Stateof the Trails

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Stateof the Trails STATE OF THE TRAILS 2018 / 2019 Report Featuring data collected by the Contents Executive Summary 3 How We Calculate Our Ratings 4 Key Findings 6 State Trail Condition Profiles Alex Laveau ........................................ 8 Blazing Star ....................................... 9 Brown’s Creek ...................................10 Casey Jones ....................................... 11 Central Lakes ....................................12 Cuyuna Lakes ....................................13 State of the Trails is a project of the Parks & Trails Douglas .............................................14 Council of Minnesota, a statewide non-profit Gateway ............................................15 organization dedicated to acquiring, protecting, and enhancing critical land for the public’s use Gitchi Gami .......................................16 and benefit. The State of the Trails Project provides Glacial Lakes .....................................17 detailed data on state trail conditions and examines Goodhue Pioneer .............................18 changes in trail conditions over time. Gathering Great River Ridge .............................19 this information is essential for answering a broad Harmony-Preston Valley .................20 set of policy questions, and provides lawmakers, managers, and the public with the information they Heartland .........................................21 need to maintain and enjoy Minnesota’s world- Luce Line .......................................... 22 class trail system. Mill Towns .........................................23 Minnesota Valley ............................. 24 Special thanks to the Minnesota Department of Munger .............................................25 Natural Resources for their continued commitment to caring for Minnesota’s trails and sharing data for Paul Bunyan ..................................... 26 this report. Root River .........................................27 Sakatah Singing Hills ...................... 28 The Research Bike was made possible by generous Shooting Star ................................... 29 support from Erik’s Bike Shop. Minnesota’s Aging Trail System 30 This report was designed using resources Recommendations 32 from Freepik.com. Appendix A: Detailed Methodology 36 Project Lead: Andrew Oftedal Research Intern: Karl Hedlund Appendix B: Segment Ratings 38 Appendix C: About the Research Bike 51 Published June 2019 Executive Summary Key Findings: Recommendations: See pages 6-31 and Appendix B for details See pages 32-35 for details • Minnesota’s paved state trail system is in good • Maintain a “25-50-25” surface standard for the condition. Our inventory found 75% of paved state trail system, where the goal is to keep state trail miles are in either excellent or good 25% of the system’s trail surfaces in excellent condition. condition, 50% in good condition, and the remaining 25% in fair condition. • Only 32 miles – 6% of the system – are in poor or very poor condition. The remaining 20% of • Rehabilitate an average of 24 state trail miles the system – 121 miles – are in fair condition. per year, which is the pace needed to maintain the state trail system at a “25-50-25” standard. • However, conditions declined since our 2016 State of the Trails Report. If current trends • Fund state trail rehabilitation at needed levels continue, we project the share of the paved – approximately $4.8 million per year, not state trail system in excellent or good condition including bridges and culverts – through a mix will fall to 70% by 2023 and 50% by 2030. of bonding appropriations, Legacy funds, and LCCMR funds. Methodology: Why Trails are Important: See pages 4-5, Appendix A and Appendix C for details • We rated the surface conditions of Minnesota’s Trails are community assets that make Minnesota paved state trail system using a metric called a better place to live, work, and visit. Trails connect the “Trail Roughness Index,” which measures people and communities to the outdoors, improve how smooth or rough a trail is to ride. health by encouraging physical activity, boost tourism and spending at local businesses, enhance • We took approximately 100,000 photos of the safety, protect ecosystems and wildlife corridors, paved state trail system to verify ratings and and are fun for people of all ages, means, and illustrate conditions. abilities. The State of the Trails Project aims to provide trail managers and lawmakers with the • All of our data was collected using the Research data they need to ensure all Minnesotans, both Bike, an electric-assist bicycle equipped with now and in the future, have access to smooth, safe, cameras and sensors. In addition to rating trail and enjoyable trails. conditions, we used the Research Bike to put Minnesota’s State Trails on Google Street View. How We Calculate Our Ratings Our trail condition ratings are based on the premise We used TRI scores to rate the condition of Minnesota’s that trails in excellent condition are smooth to ride paved state trail system on a segment-by-segment and trails in poor condition are rough to ride. We basis. Additionally, we assigned each trail an overall measure how rough each trail is to ride using a metric grade using a scale where “excellent” is equal to an “A” called the “Trail Roughness Index”, or “TRI” for short. and “very poor” is equal to an “F”. The overall trail grade We created the TRI in 2016 as a method to objectively represents the condition of the trail’s average mile. rate the condition of paved bike trails. We updated our methodology in 2018 to improve reliability and validity. All of our data was collected by a Parks & Trails Council intern. The intern rode nearly 600 miles of the paved Trail Roughness Index is measured by riding a trail with state trail system on the Research Bike, an electric- a device called an accelerometer mounted on the bike’s assist bicycle equipped with cameras and sensors. All handle bars. When the bicyclist hits a crack or bump in data was collected during the summer and fall of 2018. the trail, the accelerometer measures the force of the jolt felt by the bicyclist. The TRI is a statistical summary Our TRI scores are supplemented with photos taken of the accelerometer data that indicates the roughness during the data collection process. Photos were used of the ride. Low TRI scores indicate trails in excellent to verify condition classifications and are helpful to condition (TRI < 30) and high TRI scores indicate trails visualize on-the-ground conditions. See Appendix A in very poor condition (TRI > 75). and Appendix C for more details on our methodology. How the Trail Roughness Index Works The Trail Roughness Index (TRI) measures the variation in g-forces felt by a bicyclist riding on a trail. The g-force is measured by an accelerometer in a bicycle-mounted iPhone and is recorded by an iPhone app. When a bicycle rides As trails age, bumps and cracks start to When a trail is nearing the end of its along a smooth trail, the form in the pavement. The accelerometer useful life, bumps and cracks are g-force on accelerometer shows a records these imperfections when the prevalent. Accelerometer readings on vertical (Z) axis: relatively �lat line. bicycle rides over them. such trails show a rocky, jagged line. Each “spike” on the accelerometer graph indicates a bump on the trail 4 STATE of the TRAILS How to Understand Our Ratings TRI < 30 TRI 30-45 TRI 45-60 TRI 60-75 TRI >75 Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Trail feels like new and Trail o�fers a Trail has intermittent Trail has frequent Trail is in complete provides near-ideal comfortable ride for bumps and depressions, bumps and depressions disrepair with very conditions for bicyclists bicyclists and inline but is tolerable to ride and is uncomfortable to frequent bumps and and inline skaters. Small skaters, with infrequent for the majority of ride for bicyclists. Many depressions. Trail may blemishes and crack bumps and depressions. bicyclists. Some sections sections may be di�ficult be suitable only for sealing may be present Trail may require minor may be di�ficult for for inline skaters. Trail is mountain and fat-tire in isolated areas but do rehabilitation and crack inline skaters. Trail may at the end of its life and biking. Trail is past its not negatively impact sealing in isolated areas. require moderate requires major useful life and likely user experience. rehabilitation and crack rehabilitation. needs to be entirely sealing in several areas. rebuilt. What our Ratings Don’t Measure Our ratings only answer a simple question: How smooth are Minnesota’s State Trails to ride? While we use this question as a proxy for the overall Routine condition of each trail, there are several components of a safe, well- Maintenance maintained trail system that our ratings don’t capture. Our ratings do not consider the integrity of trail bridges, culverts or the underlying trail foundation. Our ratings do not consider the condition of parking areas, interpretive displays or signage. And our ratings only consider day-to-day upkeep to the extent it impacts the Bridges & Culverts Trailheads smoothness of the ride (e.g., debris on an unswept trail is rougher to ride than a freshly swept trail). See Appendix A for more details on project scope and limitations. PARKS & TRAILS COUNCIL of MINNESOTA 5 Key Findings Minnesota’s paved state trails are still in good condition, but conditions declined since our 2016 report. 2018 State Trail Conditions: 21% 54% 20% 4% 2% Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Condition Condition Condition Condition Condition Comparison to 2016: 150 123 319 324 90 121 19 22 7 10 miles miles miles miles miles miles miles miles miles miles 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018 Projected share of state trail system in good or excellent condition: 2016 2018 2022 2026 2030 2034 79% 75% If current rehabilitation 70% trends continue, state trail 60% conditions are projected 50% 49% to steadily decline. Projected 6 STATE of the TRAILS Report Card 1 Brown's Creek (p. 10) A 2 Luce Line (p. 22) B+ 3 Root River (p. 27) B+ 4 Glacial Lakes (p. 17) B 5 Cuyuna Lakes (p. 13) B 8 6 Douglas (p. 14) B 7 Goodhue Pioneer (p.
Recommended publications
  • Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation
    Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation MURP Capstone Paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Degree Requirements The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Tom Holmes Jake Knight Darin Newman Xinyi Wu May 20, 2016 Date of oral presentation: Approval date of final paper: May 6, 2016 May 20, 2016 Capstone Instructor: Dr. Greg Lindsey, Professor Photo credit: www.flickr.com/photos/zavitkovski/6266747939/ Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails Considerations and Recommendations for Implementation Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Tom Holmes Jake Knight Darin Newman Xinyi Wu May 20, 2016 Advisor: Dr. Greg Lindsey Capstone Paper In Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Urban and Regional Planning Degree Requirements The Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs The University of Minnesota Monitoring Use of Minnesota State Trails | MURP Capstone Paper Table of Contents Executive Summary 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Project Methodology 3 2. Project Context 5 2.1. Historical DNR Trail Surveys 5 2.2. Project Purpose 7 2.3. Project Scope 7 3. Counting Methods 9 3.1. Duration 9 3.2. Visits 10 3.3. Traffic 10 3.4. Case Study 1: Differentiating Duration, Visits, and Traffic on the Gateway State Trail 12 3.5. Recommendation: Traffic Counts 13 4. Considerations for Automated Traffic Counts 15 4.1 How to Implement Automated Traffic Counts 15 4.2. Case Study 2: Gateway and Brown’s Creek State Trail AADT 17 4.3. Seven Decisions for Program Design 20 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Master Plan Report (Final)
    MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN FALLS - CROSBY FARM REGIONAL PARK SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2019 Adopted June 26, 2019 St. Paul Parks and Recreation Mission: To build a city that works for all of us, Saint Paul Parks and Recreation will facilitate the creation of active lifestyles, vibrant places and a vital environment. St. Paul Parks and Recreation Vision: Saint Paul Parks and Recreation will make Saint Paul a city that works for all of us by: Responding creatively to change. Innovating with every decision. Connecting the entire city. Hidden Falls / Crosby Farm Regional Park Master Plan | iii This page intentionally left blank iv | Hidden Falls / Crosby Farm Regional Park Master Plan CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2 4. IMPLEMENTATION 33 Development Concept 33 1. PLANNING FRAMEWORK 3 Plan Approach 33 Park Overview 3 Project Ranking 33 Purpose of the Plan 3 Projects and Cost Estimates 33 Introduction 3 Project Priorities 35 Context Plan 4 1 - Park-Wide Recommendations 38 Guiding Principles 6 2 - Trails & Connectivity Recommendations 42 Vision Statement 6 3 - Hidden Falls North Recommendations 45 History and Culture 7 4 - South Hidden Falls Recommendations 51 5 - West Crosby Farm Recommendations 53 Related Projects and Agencies 9 6 - East Crosby Farm Recommendations 55 Demand Forecast 11 Stewardship Plan 57 Conflicts/Opportunities 58 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 13 Ordinances 59 Overview 13 Operations 60 Map 1: Existing Conditions 14 Map 2: Boundaries and Acquisitions 16 Operating Hours 60 Map 3: Floodway and Flood Fringe 20 Public Awareness 60 Natural Resources 23 2019 Crosby Farm Park NRMP 5.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Lake Elmo 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPENDIX
    City of Lake Elmo 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPENDIX CONTENTS: A. Background Report B. Glossary of Terms C. Jurisdictional Review & Comments D. Resolutions E. Meeting Minutes F. Capital Improvement Plan G. Sanitary System Ordinances & Agreements H. Water Supply Plan This page is intentionally left blank. APPENDIX A. Background Report (Prepared: April 25, 2017) City of Lake Elmo Comprehensive Plan 2040 This page is intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction, Context and History 1 Community Character 7 Demographics and Households 10 Housing 22 Economic Overview 33 Land Use and Growth Management 38 Natural Resources 44 Transportation 46 Parks and Open Space 49 Community Facilities 52 Living Healthy 54 Introduction, Context & History This background report is the first step in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan) development process, and it will be refined throughout the process as needed to ensure that it captures the current characteristics of the community. The intent of the following inventory and analysis is that will help facilitate the development of a Plan that is based in reality, is responsive to current and anticipated market trends, and respects the community’s vision for the future of Lake Elmo. The purpose of the background report is to provide a comprehensive ‘snapshot’ in time of the City of Lake Elmo today by providing a baseline of information, 1 data and analysis about the community. Coupling this information with local and regional trends will help inform and guide the planning process by establishing a foundation from which the Plan can be developed. The City of Lake Elmo is a community with diverse resources that offers residents and businesses an exceptional quality of life, and to maintain that quality and to help facilitate this planning effort, it is important to understand the City as it is currently.
    [Show full text]
  • In the of Tracing the Route of Paul Bunyan in Minnesota's Northwoods
    in the of tracing the route of Paul Bunyan in Minnesota’s Northwoods story and photos by Cindy Ross 26 ADVENTURE CYCLIST JUNE 2021 strange-sounding animal forced my eyelids open one August evening in the Minnesota Northwoods. A dark, hulking form sat on a branch, making a clattering soundA in the tree above our tent. We were camped in the shadow of ancient white pines along the Pine River on the Paul Bunyan State Trail. We had cruised a half-mile of fun singletrack on our loaded Surly mountain bikes to this remote biker/paddler campsite — the first night in a weeklong ride. The owl called another owl in, and soon there were two clattering above us. One dove down to our tent, its silent wings almost touching us. They were young barred owls, anxious about many things at this stage of their lives and perhaps curious about our tent. Come morning, a feather was left by our site — a welcome as we began our approximately 250-mile ride through Minnesota’s Paul Bunyan land, a larger- than-life folklore character that has captured the enduring hearts of this part of America. Our route traced three rail trails, beginning with the south-north 121-mile paved Paul Bunyan Trail (PBT), which travels from Crow Wing State Park on up to Bemidji. It’s one of the longest rail trails in the U.S. and was inducted in the Trail Conservancy’s Hall of Fame as a “Signature Minnesota Destination.” Next, we rode the nearly 50-mile paved Heartland Trail, which intersects the PBT at Walker, followed by the gravel and dirt 96-mile Blue Ox-Voyageur Trail, an ATV-snowmobile converted rail trail that runs from Bemidji to International Falls at the Canadian border.
