HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-18 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Com m ission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Community Room
Thursday, May 18, 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 April 20, 2017
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.Edina Community Circulator: Next Steps
B.2018 West 62nd Street Municipal State-Aid Reconstruction
C.Univ ersity of Minnesota Student Capstone Report: Interlachen
Blv d & Blake Rd Intersection
D.Tra2c Safety Report of Ma y 3, 2017
VII.Correspondence And Petitions
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
IX.Sta 7 Comments
X.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Meeting a nd E v ent Dates as of Ma y 18, 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: May 18, 2017 Agenda Item #: I V.A.
To:Trans p o rtatio n C o mmis s io n Item Type:
Minutes
F rom:S haro n Allis on, Engineering S pec ialis t
Item Activity:
Subject:Approval of Minutes - R egular Meeting of April 20,
2017
Action
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED :
Approve the meeting minutes of the regular E dina T ransportation C ommission meeting of April 20, 2017.
I N TR O D U C TI O N :
AT TAC HME N T S :
Description
Minutes : ETC, Apr. 20, 2017
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
1
Minutes
City of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
Community Room
April 20, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
I. Call To Order
Chair LaForce called the meeting to order.
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were commissioners Ahler, Brown, Kane, Koester, LaForce, Miranda, Olk, Olson, Richman and
Ruthruff.
Absent: Commissioner Iyer
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by commissioner Ahler and seconded by commissioner Olson approving the meeting agenda. All
voted aye. Motion passed.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by commissioner Richman and seconded by commissioner Miranda approving the Mar. 16, 2017,
minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Community Comments - None
VI. Reports/Recommendations
A. France Avenue/I-494 Safety Study Recommendations
Planner Nolan said he was presenting this study for informational purpose only. He explained that the City of
Bloomington started the study because of the number of crashes in the area and included Edina because a portion
of the roadway and crashes are in Edina. They identified lane queuing as a primary reason for the crashes,
therefore, there are proposing new lane assignments as a short term solution and new signage. On the Edina side,
they originally recommended removing one free right turn at Minnesota Drive and France Avenue, and planner
Nolan said he advocated to remove all four, and to add a sidewalk on the east side of France Avenue.
Construction is scheduled for 2021. Bloomington is applying for federal funds; if not successful, Edina would have
to pay its share of the project if it is constructed.
B. 2016 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Summary Report
Planner Nolan said this report is also presented to the City Council annually. He reported that in 2016, 89% of
funds were spent on constructing sidewalks and noted the following - three sidewalk grants were received; a
couple sidewalks were expensive and bids were higher than estimated; all of 2016 funds were spent; there will be
funding for about two miles of sidewalk in 2017. He reviewed the projects planned for 2017 and 2018.
During discussion it was noted that most of the funds were spent on sidewalks versus bike lanes and planner
Nolan was asked how this was determined. Planner Nolan explained that currently, many sidewalks are built with
road reconstruction projects and can be installed a block at a time, whereas bike lanes tend to be planned more
methodically or in longer segments. He is open to discussing how to utilize the fund differently for bike facilities.
C. Traffic Safety Process Review Update
Planner Nolan provided the following update on each recommendation:
Recommendation #1. No action taken yet.
Recommendation #2. Past ETC commissioners were going to work on an intake tool; the Local Road Research
Board is conducting a study on traffic safety processes and planner Nolan is on the committee — this will be
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
2
helpful to the TSC; Edina is well ahead of other cities with traffic safety processes.
Recommendation #3. Not much progress; will continue to use warrants as a basis for safety concerns. Brief
discussion ensued on the lack of ability to analyze data.
Recommendation #4. Probably requires a fulltime staff; intake data would be helpful.
Recommendation #5. The industry standard of 85th percentile speed will still be used with the understanding that
there are other factors to consider. Communicating real speed versus perceived speed is important.
Recommendation #6. This item can be deleted because it is already integrated.
Recommendation #7. Not currently being done; the questions would be too detailed for Quality of Life survey;
also concerned that respondents may not objectively respond, especially if their request was denied.
Recommendation #8. Currently looking at indirect costs for making the position fulltime.
Recommendation #9. Will continue to use the four year exclusion timeline.
D. Traffic Safety Report of April 5, 2017
Motion was made by commissioner Olson and seconded by commissioner Ahler to forward the April 5, 2017,
TSC report to Council as written. All voted aye. Motion passed.
VII. Correspondence And Petitions - None
VIII. Chair and Member Comments
A. ETC Joint Work Session with City Council: Discussion
Chair LaForce explained that they will have 45 minutes with the Council and asked how they should use the time
which will go by very fast. He suggested using the entire time for the ETC to advocate for the Community
Circulator, including inviting Ms. Courtney Whited with DARTS to be in attendance to answer questions.
Commissioner Ahler said the Alliance for Sustainability is inviting people to a planning workshop; and the Edina-
Morningside Church is doing a bike ride on Sunday.
Commissioner Richman found two businesses to participate in the Bicycle Benefits Program; one is offering a 9%
discount and the other 10%. She has two more packets and was looking for two more businesses to participate.
She emailed the mayor to see about scheduling a bike ride (in place of a walk) but has not heard back from him.
Commissioner Brown said he enjoyed the Comprehensive Plan discussion that took place recently; he said a
French manufacturer is making a hydrogen train.
Commissioner Miranda said they received six proposals for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. He said based on their
rating criteria, they interviewed three firms and selected CDG Consulting who will be teaming with Short Elliot
Hendrickson. Planner Nolan said the proposal will go to Council for approval on May 2. He thanked
commissioners Miranda and Ahler for their assistance.
Commissioner Miranda reported the Half Mile Bike Ride was a success with 24 adults and kids participating. He
thanked planner Nolan and public works for the bike racks, and said Hello Pizza was thrilled.
Commissioner Kane asked if it was official that there would be a soccer field in the area of W. 74th Street and
Westshore Drive because the neighbors believe it will create noise. Planner Nolan said the plans are proposed at
this time.
Commissioner Ruthruff asked if there would be a ribbon cutting ceremony or bike ride with the mayor when the
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail was completed. Planner Nolan said he would have to check with Three Rivers
Park District because the trail is theirs.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
3
Chair LaForce asked if commissioners planned to attend the Comprehensive Plan kick-off meeting on Saturday. He
said he walked the Cornelia Drive sidewalk and it was quite nice; he said he got a chance to see issues in areas
he’s not familiar with.
IX. Staff Comments
• 2017 projects started; Birchcrest A and Countryside G will have a sidewalk on Valley View Road that is
over one mile long. Staff is meeting with Oaklawn Avenue residents regarding individual impacts due to
the sidewalk.
• Five proposals were received for the Passenger Rail Engagement.
• Vernon Avenue over Hwy. 100 has lane closures while they repair the concrete pavement; a sidewalk will
be installed in front of the funeral home.
• Planning for the Nine Mile Creek Trail, a temporary bridge was built in preparation for the pedestrian
bridge.
• Comprehensive Plan 101 workshop is scheduled for May 3, 7 p.m. at Public Works and Park Maintenance
Facility.
X. Calendar of Events
A. Schedule of Meeting and Events as of Apr. 20, 2017
For information purposes - no discussion.
XI. Adjournment at 7:25 p.m.
J F M A M J J A S O N D
SM
# of
Mtgs
Attendance
%
Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 4
NAME (Date)
Ahler, Mindy 1 1 2 100%
Bass, Katherine 1 1 2 50%
Boettge, Emily 1 1 2 50%
Brown, Andy 1 1 1 1 4 100%
Iyer, Surya 1 1 1 3 75%
LaForce, Tom 1 1 1 1 4 100%
Janovy, Jennifer 1 1 2 50%
Kane, Bocar 1 1 2 100%
Miranda, Lou 1 1 1 1 4 100%
Olson, Larry 1 1 1 3 75%
Richman, Lori 1 1 2 100%
Ruthruff, Erik 1 1 2 100%
Koester, David (student) 1 1 1 3 75%
Olk, Megan (student) 1 1 2 50%
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
Date: May 18, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Trans p o rtatio n C o mmis s io n Item Type:
O ther
F rom:Mark K Nolan, Transportation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Edina C ommunity C irculator: Next S teps Disc ussio n
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED :
N one.
I N TR O D U C TI O N :
At the Dec 15, 2016 and M ar 16, 2017 E T C meetings C ourtney W hited, D irector of T ransportation for
D ART S , presented options for an E dina C ommunity C irculator. B ased on these discussions, the E T C prepared
an advisory communication on Apr 4 (attached) recommending to C ity Council to direct staff to approve funding
for a six-month trial of a D ART S -operated E dina C ommunity C irculator. T his was discussed directly with
C ouncil at a joint work session on M ay 2, where C ouncil directed staff to proceed and asked the E T C /D ART S
to prepare a more formal proposal.
S taff will provide an update regarding this topic at the M ay E T C meeting.
AT TAC HME N T S :
Description
ETC Advisory Communication: Edina Bus Circulator
Date: April 4, 2017
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Transportation Commission
Subject: DARTS Edina Bus Circulator
Action
Requested:
Direct staff to identify and City Council to approve funding for a once weekly
Edina Bus Circulator (five to eight hours per day, with one or two buses and
routes) provided by the non-profit organization DARTS. DARTS will set up and
lead a broad-based Advisory Committee including City staff, Senior Center staff,
high density housing managers, and others that will establish a six-month trial for
such a service.
Situation:
Over the last five years many Edina residents and Edina staff have been looking for a
circulator bus service that will give those aging in place, and others, the ability to
independently get to medical, recreational, educational, employment, and
shopping/personal appointments. This need is becoming especially acute given the
aging population and the limitations of Metro Mobility. The circulator would likely
include stops at Centennial Lakes, Edinborough, Edina Senior Center, 50th and France,
and Southdale. This transit option will help relieve traffic congestion on key Edina
arterials.
Background:
Edina is currently served by hub-spoke Metro Transit routes that collect passengers
travelling to/from downtown Minneapolis, or via Southdale to Minneapolis or the Mall of
America. There is similar, but limited, direct service between Eden Prairie-Southdale-
Downtown Minneapolis provided by Southwest Transit.
Other providers offer other services, albeit with significant limitations. Metro Mobility
requires the passenger to meet physical limitation guidelines and has a burdensome
eligibility application and inefficient wait times. VEAP is staffed by volunteer drivers and is
Page 2
not wheelchair-equipped.
There is no inter-Edina bus service such as the one proposed in this recommendation.
The proposed circulator would not be duplicative of existing transit options.
Analysis:
The circulator would be designed to serve Edina residents who:
• Are transit dependent and need access to key destinations within Edina in a cost-
effective manner
• Need door-to-door service with a gentle arm of assistance
• Fail to meet the eligibility for physical limitations, or the income guidelines, that
other services require, e.g. Metro Mobility, VEAP.
DARTS provides a flexible and customer-friendly circulator service that has proven
successful in the cities of Hastings, West St. Paul, and coming soon (May, 2017) to South
St. Paul. DARTS, and the Edina Circulator Advisory Committee, would continuously look
for future collaboration/ partnerships with other transit providers, including Metro
Transit. While this is a request for funding for a six-month trial, it is likely that it would
lead to ongoing transit service.
Having the City of Edina start such a service on its own, with little to no experience in the
industry, would undoubtedly cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Such costs
would include marketing, staffing, and capital for at least two buses. Given the weekly
bus service proposed, Edina will in essence be sharing capital costs with the Cities of
Hastings, South St. Paul and West St. Paul
Metro Transit does not have the funding to provide such a service to the City of Edina
and may actually have to reduce service given its $70-$80 Million budget shortfall.
DARTS circulator schedule and routes can be modified to include other areas such as
West Edina and the Cahill or other senior living complexes, or housing near the Tracy
Avenue fire station.
Recommendation:
Page 3
Given the current short falls in funding from the State and from agencies such as Metro
Transit/ Metropolitan Council;
Given the ability to cost share the circulator service with other Cities such as Hastings,
South and West St. Paul;
Given the ability to tailor the circulator service route based on broad based feedback
from the Advisory Committee, Edina residents, etc.;
The ETC recommends that the City of Edina provide staff time and operational
funding to establish a six-month trial of DARTS Circulator Bus Service in the City of
Edina.
Date: May 18, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Trans p o rtatio n C o mmis s io n Item Type:
R eport and R ec o mmendation
F rom:Mark K Nolan, Transportation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:2018 Wes t 62nd S treet Munic ipal S tate-Aid
R ec o ns truc tion
Dis cus s ion
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED :
N one.
I N TR O D U C TI O N :
T he reconstruction of W 62nd S treet (62nd) from O aklawn Avenue to France Avenue is scheduled for 2018. W
62nd St is a state-aid street and is indicated as a primary bike route on the City's C omprehensive B icycle
T ransportation P lan. S taff is studying design options for the street, as well as the feasibility of improving the
intersection of W 62nd S t with O aklawn Ave and Valley View R oad. S everal concepts are being considered (see
attached memorandum), and staff would like to solicit feedback from the E T C regarding the design of this street
and intersection.
AT TAC HME N T S :
Description
Memo: W 62nd Street Recons truction Scenarios
City of Edina • 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, MN 55439
Engineering Department
Phone 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 • www.EdinaMN.gov
Date: May 10, 2017
To: Mark Nolan, Transportation Planner
cc:
From: Carter Schulze, Assistant City Engineer
Subject: West 62nd Street Reconstruction Scenarios
The reconstruction of W 62nd Street (62nd) is scheduled for 2018. Studying the feasibility of
improving the intersection of W 62nd Street (a state aid street) with Oaklawn Ave and Valley
View Road now will allow for implementation during reconstruction. Several concepts and
corresponding affects are listed below. Guiding documents such as the Wooddale Valley View
Small Area Plan (WVV) published in March 2015 and Livings Streets Plan were used in
developing these concepts.
Option1
This option does not change the undesirable configuration of the intersection of 62nd with
Oaklawn and Valley View Road, but it does alter the design to improve safety. Refer to
Figures 1 and 2 for changes described below.
• Adding an entrance median at Valley View Road would eliminate vehicles drifting
through the intersection for both the west bound Valley View Road to north bound
Oaklawn Ave movement as well as the east bound Valley View Road to east bound
62nd movement.
• The entrance median also provides a refuge for pedestrians crossing 62nd.
• This does not correct intersection spacing, vehicle storage, approach or traffic control
issues.
• The sidewalk to the north expands the overall section near the property lines.
• Bike lanes increase the width required for this section. Integral bike lane concrete
curb (B660 Curb) is included along the entire south side and north side west of
Brookview Ave.
Page 2
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 1
Page 3
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 2
Option2
The biggest change of this and subsequent options is closing the intersection of 62nd, Oaklawn
Ave and Valley View Road and reconstructing Brookview Ave south of 62nd to state aid
standards. Refer to Figures 3 and 4 for changes described below for Options 2-4.
• A 10-foot bituminous multi-use trail is shown in Figure 4 along the north side of 62nd
intersecting Brookview Ave. This ties into the park entrance and allows bike and
pedestrian traffic to be shared on one facility, reducing the overall cross section
needed. However, this presents tree and private utility impacts.
• Parking is along the north curb line for the length of 62nd. Again this is advantageous
for park users and it is adjacent to the trail.
• Brookview Ave would include B660 curb allowing bike lanes in both directions. This
route would continue east and west on 62nd.
• A sidewalk would continue east past Brookview Ave on the south side connecting to
Valley View Road.
Page 4
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 3
Page 5
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 4
Option 3
This option includes sidewalks and bike lanes instead of the multi-use trail. Refer to Figures 5
and 6 for these changes.
• A 5-foot concrete sidewalk and 5-foot grass boulevard along the north side. The
sidewalk and boulevard allow some flexibility to adjust for tree impacts and provide
space for utility poles .
• Parking bays along the north side. Areas without parking along the north side would
allow for adjustment of the sidewalk to avoid tree impacts.
• Bike lanes would include a shared facility on the north side and a B660 dedicated lane
on the south side.
• Brookview Ave design is the same as in Option 2.
Page 6
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 5
Page 7
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 6
Option 4
This option is similar to Option 3, but with a dedicated 5-foot bike lane on the north side
between the parking and the drive lane. This increases the overall section width which
impacts additional private utilities. A similar situation occurs on Tracy Avenue. Refer to Figure
7 for this option detail.
Page 8
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Figure 7
Date: May 18, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.C .
To:Trans p o rtatio n C o mmis s io n Item Type:
R eport and R ec o mmendation
F rom:Mark K Nolan, Transportation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Univers ity o f Minnes o ta S tud ent C ap s tone R eport:
Interlac hen Blvd & Blake R d Inters ec tion
Information
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED :
N one.
I N TR O D U C TI O N :
T he E ngineering D epartment worked with civil engineering students from the U niversity of M innesota (C apstone
team) to study potential improvements to the intersection of B lake R oad and I nterlachen B lvd. T his intersection
is anticipated to be reconstructed in 2021. I n the 2017 spring semester, the C apstone team prepared the attached
report, which recommends a roundabout at this intersection.
AT TAC HME N T S :
Description
U of M Capstone Report: Blake Rd & Interlachen Blvd
CIVM Engineering
University of Minnesota
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering
500 Pillsbury Drive SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
May 4, 2017
The City of Edina Engineering Department
7450 Metro Blvd.
Edina, MN 55439
Re: Multi-Modal Intersection Design and Impact Analysis at Blake Road and Interlachen
Boulevard
Dear Chad Millner, Carter Schulze, and Nick Bauler:
Thank you for your guidance and engagement in the University of Minnesota Capstone Design
program.
This letter and report are in response to your request for a multi-modal intersection design and
impact analysis for the intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard.
To produce feasible multi-modal intersection design options, existing conditions were reviewed.
In pursuit of the optimal intersection design, a traffic warrant analysis was conducted, and
various design options were considered. To determine the future impact of the new designs, our
study included anticipated construction limits, property impacts and agency permits, along with
an estimation of quantities and costs for each design option. The proposed solutions are
summarized in the attached report.
We recommend that a roundabout be placed at the northern part of the intersection instead of a
traffic signal. This allows for better continuous flow, reduced delay, safer travelling conditions,
and less future maintenance. This design will cost approximately $1.35 million, including the
roundabout, bike lanes, and shared use pathways.
Thank you for your business. It was a pleasure working with you.
Regards,
Carl Duebner
Ian Girardeau
Vincent Phothisanh
Miranda Swanson
CapstoneTeam@CIVMeng.com || 612-252-5373
Multi-Modal Intersection Design
and Impact Analysis:
An Engineering Report on the Intersection
of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard
Prepared for:
The City of Edina
Prepared by:
CIVM Engineering
Date Submitted:
May 4, 2017
Mentors:
Chad Millner, P.E., Carter Schulze, P.E., and Nick Bauler
i
By signing below, the team members submit that this report was prepared by them and is their
original work to the best of their ability.
Carl Duebner
Project Coordinator
Ian Girardeau
Project Engineer
Vincent Phothisanh
Project Engineer
Miranda Swanson
Project Engineer
ii
Executive Summary
CIVM Engineering was hired to assess one of the City of Edina’s busiest intersections. The team
was tasked with developing feasible design options meeting state aid guidelines and addressing
multi-modal travel, including vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
The intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard experiences approximately 10,000
vehicles per day, 130 pedestrians per day, and has experienced some traffic related crashes. The
main variables examined in this study were: (1) vehicular traffic volumes and queues at both
halves of the intersection, (2) pedestrian and bicycle volumes, and (3) crash history. The two stop
signs that currently control the intersection do not provide a desired level of service for safe and
efficient intersection given the high traffic volumes. These traffic volumes are expected to
increase with regional traffic demand due to infrastructure improvements and the extension of
the Green Line Light Rail.
Due to the anticipated traffic increases, it is important that the redesign of the Blake Road and
Interlachen Boulevard intersection also incorporate improved pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure. To achieve this, the following options were evaluated to determine the best multi-
modal design for the intersection: (1) traffic signals or roundabouts, (2) bicycle lanes versus
bicycle bridges, and (3) a pedestrian crossing versus a pedestrian bridge. For the final option,
construction limits, property impacts, agency permits, and estimated costs were completed.
A roundabout was determined to have the greatest positive impact on the traffic problems
experienced at this location.
iii
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Project Background ................................................................................................................. 1
3.0 Traffic Warrant Analysis ........................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Signal Warrant Analysis ................................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Crash History ............................................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Intersection Design Options .................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Traffic Signal ..................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Two Signals ................................................................................................................................. 5
4.1.2 Northern Signal ............................................................................................................................ 5
4.2 Roundabout ....................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2.1 Location of the Roundabout ........................................................................................................ 6
4.2.2 Size of the Roundabout ................................................................................................................ 6
5.0 Synchro Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 6
6.0 Bicycle Design Options ............................................................................................................ 7
6.1 Bicycle Infrastructure ....................................................................................................................... 7
6.2 Cycle Bridge and Paths ..................................................................................................................... 7
7.0 Pedestrian Design Options ...................................................................................................... 7
7.1 Intersection Crossings ....................................................................................................................... 7
7.2 Pedestrian Bridge .............................................................................................................................. 9
8.0 Limits and Impacts of Design Options .................................................................................. 9
8.1 Property Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 9
8.2 Construction Limits ........................................................................................................................ 10
8.3 Agency Permits ................................................................................................................................ 10
9.0 Sustainability .......................................................................................................................... 10
9.1 Environmental ................................................................................................................................. 11
9.1.1 Vehicular Emissions .................................................................................................................. 11
9.1.2 Materials .................................................................................................................................... 11
9.1.3 Landscaping with Native Vegetation ......................................................................................... 11
9.1.4 Stormwater ................................................................................................................................. 12
9.2 Social & Economic .......................................................................................................................... 12
9.2.1 Quality of Life ........................................................................................................................... 13
9.2.2 Safety ......................................................................................................................................... 13
10.0 Schedule and Budget ........................................................................................................... 13
11.0 Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 13
12.0 Final Recommendation ....................................................................................................... 14
13.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 16
Appendix A: Signal Warrant Analysis Summary ................................................................. A-1
iv
Appendix B: Crash History Summary .................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Design Option Drawings ................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Synchro Analysis Data ...................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E: Property Impact Summary ................................................................................ E-1
Appendix F: Project Budget Table Summary ........................................................................ F-1
Appendix G: Project Gantt Chart .......................................................................................... G-1
Appendix H: Cost Estimate Summary and Tables ............................................................... H-1
Appendix I: Final Design Drawing ........................................................................................... I-1
Table of Tables
Table 1: Simulation Results Based on Intersection Control Design Options .................................. 6
Table 2: An Installation and Total Cost Estimate Comparison Between the Roundabout Design
and the Traffic Signal Design ................................................................................................ 14
Table A-1: Traffic Volume Warrants of the Signal Warrant Analysis ....................................... A-3
Table A-2: Signal Warrant Analysis Comments ........................................................................ A-3
Table B-1: Crash Site Locations .................................................................................................. B-1
Table B-2: Crash History and Descriptions ................................................................................. B-2
Table F-1: Project Budget – Engineering Costs .......................................................................... F-1
Table H-1: Tabulation of Bids – Roundabout ............................................................................ H-1
Table H-1: Tabulation of Bids – Roundabout ............................................................................ H-2
Table H-2: Tabulations of Bids – Traffic Signals ...................................................................... H-3
Table H-2: Tabulations of Bids – Traffic Signals ...................................................................... H-4
Table I-1: Final Roundabout Design Specifications .................................................................... I-2
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard with the Existing Traffic
Control Marked (Google Maps 2017) ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: The Four Locations of the Six Crashes that Occurred in the Surrounding Area (Google
Maps 2017) .............................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3: Splitter Island (top, Bockisch 2015) and Raised Crosswalk (bottom, NACTO 2017)
Examples ................................................................................................................................. 8
v
Figure 4: Current Area Compared to the Proposed Roundabout Area .......................................... 12
Figure 5: Final Roundabout Rendering ......................................................................................... 15
Figure A-1: Warrant 1 Requirements for Conditions A and B (MnDOT 1982) ........................ A-1
Figure A-2: Warrant 2 – Four Hour Vehicular Volume ............................................................. A-2
Figure A-3: Warrant 3 – Peak Hour ........................................................................................... A-2
Figure B-1: Aerial Photograph of the Four Crash Site Locations (Google Maps 2017) ............. B-1
Figure C-1: Aerial Photograph of Masthead Signals Over Both T-Junctions ............................. C-1
Figure C-2: Aerial Photograph of Suspended Signals Over Both T-Junctions ........................... C-1
Figure C-3: Aerial Photograph of Miniature Roundabouts at Both T-Junctions ........................ C-2
Figure C-4: Aerial Photograph of Standard Size Roundabouts at Both T-Junctions .................. C-2
Figure C-5: Aerial Photograph of Single Roundabout Encompassing Both T-Junctions ........... C-3
Figure C-6: Aerial Photograph of Single Standard Size Roundabout at Northern T-Junction ... C-4
Figure D-1: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for Existing Traffic Conditions ................................ D-1
Figure D-2: View of SimTraffic Simulation for Existing Traffic Conditions ............................ D-2
Figure D-3: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for 80 foot Roundabout Design Option .................... D-3
Figure D-4: View of SimTraffic Simulation for 80 foot Roundabout Design Option ............... D-4
Figure D-5: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for Pre-Timed Signals at Both T-Junctions .............. D-5
Figure D-6: View of SimTraffic Simulation for Pre-timed Signals at Both T-Junctions .......... D-6
Figure D-7: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for Coordinated Signals at Both T-Junctions ........... D-7
Figure D-8: View of SimTraffic Simulation for Coordinated Signals at Both T-Junctions……D-8
Figure E-1: AutoCAD Roundabout Design Superimposed on Aerial Photograph of Intersection.
Two driveways circled in yellow, conflict with the roundabout design. (Google Maps 2017)
............................................................................................................................................. E-1
Figure G-1: Project Gantt Chart. Schedule of project and hours devoted to each task…….......G-1
Figure I-1: Final Design Drawing. This is the AutoCAD design superimposed on the aerial
photograph of the intersection. (Google Maps 2017) ........................................................... I-1
1
1.0 Introduction
The intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard has become an area of concern for the
City of Edina due to increasing congestion during peak hours. Located adjacent to the
Interlachen Country Club, the neighborhoods of Parkwood Knolls, Presidents, and Interlachen
Park, and in the vicinity of The Blake School, the intersection serves as both a gateway between
the cities of Edina and Hopkins and as a major commuter route. The City has requested a multi-
modal intersection design and impact analysis to improve safety and accessibility for vehicles,
cyclists, and pedestrians. The main issues are high traffic volumes and insufficient
bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, creating unsafe and inefficient roadways. This report explains
how the existing conditions of the intersection were evaluated and analyzed to generate a variety
of cost effective multi-modal designs that will alleviate congestion and provide a safe corridor
for those commuting through Edina.
2.0 Project Background
The intersection is a pair of T-junctions connected by a land bridge that separates Mirror Lake
into two bodies of water, as shown in Figure 1. The northern T-junction consists of eastbound
and northbound approaches of Blake Road and a westbound approach of Interlachen Boulevard.
The northbound approach is controlled by a stop sign, while the other approaches are
uncontrolled. The southern T-junction contains northbound and southbound approaches of Blake
Road and an eastbound approach of Interlachen Boulevard. The eastbound approach is controlled
by a stop sign, while the other two approaches are uncontrolled.
Based on data collected by the City of Edina, this intersection experiences a total of
approximately 10,000 vehicles and 130 pedestrians and cyclists per day. Various congestion
issues and traffic related crashes have been documented at this intersection (UMN CEGE 2017).
The City of Edina is looking to improve the intersection while updating Blake Road as part of a
major roadway reconstruction project planned for the year 2021 (City of Hopkins 2015).
Currently no sidewalks exist along any approach to either T-junction and the bicycle lanes on
both the eastbound and westbound approaches to the northern T-junction are inadequate. The
City of Edina’s comprehensive plan calls for sidewalks and bicycle lanes throughout the area
surrounding the intersections as part of a move towards multi-modal transportation throughout
the city (Edina City Council 2008, Edina Planning Commission 2017). As such, the City plans to
construct the necessary infrastructure in conjunction with redesigning the intersection.
The City of Edina has called upon the Capstone team, CIVM Engineering, to prepare feasibility-
level design options for the intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard that include
the proposed pedestrian and bicycle accommodations and solve the congestion problem. The
design options should meet state aid guidelines. The team has also been called upon to review
design impacts relative to public and private property, stormwater, permitting, utilities, and any
proposed changes to the surrounding environment.
2
Figure 1: Aerial Photograph of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard with the Existing Traffic
Control Marked (Google Maps 2017)
3.0 Traffic Warrant Analysis
3.1 Signal Warrant Analysis
The purpose of conducting a traffic warrant analysis is to assess the need for a control device,
other than a stop sign, to mediate the flow of vehicles through an intersection. Based on the
Federal Highway Administration “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” a signal warrant
analysis was conducted, which included 9 warrants in total, to see how beneficial a traffic signal
would be (USDOT - FHWA 2009).
1. Eight-hour Vehicular Volume: This warrant is not satisfied. Neither condition A,
condition B, nor the combination of the two were met. Figure A-1, in Appendix A, shows
the minimum values for the volume of the major and minor approaches. The major street
is taken as the eastbound and westbound direction of Interlachen Boulevard and Blake
Road, north of the land crossing. The minor street is the northbound direction of Blake
Road.
3
2. Four-hour Vehicular Volume: Warrant 2 is satisfied according to Figure A-2 in Appendix
A. There were five hours that had vehicle volume approach combinations that were above
the threshold for a 1-lane and 1-lane intersection, given by the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
3. Peak Hour: Warrant 3 is satisfied using condition B in Figure A-3, found in Appendix A.
There are three hours of the day that are above the curve given in MUTCD for a 1-lane
and 1-lane intersection.
4. Pedestrian Volume: There are currently 130 pedestrians and/or cyclists travelling through
the intersection per day. This number is expected to increase, especially in regards to
cyclists, though it is difficult to predict the growth.
5. School Crossing: There is a school 0.7 miles north of the intersection. Trips to the school
likely affect traffic flow through the intersection, though the school does not need to be
taken into account when selecting a design option.
6. Coordinated Signal System: There is no coordinated signal system within the vicinity of
the intersection.
7. Crash Experience: This warrant is not satisfied. The intersection has a crash history, but
does not meet the minimum injury or reportable property-damage-only crashes in a 12-
month period, which is condition B. The 80% minimum vehicular volume warrant is not
met for condition C. Condition A states that alternatives have failed to reduce crash
frequency; however, the knowledge of possible trials of alternatives is unknown.
8. Roadway Network: According to MUTCD, both Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard
would be classified as major routes. There are at least 1,000 vehicles entering the
intersection during the peak hour, and warrants 2 and 3 were met. This satisfies criteria A
for this warrant. As Blake Road is improved in 2021, bicycle traffic is expected to
increase, along with pedestrian traffic, due to the improved infrastructure. It is unknown
whether or not car traffic will increase in the area, as automobile infrastructure
improvements are not fully determined.
9. Intersection Near a Grade Crossing: This warrant is not met, as there are no railroad
grade crossings near the intersection.
4
3.1.1 Crash History
While the main concern regarding the Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard intersection
involves the congestion created by the lack of traffic control, the crash history of the area
surrounding the intersection indicates a need for improvements. The crash data, taken from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation, provides locations for the six crashes in the vicinity of
the intersection recorded from 2006 to December of 2015 (MnDOT 2015). The crashes occurred
in four locations, and based on the distribution, it is likely that congestion was a significant
contributor to the causes of the crashes. Figure 2 displays the four locations of the crashes in
relation to the intersection and Appendix B has specific details about each crash that occurred.
Figure 2: The Four Locations of the Six Crashes that Occurred in the Surrounding Area (Google
Maps 2017)
The first location on the map is the site of two crashes. They occurred in the middle of the
southern T-junction of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard. There have been two crashes
recorded at the second location, approximately 100 feet back from the stop sign on the southern
part of Interlachen Boulevard. One crash occurred at the third location, on Interlachen Boulevard
on the north side of Mirror Lake, about 500 feet back from the northern T-junction. Finally, a
crash occurred at the fourth location, on the curve of Blake Road, about 150 feet south of
Waterman Avenue (Nick Bauler, unpublished internal report, February 9, 2017).
5
4.0 Intersection Design Options
4.1 Traffic Signal
Traffic signals were considered to reduce congestion and improve the overall safety of the Blake
Road and Interlachen Boulevard intersection. Given that the intersection is actually two T-
junctions, there are six different approaches to consider when introducing signals. It was quickly
noted that the installation of six new signal masts would be expensive and require the relocation
of numerous power and communication lines, thus centrally located hanging signals were
recommended. Based upon existing traffic volumes the northern half would require a signal but
the southern half might not need one, thus two options were considered, either two signals or just
a northern signal. Sketches of the different signal options can be found in Appendix C.
4.1.1 Two Signals
With signals in both portions of the intersection the main consideration became how the two
signals would function together. The main options were to use either two pre-timed signals or
two coordinated signals. As will be discussed in the Synchro Analysis section, both options were
rather unsuccessful. The pre-timed signals distributed the total queuing time to all six
approaches, rather than actually reducing it. The coordinated signals could be more successful if
extensive research was conducted to produce the optimal phases and cycle lengths; however,
given the substantial queues that develop below the northern T-junction and proceed to block the
southern T-junction, the green phases that would be required to empty the queue would be so
lengthy that unreasonable queues would develop in the busiest east-west paths through the
northern T-junction.
4.1.2 Northern Signal
While signalizing just the northern T-junction was an option, it was not really considered
because it would experience the same problems that two coordinated signals would experience.
The queue running south from the northern portion would still require a lengthy amount of time
to empty and the vehicles stuck in the western portion of Interlachen Boulevard would still
struggle to merge into the northbound traffic stream.
4.2 Roundabout
A roundabout for the northern half of the intersection provided the best level of service for all the
competing goals. Unlike any signalized option, it eliminated all queues in the Synchro
simulation. A roundabout also requires minimal maintenance, uses far less electricity than
signals, results in fewer emissions because of the reduced queues, and produces less noise than a
signalized intersection.
6
4.2.1 Location of the Roundabout
The roundabout would be located in the northern half of the double T-junction intersection. This
is the only location in the intersection where a practically sized roundabout could fit. The
southern half has more challenges, as it is too small and steeply graded to allow for the insertion
of a roundabout, even if it would serve to provide higher levels of service than the one northern
roundabout.
4.2.2 Size of the Roundabout
For a suburban road with a speed limit of 30 mph and an Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
volume of a few thousand vehicles, the recommended minimum inscribed circle diameter is 105
feet. This size fits perfectly within the available space and existing right-of-way around the
northern T-junction. For a standard WB-50 design vehicle, the circulatory roadway should be 15
feet wide, a truck apron of 12 feet should supplement the necessary turning radius, and all other
geometric values should be based around these specifications (NCHRP 2010).
5.0 Synchro Analysis
An analysis of the intersection was conducted using Synchro, traffic analysis software, in order
to better visualize the current traffic situation, along with the possible impacts of design options.
The available AADT volumes (Hennepin County 2016) were used and the current intersection
conditions were simulated in SimTraffic, a program within Synchro. The reports generated by
Synchro and SimTraffic are found in Appendix D. This analysis served to confirm just how long
the queues can become during peak hours. Three main design options, discussed in the
Intersection Design Options section, were simulated and queue data was recorded, along with
wait times, emissions, and total travel times. Referring to Table 1, signalized options were
unsuccessful in terms of reducing congestion and wait time, in that they redistributed the single
northbound queue into queues at all approaches. The roundabout option was incredibly efficient
and exceeded all expectations. It eliminated any major queuing and reduced total wait times by
90%, which would greatly improve the level of service at this intersection.
Table 1: Simulation Results Based on Intersection Control Design Options
Uncontrolled Signals Coordinated Signals Pre-timed Roundabout
Total Vehicle (#) 261 239 245 263
Travel Time (hr) 5.3 5.9 5.8 2.1
Total Delay (hr) 4.0 4.5 4.4 0.4
Total Stops (#) 114 237 259 96
Fuel Used (gal) 2.4 2.6 2.6 1.9
7
6.0 Bicycle Design Options
6.1 Bicycle Infrastructure
While many roundabouts encourage cyclists to act as vehicles while traversing the intersection,
in a residential area, such as the location of this intersection, it is important to accommodate
riders of all comfort levels. As such, cyclists should be offered the choice of how to interact with
the roundabout, to ensure that all users and those with children can successfully and safely
navigate the roundabout.
6.2 Cycle Bridge and Paths
An initial consideration of a bridge spanning Mirror Lake, parallel to the Blake Road land
bridge, would have allowed cyclists to cross the lake area separated from traffic. After further
investigation it was determined that this option would be too expensive to justify the benefit of
separating cyclists from traffic, especially with such a low level of cyclist traffic. To offer
cyclists the option to separate from traffic, it is recommended that a ramp, located at least 20 feet
from the entry of the roundabout, be created to allow for cyclists to merge onto a shared-use path
with pedestrians. The path would allow for pedestrians and cyclists to safely traverse the
roundabout. Cyclists along the southern edge of the roundabout travelling eastbound could cross
the intersection through the crosswalk, which would require that they either walk their bicycle or
that the crosswalk be wider than normal. A proposed path along the northern edge of the
roundabout would allow cyclists travelling westbound to safely circulate the intersection, and
could border the current driveway to the north.
7.0 Pedestrian Design Options
7.1 Intersection Crossings
As the cities of Edina and Hopkins update the roadway infrastructure along Blake Road,
sidewalks are planned along the southern edges of the road. With this infrastructure in place,
pedestrians travelling through the area will cross Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard along
the southern edge of the redesigned intersection. To increase safety, various roadway treatments
are recommended to reduce vehicle speeds, provide refuge for pedestrians, and increase
accessibility for those with physical limitations.
As part of the roundabout design, the addition of splitter islands at the three entry points of the
roundabout would reduce vehicle speeds and provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the
intersection (NCHRP 2010). The splitter island refuges would be at grade with the roadway, to
allow for easy access to the refuges. A raised crosswalk was considered, as it would allow for
pedestrians to cross the intersection at grade with the sidewalk, increasing disability access and
further reducing traffic speeds, as vehicles would need to overcome a speed bump. This idea was
discarded, as at the current time it is not anticipated that there will be high enough levels of
pedestrian volume to justify this, and it would slow traffic significantly, increasing total delay at
8
the intersection. Also, raised crosswalks are not allowed on Minnesota State Aid networks. See
Figure 3 for an example of a splitter island and a raised crosswalk.
Figure 3: Splitter Island (top, Bockisch 2015) and Raised Crosswalk (bottom, NACTO 2017)
Examples
It is recommended that a stop line be painted five feet in advance of the crosswalk, compliant
with the Federal Highway Administration’s minimum of four feet, while remaining within the
land bridge on which the southern entry point of the roundabout is located (MnDOT - FHWA
2009). Along with the stop line, crosswalk signage and painting are recommended as methods of
indicating that drivers must yield to pedestrians crossing the intersection. Further improvements
could be considered, such as a rectangular rapid flashing beacon to signal to drivers that a
9
pedestrian is entering the intersection, should the recommended treatments be deemed
insufficient or should the pedestrian volumes increase.
As a method of discouraging pedestrians from crossing the intersection via the central
roundabout island, it is recommended that various vegetation features be planted as a natural
barrier. As explored in the Sustainability section of this report, use of native vegetation is
accompanied by various environmental benefits. Additionally, restricting visibility encourages
drivers to travel at slower speeds, thus increasing safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
7.2 Pedestrian Bridge
As with the cycle bridge, a pedestrian bridge was considered during the initial design option
period, as an option for transporting pedestrians across the central land bridge. The primary
benefits of a pedestrian bridge include increased pedestrian safety and additional space for the
roadway. The increased safety is a result of the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, which
protects pedestrians from vehicle crashes that occur on sidewalks. Additionally, by transferring
pedestrians off of the land bridge, more space is available for the roadway, allowing for larger
vehicle and bicycle lanes (MnDOT - FHWA 2017). The main disadvantage of a pedestrian
bridge is the high cost, upwards of $125,000, while a sidewalk across the land bridge would cost
only $20 per square foot, for a total of approximately $15,000 for a 5 foot wide, 150-foot long
sidewalk (howmuch.net 2017).
Due to the high cost, a pedestrian bridge is not recommended, as the roundabout will already
provide increased pedestrian safety, due to the reduced speed limit. The additional roadway
space that would be provided by moving pedestrians onto a bridge is unnecessary, as there is
already room for 15-foot lanes on the land bridge. Additionally, drivers feel more comfortable in
wider lanes, which can lead to speeding upon exiting the roundabout, negating the increase in
safety of the bridge, as speeding cars may endanger pedestrians at a nearby crosswalk.
8.0 Limits and Impacts of Design Options
8.1 Property Impacts
The installation of suspended traffic signals would have little physical impact on nearby property
because suspended signals reside above the existing roadway. A roundabout requires more room
than is currently utilized by the northern half of the intersection; however, the roundabout design,
which was described in the Design Options Section, has a diameter of 110 feet, and fits within
existing right of way. If a northern bicycle bypass is added, a small right of way acquisition
would be required. The entry to a single-family home’s driveway would require design
alternatives and one entry of a multi-home driveway would require closing. See Appendix E for
an aerial view of the driveways. Overall, there are minimal impacts to private property, as the
design fits within the existing public right of way.
10
8.2 Construction Limits
A significant constraint to building a roundabout is the lake that separates the northern and
southern portions of the intersection. Since the existing road does not rest directly along the
edges of the lake, this distance ranges between ten and twenty feet on all sides. Some of this
extra land would need to be utilized in the construction of a roundabout, by way of shoring or
other structural considerations along the lake edge. It should be noted the lake is not readily
available for recreational use, so some nice retaining walls and improved landscape architecture
features would serve to increase the aesthetic appeal of the water body.
8.3 Agency Permits
Various agency permits will be required for this design option, in addition to the requirement of
meeting state aid guidelines to use the City’s allocated Municipal State Aid Construction Funds.
The agencies involved with these permits and guidelines include the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency the 9-Mile Creek Watershed
District, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requires a construction permit for projects
that alter an area greater than one acre. While the roundabout redesign would only alter
approximately half an acre of land, the roundabout would be a part of the larger reconstruction of
the Blake Road corridor, and so would be involved in a construction permit with the MPCA.
While the current design does not call for the addition of retaining walls, doing so would
improve the aesthetic aspect of the land bridge, and would provide extra space for the shared use
path. Should retaining walls be utilized, a permit will be required for the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources. Additionally, retaining walls would require permits for the impacts on the
watershed from the 9-Mile Creek Watershed District, as Mirror Lake is a protected body of
water.
Finally, while the roundabout was designed to fulfill state aid guidelines, both in terms of
roadway factors and pedestrian/cyclist considerations, should changes be made to the design,
they will need to be made according to the guidelines set by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT, 2013). See Appendix I for the roundabout specifications, below the
image of the final design.
9.0 Sustainability
Sustainability is an important part of a human-ecological equilibrium, and with sustainable
development, various approaches can be implemented so as to not deplete Earth’s natural
resources. Sustainability can be broken down into three pillars: environmental, social and
economic, each of which is addressed by an aspect of this project (yadaDROP 2014).
11
9.1 Environmental
For environmental sustainability, there is growing demand around the world for public agencies
to implement green and sustainable initiatives into public infrastructure projects.
9.1.1 Vehicular Emissions
Intersections are major threats to clean air. With vehicular emission problems worsening, it has
become prudent to choose effective traffic control devices that can improve traffic flow on roads
and reduce emissions per vehicle miles traveled while enhancing mobility. Currently, the
intersection is controlled by stop signs, which lead to queuing and thereby higher levels of
carbon emissions than a roundabout, where the traffic is in free-flow conditions. By choosing to
use a roundabout instead of a traffic signal at the intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen
Boulevard, vehicular emissions and fuel consumption can be cut down by reducing the vehicle
idle time and thereby creating a positive impact on the environment. By incorporating better bike
and pedestrian facilities up to and within the roundabout, this will hopefully reduce vehicle trips
as more people will be willing to walk or bike through this area. With fewer vehicle trips,
emissions will be reduced.
9.1.2 Materials
Asphalt, gravel, and oil have a large environmental footprint due to extraction, preparation,
transportation, and use. By using reclaimed asphalt and recycled construction materials when
upgrading the intersection, the environmental footprint can be reduced. The milled asphalt can be
reused on non-load-bearing structures like curb and gutter in the redesign. If asphalt is left over,
it can be brought to the nearest asphalt plant and used for future roadway projects, reducing
waste and the need for new resources. In addition, the steel within the current guardrail can be
recycled.
It is recommended that the City of Edina look into long-life pavements for the redesign of the
intersection, as long-life pavements are beneficial for environmental and cost effective reasons.
Also, intersections use lights to keep the roadways well lit for those travelling through and with
LED bulbs, energy can be saved. LED lights are more sustainable as they are up to 80 percent
more efficient than traditional lighting such as fluorescent and incandescent lights, and 95
percent of the energy in LEDs is converted into light with only five percent wasted as heat
(Boston University 2017).
9.1.3 Landscaping with Native Vegetation
The use of vegetation has many benefits. Plantings provide natural filtering for runoff, intake
carbon dioxide, and provide natural beauty to the area. Native plants have larger root systems,
which hold soil and prevent erosion. To blend with the surrounding environment and prevent the
addition of collision obstacles, low height vegetation can be utilized, with preference for native
Minnesota grasses as they are acclimated to the climate and will require minimal maintenance.
12
9.1.4 Stormwater
Proper stormwater runoff management is vital to reducing water pollution in urban
environments. In areas with winter weather conditions, such as Minnesota, runoff can have an
increased negative impact on the environment, as the use of deicing salts can pollute bodies of
water. The intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard is adjacent to Mirror Lake, and
thus some of the runoff from the non-permeable area can run into the lake if not properly
managed. In order to mitigate the runoff, PaveDrain, a permeable concrete material, could be
utilized to channel the water into the area below the central island (PaveDrain 2017). From there
it can be filtered through a sand layer as a preliminary form of treatment, and then incorporated
into the city’s stormwater system. Due to the lower strength of PaveDrain in comparison to
standard concrete, the material would primarily be utilized in the truck apron portion of the
roundabout, as it receives less frequent stress. While PaveDrain would increase the total
permeable area, the truck apron is not a large enough area to have a noticeable impact on the
infiltration of stormwater. Due to the minimal benefits and high costs that would accompany the
use of PaveDrain, it is not recommended that this material be used for any portion of the
roundabout.
Figure 4: Current Area Compared to the Proposed Roundabout Area
9.2 Social & Economic
There is an ethical responsibility to focus on social and economic equity. For those travelling the
intersection, it is important that their time and safety is taken into consideration. In addition, a
sustainable economic model that ensures fair distribution and efficient allocation of resources
will help improve and maintain a healthy balance with the surrounding community.
13
9.2.1 Quality of Life
Depending on the intersection, some control devices allow for less waiting time for drivers and
pedestrians. In this case, traffic signals or a roundabout are the options to replace the existing two
T-junctions. Typically, choosing to place a roundabout will allow for less delay as vehicles can
yield at the entry rather than stop and wait for a green light, significantly reducing the commute
times, allowing drivers to spend more time with family. When residents are able to spend less
time waiting in traffic, life satisfaction increases. Also, less congestion may reduce stress for
those who need to travel the intersection everyday and when the intersection becomes less of an
inconvenience, the public will be able to experience an increased quality of life. When an
intersection is accessible, mobile, safe, well-maintained and has easy, readable signs, the users
become satisfied with the transportation system.
9.2.2 Safety
Safety has a large impact on the quality of life. Not only is a safe intersection necessary for
vehicles, but an intersection that provides for safe bicycle and pedestrian use allows for a
positive environment where a variety of transportation modes can coexist. A livable community
is one that provides safe and convenient transportation choices to all citizens, so when designing
the intersection, bicycle lanes and accessible sidewalks should be appropriately placed.
10.0 Schedule and Budget
For this project, only the engineering costs and schedule associated with completing the design
options and impact analyses were tracked. No construction schedules or budgets were created as
a final design has not been selected yet. In terms of the engineering costs, the project came in
well under budget. The project was initially estimated at about $45,000, yet it ended up costing
only $31,550.
The project budget was based on the number of hours that it took our team at CIVM Engineering
to complete the tasks at a rate of $100 per hour per person. However, many of the initial
estimates were overestimated and the actual time and costs required to complete the project came
in much lower than expected. The writing of the report, the presentation preparation, and mentor
meeting costs all came in as expected. The project documentation tasks were completed on
schedule meeting set hard deadlines. Tasks one through five, including the traffic warrant
analysis and concept designs tasks, came in under budget. Generally, it did not take as much time
as initially allocated. In terms of the schedule, tasks one through five were generally completed
later than expected as deadlines were easily moved around depending on the availability of each
team member each week. The details of the project budget and schedule are documented in
Appendices F and G.
11.0 Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were completed to provide the City of Edina with an idea as to the differences in
costs between the design options produced by CIVM Engineering. Cost estimates for the
14
roundabout and for the traffic signal were completed using a variety of sources, including
MnDOT average bid tabulations and a previous roundabout project completed by the City of
Edina. In addition to the sources, AutoCAD drawings were used to obtain areas of specific
quantities, to better achieve a reasonable cost estimate. The costs were estimated as closely as
possible, though the focus was on the most expensive items. These subtotal costs are rough
estimates that were priced at contractor rates and with a twenty-five percent contingency
included to encompass engineering design fees, finance costs and construction contingency.
Table 2 contains the summarized costs for each design option. For the roundabout and the traffic
signal design, pavement removal and reconstruction costs were taken into account since the
northern T-junction falls within the future Blake Road corridor reconstruction. Also, the
pedestrian and bicycle facility costs were kept constant between the two designs. The breakdown
of each estimated design cost can be found in Appendix H.
Table 2: An Installation and Total Cost Estimate Comparison Between the Roundabout Design and
the Traffic Signal Design
Installation Cost 25% Contingency Total
Roundabout $1,083,846.00 $270,962.00 $1,354,808.00
Traffic Signal $1,094,122.00 $273,531.00 $1,367,653.00
The roundabout is less expensive at an estimated cost of approximately $1.35 million, while the
traffic signal design has a total cost of $1.37 million. Since the Blake Road improvement project
includes redoing the existing pavement, the traffic signal design includes the prices for not only
the suspended traffic signal, but also the new pavement. Typically installing traffic signals is less
expensive than constructing a roundabout but since the traffic signal design includes two traffic
signal systems and the reconstruction of the northern T-junction the cost is higher than usual.
12.0 Final Recommendation
CIVM Engineering’s final recommendation for the intersection redesign of Blake Road and
Interlachen Boulevard is a single-lane, 110-foot diameter roundabout. There will be a 5-foot
shared-use path along the southern and northern edges, and a 15 mile-per-hour speed limit. This
design will optimize traffic flow and minimize delay, while providing safe routes through the
intersection for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicle drivers. Figure 5 shows a Computer Aided
Design model of the roundabout superimposed on an aerial view of the intersection, including
roadways, the central island, crosswalks, and the shared use pathways. The overall cost of the
roundabout design is approximately $1.35 million. See Appendix I for a larger image and Table
I-1 for the complete roundabout specifications.
15
Figure 5: Final Roundabout Rendering
16
13.0 References
Bockisch, Jay P.E. (2015). “Circling Your City Part 4: Common Issues when Planning,
Designing & Constructing Roundabouts,” <www.greshamsmith.com> (May 1, 2017)
Boston University (2017). “Use LED Light Bulbs, Sustainability @ BU It’s what you do,
<www.bu.edu/sustainability/what-you-can-do/ten-sustainable-actions/use-led-light-bulbs/> (Apr.
18, 2017)
City of Hopkins et. al. (2015). “Blake Road Corridor Study,”
<www.hopkinsmn.com/development/current/blakeroadcorridorstudy/pdf/BlakeRoadCorridorFin
alReport.pdf> (Feb. 2, 2017)
Edina City Council et. al. (2008). “City of Edina Comprehensive Plan,” The City of Edina,
<edinamn.gov/comprehensive_plan> (Feb. 2, 2017)
Edina Planning Commission et. al. (2017) "Planning Commission." City of Edina,
<ci.edina.mn.us/?section=boards_planning_commission> (Jan. 29, 2017)
Google Maps. (2017). <google.com/maps> (2017)
Hennepin County. (2016). “Hennepin County Traffic and Turning Movement Counts,”
<www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3f87bc46ca9e4c8f9d9370c1f0177556> (Feb 2. 2017)
howMuch.net. (2017) “Cost Guides/Concrete,” Concrete Sidewalk
Costs, <howmuch.net/costs/sidewalk-concrete-install-build> (Apr. 30, 2017)
MnDOT. (2015). “Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool,” State Aid for Local
Transportation, <dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/crashmapping> (Feb. 16, 2017)
MnDOT (Minnesota Department of Transportation) Office of Project Management and
Technical Support. (1982). “Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual.”
<roaddesign.dot.state.mn.us> (Apr. 2, 2017)
MnDOT. (2013). “State-Aid Operations Chapter 8820,” Department of Transportation State Aid
for Local Transportation
Division, <www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/stateaidrules.pdf> (Apr. 25, 2017)
NACTO (2017). “Speed Tables,” Urban Street Design Guide,
<nacto.org> (Apr. 30, 2017)
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program). (2010) “Roundabouts: An
Informational Guide.” NCHRP Report 672, (Mar. 21, 2017)
PaveDrain. (2017). “Why the PaveDrain System.” The PaveDrain Difference,
<www.pavedrain.com/pavedrain-difference/> (Apr. 9 2017)
17
UMN CEGE. (2017). “Capstone Design Project Descriptions.” S2017Project
Descriptions_Revised, <ay2016.moodle.umn.edu > (Jan. 20, 2017)
USDOT - FHWA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration). (2009). “Markings.” Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,
<mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part7/part7c.htm> (Mar. 9, 2017)
USDOT - FHWA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration). (2017). “Overpasses/Underpasses,” Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center,
<www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_crossings_over-underpasses.cfm> (Apr. 30, 2017)
USDOT - FHWA (United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway
Administration). (2009). “Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies.” Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices, <mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part4/part4c.htm> (Feb. 9, 2017)
yadaDROP. (2014). “Three Pillars of Sustainability.” Three Pillars of Sustainability,
<www.yadadrop.com/about/sustainability> (Mar. 8, 2017)
A-1
Appendix A: Signal Warrant Analysis Summary
Appendix A contains the minimum traffic volumes for Warrant 1 and the plots for Warrants 2
and 3. Figure A-1 is a section from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
that helps show the details of Warrant 1. As mentioned in the report, Warrant 1 was not met.
Figure A-1: Warrant 1 Requirements for Conditions A and B (MnDOT 1982)
A-2
The plot for Warrant 2 is Figure A-2, and the plot for Warrant 3 is Figure A-3, below. These
plots are to demonstrate the threshold for the four-hour vehicular volume and the peak hour
conditions.
Figure A-2: Warrant 2 – Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Figure A-3: Warrant 3 – Peak Hour
A-3
Table A-1: Traffic Volume Warrants of the Signal Warrant Analysis
To summarize the volume warrants, Table A-1 was made, above. This table shows whether or
not Warrants 1 through 3 were met. Lastly, Table A-2 provides comments in detail about
whether or not all nine warrants were met.
Table A-2: Signal Warrant Analysis Comments
B-1
Appendix B: Crash History Summary
Appendix B contains the description of the crash history at the intersection. The data analyzed
was obtained by Nick Bauler who was able to access the data from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation’s crash-mapping website (MnDOT 2015). There were six car crashes, which
occurred at four different locations. Figure B-1 below shows the exact locations, while Table B-1
includes a description of each crash in reference to the location.
Figure B-1: Aerial Photograph of the Four Crash Site Locations (Google Maps 2017)
Table B-1: Crash Site Locations
Location Description
1 There have been two accidents in the middle of the southern T-junction of Blake and
Interlachen.
2 Two accidents have been recorded approximately 100 feet west of the stop sign on
the southern T-junction.
3 One accident occurred on eastern Interlachen Boulevard, about 500 feet back from
the northern T-junction.
4 Finally, one accident occurred on northwestern Blake Road, on the curve about 150
feet south of Waterman Avenue.
B-2
To summarize the crash history of Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road, Table B-2 was made
to show the date it occurred, the location, the cars involved, the conditions of the crash and the
accident type.
Table B-2: Crash History and Descriptions
Date Location Cars
Involved Conditions Accident Type
March 13, 2006 2 2 Snowy Rear-end collision
March 28, 2006 1 1 Clear Unknown
July 8, 2006 4 1 Clear Off-road collision with
tree
July 8, 2006 1 1 Unknown Unknown
December 13,
2006 2 1 Icy roadways,
nighttime Collision with guardrail
April 15, 2011 3 1 Clear Vehicle Rollover
C-1
Appendix C: Design Option Drawings
Appendix C provides renderings of initial concept designs for the intersection. Designs were
broken into two categories: signals and roundabout. Figure C-1 and Figure C-2 show the initial
concept designs for the traffic signals. Figures C-3 through C-6 show the initial roundabout
concept designs.
Figure C-1: Aerial Photograph of Masthead Signals Over Both T-Junctions
Figure C-2: Aerial Photograph of Suspended Signals Over Both T-Junctions
C-2
Figure C-3: Aerial Photograph of Miniature Roundabouts at Both T-Junctions
Figure C-4: Aerial Photograph of Standard Size Roundabouts at Both T-Junctions
C-3
Figure C-5: Aerial Photograph of Single Roundabout Encompassing Both T-Junctions
C-4
Figure C-6: Aerial Photograph of Single Standard Size Roundabout at Northern T-Junction
D-1
Appendix D: Synchro Analysis Data
Synchro was used to simulate traffic conditions of each design in order to obtain data on delay,
queuing, trip time, etc. This data was used to evaluate and compare the design options. Each
SimTraffic report is followed by a SimTraffic image view of the intersection.
Figure D-1: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for Existing Traffic Conditions
D-2
Figure D-2: View of SimTraffic Simulation for Existing Traffic Conditions
D-3
Figure D-3: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for 80 foot Roundabout Design Option
D-4
Figure D-4: View of SimTraffic Simulation for 80 foot Roundabout Design Option
D-5
Figure D-5: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for Pre-Timed Signals at Both T-Junctions
D-6
Figure D-6: View of SimTraffic Simulation for Pre-timed Signals at Both T-Junctions
D-7
Figure D-7: Raw Synchro Analysis Data for Coordinated Signals at Both T-Junctions
D-8
Figure D-8: View of SimTraffic Simulation for Coordinated Signals at Both T-Junctions
E-1
Appendix E: Property Impact Summary
Appendix E contains a photograph of the final design that highlights its impacts on two
driveways north of the intersection.
Figure E-1: AutoCAD Roundabout Design Superimposed on Aerial Photograph of Intersection.
Two driveways circled in yellow, conflict with the roundabout design. (Google Maps 2017)
F-1
Appendix F: Project Budget Table Summary
Appendix F includes a table showing the engineering costs. The project came in $13,550 under
budget.
Table F-1: Project Budget – Engineering Costs
G-1
Appendix G: Project Gantt Chart
Appendix G contains the Gantt chart, which shows the distribution of time spent working on
each task over the past 16 weeks.
F
i
g
u
r
e
G
-
1
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
G
a
n
t
t
C
h
a
r
t
.
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
h
o
u
r
s
d
e
v
o
t
e
d
t
o
e
a
c
h
t
a
s
k
.
H-1
Appendix H: Cost Estimate Summary and Tables
Appendix H contains the detailed cost estimate for both a signalized option and roundabout
option. Estimates were priced using MnDOT’s average bid prices and plans of a previously
completed roundabout in Edina. These costs include contingency, along with engineering, legal,
and financial fees.
Table H-1: Tabulation of Bids – Roundabout
H-2
Table H-1: Tabulation of Bids – Roundabout
H-3
Table H-2: Tabulations of Bids – Traffic Signals
H-4
Table H-2: Tabulations of Bids – Traffic Signals
I-1
Appendix I: Final Design Drawing
Appendix I contains a large draft of the roundabout design, including Table I-1, which contains
the roundabout design specifications.
Figure I-1: Final Design Drawing. This is the AutoCAD design superimposed on the aerial
photograph of the intersection. (Google Maps 2017)
I-2
Table I-1: Final Roundabout Design Specifications
Date: May 18, 2017 Agenda Item #: VI.D.
To:Trans p o rtatio n C o mmis s io n Item Type:
R eport and R ec o mmendation
F rom:Nic k Bauler, Traffic S afety C o ordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic S afety R ep o rt o f May 3, 2017 Action
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED :
R eview and recommend the T raffic S afety R eport of Wednesday, M ay 3, 2017, be forwarded to C ity Council
for approval.
I N TR O D U C TI O N :
I t is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting regarding the report's recommendations. An
overview of the comments from the E dina Transportation C ommission will be included in the staff report
provided to the C ity C ouncil for their J une 20, meeting.
AT TAC HME N T S :
Description
Traffic Safety Report of May 3, 2017
May 18, 2017
Edina Transportation Commission
Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Traffic Safety Report of May 3, 2017
Information / Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on May 3. The Transportation
Planner, City Engineer, Assistant City Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Public Works Director and Traffic
Safety Specialist were in attendance for this meeting. The Police Lieutenant was not able to attend, 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 May 18 Edina Transportation Commission and the June 20 City Council meeting agendas.
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action:
A1. A resident from the Highlands neighborhood
requested lowering the speed limit on Ayrshire Blvd
to 20 MPH.
• The resident making this request would also
like to move the speed limit sign for
northbound traffic for vehicles entering from
Vernon Ave
• Ayrshire Blvd is a two-lane two-way street
labeled as a ‘Local Connector’
• The North and Southbound stretch of
Ayrshire is separated by a median south of
Glenbrae Cir
• Northbound 85% speed between both
Map: Location of current speed
limit sign. The red bars symbolize
the locations of collected data 30
STAFF REPORT Page 2
Photo: Signage at Link Rd and Eden Ave
shows Sherwood Rd to the south.
entrances of Glenbrae Cir was 31.6 MPH
• Northbound 85% speed between Lochloy Dr and Glenbrae Cir slowed to 28.6 MPH
• North and southbound ADT is 517
After review, staff recommends adding a new speed limit sign for northbound traffic
near the southern intersection of Glenbrae Cir and Ayrshire Blvd in the center grass-
island. Adding this sign should inform vehicles traveling northbound on Ayrshire Blvd of
the speed limit up to three blocks sooner than current speed limit sign.
A2. A resident requests new traffic controls due to
inadequate sight lines at Lakeview Drive and Golf
Terrace
• This is a three-leg intersection as the only
controlled leg is for eastbound vehicles.
• Average vehicles through this intersection is
1,300.
• Uncontrolled traffic make up 57% of vehicles
entering the intersection.
• Line of sight as this intersection appears
appropriate.
After review, staff recommends placing a sign below the eastbound stop sign informing
traffic from north and south does not stop.
A3. A request to rename Link Road to Eden Avenue, and continue Sherwood Road up to Eden
Avenue
• A resident requested to make Eden Ave run
west up to Vernon Ave as people would be
informed by GPS units to turn from Vernon
Ave onto Link Rd.
• Link Rd has no signage at Vernon Ave or on
Eden Ave.
• Eden Ave transitions into Sherwood Rd at
the west exit of Grandview Square Park.
• Eden Ave and Link Rd are listed as ‘Connector Streets’
• Vernon Ave is listed as a “Minor Arterial Street”
• In April, the Traffic Safety Committee recommended the resident file a petition to City
Council in regards to the removal of Link Rd
• Link Rd has no listed addresses
• The petition was submitted to and received by City Council and included signatures of 11
residents. City Council did not object to renaming the street.
After review, staff recommends removing the “Link Road” designation and renaming
that section Eden Ave. Staff also recommends extending Sherwood Rd north to Eden
Ave. As required, a public hearing will be held regarding renaming of these roads.
Map: Location Lakeview Dr and Golf Terrace
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Section B: Items which staff recommends for no action
B1. A resident requested new traffic control as traffic has increased on Highway 100 East Frontage
Road
• Resident located at 6617 Normandale Rd is
looking for similar treatment on
Normandale Rd as the Parkwood Knolls
neighborhood received following the traffic
increase due to the Highway 169 closure.
• Normandale Rd is a northbound one-way
street with one lane
• Normandale Rd is classified as a ‘Collector
Street’
• ADT on Normandale Rd in September 2012
was 1,678 with 85% speed of 36.8
• ADT on Normandale Rd in April 2017 was
1,714 with 85% speed of 37.8
• PM peak hour in 2012 was 272
• PM peak hour in 2017 was 386
After review, staff recommends no action as the traffic increase did not warrant any
new controls.
Section C: Items which staff recommends for further study
C1. A request to place ‘No U-Turn’ signs on Valley View Road to prevent westbound drivers from
making U-turns during school peak hours
• Drivers dropping students at Valley View
Middle School drop off area are making U-
turns to travel eastbound
• Valley View Rd has a morning peak hour of
969 vehicles at 7:30
• Between 6:45 am and 7:45 am, 50 vehicles
made U-turns after dropping off students
• Between 2:30 pm and 3 pm, 7 vehicles made
U-turns
• PM peak hour at 3:15 had zero vehicles making U-turns
After review, staff recommends discussing this item at a later date. Staff would like to
discuss this item with a representative from the Police Department.
Map: Location of Highway 100 East Frontage Road/
Normandale Rd
Map: Location where vehicles are making U-turns on
Valley View Rd in front of Valley View Middle School
STAFF REPORT Page 4
Section D: Other Traffic Safety Items handled
D1. A resident on St. Johns Avenue requested traffic calming on their road, as they believe average speeds
are too high. Following a traffic study, the average speeds on St. Johns Ave are 29 MPH. This neighborhood
will continue being monitored.
D2. A resident had a complaint of too many vehicles parking on Valley View Road near Dakota Trail. Upon
review, this stretch of Valley View Rd allows parking with no line of sight issues. This will continue to be
monitored.
D3. A resident was looking for traffic counts on Dunberry Lane and West Shore Drive to compare
information to W. 70th St.
D4. A resident was concerned with vehicles parking too close to the intersection of Wyman Avenue and W.
63rd Street. After inspecting, vehicles maintained an adequate distance from the intersection.
D5. A resident called to request temporary no-parking signs near Highlands Park for an upcoming soccer
camp. This request was forwarded to the Police Department.
D6. A resident requested a traffic safety issue with the increased traffic on Blake Rd. The Traffic Safety
Committee labeled this as a repeat request as it was recommended to increase police patrol along Blake Rd.
D7. A resident complained about traffic not stopping at stop signs on Schaefer Rd north of View Ln. This
request was forwarded to the Police Department.
D8. A resident informed traffic safety about a wooden fence that was broken along Hansen Rd near Garden
Park. This was forwarded to Public Works and has been fixed.
Date: May 18, 2017 Agenda Item #: X.A.
To:Trans p o rtatio n C o mmis s io n Item Type:
O ther
F rom:Mark K. No lan, AI C P, Trans p ortation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:S c hedule of Meeting and Event Dates as of May 18,
2017
Information
C ITY O F E D IN A
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED :
N one.
I N TR O D U C TI O N :
AT TAC HME N T S :
Description
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings /Dates /Events
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF MAY 18, 2017
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
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
Thursday Nov 16 ETC Annual Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Dec 21 ETC Annual Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jan 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Feb 15 ETC Annual Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Mar 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM