Hennepin Avenue, with its diagonal route through different communities, is not the same as other major routes that run parallel to the neighboring streets. That makes it a challenge to accommodate all the activities that one would like, but the neighboring streets must be considered in the plan if it is to be successful. 

I would advocate that as much parking as possible be retained in this plan, with posted daytime parking limits of up to 2 hours, and that bicyclists be accommodated on the adjacent streets.

For our communities and neighborhoods to thrive, we need an active and vital business community that can continue to support the surrounding communities. For better or worse, on Hennepin Avenue, that is dependent upon all modes of access, including motor vehicles that need adequate parking to access these businesses. 

I have many concerns and questions in my review of the final plan for reconstruction of Hennepin Avenue. The presentation currently available on the project web page mentions that district parking solutions could be used, yet there is no feasibility study. 

[Editor’s note: district parking refers to active management of the parking spaces to ensure they're available for drivers stopping at the businesses, such as meters to encourage turnover and short-term zones for loading]

From my years as an engaged Uptown resident, property owner and business owner who has studied this issue, there is no practical way to replace the parking that will be lost with this plan. 

When removing the off-street parking south of 28th Street from the parking analysis on the project web page, the parking on the east side is reduced from 1,715 to 442 and on the west side from 1,120 to 764. Virtually all that off-street parking is privately used. Many years ago, \we explored the seemingly practical idea of creating a shared parking facility on the west side of Hennepin, behind the buildings from 26th to 27th Street. There was great resistance from the property owners. City resources indicated that there is no way property owners could be forced to accept such a plan. 

Suggesting that district parking solutions could be implemented is entirely disingenuous. Prior to implementation, a plan must be thoroughly vetted and executed so that the businesses vital to the community do not suffer as a result. 

The local bus service between 24th and 27th Street is eliminated in this plan [Editor’s note: this route will be replaced with the rapid transit E Line]. In my personal experience, the elimination of bus stops at 32nd and 35th Street is a disincentive to using mass transit, especially in the winter months. People with limited ability may be challenged to cross the bike lanes to access mass transit. Bicyclists may be moving swiftly through the corridor. Under current conditions, such an impediment does not exist. 

Bike lanes would appear to provide greater safety, but bicyclists will have to cross at least 13 curb cuts and 10 cross streets from the Midtown Greenway to Franklin, each presenting a danger for bikers who may believe the bike lanes provide an extra measure of safety. Alternative bike routes through the adjacent neighborhoods seem like a much safer alternative to me and needs to be fully explored before implementing the current plan for Hennepin. The shared bike route along Bryant Avenue already is quite safe and could be enhanced to improve safety.  Personally, I have used Humboldt Avenue when I wanted to bike from 36th Street to Franklin Avenue and found it very safe. Like Bryant, this could be established as a bike route. This would be far safer than a bike lane on Hennepin (and yes, I understand that the bike lane would be at sidewalk level). 

I know that the City plows other bike lanes and I assume that would be the case here. However, will snow simply be plowed onto the sidewalks and provide additional burden for property owners and businesses? Or can the City ensure that the snow will be removed entirely? 

The plan does not include a study on how traffic flow impacts the adjacent neighborhoods. Many of the adjacent streets are one way or not-through streets which will result in confusion for motorists trying to access businesses along the street. The result will likely be increased traffic in the neighborhoods, driver frustration and greater speeds in the neighborhoods.

A 4-foot-high median seems pretty substantial. While I understand that the purpose is to prevent mid-block crossings, it would also appear to delineate a psychological separation from the east to the west side, separating one community from another. Has this been done elsewhere in Minneapolis or St. Paul and, if so, what has the impact been on the adjacent neighborhoods? 

We have already seen the problems from a plan that did not seriously take into account concerns about the portion of Hennepin south of Lake Street. This plan does not build on those lessons. In fact it would seem that they are ignored, or at best, overlooked. -Harvey Zuckman