    [Show full text]
  • What the “Trail Eyes” Pros Taught Us About the SHT P H
    A publication oF the Superior Hiking TrAil AssoCiation SUmmEr 2019 What the “Trail Eyes” Pros Taught Us About the SHT P H o im Malzhan iS the trail operations director T o for our sister trail organization the ice Age B y Fr Trail Alliance in Wisconsin. Doing business as esh T “Trail Eyes,” Tim was one of four entities the SHTA Tr hired in the fall of 2018 to evaluate and recom- ac mend renewal strategies for what we have dubbed k S mE D “The Big Bad Five,” those sections of the SHT most damaged from heavy use and old age (or both). i A Though all four evaluators—malzhan, Critical Connections Ecological Services (Jason and Amy Husveth), the north Country Trail Association, and (Continued on page 2) What the “Trail Eyes” Taught Us About the SHT (continued from cover) Great Lakes Trail Builders (Wil- lie Bittner)—did what we asked (provide specific prescriptions for the Big Bad Five), their ex- pert observations gave us much more: they shed light on the en- tire Superior Hiking Trail. In other words, what they saw on the Split Rock River loop, or the sections from Britton Peak to Oberg Mountain and Oberg to the Lutsen ski complex, or the proposed reroute of the SHT north of Gooseberry Falls State Park, were microcosms of bigger, more systemic issues with the SHT. ❚ “keep people on the Trail and water off of it.” This suc- cinct wisdom comes from Matt no bridge is not the only problem at the Split rock river loop.
    [Show full text]
  • Heartland State Trail Extension Master Plan Park Rapids to Moorhead
    HEARTLAND STATE TRAIL EXTENSION PARK RAPIDS TO MOORHEAD MASTER PLAN Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Trails June 2011 The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Trails Division would like to thank all who participated in this master planning process. Many individuals and groups in trail communities have been working for many years to help establish this trail. The Heartland Trail Association has played an active role in generating interest in local communities. Assistance from local officials and citizens in the cities of Park Rapids, Frazee, Wolf Lake, Detroit Lakes, and Hawley is greatly appreciated. Many DNR staff, city and county officials, trail association members and local citizens contributed their time and energy to the planning process as well. This master plan was prepared by: • Laurie Young, Planning Supervisor • Suzanne Rhees, AICP, Principal Planner June 2011, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, sexual orientation, membership or activity in a local commission, or disability. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to MN-DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4031; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240. This document is available in alternative formats to individuals with disabilities by calling 651-296-6157 (Metro Area) or 1-888-MINNDNR (MN Toll Free) or Telecommunication Device for the Deaf/TTY: 651-296-5484 (Metro Area) or 1-800-657-3929 (Toll Free TTY).
    [Show full text]
  • References & Appendix
    References & Appendix 6. Daniel B. Shaw and Carolyn Carr (for Great River Document References Greening). 2002, Mississippi River Gorge (Lower Gorge): Ecological Inventory and Restoration Manage- 1. Aaron Brewer (for the Seward Neighborhood Group). ment Plan 1998, The Ecology and Geology of the Mississippi River Gorge 7. Metropolitan Council. 2015, Thrive MSP 2040: Regional Parks Policy Plan 2. Carolyn Carr and Cynthia Lane (for Friends of the Mississippi River). 2010, Riverside Park Natural Area: Ecological Inventory and Restoration Management Plan 8. Metropolitan Council. 2016, Annual Use Estimate for the Regional Park System for 2016 3. Close Landscape Architecture (for The Longfellow Community Council and MPRB). 1997, A Concept Plan 9. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2007, for the Mississippi River Gorge Trail Planning, Design and Development Guidelines 4. David C. Smith. 2018, Minneapolis’s Amazing River 10. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015, Parks: West River Parkway Mississippi River Trail Bikeway U.S. Bicycle Route (USBR) 45 5. David C. Smith. 2018, Minneapolis’s Amazing River Parks: East River Parkway 11. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2016, Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) MISSISSIPPI GORGE REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN REFERENCES AND APPENDIX 8-1 12. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2007, 2007 – 28. City of Minneapolis. 2001, Southeast Minneapolis 2020 Comprehensive Plan Industrial (SEMI), Bridal Veil Refined Master Plan 13. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 1982, Missis- 29. City of Minneapolis. 2007, Seward Longfellow Green- sippi River Master Plan way Area Land Use and Pre-Development Study 14. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2007, Mis- 30. City of Minneapolis. 2006, Mississippi River Critical sissippi River Gorge Slope Stabilization Inventory and Area Plan Analysis 31.
    [Show full text]
  • Map 2, Lake Superior State Water Trail from Knife River to Split Rock
    ROUTE DESCRIPTION - River miles 26 to 60 (34 miles) (0.0 at Minnesota Entrance – Duluth Lift Bridge). 48.0 Private resort. [47° 07.135' N / 91° 30.265' W] 57.7 Little Two Harbors at Split Rock Lighthouse State Park. Access to park and lighthouse, a MAP 2 - Knife River to Split Rock Lighthouse State Park 51.0 Gooseberry Falls State Park and Gooseberry Minnesota Historic Site. Trailer access, parking, River. Carry-in access, parking, campground, 2 campground, picnic area and trails. 26.5 Knife River Marina. Access at launch area. watercraft campsites (available on a first-come, [47° 11.865' N / 91° 22.620' W] Parking, toilets. [46° 56.705' N / 91° 46.950' W] first-served basis), picnic area and trails. [47° 08.560' N / 91° 27.500' W] 59.0 Gold Rock Point. Wreck of the Madeira, driven 26.6 Knife River Beach. Carry-in access, rest area, ashore in 1905, lies scattered on the bottom in parking, toilet. Sand and pebble beach. 53.0 Thompson Beach. Four watercraft campsites 10 to 100' of water with portions clearly visible [46° 56.785' N / 91° 46.845' W] and rest area, toilet. No fires. First-come, in calm water. A popular recreational diving site, first-served. [47° 09.480' N / 91° 26.230' W] please be alert to divers in the water. Rest area 30.2 Private resort. Rocky Beach. on small beach nearby. No facilities. [46° 59.025' N / 91° 44.170' W] 53.8 Twin Points. Rest area, trailer access, parking. [47° 12.410' N / 91° 21.520' W] No camping permitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Land
    2016 Updated by: The Murray County Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee With Assistance from: The Southwest Regional Development Commission Adopted: December 27, 2016 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE The County has a responsibility to protect its cultural, economic, and natural environments. Because of this, the Murray County Comprehensive Plan will identify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies designed to appropriately reflect the needs of the County’s citizens and natural environment. This plan will emphasize the importance of proper planning ensuring that decisions made are best for the citizens of the County as well as the environment. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Bill Post Larry Dahl Duane Spartz Bob Sandhurst Pam Schreier Doug Stewart Brian Hamilton Ralph Knapp Keith Hakeneis Burend Cuperus Ryan Verlinde Roger Steinman Craig Bangasser Todd Miller Gary Runkle Jamie Thomazin Tom Hey Troy Wehking Jason Schreier Kevin Vickerman Dale Bergman Dave Dorpinghaus AGENCY REPREPRESENTATIVES 2016 Cathi Fouchi, Minnesota DNR Planning Becky Balk, Minnesota Department of Agriculture Marcy Barritt, Murray County Assessor Jon Bloemendaal, Murray County Ag & Solid Waste Jean Christoffels, Murray County Planning & Zoning Randy Groves, Murray County Highway Department Amy Rucker, Murray County Economic Development Randy Hukriede, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Craig Christensen, Murray County SWCD Chris Hansen, Murray County Water Resources Heath Landsman, Murray County Emergency Management Janet Timmerman, Murray
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Investment Bill Debt Authorizations and Appropriations
    Capital Investment Bill Debt Authorizations and Appropriations 2000 - 2018 All Figures in Thousands Fund Key GO General Obligation bonding GO/UF 2/3 GO Bonds, 1/3 User Financing GF General Fund ERAP Environment and Natural Resources Appropriations Bonds REV Revenue Bonds UF User Financing MRSI Minnesota Rail Service Improvement RDA Regional Development Account AP Appropriations Bonds ALL All Funds (for totals) Source: Capital Investment bill language, and tracking Sheets 2000 - 2018 Notes: Figures are total borrowing or spending authorization, not necessarily actual spending. Amounts or portions of amounts may have been subsequently cancelled, or converted to other spending. Figures and totals do not include cancellations The total capital borrowing and spending authorization between 2000 and 2018 was about $12.7 Billion, with about $191 million in cancellations for a net authorization of about $12.5 billion before statutory four year cancellations. Figures and totals do not include capital spending in other bills Does not include Trunk Highway bonding or spending Grants to Political Subdivisions grouped by DEED Planning Region Andrew Lee, House Fiscal Page 1 of 21 1/14/2019 12:10 PM University of Minnesota Fund 2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 Totals 1 Higher Education Asset Preservation and Replacement (HEAPR) GO 9,000 35,000 40,000 30,000 35,000 25,000 56,000 25,000 50,000 42,500 20,600 45,000 413,100 2 System wide - Laboratory Renovation GO 3,333 6,667 10,000 3 System wide - Classroom
    [Show full text]
  • Parks and Trails Legacy Plan Parks and Trails of State and Regional Significance a 25-Year Long-Range Plan for Minnesota
    Parks and Trails Legacy Plan Parks and Trails of State and Regional Significance A 25-year long-range plan for Minnesota February 14, 2011 ©2011, State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation, disability or activity on behalf of a local human rights commission. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4049; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. This information is available in a different format upon request of persons of all abilities. February 14, 2011 It is our pleasure to introduce the Parks and Trails Minnesotans will look back and say the Parks and Legacy Plan. Funding created by the Legacy Trails Legacy Amendment accomplished what they Amendment gives us a unique opportunity to hoped for—and more. improve and expand Minnesota’s parks and trails of state and regional significance. This allows us to The plan recognizes the world‑class network of look out 25 years to envision a future in which parks parks and trails Minnesota currently has in place. It and trails play a significant role in the lives of all proposes to build on this foundation, making user Minnesotans. experiences even better. It is based on four strategic directions that together ensure a great future for parks Our extensive 18-month public engagement effort and trails: allows us to confidently state that this is a parks and • Connect people and the outdoors.
    [Show full text]
  • Demand Based on Amount of Funding Requested Bicycle
    Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (1 of 1) DEMAND BASED ON AMOUNT OF FUNDING REQUESTED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Multiuse Trails and Bicycle Facilities Federal Federal Total Rank ID Applicant Project Name Year Requested Cumulative Scores 1 2086 Hennepin County Southwest LRT Regional Trail Crossings 2018 $5,500,000 $5,500,000 899 TAB‐Approved Modal Funding Mid‐Point of Range ($21,870,000) 2 2220 Minneapolis University of Minnesota Protected Bikeways 2018 $953,976 $6,453,976 885 App Value % Cost of Funded % 3 2233 Minneapolis High Quality Connection ‐ Midtown Greenway to Lake 2018 $2,880,000 $9,333,976 848 Trail/Bike $54,741,365 86% $20,923,183 89% 4 2189 St Paul Margaret St Bicycle Boulevard & McKnight Trail 2018 $1,251,549 $10,585,525 847 Pedestrian $7,456,226 12% $1,640,000 7% 5 2114 MnDOT 5th St. SE Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Replacement 2018 $2,089,738 $12,675,263 841 SRTS $1,131,484 2% $953,884 4% 6 2184 Coon Rapids Coon Rapids Boulevard Trail Project 2018 $1,100,000 $13,775,263 835 TOTAL $63,329,075 100% $23,517,067 100% 7 2160 St Paul Indian Mounds Regional Park Trail 2019 $1,326,400 $15,101,663 832 REMAINING ($1,647,067) 8 2015 3 Rivers Park District Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail: West Edina Segment 2018 $5,500,000 $20,601,663 809 9 2102 Carver County TH 5 Regional Trail from CSAH 17 to CSAH 101 2018 $321,520 $20,923,183 785 10 2230 Fridley West Moore Lake Trail and Bicycle Lanes 2018 $458,832 $21,382,015 782 11 2115 MN‐DNR Gateway State Trail ‐ Hadley Ave Tunnel 2019 $1,000,000 $22,382,015 781 TAB‐Approved Modal Funding
    [Show full text]