Eight things government can do to stop ruining this great place

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

This article has been updated since its initial publication to correct its characterization of leadership on the project to redesign Hennepin and First avenues in northeast Minneapolis.

•••

Having lived in the Twin Cities area for most of the past 70 years and near E. Hennepin Avenue since 2005, I've seen the steady decline of a great city.

There have been declines in reliable transportation available to all, public safety, public education and the overall joy of living in a once-vibrant major metropolitan area.

Underlying this decline is the naive, and in some cases manipulative, manner in which city leaders, many with good intentions, aggressively pursue ill-defined agendas that are poorly implemented, not evaluated and not what most citizens want.

I've recently reviewed the plans Hennepin County (with input from the city and others) has for revising several blocks of E. Hennepin and 1st Avenue NE. (Much of the thinking underlying that plan is parallel to the controversial reconstruction of Hennepin near Lake Street.) Using the E. Hennepin/1st Avenue NE. example, let's see the techniques government has used in these situations, and that the city has included in much of its 2040 Plan (which I've also reviewed), that jeopardize quality of life.

In 1975, I worked with Minneapolis to conduct scientific surveys of citizens. Qualitative sessions defined alternatives, and rigorous quantitative surveys ranked what citizens wanted. These survey results guided how to spend incoming federal money. Through the collection of reliable data at the planning district level, differences in needs throughout the city were targeted with the funds.

The online presentation of work to date on the E. Hennepin/1st Avenue NE. project alludes to surveys citizens completed. But these survey data were the results of low response rates — and dubiously worded questions. The manner in which they were distributed allowed for noncitizens to weigh in as well.

How has this poor research process affected the proposed redesign? The "bicycle lobby" has persuaded project officials to eliminate one lane of traffic and one parking lane on E. Hennepin and also on 1st Avenue NE. — even though parking is already inadequate for existing E. Hennepin businesses. Officials from the county, city and Nicollet Island East Bank Neighborhood Association should stand on those sidewalks and observe as cars pull up to businesses, slow down looking for a parking spot and, seeing none, just drive away to spend their money elsewhere.

Government officials seemingly ignore lessons learned in the past. For example, they plan to shrink the width of the two lanes that will be retained on E. Hennepin and 1st Avenue NE. As vehicles get larger and more people drive, the space between vehicles decreases. There will surely be more accidents.

There's a reason things were done as they were in the past. It's common knowledge that manholes were placed originally in the center of lanes so tires would not rumble over them — damaging the tires and, likely, the manholes. Anyone who's driven over the other Minneapolis streets that have been reconfigured to create bicycle lanes has seen that, now, a car will hit almost every manhole unless it swerves to avoid them, with whatever dangers that creates.

First, use professional survey techniques to obtain real understanding of the needs and desires of all citizens. A good start would be to conduct a scientific survey of citizens who live near E. Hennepin and 1st Avenue NE. and will be most affected by changes there.

Second, require post-implementation evaluations of past city activities so the lessons learned can help future decisionmaking. Studying the fiasco on Park and Portland Avenues would be a great starting point.

Third, keep aware of unintended consequences. Decide whether they offset the benefit of the planned actions. For example, consider that adding bicycle lanes to a busy street by taking away car lanes increases the time it takes cars to get where they're going — meaning there is more air pollution from exhaust. And consider that increasing bus transit on E. Hennepin and 1st Avenue NE. is likely to result in more accidents (given the businesses present) than would occur by increasing it instead on Central Avenue NE.

Fourth, look hard for "best practices" and failures in other cities so Minneapolis can benefit from what others have learned.

Fifth, make decisions based on data — not just speculation. The proposal to remove an exit lane from Central Avenue NE. that leads onto 1st Avenue NE., which, we are told, will reduce accidents. Yet we're not shown data demonstrating that accidents have even happened there. If they haven't, a real asset to drivers will be lost to a theoretical benefit.

Seventh, a small group in government believes strongly in "social engineering" to get others to change behavior. A prime example is the group that believes cars should be banished. The Metropolitan Council, as a result of transportation travel diaries I helped it compile, has years of evidence showing the large number of citizens who require cars to meet their needs. So rather than trying to "force" people to change their behavior, more creative methods are needed that make changed behavior positive for people.

Eighth, pay attention to the differing needs/desires of citizens in the various parts of the city — and give citizen desires priority over those who only visit the city. For example, many of those behind the "defund the police" movement do not even live in Minneapolis, and many who do live in the city are vehemently opposed to getting rid of police given that they are the ones who experience the deleterious effects of crime.

As has been stated often, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Although Minneapolis and other government personnel often have good intentions underlying their actions, the naive manner in which they charge forward has been, and will continue to be, counterproductive to the wishes and best interests of many citizens. So, take a timeout, follow the above suggestions, and do the E. Hennepin/1st Avenue NE. road project accordingly.