Complete Bicycle Network Project Prioritization

Similar documents
Southwest Light Rail Transit Bicycle Facility Assessment Technical Memorandum #3 Prioritization. July 23, P age

3.0 ANALYSIS OF FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY

NJDOT Pedestrian Safety Analysis Tool 2015 GIS T Conference

Down East RPO. Strategic Prioritization Office of Transportation Local Input Point Assignment Methodology. Introduction

ACCESSIBILITY OF INTERMODAL CENTERS STUDY

Technical Memorandum #2 Future Conditions

Prepared for: San Diego Association Of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, California 92101

Non-Motorized Traffic Exploratory Analysis

GIS Analysis of Crenshaw/LAX Line

Regional Transit Development Plan Strategic Corridors Analysis. Employment Access and Commuting Patterns Analysis. (Draft)

Travel Demand Management Plan

Updating the Urban Boundary and Functional Classification of New Jersey Roadways using 2010 Census data

Neighborhood Locations and Amenities

BROOKINGS May

2011 South Western Region Travel Time Monitoring Program Congestion Management Process. Executive Summary

How GIS Can Help With Tribal Safety Planning

East Bay BRT. Planning for Bus Rapid Transit

Susan Clark NRS 509 Nov. 29, 2005

APPENDIX IV MODELLING

High Speed / Commuter Rail Suitability Analysis For Central And Southern Arizona

GIS BASED ANALYSIS OF EXPRESS VS LOCAL STATIONS ON SURROUNDING LAND USES IN NEW YORK CITY

Transit Time Shed Analyzing Accessibility to Employment and Services

Creating a Pavement Management System Using GIS

III. FORECASTED GROWTH

Appendixx C Travel Demand Model Development and Forecasting Lubbock Outer Route Study June 2014

Study Overview. the nassau hub study. The Nassau Hub

APPENDIX G Halton Region Transportation Model

Alternatives Analysis

TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL. Chapter 6

CHAPTER 4: INVENTORY & LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C-3 Equitable Target Areas (ETA) Technical Analysis Methodology

Hennepin GIS. Tree Planting Priority Areas - Analysis Methodology. GIS Services April 2018 GOAL:

Background and Planning Context 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

STAR COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM OBJECTIVE EE-4: EQUITABLE SERVICES & ACCESS COMMUNITY LEVEL OUTCOMES FOR KING COUNTY, WA

King City URA 6D Concept Plan

Crow River Plaza - Retail Development South Diamond Lake Rd. Rogers, MN FOR LEASE 1,024 SF Retail Space. Lease Rate: $16.

6 th Line Municipal Class Environmental Assessment

Mapping Accessibility Over Time

Crow River Plaza - Retail Development South Diamond Lake Rd. Rogers, MN FOR LEASE 2,066 SF Retail Space. Lease Rate: $16.

TO THE REPORT: A STRATEGIC PLAN TO REDUCE VEHICLE- ANIMAL ACCIDENTS IN NORTHEAST OHIO

Developing Built Environment Indicators for Urban Oregon. Dan Rubado, MPH EPHT Epidemiologist Oregon Public Health Division

Forecasts for the Reston/Dulles Rail Corridor and Route 28 Corridor 2010 to 2050

GIS for the Non-Expert

Advancing Transportation Performance Management and Metrics with Census Data

HORIZON 2030: Land Use & Transportation November 2005

Information for File # MMJ; Trunk Highway (TH) 7 / Louisiana Ave. Interchange Project

APPENDIX PHASE 1 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK

Understanding Land Use and Walk Behavior in Utah

Com munity Advisor y C ommitte e Meeting

Chapter 6. Fundamentals of GIS-Based Data Analysis for Decision Support. Table 6.1. Spatial Data Transformations by Geospatial Data Types

Speakers: Jeff Price, Federal Transit Administration Linda Young, Center for Neighborhood Technology Sofia Becker, Center for Neighborhood Technology

Ellis County-Midlothian to Waxahachie Trail Corridor Research

APPENDIX C-6 - TRAFFIC MODELING REPORT, SRF CONSULTING GROUP

CTR Employer Survey Report

Access Across America: Transit 2017

South Western Region Travel Time Monitoring Program Congestion Management Process Spring 2008 Report

United Growth s Revitalizing Neighborhoods Indicator Project

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION SERIES

Knowledge claims in planning documents on land use and transport infrastructure impacts

Analyzing the Market Share of Commuter Rail Stations using LEHD Data

City of Hermosa Beach Beach Access and Parking Study. Submitted by. 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050 Los Angeles, CA

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B10

Sensitivity of estimates of travel distance and travel time to street network data quality

Access Across America: Transit 2016

Intercity Bus Stop Analysis

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT

Expanding the GSATS Model Area into

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

CITY OF VESTAVIA HILLS

Metro Emergency Security Operations Center (ESOC) 410 Center Street City of Los Angeles

Introducing GIS analysis

Density and Walkable Communities

Committee Meeting November 6, 2018

Market Street PDP. Nassau County, Florida. Transportation Impact Analysis. VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Nassau County Growth Management

Portland, Oregon P O R T L A N D O R E G O N. G O V / T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 1

1600 Prairie Drive , FAX

Transportation Models and Data Initiative

FHWA GIS Outreach Activities. Loveland, Colorado April 17, 2012

CRP 608 Winter 10 Class presentation February 04, Senior Research Associate Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity

Figure 8.2a Variation of suburban character, transit access and pedestrian accessibility by TAZ label in the study area

MAPPING THE RAINFALL EVENT FOR STORMWATER QUALITY CONTROL

MADISON, WI STONE HOUSE DEVELOPMENT 1000 E. WASHINGTON AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION STUDY DECEMBER 14, 2015

Spatiotemporal Analysis of Commuting Patterns in Southern California Using ACS PUMS, CTPP and LODES

Development of Criteria to Identify Pedestrian High Crash Locations in Nevada

Public Transit Accessibility vs. Employment: A Comparative Assessment of Counties/Cities in Northern Virginia

Creation of built environment indices

CITY OF PORTLAND, TEXAS SERVICE PLAN FOR ANNEXATION AREA

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE Growth & Intensification Study Secondary Plan Stakeholder Session June 26th, 2017

The paper is based on commuting flows between rural and urban areas. Why is this of

April 18, Accessibility and Smart Scale: Using Access Scores to Prioritize Projects

Keywords: Air Quality, Environmental Justice, Vehicle Emissions, Public Health, Monitoring Network

Initial Findings from Regional Initiatives Planning Enhancement Fair Housing & Equity Assessment

APPENDIX I: Traffic Forecasting Model and Assumptions

FINAL Traffic Report for the Proposed Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road Projects in the City of Santa Clarita, California May 5, 2005

Get Over, and Beyond, the Half-Mile Circle (for Some Transit Options)

City of Brainerd, Minnesota Snowplowing Policy

Using GIS to Identify Pedestrian- Vehicle Crash Hot Spots and Unsafe Bus Stops

A GIS TOUR OF DES MOINES PRESENTED BY ANNA WHIPPLE, GIS MANAGER APRIL 20, 2015

Transcription:

