The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-07-09 Meeting PacketAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SPECIAL MEETING OF TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EDINA PUBLIC WORKS & PARK MAINTENANCE FACILITY July 9, 2012 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. France Avenue Intersection Enhancements V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way 18 of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. DIRECTIONS to Edina Public Works & Park Maintenance Facility, 7450 Metro Boulevard: From the north: take TH100 south to W 77th St / Industrial Blvd exit, turn right onto Industrial Blvd., to Metro Blvd., turn right onto Metro Blvd., to W 74th St, turn left onto W 74th St, turn left at first driveway into Edina Public Works & Park Maintenance Facility. From the north from W 70th St: turn south onto Metro Blvd, to W 74th St, turn right onto W 74th St, turn left at first driveway into Edina Public Works & Park Maintenance Facility. From the east on W 77th St: proceed west on W 77th St to Metro Blvd, turn right onto Metro Blvd., to W 74th St, turn left onto W 74th St, turn left at first driveway into Edina Public Works & Park Maintenance Facility. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS Monday July 9 France Avenue Pedestrian and Bike Crossing ETC Meeting Tuesday July 17 Transportation Options Working Group Thursday July 19 Regular ETC Meeting Tuesday Aug 16 Regular ETC Meeting Thursday Aug 21 Transportation Options Working Group Tuesday Sept 18 Transportation Options Working Group Thursday Sept 20 Regular ETC Meeting G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traffic\TRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 Agendas\20120709 Agenda Special Meeting.docx 7:00 PM EDINA PUBILC WORKS 5:00 PM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM 5:00 PM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER 5:00 PM SHERWOOD ROOM, SENIOR CENTER 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM 0 SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Wayne D. Houle, PE Director of Engineering Date: July 9, 2012 Subject: France Avenue Intersection Enhancements Agenda Item No.: IV.A. ACTION:' ® Recommendation/Motion ® Discussion ❑ Information Recommendation/Motion: • Review and recommend that the City Council approve the recommended design as described in the attached Feasibility Study. • Info/Background: The France Avenue Intersection Enhancements project is a Federal Transportation Enhancement project that the Metropolitan Council administers. The City of Edina was successful in re -scoping the project from a pedestrian bridge over France Avenue to three major intersections along France Avenue and also to infill missing sidewalk segments along the easterly side of France Avenue. The project planning and documentation are to be completed by March 31, 2013, with construction expected for the summer of 2013. The City Council will be hosting a Public Hearing on this project at their July 17, 2012 City Council meeting. Attachments: • France Avenue Intersection Enhancements - Feasibility Study dated July 6, 2012 G:\Engineering\Infrastructure\Streets\Traff!cVRANSP COMM\Agendas\2012 R&R\20120709 Special Mtg\20120709 Item IV A France Avenue Intersection Enhancements.docx r r w91A1r o� e FEASIBILITY STUDY - BA 404 o ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ay CITY OF EDINA FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 76th Street, 70th Street and 66th Street Federal Transportation Enhancement Project — S.P. 120-020-37 July 06, 2012 1. LOCATION The intersection improvements are located along France Avenue at 76th Street, 70th Street and 66th Street as shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1. Project Location Map 2. INITIATION & ISSUES Background / History The City of Edina was successful in 2007 in securing Federal Transportation Enhancement funding for the 72nd Street Pedestrian Bridge over France Avenue. As a result of several studies, change in policy direction and new leadership at the City the concept of a bridge over France Avenue was deemed no longer practical. The City then requested and was granted a Scope Change and a one year Sunset Date extension from the Metropolitan Council for the project. wThe re -scoped project will accomplish the same goals, safely and efficiently, for less overall cost, in partnership with the other agencies and with greater community support. The vision for the re -scoped project stems from the County's "France Avenue Corridor Study" completed in 2009. M, 10. - t �Fn-! Avenue.S � m... �.. a r N? t, LEGEND $ . Proposed I^tersedon Improvements Proposed Intersex Improvements By Three Rivers Park Disbic Figure 1. Project Location Map 2. INITIATION & ISSUES Background / History The City of Edina was successful in 2007 in securing Federal Transportation Enhancement funding for the 72nd Street Pedestrian Bridge over France Avenue. As a result of several studies, change in policy direction and new leadership at the City the concept of a bridge over France Avenue was deemed no longer practical. The City then requested and was granted a Scope Change and a one year Sunset Date extension from the Metropolitan Council for the project. wThe re -scoped project will accomplish the same goals, safely and efficiently, for less overall cost, in partnership with the other agencies and with greater community support. The vision for the re -scoped project stems from the County's "France Avenue Corridor Study" completed in 2009. Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Intersection enhancements such as; median refuge island, accessible pedestrian signals, pedestrian warning signs, enhanced pedestrian corner treatments, etc, will be provided at three primary intersections. 66'' Street: This proposed crossing would provide access to; medical buildings, Southdale Mall, Aquatic Center, Rosland Park, TLC Bike Boulevard, and access to transit. 70"' Street: This proposed crossing would continue the complete street project recently constructed west of France Avenue. It would serve primarily single family neighborhood, The Galleria, Target, Promenade, Southdale Library, Hennepin County Government Center, and access to transit. 76'h Street: This proposed crossing would serve primarily multi -family housing and connect to Centennial Lakes Park, Promenade, Three Rivers Park District Nine mile trail in Richfield, Edinborough Park, medical facilities, and access to transit. Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) is also planning improvements to Gallagher Drive. Although this intersection will be improved by TRPD the proposed crossing will serve the future planned regional trail, Promenade, multi -family housing, and access to transit. In addition to the intersection enhancements the proposed project will provide missing sidewalk connections insuring that all areas on both sides of France Avenue have an opportunity to access one of the planned crossing locations. The City has worked with several agencies during the preliminary studies, concept development and the proposed re -scoping of the project since the original TE application was submitted and approved. These agencies have included: • Hennepin County Community Works • Hennepin County Transportation • Three Rivers Park District • Transit for Livable Communities • Metro Transit • Minnesota Department of Transportation Project Goals / Objectives / Direction The proposed improvements are anticipated to provide a catalyst for France Avenue that will: • Encourage pedestrians to use enhanced intersections by creating inviting passages from surrounding areas, development along France Avenue, and buildings at the enhanced intersections. • Create inviting and comfortable parallel corridors leading to enhanced intersections with patterns and details that reflect the France Avenue corridor. Page 2 of 30 r t Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS • Orient buildings with primary entrances at corners to encourage pedestrian activity. • Discourage crossings at locations other than enhanced intersections. • Create inviting and safe waiting spaces at enhanced intersections. • Ensure safe and comfortable space is available at medians in the event a pedestrian cannot cross the entire street. • Establish continuity in design among enhanced intersections. • Create, to the degree possible, designs oriented to pedestrians within the street crossing zones that are related to, but still distinct from, the waiting spaces. • Improve transit accessibility 0 City of Edina 2008 Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is consistant with the direction outlined in the City's 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Land Use and Community Design Chapter 4 of the plan addresses the relationship between Land Use and the function of roadway corridors. As shown below in Figure 2 Fance Avenue is identified as a primary thoroughfare where as 66th Street, 70th Street and 76th Street are residential and/or business thoroughfare's. The Comprehensive Plan outlines that the residential and business thoroghfares should provide for non motorized connections. Roadway Corridors Primary Thoroughfare Residential Thoroughfare Business Thoroughfare Transit Shuttle rrrrr Regional Hlghways Potential Gateway Locations 'p—M41k Proposed Regional Trail 66th Strut r -. r 0 Figure 2. Community Design Roadway Corridors Page 3 of 30 r a Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Sidewalk / Bicycle Facilities Chapter 7 of the plan addresses locations of proposed sidewalk and bicycle facilities and funding options within the City. Figures 7.10, Sidewalk Facilities and 7.11, Bicycle Facilities from the Comprehensive Plan are included in Appendix. Both indicate a need for additional facilities along France Avenue and the primary cross streets. Figure 3, below shows the relationship and need to provide improved safe and efficient connections between the residential land uses west of France and the commercial land uses east of France Avenue. 1REMENTIAL_ Figure 3. Existing Pedestrian / Bike Network Stakeholder Meeting Input • R 1 C HF 1 E L fl �. _. __ _ In order to insure that all interests in the area were addressed a Stakeholders group was established. The Stakeholders included: Edina Transportation Commission Edina Planning Commission Hennepin County Public Works Hennepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit MnDOT Three Rivers Park District Metro Transit Bike Edina Task Force Transit for Livable Communities Local Businesses Local Residents Page 4 of 30 • r Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS This group has had two meetings. The first was held at the City of Edina Public Works Facility on 5/31/2012 at 7:00 PM. There were approximately 18 • people in attendance, including city staff, project consultant team members, and representatives from various agencies and organizations, including the Edina Transportation Commission, Bike Edina Task Force, do.town, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, and the City of Bloomington. A presentation was given by the project consultant team, and discussion was encouraged. Several major themes emerged from the discussion. All stakeholders agreed that the existing France Avenue design could be improved for cyclists and pedestrians. Stakeholders proposed several ideas and themes for improvement, including the need for France Avenue to be a Gateway to Edina, a need to improve transit access, a need to improve conditions for corridor residents, the importance of encouraging vibrant street life, and the importance of improving pedestrian and cyclist safety. Several specific strategies were discussed, including a "Dutch style" bicycle and pedestrian intersection design strategy, the importance of vertical elements in the design, and the importance of providing varying textures and colors to provide visual cues. The meeting was concluded with direction to staff and the consultant team to further develop and evaluate several concepts. The second stakeholders meeting was held at the City of Edina Public Works Facility on 6/26/2012 at 7:00 PM. There were approximately 21 people in attendance, including city staff, project consultant team members, and representatives from various agencies and organizations, including the Edina Transportation Commission, Edina Planning Commission, Edina City Council, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, the City of Bloomington, and several persons active in the local business community. A presentation was given by the project consultant team, and discussion was encouraged. The consultant team presented three conceptual alternatives for the identified intersections and requested feedback from the stakeholders. The three options included two variants of the "Dutch style" intersection design and one option with traditional bike lanes. The stakeholders discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each option, and the group agreed that Option 1 was the preferred option because it provided the greatest degree of separation between motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. Further discussion reinforced the need for strong vertical elements in the design to ensure a top-quality experience for pedestrians as well as cyclists. The meeting was concluded with direction to staff and the consultant team to focus on Option 1, while enhancing the design with additional vertical elements. Minutes from each meeting is included in the Apendix. Comments have been received from Met Council on the proposed design. Responses to those comments are included in the Appendix. 