Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 16, 2011 Transportation Workshop Notes Transportation Work Group Meeting November 16,2011 Attendees:John Griffith : MN DOT, Ellen Jones,Jack Broz, Bruce Jacobson,Antonio Roselle, David Davison, Andy Brown, Randy Halvorson, Greg Domke, Kevin Staunton, Peter Sussman, Rich Borland, Dick Crockett,Sue Davison ML—Presents 18 slides BL—explains Sustainability slides LC—does the Water Plan project at the Public Ramp have some implications or possibilities for us BJ—it could be the first step of a Grandview Works Project. ML—what is the longevity of the interchange—complex interchange w/13 intersections? How do we think about this are and interchange in not too distant future to consolidate? Met Transit has ID'd area for Park and Ride—can we streamline some ramps to create land for P and Ride The JG - interchange acts like a freeway type interchange.There are no tight turns or stop movements. MN Dot would not come back to this interchange unless the County comes forward.The County needs will dictate more than Mn Dots' needs. Typically Mn Dot gets involved when the bridges need work/replacement. West side ramps heading south could be signalized—as could the east side ramps heading north. It would be advisable to eliminate the two conflicts points on the southbound on ramps— The north bound off loop is not as bad, but we would probably support eliminating them. RH—Do you need support from County of City to close down redundant ramps? JG—no, however we would still make the decision with Council RH—why would we postpone the decision to address ramp issues at the Hwy.? BL—based on what we are hearing now, maybe we would not. JG—Consolidating onto Vernon might suggest keeping Vernon at 4 lanes which runs contrary to some earlier stated Goals. KS—discussion has to be in context with Benton JG—slip ramps are typically built for convenience. Likely to get back lash; MnDot is happy to help take the heat. Might even have some Safety Enhancement money to help with eliminating ramps. Will get more congestion but will be better for pedestrians ML—would Ped enhancements also include a Ped Bridge? JG—we are not at the point where we are building Ped Facilities with Trunk Highways dollars. We do not have an identified source for that type of investment—however we will not turn our back on that type of request. In lieu of the bridge we suggest working more directly on the existing bridges. There are more $for working with existing bridges,than creating new ones. JB—Roundabouts? However they do not improve the Pedestrian situation. JG—Traffic office: .5 million to 1 million for Safety Improvements;Cooperative Aide Program: 750K maximum matching; City led projects can be combined with Safety dollars for widening the bridge. T—How much of the Arcadia slip ramp does Mn Dot own JG—would turn back to the City for Transportation use, or would sell to property owners. ML—does local govt get right of first refusal? JG—yes if for transportation. KM—could the area be used for ponding? (Confirm) JG-at 394(confirm) E—would the lower triangle (at OLG)be good for the Park and ride. JG—would be a difficult site for them since it is not easy on easy off. ThePW Site would be OK, but not optimal as they want to keep the bus moving. LC-What is the process of disposing of ROW. JG—Fair market value. North of 36th in SLP MN DOT will reconstruct north of 36th to 25th at BSM. Will be under construction for three years. When completed there will be three through lanes. AB-will there be any improvements to 394/ 100.That is the pinch point. JG—MN DOT has looked at it, but there are no immediate plans. E-What would be the time frame of a P and R JG—Metro Transit would have to drive that process. A new Ped Bridge would take very long since there are already two bridges E-so it makes more sense to make Eden or Vernon wider for pedestrians? JG—yes—this is more likely than a third bridge from the perspective of a State investment. T—if the funds come from elsewhere. JG—if the City received money from the Feds for example, stimulus$for example,that's fine, we would not derail it. The ramp closures are a win win—however the conversation has to be had with the County. LC—when the fella from the Coutny was here,we talked about turning control back to Edina—would that make sense? JB—The County would ask whether or not the road still serves a County function. It may be "left over" from 169.AS a county street it needs to be free flowing—if it's a City road it does not. RH—irrespective of whether Vernon is a City or County, is there enough ROW to add a bike lane on both sides. Do you have to drop a lane? JB—there is enough ROW, but not enough road. Some of ROW is used for parking at Walgreens. RH—there are other alternatives than other reducing the lanes. JB—you can reduce capacity on Vernon and still handle the traffic. T—how does this typically work? There is an expectation of the users. If you reduce it to a two lane road do you see a reduction in traffic? Or does it turn into back up. JB—mid day traffic increases because it is local -serves local land uses. LC—4 lane only in this section—2 lanes elsewhere. BL—if we held the parking line as a given and we had ROW line on the west, is there room for 4 lanes and bike lanes. JB- No. KM—is a bike lane here redundant if we stripe for lanes on Eden. BJ—Eden and Arcadia to Interlachen are primary. Also,Vernon from Eden to Grandview Crossing also becomes primary. T- Eden is not good for east to west because it is too steep. Modifying Vernon to a new crossing is important. KM—Is Grandview Crossing Bike Ped and Car ML—yes—up to Arcadia, not across the Hwy. E—what intersections are signalized B.1—Interlachen and the next one—the new one for Grandview Crossing. JB—Even if there is no bike lane on Vernon,there will be a "multi-use urban shoulder." Crossing accommodations are better in a three lane section b/c traffic is moving slower. 13J—this is a district response, not a corridor response KS—please review the one way pair ML-describes plate#5 BJ—describes plate 18. AB—why would you allow on street parking on Grandview crossing? BJ—it's a real small scale street. 36' curb to curb. Could also be non symmetrical.Slow complete street. KM—how does the AM backlog to Starbucks work? T-We talked about the go to and the stay at. It is not a stay at type of use—it is a go to. ML—something has to change. KM-the Service uses have to stay in the area—they can't be driven out. E—Agrees that drive throughs are not appropriate in the stay at. GD—drive throughs inherently degrade all surrounding properties E-with the way that the roads are designed now, how much more capacity is there? How much can the roads handle JB—mixed use generates less traffic. If spread out then it creates more trips—but if concentrated and mixed traffic impacts are reduced. BJ—problems are upstream on hwy 100, not here. T-JG said that a P and R on West side would not work. BJ—JG misrepresented the bus service—he does not speak accurately for Met Transit. JG—Met Transit is looking for a community P and R not a large bus facility with a quick in and out on the freeway. JB—Me Transit is looking for a P and R that is more inclusive of other activities—to be part of a place, not isolated. BJ—P and R options—1. on Eden, 2. in existing City Ramp,3. Cloverleaf,4. do nothing E-another option east side or Arcadia where ramp is being vacated. BJ—not large enough. T—giving up 170 parking spaces for people coming there in the AM and picking the cars up in the evening seems like a bit of a waste. Overflow and expansion problems. ML—however there is an available parking supply on weekends and evenings for the District, performances, etc. AB—supports an integrated solution over a stand alone garage. RB—as someone who commuted to downtown this P and R serves Edina residents because it serves commuters. KM—a Community Center would be programmed throughout the day so it would not be able to rely only on off peak Park and Ride spaces. JH—I would put P and R in the B category—not something we should be principally concerned about in the near term. ML—maintaining a transit reserve on both sides of the rail line. JD-would like to see a recommendation supporting Light Rail. Met council will not move until the City moves. Minneapolis and Savage are interested. This plan should support light Rail. JD—right now Edina has all the risk and none of the benefits, according to the State's Plan. KS—needs a recommendation for a process to KM—what do you think about the idea of putting a Ton the City ramp—preserving it for future transit use. (confirm) Light Rail Transit KS—It is important to broach this rail topic carefully and delicately. It should be in the comp plan before it is on the Small Area Plan. JD—it's the right time to move the rail discussion forward. Transportation Issues • Sustainability ➢ Recycling (Compost?) ➢ Energy(Geo-Thermal?) ➢ Stormwater(Re-Use?) ➢ Highway 100—MnDOT ➢ Inclined to be friendly to removing Arcadia Exit ramp and "Danger" and "Cloverleaf" entrance ramps b/c it enhances safety by eliminating access points and anomalies ➢ Bridging—MnDOT not really spending—yet—on pedestrian facilities ➢ Possible to use property from a vacated Arcadia ramp if used for transportation purposes ➢ Park N Ride along 100 possible (look at 394/Hopkins Crossroads as example) Vernon Ave. Options ➢ Option 1—Use Full Width of Vernon Ave ROW (which would mean removing fence and taking away some of Jerry's, Walgreens', and liquor store parking) ➢ Option 2—Slim Vernon to 3 lanes (one lane each way with middle turn lane) and add ped/cycling facilities • Consider whether new intersections on Vernon are signalized or stop signs ➢ GrandView Crossing—should it include on-street parking? • Park'N Ride Options ➢ On potentially vacated space where"Danger" Ramp is vacated ➢ East Side of 100 where cloverleaf entrance to Hwy 100 North current exists ➢ PW Site (as part of underground structured parking) ➢ School Bus Site • Existing Ramp behind Jerry's ➢ Do nothing—continue "Hide 'N Ride" • Rail Options ➢ MnDOT"Default" plan is heavy rail with no stop in Edina ➢ Potential Alternative—Light Rail with stops in Edina • Potential Recommendation to CC: Consistent with Guiding Principles ("preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor"), recommend that the CC begin the community conversation about the right position for the community to get the future outcome it wants