HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-17 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall, Community Room
Thursday, May 17, 2018
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 19, 2018
V.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues
or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the
number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items
that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Approve Route and Stops for CloverRide Circulator
B.Draft Edina Pedestrian Crossing Policy
C.U of MN Capstone Report: York Avenue / Parklawn Avenue
Intersection Improvements
D.Bicycle Friendly Community Renewal Application Update
E.Tra1c Safety Report of May 1, 2018
F.Prepare for June 5 Joint Work Session with City Council
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta7 Comments
IX.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Meeting and Event Dates as of May 11, 2018
X.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli:cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Liz Moore, Engineering Specialist
Item Activity:
Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 19,
2018
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 of April 19, 2018.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Minutes: ETC, April 19, 2018
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
Community Conference Room
April 19, 2018
I. Call To Order
Chair Richman called the meeting to order
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were commissioners Johnson, Kane, McCarthy, Olson, Richman, Ruthruff, Scherer,
Veluvali, Yeager
Absent: Commissioners Ahler, Ma
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by commissioner Kane and seconded by commissioner Olson to approve
the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by commissioner Johnson and seconded by commissioner Ruthruff
approving the March 15, 2018 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Special Recognitions and Presentations
Melissa Madison from commuter services presented on Commuter Services/I-494 Corridor Commission,
and Travel Demand Management (TDM).
Motion was made by commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Johnson to investigate
options and make suggestions to develop a Traffic Demand Management Ordinance. All
voted aye. Motion carried.
A committee was formed of members McCarthy, Kane and Johnson to work on TDM recommendations.
VI. Community Comment
None.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. Circulator Bus Update
Commissioner Olson presented updates on the circulator bus
• Sponsorships are needed
• Starting with one loop but can increase if the demand is present.
• Address gender and racial diversity on marketing material.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
B. Comprehensive Plan Update
Commissioner Richman provided an update on the comprehensive plan
• Recommendation from March meeting was to add a section about working with Hennepin
County more closely in regards to aligning visions for France and Xerxes
C. Edina Dockless Bike Sharing Pilot Program
Staff liaison Nolan provided and update on bike sharing
• Council supports the pilot program.
• No cost to the city.
• Alternate options to unlock bikes is available.
• No scooters will be part of the program initially.
D. Traffic Safety Report of April 3, 2018
Motion was made by commissioner Olson and seconded by Johnson to the approve April
3rd, 2018 Traffic Safety Report. All voted Aye, motion carried.
E. Review Status of 2018 Work Plan
• #1 on track
• #2 Richfield is the only surrounding city with a transportation commission and staff liaison
Nolan will reach out to schedule a meeting
• #3 High School traffic: there is a study being conducted on traffic/parking at and around the
high school.
• #4 Comprehensive Plan is complete
• Parking Lot item: Race & Equity taskforce will be going to council.
VIII. Chair And Member Comments
• Commissioner Yeager said kids at the high school do not know about the six-hour parking
ordinance on surrounding streets
• Commissioner Johnson: TDM should also address traffic at the high school
• Commissioner Kane asked what other projects can the ETC do to engage students with the
commission?
• Commissioner Scherer said the Vernon Bridge has been added to the County’s CIP.
IX. Staff Comments
• There will be a meeting on May 24th, 2018 for the Southdale District Transportation
Workshop. Look for an invitation.
• The City is renewing their status with the Bicycle Alliance and we may ask for your help as
we try to obtain silver status.
X. Adjournment at 7:53 p.m
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance %
Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 4
NAME
Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 3 75%
Johnson, Kirk 1 1 2 100%
Iyer, Surya 1 1 2 100%
LaForce, Tom 1 1 2 100%
Kane, Bocar 1 1 1 1 4 100%
McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 2 100%
Miranda, Lou 1 1 2 100%
Olson, Larry 1 1 1 3 75%
Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 4 100%
Ruthruff, Erik 1 1 1 1 4 100%
Scherer, Matthew 1 1 2 100%
Veluvali, Shankar 1 1 2 100%
Jenny Ma (s) 1 1 2 50%
Tessa Yeager (s) 1 1 2 50%
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Approve Route and Stops for CloverRide Circulator Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the initial proposed route and stops for the CloverRide circulator bus service.
INTRODUCTION:
Commissioner Olson, chair of the Circulator Bus Task Force, will present the proposed "loop" route and stops to
the ETC for their approval. If approved, City Manager Scott Neal will share this with City Council at their may
20 meeting.
Note that service is still planned to commence sometime in June. The route and stops can be changed during the
"pilot" period to maximize ridership and efficiency.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Edina Loop Circulator Bus Task Force Charter
Needs Assessment Survey
City of Edina Circulator Bus Task Force Charter DRAFT
Purpose
Without duplicating currently available services, The Edina Circulator Loop is a
fixed-route bus service which helps riders visit Edina businesses and
destinations without driving and while receiving the caring assistance of a
DARTS driver. The services offers an all-you-can-ride fare that allows riders to
get on and off at any of the stops along the one-hour loop. Additionally,
customized, on-demand stops are available by request.
Objectives
• Provide reliable and affordable transportation for residents of Edina
o Primary audience—older adult residents
o Secondary audience—lower income, disabled residents
• Increase foot traffic in shopping districts
• Encourage community interactions
• Decrease caregiver burden through enhanced mobility options
Roles and Responsibilities
DARTS will provide:
• DOT certified drivers trained in STS, Aging in Place and Dementia Friends
providing door-to-door service with the utmost care and compassion
• 15-18 passenger vehicles equipped with lift and space for 2-3 wheelchairs or
scooters
• Route planning and dispatch
• Travel training
• Marketing content support and production of banners, schedules and other
printed material
City of Edina will provide:
• Task force assembly
• Funding for circulator operations
• Promotion of circulator
• Advertising
• Sponsorship acquisition
Deliverables
Action Estimated Time Deadline
Needs Assessment Survey –
accepted by task force
24 March 2018
Needs Assessment Survey—
distributed to designated high
density housing.
Delivered by DARTS 28 March 2018
Survey returned Picked up by DARTS 6 April 2018
Report survey results to task force 11 April 2018
Determine route stops Task force meeting 18 April 2018
Develop & test Schedule 9 May 2018
Create marketing plan 15 May 2018
Distribute schedules to housing
locations
24 May 2018
Ribbon cutting May 31 2018
Acquire sponsorships ongoing
Travel training ongoing
Meet and revise as needed ongoing
Members
• Chair: Larry Olson--ETC (Edina Transportation Commission)
• Subject matter expert: Melissa Henry--DARTS
• Secretary: Jan Hix--DARTS
• Sonja Barnaal/Vernon Terrace
• Heather Edelson/HRCC (Human Rights and Relations Commission)
• Nicole Gorman/Edina Senior Center
• Jane Hagstrom/Aurora on France
• Roxy Kline/Southdale YMCA
• Jenny Ma/Student representative, Edina Transportation Commission
• Brandon Mabb/Brookdale Senior Living
• Teressa Nicholas/Summit Point
• Mark Nolan/City of Edina Transportation Planner
• Mark Peterson/The Cedars of Edina
• JD Rastetter/Simon Management—Southdale
• Eric Ruthruff/Edina Transportation Committee
• Laura Sheak/Yorktown Continental Apartments
• Krystal Wiebush/Senior Community Services
Meeting Times and Locations *
• Wednesday, 21 March 2018—9 am-10:30 am Edina Public Works Building
• Wednesday, 18 April 2018-TBD
• Tuesday, 8 May, 2018--TBD
* The Edina Circulator Bus Task Force is not subject to open meeting law.
Agendas and Notes
• Solicit agenda items from task force members 3 days before meeting.
• Prepare agenda and distribute no less than 24 hours before meeting.
• Post meeting notes and agendas via email.
Time Commitment:
• During the development phase, the task force meets in-person monthly.
• After project launch, the task force will meet in-person quarterly or as needed.
• Additional periodic phone or email communication is necessary to provide
updates, suggestions or comments or to approve modifications.
Transportation Needs
Assessment Survey
The City of Edina and its community partners are teaming up to provide
a new transportation service for residents of Edina. This circulator bus
service offers an alternative to existing transit options in that it
makes scheduled stops at local businesses and offers the
flexibility of requesting a stop nearby. The proposed service would
run one day per week, making five one-hour loops.
Please help us design the most effective service for Edina. We are
seeking input from Edina residents and those who care for them. Your
answers are critical in the success of this program. We thank you in
advance for your participation.
1. Would you or someone close to you be interested in using such a transportation
option?
Yes
No
2. Which best describes you?
Person caring for someone
Age 54 and under
Age 55 -69
Age 70-79
Age 80-89
Age 90 and over
3. What transportation service features would you like to see on this proposed
circulator bus?
Wheelchair lift-equipped vehicle
Someone to assist you on and off the vehicle
Someone to assist you with your bags
Someone calling out route stops
Other (please specify)
4. What day of the week would you prefer to use the circulator bus? (please check
one)
Monday Tuesday
Thursday Friday
5. What five hour block of time would best suit your needs? (Please rank #1-3, with
#1 being the most favorable time slot)
9am - 2pm
10am - 3pm
11am – 4pm
6. Where in Edina do you think the bus should stop? (Please rank #1-7, with #1
being your favorite, and #7 being your least favorite)
Educational Classes (e.g. school/community education)
Medical or Dental Appointments
Edina Senior Center
Library
YMCA
Restaurants
Shopping Destinations
7. What shopping destinations would you like to see on the route? (Please circle all
that apply)
• Target
• Lunds & Byerlys
• Cub Foods
• Southdale Center
• The Galleria
• 50th & France
• Other (please specify)
8. How much would you be willing to pay for a daily all-you-can-ride pass?
$3.00
$5.00
$7.00
Other (please specify)
Additional Comments:
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Draft Edina Pedestrian Crossing Policy Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Recommend that the attached revised P edestrian Crossing Policy be forwarded to City Council for approval.
INTRODUCTION:
While preparing the recently-approved P edestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, staff determined that it was necessary
to take a closer look at revising Edina's existing crosswalk policy (attached). SEH, Inc. was contracted to prepare
an update to the policy that better reflects current trends and best practices developed over the past ten years. The
attached Draft Pedestrian Crossing Policy was reviewed by the Traffic Safety Committee, which is asking the
ETC for its support.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Updated Edina Pedestrian Crossing Policy
Existing Marked Crosswalk Policy
No Action
Recommended
Direct Pedestrians
to nearest marked or
protected crossing
Consider installing
“unmarked pedestrian
crossing facilitations”(5),
subject to staff review/
engineering judgment
Direct pedestrians
to nearest marked or
protected crossing or
consider HAWK beacon,
traffic signal or grade
separated crossing
Go to Table 1
ADT ≥1,000 vpd (1)
School Crossing* or
School Zone**?
Multi-Use Path
Crossing?
Adequate stopping
sight distance? (8x
speed limit)
Meets min. pedestrian
volume thresholds? (2)
Nearest marked or
protected crossing ≥ 300’
away? (4)
Remove sight distance
obstructions or lower
speed limit
Crossing serves transit stop
or other noticeable, defined
and regular crossing? (3)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y Y
Feasible
Not
Feasible
Y
Y
(1) Exception to the 1,000 vpd min. roadway volume threshold may be
made for School Crossings* where the peak hour traffic exceeds 10%
of the daily traffic
(2) Minimum Pedestrian Volume Thresholds:
• 20 peds per hour*** in any one hour, or
• 18 peds per hour*** in any two hours, or
• 15 peds per hour*** in any three hours
* School Crossing defined as a crossing location where ten or more
student pedestrians per hour are crossing
** School Zone defined as A segment of street or highway that abuts
school grounds where children have access to the roadway or where a
school crossing is in place
*** Young, elderly, and disabled pedestrians count 2x towards volume
thresholds
(3) Refer to note 2 for guidance on reasonable volume thresholds
(4) Distance to the nearest marked or protected crossing may be
reduced to 200’ in urban conditions, subject to engineering judgment,
where crossing treatments and crossing activity would not create
undue restrictions to vehicular traffic operations.
(5) An “unmarked pedestrian crossing facility” is any treatment that
improves a pedestrian’s ability to cross a roadway, short of the marked,
signed and enhanced crossings detailed in Table 1. Installation of this
type of pedestrian facilitation is subject to engineering judgment and
may include curb ramps and/or a raised median refuge. However, no
effort is made to attract pedestrians or recommend that pedestrians
cross at this location. The treatments simply provide an improvement
for a low volume pedestrian crossing where pedestrians are already
crossing and will like continue to cross.
Edina Pedestrian Policy
Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Location Treatment Flowchart
Y
DRAFT
Roadway Configuration
# of lanes
crossed
to reach a
refuge(1)
# of
multiple
threat
lanes(2)
per
crossing
Roadway ADT and Posted Speed
1,500-9,000 vpd (3) 9,000-12,000 vpd 12,000-15,000 vpd > 15,000 vpd
≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph ≤ 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph
2 Lanes (one way street)2 1 A B C A B C B B C B C C
2 Lanes (two way street with
no median)2 0 A B C A B C B B C B C C
3 Lanes (w/raised median)1 or 2 0 or 1 A B D A C D B D D C D D
3 Lanes (w/striped median)3 0 or 1 C C D C C D C C E C D E
4 Lanes (two way street with
no median)4 2 A D D B D D B D E D D E
5 Lanes (w/raised median)2 or 3 2 A B D B C D B C E C C E
5 Lanes w/striped median 5 2 D D D D D D D D E D D E
6 Lanes (two way street with or
without median)3 to 6 4 E E E E E E E E E E E E
Notes:
1. Painted medians can never be considered a refuge for a crossing pedestrian. Similarly, a 4 foot wide raised median next to a left turn lane can only be considered a refuge for pedestrians if
the left turning volume is less than 20 vehicles per hour (meaning that in most cases the left turn lane is not occupied while the pedestrian is crossing).
2. A multiple threat lane is defined as a through lane where it is possible for a pedestrian to step out from in front of a stopped vehicle in the adjacent travel lane (either through or turn lane).
3. Additional treatments may be considered if suitable gaps in traffic for safe crossing are not available.
Treatment Descriptions
A
Install marked crosswalk with road-side signs
Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) with standard (W11-2) advance
pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations.
B
Install marked crosswalk with road-side and in-roadway (bollard mounted) signs
Specific Guidance: Install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) and “State Law – Stop for Pedestrian”
(R1-6) signs mounted on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations.
C
Install marked crosswalk with signs and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure
Specific Guidance: For 2-lane roadways, install marked crosswalk with signs mounted on the side of the roadway (W11-2 and W16-7P) and “State Law
– Stop for Pedestrian” (R1-6) signs mounted on in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School
Crossing locations. Add curb extensions (concrete, paint, flexible delineators) or median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and
increase pedestrian visibility to motorists.
For 3+ lane roadways, install marked crosswalk with advance regulatory “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs mounted on the side of the roadway,
(W11-2 and W16-7P) mounted at the crossing location on the side of the roadway and “State Law – Stop for Pedestrian” (R1-6) signs mounted on
in-roadway bollards; use standard (W11-2) advance pedestrian warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Add curb extensions or
median refuge islands to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. Advance stop bars may be used in
combination with “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) sign.
D
Install marked crosswalk with advanced “Stop here for Pedestrians” signs, pedestrian activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs),
and geometric improvements to increase pedestrian visibility and reduce exposure
Specific Guidance: Install raised median refuge island (unless it is a one-way street or one already exists) to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance
and increase pedestrian visibility to motorists. [If a median refuge cannot be constructed on a two-way street, go to Treatment E]. Install marked
crosswalk with signs (W11-2 and W16-7P) WITH pedestrian activated RRFBs mounted on the side of the roadway and on median mounted signs AND
advance regulatory “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) signs mounted on the side of the roadway; use standard (W11-2) advance warning pedestrian
warning signs; use S1-1 signs for School Crossing locations. Consider adding curb extensions at the crossing if on-street parking exists on the roadway
and storm drain considerations will allow. Advance stop bars may be used in combination with “Stop here for Pedestrians” (R1-5) sign.
E
Do not install marked crosswalk at uncontrolled crossing. Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal, or grade-separated crossing
Specific Guidance: Consider HAWK beacon, pedestrian traffic signal or grade-separated crossing; application of these treatments will consider,
corridor signal progression, existing grades, physical constraints, and other engineering factors.
