Business Park > Space available immediately CONTACT US > Owned by: ERIC BATIZA SIOR STEVE NILSSON CCIM SIOR MATT NEWELL 952 837 3007 952 897 7899 651 356 5074 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Colliers International | Minneapolis-St. Paul | 901 South Marquette Avenue, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402 | colliers.com/msp WESTGATE BUSINESS CENTER I > FOR LEASE TCF Bank Stadium 67,000 vpd Hwy 280 15,100 vpd University Ave SE Westgate Station Light Rail Stop Mississippi River BUILDING HIGHLIGHTS PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 EST CAM & REAL ESTATE AVAILABLE: 2561-2631 Territorial Road TAX: Suite 2609-A (2631 Territorial Rd) St. Paul, MN 55114 $2.64 PSF Tax 2,417 sf office $2.33 PSF CAM 3,572 sf warehouse BUILDING SQUARE FEET: $4.97 PSF TOTAL 5,989 sf total 78,945 SF Total ➤ NET LEASE RATES: LOADING: N ImageImage LandsatLandsat // CopernicusCopernicus YEAR BUILT: Negotiable One (1) dock door 1991 One (1) grade-level drive-in door Image Landsat / Copernicus CLEAR HEIGHT: PARKING: 18’ 232 surface spaces (2.94/1,000 SF) Colliers International | Minneapolis-St.
    [Show full text]
  • Nice Ride Minnesota Program Evaluation
    NICE RIDE MINNESOTA PROGRAM EVALUATION Minneapolis-St. Paul Bike Share System Prepared by: Jessica Schoner1 Greg Lindsey2 David Levinson1 1Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering 2Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Submitted to: CENTER FOR PREVENTION AT BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA NICE RIDE MINNESOTA May 2015 Contents 1 Introduction1 1.1 Minneapolis-St. Paul Bike Share System Study Objectives.............1 1.2 Study Purpose and Goals...............................1 1.3 Structure of Report..................................1 2 Approach and Methods3 2.1 Analysis of Nice Ride electronic trip and member records..............3 2.2 Survey of Nice Ride members............................3 2.3 Secondary analyses of related databases (Census, TBI, etc.).............4 3 Effects on individual physical activity7 4 Effects on rates of cycling within general population 11 4.1 Spillover effects on non-member cycling....................... 11 4.2 Diffusion effects on expanding membership..................... 14 5 Effects on broader culture of active living 17 Appendices A IRB A-1 B Minneapolis Survey Instrument B-1 B.1 Survey......................................... B-1 B.2 Recruiting email.................................... B-24 C Minneapolis Survey Data Report C-1 D Preliminary Minneapolis Survey Findings D-1 E Bike Walk Twin Cities 2013 Count Report E-1 F Minneapolis Supplemental Models F-1 F.1 Supplemental Innovation Diffusion/Membership Descriptive Statistics....... F-1 F.2 Supplemental Innovation
    [Show full text]
  • U of M Bus Schedule
    U Of M Bus Schedule Stickiest and revelational Hasty still legalize his conductress abandonedly. Byram is queryingly humourless after lethargic Freeman drives his cassatas damagingly. Unteamed Brinkley tuts mawkishly, he daps his scribers very ninth. The fastest service from social work is my last bus stop is an accredited destination marketing organization from lansing area transit is offered four days. Scheduled run times a sent that pickup at various locations throughout the U of M campus. The left on its st park. University of Michigan Airport Shuttle Service. SouthWest Transit Schedules. NextBus 9 & 15 min San Francisco. The University provides a free shuttle service year the Spartanburg campus and the Johnson College campus downtown Students are encouraged to use. See you have been personalized mailboxes in time of east bank, with breathtaking views of their own means of an emergency vehicles traveling on bus! The University of Minnesota is served by more tan two dozen bus routes and. The University of Michigan bus system provides free summit at 10 to 20. Face covering exemption certified by hiring one or have been very convenient valet parking is a seat on your return trip! U-M Magic Bus your range to campus bus travel at the University of Michigan Plan and trip provided a bus route though your bus and stop real-time bus. To meet minneapolis is available anywhere in me my head for this interactive map shows our bus shelter for a few. The more details when students get there? Private buses and authorized visitors to get to six family and southwest service.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Twin Cities Transit System Performance Evaluation
    T W I N C I T I E S T R A N S I T S Y S T E M 2009 Performance Evaluation March 2010 2009 Twin Cities Transit System Performance Evaluation Metropolitan Council 2009 Twin Cities Transit System Performance Evaluation March 2010 Table of Contents Chapter 1. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2. Description of the Regional Transit System ................................................................................ 2 Chapter 3. Demographic Trends ................................................................................................................. 34 Chapter 4. Regional Transit Ridership and Operating Statistics ................................................................. 42 Chapter 5. Peer Region Comparisons ......................................................................................................... 56 Chapter 6. Peer Agency Modal Analysis ...................................................................................................... 66 Chapter 7. Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 78 Chapter 8. Capital Resources ...................................................................................................................... 88 Chapter 9. Transitway Development ........................................................................................................ 109 Chapter
    [Show full text]
  • 525 Malcolm Ave SE Staff Report Attachments
    CPED STAFF REPORT Prepared for the Zoning & Planning Committee January 5, 2021 PLAN11989 LAND USE APPLICATION SUMMARY Property Location: 525 Malcolm Avenue Southeast Project Name: Malcolm Yards Temporary Parking Lot Prepared By: Aaron Hanauer, City Planner, (612) 673-2494 Applicant: The Wall Companies, Jeff Ellerd Project Contact: Jeff Ellerd Request: To establish a temporary surface parking lot on the property located at 525 Malcolm Avenue Southeast Dwelling Units N/A Non-Residential Uses Temporary surface parking lot Required Applications: Interim Use Permit Temporary principal parking facility SITE DATA I2/Medium Industrial District Existing Zoning UA/University Area Overlay District Lot Area 232,392 square feet / 5.33 acres Ward(s) 2 Neighborhood(s) Prospect Park – East River Road Future Land Use Production and Processing Goods and Services N/A Corridor Built Form Transit 15 Date Application Deemed Complete December 7, 2020 Date Extension Letter Sent N/A End of 60-Day Decision Period February 5, 2021 End of 120-Day Decision Period N/A Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN11989 BACKGROUND SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE. The entire Malcolm Yards area is approximately 20 acres of land. It is located north of the University of Minnesota Transitway and just to the west of Surly Brewing. Malcolm Avenue serves as the eastern boundary and 29th Avenue Southeast is the western boundary. The entire Malcolm Yards site was replatted and the first phase of redevelopment of Malcolm Yards – a three-building, planned unit development (PUD) of the southern 3.62 acres - was approved in 2019 (with an amendment in 2020) that includes the renovation of Malcolm Yards Market, an 18,000 square foot urban food hall (Building A), construction of a 7- story, 184-unit, mixed-use commercial/market rate multifamily residential building (Building B) and a 7-story, 164- unit, 100% affordable, multifamily rental housing building (Building C).
    [Show full text]
  • State Transportation Improvement Program
    State Transportation Improvement Program 2003 - 2005 State of Minnesota August 2002 Minnesota State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................... I-1 II. STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP).............................................................................II-1 Certification...............................................................................II-1 The Minnesota State Transportation Plan............................... II-1 Public Involvement and the STIP............................................. II-2 Minnesota Transportation Process for Investment Decisions.............................................................. II-3 Financial Plan........................................................................... II-5 Project Selection....................................................................... II-9 III. PROGRAM LISTING ..................................................................... III-1 APPENDICES A. Select Highway And Transit Programs Greater Minnesota MPO Programs ......................................... A-1 Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA)........................ A-2 Hazard Elimination Safety Program (HES) ............................ A-3 Transit Programs ..................................................................... A-4 Indian Reservation Roads and Bridge Program (IRR)............ A-5 Recreational Trail Program ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dances with Cows
    St. Anthony Park, FalconPa Heights, Lauderdale & Northwestrk Como Park BugleVolume 33, Number 11, May 2007 Dances with cows by Natalie Zett ith 22 years’ experience in dance and choreography, Maggie WBergeron can claim veteran status in her chosen field — and she’s not yet 30. Bergeron is hardly resting on her laurels, though. Instead, she’s launching her own dance company and planning a new show, and she wants her neighbors to be part of it all. Bergeron, who lives in St. Anthony Park, recently established her own dance company — Maggie Bergeron and Company — and will perform excerpts of an original piece, “House/Home,” at the Gibbs Museum on May 19. The full version of “House/Home” will premier July 12–14 as a part of the “Momentum” series that will be presented Photo by V. Paul Virtucio by the Walker Art Center and the Southern Theater. Bergeron grew up “on this little farm in the middle of nowhere in St. Anthony Park resident Maggie Bergeron will perform excerpts of an original piece, “House/Home,” northwestern Minnesota. Yet somehow I was exposed to dance. There at the Gibbs Museum on May 19. The full version will premier July 12–14 at the Southern Theater. was a teacher from Grand Forks who came to our town to teach dance classes in the cafeteria of my elementary school. So that’s how I got hooked on the dance thing.” Later, another instructor invited her to study at his dance studio The eagle has landed (and Duke knows where) in Grand Forks, N.D.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Tables
    List of Tables Table 1 – Crossing Comparison* ...............................................................................................11 Table 2 – West Bank Station Area Year 2030 P.M. Peak V/C Ratio and LOS ...........................47 Table 3 – West Bank Station Area Year 2030 P.M. Peak Queue Lengths .................................47 Table 4 – Stadium Village Station Area Year 2030 PM Peak LOS.............................................48 Table 5 – Historic Properties/NRHP-Listed and NRHP-Eligible — Locally Designated Properties (Not on NRHP).....................................................................................................................53 Table 6 – Next Steps in the Cultural Resources Process ..........................................................56 Table 7 – Parks and Trails Within 350 Feet of the Northern Alignment.....................................58 Table 8 – Population, Households and Race – 2000 Census ...................................................65 Table 9 – Income and Poverty – 2000 Census..........................................................................66 Table 10 – Contaminated Properties .........................................................................................70 Table 11 – Project Area Wells ...................................................................................................71 Table 12 – NEPA Environmental Issues....................................................................................74 Table 13 – Cost Effectiveness Breakpoints ...............................................................................77
    [Show full text]