6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 6 Appendix C Complete Bicycle Network Project Prioritization This appendix provides a prioritized list of proposed bicycle facilities within each of the municipalities covered by the bikesheds developed for the Bottineau LRT / Metro Blue Line Extension Bicycle Study. Municipalities are included that do not lie along the Bottineau LRT corridor as the bikesheds extend beyond the corridor. IDENTIFYING PROJECTS FOR PRIORITIZATION For the purposes of the prioritization process, the proposed network needs to be divided into distinct projects. The following are the proposed criteria for distinguishing projects. Criteria Include facilities that are planned by city or county or park agencies, or proposed by this study. Exclude projects that do not touch a bikeshed. In some areas of limited network connectivity, a facility outside of the bikeshed is included as a critical link to close a small gap that would otherwise be left in the proposed network. All facilities proposed on a street or corridor will be considered one project (e.g., bike lanes and a trail proposed for one street). Projects will be split by municipality regardless of who is responsible for the roadway or right of way. Proposed facilities that fill gaps in a network corridor will be considered one project, rather than separate projects. Proposed facilities of the same or different types will be grouped as one project if the facilities are dependent on each other to fully close a gap in the network or reach a destination. PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA Projects identified in the study are ranked and prioritized corridor wide and by municipality using the following criteria in Figure 1. The criteria prioritize projects which create direct connections to proposed LRT stations, improve corridors with a history of bicycle crashes, fill small gaps, as well as connecting jobs, residents, and zero-car households. Proximity to LRT station was calculated using a spatial join. The number of bicycle crashes per mile was calculated by count of crashes along the project corridor. Data on zero car households was collected from the 2013 Census block group level within a 500-foot buffer of project corridors. Similarly, data on residents was collected from the 2010 Census block level and jobs data was collected from the 2013 Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program dataset within a 500-foot buffer of projects. To normalize projects of varying distance, the number of residents and jobs was calculated per project mile. The specific metric scores for each project are calculated relative to all projects, not in absolute terms. The data for each metric is aggregated into percentile terms ranging from 0 (lowest) to 10 (highest) among all projects, signifying the relative standing of each project in the LRT corridor. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 1

6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 7 Figure 1 Prioritization Criteria Criteria Notes Value Weighting Is the project located close to an LRT station? Does the project create a direct connection to an LRT station? Does the project address a known safety concern? How many zero car households does the project serve? How many employees and residents does the project serve? Does the project directly serve schools and libraries? Does the project improve connections to the regional trail network and the Metropolitan Council s regional bicycle transportation network? Proximity to LRT station point in GIS Connection to an LRT station Yes = 15 No = 0 Bicycles crashes per mile Assigned zero car households to each project based on adjacent blocks Assigned jobs to each project based on LEHD data points; assigned population to each project based on adjacent blocks Known schools and libraries per mile Proximity to trail or bicycle transportation network segment in GIS PRIORITIZED PROJECTS BY MUNICIPALITY Projects ranked on a scale of 0 to 10 based on employment density (jobs + population per mile) The following pages illustrate prioritized project maps and prioritization scores for all projects in each municipality. Projects are uniquely colored to illustrate project limits only, and do not symbolize additional information for the following municipalities. Values displayed in the tables represent project scores for each criteria category as described in Figure 1. A complete table of the overall project ranks follows. 30% 5% 5% Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 2

Brooklyn Park Figure 4 Brooklyn Park Project Priority Map (North) Projects are uniquely colored to illustrate project limits only, and do not symbolize additional information. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 5 6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 8

Figure 5 Brooklyn Park Project Priority Map (South) Projects are uniquely colored to illustrate project limits only, and do not symbolize additional information. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 6 6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 9

6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 10 Figure 6 Brooklyn Park Project Prioritization Local Rank Project Number Municipality Project Location LRT Station Distance Crashes per Mile LRT Station Connection Zero Car Households Population and Jobs Served per Mile Schools and Libraries Trail Connections 1 304 Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Blvd 29.70 12.68 15 12.45 7.55 4.05 5.00 86.42 2 70 Brooklyn Park 85th Ave 29.58 8.79 15 13.16 1.46 3.76 5.00 76.74 3 82 Brooklyn Park West Broadway 29.79 9.87 15 11.16 1.07 3.78 5.00 75.66 4 77 Brooklyn Park 63rd Ave 27.54 13.11 15 7.11 7.71 0.00 3.37 73.84 5 48 Brooklyn Park Crystal Lake Regional Trail 28.83 8.57 15 12.72 2.64 0.00 5.00 72.76 6 75 Brooklyn Park 63rd Ave 28.50 9.33 15 12.35 3.66 0.00 2.85 71.68 7 311 Brooklyn Park 68th Ave 21.93 12.03 0 13.70 5.72 3.87 5.00 62.24 8 128 Brooklyn Park Zane Ave to Douglas Dr 20.94 11.00 0 14.94 5.28 3.90 5.00 61.06 9 164 Brooklyn Park 93rd Ave 28.41 8.03 15 3.39 0.65 0.00 5.00 60.47 10 266 Brooklyn Park Shingle Creek Dr South 18.03 13.86 0 11.00 13.16 0.00 0.20 56.24 11 295 Brooklyn Park Maplebrook Ter 25.47 12.84 0 3.50 10.35 0.00 3.15 55.31 12 126 Brooklyn Park 63rd Ave 20.40 14.46 0 8.52 9.81 0.00 0.94 54.13 13 136 Brooklyn Park Yates Ave 13.08 9.65 0 14.24 12.45 4.23 0.27 53.91 14 218 Brooklyn Park 73rd Ave 23.43 12.51 0 8.96 6.47 0.00 2.36 53.72 15 150 Brooklyn Park Candlewood Dr 25.38 8.46 0 9.00 6.74 0.00 3.49 53.07 16 233 Brooklyn Park 73rd Ave 23.55 13.26 0 6.47 4.74 0.00 5.00 53.02 17 149 Brooklyn Park Zane Ave 14.49 14.94 0 9.54 13.92 0.00 0.11 53.00 18 83 Brooklyn Park West Broadway 29.37 0.00 15 0.00 0.15 0.00 5.00 49.52 19 72 Brooklyn Park West Broadway Ave 25.59 0.00 0 12.51 3.72 4.48 3.10 49.39 20 313 Brooklyn Park Brookdale Dr 14.79 11.12 0 12.99 5.49 0.00 5.00 49.39 21 344 Brooklyn Park Kentucky Ave 26.67 0.00 0 12.03 7.76 0.00 2.88 49.34 22 306 Brooklyn Park Boone Ave 18.69 8.19 0 6.30 6.84 4.68 1.61 46.30 23 171 Brooklyn Park Edinbrook Ter 13.83 12.45 0 6.42 7.65 4.33 1.59 46.27 24 220 Brooklyn Park 65th Ave 27.33 0.00 0 12.14 4.04 0.00 2.59 46.09 25 151 Brooklyn Park West of Shingle Creek Dr 22.35 11.43 0 0.00 10.19 0.00 1.84 45.80 26 153 Brooklyn Park Hampshire Ave to Douglas Dr 23.31 0.00 0 12.41 4.37 4.10 1.32 45.50 27 172 Brooklyn Park Regent Ave 11.88 9.92 0 13.86 8.25 0.00 1.37 45.28 28 85 Brooklyn Park Wyoming Ave 26.34 10.04 0 0.00 6.69 0.00 1.88 44.94 29 157 Brooklyn Park West Broadway 25.26 0.00 0 11.27 2.75 0.00 3.40 42.67 30 219 Brooklyn Park 73rd Ave 16.20 0.00 0 12.84 12.78 0.00 0.47 42.29 31 152 Brooklyn Park Georgia Ave 23.22 0.00 0 7.38 10.04 0.00 1.03 41.67 32 154 Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Blvd 24.84 10.19 0 2.42 0.96 0.00 2.74 41.14 Note: Values represent scores for each prioritization criteria. See Figure 1 for scoring details. Total Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 7

6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 11 Figure 6 Brooklyn Park Project Prioritization (Continued) Local Rank Project Number Municipality Project Location LRT Station Distance Crashes per Mile LRT Station Connection Zero Car Households Population and Jobs Served per Mile Schools and Libraries Trail Connections 33 184 Brooklyn Park Northeast of College Pkwy 27.00 0.00 0 4.10 6.63 0.00 2.07 39.80 34 273 Brooklyn Park 74th Ave to Unity Ave 13.50 0.00 0 11.87 12.95 0.00 0.09 38.40 35 71 Brooklyn Park Idaho Ave 25.05 0.00 0 2.27 9.44 0.00 1.43 38.18 36 215 Brooklyn Park Setzler Pkwy 24.72 0.00 0 3.83 5.93 0.00 3.22 37.69 37 216 Brooklyn Park 89th Ave 23.64 0.00 0 2.15 8.52 0.00 3.04 37.35 38 217 Brooklyn Park Tessman Pkwy 24.93 0.00 0 4.20 6.26 0.00 1.48 36.86 39 234 Brooklyn Park 73rd Ave 18.78 0.00 0 0.00 11.64 5.00 1.35 36.77 40 78 Brooklyn Park Winnetka Ave 22.02 0.00 0 8.09 5.39 0.00 0.74 36.23 41 230 Brooklyn Park East of Boone Ave Trail 22.68 8.25 0 0.00 1.50 0.00 3.26 35.69 42 185 Brooklyn Park Hampshire Ct 21.48 0.00 0 0.00 12.89 0.00 0.99 35.36 43 165 Brooklyn Park 93rd Ave 15.45 0.00 0 7.92 5.76 4.57 1.34 35.03 44 189 Brooklyn Park Douglas Dr 18.57 0.00 0 7.44 8.57 0.00 0.31 34.89 45 191 Brooklyn Park 83rd Ave to Lad Pkwy 3.48 8.52 0 11.33 7.98 0.00 3.31 34.62 46 186 Brooklyn Park Hamilton Park 22.77 0.00 0 0.00 9.77 0.00 1.71 34.25 47 121 Brooklyn Park Xylon Ave 17.07 0.00 0 7.01 4.14 4.78 0.78 33.77 48 176 Brooklyn Park Tessman Pkwy to Neddersen Pkwy 24.18 0.00 0 4.04 3.77 0.00 1.41 33.39 49 309 Brooklyn Park Noble Ave 4.32 9.54 0 9.77 3.35 4.19 1.93 33.09 50 168 Brooklyn Park North of Tessman Ter 24.30 0.00 0 5.45 1.88 0.00 1.44 33.06 51 80 Brooklyn Park Jefferson Highway 10.59 0.00 0 7.07 13.11 0.00 1.89 32.66 52 190 Brooklyn Park Shingle Creek Dr 21.72 0.00 0 0.00 9.71 0.00 1.08 32.51 53 316 Brooklyn Park 101st Ave 27.42 0.00 0 1.83 0.11 0.00 3.12 32.47 54 119 Brooklyn Park Modern Rd 21.27 0.00 0 6.84 2.04 0.00 2.27 32.42 55 174 Brooklyn Park Regent Ave to Brooklyn Blvd 8.64 0.00 0 10.14 13.32 0.00 0.29 32.39 56 178 Brooklyn Park Regent Pkwy 12.00 9.44 0 1.46 4.20 4.15 1.14 32.38 57 120 Brooklyn Park Winnetka Ave 22.14 0.00 0 5.34 3.02 0.00 1.53 32.03 58 188 Brooklyn Park 93rd Ave to Pearson Pkwy 0.78 9.27 0 11.64 4.85 0.00 5.00 31.54 59 175 Brooklyn Park Hampshire Ave 23.76 0.00 0 0.00 6.20 0.00 1.26 31.22 60 222 Brooklyn Park Xerxes Ave to 74th Ave 1.41 11.70 0 9.98 4.68 0.00 3.30 31.06 61 163 Brooklyn Park 79th Ave to East 25.17 0.00 0 0.00 2.69 0.00 2.99 30.85 62 122 Brooklyn Park Cherokee Dr 16.62 0.00 0 4.74 8.90 0.00 0.54 30.80 63 183 Brooklyn Park Founders Pkwy 20.31 0.00 0 2.91 6.42 0.00 1.05 30.69 64 141 Brooklyn Park Noble Parkway 4.11 10.62 0 9.06 1.40 0.00 5.00 30.19 Note: Values represent scores for each prioritization criteria. See Figure 1 for scoring details. Total Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 8

6.3C BICYCLE STUDY PRIORITIES PAGE 12 Figure 6 Brooklyn Park Project Prioritization (Continued) Local Rank Project Number Municipality Project Location LRT Station Distance Crashes per Mile LRT Station Connection Zero Car Households Population and Jobs Served per Mile Schools and Libraries Trail Connections 65 156 Brooklyn Park 73rd Ave to Winnetka Ave 22.47 0.00 0 0.00 3.56 0.00 2.33 28.35 66 262 Brooklyn Park 83rd Ave 8.43 0.00 0 7.76 11.33 0.00 0.71 28.22 67 323 Brooklyn Park 109th Ave 7.26 11.49 0 6.74 1.29 0.00 0.80 27.57 68 209 Brooklyn Park 101st Ave 13.29 0.00 0 7.23 1.83 0.00 5.00 27.35 69 315 Brooklyn Park Edinbrook Pkwy 2.61 8.42 0 8.90 2.48 0.00 3.21 25.60 70 261 Brooklyn Park Hampshire Ave 23.97 0.00 0 0.00 0.26 0.00 1.16 25.38 71 207 Brooklyn Park Noble Ave 2.70 9.11 0 6.80 1.61 0.00 5.00 25.21 72 294 Brooklyn Park Douglas Dr 18.48 0.00 0 1.77 3.12 0.00 0.53 23.90 73 169 Brooklyn Park Douglas Dr to Regent Pkwy 15.87 0.00 0 0.00 2.96 4.75 0.26 23.83 74 182 Brooklyn Park Fallgold Pkwy to 94th Ave 1.32 8.15 0 5.12 3.87 0.00 5.00 23.45 75 170 Brooklyn Park East of Douglas Dr 17.61 0.00 0 1.94 3.45 0.00 0.36 23.36 76 258 Brooklyn Park 107th Ave to Oxbow Creek Dr 20.52 0.00 0 0.00 0.42 0.00 2.04 22.98 77 264 Brooklyn Park Inverness Cir 2.82 0.00 0 5.39 11.91 0.00 2.16 22.28 78 179 Brooklyn Park Edinbrook Ter 3.90 0.00 0 7.55 2.85 4.41 2.77 21.47 79 268 Brooklyn Park Noble Ave to Brooklyn Blvd 4.02 0.00 0 2.31 13.86 0.00 0.81 21.00 80 263 Brooklyn Park 81st Ave 4.23 0.00 0 4.31 11.06 0.00 0.40 19.99 81 259 Brooklyn Park Regent Ave 4.86 0.00 0 3.08 8.19 0.00 2.65 18.77 82 180 Brooklyn Park 93rd Ave to Windsor Ter 2.49 9.23 0 2.04 1.34 0.00 3.51 18.60 83 177 Brooklyn Park Regent Ave 7.56 0.00 0 6.15 2.37 0.00 2.24 18.32 84 280 Brooklyn Park Idaho Ave 10.80 0.00 0 0.00 6.09 0.00 0.69 17.58 85 187 Brooklyn Park 75th Ave to June Ave 3.57 0.00 0 6.96 2.31 4.24 0.42 17.50 86 265 Brooklyn Park Kings Ter 6.93 0.00 0 0.00 8.63 0.00 1.86 17.41 87 232 Brooklyn Park Bass Creek Park Trail 11.13 0.00 0 2.10 3.99 0.00 0.08 17.30 88 260 Brooklyn Park Edinbrook Ter 7.35 0.00 0 2.54 4.91 0.00 2.42 17.21 89 257 Brooklyn Park 109th Ave 11.67 0.00 0 0.00 2.10 0.00 2.90 16.67 90 224 Brooklyn Park 73rd Ave 0.33 0.00 0 5.93 8.84 0.00 1.30 16.39 91 320 Brooklyn Park Regent Ave to Noble Ave 5.94 0.00 0 4.41 4.95 0.00 0.35 15.65 92 282 Brooklyn Park Jersey Dr 12.96 0.00 0 0.00 1.13 0.00 1.17 15.26 93 213 Brooklyn Park 99th Ave 2.28 0.00 0 2.00 5.82 0.00 3.42 13.52 94 231 Brooklyn Park Bass Creek Park Trail 9.84 0.00 0 1.61 0.75 0.00 0.18 12.38 95 318 Brooklyn Park 109th Ave to Oxbow Creek Dr 4.65 0.00 0 3.72 2.15 0.00 1.57 12.08 Note: Values represent scores for each prioritization criteria. See Figure 1 for scoring details. Total Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 9