Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-19 Meeting PacketAgenda Transportation Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota Community Room Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of December 15, 2016 V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," t he Board/Commission will invite resi dent s to share r elevant i ssues or concerns. Individuals must l i mi t t heir comments to three mi nutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same i ssue in t he int erest of time and topic. Gener al ly speaking, i tems that ar e elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed dur i ng Communit y Comment. Indi vi dual s should not expect the Chai r or Boar d/Commission Member s to respond to t heir comment s tonight. Instead, the Board/Commi ssion might refer the mat ter to st a% for consi derat i on at a future meeting. VI.Reports/Recommendations A.Pedestrian and Cy clist Safety Fund (PACS) Fund E quity Scoring Criteria B.Proposed Revisions to Multimodal Neighborhood Tra1c Surveys C.Transportation Impa ct Analysis Process D.Additional Updates on 2017 Work Plan Initia tiv es E.Tra1c Safety Report of Ja nuary 4, 2017 VII.Correspondence And Petitions A.Correspondence VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta 9 Comments X.Calendar Of Events A.Schedule of Meeting a nd E v ent Dates as of Ja nuary 19, 2017 XI.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli =c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Minutes From:Sharon Allis on, Engineering Sp ec ialis t Item Activity: Subject:Ap p ro val o f Minutes - Regular Meeting of Dec emb er 15, 2016 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the meeting minutes of the regular Edina Transportation Commission meeting of December 15, 2016. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes , ETC, Dec. 15, 2016 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 1 Minutes City of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Community Room December 15, 2016, 6:00 p.m. I. Call To Order Chair LaForce called the meeting to order. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Brown, Janovy, Koester, LaForce, Miranda, Olk and Olson. Absent at roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Iyer and Loeffelholz. Members Boettge and Iyer arrived after roll call. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by chair LaForce and seconded by member Janovy to move Special Recognitions and Presentations to after Community Comment. All voted aye. Motion passed. Motion was made by member Olson and seconded by member Miranda approving the amended meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by member Olson and seconded by member Miranda approving the Nov. 17, 2016, minutes. Member Janovy abstained. Motion carried. V. Community Comments Mr. Mark Thoma, 5504 Beard Ave, addressed the ETC regarding sidewalks in his neighborhood. Mr. Thoma suggested adding a sidewalk on Beard Avenue from W. 55th Street to W. 62nd Street to create a north/south connection from the Minnehaha Creek Bridge to Strachauer Park. He said this could be done in 2017 when the streets from W. 55th Street to W. 60th Street are scheduled for reconstruction. He said neighbors are supportive of the sidewalk. The ETC recommended Mr. Thoma start a petition to solicit support for the sidewalk. Planner Nolan noted that Beard Avenue north of W. 58th Street is not currently on the reconstruction schedule but south to W. 60th Street is scheduled for 2019. VI. Special Recognitions And Presentations A. Edina Community Circulator Discussion Ms. Courtney Whited presented a circulator option for Edina. Ms. Whited said when she was a member of the ETC, they worked on a transportation option that was approved by City Council and received funding but the company went out of business. She presented DARTS, a fixed circulator loop bus service that is currently operating in Hastings and West St. Paul and soon to begin in South St. Paul. For shopping, errands and personal appointments, some of the benefits are: • Schedule is typically once weekly on the same day each week. • Fixed stops but passengers can request a deviated stop near a scheduled stop. • Sign-up is not required; however, you could schedule a pick up at home. • Buses are wheelchair lift-equipped. • The same driver builds relationship with riders and provides extra services. • Pay once and hop on and off all day. • Riders age 12 and older. • Cost of rides currently in operation is $2-$5 round-trip or all-day. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 2 Ms. Whited provided a proposed Loop route for Edina including community centers, grocery stores, Southdale Hospital, Southdale Mall, 50th & France, Centennial Lakes Park, Grandview, high density housing locations, and more that could be added. She said they would work with Metro Transit to be sure DARTS is serving an area that Metro Transit cannot serve. The total annual cost per loop is $23,000, once a week for five hours. Next steps planning would include forming an advisory committee that would work to plan and implement the Loop. Discussion • Can stops be shared with Metro Transit – probably not because DARTS stops are usually located in partnership businesses because they need to be sheltered. • How would Edina show a need for this service? Ms. Whited has an assessment tool to determine need. • How much is the program subsidized? It is not subsidized because of grant funding. • This type of service is popular in other cities. • How do they get started without spending $23,000? By doing a survey of the entire city (not a specific demographic). • There should be an exploratory committee. Chair LaForce asked how staff would feel about this and planner Nolan said there was support for it already when he began as the planner. Chair LaForce noted that the Loop was a little different than what Council had in mind as the Circulator. Ms. Whited said she would be available spring, 2017, for an exploratory meeting. She discouraged getting too bogged down with an advisory committee because it creates a lot of nay-sayers. She has data from a 6 week trial that she could share. She suggested doing a one year trial. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Passenger Rail Service in Edina: 2017 Outreach and Engagement Efforts Planner Nolan said staff will be meeting after the first of the year to discuss funding and the Request for Proposal (RFP) and staff would like to hear the ETC’s idea for the project scope. During discussion, the ETC identified several questions that would need to be answered. The committee (Bass/Brown/Janovy/Loffelholz) will meet with planner Nolan to frame up the questions for the RFP. B. Additional Updates on 2016 Work Plan Initiatives No updates. C. Traffic Safety Report of Dec. 7, 2016 B.1. Is there a policy for placing directional signs? No; there is only one directional sign in the city and staff has had only one request prior to this one and it was denied. Should there be a policy so that decisions aren’t arbitrary? Planner Nolan will follow up with this. B.2. How is the ADT related to the issue of the sidewalk? It is not directly; it is provided as additional data. B.3. Since west bound traffic did not stop 18 times, is there anything they can do to prevent this? Only police presence would help. B.4. How do they balance the needs of residents and students and, was this a school district issue and not the City’s? Has staff worked with the school district to discourage students from driving to school? Yes, said planner Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 3 Nolan, this was the purpose of the Active Routes to School plan. Student member Koester said the school district has a policy that encourages carpooling; he said four students to a car get priority for parking passes. D.2. This issue comes up several times—maybe something can be done. Planner Nolan said this is specific to vehicles and if used correctly, it is not an issue. Motion made by member Iyer and seconded by member Miranda to forward the Dec. 6, 2016, TSC report to the City Council. All voted aye. Motion passed. D. Approved 2017 Transportation Commission Work Plan The City Council approved 2017 Work Plan was received. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions An email was received from a resident thanking the ETC for improvements on the Benton Avenue Bridge at Highway 100 (crosswalks and stop signs were added) and a suggestion to advertise the new Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. IX. Chair and Member Comments Member Iyer said early this week there were a couple crashes at W. 66th Street and Valley View Road and in police presence, at least four cars ran the stoplight. He continues to advocate for a roundabout to be paid for by developers. Secondly, he suggested the City begin formulating a plan for diverting traffic for the 2019 redecking of the France Avenue and Highway 62 Bridge. Member Brown said he received a letter from a resident on Mackey Avenue who is excited about the passenger rail planning. Secondly, he visited the railroad swing bridge in Savage that TC&W improved, and noticed that CP Rail had also made improvements in the same area which means they too are probably gearing up for more traffic on the rail line that runs through Edina. Member Boettge asked if the push bottoms at pedestrian crossings could be set on automatic like at 50th & France. Planner Nolan said that this is possible, and will follow up. Member Janovy suggested revising the streetlight question on the multi-modal survey, adding a transit question, and adding a point system for easier tabulation; the committee that originally worked on the survey will reconvene to work on the revisions. Secondly, she suggested inviting Mike Larson from the Met Council to give an overview on their Comprehensive Plan requirements. She said they have webinars on Comp Plan planning. Planner Nolan will follow up on this. Chair LaForce thanked everyone that helped the City Council to see things a little different regarding the Valley View Road sidewalk that they approved. Secondly, he reminded everyone to keep recruiting new ETC members. Finally, the Sept. 2017 meeting will be on the 4th Thursday because the 3rd Thursday is a religious holiday observance. X. Staff Comments • Birchcrest A and Countryside B projects for 2017 were approved by City Council, along with the Valley View Road sidewalk. • 2018 sidewalks: on Dec. 7, staff met with residents to discuss the W. 58th Street sidewalk from Wooddale Avenue to France Avenue, and of the 10 that attended and 8 that emailed, all were in favor. On Dec. 14, staff met with residents to discuss the Valley View Road sidewalk from Mark Terrace Drive to Gleason Road, and of the 9 that attended and 10 that emailed, about four were not supportive or Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 4 wanted better understanding of how their property would be impacted. A petition was received for this sidewalk in early 2016. • 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update: three consulting teams were interviewed and with a team lead by Biko Associates was selected and they’ll begin working Jan. 2017 until 2018. A Comp Plan taskforce was formed made up of Planning Commission members and staff. Since they are not redoing the entire plan, the focus will be on Small Area Plans and the Transportation Chapter. The ETC involvement will be on updating the Transportation Chapter. A Planning Commission liaison was assigned to the ETC. • 50th & France area: a proposal was received for W. 49½ Street for redevelopment around the parking ramps and staff engaged a consultant to do a traffic study, primarily to collect counts and turn movements. • The Nine Mile Creek Trail to the east was completed; continuing on Parklawn Avenue and the west side will be completed next year, including a pedestrian bridge over Highway 62. XI. Calendar of Events A. Schedule of Meeting and Events as of Dec. 15, 2016 XII. Adjournment at 8:10 p.m. J F M A M J J A S O N D SM WS # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 NAME TERM (Date) 6/21 Bass, Katherine 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 77% Boettge, Emily 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 85% Brown, Andy 3/1/2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 92% Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 85% LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 100% Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 69% Janovy, Jennifer 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Miranda, Lou 3/1/2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 100% Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Koester, David (student) 9/1/2017 1 1 1 3 75% Olk, Megan (student) 9/1/2017 1 1 1 3 75% Ding, Emily (student) 9/1/2016 1 1 2 15% Ruehl, Lindsey (student) 9/1/2016 1 1 1 1 4 31% TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, Trans p o rtatio n P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Ped es trian and Cyc lis t Safety Fund (PAC S) Fund Eq uity Sc o ring Criteria Dis cus s ion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: P lease recall that at the November 17 ET C meeting Commissioner Bass discussed her desire to more equitably prioritize how projects are funded by the P edestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. T his included the choice of criteria as well as the timing and location of such projects. Commissioner Bass will facilitate a discussion regarding this topic, and has asked that commissioners review the criteria and reflect on the questions at the bottom of page 1 of the attached document. ATTACHMENTS: Description PROPOSED PACS Fund Equity Scoring Criteria 11/17/2016 PROPOSED Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund (PACS) Fund Equity Scoring Criteria In selecting projects to be constructed through the PACS fund, the ETC recommends a set of equity- based criteria for prioritizing capital investment in pedestrian and bicycling facilities. This effort is meant to quantifiably evaluate neighborhoods, and ensure that investments are equitably targeted and support [Policy Basis – community vision, comprehensive plan, policy goals]. The criteria are a combination of community, neighborhood, infrastructure and cost characteristics using multiple data sources. Infrastructure projects that rank high are prioritized for investment first. Questions to consider: Are there criteria missing? What points should be assigned? (This conveys community values) What data sources should be referenced? Community Characteristics (PEOPLE) Neighborhood Characteristics (PLACE) Cost Characteristics (MONEY) PACS Fund Capital Project Selection 11/17/2016 Community Characteristics (PEOPLE) 1. Neighborhood concentration of race/ethnicity other than white 2. Density of transit riders in the neighborhood 3. Population density in the neighborhood where the facility is proposed (2 possible points). The more densely populated neighborhoods will be a higher priority. This metric takes into account extra wear and tear on infrastructure in high density areas and the proportional value of public investment dollars per person in those areas. 4. Youth density of the neighborhood where the park is located (3 possible points). The higher the youth density of the neighborhood, the higher it is scored and it is moved up the list for priority. Same logic as the above metric applies with an extra focus on the needs of families and the needs of children who are dependent on sidewalk and bicycle facilities for independent mobility. Neighborhood Characteristics (PLACE) 1. Proportionality of investment (3 possible points if no other facility was constructed in this quadrant in the last year). Referring to the amount of capital invested in each quadrant. 2. Neighborhood safety – history of crashes or crime (2 possible points). Neighborhood crime statistics are looked at to determine need, with more crashes or crime in an area resulting in a higher score and increased priority for capital investment. This is a public health and racial equity approach to crash and crime reduction, grounded in the understanding that these are outcomes of disinvestment. 3. Active Routes to School Sidewalk 4. Indicated in the Comprehensive Plan (Sidewalk Facilities Map or Master Bicycle Plan) 5. Resident petition – petition for sidewalk submitted by residents, based on their experience living in this place Cost Characteristics (MONEY) 6. Asset lifespan (3 possible points). Facilities are evaluated and higher points are given to infrastructure more than five years past its lifespan. 7. Asset condition (5 possible points). Assets in worse condition receive higher priority for rehab. 8. Part of neighborhood reconstruction project 9. Part of state-aid reconstruction project 10. Estimated cost of project relative to remaining PACS Fund budget 11. Additional funding/grant opportunities 12. Surveys and/or design documents completed Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: R ep o rt and Rec o mmendation From:Mark K. Nolan, Trans p o rtatio n P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Pro p o s ed Revisions to Multimod al Neighb o rhood Traffic Surveys Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve recommended revisions to multimodal survey questions. INTRODUCTION: P lease recall that the Engineering Department sends out a "multimodal" survey to affected residents approximately two years prior to a neighborhood roadway reconstruction project. Multimodal transportation describes a roadway system that is designed to safely accommodate all users. Neighborhood reconstruction is the perfect time to identify, evaluate, and make reasonable improvements to promote safe walking, bicycling, and driving. T his survey was prepared with considerable input from the ET C. At the December 2016 meeting, the ET C discussed changes to survey questions regarding street lighting, and adding content addressing transit. Commissioner Janovy has prepared the attached language and process recommendations for the ET C's consideration. In addition, engineering staff has prepared a draft letter (attached) that is a response to input gathered by the most recent multimodal traffic survey. Staff is proposing to send out letters similar to this - that are tailored to each specific neighborhood's survey responses - to share with residents the results as well as how staff is utilizing the surveys. T hese letters can also include answers to questions that may or may not be addressed directly by the reconstruction project. An example of this is the noise barrier content of the attached letter. Staff welcomes input from the ET C regarding this letter. ATTACHMENTS: Description Multimodal Neighborhood Traffic Survey Recommendations Draft Multimodal Survey Res pons e Letter 1 Multimodal Neighborhood Traffic Survey Recommendations Recommendation 1 Revise survey questions as shown below. The below changes: • Turn some open response questions into response menus. This standardizes answers and makes them easier to tabulate. • Modifies the street lighting question so that it agrees with the format/style of the other questions. • Modifies leading/biased language (street lighting, driver behavior questions). • Adds transit question. The goal is to capture transit use data as well as input on transit stops in the project area that could use improvement. Recommendation 2 Tabulate responses. In looking at recent surveys included with feasibility studies, it does not appear that survey response were tabulated. The survey tool should allow for automated tabulation. Answers to open response questions may have to be manually tabulated. Tabulation of responses is a prerequisite to analyzing and using the data. Recommendation 3 Present data in format that aids review and analysis (number questions, question headings on each page, font size, etc.). Recommendation 4 Define/refine how data is used in: • public engagement; • developing options; • identifying traffic concerns that may not be addressed through project Survey Questions Text recommended to be deleted is shown crossed out. New text is underlined. How satisfied are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied 2 Very Dissatisfied If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please enter the location(s) and describe why you feel that way. Location of issue Why is it an issue of concern If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please indicate why (check all that apply): People drive too fast – not safe for children, or people walking or biking Motorists drive too fast for the conditions (curve, hill, etc.) Motorists exceed the posted speed limit Traffic is slowed down by road obstructions or traffic congestion Posted speed limit should be higher Posted speed limit should be lower Other (open response) Specific location of concern (if applicable) – open response In general, this concern affects you most when you are: Walking, jogging, running Bicycling Driving How satisfied are you with the volume of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please enter the location(s) and describe why you feel that way. Location of issue Why is it an issue of concern If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please indicate why (check all that apply): High volume of commercial traffic (construction vehicles, garbage trucks, etc.) High volume of “cut-through” traffic High volume of school or park traffic Frequent backups or congestion Other 3 Specific location of concern (if applicable) – open response In general, this concern affects you most when you are: Walking, jogging, running Bicycling Driving How satisfied are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Examples of poor motorist behavior include speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to yield, and driving aggressively.) Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please enter the location(s) and describe why you feel that way. Location of issue Why is it an issue of concern If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please indicate why (check all that apply): Speeding/going too fast Blowing or rolling through stop signs Failing to yield to pedestrians Failing to obey school bus STOP arm Distracted (texting, etc.) Failing to give bicyclists enough space Other Specific location of concern (if applicable) – open response In general, these behaviors affect you most when you are: Walking, jogging, running Bicycling Driving Do you feel that any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe? Yes No 4 If yes, which intersection Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe? (select all that apply) Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign) Issues with sight lines or clear view Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Drivers turning corner too fast Lack of marked crosswalk Street(s) too wide Insufficient lighting Other (please specify) In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are: Walking, jogging running Bicycling Driving How frequently do you walk, jog or run in your neighborhood? Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month) Never If you walk, jog or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) Health/exercise Exercise dog(s) Accompany child(ren) to destination (such as school or park) Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop) Commute to/from work Access transit Can’t drive or don’t own car Other (please specify) If you don’t walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what factors contribute to that? Please list all that you can think of. 5 If you don’t walk, jog or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, which, if any, of the following reasons apply? (check all that apply) No or too few sidewalks Too much traffic Traffic is too fast No safe place to cross busy street(s) Too dark at night Health, injury or disability Not enough time Fear of crime Other How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood? Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month) Never If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) Health/exercise Accompany child(ren) to destination (such as school or park) Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop) Commute to/from work Access transit Can’t drive or don’t own car Other (please specify) If you don’t ride a bicycle your neighborhood as often as you would like, what factors contribute to that? Please list all that you can think of. If you don’t ride a bicycle your neighborhood as often as you would like, which, if any, of the following reasons apply? (check all that apply) Too much traffic Traffic is too fast Not comfortable with existing on-road bike facilities Lack of on-road bike facilities (bike lanes, etc.) Lack of off-road bike path Challenging intersection(s) Pavement conditions (potholes, etc.) Weather 6 Not enough time No place to lock up my bike when I get to my destination Don’t own a bike Other How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street? Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month) Never How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street? Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month) Never Any additional comments about parking? Please indicate how strongly you agree/disagree with the following statements: Parking should be provided on the odd side of my street (scale: strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) Parking should be provided on the even side of my street Parking should be provided on both sides of my street Parking should be provided on neither side of my street Residential streetlights are funded by special assessment. Is the existing street lighting system meeting the needs in your neighborhood? Yes No Do you favor improving the streetlights in your neighborhood? Yes No Do you favor improving the streetlights with either a different style light or more lights? Yes 7 No How satisfied are you with night time visibility in your neighborhood? Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please indicate why (check all that apply): Difficult to see pedestrians / As a pedestrian, concern that it is difficult to be seen Difficult to see bicyclists / As a bicyclist, concern that it is difficult to be seen Difficult to see intersection(s) or curve(s) in road Difficult to see parked cars or hazards in road Other Please note specific location(s) if applicable: In general, these conditions affect you most when you are: Walking, jogging, running Bicycling Driving How frequently do you use public transportation? Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month) Never What public transportation service do you use most frequently? Metro Transit fixed route service Transit Link Metro Mobility Other NA Where do you typically access public transportation? (Location of stop or station) 8 How do you typically get to this transit stop or station? Walk Bike Drive or get a ride If you access transit from stops within the project area, how satisfied are you with the stops? Very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please indicate why (check all that apply): Lack of sidewalk connection Difficult to cross street to get to/from transit stop Inadequate lighting Inadequate surface for standing while waiting Lack of amenities (bench, enclosure, garbage can, bike parking, etc.) Too close to traffic Poor maintenance (snow clearing/storage, trash, etc.) Other Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street conditions in your neighborhood. (open response) Do you have access to email to participate in City Extra email updates when construction begins? Demographic questions as shown in survey Please sign up for City Extra (link) for updates on this project. January ??, 2017 2018 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Concord G Neighborhood RE: Multi-Modal Survey Results Dear Resident: In Oct. 2016, you were asked to complete a multi-modal survey. Multi-modal transportation describes a roadway system that is designed to safely accommodate all users. Neighborhood reconstruction is the perfect time to identify, evaluate, and make reasonable improvements to promote safe walking, bicycling, and driving. Below is a summary of what were identified as issues or concerns and how staff plan to respond. Of the 41 property owners surveyed, 11 responded to the survey. Multi-Modal Survey Results Ve r y S a t i s f i e d Sa t i s f i e d Ne u t r a l Ve r y D i s s a t i s f i e d Di s s a t i s f i e d Ve r y F r e q u e n t l y Fr e q u e n t l y Oc c a s i o n a l l y Ra r e l y Ne v e r No R e s p o n s e Yes No No R e s p o n s e Speed 2 9 Volume 8 3 Motorist Behavior 3 8 Unsafe Intersections School Road & W. 60th Street, Valley View Road & Virginia Avenue, and Benton Bridge, Tracy Bridge, and Gleason Bridge. Walk/Jog/Run in neighborhood 10 1 Ride a Bicycle 7 3 1 Parking on street (member of household) 3 6 1 1 Parking on street (visitors) 7 2 2 Satisfaction with on-street parking 10 1 Streetlights meeting needs? 8 2 1 Streetlights - improve? 6 4 1 Streetlights - improve with different style or more lights? 6 4 1 Average age of household 13 under age 18; 14 age 26-65; and 2 over age 65. Members with physical disability 1 Running stop signs, few stop signs, cut-thru traffic, no sidewalk, parked cars on the streets makes driving more dangerous, and noise from Highway 100 were noted as concerns. What can staff do and what guides our planning and decision-making? The Living Streets Policy and Plan serves as a guide for staff when planning for neighborhood street reconstruction. It specifically lists the four types of streets in the city with required and optional features that are to be considered. Virginia Avenue, for example, is classified as a ”Local Street,“ which provides immediate access to residencies, is used primarily for local trips, and is characterized by lower vehicle and pedestrian volumes. Sidewalk and bike facilities are optional features. W. 60th Street, on the other hand, is classified as a ”Local Connector” that serves as a connection between neighborhoods, destinations and higher-level roadways (i.e. Valley View Road, Highway 100). W. 60th Street carries a higher volume of traffic than a local street. Sidewalk is a required feature because of traffic volumes. Additionally, the Living Streets Policy and Plan lays out design guidelines for streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, boulevards, parking lanes, pavement markings and signage, traffic calming, etc. Read the Living Streets Policy and Plan at www.EdinaMN.gov/LivingStreets. To distinguish between real and perceived concerns, staff will draw on the following data to measure the current performance of the streets in your neighborhood: 1. Responses to the multi-modal survey 2. Number of traffic safety complaints or requests 3. Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department 4. The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before the project 5. Speed and traffic volume counts measured at specific areas of interest in the neighborhood Data will be collected in the spring of 2017 and shared at the neighborhood informational meeting in July 2017. Based on data collected and engineering judgment, staff will seek your feedback on potential design options. Some concerns may be better addressed by police enforcement rather than significant roadway design changes. Regarding pedestrian concerns, a sidewalk is planned for W. 60th Street from School Road to Concord Avenue. Additionally, a noise barrier on Highway 100 was mentioned several times because of traffic noise. The rights-of-way where noise barriers are built are owned and managed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT ranks noise barriers based on severity of noise impacts, number of impacted residences, and cost effectiveness. Current ranking for Highway 100 is not considered to be cost effective. Another option is for the neighborhood to fund the noise barrier by special assessment similar to a street reconstruction project. To do this, one of you would need to seek support from neighbors using an official City petition form. The completed petition would be turned in to the City Council, who would then forward it to Engineering staff to determine feasibility and costs (special assessment range is $15,000 to $30,000 per property). Download the petition form here www.EdinaMN.gov/engineering-public-works- petition. Read about noise barriers here http://www.dot.state.mn.us/environment/noise/. Finally, several intersections at bridges were noted as unsafe. Bridges over major highway are mostly owned and managed by MnDOT and improvements must be approved by them. Recently, at staff’s urging prompted by residents’ concerns, a crosswalk and 4-way stop signs were added to Benton Avenue at Highway 100 to improve safety. Staff will monitor these improvements for effectiveness. Last summer, Tracy Avenue north and south of Highway 62 was reconstructed and staff explored the feasibility of improving access over the bridge but it was cost prohibitive. Improvement feasibility for the Gleason Bridge has not been explored but it too may be cost prohibitive. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-826-0443 or cschulze@EdinaMN.gov or the Engineering Department at 952-826-0371. Sincerely, Carter Schulze, PE Assistant City Engineer Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, Trans p o rtatio n P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Trans portation Impac t Analys is Proc es s Dis cus s ion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: T he 2017 ET C and P lanning Commission work plans each includes a new initiative to "review transportation impact analysis process to better implement Living Streets." While both commissions are to partner on this initiative, the ET C is to serve as the "lead commission." T he purpose of this month's agenda item is to review the traffic impact analysis (T IA) process and policy, and begin a discussion on next steps to implement the work plan initiative. T he attached Transportation Impact Analysis Initiation and Review P olicy was initially prepared by the ET C and engineering staff in 2007. It is a department policy and as such was not officially "approved" by the city council at the time. However, the ET C did approve the policy and had the responsibility of reviewing T IAs until 2011, when the P lanning Commission took over this responsibility. ATTACHMENTS: Description Trans portation Impact Analys is Initiation and Review Policy ☐City Council Approved: 4/19/2007 ☐City-Wide Revised: ☒Department TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYIS INITIATION AND REVIEW I. Introduction The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to applicants and/or consulting engineers assessing the potential transportation impacts of a new development or a redevelopment proposed within the City or which may result from related changes in zoning or Comprehensive Plan amendments. Development applications will not be deemed complete until a final approved Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) has been received by the City. The following guidelines have been developed to provide for clear, orderly, and consistent analysis by establishing minimum standards for all Transportation Impact Analysis. City staff and the Edina Transportation Commission will review the TIAs based on these criteria herein. II. Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) A TIA is a study which assesses the effects that a particular development will have on the transportation network in the community. These studies vary in their range of detail and complexity depending on the type, size and location of the development. Transportation impact studies should accompany developments which have the potential to impact the transportation network. These studies can be used to help evaluate whether the development is appropriate for a site and what type of transportation improvements may be necessary. For the purposes of the TIA, all land at one location, including existing developments or available land for building development under common ownership or control by an applicant shall be considered when determining if required criteria are met. An application shall not avoid the intent of this criterion by submitting a partial or segmented application or approval request for building permits, development plans, subdivision, etc. III. Transportation Impact Analysis Triggers a. A TIA is required for any development meeting any or all of the following criteria: i. generating approximately 1,000 or more vehicle trips per day ii. generating approximately 100 or more vehicle trips in any one hour period iii. if associated roadway traffic is increased by 50% or more The trip rates in the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation should be used in determining the amount of traffic a particular development will generate. If the proposed use is an expansion of an existing facility then existing traffic patterns should be extrapolated to the proposed improvement. If no ITE rates exist for a particular type of development or there is some uncertainty regarding the need to conduct a study, the City traffic engineer will determine if a TIA is required. If an applicant believes a TIA is not necessary then a written justification will be required. The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) and City staff will review the document and determine how to proceed. Page | 2 b. A TIA is not required when a development falls below the above mentioned threshold. A traffic study is required in lieu of a TIA. The ETC shall consider the following four effects in the evaluation of traffic studies that are warranted by certain zoning, land-use, conditional use permits and final development plan applications prior to the application being submitted to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration: i. Does the development significantly affect the operation and congestion of the adjacent roadways or intersections and/or result in a traffic hazard? ii. Does the development significantly affect pedestrian safety? iii. Does the development provide opportunities for enhanced transit usage, van pooling or car pooling? iv. Does the development provide feasible opportunities to address an existing traffic issue or safety problem? c. Sound engineering practices and applicable regulatory standards shall be used to evaluate any development proposal, regardless of the development size or scope. d. Developments adjacent to another jurisdictional entity (road or city) shall submit the traffic study to the respective agency for their information. IV. Transportation Impact Analysis Study Area a. The transportation consultant and project manager shall meet with the city traffic engineer to establish the study area, to discuss critical issues, and to determine the complexity of the report to be submitted. A preliminary site plan showing the planned development, internal circulation, and connection to the public roadway system shall be provided to the City at the initial meeting. The study area shall be approved by City staff. b. All site access drives, adjacent roadways, and adjacent major intersections, plus the first signalized intersection in each direction from the site shall be analyzed. Additional areas may be added based on development size and specific site or local issues and policies. A general guideline for setting the project study boundary will be when a development’s traffic using any particular intersection falls below 20%. V. Transportation Impact Analysis Requirements A TIA shall be completed by a qualified Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (P.T.O.E.). All traffic analysis shall utilize traffic modeling software compatible with the City of Edina’s software program, Syncro/Traffic. The TIA report will usually include the following: Page | 3 a. Report Letter i. Identify the person(s) to whom the report is addressed ii. Summarize the findings and recommendations iii. Clearly define peak traffic periods b. Proposed Development and Study Area i. Describe proposed development ii. Map of site and street network iii. Identify intersections/highway links to be analyzed c. Existing Traffic Conditions i. Figures showing ADTs, peak hour turning movements and levels of service (for all applicable peak hour and peak hour of development unless otherwise directed by the City traffic engineer) ii. Indicate roadway/intersection geometrics, street right-of-way, type of traffic control at intersections, traffic regulations (i.e. no parking zones, posted speed limit), and bus stops iii. Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect project d. Future Projected Traffic Conditions Without Development (City staff may provide base data) i. Figures showing future projected ADTs, peak hour turning movements and level of service ii. Identify changes in road network and land use expected under full development conditions iii. Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect project e. Existing Site Traffic i. Site-generated traffic – ADT and peak hours ii. Figure showing distribution by direction of approach iii. Figure showing assignment (volumes and turning movements) to each link in the network analyzed f. Proposed Site Traffic i. Site-generated traffic – ADT and peak hours (if development is to be completed in phases, show cumulative traffic for each phase added) ii. Figure showing distribution by direction of approach iii. Figure showing assignment (volumes and turning movements) to each link in the network analyzed iv. "Pass-by" trip assumptions, distribution and assignment g. Traffic Impact of Proposed Development i. Figures showing ADTs, peak hour turning movements and level of service for present conditions with proposed development ii. Figures showing ADTs, peak hour turning movements and level of service for future projected conditions with proposed development iii. Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect the project iv. Review ingress/egress sight distance, capacity and safety v. Review on-site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians vi. Review driveway and parking lot design for compliance with City standards and codes Page | 4 h. Problem Areas i. Identify congestion or safety problems for present conditions with proposed development ii. Identify congestion or safety problems under full development conditions with proposed development i. Travel Demand Management Plan i. A travel demand management plan shall be included as part of the analysis ii. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (provide for access to, from and through development for bicyclists and pedestrians; recommend designated bicycle paths, lanes and facilities) j. Transit Facilities i. Identify existing bus turn-outs, park and ride lots and/or bus stops ii. Analyze the need for additional transit facilities k. Recommended Improvements and Solutions i. Identify possible short-term improvements and solutions ii. Identify possible long-term improvements and solutions iii. Recommended improvements and solutions l. Appendices i. Capacity analysis calculations, data and assumptions (provide sufficient information for reviewer to follow analysis and to be able to spot check results) ii. Queue length analysis calculations, data and assumptions iii. Provide other pertinent information that may be needed to explain or justify data used in the report (i.e., if data from an actual field study of sites in the metro area is used in place of ITE trip generation rates, then a report of the field study results should be included in the appendix) The TIA must be submitted at the same time as the development application. However, the developer may find it advantageous to have the TIA completed several weeks prior to the submittal of the development application in order to incorporate recommendations from the traffic report on the development plan. The TIA will be reviewed by City staff, independent traffic engineer and the ETC for final approval. Any recommended improvements or solutions for the study area infrastructure as suggested by the TIA will be the responsibility of the developer. The developer shall work with the appropriate agencies to construct the infrastructure prior to completion of the project. Fourteen (14) color copies of the report should be produced on standard 8½” x 11” letter size paper. Figures can be plotted on 11” x 17” size paper format for legibility. One (1) copy submitted electronically in portable document format (PDF). Electronic files of the computer traffic modeling analysis will also be required. Reference Material: Institute of Transportation Engineer’s, Trip Generation Manual Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development, ITE - 2006 Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Ad d itional Up d ates o n 2017 Work Plan Initiatives Dis cus s ion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. INTRODUCTION: ET C members will give brief updates on active 2017 Work P lan initiatives not on the current agenda. For reference, the following are the 2017 Work P lan initiatives: 1. If City secures funds, support and guide the engagement process for, and potential study of, passenger rail in Edina. 2. Assist as requested with the development of the City's new Comprehensive Guide P lan. 3. Review transportation impact analysis process to better implement Living Streets (partner with P lanning Commission. ET C lead commission). 4. Review and comment on pedestrian and bicycle master plan. Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.E. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: R ep o rt and Rec o mmendation From:Nic k Bauler, Traffic Safety Coord inato r Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of January 4, 2017 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Report of Wednesday January 4, 2017 be forwarded to City Council for approval. INTRODUCTION: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting regarding the report's recommendations. An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission will be included in the staff report provided to the City Council for their February 22, 2017 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of January 4, 2017 Map: Location of W. 70th Street and Antrim Road intersection January 19, 2017 Edina Transportation Commission Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of January 4, 2017 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on January 4. The Transportation Planner, Assistant City Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Police Lieutenant, Public Works Director and Traffic Safety Specialist were in attendance for this meeting. The City Engineer was not able to attend and was informed of the decisions and did not object to the recommendations. For these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, these comments can be included on the January 19 Edina Transportation Commission and the February 22 City Council meeting agendas. Section B: Items which staff recommends for no action B1. Request for all-way stop at W. 70th Street and Antrim Road intersection • Requestor believes the three-way stop at a four-way intersection is confusing and causes dangerous situations. • 4-leg intersection with a 3-way stop (westbound traffic on 70th Street West is uncontrolled). • ADT on 70th Street is 1,770; 90% of those vehicles travel westbound into intersection. • 88% of westbound vehicles turn right onto Antrim Road. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Photo: Taken from W. 70th Street facing westbound at Antrim Road. Notice: no stop sign at intersection Map: Location of Christian Family Church Photo: Christian Family Church entrance from Bush Lake Road. Notice: Using its own landmark flags for visitors unfamiliar of the area. • West 70th Street exceeds 200 vehicles per hour twice per day. • ADT on Antrim Road is 1881; 88% of those vehicles travel southbound • 85% of southbound vehicles on Antrim Road turn left onto West 70th Street. • Antrim Road exceeds 200 vehicles per hour once, above 190 two more times • MnDOT has 2 reported accidents in the last 5 years. After review, staff recommends not making this intersection an all-way stop as it does not meet warrants. However, staff recommends placing new, more visible guide signs below each stop sign at this intersection stating westbound vehicles on W. 70th Street do not stop to help decrease the instance of dangerous situations. B2. Requesting directional signs for the Christian Family Church located at 7375 Bush Lake Road. • New church looking for directional signs for new members unfamiliar with this area. • The Christian Family Church has 3 other campuses in Owatonna, Lakeville and Hudson-River Falls. • This campus is the closest to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and is targeting new members from the metro area. • Has services on Friday evenings and Sunday mornings. After review, staff recommends no action for any directional signage. Staff believes it must follow previous decisions to not allow directional signs for churches and businesses as it may set an improper precedent. STAFF REPORT Page 3 B3. Request for ‘No Outlet’ or ‘Dead End’ signage to be posted at entrance of Bruce Place. • Residents are concerned with the amount of vehicles using the cul-de-sac for U-turns or as a thru street for drivers looking to get to Wooddale Avenue from 50th street. • Bruce Place used to have No Outlet/Dead End signs before residents wanted to remove them for aesthetic purposes. • There are 10 homes located within the cul-de- sac. • Since the removal of signs, residents say the number of families with children has increased. Residents believe the signs will lower the number of vehicles traveling through the cul- de-sac. • Between 8 am and 10 pm Bruce Place averages 18 vehicles utilizing the cul-de-sac as either U- turns or an attempted thru-street. After review, staff recommends no action. Staff cites the low amount of vehicles passing through Bruce Place does not cause enough concern to warrant signage. Staff believes the end of the cul-de-sac is plenty visible to vehicles traveling past Bruce Place. Section D: Other Traffic Safety Items handled D1. A resident was concerned when given a warning for parking on Kellogg Avenue between W. 55th Street and W. 54th Street. Resident claimed there weren’t any ‘No Parking’ signs placed. After contacting the Police Department, this stretch of Kellogg Avenue limits parking on the west side of the road and the temporary ‘No Parking’ signs formerly in place may have been accidentally removed. The resident has been notified of the current parking limitation on this stretch of Kellogg Avenue. D2. A resident was concerned with traffic totals on West 66th St at West Shore Drive. The resident was looking for a stop light claiming it can take up to 10 minutes to find any gaps between vehicles to enter onto W. 66th Street. Given the ADT of W. 66th Street and West Shore Drive, the current use of pedestrian flashers and crosswalk in this intersection, it does not meet warrants for a stop light. D3. A resident requested a four-way stop at Northwood Drive and Mirror Lakes Drive. This was also requested and reported in the July Traffic Safety Report. The Traffic Safety Committee recommended no action in July and the committee agrees the intersection to remain as is. STAFF REPORT Page 4 D4. A resident was concerned with drivers passing by a special needs bus picking up a student just south of W. 58th Street on Wooddale Avenue. After speaking with the resident for a follow-up, the concern is no longer an issue. D5. A resident was concerned with the timing of newly placed stop lights at W. 60th Street and Xerxes Avenue. This request was forwarded to the City of Minneapolis, as Minneapolis is responsible for maintaining and timing this stop light. D6. A resident had a question regarding a Hill sign formerly located on the 4200 block of Grimes Avenue to warn northbound vehicles of an upcoming hill. After discussion, the sign was removed between the years 2009 and 2011 as it is not warranted through the MnMUTCD guidelines. STAFF REPORT Page 5 Appendix A: All-Way Stop Warrants Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal. The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.4 also apply to multi-way stop applications. The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi- way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but 3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Correspond enc e From:Mark K. Nolan, Trans p o rtatio n P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Co rres p o ndence Info rmatio n CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: Attached is the correspondence received since the last Transportation Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Corres pondence as of Jan 8, 2017 Julie Sell 6566 France Avenue South #209 Edina, MN 55435 James Hovland, Mayor City of Edina 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 December 31, 2016 Dear Mr. Hovland: I read with great interest the December 30th Star-Tribune article titled Edina 'downtown' could see a $79M makeover. The 50th and France area is indeed a magnet for shoppers, diners, residents and visitors of all sorts. I encourage your efforts to enhance its attractiveness, particularly if there is an opportunity to do so while easing some of the traffic gridlock that makes the area a bottleneck at particular times. As I read the article, I couldn't help contrasting the vibrant, pedestrian-friendly area at 50th and France with other parts of the city. I moved to Edina several months ago and am enjoying many features of the community. Yet there have also been some real disapppointments. Living near Southdale and other shops near the France Avenue corridor, my goal has been to walk to as many places as possible, for shopping, meals, entertainment, etc. I do walk regularly. Yet despite living within several blocks of so many shops, restaurants and other services, I fmd it quite challenging, and at times dangerous, to be a pedestrian in my neighborhood. To cite one example near my residence, the lack of clear sidewalks and adequate crossing signals (they often do not function or change when I'm halfway across the street) at the intersection of 66th Street and France Avenue is a significant deterrent to walking. Cars make rapid right turns without looking for pedestrians. Ice makes it difficult to get from the street to the sidewalks. Once I cross the street to Southdale I find the sidewalks end abruptly, and there is only a wind-swept expanse of parking lot that is very cold in the winter and rather bleak in the summer. Should I want to take public transportation, reaching the Southdale transit center is a challenge, as there are no good sidewalks to reach it on the other side of the mall. As a result of these challenges, I often find myself driving to places within only a couple of blocks, even though I'm a fit, able-bodied person who would prefer to walk. This is a disappointment for me, adds to traffic congestion and detracts from a sense of 0,C community. I expect all of the challenges I've mentioned make less mobile, more elderly residents of this area feel rather isolated in their homes. The rapidly moving traffic along France Avenue essentially divides this community in half. As you plan for the future of Edina, I encourage you to build on the community's strengths. Link the areas of vibrancy, break down the barriers between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers, make it more inviting for people to walk, bike or take public transportation. I realize there are several parcels of land being considered for further development along the France Avenue corridor, including at the southwest corner of 66th and France. As you and your planning team consider the future of these plots, I encourage you to look at the success of areas such as Centennial Lakes or downtown Edina and think about the elements that make them so inviting. They are accessible, pedestrian-friendly, attractive developments that encourage walking, biking and mingling. Such areas can be huge magnets for a community. A mix of retail, commercial and residential uses adds vibrancy both in the day and evenings. Trees and greenery add to their attractiveness, even on the coldest winter days. They are gathering places that build a sense of community. While I'm not a city or transportation planner, I have lived and traveled widely and recognize urban solutions that work. Here are a few suggestions for the short- and long- term: • Improve crossing opportunities for pedestrians along France Avenue, including at very least longer and better crossing signals, safer crosswalks (with signage warning drivers to stop) and perhaps the addition of more pedestrian overpasses. • Add and widen sidewalks along France Avenue and into the Southdale shopping complex. At the moment the few sidewalks that do exist empty into huge parking lots. • Create continuous green walkways and bike paths that extends north-south from Centennial Lakes to the Fairview Southdale medical complex, and east-west from Southdale along 66th Street to Cornelia park and the art center. • Add sizeable trees and greenery between the sidewalks, parking lots and streets in the area, particularly along France Avenue and around Southdale. Require more tree planting for all new developments. • Revise zoning and development guidelines to encourage setbacks from the street and design elements that will enhance the look of the area. • Add interesting public art to beautify the France Avenue corridor. • Move the Southdale library to a corner of the Southdale shopping center lot, perhaps the southwest corner along France Avenue, and make it a community hub with classes, senior center, café, etc. easily accessible by pedestrians, linked to the mall and transit center. • Improve transit options to the area. Make the Southdale transit center more accessible by adding sidewalks that are wide, pleasant and clearly marked so pedestrians can reach the center from all directions. Think about renumbering the bus lines to downtown to replace the confusing system of multiple number 6 buses. Think about adding a streetcar line along France Avenue from downtown Edina to Centennial Lakes, something that elderly and affluent residents of the area would not balk at riding Think about encouraging an airport shuttle service with a hub at Southdale. • Longer term, think about putting some of France Avenue underground and creating a north-south green boulevard or plaza with many trees that could host farmer's markets, art fairs as well as bike and walking paths. • Encourage the development of underground parking at Southdale so some of the current parking area could be converted to green or community space. I realize you have much on your agenda for the new year. As you think about what you would like your community to be in the future, I hope you will accept the perspective of a new resident as an opportunity to identify improvements and build on excellence. I commend the Star-Tribune for its ongoing series of articles looking at planning, design, transportation and architecture issues. The metro area will be in the national and global spotlight quite a lot in the next few years. Downtown Minneapolis is already well on the way to reshaping its image as a vibrant, attractive place to work, live and play. I hope Edina will step up as well. Thank you for your consideration. Sincere regards, AoL2 • City of Edina Planning Commission • City of Edina Transportation Commission 3 • Bill Neuendorf, City of Edina economic development manager • Scott Newman, Chair, Minnesota State Senate, Transportation, Finance and Policy Committee • Scott Dibble, Ranking Minority Member, Minnesota State Senate, Transportation, Finance and Policy Committee Date: January 19, 2017 Agenda Item #: X.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Sc hed ule o f Meeting and Event Dates as of January 19, 2017 Info rmatio n CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Schedule of Upcoming Meetings /Dates /Events TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF JANUARY 19, 2017 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS Thursday Jan 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Feb 16 ETC Annual Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Mar 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Apr 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Tuesday May 2 ETC Joint Work Session with City Council 6:15 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday May 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Jun 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Jul 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Aug 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday Sep 28 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM Thursday Oct 26 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM MAYOR’S CONFERENCE ROOM