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS France Ave Corridor France Avenue is a north / south Hennepin County Road (CSAH 17), "A" Minor Arterial roadway. In general, in the area south between TH 62 • (Crosstown) an 1-494, it is a 6 lane (3 lanes in each direction) roadway with left and right turn lanes at the primary intersections. A 40 mph speed is posted on the roadway. Page 5 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Sidewalks • Sidewalks are currently provided on the west side of France Avenue the entire length from 66th Street to 76th Street. The width is approximately 6', for most of the sidewalks, with no boulevard. The only exception is near 66th Street where the sidewalk is 5' with a 5' boulevard. On the east side a 5' sidewalk is provided from 76th Street to Parklawn Avenue (on private property) with a boulevard that varies in width. Mid -block between Parklawn and Gallagher (430' N. of Parklawn) a 6' sidewalk is provided. A 5' sidewalk is also provided on the east side from 175' south of 66th Street to the north. Transit Transit service is provided along France Avenue with 5 primary routes each is discussed below and summarized in Table 1. The location of the existing transit stops are shown in Figures 4a — 4c. Route 6 provides local bus service throughout the Edina Southdale Area and parts of Minneapolis. The route provides local stops along France Avenue between Minnesota Drive and Hazleton Road before accessing the Southdale Transit Center. Route 578 provides express bus service throughout several Edina neighborhoods including the Southdale area with downtown Minneapolis. This route travels along France Avenue between 69th and 70th Street before accessing the Southdale Transit Center and downtown Minneapolis via TH- • 62 and 1-35W. Route 579 provides express bus service between the Southdale Transit Center and the University of Minnesota. The route uses 66th Street, 69th Street, France Avenue, and York Avenue to access the Southdale Transit Center before usint TH-62 and 1-35W to access the University. Route 587 provides express bus service between the Edina Southdale area and downtown Minneapolis. This route travels along France Avenue between 69th Street and Gallagher Drive. It also serves Valley View Drive and Normandale Road before accessing downtown Minneapolis via TH-100 and 1- 394. Route 684 provides express bus service between Eden Prairie, the Southdale Transit Center, and downtown Minneapolis. The route passes through Edina on TH-62, and using Valley View Drive, 66th Street and 69th Street, and York Avenue to access the Southdale Transit Center before continuing to downtown Minneapolis. Operated by Southwest Transit. • Page 6 of 30 :7 • 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Route Project Area Service Destinations Frequency Headway Rush Hourl Midday Evening Saturday Sunday/Holiday U of M Dinkytown 76th Street, as well SE Minneapolis as France Avenue Downtown Minneapolis 6 between Minnesota Hennepin Avenue 5 4-10 10-15 15 15 15 Drive and Hazleton Uptown Transit Station Road France Avenue S Xerxes Avenue S Southdale Transit Center Edina Industrial Park 70th Street Tracy Avenue 66th Street, 69th Benton Avenue Street, as well as 77th Street 578 Bush Lake Road Express France Avenue Highwood Drive 30 -- -- -- between 69th Street and 70th Street France Avenue Southdale Transit Center York Avenue Downtown Minneapolis 66th Street, 69th Street, as well as 579 Southdale Transit Center Express France Avenue U of M 60 -- between 66th Street and 69th Street 69th Street, as well France Avenue 587 as France Avenue Valley View Road Express between 69th Street Normandale Road 30-40 30-40 and Gallagher Drive Downtown Minneapolis 684 66th Street, 69th Eden Prairie (various) Express Street Southdale Transit Center 30 -- Downtown Minneapolis Table 1. Existing Transit Route Summary 69th Street Toth supet 7tth Street Figure 4a. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations Page 7 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS PO! -Std 7qthStreet r . 1�•�� '} 1 ,{ ; t VIP Hazelon Road �r_• ,�. 7Nd* Street , l _1. Iap qr Drive •�`' AOL: - Figure 4b. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations Figure 4c. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations France Ave at 76th Street 76th Street is a east / west city street providing access between the commercial / residential areas east and west of France Avenue. It was identified in the City's Comprehensive plan as a component of the east / west reliever roadway to 1-494. 76th Street is classified as a "A" Minor Arterical with a posted speed of 30 mph. Figure 5 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 76th Street. Page 8 of 30 M • .� Figure 4c. France Ave Existing Transit Stop Locations France Ave at 76th Street 76th Street is a east / west city street providing access between the commercial / residential areas east and west of France Avenue. It was identified in the City's Comprehensive plan as a component of the east / west reliever roadway to 1-494. 76th Street is classified as a "A" Minor Arterical with a posted speed of 30 mph. Figure 5 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 76th Street. Page 8 of 30 M • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS France Avenue and 76th Street Intersection X 11' 12 12.5 12.5' / ^. 5' li 1z 12S ?1' 2' ftt Tum Lara T��v Lana Thu av TMt� Lxxe Lt Tum Lara Yatl, ru Larc T+n. Lare Ttra Lara Tt=ru Lana Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) Existing 76th Street Section (West Leg of Intersection) Figure 5. France Ave at 76th Street Typical Sections France Ave at 70th Street 701h Street is a east / west city street providing access between the residential areas west of France Avenue and the commercial areas to the east of France Avenue. In 2010 70th Street was reconstructed east of France Avenue to include three single lane roundabouts. West of France Avenue, 70th Street • was reconstructed in 2011 as a "complete street" including a single lane in each direction, bike lanes, parking lanes, a roundabout and a traffic signal system to help control speed. 70th Street is classified as a Collector Roadway in the City's Comprehensive Plan a posted speed of 30 mph east of France Avenue and 25 mph west of France Avenue. Figure 6 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 701h Street. France Avenue and loth Street Intersection 1 '2- 12.5 13' I. t" '2 12.5 J fti Turn Lana Th'.r rare L: Tun urw Mad, - ru Larw 'nn. Wra lYu _mrr Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) 5' 12.5' '3' 12.5' /X 13.5' 1.5 T-11, Lana I TM, _a'a MM .t T,,.•n. Lane I T1uu ;.ano ill Tun La.+e F� Existing 70th Street Section (EAST Leg of Intersection) Figure 6. France Ave at 70th Street Typical Sections Page 9 of 30 -.� TMu iaNi .40& �T+�ru�LaM.. Aloft �"Y M2u. L'. Tvm LMro TM4 LaM iM.'v Lerl! T heu UM Rl Turn Uf! ..rte �� •� PG"7 Existing 76th Street Section (West Leg of Intersection) Figure 5. France Ave at 76th Street Typical Sections France Ave at 70th Street 701h Street is a east / west city street providing access between the residential areas west of France Avenue and the commercial areas to the east of France Avenue. In 2010 70th Street was reconstructed east of France Avenue to include three single lane roundabouts. West of France Avenue, 70th Street • was reconstructed in 2011 as a "complete street" including a single lane in each direction, bike lanes, parking lanes, a roundabout and a traffic signal system to help control speed. 70th Street is classified as a Collector Roadway in the City's Comprehensive Plan a posted speed of 30 mph east of France Avenue and 25 mph west of France Avenue. Figure 6 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 701h Street. France Avenue and loth Street Intersection 1 '2- 12.5 13' I. t" '2 12.5 J fti Turn Lana Th'.r rare L: Tun urw Mad, - ru Larw 'nn. Wra lYu _mrr Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) 5' 12.5' '3' 12.5' /X 13.5' 1.5 T-11, Lana I TM, _a'a MM .t T,,.•n. Lane I T1uu ;.ano ill Tun La.+e F� Existing 70th Street Section (EAST Leg of Intersection) Figure 6. France Ave at 70th Street Typical Sections Page 9 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS France Ave at 66th Street 66th Street is a east / west city street west of France Avenue and a Hennepin • County Road (CSAH ) east of France Avenue. This roadway provides access between the residential areas west of France Avenue and the Commerical areas to the east of France Avenue primarily Southdale Center. 66th Street is classified as a "A" Minor Arterical with a posted speed of 30 mph. Figure 7 below shows the existing roadway typical sections at France Avenue and 66th Street. France Avenue and 66th Street Intersection V , r 11,5 1 12.5 12 ^1.56.S 12' 7 nr� f Rn T?IM Lana TMS Lara Lt rum Ltl Mia , r_ L.arx: - ru Lana lfw ;.ane Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) ,7 12' '2 12' 9b +3,5' 17 2' Kt ^ �e n j Lane 1TVu Lase a TWn LOne L:'urn La 14— •ru t.ar» r�ru t.er5t Existing 66th Street Section (East Leg of Intersection) Figure 7. France Ave at 66th Street Typical Sections 4. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis Traffic volume data was colleted for France Avenue and the adjacent side streets in comparing the past two counting years (2009 and 2011) traffic has actually decreased slightly on France Avenue below is a summary of the traffic volume data used in for the analysis. France Avenue 2009 Count — 26,000 vpd to 28,500 vpd 2011 Count — 24,300 vpd to 27,800 vpd th 76 Street 2009 Count — 8,000 vpd to 9,100 vpd th 70 Street 2009 Count — 9,300 vpd to 10,600 vpd th 66 Street 2009 Count— 10,000 vpd to 16,100 vpd Page 10 of 30 • • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Traffic operations were evaluated for the France Avenue Corridor in order to evaluate lane configuration alternatives using 2009 traffic volume data.This section describes the methodology used to assess the operations and provides a summary of traffic operations. Analysis Methodology The traffic operations analysis is derived from established methodologies documented the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM). The HCM provides a series of analysis techniques that are used to evaluate traffic operations. Intersections are given a Level of Service (LOS) grade from "A" to "F" to describe the average amount of control delay per vehicle as defined in the HCM. The LOS is primarily a function of peak traffic hour turning movement volumes, intersection lane configuration, and the traffic controls at the intersection. LOS A is the best traffic operating condition, and drivers experience minimal delay at an intersection operating at that level. LOS E represents the condition where the intersection is at capacity, and some drivers may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through an intersection controlled by traffic signals. LOS F represents a condition where there is more traffic than can be handled by the intersection, and many vehicle operators may have to wait through more than one green phase to make it through the intersection. At a stop sign -controlled intersection, LOS F would be characterized by exceptionally long vehicle queues on each approach at an all -way stop, or long queues and/or great difficulty in finding an acceptable gap for drivers on the minor legs at a through -street intersection. The LOS ranges for both signalized and un -signalized intersections are shown in Table 2. The threshold LOS values for un -signalized intersections are slightly less than for signalized intersections. This variance was instituted because drivers' expectations at intersections differ with the type of traffic control. A given LOS can be altered by increasing (or decreasing) the number of lares, changing traffic control arrangements, adjusting the timing at signalized intersections, or other lesser geometric improvements. LOS also changes as traffic volumes increase or decrease. Source: HCM Table 2 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges • Page 11 of 30 Control Delay (Seconds) Signalized Un -Signalized A <_ 10 <_ 10 B 10-20 10-15 C 20-35 15-25 D 35-55 25-35 E 55-80 35-50 F > 80 > 50 Source: HCM Table 2 - Intersection Level of Service Ranges • Page 11 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS LOS, as described above, can also be determined for the individual legs (sometimes referred to as "approaches") or lanes (turn lanes in particular) of an intersection. It should be noted that a LOS E or F might be acceptable or 4D justified in those cases where a leg(s) or lane(s) has a very low traffic volume as compared to the volume on the other legs. For example, improving LOS on such low-volume legs by converting a two-way stop condition to an all -way stop, or adjusting timing at a signalized intersection, could result in a significant penalty for the many drivers on the major road while benefiting the few on the minor road. Also, geometric improvements on minor legs, such as additional lanes or longer turn lanes, could have limited positive effects and might be prohibitive in terms of benefit to cost. Although LOS A represents the best possible level of traffic flow, the cost to construct roadways and intersection to such a high standard often exceeds the benefit to the user. Funding availability might also lead to acceptance of intersection or roadway designs with a lower LOS. LOS D is generally accepted as the lowest acceptable level in urban areas. LOS C is often considered to be the desirable minimum level for rural areas. LOS D or E may be acceptable for limited durations or distances, or for very low-volume legs of some intersections. The LOS analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic: Synchro, a software package that implements Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies, was used to build each signalized intersection and provide an input database for turning -movement volumes, lane geometrics, and signal design and timing • characteristics. In addition, Synchro was used to optimize signal timing parameters for future conditions. Output from Synchro is transferred to SimTraffic, the traffic simulation model. SimTraffic is a micro -simulation computer modeling software that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and driver behavior in response to traffic volumes, intersection configuration, and signal operations. The model simulates drivers' behaviors and responses to surrounding traffic flow as well as different vehicle types and speeds. It outputs estimated vehicle delay and queue lengths at each intersection being analyzed. Corridor Analysis The traffic operations analysis was completed for several lane configuration alternatives along France Avenue. The PM peak hour traffic conditions from 2009 was used for the analysis. Each alternative including the results of the analysis is discussed below. A summary summary table of each analysis alternative is included in the Appendix. Existing Lane Configuration — This analysis provided the base line condition that was used to compare the results of the other lane configuration alternatives. The results of the existing analysis found that several movements are at Level of Service (LOS) E or F. In addition some of the existing max vehicle queues exceed the • available turn lane storage. Page 12 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 2. Removing Free Right Turn Lanes — By removing the free right turn lanes it was found that there was very little impact to the overall operations and that there would be a minimual increase in vehicle delays. 