Edina Pedestrian Policy
Table 1. Criteria for Crossing Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
DRAFT
Marked Pedestrian Crosswalks
The City of Edina's local traffic control policy regarding marked pedestrian crosswalks is as
follows:
• Marked crosswalks are placed at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations not
readily apparent as having pedestrian movement
• Marked crosswalks will only be placed in an area that has 20 or more pedestrian crossings in a two-hour period
• Marking for crosswalks will be established by measuring the "Vehicle Gap Time." This is the
total number of gaps between vehicular traffic recorded during the average five minute
period in the peak hour. Criteria for markings are:
o More than five gaps - pavement marking and signage only
o Less than five gaps - add actuated pedestrian signals
• Crosswalks will not be placed on arterial roads or roads with a speed limit greater than 30
mph unless in conjunction with signalization
• Other conditions that warrant crosswalks include:
o Routes to schools
o Locations adjacent to libraries, community centers, and other high use public facilities
o Locations adjacent to public parks
o Locations where significant numbers of handicapped persons cross a street
o Locations where significant numbers of senior citizens cross a street
• Crosswalks should be placed at intersections or - if deemed needed and appropriate by an engineering study or judgement - at mid-block locations
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI.C.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:U of MN Capstone Report: York Avenue / Parklawn
Avenue Intersection Improvements
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Engineering staff worked with students from the University of Minnesota on pedestrian and bicycle improvement
ideas at the York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue intersection. See the attached "Capstone" report for the students'
recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
University of Minnesota Senior Capstone Report
Heller & Associates
500 Pillsbury Dr. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
May 3rd, 2018
City of Edina Department of Engineering
7450 Metro Blvd.
Edina, MN 55439
Re: York Avenue & Parklawn Avenue Intersection Design
Dear Chad Millner and Nick Bauler:
Thank you for contacting us about the intersection redesign of York Avenue and Parklawn
Avenue in Edina. Our team has worked to propose a safe, multi-modal design that we believe
fits the needs of the city and its citizens. The recommended design includes bike lanes,
shortened crosswalks, and a buffer between the automobile lanes and the bike and pedestrian
areas. The proposed changes will make the intersection much more appealing to pedestrians
and cyclists. The addition of a traffic signal also makes the intersection safer for all users of the
intersection.
Several designs were created in AutoCAD that matched design requirements. These designs
were then evaluated and final design was selected. A traffic signal warrant analysis was
performed to ensure the intersection met the criteria for a traffic light. Traffic and level of
service analyses were performed using Synchro. Using these analyses alongside the project
goals, a design recommendation was reached. The team recommends adding traffic signals at
each approach and implementing a shared use bike path on the west side of York Avenue,
along with shared use crosswalks at each side of the intersection. The details of our findings,
work, and recommendations are included in the attached report.
Best Regards,
Kate Hvizdos
Project Manager | hvizd008@umn.edu
Mitch Kiecker
Engineer, PE | kieck050@umn.edu
Cade Botten
Engineer | botte063@umn.edu
Bryce Heller
Engineer | hell261@umn.edu
Intersection Improvement Design Analysis
Report on York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue Intersection Multimodal Design
Prepared for:
City of Edina
Prepared by:
Heller & Associates, Inc.
Submittal Date
May 3rd, 2018
i
Certification Page
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.
_______________________________________________
Kate Hvizdos | Project Manager
_______________________________________________
Mitch Kiecker | Project Engineer
_______________________________________________
Cade Botten | Project Engineer
_______________________________________________
Bryce Heller | Project Engineer
ii
Table of contents
Tables iv
Figures iv
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Site Information 3
Pedestrian Safety Concerns 4
Western Approach-Left Turn Concerns 4
2015 Hennepin County Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis 4
Current Traffic Data 5
Traffic Warrant Analysis 6
Design Considerations 9
Intersection Design 9
Pedestrian Design 9
Bicycle Design 9
On-Street Bicycle Facilities 11
Dutch Junction 11
Center Median Path 11
Motorist Design 12
Vehicle Turning Movements 12
Design Impacts 12
York Avenue Reconstruction 12
Sustainability Considerations 14
Environmental Sustainability 14
Economic Sustainability 14
Social Sustainability 15
Level of Service 16
Current Design and Traffic Volumes 16
Current Design and Future Traffic Volumes 16
Design Level of Service 16
Budget 17
iii
Permitting and Approvals 19
Minnesota Pollution Control Permit 19
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 19
Watershed Permits 19
Approvals 19
Recommendations 20
References 21
Appendices 23
Appendix A: Preliminary Designs 23
Appendix B: Secondary Designs 26
Appendix C: Final Design 30
Appendix D: Current Traffic Counts 31
Appendix E: Present Level of Service - Current Design 36
Appendix F: 2040 Level of Service - Current Design 37
Appendix G: Level of Service for Recommended Design 38
Appendix H: Signal Warrants from MN MUTCD 40
Appendix I: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis from Hennepin County 41
Appendix J: Gantt Chart illustrating schedule completed by 07_L_Edina 42
Appendix K: Listing of Authors and Contributions 44
iv
Tables
Table 1: Warrant 2 Passing Time Period 12
Table 2: Warrant 3 Passing Time Period 13
Table 3: Cost Estimation for York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue Intersection Design 22
Figures
Figure 1: Existing intersection (Google 2018) 8
Figure 2: 2015 vs 2018 Comparative Traffic Counts on Major and Minor Roads 10
Figure 3: Warrant 1B - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume (MN MUTCD) 11
Figure 4: Warrant 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume (MN MUTCD) 12
Figure 5: Warrant 3: Peak Hour Volume (MN MUTCD) 13
Figure 6: Shared bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Texas A&M University (Peters
2017)
15
Figure 7: Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, MN - Example of a shared-use path striped
to allow pedestrian and two-way bicycle movement (Stark 2015)
15
Figure 8: Final Recommended Design 18
1
Executive Summary
The intersection of York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue in Edina, Minnesota has several aspects
that the City would like to improve. The City would like to increase safety for all users, create
bicycle and pedestrian access, and add new trees and other plantings. This project produced a
recommendation for a sustainable intersection redesign that met these needs.
The final design recommendation is a proposed multi-modal intersection with a separated
shared-use path for pedestrians and cyclists located parallel to York Avenue. The intersection
would also include bicycle lanes on each side of Parklawn Avenue. All paths and bicycle lanes
would converge at the intersection into shared crossings controlled by an actuated traffic
signal. The design increases safety for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Traffic data were gathered for the intersection and used to determine if the intersection
warranted a traffic signal. The data was also gathered to calculate level of service for the
intersection – a performance metric that analyzed wait time.
Eight geometric designs were presented to the City of Edina in several iterations. The City
approved a final design after integrating feedback into the preliminary designs. The design
team and City of Edina evaluated the final design by its safety, sustainability, cost, and traffic
performance to ensure the project was feasible and practical. This report also contains
information on the necessary permits and approvals required to move forward with the project.
Should the City of Edina choose to implement this work or a variation of this work, the City
would gain a safe, sustainable intersection that will last for decades to come.
2
Introduction
The intersection of York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue has raised some concerns for the City of
Edina. The intersection has long pedestrian crosswalks and lengthy wait times for drivers
travelling from Parklawn Avenue to York Avenue. The intersection is part of the shortest path
between York Gardens Senior Living and the Southdale YMCA. Many pedestrians, especially the
elderly, frequently use the pedestrian crosswalks. With the current road layout, the long
walking distance for pedestrians can feel dangerous, considering no traffic signals are present.
In 2013 alone, three vehicle crashes occurred at this intersection, all from vehicles making a left
turn from eastbound Parklawn Avenue to northbound York Avenue. This movement is
particularly dangerous due to the large distance a left-turning driver must cross and the long
delays motorists experience before they can safely turn. The delay can increase impatience in
drivers, which may lead them to make a risky turn instead of waiting longer for an opening. The
City of Edina has requested a design for a safe multi-modal intersection design – one that
includes facilities for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles – and an impact analysis from the
proposed intersection.
This report will explain why the existing conditions raise concern for the City of Edina as well as
how a cost-effective final design was chosen. The site information section will introduce the
intersection and the concerns present at this time. Next, the traffic signal warrant analysis will
be outlined. Using this information, the design process will be explained, along with design
considerations. After overviewing the design, the project sustainability is covered. A level of
service analysis is included to evaluate the performance of the intersection for motorists.
Detailed explanation of the budget will be presented based off the design and level of service.
Permits and approvals necessary for the project are considered with the budget. Finally, a short
summary of the project and the findings will be listed.
3
Site Information
The intersection under consideration consists of northbound and southbound approaches for
York Avenue and eastbound and westbound approaches of Parklawn Avenue. York Avenue has
no traffic signs or signals, and drivers can pass through without stopping or slowing. The
eastbound and westbound approaches for Parklawn Avenue are controlled by stop signs.
Pedestrian crosswalks are currently located on the southern and western sides of the
intersection. The northbound approach of York Avenue has a bus lane that is roughly 200 feet
long. Also on York Avenue are two through lanes and a left turn lane that is approximately 150
feet long. The southbound approach has two through lanes, a left turn lane of about 150
meters, and a right turn lane that begins roughly 200 feet before the intersection. The
eastbound approach of Parklawn Avenue has two lanes in each direction, where the outside
lanes act as limited-access parking lanes. The westbound approach is an entrance to a
residential lot that is unmarked, but it is assumed to have one lane in each direction. York
Avenue is divided by a median that varies in width from thirty to forty feet. At the southern
crosswalk, the median is roughly twelve feet wide, which allows pedestrians to break up the
crosswalk into two sections, although this is not on the crosswalk and does not have a button to
signal the flasher. The western crosswalk is roughly 65 feet in length.
Figure 1: Existing intersection (Google 2018)
4
Pedestrian Safety Concerns
The total walking distance along the southern crosswalk is roughly 120 feet. Assuming a
pedestrian walk speed of 3 miles per hour, this corresponds to a crossing time of roughly 27
seconds. Considering York Avenue has no stop signs, this walking distance can be intimidating
for pedestrians. The rectangular rapid flash beacon designated for this crosswalk is helpful, but
pedestrians have still expressed concerns for their safety. This is because drivers do not always
yield to the flashers. Near the intersection, a clear space is provided voided of trees or other
vertical elements to increase the sight distance for approaching drivers. This clear space may
encourage higher driver speeds in excess of the 35 miles-per-hour speed limit because drivers’
lines of sight are not impeded. To alleviate the dangers of walking across the southern
crosswalk, the central median could be widened to allow for more waiting space, the total road
width could be shortened to make the walk time shorter, or a traffic signal could be
implemented to give the pedestrians a dedicated time frame to safely cross the intersection.
Western Approach-Left Turn Concerns
Left turns from the eastbound approach of Parklawn Avenue have also been concerning.
Citizens have complained to the City of Edina stating that drivers have felt unsafe making a left
hand turn due to the long curve radius and uncontrolled traffic on York Avenue. An eastbound
vehicle must travel roughly 70 feet into the intersection before beginning to turn onto York
Avenue. Before doing so, the driver must be sure that there is sufficient time to travel across
the southbound lanes, the median width, and finally enter the northbound lane. Heavy traffic
with speeds of 35 miles-per-hour or greater can make this left turn even more difficult. To
accommodate the requests to mitigate this issue, multiple changes to the intersection could be
implemented. The most apparent solution would be to introduce traffic signals at this
intersection. By doing so, vehicles waiting at the eastbound approach would not need to use
their own judgment to maneuver the intersection. A traffic signal would provide a dedicated
time for a safe left turn. By lowering the width of the intersection, the distance required for a
left turn would be shortened. Similarly, by shortening the median, the curve radius of the
vehicles would be smaller, which would take less time to travel.
2015 Hennepin County Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
In 2015, Hennepin County conducted a signal warrant analysis on the intersection. The analysis
found that the intersection met several warrants for a signal, and marked it as a priority for the
county. However, the City of Edina was never contacted about the results of the study or any
plans for a new design or signal installation. After contacting the county, it is still unclear why
no changes were made. The warrants met during Hennepin County’s signal warrant analysis can
be found in the Appendix I section of the report.
5
Current Traffic Data
To ensure that the traffic patterns have not changed since 2015, current traffic data were
collected. These data contained right, left, and through movement counts for all approaches, in
15-minute increments. These data were collected for a full 24-hour period, although due to
time constraints some of the data have only 15 minutes of every hour collected, which is
assumed to be representative of the full hour. As shown in Figure 2, the data collected in 2018
in similar to the data Hennepin County collected in 2015. All traffic counts were made with
COUNTpro™ or custom software. The data collected were used for a warrant analysis, level of
service analysis, and to advise the future design and signal timing of a future intersection.
Figure 2: 2015 vs 2018 Comparative Traffic Counts on Major and Minor Roads
6
Traffic Warrant Analysis
Using the collected data, a signal warrant was performed according to the Minnesota Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD). Figures 3, 4, and 5 and Tables 1 and 2 will
explain the warrants that were tested using the data.
Warrant 1B is a measure of the eight-hour traffic volume at the intersection. The sum of the
major approach volumes and the larger minor approach volume are compared to a standard
value based on the number of approaches in each direction. Given that there are two or more
lanes on each approach, the major approach volume needed to be greater than 900 vehicles-
per-hour and the minor approach needed to be at least 100 vehicles-per-hour, according to the
MN MUTCD. Figure 3 shows that the major approach volumes and minor approach volumes
were both above the minimum warrant requirements for ten consecutive hours starting at the
eighth hour of the recording.
Figure 3: Warrant 1B - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume (MN MUTCD)
Warrant 2 relies on the vehicular volume being higher than the lower limit for four consecutive
hours. Because both York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue have two or more lanes, the highest
red line in Figure 4 is used to determine if the warrant passes or not. Table 1 shows the time
period that passes the warrant. The minimum values were met for eight consecutive hours
starting at 11:00 AM.
7
Figure 4: Warrant 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume (MN MUTCD)
Table 1: Warrant 2 Passing Time Period
Time Major Total (vph) Minor High Volume (vph)
11:00 AM 1425.6 166.7
12:00 PM 1582.7 188.7
1:00 PM 1419.7 192.7
2:00 PM 1275.3 193
3:00 PM 1342.3 198
4:00 PM 1574.7 216.3
5:00 PM 1618 235.7
6:00 PM 1190.7 163.3
The peak-hour volume warrant is similar to the four-hour volume warrant. For Warrant 3 to be
passed, the minimum volumes on the higher volume minor street and total of both major
approaches must be above the red lines in Figure 5. Since the intersection has two or more
lanes on both the major and minor approach, the top line in Figure 5 is used for the analysis.
Table 2 shows the periods where the volumes warrant the addition of a traffic signal.
8
Figure 5: Warrant 3: Peak Hour Volume (MN MUTCD)
Table 2: Warrant 3 passing time period
Time Major Total (vph) Minor High Volume (vph)
12:00 PM 1582.7 188.7
4:00 PM 1574.7 216.3
5:00 PM 1618 235.7
In total, nine different warrants can be used to justify the implementation of a traffic signal. The
first three were the most relevant to the intersection given the circumstances, so they were
tested. All three passed the minimum requirements, proving the need for a traffic signal at this
intersection. Warrant 4 focuses on pedestrian volume counts. The data from York Avenue and
Parklawn Avenue were collected on February 6th in Minnesota, so the weather was very cold.
This will cause fewer pedestrians to use the road than in the summer, skewing the results.
Because of this, warrant 4 was not tested. Warrants 5-9 were also not tested. These warrants
are listed in Appendix H.
The traffic signal warrant analysis performed by Hennepin County in 2015 had nearly identical
results to the analysis performed for this project. The same warrants were tested and yielded
similar results, proving that the data represents a typical day and the analysis can be trusted.
9
Design Considerations
Intersection Design
The design for the York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue intersection focuses on increasing safety.
Shorter crossing distances for pedestrians and shortened turning distances for motorists and
reduces the chance of an accident occurring. A traffic signal is proposed to control vehicle
traffic moving through the intersection. This signal will also provide times of clear right-of-way
for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, which will greatly reduce the chance of a vehicle-
pedestrian or vehicle-bicyclist collision. Due to the inclusion of this signal, the queue lengths for
turn lanes is increased to accommodate vehicles that may be backed up waiting to turn left.
Pedestrian Design
Major concerns for this intersection centered on pedestrian safety. The crossing distance across
York Avenue is reduced from 120 feet to 93 feet, which includes a 33-foot wide refuge median
located in the middle of York Avenue. This will reduce the crossing time for pedestrians from
roughly 27 seconds to 21 seconds, assuming a 3 miles-per-hour walk speed. For Parklawn
Avenue, the crossing distance is reduced from 65 feet to 30 feet. Again, this will reduce the
crossing time from about 15 seconds to 7 seconds. The proposed traffic signal will also provide
a pedestrian signal to alert pedestrians when it is safe to cross the street. If the time on the
pedestrian signal runs out before a person has finished crossing York Avenue, they may wait
safely in the refuge median before being prompted to finish crossing.
All proposed pedestrian crossings are also equipped with continental crosswalks, which are a
style of crosswalk markings that use a series of long, white painted rectangles to delineate a
pedestrian crossing. Continental crosswalks are more easily seen by motorists and reduce the
number of vehicle-pedestrian crashes (McGrane 2013). The proposed crosswalks provide space
for both pedestrians and bicyclists. The pedestrian space will be striped white, and the bicycle
space will be striped green, as shown in Figure 6.
Bicycle Design
The proposed bicycle facilities create a safe environment for cyclists that currently does not
exist on the intersection. Along York Avenue, the proposed bicycle lanes will be off street and
paired together into a shared-use path set back eight feet from the curb. A shared-use path is a
form of off-street trail that combines pedestrians and bicyclists all onto one surface, shown in
Figure 7. The proposed shared-use path is 12 feet wide and striped to allow a width of four feet
for northbound bicyclists, four feet for southbound bicyclists, and four feet all pedestrians. The
entire path will be bituminous to ease snow clearance and winter maintenance. Putting the
bicycle lanes behind the curb and setting them back from traffic creates a safer facility that
10
encourages more bicycle use from people who would otherwise feel unsafe riding in an on-
street bicycle lane. Because the traffic volumes and speeds limits on Parklawn Avenue are
significantly lower than those on York Avenue, the proposed bicycle lanes on Parklawn Avenue
are located on-street and separated by a four-inch-wide solid white stripe.
Figure 6: Shared bicycle and pedestrian crossing at Texas A&M University (Peters 2017)
Figure 7: Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, MN - Example of a shared-use path striped to allow
pedestrian and two-way bicycle movement (Stark 2015)
11
The proposed intersection also features a modified bicycle loop to allow bicycle access to the
east side of the intersection. Bicyclists using this loop must wait at each corner for the signal,
and then proceed counterclockwise through the loop when prompted. Upon reaching the east
side of the intersection, bicyclists may exist the loop and either ride on the driveway owned by
the adjacent apartment complex or dismount and walk their bicycle along the sidewalks parallel
to York Avenue. This loop design is similar to a traffic roundabout, but only cyclists move
through the circle, while motorists move through a traditional four-way intersection.
On-Street Bicycle Facilities
Early in the design process, the location of the bicycle facilities was moved from on-street to
off-street. Off-street bicycle facilities, especially raised and set back from the curb, induce a
greater level of ridership from those who may feel unsafe riding in an on-street bicycle lane
(Edina 2018 and Geller 2009). The space between the shared-use path and the roadway also
provides a space for tree planting, which can also increase the safety and ridership for bicyclists
by acting as a physical barrier between motorists and bicyclists. This design reflects the City of
Edina’s goal to encourage more bicycle use.
Dutch Junction
One possible design for bicycle facilities involved implementing a Dutch junction. This type of
intersection treatment would circulate all bicycle traffic counterclockwise around the
intersection, shown in all concepts in Appendix B. However, this design also requires bicyclists
to move in the same direction as traffic and be located on one-way bicycle lanes adjacent to the
roadway. This would force the northbound bicycle lane to be located to the east of the
intersection, parallel to York Avenue. Because most bicycle trip origins and destinations are
located west of the intersection, the bicycle lanes were consolidated into a shared-use path on
the west side of the intersection.
Center Median Path
A bicycle-only two-way path in the center median was briefly considered at this intersection.
The logistics involved to connect the path the bicycle lanes on Parklawn Avenue proved to be
too complicated and could have confused bicyclists and motorists. The concept was dropped
early in the design process.
12
Motorist Design
The proposed intersection reduces lane widths from thirteen feet to a proposed twelve feet.
The narrower lanes help in reducing vehicle speeds, which could then reduce the number of
crashes and increase the feeling of safety for all users. The right turn lanes on York Avenue have
been eliminated, which reflects the low current turning traffic volumes on this street.
Vehicle Turning Movements
The proposed design reduces vehicle turning radii to 40 feet, down from 70 feet. While this may
seem low for large vehicles, traffic recordings for the intersection showed very few tractor-
trailers turning at the intersection. The proposed turning radius may require buses and tractor-
trailers to significantly reduce their speeds to navigate the turn, but the low volume of these
vehicles turning at this intersection will negate any serious traffic impact.
Design Impacts
The overall intersection design fits within the right-of-way owned by the City of Edina and
Hennepin County and any easements the city has for transportation uses. No additional land or
right-of-way is needed for this intersection; however, the proposed design does reduce the
overall width of the center median on York Avenue. Tentative tree planting by the City of Edina
on the York Avenue median may encourage motorists to drive more slowly than with the
existing conditions. The traffic signal for the proposed intersection design will mitigate visual
conflicts because motorists will be prompted to move through the intersection by the traffic
signal instead of looking for an opening in traffic.
York Avenue Reconstruction
The proposed design realigns the York Avenue centerline and requires total reconstruction
from the Edina Promenade to West 66th Street. In order to accommodate a shared-use path
facility in any way on York Avenue, a reconstruction would be required. The limits of this
reconstruction from the Edina Promenade to West 66th Street would be the minimum distance
required to connect the bicycle facilities to the existing bicycle network. Excluding the full York
Avenue reconstruction, a plan of the proposed intersection is shown in Figure 8.
13
Figure 8: Final Recommended Design
14
Sustainability Considerations
The intersection redesign has several areas where sustainability practices can be applied. The
first comes with one of the main goals of the project, making the intersection multi-modal. The
addition of bike lanes and safer pedestrian options encourages the use of greener
transportation.
Environmental Sustainability
Greener transportation includes all forms that do not involve using a personal automobile. This
could be walking, biking, rolling, or even taking the bus. Personal vehicles, whether they are
conventional or electric, all release greenhouse gases and congest roadways. Unless if an
electric vehicle is charged entirely from renewable energy sources, the coal or natural gas
burned to provide electricity to power the vehicle releases greenhouse gases. The proposed
design will make the intersection more environmentally sustainable by providing space and
facilities to walk, bike, and catch the bus, not just to drive.
Economic Sustainability
Creating space for more pedestrians and cyclists also creates the opportunity to complete trips
on foot or bike. Simple things like a trip to the grocery store, a restaurant, or the YMCA can
easily be accomplished by walking or biking. When personal automobiles are required less and
less for everyday travel, roadways do not need to be constantly widened and reconfigured to
hold more automobiles. Because the roadway would only need to be maintained and not to be
widened or reconfigured again in the future, the City of Edina and Hennepin County can save
money from construction costs, which increases the project’s economic sustainability.
Creating a safe intersection and allowing people the choice to walk or bike also reduces the
financial burden on households that need multiple vehicles to complete everyday trips. Two or
three car households may now only need one or two cars, which can also be attributed to the
project’s economic sustainability.
The new design also accounts for future traffic levels and citywide bike plans, increasing the
length of time before the intersection will be reconstructed. Traffic projections through the
year 2040 were included in the analysis to ensure the new design will account for future traffic
volumes. The City of Edina is also adding bicycle lanes and paths throughout the city, including
the addition of several bike lanes in nearby streets that the project connects too. Constructing
new bicycle facilities at the same time as the intersection prevents the need to add them at a
greater cost in the future.
15
Social Sustainability
The new bicycle and pedestrians facilities also increase mobility for disabled and elderly users
who may only be able to walk or use a wheelchair. If all users can use the intersection safely
and efficiently, then people can now choose not to drive or arrange a ride with someone else.
By increasing mobility for an aging population and for all users, the City of Edina can maintain
its social sustainability and allow its citizens to more easily reach their destinations.
16
Level of Service
Current Design and Traffic Volumes
Several level of service analyses were conducted to evaluate the performance of the
intersection. Using Synchro™ software, two scenarios of the current intersection were
evaluated, first for the morning peak, and again for the evening peak (Appendix E). In both the
morning and evening peak, there are several areas of concern. The worst level of service is for
the through and left turn movements from Parklawn Avenue. In the morning peak, they are
evaluated as “E”s, indicating an average delay of 35 to 50 seconds. In the evening peak, they
drop to “F”s, meaning an average delay of over 50 seconds.
Current Design and Future Traffic Volumes
Recently, the city of Edina contracted work with WSB to model traffic for 2040. WSB produced
two models, one with standard, expected values, and one a “high density” value, for a more
extreme value. The baseline estimates an increase of 38.1% on Parklawn Avenue and a 14.4%
increase on York Avenue. The high density model predicts an increase of 65.5% and 29.4%.
Increasing the ratio of the traffic data collected by the team by these percentages and using the
values in Synchro gives a level of service estimate for 2040 (Appendix F). The ranks of the
movements are worse than the current level of service rankings.
