Three weeks after the deadline for public comments on the draft Cedar-Isles Plan, the Minneapolis Public Works Department weighed in for the first time. Overall, the Public Works letter supports the plan’s emphasis on equity, access and ecological health.
Yet apart from feedback dealing with pedestrian safety at intersections, their comments relate almost exclusively to promoting the city’s transit agenda for the parks. As such, their input aims to make parkways more like city streets and less like the recreational corridors that parkways are intended to be.
Numerous references in the letter to the city’s Street Design Guide contradict the guide’s own description of parkways as under the jurisdiction of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, typically considered park land not public right of way, and intended to support recreation and access to natural areas and community destinations. Yet despite this clear distinction between city streets and parkways, the Public Works comments push the Park Board to adopt transit standards for the parkways “per the City of Minneapolis Street Design Guide” though the guide does not apply to parkways.
In this context, of particular note are the following comments that highlight the city’s overreach. Though Public Works staff served on the Cedar-Isles Technical Advisory Committee, their comments don’t recognize the distinct role that parkways play in our park system or acknowledge the extensive community engagement reflected in the draft plan.
Plastic bollards on Lake of the Isles Parkway.
The city of Minneapolis would like to see Lake of the Isles ringed by white plastic “bollards.” This idea was specifically discussed and quickly rejected during Community Advisory Committee (CAC) discussions of bike options for Lake of the Isles. Public commentary during the meeting was strongly against bollards, the main reason being the barriers are unnecessary given the availability of an entirely safe, off-street trail several feet from the parkway and because the ugliness of bollards seriously diminishes the historical character and experience of the lake.
Bike trail through the East Cedar Woods.
The Public Works Department thinks the proposed soft-surface bike trail through the East Cedar Woods is a good idea but doesn’t explain how this trail would impact Public Works or benefit park users in any way. Ironically, the Public Works letter notes that both Kenilworth and Cedar Lake Regional Trails are already identified as “Low Stress Bikeways” within the city’s “All Ages and Abilities Network,” which a bike trail through the forest would not be.
The city wants two-way biking for the parkways.
The department also flagged the city’s 2020 Transportation Action Plan, one portion of which (“Action 2.5”) outlines the city’s preference for converting the existing park board bike trails around Lake of the Isles, Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet to two-way trails sometime between 2020 and 2023.
The Public Works memo makes no mention of the CAC’s extensive and detailed discussions on this point that preceded its recommendation to leave the Lake of the Isles trail as is. Previous park board master planning efforts also supported leaving bike trails one way at Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet.
It should be noted that in 2020, as the city’s Transportation Action Plan was being finalized, park board planning staff did not support Action 2.5 and advocated removing it but were overruled by pro-transit park board leadership at the time who finagled behind the scenes to keep this action in the city’s plan.
What's wrong here?
As a general matter, local government entities can and sometimes should coordinate on matters of shared concern. That’s a positive in many instances. Here, however, Public Works could have weighed in at any point in this roughly three-year planning process. Yet they waited until well after the close of the final public comment period to weigh in on some of the most fraught aspects of the park plan overall and did so almost exclusively through the lens of converting parkways to transit corridors.
Other concerned citizens may likely have an opinion about this letter and should feel free to submit comments to the park board on these points even though the public comment period officially closed a month ago.