3. Removing One Through Lane on France Avenue — Removing one of the through lanes increased the number of intersection movements that are at LOS E or F. Average vehicle delays increased by 10 to 20 sec per vechile at the intersections. 4. Removing Additional Left Turn Lanes — This alternative removed one left turn lane at locations were there were dual left turn lanes. The results of the analysis found that at every location were the lane was removed the left turn queues exceed the available storage. In addition, the overall intersection average intersection delays increased by an additional 5 to 10 secs per vehicle. One concern that was raised by the Hennepin County was the use of the average PM peak hour as the analysis period. The concern is that even though we don't typically design for a holiday peak, this area of France Avenue with Southdale and the other retail uses, tend to have a more extended holiday timeframe and that the level of traffic on France Avenue is actually higher on an average. Based on the traffic operations analysis results it was determined that the final concepts would be developed based on only eliminating the free right • turn lanes and no other lane reductions. Crash Analysis • A crash investigation of the past 5 years (2007 — 2011) was completed for the corridor. The results indicate that there were 258 crashes in the corridor from 66th Street to 76th Street with 95 of those crashes at the intersections proposed to be improved with this project. The results also conclude that the overall crash rate and severity rate in the corridor is below the state wide average for the same type of roadways. The investigation found that there were 4 pedestrian or bicycle crashes in the corridor. Three of the four were with vehicles turning right failing to yield to bicycles. These crashes are listed below. 66th Street — Northbound right -turn vehicle failed to yield to bike (2011) 69th Street — Southbound right turn vehicles struck bike (2011) 69th Street — Northbound through vehicle struck pedestrian (2011) Gallagher Drive — Westbound right turn vehicle failed to yield to bike (2011) A table showing the results of the intersection analysis is included in the Appendix. Page 13 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 5. IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Urban Design Context • Any improvements to selected intersections along France Avenue must be made in the context of the city's other plans for the corridor, including its comprehensive plans, transportation plans, and plans for economic development. In general these plans have suggested a gradual transformation of France Avenue from a vehicular -oriented street to one that offers a "complete street" experience for not only people in motorized vehicles but also to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Such a reorientation will affect not only the design of France Avenue and the streets that intersect it, but also the private domain, the private property adjacent to France Avenue. The city, county, and the owners of private property will need to work together to achieve this goal. The concept is to fully connect the public domain of the street with the private domain of buildings. This will create a realm for social interaction, a place that provides an opportunity for people to meet, purposefully or serendipitously, congregate, or simply move between locations. To achieve this goal, several distinct features will be added to France Avenue including new and additional corridor, pedestrian, bicycle, intersection, and transit elements, as discussed below. A generalized concept of one of the proposed intersections illustrating a significant increase in trees providing an overstory canopy along streets, sidewalks, and in the median. Although it would be preferred to have new structures abut the street, particularly at corners, some existing buildings will remain removed from the street, requiring that sidewalks be extended from the street to those more distant structures. A novel approach to moving bicyclists through the intersection is created by superimposing what is essentially a roundabout for bicycles over a standard vehicular intersection. Note that existing free -right turning movements have been eliminated and the median enhanced to improve pedestrian safety and comfort. Corridor Elements It is the stated goal of the City of Edina to transform France Avenue between TH 62 Crosstown and 1-495 into an attractive and distinct corridor with its own distinguishing identity that not only differentiates it from other corridors but also from other segments of France Avenue. To do this, the primary change will be the relationship between buildings and the street. In general, buildings will move closer to the street. At intersections, buildings will be adjacent to both France Avenue and the intersecting street. In locations where streets and existing buildings will remain distant, connecting plazas and generous sidewalks will encourage better pedestrian connectivity. Eventually intervening parking lots will be eliminated or at least • become less common; a landscaped buffer will separate the street from pedestrians; doorways to buildings will open to intersections or sidewalks parallel to the street. Gateway monuments would demarcate the Page 14 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS entrances to this segment of France Avenue, announcing its distinct identify as a uniquely designed and managed destination. Similar, although less pronounced identifying markers would occur where cross streets intersect France Avenue. The cross section of the corridor would also change. Lane width would be reduced to 11 feet with opposing traffic separated by a substantial planted median of 10 or more feet. Bicycles would be accommodated on France Avenue with a 5 foot bike lane in each direction. A 16 -foot buffer, which includes a planter, bikeway and planted boulevard would separate France Avenue from the sidewalk. The sidewalk would be a least seven feet running parallel to the street. Adjacent to buildings, the walk may actually be wider to accommodate outdoor civic or commercial activities. The median would be slightly bermed to reduce headlight glare and planted with, as appropriate, flowers, shrubs, and trees. The landscaped boulevard would be swaled to accommodate storm water runoff and appropriate plantings. Street and pedestrian lighting will be installed along the roadways and sidewalks. The lighting will be standardized yet unique to the corridor. Lighting of buildings, signs, and places of outdoor gathering will be coordinated to establish an overarching architectural identity for the corridor. Wayfinding for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists will need to be installed to facilitate active - transportation. For motorists, this may include active messages, particularly for events, seasonal information, and directions to and the availability of parking facilities. For bicyclists, it may be providing direction to major nearby destinations and for pedestrians, kiosk bulletin boards providing room for announcements of public events. I.: -- �' 21 � M Distinctive gateway monuments not only define the entrances to a corridor but presage the character of the whole district, inviting participation and providing an identity to an iconic street in a vibrant community. Such monuments can be destinations themselves, provide community and historical information, and must be attractive throughout the day and year. Pedestrian Elements The primary attribute of the pedestrian realm will be the sidewalk itself. The walk will be concrete with a scoring pattern unique to the corridor. The preference will be to have buildings abut the sidewalk. It will be a standard seven foot width with an additional 18 -inch shy distance next to buildings to allow for fagade projections and fenestrations. The walk may be widened to accommodate future commercial uses, such as restaurant patios and sidewalk cafes, or even developed into small plazas or pocket parks in coordination with future private development. The concept is to create opportunities for people to interact. Additional pedestrian amenities, such as benches, tables, arbors, or drinking fountains may be included. The buffer between the sidewalk and the street is critical in developing the pedestrian realm. The buffer will provide an area for trees, shrubs, and flowers. Where space is available, a 16 foot buffer planted with large trees in double staggered rows would be preferred. In locations where there is insufficient space Sfor a wide buffer, planter boxes filled with shrubs and flowers will provide separation between moving traffic and strolling people. Page 15 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS The scale of the plantings will be massive or perfuse to visually complement the width of the street and the height of adjacent buildings. In particular large distinctive street trees, primarily deciduous, will enclose the sidewalk and street while providing a pedestrian scale space and detailing beneath the • canopy, creating a safe enclosure for people moving through the corridor on foot. Shrubs and flowers will provide interesting details to pedestrians. M r� ..... '"" 1, P 30M By working with private developers, the pedestrian realm can become a place for social interaction. Providing amenities that make it comfortable for people to walk and congregate is essential. Explicitely marking where pedestrians are located and providing a wayfinding system increases pedestrian safety and encourages people to walk. is Bike Elements Bicycles will be accommodated along France Avenue with two dedicated lanes on the street moving in the same direction as motorized traffic. The preferred width is five feet. At intersections, a specially adopted layout, essentially a roundabout for moving bicyclists safely through traffic will be accommodated. Left turns will be accommodated through the roundabout rather than crossing traffic over to a left turn lane. Bike lanes will be separated from lanes for motorized traffic by a wide curb. At intersections, bike lanes will be color -coded. Accommodating bicycle parking will be critical in the corridor. Parking by building entrances, outdoor public gathering spots, and at transit nodes will need to be coordinated with private development. In addition, "on -street" bicycle rental vending may become an option in the area and will need to be accommodated off of France Avenue and other intersecting streets. It will be critical that the location of bicycle lanes, parking, and rental not interfere with pedestrian movement. Coordination with developers may be required. • Page 16 of 30 C: Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Edina has designated Frnace Avenue as a bike route. Although, given various alternatives, it will probably be primarily used by more experienced, it must be designed in a way that will provide safety for all users. The introduction of the bicycle roundabout superimposed over a standard intersection and improved signal detection methods will improve markedly safety at a location where most vehicular -bicycle accidents occur. Transit Elements Coordination with transit providers will be essential for transforming France Avenue into a complete street. Linking the sidewalk's pedestrian system with the streets' transit system will require site-specific is coordination. Providing a corridor -specific transit shelter at all transit stops will encourage use of the transit system. Coordinating vending machines for newspapers or at a minimum defining their locations will benefit the appearance of the corridor. The placement of transit shelters must not interfere with pedestrian or bicycle movement. Page 17 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS The location and design of transit shelters can provide an iconic element for the corridor. A seamless transition from transit to bicycling and walking is critical for establishing a complete street. Transit Coordination The project design team met with Kristin Thompson, Brad Smith and Cindy Harper of Metro Transit. We discussed the project and shared the proposed improvements. The members of Metro Transit were supportive of the proposed improvements including removing cyclists from the travel portion of the roadway, and did not foresee any issues with the existing bus routes and stops, and agreed that the improvements would be a major upgrade for Metro Transit. C7 We discussed the desire to possibly add bus shelters. They are going to provide details on their standard bus shelters and the standard concrete pad. They informed the design team that bus shelters are added only if there are 25 boardings at the bus stop. If the ridership numbers were not up to the set amount, they would not maintain or construct the shelter. However, the City could put up a shelter of their choosing at • the City's cost. It was not anticipated that any of the bus stop locations or routes would change in the future. Given the current northbound condition near Hazelton and 72nd Street, where the bus stop is at a location without a sidewalk, they would consider relocating these to a location that has more room. It is proposed to add a sidewalk in this location, but a problem with snow removal still exists given the proximity to the existing retaining wall. One option to provide additional space for the bus stop would be removing the dedicated right turn lane. They do not like to place bus stops adjacent to right turn lanes given the difficulty of entering back into traffic. Intersection Elements Bikeway crossings will be a distinct colored -concrete to differentiate them from the roadway. A traditional zebra -striping crosswalk with stop bars will provide the best safety measures for pedestrians. A wide median, at least 10 feet, will create a pedestrian refuge. The median should extend beyond the crosswalk into the intersection to provide an additional buffer for stranded pedestrians. Universal accessibility standards will be applied to curb cut locations and design. Traffic Signal Elements The appearance of traffic signals, poles, and masts will be coordinated with lighting fixtures and standards. American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards will be applied to all traffic signal elements. Video, pressure plate, or other detection methods will be used to identify if a pedestrian or bicyclist is approaching or in a crossing and the cycle times adjusted to allow sufficient time for crossing and turning movements. Turning movements for cars will be delayed if the presence of a pedestrian or bicyclist is detected. A manual override system will be provided for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 0 Page 18 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS The design of the functional aspects of intersection and traffic signal elements will reinforce the aesthetic and urban design characteristics of the corridor by providing safety and comfort to pedestrians and bicyclists. 6. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES • Three primary intersection options were prepared and evaluated. Taking into consideration the design elements discussed in the previous section. Each option is discussed below with their advantages and disadvantages, Intersection Option 1 - Seperated Bike/Pedestian Lanes with Blvd This option provides a oneway off-road bike lane separated by a boulevard and a elevated pedestrian sidewalk also separated from the bike lane. At the intersections the bikes would be separated in there own crossing using a modification of the "Dutch" design. Figures 8a — 8c shows Option 1 at each intersection. Advantages: Aesthetically pleasing Provides buffer to pedestrians and bikes Easily continued concept along corridor Biscuits allow for better sight distance for bikes and vehicles Widened Median allows for refuge island for pedestrians Increased buffer in corners for pedestrians Biscuits allow for signal pole placement Decreased distance for pedestrians and bikes to cross Safer crossing for pedestrian and bicyclists. Disadvantages Requires increased RNV, especially in corners • Pedestrians need to wait further back behind bike lane Additional maintenance for snow removal Page 19 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS L 1�`• �. i. .f r71 i 3. i? 1i Figure 8a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 1 - - _.. h AL Figure 8b. France Ave at 701h Street Option 1 1 71j, 't r� 4• Figure 8c. France Ave at 66th Street Option 1 Page 20 of 30 • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS 0 Intersection Option 2 — Seperated Bike/Pedestrian Lanes with no Blvd 11 • This option provides a off-road bike lane with no boulevard and a elevated pedestrian sidewalk separated from the bike lane. At the intersections the bikes would be separated in there own crossing using a modification of the "Dutch" design. Figures 9a — 9c shows Option 2 at each intersection. Advantages Provides buffer for pedestrians and bikes Biscuits allow for better sight distance for bikes and vehicles Wider median allows for refuge island for pedestrians Increased buffer at corners for pedestrians Biscuits allow for signal pole placement Decreased distance for pedestrians and bikes to cross Not as much R/W required as Option 1 Disadvantages Requires more R/W than Option 3 Pedestrians need to wait further back behind bike lane Additional maintenance for snow removal Barrier curbs are susceptible to damage from vehicles and snow plows r �Y Figure 9a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 2 Srl Page 21 of 30 t r �Y Figure 9a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 2 Srl Page 21 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Af - - - - I - - - - - - Ail Figure 9b. France Ave at 70th Street Option 2 �. 4V 44 Nil TIt S • fit.. � - •: �9 !• � Figure 9c. France Ave at 66th Street Option 2 Intersection Option 3 — On Road Bike Lane with Sidewalk This option provides a standard on -road bike lane. A pedestrian sidewalk is provided with a boulevard between the roadway and sidewalk. At the intersections the bikes and pedestrians would be in the same crosswalk facility. Figures 10a —10c shows Option 3 at each intersection. Advantages: Would require minimal to no additional R/W Is the accepted way to handle bike lanes at intersections Widen median allows for refuge island for pedestrians Disadvantages Increases the width to cross for pedestrians Chance for right hook crash on thru-right vehicle movements and weaving crashes for designated right turn movements Is not aesthetically pleasing Page 22 of 30 r Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Most cyclists would not feel comfortable riding along France Ave with 3+ lanes in and speeds in excess of 40 mph Provides no buffer for pedestrians Would require widening along entire France corridor for future expansion V- � „ , ."t tet_ •-� ri t 41 Figure 10a. France Ave at 76th Street Option 3 Y .s.; A Figure 10b. France Ave at 70th Street Option 3 Page 23 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS • 11 4f 00 -� ' xa I � Figure 10c. France Ave at 66th Street Option 3 Other Intersection Design Options Considered Other intersection design options were also considered but were determine to be not feasible because they would physically fit the France Avenue situation or would create a significant impact to adjacent property. These options included: • Continuous flow intersection • Michigan left turns • Grade separated cross street Corridor / Sidewalk Connection Options Three sidewalk connection options were considered for completing the gaps in the sidewalks on the east side of France Avenue including: • Continuing the preferred alternative the entire length. • Continuing the preferred alternative the entire length except at loctions were there were impacts to property other than just right of way. • Making only sidewalk connections without any significant right of way impacts. 7. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Option 1, separated pedestrian/bike lanes with boulevards is the recommended option bassed on feedback from the Stakeholders group. Figures 11a — 11c shows the recommended improvements for the entire corridor. The figures also show the other intersections where similar designs could be implemented in the future. Extension of the bike lanes along with filling in the missing sidewalk segments is also planned. The exception to this would be located between 72nd Street and Hazelton Road where only the sidewalk will be installed due to the existing retaining wall. �1 Page 24 of 30 r Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS # • .` 7 E ti -74 cz Lr' 1 • y-' i '�.":. �t�`4 i.: ».»� .. y~ �. � :+•+c,++> . - .a ... f tib„ 't YW+ Figure 11a. France Ave Preferred Alternative ' 4-1 0 rt •L s GII s o � o +�- ��ry,: -t d . ;Y E•-.;.� t �I ws3M � �: � s9 . � � t, ��` � Figure 11 b. France Ave Preferred Alternative Page 25 of 30 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS N•, 1. 41 !bi7t-, d *, # F i + I j .♦ �� r1 � ��i. 4ii V CD Figure 11 c. France Ave Preferred Alternative The proposed typical section is shown in Figure 12 and includes the following: • Reducing the vehicle lanes to the minimum State Aid requirements • Widening the center median to a 10' width • A 6' landscaped boulevard • A 5' oneway bike lane with a 2' clear zone • A 3' evaluated planter between he bike lane and sidewalk • A 7' sidewalk France Avenue and Option 1 - Section A - A r T 7 7 S r 7 1P +P n' 10 L 10 N• 1,• 11• 11' 7 a 6 7 7 T N'S1� eW Lil+b TTN Linc T?- LM TTN La Mallin LTL TTN Li TTN Li TNu L— RTI. LiM• am* V4* Leer KiOib Li1N . Allow 4AMW r :,4 - -- a — En— BWM�Sbq' Bu1M�44p' Proposed France Avenue Section (South Leg of Intersection) Figure 12. France Ave Preferred Alternative Typical Section A detail of a typical intersection corner showing the location of the interaction of the pedestrian and bike lanes, the loction of the ADA ramps and location of areas where additional landscaping could occur is shown in Figure 13. Page 26 of 30 • • 0 i• 0 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Figure 13. France Ave Preferred Alternative Intersection Detail The details of how the bike lane would enter and exit from France Avenue is shown in Figure 14 Page 27 of 30 JwA y� gfy I � M l!� �. 1;40 STRIPEDEDTAPER, TO y END ON -STREET BIKE UTNE Awk f $ v. . 4 p two $.. 5' BIKE LANE ADJACENT. TO STREET'; Pear�►{ i#t BIKE LANE E%IT A st „ f .Witt Page 27 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS BIKE LANE ENTRAN SAW Figure 14. France Ave Preferred Alternative Entry/Exit Detail The detail of how a transit stop would be accessed across the bike lane is shown in Figure 15. CROSSWALK Figure 15. France Ave Preferred Alternative Transit Stop Detail 8. RIGHT-OF-WAY & EASEMENTS Page 28 of 30 • 7 • Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Based on the preferred alternative right of way and tempory construction easments will be required. 76th Street: Perm R/W = 18,000 sf T/E = 15,000 sf 70th Street: Perm R/W = 8900 sf T/E = 7300 sf 66th Street Perm R/W = 8500 sf T/E = 7600 sf Sidewalk Connection Areas Perm R/W = 11,600 sf T/E = 5100 sf Total Preferred Alternative Perm R/W = 47,000 sf T/E = 35,000 sf 9. PROJECT COSTS 76th : Construction = $968,000, R/W = $990,000 • 701h: Construction = $912,000, R/W = $480,000 66th: Construction = $937,000, R/W = $490,000 Total Intersection Cost = $2,817,000, R/W = $1,960,000 Sidewalk Connection Const Cost = $1,831,000, R/W = $2,523,000 Total Construction = $4,648,000, Total R/W = $4,483,000 10. FUNDING If the preferred alternative would be construted the entire length including adjacent to Byerlys and Macys the total cost would increase to $10,308,000. If only the Sidewalk connections were made and with no RNV needed outside the intersections the total project cost would decrease to $5,027,000. Funding for the project is currently allocated using the following funding sources. $1.0 million in Federal TE funding $1.0 million in matching Southdale Area TIF funding The remaining funding can be provided using additional Southdale Area TIF funding, State Aid funding or other local funding sources. 11. FEASIBILTY 12. PROJECT SCHEDULE Page 29 of 30 Feasibility Study FRANCE AVENUE INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS Appendix: The project is on a very aggressive schedule to meet the sunset extension date of March 31St, 2013.The following general schedule is anticipated. A • detail schedule is included in the Appendix. Upcoming Meetings Edina Transportation Commission July 9th, 2012 Edina City Council July 17th, 2012 MnDOT Federal Project Process Project Development April — December 2012 Project Memorandum October 2012 Right of Way December 2012 Detail Design August 2012 — March 2013 Final Approval (City, County, MnDOT) March 2013 Begin Construction Summer 2013 Edina Comprehensive Plan Figure 7-10 Sidewalk Facilities Edina Comprehensive Plan Figure 7-11 Bike Facilitiies Stakeholders Meeting #1 minutes Stakeholders Meeting #2 minutes Met Council comment Summary Level of Service summary Tables Crash investigation Summary Table Estimated Cost Summary Detail Project Schedule 0 Page 30 of 30 0 15i 62 Jaa OR 10111 low kk1s1.1Iil ME ►:.. o . ff 21 494 17 kL 31 • In attendance: France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements S.P. 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #1 Meeting Minutes 5/31/2012 City of Edina Public Works Building Surya Iyer ....................................Edina Transportation Commission Tom LaForce................................Edina Transportation Commission Katherine Bass.............................Edina Transportation Commission Jennifer Janovy............................Edina Transportation Commission Marty Mathis ..................................................Bike Edina Task Force Alice Hulbert ...................................................Bike Edina Task Force SaraMaaske.........................................................................do.town KarenNikolai......................................................... Hennepin County CaryTeague................................................................... City of Edina Gene Persha.............................................................. Edina Resident Tom Johnson......................................................... Hennepin County Jonathan Vlaming......................................Three Rivers Park District Robyn Anderson ................................................ City of Bloomington Reuben Collins ..................................................... WSB & Associates Chuck Rickart........................................................ WSB & Associates Andrew Plowman ................................................. WSB & Associates CraigChurchward........................................................................ LHB WayneHoule................................................................. City of Edina Meeting Start Time 7:00 PM I. INTRODUCTIONS Houle led group introductions. II. PRESENTATION Houle Provided Background information, History, and Project Foundation Discussion: Mathis noted that Bike Edina Task Force should be included in the list of project stakeholders. Churchward presented information about project goals, objectives and direction. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements SP 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes Page 1 Rickart presented information about traffic volumes, crash data, and background data. Discussion: LaForce asked a question about where the traffic volumes were collected. Rickart noted that County has specific locations where they place counters on regular intervals. Bass asked if the lower crash rates observed at the intersections was a reflection of people not wanting to cross France Avenue. Rickart clarified that the data represented vehicle crash rates and that we do not have good data regarding the number of bikes or pedestrians traveling along the corridor. Rickart presented information regarding the roadway typical sections. Churchward presented information about urban design elements such as parking, corner radius, bollards, ped ramps, landscaping, medians, etc. He mentioned the important distinction between horizontal and vertical elements. Discussion: Mathis commented about the poor visibility of salmon colored crosswalks and the higher visibility associated with zebra stripe crosswalks. Johnson noted that Hennepin County re -stripes most roadways annually, but that often the County asks Cities to maintain crosswalks. Churchward presented information about the impact of sidewalk width on pedestrian comfort, potential crosswalk improvements, and the impact of design elements on placemaking. He mentioned the importance of details such as pedestrian scale lighting, natural foliage and creating barriers between motorists and pedestrians. VIDEO: Dutch Bike Lane Corner Enhancements Churchward invited meeting attendees to share ideas. Discussion: LaForce asked what the speed limit was and if we know what typical speeds are. Johnson responded that the speed limit is 40 mph, and noted that the frequent signals along the corridor may keep drivers from reaching higher top speeds. Others indicated that they felt speeds were often higher than 40 mph. Hulbert mentioned the need for gateways at either end of the corridor and a need to limit sight lines along the corridor to encourage drivers to slow down. Persha commented about the poor state of the bus stops at Gallagher. There are poor pedestrian connections to the stops. Peds often get splashed by water from France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 2 puddles in the road as they wait for buses. The shelters are in poor condition and unsightly. He noted that smaller street widths would really enhance the corridor. Bass commented that it is important to remember and convey the message that people live on France Avenue. It is an existing neighborhood. More residential development is anticipated. It's not just a commercial corridor. She mentioned that SWLRT will skip Edina and that other communities will benefit from the investment. Edina needs to work hard to give people a reason to continue coming to Edina if it is to compete. Churchward commented on the need to create street life, the need to provide for a pedestrian "experience", the need to create the ability for people to "park once" Janovy asked what the available space was for sidewalks along the corridor, and how we will deal with grade issues along the east side of the corridor. Teague responded that the existing ROW varies along the corridor, and that opportunities to develop sidewalks and obtain ROW occur as parcels redevelop. Bass asked if the city has any ordinances or codes that require buildings to architecturally engage the street. Teague responded that the city has some tools they can use to persuade developers, but the tools are not very strong and the city • can not require it at this time. Vlaming mentioned a need to understand where motorists are coming from and going, and thought that many of them are trying to avoid TH-100. He noted that 50th & France works well because it is a small geographic area. France Avenue is a much longer corridor, so he recommended that this study focus heavily on developing "nodes". The existing landscape is dominated by parking lots, but it has great potential. He noted that Three Rivers Park District has a very strong interest in enhancing the Gallagher Drive intersection and hoped there would be a way to include it in the study. • Persha noted that France Avenue is an unpleasant pedestrian environment and that strolling along the corridor is not a realistic objective. We should focus on moving people across France rather than along France. He reiterated a need for gateways and for a "naming" strategy for the area. Vlaming noted that Bloomington has had success naming areas (such as South Loop) Hulbert noted that 50th & France has been a successful commercial node because a conscious decision was made to narrow the roadways to create a pleasant pedestrian feeling. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 3 Warning mentioned the need to find commercial businesses that cater to the needs • of the local residents rather than meeting regional needs. Hulbert asked if MnDOT would be open to lane width reductions. Johnson responded that the county was open to the idea, but that there are challenges relating to concrete joints that will need to be addressed. Rickart presented information regarding design constraints, LOS expectations, design standards, funding limitations, and schedule constraints that must be considered. Discussion: Mathis asked how much funding was available. Houle responded that about $2 million is available for the project including the federal funding and the local match. Persha mentioned the need to engage more citizens in the process now or else they will be reactive later. He noted a need to train drivers to be more sensitive to pedestrians, and noted that California has done a good job with this and with marking crosswalks. He has never observed a parent with children trying to cross the roadway because it is not safe. Jenovy reiterate that the TE funding source is for specific intersection improvements. She asked about the potential for bike lanes along France Avenue. Rickart responded that they are not included in the study, but there is a need to ensure that the outcome of this study does not preclude them later. Houle pointed out that France is not on the County bike plan, but there is still potential for cyclists to use France to feed other routes. Johnson reiterated that the grant funding will only pay for certain items and stated the importance of communicating to the public exactly what items are eligible for inclusion in the project. Jenovy mentioned that the City may have access to additional funding sources, and mentioned the Centennial Lakes TIF district. Rickart mentioned the importance of sticking to the project schedule, which will also limit the realistic possibilities. Churchward agreed that this project and study should be viewed as a catalyst for many rounds of potential future improvements. Hulbert mentioned a desire for planter boxes to create a physical separation from vehicles. • Jenovy stated the need for an "Edina Brand". France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 4 • Nikolai mentioned the importance of placemaking and the need to include land -use planning in this study process. • Meeting Concluded at 9:00 PM. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #1 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 5 I] In attendance: France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements S.P. 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Meeting Minutes 6/26/2012 City of Edina Public Works Building Ann Braden .................................Edina Transportation Commission Courtney Whited .........................Edina Transportation Commission Tom LaForce................................Edina Transportation Commission Jennifer Janovy............................Edina Transportation Commission Arlene Forrest ....................................... Edina Planning Commission Mike Fischer ................................ Edina Planning Commission / LHB Joni Bennett..........................................................Edina City Council Karen Nikolai......................................................... Hennepin County Tom Johnson......................................................... Hennepin County Amy Gurski................................................Three Rivers Park District • Gene Persha.............................................................. Edina Resident Sherry Hastings ................................................Business Community Laurie VanDalen ...............................................Business Community Robyn Anderson ................................................ City of Bloomington Reuben Collins ..................................................... WSB & Associates Chuck Rickart........................................................ WSB & Associates Andrew Plowman ................................................. WSB & Associates CraigChurchward........................................................................ LHB Wayne Houle................................................................. City of Edina CaryTeague................................................................... City of Edina SteveSletten................................................................. City of Edina Meeting Start Time 7:00 PM I. INTRODUCTIONS Houle led group introductions. II. PRESENTATION Houle presented a recap of the last stakeholder meeting and presented an overview of • the agenda for further discussion. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 1 Houle played the Dutch Intersection Design video. • Rickart and Churchward presented information establishing project objectives and context. Rickart presented information related to the design process, project expectations, and traffic operations. He presented information about the traffic analysis completed for several options, including removing free -right -turns, eliminating a lane on France Ave, and removing dual -left -turns on side streets. Discussion: Braden asked if the options considered were evaluated as independent options, or as incremental options. Rickart indicated that all scenarios assumed that free -right -turns would be removed, but that the other options were considered independently. Johnson indicated that Hennepin County has established LOS D as the standard, and that this project would be evaluated relative to that standard. Rickart presented graphics and explanations about Option 1. • Discussion: Nikolai asked a question about where the stop bar will be located relative to the crosswalk and the bike lane. She stressed the importance of having the stop bar located away from the crosswalk to enhance safety. Rickart responded that there would likely be 1' separation between the crosswalk and the stop line, and that the stop line is typically 2' wide for a total separation of 3'. Anderson asked for clarification about the scope of the project and whether the proposed bike lanes were intersection treatments only or for the whole France Ave corridor. Rickart confirmed that the proposed improvements are for intersections only. Houle indicated that this project is viewed as a catalyst project setting the stage for future improvements along the corridor. Fischer asked if we knew how much ROW we were gaining by implementing narrower lanes, and if that gain eliminated the need for substantial ROW takings. Rickart responded that we were gaining a few feet by using narrower lanes, but we are also proposing wider medians, so the proposed wider bike lanes and sidewalks will require additional ROW. Anderson asked whether right -turn -on -red would be permitted at this location. • Rickart responded that the design team is still looking at this and a decision has not been made. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 2 Persha asked about how bus stops would be handled at these intersections. Rickart • stated that there aren't any bus stops at any of the intersections that would be impacted, however, enhancements are planned for some of the bus stops along the east side of France with the construction of the sidewalk. Churchward presented.conceptual renderings of the proposed improvements and provided information about the importance of vertical elements and textures for bike/ped facilities. Discussion: Hastings commented that she liked the renderings, and stated that alternate textures are important for motorists as well to signal that they are entering a different type of space. VanDalen asked for clarification about the cost of the project and the anticipated funding source. Houle Responded that the total project cost is about $2 million. $1 million will be provided by the federal government, and $1 million will come from the TIF district. Rickart presented information about Options 2 and 3 and pointed out operations characteristics of each. • Discussion: Hastings asked if the median was wide enough to be a safe haven for pedestrians. Rickart responded that the median was designed to be 10' wide and about 13' long, which should provide a comfortable space for pedestrians. • VanDalen commented on the time and disruption the current work Hennepin County has been doing on France Avenue and asked if this project was going to have to replace some of the work they are doing now. Houle responded that the work Hennepin County is doing is routine maintenance, and that some of these intersection improvements would replace areas they are working on now. Sletten asked if the medians would have a different look or texture than the rest of the crosswalk area. Churchward responded that this decision has not been made yet, but that medians with different texture might enhance the feeling of safety for pedestrians. Nikoli asked for clarification on whether the sidewalks along the east side of France were included in this project. Rickart replied that they would be included in this project. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes SP 120-020-037 Page 3 Houle stated that maintenance of the sidewalks and trails, including snow removal, would be a city responsibility. The city already maintains the sidewalks here and has the equipment necessary to do so. Persha commented that the two traffic signals between 66th and 69th are dangerous. There are no crosswalks, but people dart across anyway. Anderson commented that the proposed improvements would help establish a gateway effect to help people recognize pedestrians. Rickart presented information relating to the upcoming steps in the process, including MnDOTs functional group reviews and scheduling. Houle invited any additional questions. Discussion: Whited asked if there was concern about drivers choosing to use York Avenue instead if the proposed improvements resulted in slower operating speeds. Houle responded that the City has been trying to encourage people to choose York Avenue for several years because it is viewed as being underutilized, so if this project displaces traffic, it could be a benefit. Whited asked if the city was reaching out to existing businesses to help encourage things like providing bike racks. Teague responded that the city has ordinances in place that requires any new construction to provide a minimum number of bike parking spaces, but that there are no tools to make existing businesses provide bike parking. Fischer commented that it was extremely important for the City to establish a firm vision for the corridor so that the City can negotiate with property owners as they want to redevelop. He commented that developers are typically very willing to provide streetscape elements when there is an established vision. Houle stated that one outcome of the stakeholder meeting was to receive direction from the stakeholders about any preferences that stakeholders had for any of the options. Hastings noted that she preferred Option 1 because it provided the greatest level of separation between the roadway, bike lanes, and the sidewalk. Fischer agreed that the separation between the modes is an attractive element of Option 1. Anderson asked if there were concerns about the visibility of cyclists if a planted strip was between motorists and cyclists. Churchward responded that plantings would either be very low, or else tree trunks are only momentary disruptions. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements SP 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes Page 4 s � a • Ll • Braden asked if this solution had been implemented anywhere else in the Metro area where it could be viewed. Houle answered that this solution is new and has not been implemented elsewhere in the Metro. Bennett commented that it seemed like the proposed options are all trying to squeeze bike facilities along a roadway that cyclists don't often use, and questioned whether the space would be better used for pedestrians. She expressed concern that the proposed sidewalks were not wide enough or substantial enough to provide a top pedestrian experience, and questioned whether the bike facilities are a good use of funds in this location. She expressed an interest in seeing additional vertical elements to separate pedestrians from motorists, and referenced her experiences in New York and Santa Barbara. Houle responded that the design process is ongoing, and that additional vertical elements will be considered in the future. lanovy asked if the proposed sidewalk width was known and whether there would be a boulevard. Rickart responded that the desired width is 8' and that a boulevard will be provided every place where possible. Forrest asked if there were known bike/ped counts along France Avenue. Anderson commented that the do.town initiative will be doing bike/ped counts. Nikoli responded that planning journals have reported that once cities have implemented high-quality facilities, the bike/ped counts have increased dramatically. Bennett reiterated her previous comment and clarified that she is very supportive of bicycle facilities. However, she noted that if accomplishing the objective of providing bike lanes along France Avenue results in suboptimal pedestrian space, she would prefer to see the bike facilities removed to better accommodate pedestrians. Houle summarized the meeting by asking for confirmation that the consensus of the group was that Option 1 is the preferred alternative moving forward, with special attention to ensure that appropriate vertical elements are used to provide a top -tier pedestrian experience. The group confirmed his summary. Meeting Concluded at 9:00 PM. France Avenue Pedestrian Improvements SP 120-020-037 Stakeholder Meeting #2 Minutes Page 5 1, 0 0 I] • 0 CM a) o oc a) w CD a) cu 0) m a) o 5 c a U2 z 6 O O c T N O a) a) Q c m 7 0 p_ a) .O O E O p_ a E 9 c O C a E U CL m r 0 0) m O m N E 0 m E c o D a m a) U U) -0 () m _ N "O 0 a) n .0 E Cp 0) C a LL -O >' O OU L U) U Co 7 O L N .L- y m L a) 0 ~ L ,0 O N Z m E C a '( co N (0 '� M a) O p a C '0 0 C O C = O >y Q L co U E m e Q a) y L E U) a) Y U w C cO _a)c m0 o ate' y a)2o aoa)m0 3 L C U C U) a) U) 'p N 3 a) T w O N C _0 m U (D O m U) c T ..a) N �_ °@ Y m O) E a) Q)(0 O N a) >' U U) 'O Y@ c C O ,,0„ 0 0 .0 U) a) m O> O' m L L �>-, o a) in m U U U V) E T Y U) O) O " .2 U w cn L 41 O "O 7 m a '0 CI a) 0 m c o L °) 0 to a) a) 3 0 o -a c m-55 cn °oCL C: b) m m �° N c c 3 @ '� E m Ln > r N m 0 U) O O c CL Y '� N C� 6 L m 0� >a) -� U N� N O� >1 a) O` >> 3 I- > C A > m 2 .L.. L L O m .L.. N N N ) N C) N C) N N N ti N N i0 p U o Q L o C-0 Q) C o aa) w° m 0 3 o > U) ° m U E 4) `) S _ p E m .6) a) U O C O C rL O 7 7 Ll �' L O U_0 N E U) �> a 'p o `moo m O O a) O) U E m o° LT >+ C O c — E o c 3-0 O` m ° > -0 a-� .- U o U U) m C> m O S� m _ Y E E y E m o) m m@ E -°a Lav m Ol c-• a) Q O L - C U) O U) O a) c° _O .cn m T c m cn ; E m @ a a) E e2 Co cn c Y ° o E f a) ° o c c E .Y c > °o o U a) - a _ ° a) > a) po o � a) m° E o a c LL a) °> (D" 0> m a°i U 0) m c c U) 41 'O a) p ani 7= U c m m N 7 a) O N > U) L L m C >i U) -o N E C m m "O 0 ° O .Q) m O p) w E p_ a) 0 0 (0 m p 7_ '� U N Q) p o C E O C a L U 0 T .` °- a) a) C U) C Y c O U (� U '� O C •' C 00 a) Y 'D m [SII ,D a) L C L m - al a) « T m- m �7 _m 0 y d O U m : T m _ .O . U) > C N mC 0.m a) cc. � +o LE 2 5 ° m oo U) ` a) °) m a) co m O c a3 m al o ) ° Y m j, E c (n - — _L OU 'o a 4) N c LZ) L O 0 3 C (1) n.. _. (n p aO X C o — c O O) E c U v a) E 4 -O c LO rn Co N E O N d a C O) O C c C C Ocm d m d N a m C 0 U0) c Y _0 _ m m cn U! L. L L (n C C C Tp U U O U 7 O U c O Q _ a) a`> E c a) Q W m 3: N N a) (1) m N E m in C c Q 0 z V) x W s O r N O O O m N O N C � N 7 ~ a) XM a 7 ) LO O It V N M co CSO r co cm c _m a) y O N a O d N W co (O V (O (o d co m V M (n O N r N M r CO 7 0 L coXm O r m c0 W m O N W N d' r m O N N N N M (n W c0 W N m N r O CO M N O m w N M O m V m O Ln O m m r M (O N N N O N m N r N 00 N M N N (O m N r O M a V M M ((� N ` O 7 E F N a 3 d O m m m W In r m r O O o0 r m m m O l0 N l0 M N O tf7 M m N (OD M O r r (O (ND W V O (D O m V x m m O n n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n n > o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N M N M O M O N CD LO N N N M O (O In m N N 0D (O O m N R N N M O _0 et (O m O N (O V' O N 7 N O 7 (O O N d � C 41 m 7 r N O O O N O 7 V N N r (D r M M (O (O O a0 N u7 N (17 (n m (O r (D _, N M CO m d m r r .2 � � r r r r � J m a m d m 00 CO m N r W W (O a0 N M m r O N M O N O O N M m N m V CO (nM r m Ln (O M W m O co CO V M r r m m m m m m m m m m m m G z m w z rn w z;z3: 0 w z 3 w w z (n w z3: (n w z� m w a p U U U m ¢ U U U A V i J N V A ON N co r00 N Cl) M N t O U U U m w U O m U U m U m O a m ¢ U U U U U U U U a d � O � V 0 J O- fA N M N N M m O Lo N O Ln r 't:' d' m O m W V r m m d'00 7 V O NN N M N V (n N N M N V N M (O M N M N V N '7 N V N c0 N V ¢¢ m a¢ a a m m U v a m a m a m¢ a a m m m m a¢ m a a m a dE 2> �- U o m o m U w m o U o m o a o a a¢ a U o U o U o U w U o U w o O m � y a J w o o w o w w w o U w o w o w o w 0 w o w w o w w w w w w w w J t M c0 Lo m (n N N N (0 T d' m V -,t (D V m m V N r c0 00 00 A = L W of d y E> 0; V N N O 7 r w V m r O m N N r (0 r r m M M N V V (f) V (0 M cr () O O CO N V N N O Co N (O V w N LO (O Co N C' N 7 CD o 0) 22S O H J M O M (O N 7 c0 m M O m N c0 m ap M V M M r m M m in r V O CD N V O r M d' O CD V (n (O c0 O (o O (n O 00 r m M (O It (o r CD V r M co (n LO m (0 r CO Cl) m r (O 7 V O c0 7 r m M V m O 00 .'t m '- N N N N m m w N W 7 r N O M (� M_ N r m (n M m m M 00 N N r m C O CO r m (n L CO V N 0 O r N r m (O M M m c0 .� 'I r M M M V M r N N p N V m N V r D m N CO N cO (1') m O N W r �n m a0 (O N m 0 r CO N N m N r m N M m w r c0 N m (O r N N cn m m O m V N in M M u F O O co m O M m M co V M M N p (O V V r r V r N p M M N M CO m M (O 7 N N t" O (D N M M O N O O 7 M 7 (V a0 m r V �_ m r (D aD 7 d' r m O M W ID N 0) 0 M d' O Lo V (O O r N .� 00 V Ln M W M CC) V m m r O m N 7 r LO CO W J (O N N O N r d. Cl) N O (1') cO (n N m N r r r co m l0 m O r N -T O m m m m m m m m m m m m m ro m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m CL C Z y w z N w Z U) w Z ?� N w z to w Z w w z y W 2 fA W 3 = C C C N > > a c > a> V a> U a> V = a d a> L) C c C C R c (e c @ E LL (D C C m U r_LL LLLL LL o2S LL LL y2 O a� otf oC v m ay �tS > N all d d O I c ; d d = rn m m L co Lm W m o' L arco c (moo r r r c_ r M M �r 00 rn jojbuoo pazileuBig paz!leuBls paziIeuBig paz!leuBig pazileu6cg pazileuaig paziIeu6ig pozileuBls • i LL ic 0)0 O O O OM O O O M O N N C 0 O r N d ~ N O M V M r N to r coN O N w L S rn a c N M d, co V r Cr N f--M N O M d' M N O co N r d a a CY N N N N O O O d O r V O m N M m O M N O M N M O O O V m M r m r r O O N O O O CO O m m O O O O M V N N M M M I� In co m r N O O N N N N CO N @ 7 a N N N N N N N CO N N M M N F o a H N O ^ N O O O NOD O N O M M 7 M r N co O N O r N O W d M E Q a a .x R N c O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cn O O O O M O O O V O O O O M N OM N O N N O OM N N N co V m (\I V N N N c � C (n a X co N r m m M r d' m O In N V N co O N M V M O M O O O O O O O O O M O O (O O N d J a co O O CO O m O N r O m lot d' N O r O r O N N r d' O m a W Z rn m CD ca m W in Z CO m to W Z N cc W 3: w W Z (q W Z fn W Z to W Z !r N t p U U U m Q U ❑ U v 01 U) a) OC OM fq M N N ~ N M — Q O U❑ U❑ m W U❑ U❑ U❑ m U m❑ Q m Q U U U U❑ U❑ U❑ U❑ U❑ L m N O > Q G t) J d N TLO CO O CO M N O O O m O M N N N V co 7 N V N co V co N m V Q d N M N V O N V N N V Q U Q m m Q Q Q m m U U ❑ Q m 11 Q m Q m Q Q Q Q U U U Q Q U Q Q m Q o E j F- U ❑ m ❑ m W U W m ❑ U ❑ m O Q ❑ Q Q Q Q U ❑ U ❑ U O U W U O U W O O d y J W W ❑ W W W W ❑ W O W W W W W J A r m O O V O m r N N V CO r O r O M V O m N N � O O N O O N O A= L N a a d E> "t O r to m N O O O d' N O O O O O V O co N d' O N O O' m N O 7 r N CO to r N M V N N V' O ® j r N d' N d' V d' r h J co O coo V (00 M N M Lo Lon V M Lo r M N V COO V O tM coO Ln N v) N co "t r M M CO (00 Ln in co V O m C O 7 N N M m M d' M r M M N O N M O M N Oco N N r m O m N V O O r d O H N I� m O M m O 7 I� M r m m m co M O a rV N N (O m N O O N O 7 O m W O m O r M N N m N r m N M O O r O Cn O O N N O m O V N to M co O O N O W m M mff-.-N MNM O O V N M 7 m O V m MOU V M CMONO ON NN r N N N O O O V Cn CnLL N M O m O O] M m m N O a'J r m O a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m W m Z m m y m W Z 3 y W Z ?: y W Z fA W Z ?j y W Z ?� fn W Z (n Z Q d m a y a c 7 c 7 C a C N 3 CcD 7 C C N Q d d N U C a a' O a' U c c0 U C O c O c i d O O c C LL — LL LL LL LL LL j p aa 06 J d d c 3 d c N to h C O cm 10 W o o w m U CL co r a) c r r co r M N t0 r rn 10.14UO3 pazi�eu6ig paz!leu6is pazpeu6is paz!leu6is paz!Ieu6is pazileu6is paznleu6l.s pazi�eu6is • w Q W U Z cr Q LL z 0 z 0 U w (D mo @ N � O O O N O _O O o O 0 C N N N M M N N C _O U) y p ~ X 7N @ N (OD mD ( (mD M W - _ O co a _ m 0 N _ :ENN co m d 7 d SN a 7 (J m V O N Ln co co M cD M N O W m V 7 u X 7 Q) 7 O N t1) co O r N N N N M o0 N m h M O N M m O N r N m V O m W N n Ln m M O N W m m (D Nm 7 t N M V N I� N V 7 W 1 N @ O E L ~ d a)N O M O C N O co O O O O N W W N to M _ (I I, -j D M r V X Q iJ co m N V N N co M N N N R d @ � N m N O O O O N O (D O N O N N O In O O 0 O O m N O O O O In O O to O N 4) V N N N M O OLO O V m O N O d O N V N O V O N d O7 C (n a p F X 7 @ d N O M m m O M M co N n M N N M X1'1 (D N N 00 W M N (n r ,. O O d � N N J dW co M M V O ~ m N r.-00 O m N n M o0 u7 V cD m M m to t� m N m V V m a 7 Q c m m m m m m m m m m m m m m ®o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Q Z N W Z N W Z 3 y W Z t N W Z N W Z N W Z y W Z N W A O r O p U ❑ U a U O U L V ; J y v y, Cl) M N M 7 m M Cl) Q = Q ❑ ❑ U ❑ U ❑ U ❑ U ❑ w ❑ U U U ❑ a m a U U U U ❑ U ❑ U ❑ U ❑ U ❑ d N O Q O a d 0 a M A d O to m M V N V V N (D 1 V M N C m N (D M 0 (D M N N M N N <} r m M m M m M O M O 7 m M (D 7 m M D N D N N 7 O 2C m❑ m m m a a a U U U w❑ a m m m a m a a a m U m U a m U a a m a d E w> H ❑ ❑ m ❑ U W U W U ❑ W ❑ U ❑ m ❑ a ¢ a ¢ U ❑ U ❑ p ❑ U ❑ U ❑ U W O O d� y M J W W ❑ w ❑ w w w ❑ U ❑ w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ W ❑ W W ❑ W W w w w W ❑ W J A a N (D m (D N coO OM m V m W cD O M (A W 7 O N m N ([) O N [D m m A C L @ d d y E Q> V H N t} n (D N N (D � M (D N N N m M d' (D (n V N N _ V N O (n O O m O 7 co O0 co co N CD M m M N V N M a V7 m N V N (D d N .@. F J N V (D V (mD coO d' ( 7 0000 M CO Ln I -O cD V ( cMD U (OO (ND (�D ID (OD co co W (�D (�D M N m (P d' Ln M m (D N d' ONO N W N O M N N N m O M t m N O N n t� ` M � M � V M � I� N .- N d F m M O 7 O m N cD N O (1') W O N CD m O LD N m h M N CO m N m N co co co � (D m 00 N � N N (D m m (� co m N M if1 M OM 7 @ ~ ID m m V M N O m d' r d' N m Cp M co M m M V C N N co 1� O O N (D M C:, m N O O O V M V N W n O V Oco M O V (� d 0CD 0 (O') (MD 7 O LL J M (t') V N O N m C' N r (n (p I� N N N d. ao W (i) m 'C (1') (17 N M m N r- r 00 m � m O n N co m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m CL Z �j w Z V] W Z �j (A W Z (n W Z �j fn W Z d1 W Z N W Z N W a d d 7 C d C d C C 3 d ] 7 C 7 C y C d C > Q U (di cdl C d V V @ C C C A U C C LL C C - R LL i LL A LL LL oD ` LL IL .6 d v uo�j otI oif O Op C ® s (0 L « « @ (p L d t0 m o N @ Q LL C C r M W Z N (O N ^ n.7 r W I� Q1 ooiiuoo paZ!IBUB!g paziIeuBag pazijeuB, pazileuBig paZoJeuBog pazoleuBig pazi�eu6ig pazi�euBig Pi EE J W m O o o N ^ o N o OM 00 o M 0 10 N 0 o 0 N C U) y w OX F7 7 m f� N 0) V N V (r O M N n Cl) (D W C � N d 7 d N ¢ � N N 7 OD COD M V M M W N N r 7 a u X 7 M (u 3 (n 0) N co O (O (n N N -zt co N O V r A (D O N M O f N (P N N O M N O N (D M co O M 0) m M O O O N V M V co N N W I-- Cn N O W M M m M O O M N N N M V O (T 00 V N a F O 7 I- �i N N (T O M COD 60i W O N N Q O Ln M coM O M V ((� N 04 V M ¢ a x m c m m O (n N M (O N M 0 O M 0 O N 0 (D 0 O N 0 N N 0 n 0 O W 0 O 0 m N 0 O 0 O 0 (n 0 O (n (D N (n V' N (n N M o O V N W O N co a O N V N O V 0 W 0 O N d O) C (n H N (U O aM0 dN' W M tf M t` a00 (r M CO V M 0) Q 7 a N N N J U7 N r ( W M W N co O O O ~ O N fD (On (MD M (On (A O V N V ¢ N `oo m m co om ac m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m l l m m m m Z (n W Z ?� w W Z 3:NI W Z 3:0 W I 1 Z W Z N W Z N W Q y C r p O U U m a U ❑ U a > J OJ d m an r N rn N r N v N - Q r O U w U 0 m w U 0 U U U 0 CO U m ❑ a m ¢U U U U ❑ ❑ U LL, U ❑ U 0 d m o > $� m J a N Q (D a (n (D (n w M v (0 o M O o O N m M N N (n V c) a0 O M LO (n (n N (n N d M f- N C Ln N N 7 N M N V N V M N Q o: a a m m a a¢ m U v U❑ a m a U a CO a a a m m 0 a a U¢ a m¢ E w> F U ❑ m ❑ m w U w m 0 U ❑ m 0 ¢ 0 ¢ a ¢ ¢ U D U D U ❑ U w U 0 U w o O Z 2 d a J w ❑ w ❑ w w w 0 U w 0 ❑ 0 w ❑ w ❑ w ❑ O w w w w w w w w w J a CoM M � N (b V 0 N N M O M N (D V O 7 In CD CO N V m � co m d d y E> CD M I� N O V O 1� O I� V N W O V N N CO O M O O m V r N � N (17 � Cl)N � a' O V (n O O N N V N V M d' N Ln O N V N O y J O O M d' O co O co O O O O O M r M V M M 1� m M O CO (n V W o M U') I- (n N (O N (n O O n O Cl CD CO O O W W O M n t` (A O M N (D O .m - OD M M O d' O f� M (A 00 co O N N V N O O O N W V f� N t� O M M N r- N U, M 61 O (Oj O N N Q1 p O N O O N O N r m lOn M c07 m V � M M M V M N N V D) r d 7 O (D O O O O O m O N (A O I� M N N (n O N M O W r O O O (n r N N to m O (n O M V O N M Cl) O M O CD O N N In O N N Zj m ~ (D O M D) V N O O V n d' N 'o O O M M (D M Lo V N N O I- O (D N O M M O CY) N O O O V M C N r D1 O O d' O C V m O M O O d' O d O CMD (07 Nm d' O LL J (f] N C:) N O N N (r CD r N N M W O N "0't (On O r V m N O `oa m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m Z m m m m W m Z m �+ m (n m W m Z m m N m w Q Z N W Z ?� w W Z 3 N W Z N W Z y d d C C d > C d > C O d 7 C O C C Q Q Q Q QU Q Q Q C C C C C i O O W C O C m LL CC O R LL IL LL U. LL a A L LL LL -a t; 06 LL 06 06m y C fn fA fA c _m m y t t0 t0 L O) t0 t O N m 0 Cg L N C C_ r M N m N r r 2 10Jlu03 paZpIeu6eg pezileu6ig paZ!Ieu6ig pazoleu6ig pazileu6ig paZiIeu6Ig paz!leu6pg paz!leu6ig qLA C) / J e § R� / u > % t � E 7 s kD n © o t ( [ o � = c E Ln kD /Ln \ 1 u n 0 E E $ E z £ 2 � 2 U k � k § > « u u c 2 L.L § \ 88 8s888 as s$$ 8 a8 8 88 88s s �88s s $ 5 88 88885 a8 888 a $8 a 88 mss a 8888 8 c � 0 Q N o N 473 V N - t� 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8. s-8 88 888 8 8 g Oi b Eo S 552� i 1211 31 P a E > y r 0 0 0 0 o z O v C y$t Z f L C K O L•1 - o s g'I 'nn n Yq P r • r: 0 o S 38 88$88 � o0 7 00^ V a 8 M $ 88 8 88 888 8 X�$ �F888 S 8 8F S 88 ae Z U in CQ C yaF ,7 G] Z $ 8 8 a � o N Y9uc�au r _ ITIT Y K a F z p 3 m X C 'C L 0 O Z 3 < z7 > 30 o mz m IS 3 <� 3 o C ti j o o F z ow u 5Cpacz u o Q �uw a o < <WWpq p <F�a� i t•o S z 0 0 OOOO u�uJJ uuf�� ((f�� = O o o 0 c; 0 m C Z ? Fz-, ° ? V F F -i L rUi� 5 o z w 7a u F < Ci y = < In n b Q vii z _ "' M N ph h F-tn n 'R8 o S 0 00 � o0 7 00^ V a M V fR • L` 0 o oS ase s5g5�� = in T CM3 s �= s� �s� s g X 55=fi�gQ 'SS Qg X-'b,�R25 Qs oS 8 � �0 5g5�� 25 S� 88g 5s5j� 'S Q=Sg�QQs Y>25S g N a U a � CR � 3z A� ww �z �a F V w W P > Fa 8g 8�� r 8 3 my Ell - Q a 5 °g =g sm 888 s os 88 8g8 s g8= g = chit e d " Z ij oz: > ppKW3u� v E z y Z C < O <> O ` O m < O h, P 0 ti F r O 3 W WW" a o z < cS, o m Z<< y 3 �d a>>> U z c c v N m v ypN o0 00 `o ° o 0oP > ZZ� a 4 u, U F "I nn n nn 'c'in 8n 1 o oS �smsg O C in T CM3 w .ii N N cn M , l FRANCE AVENUE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS S.P. 120-020-037 • CITY OF EDINA, MN SCHEDULE Based on a typical Scope of Work and the Federal funding process guidelines, the following schedule would be anticipated: Phase 1 — Project Development Notice to Proceed Phase 1............................................................................................ April 3, 2012 Data Collection / Survey In Progress Submit Agency Review Letters (MnDNR, SHPO, Etc) .................................................. Completed Meeting with Hennepin County .................................................................................... May 7, 2012 Stakeholder Group Meeting#1................................................................................... May 31, 2012 Draft PM / Prel Design Plan to City ...............................................................Week of June 4, 2012 City Staff Review Meeting...........................................................................Week of June 11, 2012 Stakeholder Group Meeting #2................................................................................... June 26, 2012 Draft PM / Prel Design Plan to Mn/DOT and County ................................................ June 29, 2012 Mn/DOT / County Review.........................................................................................Up to 6 Weeks Address Mn/DOT and County comments ........................ Weeks of August 6 and August 13, 2012 Final PM / Prel Design Plan to Mn/DOT and County ........................................... August 17, 2012 Final Mn/DOT and County Approval of PM............................................................Up to 5 Weeks PMApproved............................................................................................................October 2012 Construction Limits Determined................................................................................. June 29, 2012 • Right of Way Plan to City and County.......................................................... ............ July 13, 2012 / June / July 2012 Initial Parcel Work and Landowner Notification .......................................... May Parcel Descriptions and Exhibits....................................................................................... July 2012 Right of Way Appraisals...........................................................................August / September 2012 Right of Way Acquisition (Offers)............................................................................. October 2012 Titleand Possession................................................................................................. December 2012 R/W Certificate #1................................................................................................ December 2012 Phase 2 — Detail Design / Bidding Notice to Proceed Phase 2..................................................................August 7, 2012 Draft (60%) Final Plan Submittal to City, County and Mn/DOT..................... September 28, 2012 City Staff / County / Mn/DOT Review Meetings .................................... Week of October 8, 2012 Mn/DOT, County and City Review............................................................................Up to 8 weeks AddressComments................................................................................................. December 2012 Final Plan Submittal to Mn/DOT / County and City ......................................... December 21, 2012 Final Mn/DOT Approval of Plans.............................................................................Up to 8 Weeks FinalApproved Plans.................................................................................................March 2013 Advertisingfor Bids..............................................................................................April / May 2013 Bid Opening May 2013 Phase 3 — Construction Administration Notice to Proceed Phase 3......................................................................June 4, 2013 • Begin Construction..................................................................................................... June 15, 2013 CompleteConstruction................................................................................................October 2013 Scope of Services Page I • 0 e Edina Transportation Commission Meeting F ra n� 4 i d, e n u e T E, S.P. 120-020-037 Intersection Enhancements July 0, 2012 V„H 7/9/2012 1 7/9/2012 • 0 Background / History • 2007 Federal Grant Application for 72nd Street Pedestrian Bridge • Policy Direction — Living Streets • Scope Change and Sunset Date Extension • Proposed Project o Intersection Enhancements 66th St, 70th St and 76th St o Sidewalk Connections on east side of France Ave WH • 0 Project Foundation • Greater Southdale Area Land Use and Transp Study - 2005 • Edina Promenade Urban Design Plan - 2007 • City Comprehensive Plan — 2008 • Pedestrian Activity Study of Edina Promenade Vicinity — 2009 • France Avenue Corridor Study - 2009 WH • 0 OF Project Goals / Objectives / Direction Provide a Catalyst for France Avenue that will: • Encourage pedestrians to use enhanced intersections by creating inviting passages from surrounding areas, development along France Avenue, and buildings at the enhanced intersections. • Create inviting and comfortable parallel corridors leading to enhanced intersections with patterns and details that reflect the France Avenue corridor. • Orient buildings with primary entrances at corners to encourage pedestrian activity. • Discourage crossings at locations other than enhanced intersections. WH OF Project Goals / Objectives / Direction • Create inviting and safe waiting spaces at enhanced intersections. • Ensure safe and comfortable space is available at medians in the event a pedestrian cannot cross the entire street. • Establish continuity in design among enhanced intersections. • Create, to the degree possible, designs oriented to pedestrians within the street crossing zones that are related to, but still distinct from, the waiting spaces. • Improve transit accessibility WH 7/9/2012 3 7/9/2012 is 0 7M Project Context r RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS !R City Comprehensive%' rrrrr Plan — 2008 s' r 66th r r 66th Street r Streetscape Roadway tarldara Mnury TlwiaugMaro rrrrr M.-, _ �� R.afE.ntial Tharouahfar. .ot.nlial r �l � Ru.hwss iiw.oughexe Getaway O Loutfmna Tranalt Spurt . M1o{waaa R.91aru� , �� - t m �j —�_ Tr.il _ Q - _ `r` 0 `* rrr p'rr`I-rrrrr r< Community Design Roadway Corridor - Proposed Figure 4.5 WFi is 0 CITY OF EDINA 0 t' 9. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS !R is 0 0 CITY OF EDINA (e 1 Stakeholder s Meeting Two Meetings held with: Edina Transportation Commission Hennepin County Public Works Hennepin County Housing, Community Works and Transit MnDOT Three Rivers Park District Metro Transit Bike Edina Task Force Transit for Livable Communities Local Businesses Local Residents WH 21TY OF EDINA Existing Conditions — Sidewalks West Side 0 66th to 76th Street o Typical 6' with no Blvd 0 5' with 5' Blvd at 66th Street East Side 0 5', 76th Street to Parklawn Ave with a Blvd that varies in width 0 6', Mid -block between Parklawn Ave and Gallagher Dr 0 5', 175' south of 66th Street to the north. CR 7/9/2012 5 7/9/2012 0 0 0 I DIN Existing Street Typical Sections Existing Conditions — Transit -MMIL ANIL AMW • 5 Primary Routes — 6, 578, 579,587 and 684 (North Leg of Intersection) I Ll 1rr.z T-IZL-- Fw�— �*� .tri a��rt jr,; t- T saes � � �"`� � �� r (West Leg of Intersection) V rl TV IL 89th Street is 7s J 70th Siret street J7 iA" CR 0 0 0 I DIN Existing Street Typical Sections France Avenue and 76th Street Intersection -MMIL ANIL AMW Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) I Ll 1rr.z T-IZL-- Fw�— AM& M Existing 76th Street Section (West Leg of Intersection) R 0 0 0 0 Existing Street Typical Sections France Avenue and 70th Street Intersection t�M Tvn Lvr �in�L{uwMu'w» 1 L��yTw��Vrw YeJ. ,tivu Y� +..Lr 'tru�Srr ja ifu" ■ y 1 1" " Irl_ Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) t.v T.�•� Wre I 11w lsfs NM U T. Lena. IM Lw t4 T�.m lx Existing 70th Street Section (EAST Leg of Intersection) • OF / Existing Street Typical Sections France Avenue and 66th Street Intersection t'.5' fI.3 t2 •I" 65' :•3 XI Ttrv�K'l. T�ry Wn+ Ttau Lnu L. he+Lan. Rlw:. ..�„taa i T•tv tva iT :.a ar► �6►, ,�, ,gra Existing France Avenue Section (North Leg of Intersection) r yNt�2'..c��.�� Existing 66th Street Section (East Leg of Intersection) 0 CR CR 7/9/2012 7 7/9/2012 • 0 CITY OF EDINA Corridor Analysis — Traffic Volumes Existing Traffic Volumes • France Avenue Traffic has Decreased 2009 Counts — 26,000 vpd to 28,500 vpd MnDOT Metro Rate District 2011 Counts — 24,300 vpd to 27,800 vpd Property Total Fatalities Injuries Damage Pedestrians Cyclists Only • 761h Street — 8,000 vpd to 9,100 vpd • 70th Street — 9,300 vpd to 10,600 vpd • 66th Street — 10,000 vpd to 16,100 vpd CR 76th Street • 0 CITY OF EDINA France Avenue Crash Summary - 66th Street to 76th Street (2007-2011) Vlnerable Number of Crashes uer Crashes Us Location -------------- - - -------- MnDOT Metro Rate District Property Total Fatalities Injuries Damage Pedestrians Cyclists Only Crash Average Crash Rate 70th Str—t 76th Street • 0 • • Corridor Analysis - Ped / Bike Crashes • 2011 — 66th Street - Northbound right -turning vehicle failed to yield to cyclist • 2011 — 69th Street — Southbound right -turning vehicle struck cyclist 2011 — 69th Street — Northbound through vehicle struck pedestrian • 2011 — Gallagher Drive — Westbound right -turning vehicle failed to yield to cyclist CR 7/9/2012 9 CITY OF EDINA {1ti%tel\/I Corridor Analysis — Alternatives `w Lane Configuration Alternatives 1. Existing 2, Removing Free Right Turns 3, Removing One Through Lane on France Ave 4. Removing Additional Left Turn Lanes CR 7/9/2012 9 CITY OF EDINA . r Ce =) -. Corridor Analysis — Traffic Operations • PM peak hour (average day worst case condition) • Holiday conditions ??? • Existing operations c Movements at LOS E and F o Some max queues exceed storage • Removing free right turn lanes o Minimum increase in delay • Removing through lane on France Avenue o Increase in delay, more movements at LOS E and F • Removing additional left turn lanes o Left turn queues exceed storage Creating an Urban Corridor • Define and promote identity • Use incremental development to foster a corridor approach • Orient buildings and entrances to sidewalks and intersections • Use sidewalks to create pedestrian space and linkage • Use public and private development opportunities to create connectivity • Respond individually to a building and its setting 7/9/2012 • • Me RMI, M-31MI'MOMM Design Elements —All Options • Narrowing lanes —State Aid standards • Widen and landscaped medians • Enhanced pedestrian and bike crosswalks A Enhanced intersection corner treatments • Traffic signal improvements — ped/bike phasing and detection, APS, countdown timers, etc. cc Dutch Desi n Video 9 cc 7/9/2012 11 7/9/2012 • 12 • 0 - • Ur ' �. I ql �C i Options Considered • Option 1 — Separated Bike/Ped Lanes with Blvds • Option 2 — Separated Bike/Ped Lanes with no Blvds • Option 3 — On -Road Bike Lane with Sidewalks • Other Intersection Design Options considered o Continuous flow intersection o Michigan left turns o Grade separated cross street • Corridor / Sidewalk Connection Options o Option 1 the entire corridor length o Option 1 the entire corridor except at Byerly's/Macy's o Sidewalk connections only CR 3 Additional maintenance for snow removal 7/9/2012 • 12 • 0 Option 1 — Separated Bike/Ped with Blvd Advantages: 1 Aesthetically pleasing 2 Provides buffer to pedestrians and bikes 3 Easily continued concept along corridor 4 Biscuits allow for better sight distance for bikes and vehicles 5 Widened Median allows for refuge island for pedestrians 0. Increased buffer in corners for pedestrians 7 Biscuits allow for signal pole placement 3 Decreased distance/safer for pedestrians and bikes to cross Disadvantages Requires increased R/W, especially in corners 1 Pedestrians need to wait further back behind bike lane 3 Additional maintenance for snow removal CR 7/9/2012 • 12 • 0 0 OF Option 2 Separated Bike/Ped no Blvd Advantages 1. Provides buffer for pedestrians and bikes 2. Biscuits allow for better sight distance for bikes and vehicles 3. Wider median allows for refuge island for pedestrians 4. Increased buffer at corners for pedestrians 5. Biscuits allow for signal pole placement 6. Decreased distance for pedestrians and bikes to cross 7. Not as much R/W required as Option 1 Disadvantages 1. Requires more R/W than Option 3 2. Pedestrians need to wait further back behind bike lane 3. Additional maintenance for snow removal 4. Barrier curbs susceptible to damage from vehicles and plow: CR CITY OF Option 3 — On -Road Bike with Sidewalk Advantages: 1. Would require minimal to no additional R/W 2. Is the accepted way to handle bike lanes at intersections 3. Widen median allows for refuge island for pedestrians Disadvantages 1. Increases the width to cross for pedestrians 2. Chance for right hook crash on thru-right vehicle movements and weaving crashes for designated right turn movements 3. Is not aesthetically pleasing 4. Most cyclists would not feel comfortable riding along France Ave with 3+ lanes in and speeds in excess of 40 mph 5. Provides no buffer for pedestrians & Would require widening along entire France corridor for future expansion CR 7/9/2012 13 Recommended Improvements t\ Simulation Video CR 7/9/2012 • 14 :7 L� e Recommended Improvements Intersection Option 1 — Separated Ped/Bike Lane with Blvds { C -•' . -;, t ,�, � you-? . l � 76th Street 70th Street 17 66th Street CR 2S1N gav Recommended Improvements t\ Simulation Video CR 7/9/2012 • 14 :7 L� 0 e 1 Recommended Improvements Corridor Option 1 the entire length except at Byerly's/Macy's France Avenue and Option 1 - Section A - A a r s z +r w m +r z r ,ma vn. wu.� a uM t Proposed France Avenue Section (South Leg of Intersection) CR L ITY OF 'INA —. Recommended Improvements Corridor Option 1 the entire length except at Byerly's/Macy's " r C i >iL 1'• -i, r 1� 16�W'i�.e'�G dr a t �"L� �•i ,}ate•, t ` i rw • CR 7/9/2012 15 Recommended Improvements - Corridor Option 1 the entire length except at Byerly's/Macy's 77 Err :.. �. r CR Recommended Improvements Corridor Option 1 the entire length except at Byerly's/Macy's d +0! to CR , ,. 7/9/2012 • w 0 • 10 • Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Bike Lane Entrance / Exit �I .+ M1:40 STRIPED TAPER, TO END ON -STREET BIKE LANE A"diM ITM 4 J 6' BIKE LANE ADJACENT TO STREET -T VIM BIKE LANE E%R '' BIKE LANE ENTRAN CR 7/9/2012 17 Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Corner Detail FRANCE AVENUE _�`= r, 1 v =' 1 2 NN CR Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Bike Lane Entrance / Exit �I .+ M1:40 STRIPED TAPER, TO END ON -STREET BIKE LANE A"diM ITM 4 J 6' BIKE LANE ADJACENT TO STREET -T VIM BIKE LANE E%R '' BIKE LANE ENTRAN CR 7/9/2012 17 ]ITY OF EDINA Recommended Im. l`Cr` provements Improvement Details — Transit Stop Detail � 10 w > w LLJ L) z 0 U iI i i II CROSSWALK CR -V17:31 Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements cc 7/9/2012 0 E M 0 C7 Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements cc • Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements N. Gateway and Street Monuments i� cc 7/9/2012 W 'ITY 0 EDINA F tr Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements Enhancing the Pedestrian Experience ON Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements cc Improving Pedestrian Safety cc 7/9/2012 0 0 20 is • ;oma: Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements Improving Pedestrian Safety cc • Recommended Improvements \ Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements Improving Transit Connectivity 0 cc 7/9/2012 21 7/9/2012 • C] 22 Recommended Improvements Improvement Details — Urban Design Elements i- Recommend Improvement — Right of Way 76th Street: Sidewalk Connections Areas: Providing an experience for all users • T/E = 15,000 sf • T/E = 5,100 sf 70th Street: Total Recommended Concept ti. 7/9/2012 • C] 22 e=; Recommend Improvement — Right of Way 76th Street: Sidewalk Connections Areas: • Perm R/W = 18,000 sf • Perm R/W = 11,600 sf • T/E = 15,000 sf • T/E = 5,100 sf 70th Street: Total Recommended Concept • Perm R/W = 8,900 sf • Perm R/W = 47,000 sf • T/E = 7,300 sf • T/E = 35,000 sf 66th Street • Perm R/W = 8,500 sf • T/E = 7,600 sf CR 7/9/2012 • C] 22 L� ,e CITY OF EDINA jI Recommend Improvement — Cost 76th Construction = $968,000, R/W = $990,000 70th Construction = $912,000, R/W = $480,000 66th Construction = $937,000, R/W = $490,000 Total Intersection Cost = $2,817,000, RNV = $1,960,000 Sidewalk Connect Const Cost = $1,831,000, R/W = $2,523,000 Total Construction = $4,648,000, Total RNV = $4,483,000 If preferred alternative is constructed the entire length including adjacent to Byerlys and Macys. Total Cost =$10,308,00 If only the Sidewalk connections were made with no R/W needed outside the intersections. Total Cost = $5,027,000. 0 Recommend Improvement — Funding $1.0 million in Federal TE funding $1.0 million in matching Southdale Area TIF funding Other Funding Options: Additional TIF State Aid • CR 7/9/2012 23 7/9/2012 • 24 0 • ffie;�`'' Design Process Best Practices — Design Guidelines Rules / Guidelines • MnDOT FHWA (Federal Funding / Environmental Documentation) ADA/PROWAG Functional Group MnDOT (State Aid / Bikeway Design) Hennepin County Planning Approved Design Design Exceptions State Aid Variance Ped/Bike Request to ExperimentR Traffic 7/9/2012 • 24 0 • i rV Project Review and Approvals • MnDOT • Hennepin County Functional Group • City of Edina Planning • Nine Mile Creek Ped/Bike Watershed District - Permit Traffic • MPCA— Permit Design ROW State Aid Federal Aid CR 7/9/2012 • 24 0 • C] 0 Comments / Questions? e 7/9/2012 25 •r 9�--� U -�r�'�� Schedule Upcoming Meetings Edina Transportation Commission July 91h, 2012 Edina City Council July 17th, 2012 MnDOT Federal Project Process Project Development April — December 2012 Project Memorandum October 2012 Right of Way (if required) December 2012 Detail Design August 2012 — March 2013 Final Approval (City, CO, MnDOT) March 31, 2013 Begin Construction Summer 2013 CR - Comments / Questions? e 7/9/2012 25 7/9/2012 • • CJ • � e `` J Project Expectations State Aid Rules Minimum requirements for lane width, medians, etc. State Aid Minimum Dimensions � � rr nsr r = r iti ,Ir +r n io fh Tun Caw TAM :1M Thu tar" Thu Lsw U Tum tnw Me4 Thv ta1r. 7Try tart TA^u Wy G6 r 40 mph Roadway > 10,000 ADT (Example - North Leg of Intersection with RTL & LTL) • • CJ RIO Project Expectations = MnDOT Bikeway Design Qvo 6 Gu6ar Manual -Minimum l�°M ,feN i-P_10M i_ o�M w•wr.�,r.na mr• requirements for on -road m�wre amps bike lanes mm �. •��•• r�mm��,.M• �,re Nr u•. srmed a nye. � +.sLmNM -B / \ a✓� mieM i m14 II ml� M Tr.MC LmM III � t" -B- pN3.1) -NUroSule •• Tr°m rrA O�mm•n rymbM• n pervdt Mmnah abn9 da Ewytl• Ivq NeN� CMdcuiml MN AMITfA lnrery fiengxbsgrevN MpirrywKqurelmna • • CJ L� :7 • IN Len N I on 0 aw"AU RED Project Expectations Turning Radii Design r } f ' I A Metro Transit Bus WB 62 Truck Passenger Car 7/9/2012 27 CITY OF < 9e Detail Schedule — Phase 1 Phase 1 — Project Development Notice to Proceed Phase 1 ...................... ....................................... .:.....:.. ............ April 3, 2012 Data Collection/ Survey ....... ...........................................In Progress Submit Agency Review Utters (MnDNR, SHPO Ete)........................................ .,. Completed Meeting with Hennepin County...,.......................:........................................................ May 7, 2012 Stakeholder Group Meeting #1 .............. .............. ............. ........ :................................ lbfay3l, 2012 PM / Prel Design Plan to City ity...............................................................Week of June 4. 2012 CityStaff Review Meeting........................................................................... Week of June 11, 2012 Stakeholder Group Meeting 42 ............................................ -- ............... ................... June 26. 2012 Draft Phi / Prel Design Plan to Mn,'DOT and County ........................._...,........ ........ June 29, 2012 MniDOT / County Review...................::.............................:......................................Up to 6 Weeks AddressMn/DOT and County comments ........................ Weeks of August 6 and August 13, 2012 Final P. Prel Design Plan to M&DOT and County ........................................... August 17, 2012 Final rVIn/DOT and County Approval of PM ........................................ .........Up to S Weeks PMApproved ........................... .............. ......................................... ............... _....... October 2012 Constriction Limits Determined ....................... ............ ...................................... —..... June 29, 2012 Right of Way Plan to City and County........................................................................July 13, 2012 Initial Parcel Work and Landowner Notification .......................................... May / June / July 2012 Parcel Descriptions and Exhibits............................................:...--......_. July 2012 Right of Way Appraisals........................................................................... August / September 2012 Right of Way Acquisition(OfTers)............................................................................. October 2012 Title and Possession... ...................... ......................................................... December 2012 RAVCertificate91............................. ................... _................ ..... ......... .............. December 2012 7/9/2012 27 7/9/2012 0 • e �1 IlDetail Schedule — Phase 2 -- hase 2 — Detail Design / Bidding Notice to Proceed Phase 2..................................................................August 7, 2012 Draft (60%) Final Plan Submittal to City, County and MrdDOT..................... September 28, 2012 City Staff i County / Mn/DOT Review Meetings .................................... Week of October 8, 2012 Mn/DOT, County and City Review. ........................................................................... Up to 8 weeks AddressComments................................................................................................. December 2012 Final Plan Submittal to Mn/DOT / County and City ......................................... December 21, 2012 Final Mn(DOT Approval of Plans............................................................ _............... Up to 8 Weeks Final Approved Plans ........................... ...»._........ ................................. March 2013 Advertising for Bids..............................................................................................April IMay 2013 BidOpening...................................................................................................................... May 2013 Phase 3 — Construction Administration Notice to Proceed Phase 3......................................................................June 4, 2013 BeginConstruction..................................................................................................... June 15, 2013 Complete Consttu-tion ................................................................................................October 2013 0 •