Design Level of Service
Using the design recommended and an actuated traffic signal, the level of service for all
scenarios is improved. First, the current traffic volumes raised all the level of service ratings to
A except for the Parklawn Avenue movements, which was raised to a B (Appendix G). Though
the 2040 baseline estimates for traffic volumes were much higher, the level of service for all
movements were the same as the 2018 volumes (Appendix G). The 2040 high density level of
service ratings were similar to the 2040 baseline and 2018 volume, though the northbound York
Avenue movements decreased to a B rating (Appendix G).
17
Budget
For the given intersection, setting the limits pertaining to cost estimation was difficult. The
proposed design requires changes to both York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue, extending past
the intersection on the North, West, and South. Because of this, volumes of materials and
necessary hours of work required to complete the reconstruction are variable. Due to the scope
of the project, the budget estimation was based on the area of land displayed in Figure C-1
located in the Appendix. The following table shows the cost breakdown for the reconstruction.
Table 3: Cost Estimation for York Avenue and Parklawn Avenue intersection redesign
Item Unit Total Quantity Unit Price Total Cost
MOBILIZATION LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVISOR LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
LANDSCAPE MATERIAL LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENCE LS 1 $33,000.00 $33,000.00
COMMON LABORERS HR 70 $70.00 $4,900.00
EQUIPMENT RENTALS HR 70 $140.00 $9,800.00
REMOVE CURB & GUTTER LF 1300 $3.00 $3,900.00
REMOVE CONCRETE WALK SF 2900 $2.00 $5,800.00
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SF 1250 $5.00 $6,250.00
MISCELLANEOUS REMOVALS SF 10500 $1.00 $10,500.00
REMOVE CONCRETE BUS PAD SF 550 $2.00 $1,100.00
EXCAVATION - COMMON CY 2000 $12.00 $24,000.00
EXCAVATION - SUBGRADE CY 2000 $16.00 $32,000.00
LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE CY 500 $100.00 $50,000.00
AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 CY 1000 $30.00 $30,000.00
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 6" THICK TON 500 $80.00 $40,000.00
SIDEWALK 6" SF 2000 $7.00 $14,000.00
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER DESIGN
B612 LF 1500 $30.00 $45,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM EACH 6 $250,000.00 $1,500,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL INTERCONNECTION LS 1 $30,000.00 $30,000.00
TEMPORARY SIGNAL SYSTEM SYS 1 $75,000.00 $75,000.00
SALVAGE SIGNAGE LF 20 $50.00 $1,000.00
18
TRUNCATED DOMES SF 40 $50.00 $2,000.00
SODDING TYPE LAWN ST 460 $20.00 $9,200.00
PAVEMENT LT ARROW EACH 3 $650.00 $1,950.00
PAVEMENT RT ARROW EACH 3 $650.00 $1,950.00
PAVEMENT THROUGH ARROW EACH 5 $800.00 $4,000.00
4" SOLID LINE GREEN - POLY PREFORMED
- GROUND IN LF 246 $5.00 $1,230.00
4" SOLID LINE WHITE - POLY PREFORMED -
GROUND IN LF 1300 $5.00 $6,500.00
4" 10' x 30' DASHED LINE WHITE - POLY
PREFORMED - GROUND IN LF 1100 $5.00 $5,500.00
12" SOLID LINE WHITE - POLY PREFORMED
- GROUND IN LF 86 $15.00 $1,290.00
CONSTRUCTION SIGN-SPECIAL SF 60 $35.00 $2,100.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE SPECIAL SF 5 $40.00 $200.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE C SF 100 $32.00 $3,200.00
SIGN PANELS TYPE D SF 20 $32.00 $640.00
Subtotal $2,106,010.00
25% Contingency $526,502.50
Total $2,632,512.50
19
Permitting and Approvals
Minnesota Pollution Control Permit
This project will need a Minnesota Pollution Control Permit because the area of land disturbed
(1.6 acres) is more than one acre. The estimate of disturbed land includes both the intersection
and connecting roads that would be torn up during the intersection. The project may disturb
more than the preliminary estimate of 1.6 acres, as the preliminary design does not have any
allowance for driveways going onto York Avenue, and does not have north or south project
limit for road and trail construction.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Because the area of land disturbed is more than one acre, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan is needed. This plan will include location and quantities of inlet protection and silt fences.
These are needed in order to prevent the exposed topsoil from going into the stormwater
system or surface waters.
Watershed Permits
As there is more than 5000 square feet of disturbed surface, a Watershed Permit is needed for
the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. Since turn lanes are being removed, there is a loss of
0.2 acres of impervious surface, much less than the 1 acres gained requirement for the permit.
Approvals
As Parklawn Avenue is a Municipal State Aid roadway, Minnesota Department of
Transportation approval is required to secure funding and build on Parklawn Avenue. York
Avenue is a county road, and Hennepin County will have to approve the project. Because
Parklawn Avenue is a city street, Edina City Council approval is necessary to construct any
changes.
20
Recommendations
The recommended design for the intersection includes the geometric design shown in Appendix
C and an added traffic signal. This multi-modal design includes a shared-use path that allows
pedestrians and cyclists to travel through to the intersection to adjoining bike trails safely and
efficiently. It also contains shared crossings at all four corners, again increasing the safety for
bicycle riders.
The pedestrian walkways were shortened and the crosswalks intersect the medians on York
Avenue to provide a shelter for pedestrians if they are not able to cross within the allotted
time. This also increases the safety of the intersection, especially for any elderly citizens who
may live in the nearby retirement facility.
The medians on York Avenue will remain, keeping green space and improving the aesthetics of
the area when trees are planted in the future by Hennepin County.
Lastly, an actuated traffic signal should be added to the intersection. The warrants and level of
service prove the need for a better traffic control device, and the Synchro analysis proves that
this will greatly reduce wait time and idling, especially for the Parklawn Avenue Movements.
The design team believes these changes will provide a multi-modal, safe, and sustainable
intersection in Edina for years to come.
21
References
Anhorn, Randy. “Nine Mile Creek Watershed Permit Program “Cheat Sheet”.” Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District, <https://www.ninemilecreek.org/wp-content/uploads/NMCWD-Permit-
Cheat-Sheet-1.pdf> (April 29, 2018).
City of Edina and WSB. (2015). “Southdale Area Model Update and Transportation Study.” (April
3, 2018)
Edina (City of Edina). (2018). “City of Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.” City of Edina,
<https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4426/Draft-Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-
Master-Plan-PDF> (April 29, 2018).
Geller, Roger. (2009). “Four Types of Cyclists.” City of Portland.
<https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/44597?a=237507> (March 31, 2018).
Google. (2011). [Map showing the existing layout of the intersection of York Avenue and
Parklawn Avenue in 2011]. Google Maps.
<https://www.google.com/maps/place/Parklawn+Ave+%26+York+Ave+S,+Edina,+MN+55435/
@44.8682124,93.322113,524m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x87f62419d3332a53:0x792d7a2
2d716e8ba!8m2!3d44.8682256!4d-93.3211492> (April 29, 2018).
Hennepin County Transportation Planning Division. (2014). “Approach Count Data, CSAH 31 at
Parklawn Ave”. (March 20, 2018).
McGrane, Ann., Mitman, Meghan. (2013). “An Overview and Recommendations of High-
Visibility Crosswalk Marking Styles.” Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, DTFHGI-11-H-
00024.
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). (2015). “Minnesota Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices.” MnDOT. <http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/mutcd/> (April
29, 2018).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Construction Stormwater.” Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, <https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-strm2-29.pdf> (April 29, 2018).
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (September 2013) “Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan.” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, <https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/construction-
stormwater> (April 29, 2018).
Peters, Adele. (2017). “Here’s the First Glow-in-the-Dark Bike Lane in the U.S.” Texas A&M
University Transportation Services. <http://transport.tamu.edu/about/news/2017/2017-02-
fastcoexist-bikelane.aspx> (March 29, 2018).
22
Stark, Laura. (2015). “Minnesota’s Midtown Greenway.” Rails-to-Trails Conservancy,
<https://www.railstotrails.org/trailblog/2015/october/16/minnesota-s-midtown-greenway/>
(April 4, 2018).
23
Appendices
Appendix A: Preliminary Designs
Four initial design options were presented to the City of Edina. These designs focused on improving safety and multi-modal options.
Figure A-1: Concept 1 of the first iteration of designs delivered to mentors
24
Figure A-2: Concept 2 of the first iteration of designs delivered to mentors
25
Figure A-3: Concept 3 of the first iteration of designs delivered to mentors
26
Appendix B: Secondary Designs
After working with the City of Edina, Concept 3 was selected as the best of the preliminary designs. Four more detailed options
expanding on the feedback of Concept 3 were created and brought to the City again.
Figure B-1: Concept 4 of the second iteration of designs delivered to mentors
27
Figure B-2: Concept 5 of the second iteration of designs delivered to mentors
28
Figure B-3: Concept 6 of the second iteration of designs delivered to mentors
29
Figure B-4: Concept 7 of the second iteration of designs delivered to mentors
30
Appendix C: Final Design
After continued research and communication with the City of Edina, the design was altered to the final recommendation, Concept 8.
The design incorporates several aspects of earlier designs, including the separated bike and pedestrian trail, and shared crossings.
Figure C-1: Final Design (Concept 8) from the final iteration of designs submitted to mentors
31
Appendix D: Current Traffic Counts
Video of the intersection was taken for a 24-hour period. The vehicles travelling through the
intersection and their movements were recorded. The data collected was similar to previous
data collected by Hennepin County.
Table D-1: Traffic counts for York Avenue S and Parklawn Avenue on Feb 8th, 2018 Time SB RIght SB Thru SB Left WB Right WB Thru WB Left NB Right NB Thru NB Left EB Right EB Thru EB Left 0:00 0 8 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 1
0:15 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1
0:30 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1
0:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1:00 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 2
1:15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
1:30 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1
1:45 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
2:00 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0
2:15 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2:30 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1
3:00 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
32
3:15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
3:45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0
4:00 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
4:30 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 3
4:45 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 9
5:00 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 28 0 0 1 9
5:15 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 19 1 0 0 4
5:30 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 17 2 0 0 6
5:45 7 27 2 2 0 0 0 34 1 0 0 5
6:00 7 15 0 1 0 0 0 35 2 1 0 5
6:15 5 34 0 3 0 0 1 27 3 0 0 4
6:30 5 39 0 1 0 1 0 29 7 3 0 6
6:45 10 55 4 0 0 3 0 45 21 3 0 4
7:00 15 68 0 0 0 2 3 53 12 2 0 9
7:15 11 97 0 1 0 1 0 50 11 6 0 11
7:30 16 114 0 0 0 1 0 82 10 5 3 7
33
7:45 23 133 2 2 0 4 4 99 14 7 0 9
8:00 15 113 0 2 0 4 1 78 14 13 0 12
8:15 11 116 1 0 0 2 1 85 16 10 1 9
8:30 10 116 1 1 0 3 1 84 15 18 2 12
8:45 15 121 1 3 0 2 0 89 23 19 0 10
9:00 23 80 0 2 0 2 2 115 18 28 0 9
9:15 28 110 0 3 0 2 0 119 10 25 0 20
9:30 14 120 1 1 0 1 0 152 16 28 1 9
9:45 9 127 3 0 0 1 1 124 2 21 1 12
10:00 12 90 0 0 0 0 3 92 8 15 0 17
10:15 26 113 2 3 0 0 1 104 8 8 2 15
10:30 17 113 2 1 0 3 1 103 14 12 0 11
10:45 20 123 0 3 0 2 1 93 10 7 1 12
11:00 21 130 0 1 0 0 0 133 14 18 1 18
11:15 13 130 3 2 0 0 1 150 12 9 0 20
11:30 14 151 2 0 0 0 0 145 7 19 0 27
11:45 26 188 4 1 0 0 0 141 10 11 0 28
12:00 29 167 1 2 0 1 2 174 7 16 0 25
34
12:15 36 152 3 0 0 1 1 134 10 22 1 20
12:30 27 172 3 1 0 1 2 169 5 33 0 23
12:45 19 170 6 1 0 1 4 149 12 19 0 22
13:00 23 164 1 1 0 0 0 131 9 14 1 23
13:15 15 180 1 2 0 0 0 99 15 12 3 16
13:30 23 162 1 2 0 2 3 117 14 14 1 31
13:45 22 137 0 1 0 2 1 115 11 11 0 18
14:00 27 158 9 2 0 0 1 103 11 22 0 17
14:15 14 139 5 3 0 0 1 133 9 21 0 22
14:30 26 159 4 3 0 3 3 119 13 14 1 23
14:45 16 143 4 4 0 2 5 108 9 18 1 21
15:00 22 138 1 1 0 4 1 111 14 21 0 24
16:00 22 154 5 2 0 2 1 151 11 26 1 15
17:00 24 158 3 2 0 3 2 216 9 23 0 29
18:00 27 128 7 7 0 2 3 123 13 21 0 25
19:00 14 91 5 4 0 3 3 82 9 10 0 13
20:00 12 73 1 2 0 0 1 61 2 5 0 15
21:00 8 67 4 0 0 0 1 33 4 1 0 10
35
22:00 5 38 1 0 0 0 2 21 4 0 0 4
23:00 3 11 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 3
36
Appendix E: Present Level of Service - Current Design
Initially, two level of service analyses were conducted to determine how the intersection was
performing under the current design. The morning peak hour and evening peak hour were both
evaluated and showed several areas of concern, mostly for the through and left-turn
movements from Parklawn Avenue.
Figure E-1: Level of Service: 2018 Morning Peak Volumes
Figure E-2: Level of Service: 2018 Evening Peak Volumes
37
Appendix F: 2040 Level of Service - Current Design
Two other level of service analyses were performed using the current design but under
predicted 2040 volumes, first a baseline prediction, and then a high-density prediction.
Figure F-1: Level of Service: 2040 Baseline Volumes with Current Design
Figure F-2: Level of Service: 2040 High Volumes with Current Design
38
Appendix G: Level of Service for Recommended Design
The level of service was evaluated again, this time with the new design and added traffic signal.
The level of service is consistently A or B, even under the high-density 2040 prediction.
Level of Service: 2018 Evening Peak with Recommended Design
39
Level of Service: 2040 Baseline with Recommended Design
Level of Service: 2040 High Density with Recommended Design
40
Appendix H: Signal Warrants from MN MUTCD
Parameters that are used to justify the installation of a traffic signal at an intersection are found
in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If any of the warrants are met, the
intersection qualifies for the addition of a signal.
Figure H-1: All traffic signal warrants as stated by MN MUTCD (Minnesota Department of
Transportation 2011).
41
Appendix I: Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis from Hennepin County
Hennepin County conducted a signal warrant review in 2014. They found that the intersection
warranted a signal, but no signal was implemented. Below are their results and a summary of
their findings.
Figure I-1: Tabulation of warrants met during Hennepin County’s signal warrant analysis in
2014.
42
Appendix J: Gantt Chart illustrating schedule completed by 07_L_Edina
Progress of the project was recorded for billing updates. It was also used as a project
management tool to keep the group on task.
Figure J-1: Gantt Chart showing the time frames for each task completed by all members
43
Table 5: Hours worked per team member (MK=Mitch Kiecker, KH=Kate Hvizdos, CB=Cade
Botten, BH=Bryce Heller)
44
Appendix K: Listing of Authors and Contributions
I. Cover Letter
Author: Kate Hvizdos
Editor: Mitch Kiecker
II. Executive Summary
Author: Kate Hvizdos
Editor: Mitch Kiecker
III. Introduction
Author: Cade Botten
Editor: Kate Hvizdos
IV. Site Information
Author: Cade Botten
Editor: Kate Hvizdos
V. Design Considerations
Author: Mitch Kiecker
Editor: Cade Botten
VI. Sustainability Considerations
Author: Kate Hvizdos
Editor: Mitch Kiecker
VII. Level of Service
Author: Kate Hvizdos
Editor: Mitch Kiecker
VIII. Budget
Author: Cade Botten
Editor: Kate Hvizdos
IX. Permitting and Approvals
Author: Bryce Heller
Editor: Cade Botten
X. Recommendations
Author: Kate Hvizdos
Editor: Mitch Kiecker
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI.D.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Bicycle Friendly Community Renewal Application
Update
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Chair Richman will update the Commission on the status of the City's required renewal of their Bicycle Friendly
Community Award. The application is due in August, and ETC members may be asked to assist in data
collection, etc.
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI.E.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Safety Report of May 1, 2018 Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Report of Tuesday, May 1, 2018, be forwarded to City Council for
approval.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached staff report. An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission will be
included in the staff report provided to the City Council for their June 19, meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Traffic Safety Report of May 1, 2018
May 17, 2018
Edina Transportation Commission
Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Traffic Safety Preview of May 1, 2018
Information / Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on May 1. The Traffic Safety
Coordinator, Engineering Director, Police Lieutenant and Assistant City Planner were in attendance for this
meeting. The Traffic Safety Specialist, Public Works Director and Transportation Planner were not able to
attend and were 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 17 Edina Transportation Commission and the June 19 City Council meeting agendas.
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action
A1. Request to add temporary on-street parking on W 51st St
Construction taking place near 50th & France
is causing an increase in parking demand
ADT on W 51st is 6,100
85% speed is 27 mph
The width of 51st is 46’
After review, staff recommends allowing
temporary on-street parking along this area of
W 51st St. Staff is comfortable of the width of
W 51st St and believes allowing on-street
parking may lower vehicle speeds in the area
as well. Staff also agrees parking demand is
high in this area with the current
redevelopment taking place.
Map: Location to add temporary on‐street parking on
W 51st St
STAFF REPORT Page 2
Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action
B1. Request to change lane designations on Hazelton Rd at France Ave
A resident was concerned with vehicles
traveling west on Hazelton would turn left
(southbound) onto France from the center
(straight) lane
Westbound lane designations on Hazelton
are left turn, straight and right turn
Hazelton is classified as a state-aid collector
street
Hennepin County recommends making no
turning movement change for this
intersection
County’s recommendation includes requiring new developers in the area to change the
layout of this portion of Hazelton
The following data shows westbound turning movements
After review, staff recommends no action as Hennepin County recommended changing
the layout of Hazelton east of France Ave in lieu of a double-left turn lane. County staff
believes that changing the lane designation would not improve the overall level of
service to this intersection. Staff agrees and will be aware of this stretch of Hazelton
during future nearby developments.
Section C: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends further study
C1. Request to change on-street parking restriction
on Xerxes Ave between W 66th and W 67th St
A developer at Xerxes and W 66th St is
requesting to allow on-street parking
Parking has been restricted on the west side
of Xerxes as this was formerly commercially
zoned leading to high number of vehicles
parking on Xerxes
On-street parking is allowed on the east side
of Xerxes
Xerxes has a width of 32’
The east side of Xerxes restricts parking to
2-hour parking from 9 am to 6 pm
Direction Left
Turn
Thru Middle Lane,
Left Turn
Right
Turn
ADT 1965 230 18 2184
% 44.7 5.2 0.4 49.7
Map: Location of France and Hazelton
Photo: Hazelton facing west showing lane markings
Map: Location of Xerxes Ave requesting to remove on
street parking restriction
STAFF REPORT Page 3
After review, staff recommends contacting Richfield to find what their interest would
be to change the current on-street parking matter along Xerxes. Staff also wants
feedback from current residents living on Xerxes.
C2. Request for all-way stop at the intersection of Tracy Ave and Valley View Rd
Residents in this area have concerns with
overall safety entering onto Tracy from
Valley View or exiting from HWY 62
Tracy is classified as a collector street with
an ADT of nearly 8,300 with a peak hour of
921 at 4:15 pm
ADT of vehicles entering the intersection
from the east and west legs is roughly 3,450
with a peak hour of 312 at 7:15 am
85% speed on Tracy was 34 MPH in 2015
As a major approach, Tracy exceeds 300
vehicles/hour 13 times per day
As a minor approach, Valley View and HWY
62 exceeds 200 vehicles/hour 8 times per
day
10 crashes have taken place at this intersection since August 2016
After review, staff recommends further study. Although this intersection does meet
warrants for all-way stop controls, staff points out there will be many intersections
impacted by this change. Staff wants input from MnDOT as they have resources and
knowledge regarding to what may be the best outcome for this request.
Map: Location of Tracy Ave and Valley View Rd
STAFF REPORT Page 4
Section D: Other traffic safety items handled
D1. A resident contacted Traffic Safety requesting a crosswalk over France Ave at Morningside Rd. The
resident was concerned with the level of safety for pedestrians that cross over this busy area of France.
Hennepin County was contacted regarding this request. There is a marked crosswalk nearly 250 feet
south at W 44th St. Hennepin County recommended no crosswalk to be placed as no crosswalks can be
placed within 500 feet of another. The purpose to keep 500 feet between crosswalks is to prevent
overuse and maintain effectiveness.
D2. A resident contacted Traffic Safety concerned with traffic signal timing at the intersection of
Interlachen and Vernon. Southeast traffic on Interlachen are being impacted with the short signal timing,
causing a higher vehicle delay. A concern was submitted into Hennepin County as traffic signals at this
location are under County jurisdiction.
D3. A resident who lives on France Ave, north of W 49th St is requesting to restrict parking further
from their driveway as sightlines are causing difficulties exiting onto France. The resident was informed
current parking on France is temporary and was recommended to maintain caution when exiting and
entering France.
D4. A resident contacted traffic safety concerned with the placement of a STOP sign along the Nine
Mile Creek Regional Trail next to Gleason Rd. The resident was concerned with this sign thinking
drivers unfamiliar to this area may stop at this sign on Gleason when it is designed only for trail users.
Upon contacting Three Rivers Park District, they are substituting the current STOP sign with an
intersection warning sign for trail users.
D5. A resident was concerned with other residents on Parklawn Ave parking their vehicles on the Nine
Mile Creek Regional Bike trail, while attempting to have their vehicles parked on their driveway which
is connected to the bike trail. Upon visiting the bike path, the majority of the bike path is available for
bicyclists and it appears the owners of the vehicles are making adequate attempts to not block the bike
trail. The resident was informed no action will be taken and with any future vehicles blocking the
majority of the bike path, they must contact the EPD.
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: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: VI.F.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Prepare for June 5 Joint Work Session with City
Council
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
At 5:30pm on June 5 the ETC will meet with the City Council for its annual joint work session. At the work
session the Commission will have 45 minutes to briefly review the status of its 2018 work plan, and to focus
discussion on any topic(s) of their choice with council members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2018 Council-Approved ETC Work Plan
Approved by City Council 2017.12.05
Commission: Transportation Commission
2018 Annual Work Plan Proposal
Initiative #1 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM)
☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment)
☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review &
Decide)
Target
Completion
Date
Budget Required
(Staff Liaison)
Staff Support Required
(Staff Liaison)
Initiative Type
☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility
October
2018
☒ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs__80________
☒ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____________
Recommend pilot plan for Edina/Southdale Circulator including pilot routes
and evaluation plan for the Edina/Southdale Bus Circulator Pilot Project.
☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments).
Progress Report: Click here to enter text.
Initiative #2 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM)
☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment)
☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review &
Decide)
Target
Completion
Date
Budget Required
(Staff Liaison)
Staff Support Required
(Staff Liaison)
Initiative Type
☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility
March
2018
☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____________
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____________
Invite neighboring transportation commissions to have joint meeting with
the Edina Transportation Commission.
☒ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments).
Progress Report: Click here to enter text.
Approved by City Council 2017.12.05
Initiative #3 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM)
☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment)
☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review &
Decide)
Target
Completion
Date
Budget Required
(Staff Liaison)
Staff Support Required
(Staff Liaison)
Initiative Type
☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility
December
2018
☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____________
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____________
Review and comment on solutions for high school motor vehicle traffic and
parking affecting neighborhoods adjacent to Edina High School.
☒ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments).
Progress Report: Click here to enter text.
Initiative #4 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM)
☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment)
☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review &
Decide)
Target
Completion
Date
Budget Required
(Staff Liaison)
Staff Support Required
(Staff Liaison)
Initiative Type
☐ New Initiative ☒ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility July 2018 ☒ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☐ Staff Liaison: Hrs____________
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____________
Assist as requested with the development of the City’s new Comprehensive
Guide Plan.
☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments).
Progress Report: Click here to enter text.
Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to
work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.)
1. Define and implement equity criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund projects, and integrate with the City’s Race and Equity Task Force
efforts.
Proposed Month for Joint Work Session (one time per year, up to 60
minutes):
☐ Mar ☐ April ☐ May ☒ June ☐ July ☐ Aug ☐ Sept ☐ Oct ☐
Nov
Date: May 17, 2018 Agenda Item #: IX.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Schedule of Meeting and Event Dates as of May 11,
2018
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings/Dates/Events
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF MAY 11, 2017
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
Thursday May 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday May 24 Southdale District Transportation Workshop 6:30 PM PUBLIC WORKS MULTIPURPOSE ROOM
Tuesday Jun 5 Joint Work Session with City Council 5:30 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jun 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jul 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Aug 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Sep 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM
Thursday Oct 25 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Nov 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Dec 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jan 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Feb 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM