HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-04-18 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall, Community Room
Thursday, April 18, 2019
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 March 21, 2019
V.Special Recognitions And Presentations
A.Canadian Paci$c Rail Regional Trail Draft Master Plan
VI.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant
issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit
the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking,
items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VII.Reports/Recommendations
A.CloverRide Task Force Recommendation
B.Tra,c Impact Study Educational Seminar Update
C.2019 Work Plan Updates
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
IX.Sta2 Comments
X.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Upcoming Meetings and Events as of April 11, 2019
XI.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the
public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli$cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: April 18, 2019 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of March 21,
2019
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the meeting minutes of the Transportation Commission meeting of March 21, 2019.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached draft minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft ETC Minutes, Mar 21, 2019
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
Community Conference Room
March 21, 2019
I. Call To Order
Chair Richman called the meeting to order
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were Commissioners Ayelomi, Johnson, Kane, McCarthy, Richman, Ruthruff
Absent: Commissioner Ahler, Olson, Scherer, Veluvali, Zimbwa
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to
approve the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Ruthruff and seconded by Commissioner Johnson
approving the February 21, 2019 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Special Recognitions and Presentations
Community Engagement Coordinator, MJ Lamon presented the new community engagement site,
www.bettertogetheredina.org.
VI. Community Comment
None.
VII. Reports/Recommendations
A. 2018 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Report
Planner Scipioni presented the 2018 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Summary Report.
B. Proposed 2019-2020 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects
Planner Scipioni presented the proposed 2019-2020 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects
• Some suggestions were made in regards to the upcoming projects.
o Temporary bike and pedestrian facilities should be installed on W 60th St during
construction in Chowen Park A/B and W 58th St.
o Show past and future projects on one map.
C. Traffic Safety Report of February 26, 2019
Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by commissioner Ruthruff to
approve the February 26, 2019 traffic safety report. All voted Aye. Motion Carried.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
D. 2019 Work Plan Updates
• #1 Two meetings will be held with the working group on 3/25 and 4/15
• #3 Community columns will be published in the Sun Current
• #4 Planning to continue service and possibly add a second loop
VIII. Chair And Member Comments
Commissioner McCarthy said he has some concerns with the shared space for vehicles, cyclists and
pedestrian in the approved 7200/7250 France development plan.
Commissioner Kane said he would like to see past and future bike/pedestrian projects on one map.
Commissioner Richman said that publishing a map would be very helpful and people like to see that kind of
information.
IX. Staff Comments
• The W 58th St open house was held a few weeks ago; small group meetings are next step in
the process.
• CloverRide will be launching an additional marketing campaign.
• Draft comprehensive plan is out for 30-day public review; Planning Commission public
hearing is April 24th.
• Director Millner met with board members of Grandview Square to discuss Grandview
District Transportation Study.
• Planner Scipioni and Traffic Safety Coordinator Bauler attended the Minnesota
Transportation Conference, attended seminars on variety of topics.
• Council approved the MOU with Lime, waiting to hear schedule for deployment.
• Traffic Safety Coordinator Bauler presented the 2018 Traffic Safety Summary Report to
Council this week, was well-received.
• Spack Consulting will be creating the educational presentation on traffic studies for the
ETC.
• There will be no Traffic Safety Report in March.
• Annual Boards and Commissions Recognition dinner is April 30th at Braemar.
X. Schedule of Meeting and Events as of March 1, 2019
For information purposes only, no discussion.
XI. Adjournment at 7:23 p.m
Motion was made by Commissioner Kane and seconded by Commissioner Ruthruff to adjourn
the March 21, 2019 meeting. All voted Aye. Motion Carried.
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 3
NAME
Ahler, Mindy 1 1 33%
Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 3 100%
Kane, Bocar 1 1 2 67%
McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 2 67%
Olson, Larry 1 1 2 67%
Richman, Lori 1 1 1 3 100%
Ruthruff, Erik 1 1 1 3 100%
Scherer, Matthew 1 1 2 67%
Veluvali, Shankar 1 1 33%
Emmanual Ayelomi (s) 1 1 33%
Yeukai Zimbwa (s) 0 0%
Date: April 18, 2019 Agenda Item #: V.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail Draft Master
Plan
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Representatives from Three Rivers Park District will present on the draft master plan for the Canadian Pacific
Rail Regional Trail. A similar presentation will be made to City Council at their regular meeting May 7 before
seeking a resolution of support on May 21.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
CP Rail Regional Trail Draft Master Plan
CP Rail Regional Trail
Draft master plan
March 21, 2019
Three Rivers Park Districtii
The mission of Three Rivers Park District
is to promote environmental stewardship
through recreation and education in a natural
resources-based park system.
Three Rivers Park District was established in 1957 after legislation was enacted in 1955 allowing for the activation of
park districts whose primary duties are “acquisition, development and maintenance of large parks, wildlife sanctuaries,
forest and other reservations and means for public access to historic sites and to lakes, rivers and streams and to other
natural phenomena” (Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 398.07).
There are more than 12.3 million annual visits to more than 26,500 acres of park reserves, regional parks and special-
use areas in Hennepin and five adjoining counties and 145 miles of regional trails. Current outdoor-recreation activities
in regional parks and trails include camping, hiking, cross-country and downhill skiing, tubing, bicycling, in-line skating,
horseback riding, nature interpretation, golfing, fishing and swimming. Three Rivers Park District also operates a natural
resources management program, which administers the restoration and perpetuation of both native wildlife and plants
in order to provide park and trail visitors opportunities for high-quality recreational experiences.
DISTRICT 1
Penny Steele, Term Expires 12/31/20
DISTRICT 2
Jennifer DeJournett, Term Expires 12/31/22
Corcoran, Greenfield, Hanover, Independence,
Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medicine
Lake, Medina, Minnetrista, Minnetonka
Beach, Mound, New Hope, Orono (precincts
1, 3 & 4), Plymouth, Rockford, Rogers,
Spring Park, St. Bonifacius, Wayzata
Brooklyn Park (all precincts except W1-0 and
W1-R), Champlin, Dayton, Maple Grove, Osseo
DISTRICT 3
Daniel Freeman, Term Expires 12/31/20
Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park (only precincts
W1-0 and W1-R), Crystal, Golden Valley, Hopkins
(precinct 2), Robbinsdale, St. Anthony, St. Louis Park
DISTRICT 4
John Gunyou, Term Expires 12/31/22
Deephaven, Edina, Excelsior, Greenwood,
Hopkins (all precincts except 2), Minnetonka,
Orono (precinct 2), Richfield (all precincts except
6 & 9), Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Woodland
DISTRICT 5
John Gibbs, Term Expires 12/31/20
Bloomington, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie,
Fort Snelling, Richfield (precincts 6 & 9)
Steven Antolak, Term Expires 12/31/20
Hennepin County Appointee - serves at large
Gene Kay, Term Expires 12/31/18
Hennepin County Appointee - serves at large
Board of Commissioners
DeJournett
Steele
Gunyou
Gibbs
Freeman
Cover Photo Credit: Three Rivers Park District
Antolak - At Large
Kay - At Large
iiiCP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
Three Rivers Park District (Park District) gratefully acknowledges the staff, agency partners, community members and other
participants who contributed to the CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan. The Park District extends a special thank you to the individuals
listed below who provided guidance, time, questions and critical insight throughout the process.
Agency Partners
Mark Nolan, AICP
City of Edina
Transportation Planner
Amy Marohn, PE
City of Bloomington
Civil Engineer
Bob Byers, PE
Hennepin County
Transportation Planning Engineer
Jordan Kocak, AICP
Hennepin County
Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator
Three Rivers Park District
Danny McCullough
Regional Trail System Manager
Stephen Shurson, PLA
Landscape Architect
Kelly Grissman
Director of Planning
Ann Rexine, ASLA
Principal Planner
Jonathan Vlaming
Associate Superintendent
Consultant
Greta Alquist, AICP
Connor Cox
Chris Bower, PE
Brian Tang, EIT
Cindy Zerger, AICP, ASLA
Ciara Schlichting, AICP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTORS
Three Rivers Park District
iv
This page left intentionally blank
vCP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A LINKING REGIONAL TRAIL
The Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail (CP Rail Regional
Trail, or CPRRT) is a planned, 21-mile regional trail
corridor that traverses six communities in Hennepin
County - Bloomington, Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden
Valley, New Hope and Crystal (Map 1). The CPRRT will
fill a critical north-south gap in the regional trail system
and provide a highly desirable recreation amenity to
adjacent communities and the greater region.
The CPRRT’s route will provide an exclusively off-road
trail experience for an estimated 305,000 users that is a
safe and enjoyable recreation and active transportation
option for all users regardless of age or abilities. The
CPRRT will link and expand access to numerous local
and regional trails, residential neighborhoods, local and
regional parks, local businesses and destinations and
natural open spaces such as the Minnesota River and
Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve.
The proposed trail alignment will connect to three
regional trail search corridors and six regional trails:
Nine Mile Creek, Cedar Lake LRT, North Cedar Lake, Luce
Line, Bassett Creek and Crystal Lake. The trail is divided
into six segments - Segment A through Segment F. The
segments generally connect one regional trail to another,
starting at the southern terminus of the trail alignment at
the Minnesota River in Bloomington.
Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MNi
THE BOTTOM LINE
key message
theBL
The CPRRT will be 21 miles long, connect to several
existing regional trails and six communities
including Bloomington, Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden
Valley, New Hope and Crystal.
Map 1: CP Rail Regional Trail Segments
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN N ESO T A R I V E R
NorthMississippi
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
A
B
C
D
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
Minnesota River to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
E
F
Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Luce Line Regional Trail
Luce Line Regional Trail to Bassett Creek Regional Trail
Bassett Creek Regional Trail to Crystal Lake Regional Trail
Three Rivers Park District
vi
This master plan is envisioned as a working master plan that will
be updated every 1-3 years to eventually include a thorough
route alignment evaluation, community engagement process and
preferred route selection for each segment. The completion dates
of each master plan segment is shown in Table 1.
The total acquisition and development costs to complete
proposed and upgrade existing CPRRT segments are
summarized in Table 2. The total estimated cost for all future
trail segments is $27.7 million.
Acquisition and construction costs for Segments B-F are
estimated values since no specific route alignment has been
selected. These cost estimates are subject to change and should
be updated when the route alignment has been selected. At this
time it is assumed that Segments B-F will all be constructed on
new facilities, rather than utilizing existing facilities. It is further
assumed that these segments will be constructed primarily
within existing right-of-way, with a 5’-wide easement to be
acquired along the entirety of the trail for initial construction,
at an average cost of $8 per square foot. Trail construction costs
are assumed at $300 per linear foot which is the current unit
cost estimate for urban construction.
When the 21-mile CPRRT corridor is fully constructed, routine
maintenance operation costs including additional staffing are
estimated to increase by $52,500/year (2019 dollars). Additional
costs for trail surface preservation and rehabilitation (e.g.
trail surface repairs, striping requirements and pavement
requirements) are anticipated to increase by $72,500/year
assuming a 30-year pavement life. The combined annual
maintenance operation estimated cost for both route and trail
surface preventative maintenance is $125,000/year.
SEGMENT A: Master Plan Estimate
Minnesota River to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
Existing
Mileage
Future Construction Mileage
Acquisition
Cost
Construction
Cost
Subtotal
Cost
5.62 miles 1.40 miles $100,000 $3,000,000 $3,100,000
SEGMENT C: Generalized Cost Estimate
Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
Existing Mileage
Future Construction
Mileage
Acquisition Cost Construction Cost Subtotal Cost
0 miles 1.68 miles $360,000 $2,650,000 $3,010,000
SEGMENT D: Generalized Cost Estimate
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Luce Line Regional Trail
Existing
Mileage
Future Construction Mileage
Acquisition
Cost
Construction
Cost
Subtotal
Cost
0 miles 2.12 miles $450,000 $3,350,000 $3,800,000
SEGMENT E: Generalized Cost Estimate
Luce Line Regional Trail to Bassett Creek Regional Trail
Existing Mileage
Future
Construction
Mileage
Acquisition Cost Construction Cost Subtotal Cost
0 miles 2.7 miles $570,000 $4,250,000 $4,820,000
SEGMENT F: Generalized Cost Estimate
Bassett Creek Regional Trail to Crystal Lake Regional Trail
Existing Mileage
Future Construction
Mileage
Acquisition Cost Construction Cost Subtotal Cost
0 miles 2.66 miles $570,000 $4,250,000 $4,820,000
Table 2: CPRRT Acquisition and Construction Cost Estimates
SEGMENT B: Generalized Cost Estimate
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
Existing
Mileage
Future Construction Mileage
Acquisition
Cost
Construction
Cost
Subtotal
Cost
0 miles 4.47 miles $950,000 $7,100,000 $8,050,000
Acquisition and Construction Cost Estimates - Rounded Totals
Total Future
Construction
Mileage
Acquisition Cost Construction Cost Total Cost
15.03 miles $3,000,000 $24,600,000 $27,600,000
Segment Master Plan
Completion Date
Segment A: Minnesota River to Nine
Mile Creek Regional Trail 2017-2019
Segment B: Nine Mile Creek Regional
Trail to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail TBD
Segment C: Cedar Lake LRT Regional
Trail to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail TBD
Segment D: North Cedar Lake Regional
Trail to Luce Line Regional Trail TBD
Segment E: Luce Line Regional Trail to
Bassett Creek Regional Trail TBD
Segment F: Bassett Creek Regional Trail
to Crystal Lake Regional Trail TBD
Table 1: Master Plan Segments Completion Date
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
vii
CPRRT will connect to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail on West 70th Street | Edina, MN
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
1. INTRODUCTION | Planning Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 4
Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Metropolitan Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Three Rivers Park District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4
Precedent Planning Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
2. RESEARCH | Trends, Demands & Forecasts. . . . . . . . . . 5 - 10
National Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Minnesota Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 - 6
Twin Cities Regional Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Generational Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 - 7
Creating Health Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Park District Regional Trail Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 - 9
3. DESIGN GUIDANCE | Development Concept . . . . . . . . 11 - 15
Permitted Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Access to All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 12
Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 -14
Additional Trail Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 - 15
4. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE | Plans & Details ... 17 - 20
General Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Public Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 18
Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 - 19
Natural & Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 20
Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5. IMPLEMENTATION | Estimated Costs & Funding . . 21 - 23
Transition of Existing Local Trails to Regional Trails . . . 21
Anticipated Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
Funding Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Operations & Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
6. SEGMENT A | Minnesota River to Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 - 36
Segment A Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Segment A Route Master Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Segment A Land Cover and Natural Heritage
Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Funding Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 - 50
7. SEGMENT B | Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail to
Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Segment B Overview
sdf
8. SEGMENT C | Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Segment C Overview
9. SEGMENT D | North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to
Luce Line Regional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Segment D Overview
10. SEGMENT E | Luce Line Regional Trail to
Bassett Creek Regional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Segment E Overview
11. SEGMENT F | Bassett Creek Regional Trail to
Crystal Lake Regional Trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Segment F Overview
Appendix A | Visitation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Appendix B | Physical Challenge Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 - 51
Appendix C | Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 - 59
Appendix D | Segment A Public and Agency Comments 61 - 73
Appendix E | Resolutions of Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Three Rivers Park District
viii
MAPS
1 CPRRT | Regional Trail Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
2 CPRRT | Regional Trail Segments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 Existing and Planned Regional Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4 Metropolitan Council 2040 Regioanl Parks System . . . 3
5 CP Rail Regional Trail | Service Area. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6 Segment A Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
7 CPRRT | Segment A Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
8 Subsegment A1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
9 Subsegment A2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
10 Subsegment A3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11 Subsegment A4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12 Subsegment A4 Route Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13 Subsegment A4 Alternatives Analysis Cost Estimate . . 35
14 MLCCS | Segment A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
15 Segment B Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
16 Segment C Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
17 Segment D Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
18 Segment E Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
19 Segment F Context. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
TABLES
1 Master Plan Segments Completion Date . . . . . . . . . . . . .vi
2 CPRRT Acquisition and Construction Cost Estimate . . . vi
3 Master Plan Segments Completion Date. . . . . . . . . . . . .1
4 Generational Recreation Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
5 Regional Trail Typical Cost and Descriptions. . . . . . . . . .8
6 Wayfinding Signage Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7 Wayfinding Signage and Other Regional Trail
Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8 Routine Trail Maintenance Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9 Existing CPRRT Subsegments for Future Inclusion in
Park District Regional Trail System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10 Future CPRRT Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
11 Acquisition Needs for Future CPRRT Segments . . . . . . .22
12 Operations & Maintenance Costs Summary . . . . . . . . . . 23
13 Segment A | Length and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14 Subsegment A4 Route Option Characteristics . . . . . . . 34
15 Segment B | Length and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
16 Segment C | Length and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
17 Segment D | Length and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
18 Segment E | Length and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
19 Segment F | Length and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
GRAPHS
1 Determinants of Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 08
2 Regional Trail Use by Activity & Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09
FIGURES
1 Urban and/or Curbed Rural Trail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Rural and/or Park Trail Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
3 Subsegment A4 Planning Timeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4 Online Interactive Feedback Map for Subsegment A4.32
1CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
When complete, the Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail
(CPRRT) will span 21 miles and connect the communities
of Bloomington, Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, New
Hope and Crystal. The trail alignment generally parallels the
Canadian Pacific Rail line (CP Rail), which stretches south to
north from the planned MN River State Trail to Crystal Lake
Regional Trail. This future paved, multi-use, regional trail will
expand recreational and transportation access to park and trail
facilities, residential neighborhoods and commercial nodes.
The CPRRT route is divided into six planning segments - each
segment representing a connection between existing regional
trails (Map 2, Table 3). The context of the CPRRT in relation to
other planned and existing Three Rivers Park District regional
trails is shown in Map 3.
A roller skater along the CP Rail Regional Trail through Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MN
INTRODUCTION PLANNING FRAMEWORK 1
THE QUICK TAKE-AWAY
key message
theQT
The CPRRT’s principle goal is to provide a comfortable and
attractive south-north regional trail that connects the six
communities along its route while also connecting to local
destinations and regional trails.
Map 2: CP Rail Regional Trail Segments
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN NESOT A R I V E RNorthMississippi
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
A
B
C
D
ST. LOUIS PARK
EDINA
BLOOMINGTON
GOLDEN
VALLEY
E
NEW HOPE FCRYSTAL
Segment Segment Extents Master Plan Completion City Chapter
A Minnesota River to Nine Mile
Creek Regional Trail 2019 Bloomington and Edina 6
B
Segment B: Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail to Cedar Lake LRT
Regional Trail
TBD Edina and St.
Louis Park 7
C Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail TBD St. Louis Park 8
D North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
to Luce Line Regional Trail TBD
St. Louis Park
and Golden Valley 9
E Luce Line Regional Trail to
Bassett Creek Regional Trail TBD
Golden Valley,
New Hope and
Crystal
10
F Bassett Creek Regional Trail to
Crystal Lake Regional Trail TBD New Hope and
Crystal 11
Table 3: Master Plan Segments Completion Date
Three Rivers Park District2
Carver ParkReserve
Cleary LakeRegional Park
Murphy-HanrehanPark Reserve
Lake Minnetonka LRTRegional Trail
Minnesota River Bluffs LRTRegional Trail
Cedar Lake LRTRegional Trail
North Cedar Lake
Regional TrailDakota RailRegional Trail
Sarah CreekRegional Trail
Crow RiverRegional Trail
Lake IndependenceRegional Trail
Medicine LakeRegional Trail
Rush Creek
Regional Trail
Crystal LakeRegional Trail
Shingle CreekRegional Trail
Luce LineRegional Trail
Bassett CreekRegional Trail
Twin LakesRegional Trail
DiagonalRegional Trail
MapleGrove
Medina
Plymouth
Dayton
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
TonkaBay
Nine Mile CreekRegional Trail
Nokomis-MinnesotaRiver RegionalTrail
Luce LineState Trail
Minnesota Valley State Trail
West MississippiRiver Regional Trail
M ISS
I
SSI
PPI
RIVER
CROWRIVERBaker/Carver
Regional Trail
Champlin
Rogers
Greenfield Corcoran
Independence
Minnetrista
St. Bonifacious
Gale WoodsFarm
KingswoodPark
BakerParkReserve
Lake RebeccaPark Reserve
NoerenbergGardens
Crow-HassanPark Reserve
Elm CreekPark Reserve
Mississippi GatewayRegional Park
Fish LakeRegional Park
SilverwoodPark
Eagle LakeRegional Park
FrenchRegional Park Robbinsdale
BrooklynPark
BrooklynCenter
Osseo
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
Lake Minnetonka
Big Island
Lake MinnetonkaRegional Park
MIN N E S O TAR I V E R
North MississippiRegionalPark
CP RailRegionalTrail
Map prepared for Three Rivers Park Districtby Toole Design Group - May 2018
This GIS Data is provided "as is" without warrantyof any representation of accuracy, timeliness, orcompleteness. The user acknowledges and acceptsthe limitations of the Data, including the fact that theData is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance,correction, and update.
0 2 4 6 8Miles
Search Corridor, Proposed, Met Council Approved
Search Corridor, Existing, Park District Concept
Search Corridor, Proposed, Park District Concept
Other Agency, Non Existing
Other Agency, Existing
TRPD, Existing
TRPD, Non Existing, Approved Master Plan
TRPD, Non Existing Alternative, Approved Master Plan
TRPD, Under Construction
Search Corridor, Existing, Met Council Approved
TRPD, Existing, Local Trail, Agreement Pending
Map 3: Three Rivers Park District Existing and Planned Regional Trails
CP Rail Regional Trail
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
3
26,500+ acres park reserves, regional parks & special recreation features
145 +
12 million
annual visitors
regional trail miles
Park District Overview
PLANNING PROCESS
The CPRRT will be planned in phases, one phase for each of
the six segments of the trail. During each phase, a segment’s
exact route alignment will be solidified. When an update to
the Master Plan is adopted, that segment officially becomes
a planned regional trail as defined by the Metropolitan
Council and becomes eligible for Regional Parks funding
for implementation. Each phase of the planning process will
include community engagement and a route evaluation process
to select a preferred alignment for each segment of the regional
trail. Detailed descriptions of the planning process for each
segment will be provided in Chapters 6-11.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
The Twin Cities nationally renowned Metropolitan Regional
Parks System significantly contributes to the area’s high quality
of life. Establishing green space for recreation and resource
protection enhances the region’s livability and economic
strength. The Metropolitan Regional Parks System includes 62
regional parks, park reserves and special recreation features
- plus 340 miles of regional trails. Currently, there are 54,286
acres of protected land open for public use with planned
acquisition of an additional 70,000 parkland acres and 760
regional trail miles over the next 25 years to meet the region’s
growth expectations. The Metropolitan Regional Parks System
is made up of 10 park implementing agencies consisting of six
county park departments, three city park departments and
Three Rivers Park District.
Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency that
oversees and provides partial funding of the acquisition,
development and operation of the Metropolitan Regional Parks
System. Metropolitan Council and park implementing agencies
also develop regional park policies to protect the region’s
water quality; promote best management practices; and help
integrate the parks system with housing, transportation and
other regional priorities.
Metropolitan Council provides guidance in the development
of regional park and trail master plans and the CPRRT reflects
that guidance. Each regional park or trail must have a master
plan approved by Metropolitan Council prior to receiving
Metropolitan Council funding. The master plan must address
boundaries and acquisition, demand, development concept,
implementation schedule, development and operational costs
and natural resources. Public input is encouraged throughout
the master planning process. Metropolitan Council’s
planning requirements help ensure consistency between the
implementing agencies and their regional plans. The CPRRT
regional trail search corridor is identified in Metropolitan
Council’s 2040 Regional Parks System Plan (Map 4).
THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT
Three Rivers Park District (Park District) is an independent
special park district charged with the responsibilities of
acquisition, development and maintenance of regional parks
and trails for the benefit and use of residents and visitors of
suburban Hennepin County, the seven-county Twin Cities
metropolitan area and the State of Minnesota. The Park District
works cooperatively with local communities, counties, public
agencies, the Metropolitan Council, and the State Legislature.
The Park District’s mission is to promote environmental
stewardship through recreation and education in a natural
resources-based park system. The Park District was established
in 1957 by the Minnesota State Legislature when prominent
members of the community promoted the benefits of parks in
the outlying areas of Hennepin County.
63
2040 REGIONAL PARKS POLICY PLAN THREE: System Plan
Figure 14: 2040 Regional Parks System Plan
Bloomington
88Three RiversPark District
Dakota County
Anoka County
Scott County
Carver County
Ramsey County
Washington CountySt. PaulMinneapolisPark & Rec Board
0 5 10 15 202.5 Miles
City and Township Boundaries
County Boundaries
Lakes and Rivers
Regional Parks, Park Reserves, Special Recreation Features
Existing
Planned
Boundary Adjustment
Search Area
Regional Trails
Existing Regional Trails
Planned Regional Trails
Regional Trail Search Corridors
2040 Regional TrailSearch Corridor Additions
State and Federal
State Lands
State Trails
Federal Lands
CP Rail Regional Trail
CP Rail Regional Trail
Map 4: Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Regional Parks System Plan
Three Rivers Park District
4
The CPRRT complements
various previous planning
documents.Source: Metropolitan Council & Hennepin County
Regional Trail Planning Guidelines
The Park District manages its lands under four categories
of regional open space: regional park reserves, regional
parks, regional special recreation features and regional trail
corridors.
Regional trail corridors like the CPRRT are intended to provide
recreational travel along linear pathways that transcend
multiple jurisdictions and may, or may not, also serve a
transportation function. In addition, regional trails follow
criteria established by the Metropolitan Council and Park
District:
“Regional trail corridors are carefully selected to follow
natural or cultural linear features with scenic appeal and/or
historical, architectural and developmental interest, connect
people with places, help create a sense of place amongst
the greater community, intersect with local trail, sidewalk
and bicycle networks, provide access to mass transit and link
components of the regional park system together.”
Regional trails may function as a destination or linking
regional trail or both. For either regional trail type, adjacent
land with significant natural or cultural resources may be
acquired as part of the trail corridor.
• Destination regional trails are developed as greenways
or linear parks, and are distinct in that the trail itself
is a destination. This type of regional trail typically is
an independent facility and includes a wide corridor
providing opportunities for improving wildlife habitat,
protecting natural/cultural resources and providing
recreational opportunities.
• Linking regional trails serve a greater transportation
function and act as the back bone to the regional trail
system by connecting the regional park system to itself
and the people it serves in a logical and efficient manner.
The CPRRT will serve as a linking regional trail, connecting
six communities and many regional trails, including Nine
Mile Creek Regional Trail, Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail, North
Cedar Lake Regional Trail, Luce Line Regional Trail, Bassett Creek
Regional Trail and Crystal Lake Regional Trail.
PRECEDENT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
The CPRRT Master Plan builds off of the CPRRT Feasibility
Report, which was completed by the Park District in 2010. The
report includes a technical feasibility section with descriptions
of individual trail segments and potential construction and
environmental impacts. The report also includes social
feasibility, economic feasibility, railroad approval and phasing
strategies, and potential funding sources.
In addition to the feasibility report, the CPRRT is consistent
with the vision of several agencies along the trail corridor. This
master plan serves to solidify those independent visions into
one documented trail route, supported by agencies, residents
and users. The CPRRT corridor, generally aligned adjacent to
the Canadian Pacific Railway, is identified and defined by the
following plans:
• Metropolitan Council ‘2040 Regional Parks Policy
Plan’ as a regional trail search corridor
• Metropolitan Council ‘Regional Bicycle System
Study’ (2014) identified the CPRRT alignment in
the regional bicycle transportation network
• Metropolitan Council ‘Regional Bicycle Barriers Study’
(2018) identified fifteen barrier crossings along the
CPRRT: five in Tier 1, nine in Tier 2, and one in Tier 3
• Hennepin County ‘2040 Bicycle Transportation Plan’
as a ‘planned off-street bikeway search corridor’
(Hennepin County Planned Bikeway System, April 2015)
In addition, portions of the CPRRT corridor have been identified
in local bicycle, pedestrian, trail, or comprehensive plans:
• City of Bloomington ‘Alternative Transportation Plan’ (2016)
identifies the alignment of the CPRRT, although the trail is
labeled as the ‘Hyland Regional Trail’
• City of Edina ‘Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan’ (Draft 2018),
identifies two small portions of Subsegment A4 (described
in more detail in Chapter 6 of this master plan) as new
planned shared-use paths, including West 78th Street,
Dewey Hill Road and a small portion of Bush Lake Road
between Dewey Hill Road and West 76th Street
• City of St. Louis Park ‘Active Living: Sidewalks and Trails Plan’
(2007) identifies a portion of the CPRRT on the southern
end of the city
• City of Golden Valley ‘Comprehensive Plan 2040’ (Draft
2018) identifies the CPRRT as a proposed north-south
route from the City of New Hope boundary to City of St.
Louis Park boundary
• New Hope Comprehensive Plan (2008) identifies the CP
Rail Corridor as a “Potential Rail ROW sharing”
• City of Crystal ‘Park and Recreation System Master Plan’
(2017) identifies a regional trail connection from Winnetka
Avenue North, through Valley Place Park, Bassett’s Creek
Park and continuing southeast past Highway 100 that
generally follows the CP rail trail corridor
5CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
RESEARCH TRENDS, DEMANDS & FORECASTS
CPRRT is anticipated to become a significant regional trail
destination due to its connectivity with recreational amenities
including existing and proposed regional trails, regional
park reserves and to various retail and commercial nodes.
National, state, regional and Park District recreational use
trend studies support continued expansion, improvement and
implementation of trails. Recreational studies also indicate that
of the wide varieties of recreation activities, trails appear to be
the common thread across most demographics groups.
NATIONAL RECREATION TRENDS
According to the Outdoor Recreation Participation Topline Report
(2017), nearly half of all Americans – 48.6 percent – participated
in at least one outdoor activity in 2016. That equates to 144
million participants who went on a collective 11 billion outdoor
outings. While the participation rate and number of participants
slightly increased over the past year, the number of total outings
decreased due to a decline in outings per participant. Aspirational
participation, which measures the physical activities that interest
non-participants, showed that many Americans were drawn to
outdoor recreation over sports, fitness and leisure activities. In
fact, all aspirational participants — regardless of age — reported
bicycling in their top six most appealing activities. The report
details youth, young adult and adult participation rates and
frequencies for popular types of recreation. Running, jogging and
trail running topped each age cohorts recreation participation
list, followed closely by bicycling.
Chrildren bicycling on a regional trail. 2
The Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures technical document
(2010) has reported that the number and percentage of people
ages 16 and older participating in walking and bicycling
continue to increase nation-wide, giving a positive outlook for
regional trail development. Walking for pleasure and bicycling
report in at over 200 and 88.3 million participants respectively
(2005-2009) - numbers that have been steadily increasing since
the report’s first recorded numbers in 1982.
The Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures document further
investigates recreational participation by ethnic populations,
concluding that minority populations nation-wide are still
underrepresented in outdoor recreation overall - which is also
consistent with Minnesota data. However, of those minority
populations that were surveyed who did participate in outdoor
activities (the largest minority groups in the United States
being African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanics),
running/jogging and trail running ranked highest as their top
selection (ages 6 and older).
THE BOTTOM LINE
key message
theBL
Parks and trails support an active, healthy lifestyle for all
who use them. Parks and trails build strong families and
communities, nourish bodies and minds, attract economic
development and growth and preserve and protect the
natural environment.
The number and percentage of people ages 16 and older who walk and bike continue
to increase nation-wide.Source: Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures (2010)
MINNESOTA RECREATION TRENDS
The Minnesota’s State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan (SCORP), published by Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR), provides goals and strategies that
reinforce the vision and strategic directions that comprise the
Parks and Trails Legacy Plan. It further defines the geographic
Three Rivers Park District
6
pattern of high growth continuing in the greater Twin Cities
metropolitan area. This new growth will fuel demands for near-
home recreation opportunities in these areas. Two-thirds of
all recreation use occurs within a half-hour drive from home;
creating the need for outdoor recreation lands near areas of
higher population density and growth. Sustaining existing
outdoor recreation facilities for future generations remains a
key issue.
The primary goal of the SCORP is to increase participation
in outdoor recreation by all Minnesotans and visitors. By
increasing recreation facilities and increasing them in or near
populated areas and populated areas with increasingly diverse
populations, the CPRRT will help meet this goal and start to
respond to some of the trends and issues identified in the
SCORP.
The SCORP cites several studies showing that involvement in
nature-based outdoor recreation among young adults and
their children has decreased since the 1990s. The relative
participation of different segments of the population in nature-
based outdoor recreation, together with their respective
population growth rates, create significant challenges ahead in
terms of park and trail utilization, as well as maintaining broad-
based public support for park and trail investments.
TWIN CITIES REGIONAL RECREATION TRENDS
The Metropolitan Council notes the Twin Cities metropolitan
area is projected to be home to almost 3.7 million people by
2040, a gain of 824,000 residents from 2010. With this growth
will come new jobs, greater racial and ethnic diversity, expanded
economic opportunities and increased tax revenues. In addition,
the Twin Cities population is changing in ways that will influence
park and trail decision making:
• Our region is aging rapidly. More than one in five residents
will be age 65 and older in 2040, compared to one in nine
in 2010.
• The region will gain 391,000 households by 2040.
• By 2040, 40% of the population will be people of color,
compared to 24% in 2010. The share of people of color is
greater among younger age groups; 54% of residents under
age 18 will be people of color in 2040.
• Broad-based trends consistently indicate that recreation
participation is far greater for white and/or non-Hispanic
populations within the state and nation than for people of
color, according to the SCORP.
Metropolitan Council demographers have identified that about
half of the total increase in population for the region from 1990
to 2000 was contributed to immigration of first-generation U.S.
citizens and the births of their children. This trend was expected
to continue through 2010, if not longer. Within the region, there
are several prevalent immigrant groups: Hmong/Southeast
Asian, Hispanic/Latino, Somali and West Africans.
To date, this influx of new immigrant groups are generally not
participating in regional trail use at the same rates as non-
immigrant populations. The Park District is committed to better
understanding this phenomenon and will continue to study
this further with the ultimate goal of attracting regional trail
users which mirror the demographics of the region. Once this
is understood, this will be reviewed to consider steps to better
serve those community groups which may include signage in
multiple languages, learn to bike/commute classes, bike rental/
bike share or similar.
GENERATIONAL RECREATION TRENDS
In the U.S., there are six living generations, which are six distinct
groups of people. They have had collective experiences as
they aged and therefore have similar ideals and stereotypes.
Social generational theory provides an opportunity to help
understand current and projected generational tendencies
related to outdoor recreational trends. Regional trails appeal in
some form to all six generations for various reasons - whether
that be healthy living objectives or quality of life factors.
The Park District continues to explore how to retain existing
regional trail users and remain relevant to the changing needs
of future generations. This may be in the form of more identified
vehicle parking for users with ambulatory needs or more pet-
waste stations for young adults that use Park District trails with
dogs. These generational recreation trends require occasional
review - because as trail users age, so do their desires and needs
for a robust regional trail system (Table 4, following page).
Photo credits (this page and next): Sixty and Me, Quikbyke, MnDNR, Bike Bandit, Ann Rexine & Momentum Magazine
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
7
Generation Class Collective Experiences Recreation Trends Design Recommendations
Greatest Generation
• Born 1901-1926• 4 million population
• Suffered and persevered through Great
Depression and then fought in WWII
• Known for personal responsibility, humble nature, work ethic, prudent saving and faithful
commitment.
• Mature adults who are interested
and able, connect with outdoor recreation through walking,
hiking and light exercise.
• Interest in biking has increased,
as mature adults look to keep
muscles and joints healthy and
strong. Biking also maintains range of motion, movement
and balance. This does decline
however, as this cohort ages.
• Spending time outdoors and staying physically active can have
significant health benefits for older adults. Physical and mental
benefits include increased vitamin
D levels, improved immunity, reduced feelings of anxiety and
depression, increased energy, more restful sleep, better attention
levels and better recovery
rates from injury and illness.
• Multi-use trails are important for
aging adults - however they feel more safe when bicyclists and
pedestrians are separated.
• Trail intersections and crossings
must have truncated dome
treatments with adequate crossing
times.
• Pavement must be well-maintained, free of obstructions, non-slip and
wide enough for wheelchairs.
• Seating at predictable intervals is
imperative.
Silent Generation/
Traditionalists
• Born 1927-1945• 30 million population
• Grew up during the Great Depression and WWII
and either fought in WWII or were children.
• Majority are retirees who are known for
traditional family values, simplicity and comfort, demand for quality and financial security.
Baby Boomers
• Born 1946-1964
• 76 million population
• Born during a spike in population after WWII
and was known as the largest living generation
until the Millennials recently outpaced them.
• Grew up during the Civil Rights Movement and Cold War. Known for experimentalism,
individualism and social cause orientation.
• Can be distrustful of government.
Generation X
• Born 1965-1980
• 66 million population
• Generation born between two larger
generations (Boomers and Millennials).
• First generation to develop ease and comfort
with technology.
• Known for informality, independence, multi-
tasking, entrepreneurs and family time values.
• Can be distrustful of institutions.
• Take a more lighthearted attitude
than their predecessors and
approach outdoor activity more as a sport.
• Risk, challenge and adrenaline
are important motivators for
participating in outdoor activities. They embraced competition and
particularly risk, pushing back the limits of every outdoor sport - and
inventing some new ones of their
own. The term “extreme sports” is associated with Generation X.
• High demand for local trail access to
parks, trails and destinations (library,
restaurant, commercial etc.) - which complements active family lifestyles.
This generation has influenced the
real estate market and community
planners to answer this recreational
need nationwide - promoting access to parks, recreation amenities and
programming.
Generation Y/Millennials
• Born 1981-2004* • 80 million population
• Grew up with technology (computers, cell phones,
internet, etc.).
• Largest living generation (surpassing Boomers). Expected to continue growing until 2036 as a
result of immigration.
• Known to be informal, more culturally and racially
tolerant, entrepreneurs, acceptant of change, achievement oriented and financially savvy with
need for instant gratification.
• Due to social media and access
to the internet, Millennials are not used to feeling alone. Thus,
they are not looking to spend
a quiet day alone in a park.
• Readily share recreation experiences in real-time.
• As this generation delays
traditional marriage and families,
pet ownership has increased.
• Millennials like to stay active,
so parks with trails for biking, running and open fields for
group activities are attractive.
• Park and trails with water
access and pet waste stations for dogs is appealing.
Generation Z/
Digital Natives
• Born 2004 - present • 74 million population
and growing
• First living generation to exclusively grow up with
technology (computers, cell phones, internet,
etc.), which equates to true digital natives.
• Growing up in a world where options are unlimited but their time is not.
• Quick adapters to sorting and assessing large
amounts of information.
• While this generation’s recreational identity and interests are still developing, enticing them away from screen-time and into the outdoors will continue to
be a challenge for park and recreation planners, practitioners and designers.
Recreation planners and practitioners are currently strategizing how to incorporate quality screen-time into outdoor play, nature and exercise.
Table 4: Generational Recreation Theory
Source: Three Rivers Park District & various sources
GENERAL NOTE: Generation classes, years, ages and populations are estimates - varying sources will all offer slightly difference estimates.
Pew Research Center defines Millennials as being born from 1981 onwards, with no chronological end point set yet. Demographers William Straus and Neil Howe define Millennials
as born between 1982 -2004.*
Three Rivers Park District
8
CREATING HEALTH EQUITY
Minnesota, on average, ranks among the healthiest states
in the nation. But those averages do not tell the whole story.
Minnesota has some of the greatest health disparities in the
country between whites and people of color. America ranks
27th among affluent nations in life expectancy and 30th in
infant mortality. At the same time, our nation spent more than
$3.2 trillion dollars on health care in 2015, more than any other
country.1 Health care spending per person continues to grow
faster that the American economy. Annual premiums for family
coverage have nearly doubled from 2002 - 2012.2
Yet, as seen in Graph 1, clinical care only accounts for 10 percent
of a person’s health determinant. The largest determinants of
a person’s health is based upon social and economic factors
(income, housing, insurance coverage, care giving) and health
behaviors (activity/exercise, nutrition, smoking, obesity,
substance abuse, etc.).
new trail projects. It also provides clear direction to promote
active transportation through fostered relationships between
park and trail agencies, transportation departments and health
care officials.
PARK DISTRICT REGIONAL TRAIL TRENDS
Visitation to the Park District’s regional trails is now estimated
at over 5 million visits per year. The number of trail miles has
grown from 56 miles (2009) to 145 miles (2018). Use patterns
within the Park District’s system of parks and trails have also
changed. The Boomers who used to bring their children to Park
District parks are now empty-nesters and have flocked to the
regional trails to get exercise and to get outdoors. Biking, as a
form of transportation, has gained traction over the past five
years throughout the metro region and more users are now bike
commuting. The Park District’s work with local communities and
Hennepin County has resulted in a regional trail network that is
better connected to the local “feeder” trail, sidewalk and bike
lane networks, making the system more accessible to a larger
portion of the population.
In 2011, Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail surpassed 500,000
visits - marking the first time in the Park District’s history that
a regional trail received a half million visits. Now seven years
later, Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail remains the most visited
in the Park District’s system; third only to Minnehaha Parkway
Regional Trail (1,386,200 visits in 2017) and Kenilworth Regional
Trail (746,400 visits in 2017) within the Metropolitan Regional
Parks System.
Of the 16 Park District regional trails that received visitor counts
in 2017, six received 500,000 or more visits. For comparison
purposes, five of the 21 park reserves, regional parks and/or
special recreation features received 500,000 or more visits. As
of 2017, regional trail visits accounted for over 40 percent of all
visits to the Park District’s facilities. Trail visitation is expected to
continue to increase at a rate greater than the expected increase
in population and to increase at a rate faster than expected
visitation increases to the Park District’s park units.
Regional Trail | User Data
Metropolitan Council data reveals that regional trails are
most heavily visited during the spring, summer and fall
seasons with summer receiving 35 percent of annual visits,
spring and fall each receiving 27 percent of annual visits and
winter receiving 11 percent of annual visits. Winter has seen
more seasonal growth, in part due to warmer winters, the
increased use of trails for commuting and the use of trails for
year-round exercise regimens.
Park District research shows that summer trends continue
to indicate that biking is, and will remain, the predominant
regional trail activity at 72 percent, followed by walking (18
percent) and running (8 percent). In-line skating, users with
mobility-devices and other miscellaneous uses make up the
balance of trail users. However, Park District winter data reveals
a different narrative. Bicycling drops significantly during the
winter season, while the walking and running groups continue
to utilize regional trails (Graph 2).
Recreation providers can have a direct and positive impact on a
person’s health by creating accessible and affordable access to
parks and trails. Direct exposure to nature is essential for healthy
childhood development and for the physical and emotional
health of children and adults. Research findings recognize the
following health benefits:
• Improved physical activity
• Improved nutrition
• Reduced stress
• Enhanced cognitive abilities
• Improved self discipline
• Improved academic performance
• Reduced ADD symptoms
• Improved creative problem solving
• Improved social relationships
A recent MnDOT study3 has described that physical activity can
prevent illness and death from chronic diseases - specifically
MnDOT concludes that bicycling three times per week provides
the following:
• 46% lower odds of metabolic syndrome
• 31% lower odds of obesity
• 28% lower odds of hypertension
In turn, these bicycling benefits are estimated to save Minnesota
residents between $100 - $500 million per year in medical
related costs. This study’s research allows recreation planners
the ability to more accurately represent the cost/benefits of
Social &
Economic
Factors
40%
Health
Behaviors
30%
Genes & Biology10%
Physical Environment10%
Clinical Care10%
Graph 1: Determinants of Health
Source: Minnesota Department of Health
1 Center for Health and Learning
2 Kaiser Institute
3 Assessing the Economic Impact & Health Benefits of Bicycling in Minnesota, MnDOT, 2016.
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
9
• A diversity of natural settings (woodlands,
wetlands, prairies, etc.)
• Visual and physical separation from motor vehicles
• A continuous and contiguous route with limited stop conditions
• A smooth surface (either paved or aggregate)
• Connectivity with destinations and
other bicycle/pedestrian facilities
• Opportunities for loops
• Trail amenities - drinking water, mileage
markers, restrooms and wayfinding
Some bicycle and pedestrian studies also indicate that
participants are willing to spend more money and travel
longer distances to utilize facilities that incorporate these
preferences. In recognition of user preferences, the CPRRT
route was selected to provide linkages to regional recreation
destinations; balance recreation and natural resources;
minimize stop conditions, provide a safe, off-road, multi-
modal transportation option, and ultimately, increase the
desirability of the regional trail.
CPRRT Projected Use and Visitation
The percentage breakdown by activity of CPRRT will generally
mirror Park District regional trail activity trends. Bicycling
will be the primary regional trail use, with ancillary uses such
as walking, running and in-line skating capturing a smaller
percentage of the total use. These expected uses remain
consistent throughout the trail corridor with the exception
of where the regional trail passes through commercial areas.
In these locations, it is anticipated that the regional trail
will receive an increased percentage of pedestrian activity
associated with the sidewalk network.
Seasonal use percentages for the CPRRT are expected to be
consistent with regional trail seasonal use with 88 percent of
visitation occurring in the spring, summer and fall seasons.
Winter use of the CPRRT is dependent on weather conditions,
available budget and the assistance of local communities
to maintain the trail. Local communities will maintain the
regional trail during the winter months as resources allow and
demand warrants it. The Park District currently partners with
cities to encourage winter maintenance of regional trails by
offering financial contributions to help offset plowing costs.
This payment to cities is based on the number of miles within
each city’s borders.
When fully-constructed, the CPRRT is projected to
generate 305,000 annual visits. This visitation estimate is
calculated based on the following cumulative methodology:
1) Metropolitan Council’s annual estimated visits to a
comparable regional trail (Luce Line Regional Trail) and 2)
population within 1.5 miles of the regional trail (Appendix A,
Visitation Methodology). Park District studies indicate that
50 percent of regional trail users live within 1.5 miles from the
trail (core service area) and 75 percent of users live within 3.5
miles of the trail (primary service area) (Map 5, following
page).
The vast majority of regional trail visitors use trails for
recreation and exercise. However, regional trail use for
commuting/transportation purposes is on the rise. Recently,
the Park District significantly expanded the regional trail
system within urban, fully-developed communities. This
increased commuting/transportation regional trail use is
captured in current Park District data that shows 23 percent
of all regional trail visits are now for commuting purposes
(up from about 1 percent in 1998, and up from 12 percent in
2009). Regional trails that are paved, with few stop conditions,
limited interactions with motor vehicles and with seamless
connections to employment, retail and commercial centers
have a greater percentage of regional trail visits attributed to
commuting than regional trails without these three attributes.
While these certainly are not the only factors in determining
the desirability of a regional trail corridor for commuting
purposes, they appear to play an important role.
Bicycle commuting is increasing as more residential housing opportunities arise
near regional trail access points.Source: Cup of Jo, Joanna Goddard
Regional Trail | Visitor Preferences
Bicycle and pedestrian studies from across the country,
and over the last 25 years, have come to the same general
conclusions regarding user preferences - regardless of user
type. Trails with the following characteristics will attract
visitors from greater distances, will have greater annual use
and will produce more enjoyable experiences for trail users:
• Natural settings (scenic, vegetation, limited
evidence of the built environment, etc.)
Other, 1%
Bicycling, 72%
In-line Skating, 1%Walking/Hiking, 48%
Graph 2: Regional Trail Use by Activity & Season
Source: Three Rivers Park District
Summer Season
JuneJulyAugust
Walking/Hiking, 18%
Running/Jogging, 8%
Other, 1%
WinterSeason
DecemberJanuaryFebruary
Running/Jogging, 23%
Bicycling, 28%
Three Rivers Park District
10
DEMOGRAPHIC EQUITY ANALYSIS
The racial and ethnic composition of the primary service area of
the CPRRT is expected to generally mirror the demographics of
the surrounding community in which the trail is located. Based
on research conducted by Three Rivers at trails from similar
areas of the metro region, it is expected that 50% of the trail
users will live within 1.5 miles of the trail (Core Service Area),
and 75% of the trail users will live within 3.5 miles of the trail
(Primary Service Area).
Three Rivers research also reveals that the primary under-
represented groups of people using Three Rivers Park District
regional trails today are:
• People of color
• People older than sixty years of age
• People from households that earn less than $50,000
Based on the 2010 U.S. Census and the 2016 American Community
Survey data, the following chart shows the demographic analysis
of the expected CPRRT users from under-served populations
in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It aslo compares the
demographics of the CPRRT service areas to Three Rivers Park
District’s jurisdiction, suburban Hennepin County, as well as all
of Hennepin County.
Table 5. Demographic Analysis of Service Area
Within 1.5 miles of
CPRRT
(Core Service Area)
Within 3.5 miles of
CPRRT
(Primary Service Area)
Suburban Hennepin
County
(TRPD jurisdiction)
Hennepin County
Classification Number % of
Total Number % of
Total Number % of
Total Number % of
Total
All People of Color (Adults)*26,954 17%94,320 23%109,156 19%210,795 24%
Non-Hispanic Black (Adults)*11,569 7% 45,958 11% 43,310 7% 92,529 10%
Non-Hispanic Indian (Adults)*983 1%3,165 1%3,337 1%9,275 1%
Non-Hispanic Asian (Adults)*8,155 5%25,400 6%37,026 6%54,591 6%
Non-Hispanic Hawaiian (Adults)*88 <1%232 <1%286 <1%500 <1%
Non-Hispanic Other (Adults)*263 <1%692 <1%884 <1%1562 <1%
Non-Hispanic Mixed (Adults)*530 <1%1,842 <1%1,873 <1%3,878 <1%
Hispanic (Adults)*5,366 3%17,031 4%22,440 4%48,460 5%
People > 60 years of age**54,512 34%113,192 28%111,013 19%213,157 24%
Households with Income < $50,000**37,402 35%97,915 39%73,371 28%189,397 39%
Sources:
* 2010 Census, US Census Bureau
** 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, US Census Bureau
The CPRRT will serve approximately the same proportion of
minority populations as compared to County as a whole. It
will serve a higher proportion of people 60 years of age and
households with less than $50,000 as compared to the county.
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
11
Map 5: CP Rail Regional Trail | Service Area
Source: Three Rivers Park District
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
ST. LOUIS PARK
EDINA
BLOOMINGTON
GOLDEN VALLEY
NEW HOPE
CRYSTAL
Three Rivers Park District
12
This page left intentionally blank
13CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
The routing of the CPRRT will provide regional trail users the
opportunity to enjoy and experience some of the region’s scenic
landscapes and parks, as well as connect to existing regional
trails including the Nine Mile Creek, Cedar Lake LRT, North Cedar
Lake, Luce Line, Bassett Creek and Crystal Lake Regional Trails.
The regional trail will incorporate safe crossings of significant
pedestrian and bicycle barriers including county/state highways
and connections to adjacent local trails.
The CPRRT is intended to safely accommodate 305,000 annual
visits, an array of non-motorized uses, a variety of skill levels
and persons with special needs. In addition, the regional trail is
intended to support both recreation and commuting uses and
incorporate trail amenities that enhance trail users’ experiences.
Similar to many regional trail corridors, the CPRRT corridor
includes several challenges associated with constructing a
regional trail where trail right-of-way does not exist, providing
access to and across natural resources areas and balancing
safety, public expectations, natural resource protection and
potential private property impacts. In areas where physical
challenges exist, and in accordance with the route evaluation
criteria, willing-seller property acquisition will be considered.
The CPRRT will be designed and constructed in a manner that
meets user expectations and needs, meets industry standards
and best management practices and is financially responsible. As
such, the Park District utilizes a series of regional trail practices and
guidelines in respect to trail design and support amenities. These
practices and guidelines are summarized in this chapter and will
serve as the basis for design and construction of the CPRRT.
DESIGN GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
Park District staff conducting field work along segment A4 of the CPRRT | Edina, MN3
PERMITTED USES
CPRRT intended uses include walking, jogging, in-line skating,
bicycling and other uses mandated by state law including, but
not limited to, non-motorized electric personal assisted devices.
Motorized vehicles will be prohibited, except for motorized vehicles
used by the Park District and partner cities for maintenance or law
enforcement activities or otherwise permitted for ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act) access.
ACCESS TO ALL
The Park District is committed to providing access and
recreational opportunities to all people, including persons
with disabilities, people of color and other special-population
groups. The Park District meets this commitment through
appropriate facility design, programming considerations and by
actively addressing potential barriers to participation.
THE BOTTOM LINE
key message
theBL
The CPRRT is planned as a linking regional trail - offering an
important connection between Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes
Park Reserve and Crystal Lake Regional Trail.
Three Rivers Park District
14
All regional trail facilities, including associated trailheads and trail
amenities, will be designed to accommodate individuals with
disabilities and developed in accordance with ADA standards and
guidelines. Specific design guidelines are discussed below in this
section.
The Park District pursues promotional outreach activities and
works with special-interest organizations such as the Courage
Kenny Rehabilitation Institute and Wilderness Inquiry to further
encourage participation in activities and use of park facilities
by persons with special needs. If arrangements are made in
advance, interpreters and alternative forms of printed material
are available at programmed events.
In addition to accommodating individuals with disabilities, the
trail corridor passes through several Hennepin County cities,
providing access to people with different social and cultural
backgrounds and connecting those persons with important
local community destinations such as parks, commercial areas,
community facilities, cultural destinations and transit facilities.
On a broader scale, communities adjacent to the trail will not
only have access to the CPRRT but also gain direct and indirect
access to several existing park reserves, regional parks and
regional and state trails. To improve local access, neighborhood
trail connections are anticipated at regular intervals.
The Park District does not charge entrance fees for its regional
trails; therefore, the regional trail is available for all users to
enjoy regardless of financial status.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
In accordance with its regional designation and associated
anticipated use, the CPRRT will be designed as an off-road
10-foot-wide, non-motorized, paved, multi-use trail. A
bituminous trail surface is preferred because it is cost-effective,
less prone to erosion than aggregate surfaces, provides a
desirable trail user experience and is more appropriate given
the anticipated visitation and connections to other paved
facilities. Curb ramps will be used at all roadway crossings. The
preferred maximum trail grade is 5 percent with a 2 percent
cross slope for drainage.
Much of the CPRRT is anticipated to be an independent trail
corridor separate from roadways, including urban, curbed rural
and park sections (Figures 1 & 2, following page). Descriptions
and associated costs for those regional trail typicals are included
in Table 5.
In areas where the trail will be located adjacent to a roadway,
the following design considerations apply. Where right-of-way
allows, final trail design will attempt to maximize the boulevard
width to account for sign placement, snow storage and possibly
trees or other complementary enhancements. In circumstances
with limited right-of-way, the trail is still planned to be located
off-road, but with less boulevard between the trail edge and
back of the curb. In these locations, the trail will be separated
from the road by a minimum paved two-foot-wide clear zone.
This paved clear zone between the back of the curb and the trail
edge provides a buffer between the trail users and motorists
and will be striped to delineate the edge of the trail.
In the event there are instances where the trail will not initially
meet the preferred design, trail designers will evaluate a wide
variety of design tools to determine the best fit for the unique
situation. Unless the alternative trail design is an acceptable
long range solution, it is anticipated that noncompliant trail
segments would be improved as funding, right-of-way or other
opportunities present themselves.
A number of factors will be considered during the design phase,
such as:
• Right-of-way width/acquisition needs
• Topography and drainage impacts
• Existing vegetation
• Driveway/road crossings
• Overhead and subsurface utilities
• Proximity to adjacent buildings, homes,
businesses and industrial facilities
• Wetlands/floodplain locations,
potential impacts and rules
• Wildlife (species, nesting/breeding areas
and times and concentrations)
• Existing infrastructure
• Connectivity with other trail/sidewalk/bicycle facilities
• Safety
• Cost
• Obstructions
• Trail user preferences/desired trail user experience
• Opportunities to coordinate with other projects/agencies
Table 5: Regional Trail Typical Cost and Descriptions
New Construction
Trail Type Unit Cost (2019 dollars)Description
Urban $325 / LF
Trail construction replacing an existing curb/gutter, cut/
remove existing pavement, relocating storm sewer and other utilities, working under traffic controls.
Curbed Rural $300 / LF
Trail construction in a rural/suburban environment that
has no existing curb/gutter, converting it to a curb/
gutter design with storm sewer as needed.
Rural $120 / LF Trail construction through a rural road ditch area with enough separation with the road to not require a curb/
gutter. No major extra fill or excavation.
Park $120 / LF Trail construction through a park or open space where curb and gutter is not required and ample space is provided for signage and rest stops.Regional trails are designed and developed to meet ADA standards and guidelines.
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
15
In addition to the discussed design considerations, regional trail
segments will be designed in accordance with all applicable
federal, state and local codes. More specifically, the following
sources will be referred and adhered to when preparing the
design and construction plans as appropriate:
• Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, prepared
by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012
• MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual, Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), March 2007
• State Aid Rule 8820.9995 Minimum Bicycle Path Standards,
State Aid for Local Transportation
• Trail Planning, Design, and Development Guidelines,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR)
• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
MnDOT, May 2015
• Public Right-of-way Access Guidelines (PROWAG)
• Best Practices for Traffic Control at Regional Trail
Crossings, A collaborative effort of Twin Cities road and
trail managing agencies, July 2011
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Wayfinding, Metropolitan Council,
October 2011
• Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I and II:
Best Practices Design Guide (FHWA); ADA Accessibility
Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (United States
Access Board); and ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines
for Buildings and Facilities (U.S. Access Board)
• Guidance for Three Rivers Park District Trail Crossings,
December 2013
Throughout the design process of the CPRRT, the Park District
will work closely with the local communities to route the trail in
a manner that has the greatest public benefit and least amount
of private property impacts.
Trail/Road Crossings
There are several locations where the regional trail crosses
roadways and in which careful attention to detail is required
to provide a safe and user friendly crossing. The types of
trail crossing treatments will be designed in accordance with
industry best standards to ensure conflicts between trail users
and roadway traffic are minimal.
In all cases, existing roadway configuration, infrastructure
elements, vegetation and other potential visual obstructions
will be evaluated so sight lines can be maintained. Special
provisions, such as mirrors, may be added to improve trail
visibility from driveways if deemed appropriate. As vehicular
traffic fluctuates, there may be a need for additional traffic
signals or modifications to existing signalized intersections.
These type of design considerations and trail enhancements
will be addressed during the trail design phase.
Figure 1: Urban and/or Curbed Rural Trail Section
Figure 2: Rural and/or Park Trail Section
Three Rivers Park District
16
Wetland & Floodplain Crossings
There may be portions of the regional trail that traverse
wetlands and floodplains. In these instances, the regional
trail design may incorporate bridges, boardwalks and other
creative solutions to minimize potential natural resources
impacts while maintaining a contiguous and continuous
trail corridor. Design and implementation of bridges and
boardwalks will be coordinated with the appropriate
regulatory agencies to ensure all requirements are met and
any potential impacts are minimized.
Drainage
In locations where the regional trail is adjacent to a roadway,
the drainage of the regional trail is similar to that of a typical
sidewalk. Stormwater sheet flows over the trail pavement
and onto adjacent urban roadways, where it is collected and
conveyed by the roadway stormwater drainage system. In areas
where the regional trail is on an independent route, such as
through parks or other green spaces, or adjacent to rural road
segments, alternative stormwater best management practices,
such as rain gardens and infiltration swales, may be explored
during the design phase of the regional trail. Stormwater must
shed rapidly from the surface of the trail and not pool on the trail
surface to prevent hazardous situations for the users. Design
of stormwater management practices will be coordinated with
regulatory and other affected parties to ensure all requirements
are met and any potential impacts are minimized.
Traffic Signage & Devices
In addition to wayfinding signage, the regional trail will
incorporate traffic control signs and devices, such as trail stop
signs and center line pavement markings. These signs and
devices will reflect the physical characteristics and usability of
individual trail segments and the system as a whole. The cost
to add traffic control signs and devices, including striping, to a
regional trail is approximately $1 per linear foot (2018 dollars).
Physical Challenges
There are several instances where the CPRRT route presents
physical challenges which require design modifications or
upgrades to existing infrastructure. To date, these existing
barriers have only been reviewed at the planning level.
Maps outlining where these areas exist along the corridor is
included in Appendix B. More details are required as these
improvements move from planning to programmed projects.
Trailheads
The CPRRT will have three trailhead kiosks, located at the
beginning, middle, and end of the trail corridor. The southern
end of the trail will feature a trailhead kiosk in Bloomington
near the Minnesota River. Trailhead kiosks are also planned
to be located near the midpoint of the trail, and one at the
northern terminus of the trail in the City of Crystal.
Additional trailhead improvements may be necessary to
adequately support the regional trail while not negatively
affecting the existing function of facilities. The Park District
will collaborate with local communities where trailhead
improvements are necessary.
ADDITIONAL TRAIL ELEMENTS
Unifying elements such as trail identity, crossings, wayfinding,
traffic signage and devices, rest stops, drainage and trailheads
are important elements of regional trails. Their proper design
and placement add both aesthetic and functional value to the
trail. As a linking regional trail, a primary design goal is to create
a trail system that is comfortable and intuitive to navigate.
Designing the trail with unifying elements and incorporating
local parks and adjacent natural resources will help achieve a
cohesive CPRRT corridor.
Wayfinding
Regional trail wayfinding signage provides trail users with
orientation and location information for amenities and services.
Wayfinding signage typically provides:
• An overview map of the agency partner’s regional trail
system and the specific regional trail.
• Directions and distances to major destinations and points
of interest along the regional trail.
• Directions for long-term detours or interim routes when
there are gaps within the regional trail.
• Location information for nearby amenities such as local
parks and local trails.
• Location information for nearby services, such as drinking
water, public restrooms and public parking.
• Visual identification of the regional trail network through
physical kiosk/signage structures.
The Park District employs three types of wayfinding signage
structures: system kiosks, regional trail kiosks and directional
signage (Table 6).
A trailhead kiosk on an existing Three Rivers Park District Regional Trail.
System Kiosk Free-standing,
roofed structure
Displays map of regional trail systems and the
regional trail rules.
Regional Trail
Kiosk Free-standing, roofed structure
Displays aerial map, description of trail
highlights and a map of the entire regional trail that depicts local trails, amenities and services nearby.
Directional Sign Post structure with description blades attached
Displays the direction, name and distance to major destinations and points of interest on
the trail. Each post structure has the capability
of holding up to 12 description blades.
Table 6: Wayfinding Signage Components
Source: Three Rivers Park District
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
17
Placement of wayfinding signage structures along regional
trails typically follows one of three configurations listed as Level
A, B or C (Table 7). The wayfinding is intended to complement
and work in collaboration with local and regional wayfinding
efforts as well as adjacent land uses and development
initiatives. There may be conditions along the regional trail
corridor where the wayfinding signage is altered or otherwise
enhanced to better serve the trail user and appropriately fit
the surrounding environment.
The wayfinding plan for the CPRRT includes signage at
strategic delineated points. The exact location and content
of wayfinding signage will be determined in conjunction
with local community input and is often dictated by available
public right-of-way. Further wayfinding details are included in
the planning budget analysis (Appendix C).
Rest Stops
Rest stops are generally located every mile and provide places
for trail users to stop and rest and an area for amenities such
as trash receptacles, benches and bicycle racks. These simple
but important amenities can serve to reinforce the identity
of the regional trail route and better support trail users
with mobility challenges. General locations will be further
evaluated during the design phase. The rest stop design may
be modified to best meet the available right-of-way, adjacent
land use and complimentary facilities such as a bus stop.
Further rest stop details are included in the planning budget
analysis (Appendix C).
Bicycle Repair Stations
Recently, the Park District has been installing bicycle repair
stations which provide tools necessary to perform basic bike
repairs and maintenance - from changing a flat to adjusting
brakes and derailleurs. The tools and air pump are securely
attached to the stand with stainless steel cables and tamper-
proof fasteners. Hanging the bike from the hanger arms
allows the pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments. Bicycle repair stations are recommended at
Level A wayfinding configurations and as-needed throughout
the regional trail corridor.
A bicycle repair station located along Bloomington Ferry Road in Subsegment A1 of the CPRRT in Bloomington.
LEVEL A
Location Components Estimated Cost
Beginning/end of regional trail and at halfway point
if regional trail is
greater than 10 - 15 miles.**
• System kiosk
• Regional trail
kiosk
• Directional
sign
• Bike repair
station (optional)
$46,500-$47,700
Includes signage
panels, bicycle repair station, bench(es), trash
can and concrete
pad
LEVEL B
Location Components Estimated Cost
Approximately
every 2 miles along regional trail. For new Level B locations,
consider
establishing on trails north side**
• Regional trail
kiosk
• Directional
sign
$28,500
(Includes signage
panels and
concrete pad)
LEVEL C
Location Components Estimated Cost
Approximately every 1 mile along regional trail.
For new Level C
locations, consider
establishing at intersections with other
regional trails or
comprehensive
trail systems (not trail spurs).**
• Directional sign $9,000
(Includes signage
panels and concrete pad)
REST STOPS
Location Components Estimated Cost
Approximately every 1 mile along regional trail.
• Trash receptacles
• Benches
• Bicycle Racks
$6,000
Table 7: Wayfinding Signage and Other Regional Trail
Configurations*
* 2018 dollars
** Exact location & content determined in conjunction with local community input.
Three Rivers Park District
18
This page left intentionally blank
19CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
The Park District and its partners will operate the CPRRT using
a wide variety of professional staff and in accordance with Park
District policies, guidelines and ordinances. This chapter outlines
the operations and maintenance guidelines; however, as with all
regional trail initiatives, further maintenance expectations are
solidified within subsequent Trailway Cooperative Agreements
with local municipalities, Hennepin County, MnDOT and/
or other governmental partners as needed. In addition, it is
anticipated that regional park agencies will assume operation
and maintenance responsibilities for trail sections they have
jurisdictional control or responsibility. In such cases, those
regional park agencies will operate and maintain the trail in a
manner that provides a seamless user experience with trails
owned and operated by the Park District.
GENERAL OPERATIONS
The Park District Ordinance specifies rules and regulations in order
to provide for the safe and peaceful public use of Park District
areas and facilities; for the educational and recreational benefit
and enjoyment of the public; for the protection and preservation
of the property, facilities and natural resources of the Park District;
and for the safety and general welfare of the public.
Regional trails are open to the public year-round, from 5 AM
to 10 PM. The Park District’s present policy provides for the
operation and maintenance of regional trails from April 1 to
November 14. Subsequently, the Park District does not anticipate
plowing or otherwise maintaining the CPRRT during the winter
season. Local communities may elect to operate and maintain
the regional trail segment during winter months with a winter
use permit. The Park District may revise this policy at a future
date and elect to operate and maintain the trail year-round.
Regional trail staffing levels fluctuate to account for seasonal
use patterns, maintenance requirements and available funding.
At the time this master plan was written, general regional trail
rules to be observed by users are as follows:
• No motorized vehicles and no horses.
• Obey traffic signs and rules.
• Dogs must be leashed (6-foot, non-retractable max).
Owners must pick up pet waste.
• Yield to slower trail users.
• Keep right except when passing.
• Warn others when passing.
• Respect adjoining landowner’s rights and privacy.
• Be alert and be courteous.
PUBLIC SAFETY
Three Rivers Park District Public Safety Department, in
partnership with local public safety departments, will provide
a safe environment for regional park and trail users and assist
with trail education and enforcement. Public Safety officers
strive to educate and inform trail users on safe trail usage but
also have arrest and enforcement authority as a fully-licensed
police department within the State of Minnesota.
Patrol Plan
Public Safety Officers will utilize a variety of specialized
patrol methods. Public Safety Officers will be supported
by volunteer Trail Patrollers which will assist with patrol and
incident response along the CPRRT. Frequencies of Public
Safety Officers and the volunteer Trail Patrol will be adjusted
as necessary to account for trail use, incident level, other
concerns which may arise, and available funding. In addition
to routine patrol, Three Rivers Public Safety Officers may be
dispatched through the Hennepin County Dispatch System to
respond to incidences as they occur.
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLANS & DETAILS
Lake Rebecca Park Reserve
Maintenance along the regional trails.
Image Credit: Three Rivers Park District4
THE BOTTOM LINE
key message
theBL
CPRRT will be open to the public 7 days a week, 365 days per
year - from 5AM - 10PM. It will be maintained by the Park
District or its partners from April 1 - November 15.
Three Rivers Park District
20
Mutual Aid
While Three Rivers Park Police will assume the lead role in
providing public safety services to most regional trails in
suburban Hennepin County, a statewide mutual aid program
assists to facilitate assistance and sharing public safety
resources from surrounding police agencies in times of
emergency or other unusual conditions.
Public Safety Equipment & Staffing
Due to the creative deployment of existing Park District Police
Officers, utilization of seasonal staff, statewide mutual aid
program, and a successful Trail Patrol volunteer program,
no additional equipment or full-time Public Safety positions
are anticipated to serve the CPRRT. As such, no additional
operational funds are needed to provide public safety
services along the CPRRT.
Maintenance Plan
The Park District and its partners will maintain the CPRRT in a
safe, clean and usable manner. Maintenance is an important
part of providing high-quality customer service and meeting
trail user expectations.
Routine Maintenance
Maintenance operations typically include seasonal condition
assessments and periodic inspections, followed by necessary
maintenance actions. Inspections address possible safety
issues, vandalism and non-routine maintenance concerns
(Table 8). The Park District and its partners will also respond
to maintenance issues identified by the public on a timely
basis as funding permits. Extraordinary maintenance will
occur in response to storm damage, vandalism or other
unplanned circumstances.
When the 21-mile CPRRT corridor is fully realized, routine
maintenance operation costs, including additional
staffing, are estimated to increase by $52,500/year (2019
dollars). Additional costs for trail surface preservation and
MAINTENANCE
The Park District and its partners are responsible to maintain
parks and trails in a safe, clean and usable manner. Maintenance
will include both typical, routine maintenance such as mowing,
sweeping and trash clean-up as well as specialized maintenance
such as small building construction, non-paved trail repair and
grooming.
Maintenance will be done by a wide variety of highly skilled
and trained maintenance professionals including carpenters,
mechanics, park workers, and electricians complemented by
seasonal staff.
Time of Year Routine Maintenance
SPRING
April & May
• Sign inventory and replacement
• Spring clean-up
• Minor bridge and underpass repair (as
needed)
SUMMER
June, July, August &
September
• Erosion repair
• Fence repair
• Sign and post replacement
• Trash pickup
• Bridge and boardwalk repair (as
needed)
• Vegetation control (as needed)
FALL
October & November
• Bituminous patching and striping
replacement (as needed)
Throughout the season
and/or in response to
storm-related damage
• Mowing
• Periodic trail sweeping
• Trash pickup
• General clean-up and similar tasks
Table 8: TRPD Routine Trail Maintenance Calendar
Park District public safety officers and trail ambassadors patrol regional trails.
rehabilitation (trail surface repairs, striping requirements
and pavement requirements) are anticipated to increase
by $72,500/year assuming a 30-year pavement life. The
combined annual maintenance operation estimated cost for
both routine and trail surface preventative maintenance is
$125,000/year for the entire trail. These costs will be incurred
by the Park Districts and its partners for the segments they
respectively manage.
Maintenance of regional trail segments with limited property
rights or segments that do not meet standard regional trail
characteristics may require atypical maintenance.
In addition, the following specialized maintenance procedures
are anticipated:
Preventative Surface Treatment
CPRRT will receive scheduled striping, seal coating and
redevelopment under the established pavement management
program and in accordance with regional trail standards and
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
21
Regional trail maintenance includes maintaining vegetative clearances (where
appropriate, per Trailway Cooperative Agreements).
Park District regional trails are maintained to a high level of standard for trail user
experience and enjoyment.
as funding permits. Partner agency’s pavement management
plan may be on a different schedule than the Park District’s.
Pavement management is estimated to cost approximately
$3,368/year/mile. The Park District and its partners will also
seek opportunities to work with Hennepin County and local
cities in conjunction with road projects to improve trail design
and surfacing.
Trail/Bridge Inspection & Maintenance
Trails are inspected annually in the spring as part of the
pre-season maintenance program and are then inspected
periodically by Park District maintenance staff as part of ongoing
operations. Minor trail repair is handled on a timely basis and
probable major repair needs are evaluated and recommended
to Park District management for planning or engineering
review. Major trail rehabilitation projects are submitted to
the Park District Board of Commissioners or partners for
funding as part of annual operating budgets, preservation and
rehabilitation programs or capital improvement programs.
While no new pedestrian bridges and underpasses are
anticipated at this time, it is possible that they may be needed
at a future date to accommodate changing traffic patterns
and volumes and unforeseen safety concerns. The ownership
and maintenance responsibilities associated with any new
pedestrian bridges/underpasses constructed as part of the
CPRRT will be determined at which point funding is requested.
Existing grade separated CPRRT crossings owned by other
agencies such as I-494/MN 5 are the responsibility of MnDOT.
The Park District, and its partners, only maintains the trail use
of said bridges and underpasses.
Noxious Weed Management
The Park District and its partners mechanically or chemically
removes noxious weeds within the defined trail corridor at the
request of cities.
Edge/Trail Shoulder Vegetation Management
The Park District and its partners will maintain vegetative
clearances so as not to negatively affect trail use on any
sections where trail shoulder vegetation exists.
Regional Trail Maintenance Staffing
The CPRRT will be primarily maintained by the Park District’s
regional trail maintenance crew with some support from partner
agencies. In the event additional mitigation requirements are
necessary such as rain gardens or other best management
practices, additional seasonal staffing may be required to
complete the work. If necessary, seasonal staffing budgets will be
developed and evaluated during the design development phase.
Maintenance Staffing
Maintenance will be completed by regional trail maintenance crew. In consideration
of the future increased responsibilities, an additional 0.5 FTE maintenance position
will be required to provide regional trail maintenance in accordance with current
Park District regional trail maintenance practices and procedures.
$35,000/year0.5 FTE (full time employee)
NATURAL & CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Park District and its partners will protect and enhance
natural and cultural resources along the CPRRT corridor where
deemed appropriate.
Resource Protection Plan
The Park District, under the guidance of existing natural
and cultural resource management plans, will utilize best
practices to minimize any potentially negative impacts, work
with adjacent property owners on how to best protect and
manage significant resources and incorporate opportunities
to enjoy and interpret the resources present.
If additional property along the regional trail which
encompasses significant natural or cultural resources is
acquired, the acquiring agency will develop a stewardship
plan specific to that resource and in accordance with other
existing natural and cultural resource management plans.
Potential natural or cultural resource impacts as a result of
trail design and construction are addressed in Chapters 6-11.
Three Rivers Park District
22
Resource Staffing
Much of the CPRRT will likely be routed along existing public
road right-of-way with limited natural and cultural resources.
Areas of significant width will be more of the exception than
the rule and directly relate to the resource value, direct and
indirect costs, recreation benefit, willingness of the property
owner and support of the local municipality. To account
for minimal resource management along the trail corridor,
additional seasonal or contract staffing such as Conservation
Corps of Minnesota, is anticipated.
Sustainability
The updated 2016 Sustainability Plan guides the Park District’s
efforts toward achieving established sustainability goals
and targets by outlining broad strategies for organizational
implementation.
The following goals provide guidance and intent to the Park
District’s sustainability efforts in respect to regional trails:
• Manage and operate Park District parklands and facilities
in a manner that ensures ecological, financial and social
integrity of the park system in perpetuity.
• Reduce dependence on fossil fuels to minimize green house
gas (GHG) emissions and reduce public expenditures.
• Reduce Park District environmental impacts to demonstrate
(or model) organizational commitment to environmental
stewardship.
• Design parks and trails that maximize the ability of the
public to use non-motorized transportation.
Specific to regional trails, the 2016 Sustainability Plan provides
the following strategies:
• Place priority on regional trail routes that have the potential for
the greatest number of non-motorized commuting trips over
routes with lesser commuting potential;
• Work collaboratively with municipalities and neighborhoods
to reconfigure park and regional trail access points to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle access.
The Park District strives to utilize appropriate sustainable best
management practices and guidelines such as the Minnesota
Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3 Project) and Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Development (LEED) Rating
System on construction projects that support the CPRRT.
Additionally, for regional trails, best management practices
may include utilizing porous pavement, rain gardens and
recycled construction materials. It is anticipated that partner
agencies share these same goals and desire to increase
sustainability as well.
PUBLIC AWARENESS
The Marketing & Community Engagement Department manages
a centralized marketing communications function that oversees
the Park District’s website, public relations, marketing, media
relations, social media, brand management, event planning and
promotion. A number of effective marketing and outreach tools
are used to promote the Park District, including but not limited,
to events calendars, maps, digital and social media, direct mail,
press releases, a centralized reservation system, brochures,
advertising, and on-site promotion.
The Park District collaborates with a wide array of community,
business and government organizations to promote its facilities,
programs and services and to educate the public about its
resources. The Park District also works with the Metropolitan
Council Regional Parks System, the State Office of Tourism and
other partners to leverage shared opportunities for creating
awareness and visibility. Additionally, a focus is placed on
developing partnerships and programming opportunities that
allow the Park District to better serve all residents of Suburban
Hennepin County, especially those with less access to its
facilities and programs.
Since the CPRRT is envisioned to be owned and operated jointly
with Park District partners, Additional care and coordination will
occur to ensure shared messaging and cross marketing occurs.
Share the Trail
Safety for all regional trail users is a top priority. Regional
trails are a shared public space which serve a variety of user
groups. However, from time to time, trail users may find
themselves in conflict with other users. Everyone benefits
when people respect each other’s mode of travel. The Park
District encourages users to respect each other through
a “Share the Trail” safety campaign. Park District partners
are anticipated to support this campaign along their trail
segments.
The most common conflicts involve cyclists and pedestrians
as they move at very different speeds and take up different
spaces. Cyclists often do not alert pedestrians when passing at
high speeds, which can cause sudden and startled responses
from those on foot. Sometimes groups of walkers can take
up both lanes, which leaves cyclists nowhere to pass as they
move through. Both users have a responsibility to share the
trail.
Another common safety concern revolves around obeying
traffic signs. Cyclists are sometimes required to stop at
roadway crossings and there is often confusion between
motorists and cyclists regarding right-of-way. Overall, cyclists
need to obey traffic signs in order to stay safe.
Share the Trail signage example - located along regional trails.
Source: Three Rivers Park District - artwork by Adam Turman
23CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
The CPRRT Master Plan includes a cohesive implementation plan
with estimated costs and funding strategies. Implementation
will occur at the discretion of the Park District and its partners
and only when they are financially prepared to assume the
operation and maintenance responsibilities and costs of the
regional trail.
Construction of non-existing CPRRT segments will occur as
opportunities present themselves and as resources allow. A
phased approach allows for trail segments to be constructed
in a logical manner and respond to the demand and support
from the local community, collaboration with other projects and
maximizing internal and external funding opportunities. The
timing of implementation is also dependent on the acquisition
of the corridor (where necessary) which, under a predominantly
willing-seller approach, may take decades to realize.
TRANSITION OF EXISTING LOCAL TRAILS TO REGIONAL
TRAILS
Over five miles of the CPRRT already exists, in varying conditions,
completing nearly 25 percent of the 21-mile trail corridor.
Those completed segments are currently owned, operated and
maintained by local municipalities (Table 9). The CPRRT Master Plan
directs that the existing CPRRT segments be elevated to regional
status, thus allowing the Park District and its partners to enter into
Trailway Cooperative Agreements with local municipalities to own,
operate and/or maintain said segments. When the timing of these
agreements will occur, are at the discretion of the Park District
and its partners. In addition, the Park District will not assume
ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities of existing
trail segments until they are regionally significant (i.e. connect to
greater regional park and trail segments, are long enough to have
regional draw etc.).
Anticipated Costs
The total acquisition, development and operations and
maintenance costs to complete proposed and upgrade existing
CPRRT segments are summarized in Table 10 and detailed in
Appendix C.
IMPLEMENTATION ESTIMATED COSTS & FUNDING
Lake Rebecca Park Reserve
The CPRRT weaves through the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MN5
Table 9: Existing CPRRT Subsegments for Future Inclusion in Park
District Regional Trail System
Subsegment Miles Municipal Jurisdiction Anticipated Costs
A1 0.75 Bloomington $90,000
A2 4.35 Bloomington $210,000
A3 0.52 Bloomington $30,000
Total 5.62 miles
THE BOTTOM LINE
key message
theBL
CPRRT implementation will be phased as available land and
financial resources prohibit the entire 21-mile corridor from
being constructed as one project in the near future.
Table 10: Future CPRRT Segments
Municipality Acquisition
Costs
Construction
Cost Total Cost
A Bloomington & Edina*$100,000 $2,830,000 $2,930,000
B Edina & St.
Louis Park
$950,000 $7,100,000 $8,050,000
C St. Louis Park $360,000 $2,650,000 $3,010,000
D
St. Louis Park
& Golden
Valley
$450,000 $3,350,000 $3,800,000
E
Golden
Valley, New
Hope & Crystal
$570,000 $4,250,000 $4,820,000
F New Hope &
Crystal $570,000 $4,250,000 $4,820,000
$3,000,000Rounded Cost Estimates
*Segment A cost estimates based on Master Plan alignment
$24,430,000 $27,430,000
Three Rivers Park District
24
Scenario Description Type of Property Right Acquisition Strategy Acquisition
Cost
Public right-of-way
For segments immediately adjacent to roads
Right-of-way certificates, limited use
permits,
and/or easements
Secure through Trailway Cooperative Agreement negotiations or development projects
No Cost
Public
Property
For segments
through
publicly held land
Limited use
permits,
and/or easements
Secure through Trailway
Cooperative Agreement
negotiations or development projects
No cost
Private
Property
For segments
across and
along private
property
Fee-title or
easements
Willing-seller approach.
Acquisition will occur when land owners are ready and interested in selling their
property or are considering
development of their property - providing an opportunity to negotiate the designation of the
regional trail corridor as part
of development. Creative acquisition strategies such as easements, lot splits, resale of surplus property, transfer
of development rights and
similar to best meet the needs and expectations of all involved parties will be explored.
Minimum:
$3,000,000
Table 11: Acquisition Needs for Future CPRRT Segments The estimated master planning level acquisition and construction
cost estimate for the unbuilt trail sections and upgrades to
existing segments is estimated at $27.4 million. Acquisition costs
are estimated at $3 million and construction costs are estimated
at $24.4 million In recognition of the anticipated acquisition
phase duration and amount of resources and coordination
necessary to construct the remaining 15 miles of regional trail,
it is anticipated that the CPRRT will not be fully-constructed for
another 10-20 years.
ACQUISITION
The proposed CPRRT segments are a combination of trail
adjacent to roads (off-street, within road right-of-way), trail
through public property and trail through private property
(Table 11). Acquisition costs could be reduced by waiting for
the regional trail to be realized through land use development
and/or road reconstruction. A detailed analysis of the acquisition
costs are outlined in Appendix C.
Due to the willing-seller approach, the CPRRT acquisition
phase may take years to fully realize. There may be additional
acquisition opportunities to acquire a wider trail and ultimately
create a more desirable user experience by buffering the trail
from surrounding development and by incorporating areas of
natural or cultural resource significance. The acquisition needs
presented in this master plan are the minimal acquisition
requirements to achieve a continuous and contiguous corridor.
Cost estimates assume that a 5’-wide easement will be required
throughout the entire trail corridor at a cost of $8/SF.
DEVELOPMENT
The development costs for the remaining 15 miles include all
foreseeable costs to construct the trail to regional trail standards
including site preparation, reconfiguration and upgrade of rural
to urban roadways (addition of curb and gutter), modification of
drainage patterns, storm water treatment, bridges and boardwalks,
wetland mitigation, utility relocation and installation of signage,
striping, kiosks, rest stops, landscaping and similar support
elements. Cost estimates assume bituminous trail construction
costs at $300/linear foot. Preliminary implementation cost
estimates are summarized in Appendix C.
Regional trail development will be phased and significantly tied
to opportunities that take advantage of external funding sources,
road reconstruction projects, development initiatives and local
and regional political will. At the time of this plan, Segment A
through Bloomington is mostly complete. In the short term,
connecting Hyland Park Reserve to Nine Mile Creek Regional
Trail has been recognized as an achievable gap and would begin
to establish the trail as part of the greater regional trail network.
Mid and long-term projects require significant funding which
often take a substantial amount of time to coordinate.
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
25
Mileage Annual
Cost
Additional Basic
Operation Services
• Segment A: Bloomington-owned/operated, existing & planned trail(Subsegments A1, part of A2, A3)2.86 $17,300 Routine Operations and
Maintenance $52,500/year
Pavement Management
$72,500/year
• Segment A: TRPD-owned/operated, existing & planned trail
(Subsegments: part of A2 & A4)
4.16 $25,200
• Segments B, C, D, E and F: TRPD -owned/operated planned trails 13.63 $82,500
Total 20.65
miles $125,000
*based on Park District estimated costs; agency partner cost estimates may differ.
Table 12: Operations & Maintenance Costs Summary*
Park District regional trails provide various user experiences and wayfinding.
FUNDING PLAN
The CPRRT Master Plan outlines funding strategies and
opportunities for future property acquisition, physical trail
development and ongoing operations and maintenance.
Acquisition Funding
As a component of the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Park and
Trail System Acquisition, it is anticipated that up to 75 percent
of all acquisition funding will come from the Metropolitan
Council. This funding is generated by Metropolitan Council
bond funds, Environmental Natural Resources Trust Fund and
Parks and Trails Opportunity Legacy Fund, with the remaining
25 percent of acquisition coming from the Park District’s Land
Acquisition Development and Betterment Fund or general
obligation bonds and its partners.
Development Funding
Regional trail development is anticipated to be funded
through a variety of funding sources and partners including
Federal Transportation Department: Federal Land Access
Program, Federal Transportation grants, Federal Recreation
Trail Program, Metropolitan Council: Bonds and Parks and
Trails Legacy Funds, Park District: general obligation bonds,
Hennepin County Bikeway Grant Program, local communities
and similar.
Operations & Maintenance
Operation and maintenance costs for new Park District CPRRT
segments will be primarily funded through the Park District
Operating Budget. The Operating Budget’s primary source of
funds is local property taxes with some revenue from the State
of Minnesota as part of the Operations and Maintenance Fund
allocations from the Metropolitan Council.
Additional costs associated with pavement maintenance
will be funded from the Park District’s Asset Management
Program, which includes revenue allocated to the Park District
from the State of Minnesota as well as the Park District general
obligation bonds. All operation and maintenance costs are
subject to the annual budget preparation process approved
by the Park District Board of Commissioners.
The City of Bloomington is a Regional Park/Trail Implementing
Agency, the operations and maintenance of the Bloomington
trail segments, outside of Hyland Park Reserve, will be the
responsibility of the City of Bloomington.
The operations and maintenance cost summary is summarized
in Table 12 by existing and future CPRRT segments. Greater
detail is provided in Chapter 4.
Three Rivers Park District26
This page left intentionally blank
27CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
SEGMENT A OVERVIEW
This 7-mile trail segment begins at the Minnesota River
on the south end of Bloomington and runs north into
the southern portion of Edina. Segment A connects
the Minnesota River Valley State Trail in the south to
the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve, Bush
Lake, Normandale Lake to Nine Mile Creek Regional
Trail (Maps 6 & 7 and Table 13).
SEGMENT AMinnesota River to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
Trail users enjoy Segment A of the CPRRT in the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MN6
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN N ESOTA R I V E R
North MississippiRegionalPark
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
A
Map 6: Segment A Context
Three Rivers Park District
28
Map 7: CPRRT - Segment A Overview
494
494
212
169
212
169
100
100
17
28
1
34
OLD SHAKOPEE RD WBUSHLAKERDEPIONEERTR
L FRANCE AVE SBUSH LAKE RDNORMANDALE BLVD0 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175 Miles
Search Corridor, Proposed, Met Council Approved
Search Corridor, Proposed, Park District Concept
TRPD, Existing Regional Trail
TRPD, Planned Regional Trail, Approved Master Plan
Other Agency, Planned Trail
Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve
Hyland Lake
Bush Lake
BLOOMINGTON
Minn
e
s
o
t
a
R
i
v
e
r
EDINA
Normandale Lake
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
#CityStatus Length Notes
Acquisition & ConstructionOperation & MaintenanceA1
BloomingtonExisting -
(Bloomington
Responsibility)
0.75 mi.Connects Minnesota River
to Old Shakopee Rd
$90,000 $13,350
A2 Existing -
(Bloomington
Responsibility)
1.47 mi.Old Shakopee Road to
Hyland PR, East Bush Lake
Road to 84th
$210,000 $26,150
Existing -
(TRPD
Responsibility)
2.88 mi.Trail through Hyland Park
Reserve
$51,300
A3 Existing +
Planned
(Bloomington
Responsibility)
0.64 mi.
(0.52 mi.
existing,
0.12 mi. planned)
Trail connection over
I-494 to 78th
$245,000 $11,400
A4
EdinaPlanned -
(TRPD
Responsibility)
1.28 mi.May require easement
along Cahill Road, new
traffic signal at E Bush
Lake/Industrial Boulevard
and retaining wall along
70th Street
$2,715,000 $22,800
Subtotals 7.02 mi.$3,260,000 $125,000
Table 13: Segment A | Length and Cost
A1
A2
A3
A4
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
29
Map 9: Subsegment A2
169
169
28
1
34
1
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.80.1 Miles
Existing trail segment
Proposed trail segment
CPRRT Alignment
A2End
A2Start
Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve
Bush Lake
Hyland Lake
W Old Shakopee Road
Bloomington
Ferry Road
W 106 th Street
Bush Lake Road
East Bush Lake Road
W 84 th Street
SUBSEGMENT A1
The entire length of Subsegment A1 is an existing trail built by
the City of Bloomington. Subsegment A1 (0.75 miles) stretches
from the Minnesota River at Crest Avenue (Old Bloomington
Ferry Bridge) to Old Shakopee Road (Map 8). The trail is along
the north side of Crest Avenue, then along the west side of
Bloomington Ferry Road which passes directly alongside the
Dred Scott Playfield. The planned MN River State Trail will also
connect to this segment of the CPRRT.
A portion of the existing trail in Subsegment A1 separates
bicycle and pedestrian trail users. Though this separated trail
design is satisfactory, and no changes are required, it is not the
anticipated standard design for future CPRRT trail segments.
Subsegment A1 is owned, operated and maintained by the
City of Bloomington. Future operations, maintenance and
improvements of this subsegment will remain the responsibility
of the City of Bloomington. The Park District will recognize
Subsegment A1 as part of the CPRRT. This segment will also remain
as a part of the City of Bloomington’s local bicycle and pedestrian
network identified as the “Hyland Trail”. Both agencies will work
together to create and fund a wayfinding signage solution that
identifies the segment as part of the greater CP Rail Regional
Trail alignment as well as part of the Bloomington bicycle and
pedestrian network.
SUBSEGMENT A2
Subsegment A2 (4.35 miles) is an existing trail built by the City
of Bloomington that follows the west side of Bloomington Ferry
Road from Old Shakopee Road to West 106th Street, then along
the north side of West 106th Street to Bush Lake Road. The trail
then follows along the west side of Bush Lake Road (Map 9) up
to Maryland Road where the trail crosses the street and runs
up the north side of Bush Lake Road before it goes through
the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve. The trail goes
through the west side of the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park
Reserve, roughly paralleling East Bush Lake Road until reaching
the intersection of West 84th Street and Chalet Road. The Park
District will recognize the existing trail segments of Subsegment
A2 as part of the CPRRT.
11
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.160.02 Miles
Existing trail segment
Proposed trail segment
CPRRT Alignment
Map 8: Subsegment A1
Dred Scott Playfield
A1Start
A1End
Minnesota R i v e r
Crest AvenueBloomington Ferry RoadW Old Shakopee Road
Mi
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
B
l
u
f
f
s
D
r
i
v
e
W 110 th St
Three Rivers Park District
30
The trail segments of Subsegment A2 outside of Hyland
Park Reserve are owned, operated and maintained by the
City of Bloomington. The trail segments within Hyland Park
Reserve, including the underpass on East Bush Lake Road
at 86th Street, are owned, operated and maintained by The
Park District. The Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon for the
trail crossing of Bush Lake Road (County Road 28) just north
of Maryland Road, is owned and maintained by Hennepin
County. Future operations, maintenance and improvements
of this subsegment will remain the responsibility of the agency
for their respective trail segment or facility.
SUBSEGMENT A3
Subsegment A3 (0.64 miles) consists of a combination of existing
and proposed trails. The subsegment is located along East Bush
Lake Road between West 84th Street and the Bloomington/
Edina city limits at the intersection of East Bush Lake Road and
West 78th Street (Map 10). From West 84th Street though the
East Bush Lake Road/I-494 interchange, the existing trail largely
meets he CPRRT design standards, including the portion of
the trail that was reconstructed as part of the 2018 East Bush
Lake Road interchange project. The existing trail segments of
Subsegment A3 were built and are owned by Hennepin County.
Under an agreement between Hennepin County and the City of
Bloomington, the existing trails within County right-of-way are
operated and maintained by the City of Bloomington. Future
operations, maintenance and improvements of this subsegment
will remain the responsibility of the City of Bloomington,
with the exception of the infrastructure operations and
maintenance of the MnDOT bridge over I-494. In the event
that future improvements are planned, both agencies will
work collaboratively, through a Partnership Agreement, to
fund and complete the improvements, with each agency likely
being responsible for the costs associated with their respective
trail segment. The Park District will recognize the existing trail
segments of Subsegment A3 as part of the CPRRT.
North of the interchange, additional right-of-way is required to
expand the existing 6’ sidewalk to a 10’ trail. At the intersection
of West 78th Street, the existing northbound right turn slip
lane will be eliminated to provide sufficient space to add the
wider trail, as well as reducing motor vehicle speeds to improve
pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Trail users enjoy the scenic landscape of the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve in Subsegment A2 in Bloomington.
The project team riding along an existing trail on the east side of East Bush Lake Road
in Subsection A3 in Edina.
Map 10: Subsegment A3
28
494494
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.035 0.07 0.105 0.140.0175 Miles
Existing trail segment
Proposed trail segment
CPRRT Alignment
A3End
A3Start
W 84 th Street
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
31
Project team evaluating CPRRT Subsegment A4 route options.
28 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
0 0.065 0.13 0.195 0.260.0325 Miles
Existing trail segment
Proposed trail segment
CPRRT Alignment
Map 11: Subsegment A4SUBSEGMENT A4
Subsegment A4 will connect Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail in
Edina and will serve users looking to cross I-494 at East Bush Lake
Road, providing key connections to job centers and regional
parks in the area. Subsegment A4 (1.28 miles) will consist of a
new trail from West 78th Street in Edina to the intersection with
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail underpass of West 70th Street
(Map 11). Subsegment A4 will owned, operated and maintained
by the Park District, along with potentially a partnership with
the City of Edina for certain trail segments that are identified in
the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.
From West 78th Street to Dewey Hill Road, Subsegment A4 may
follow the east side or west side of East Bush Lake Road. At this
preliminary planning stage, it is assumed the trail will follow the
east side of the road, which will require the installation of a traffic
signal or an all-way stop at the intersection of Edina Industrial
Boulevard and Bush Lake Road to facilitate a safe pedestrian
and bicycle crossing. The cost estimates assume a traffic signal
will be installed. A more detailed traffic engineering study is
necessary to evaluate both alternatives and arrive at a preferred
option.
A potential alternative would be to route the trail along the
west side of East Bush Lake Road; however, this alternative may
present other safety/operational concerns with the southbound
right turn slip lane at the intersection of West 78th Street and
East Bush Lake Road. It would require the construction of a
retaining wall to facilitate trail construction near West 78th
Street. A final alignment will be determined at a later date after
additional analysis is completed. The costs for both alternatives
are likely to be similar.
At Dewey Hill Road, the trail will turn west to connect to Cahill
Road, across the Canadian Pacific Railway tracks. In preliminary
conversations with Canadian Pacific, they indicated that to
accommodate a trail crossing, the existing crossing surface
would require widening and no major improvements to the
warning devices at the crossing would be required.
Continuing north along Cahill Road, additional right-of-way is
required to accommodate the proposed trail (in lieu of reducing
the width of Cahill Road, to avoid impacts to the current on-
street bicycle lanes). The proposed trail continues north along
Cahill Road to West 70th Street before turning east to connect
to the existing Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail underpass. The
City of Edina anticipates future redevelopment on the east
side of Cahill Road near West 70th street. This could create an
opportunity to route the CP Rail Regional Trail to a more direct
connection to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
W 78th Stree
t Bush Lake RoadCahill RoadDewey Hill Road
W 70th Street Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
Edina Industrial
Boulevard
Three Rivers Park District
32
SEGMENT A ROUTE MASTER PLANNING
Segment A is divided into four subsegments - A1 through A4.
The project team worked closely with staff from the cities of
Edina and Bloomington to select a preferred route alignment for
Subsegments A3 and A4 of the CPRRT in Edina and Bloomington.
The four subsegments had different route planning processes
which are described in the following sections.
SUBSEGMENTS A1 & A2
Subsegments A1 and A2 are existing trails that travel through
the City of Bloomington from the Minnesota River to West
84th Street. Both trail subsegments have been constructed to
meet or exceed CPRRT trail design standards so no additional
analysis was required.
SUBSEGMENT A3
Subsegment A3 is a short, 0.6-mile trail alignment on the
northern border of Bloomington along East Bush Lake from the
I-494/MN-5 interchange to the 78th Street intersection in Edina.
The alignment of Subsegment A3 was determined to be along
East Bush Lake Road. The project team analyzed if the trail
should be located on the east or west side of the road. The east
side of East Bush Lake Road was chosen by the Project Team as
the route alignment for the following reasons:
• A 12’ wide sidewalk already exists on the east side of the
I-494 bridge
• Constructing a trail on the west side of East Bush Lake Road
would mean a total reconstruction of the road and bridge
• A 10’ wide sidewalk already exists south of the 494 bridge
• MnDOT is reconstructing the I-494/MN-5 interchange and
the design includes improvements to pedestrian ramps to
accommodate a 10-foot-wide path on the east side
• Right of way south of the I-494 bridge is limited
SUBSEGMENT A4
Subsegment A4 is an 1.28-mile trail alignment starting at the
southern border of Edina that stretches from the 78th Street
and East Bush Lake intersection to 70th Street, connecting to
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. From Bush Lake Road the
trail route would cross I-494 and connect to the existing trail
at West 84th Street that connects to Hyland-Bush-Anderson
Lakes Park Reserve in Bloomington. The majority of the master
planning focus was on this subsegment because it was the only
missing trail segment of Segment A. The planning timeline for
Subsegment A4 is shown in Figure 3.
The Park District worked closely with staff from the cities of
Edina and Bloomington to understand local municipality issues,
coordinate with existing or planned projects and give agency
staff opportunities to provide input on the CPRRT route. The
local agency partners were engaged throughout the entire
project process. The City of Edina and the City of Bloomington
each hosted a project meeting and were involved in the decision-
making process for determining the route alignments for
Subsegments A3 and A4. City of Edina staff also participated in a
route evaluation bike ride to analyze existing conditions of route
options for Subsegment A4. A table with detailed results of the
route evaluation bike ride is in Appendix D.
Park District begins the CPRRT Master Plan
and hires Toole Design Group to assist with
Segment A public engagement, trail alignment
evaluation and master plan development. The
focus is on how to connect the Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail in Edina with the Hyland-Bush-
Anderson Lakes Park Reserve in Bloomington.
2017
The project team and local
agency partners conducted
a route evaluation ride along
Subsegment A4 to evaluate
existing conditions, opportunities
and drawbacks of the three trail
alignment options.August 2017July 2017Park District staff attend Edina
Open Streets - a public event
in Edina where the streets are
open for walking and biking
only - and gather public
feedback on trail alignment
options.September 2017Park District staff attend
a workplace health fair
near Subsegment A4 and
gathered feedback about
trail alignment options
from employees who
work in the area.January 2018Figure 3: Subsegment A4 Planning Timeline
2018
January 2018An online survey and online
interactive mapping tool was
developed to gather feedback from
the public on their preferred route
alternative. At the same time, a news
release was developed and sent to
local newspapers and TV stations.
The project team and local
agency partners review public
engagement results and
alignment options. Option C is
selected as the preferred route
alternative for Subsegment A4,
which is a hybrid option between
Option A and Option B.February 2018Fall 2017The project team
went door-to-door at
commercial businesses
and residences near
Subsegment A4 of the
CPRRT to solicit feedback
on trail alignment options.
2010
The CP Rail Regional
Trail Feasibility
Report was
completed in June
2010. Park District
began the study in
November 2008. June 2010Project team members review a portion of Subsegment A4 on West 70th Street near
the connection to the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail.
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
33
Route Options
The Project Team began by analyzing two route alignments -
Option A and Option B. Route alignment preferences between
Option A and Option B were very balanced, both from the public
as well as from project staff. Each route had advantages and
disadvantages identified (Table 14, page 34 and Map 13, page
35) but there was no clear preference. Since there was no clear
preferred alignment for Subsegment A4, a hybrid alignment
of Option A and Option B, Option C, was considered which
incorporated the pros and cons of Options A and B. Each route
was evaluated thoroughly by project staff and significant public
engagement helped determine a preferred route. Descriptions
for each alignment option are below. (Map 12)
Option A
Beginning at the intersection of East Bush Lake Road and 78th
Street, Option A goes west along 78th Street over the railroad
bridge to Cahill Road, north on Cahill Road up to 70th Street,
then east to connect to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail.
Option B
Option B weaves through an industrial park area before
connecting with Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail at Ohms
Lane. Starting at East Bush Lake Road and 78th Street, Option
B goes north along East Bush Lake Road to the intersection
of Bush Lake Road and Edina Industrial Boulevard, continues
north on Bush Lake Road up to 74th Street, east on 74th Street
to Ohms Lane, then north on Ohms Lane to Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail.
Option C
The hybrid option, or Option C, follows Option B on the
southern portion of the subsegment and Option A on the
northern portion of the subsegment. Beginning at the
intersection of East Bush Lake Road and 78th Street, Option C
follows East Bush Lake Road north to the intersection of Bush
Lake Road and Industrial Boulevard, continues north on Bush
Lake Road up to Dewey Hill Road, west on Dewey Hill Road to
Cahill Road, north along Cahill Road to 70th Street, then east
on 70th Street to connect to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail.
77THFLEETWOODLARKSPUR
TIFTON
70TH
LON
G
BRA
K
E
PICTURECAHILLLON G B RAKE LIMERICKDELANE
Y HIGHWAY 100ABERC
R
O
M
B
I
E
HIGHWAY 10070TH ST
WTO NB HWY10078T
H NORMANDALECHURCH
LANHAM77TH STWTONB
H
W
Y
1
0
0S B HWY100 TOEDINAINDUSTRIAL BLVD
ASPASIA
POP
P
Y
DEWEY HILL
DEWEYHILL
TRILLI
U
M
GLENROYRA
BUNTARAKEMRICH AMUNDSON70THTRACY
VIKINGNORM
A
N
D
A
L
ESHANNONDEWEY
H
I
LL
VILLAGE
BUSH LAKE
POND
WOOD
WBI494 TONB HWY100LEEVALLEY
HIBISCUS
NB HWY100TO
77TH STWCECILIA74THWESTON
EDINA INDUSTRIAL
LEWIS
RIDGE OHMSLOCHMEREGLA
S
G
O
W72NDCOVENTRYBEST
B
UYSERVICE METRO73RD
OAKGLEN 70TH ST W TO SB HWY100NB HWY100 TO70THST W
76TH
Legend
Alignment Option A
Alignment Option B
Alignment Option C
Subsegment A3
Map 12: Subsegment A4 Route Options
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
Three Rivers Park District
34
Public Engagement
Since Subsegments A1-A3 are existing trails, public engagement
for Segment A focused on Subsegment A4. The planning and
public input process for selecting Subsegment A4, which
connects the existing trail in Subsegment A3 to Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail, was very robust due to the many variables involved
in selecting a route alignment. The process included analyzing
three route alignment alternatives with involvement from local
agency partners and community members. The route alignment
alternatives for Subsegment A4 were determined by the Park
District and were presented to the public to discuss.
Several public outreach strategies were used to gather feedback
from people who live or work near the project area. The team
developed tailored strategies to include community members
who may not be able to attend a traditional project open house
due to work, family and child care obligations, transportation
issues or other barriers. The following engagement strategies
were used to garner public feedback:
1. A project website was developed and included information
on the project background, project extents, and links to an
online public survey and interactive map.
2. An online survey was developed to solicit feedback on
the two proposed route options in Subsegment A4. The
survey asked respondents which route options would have
the most positive impact on biking or walking to various
destinations such as school, work, retail or restaurants
and for general exercise. The survey was posted from
October 2017 to January 2018 and was available through
direct and referral links to the project website. In total, the
survey received 210 responses. Generally, participants were
Figure 4: The online interactive map was used to gather feedback from the public about Subsegment A4 route options.
supportive of the trail connection and there was not a clear
preference for one alignment over another. Respondents
also had the opportunity to describe why they prefer one
alignment over the other; their verbatim responses are
documented in Appendix D.
3. An online interactive map was developed to gather feedback
from the public on their preferred route alternative using
the platform WikiMap (Figure 4). The WikiMap displayed
the alignment of the existing segments of the CPRRT in
Bloomington as well as route options for Segment A4 in
Edina. Wikimap respondents were encouraged to identify
routes where they walk and bike and routes where they would
walk or bike if the infrastructure was improved. Respondents
were also able to identify specific points on the map where
they think there are issues for biking or walking, or where they
have an idea for an improvement.
4. A press release was developed and sent to local newspapers
and cable TV stations. The press release included project
background and project process information, web links to
the online survey and online interactive map, as well as
general information on Three Rivers Park District.
5. The Park District Facebook page was used to post
information about the project and direct the public to the
online survey and online interactive map.
6. A door-to-door engagement strategy was used to target
specific residents, businesses and workers. The Project
Team wanted to reach people that live or work near the
future trail; therefore, Park District staff went door-to-door
in neighborhoods surrounding the Subsegment A4 route
location.
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
35
An activity board used to collect input from the public at Edina Open Streets.
7. Edina Open Streets, a public event in Edina where the
streets are open for walking and biking only, was attended
by Park District staff in September 2017. Park District
staff spoke to dozens of people at the event and used an
engagement activity board to gather public feedback on
trail alignment options. More detailed event results are
documented in Appendix D.
8. A local health fair was attended by project team members
in January 2018 at BI Worldwide in Edina. BI Worldwide is
located at 7700 Bush Lake Road in Edina and has over 500
employees in the CPRRT Subsegment A4 study area. The
purpose of attending the event was to gather feedback on
route alignment preferences from people who work in the
area near the future trail.
Three Rivers Park District
36
Route Selection
The Project Team analyzed each of the options extensively,
including examining several alignment characteristics of
each route (Table 14) and various factors that influence trail
construction cost estimates (Map 13, page 35). Park District
staff and agency partners generally agreed that Option C was
the preferred alignment and was ultimately selected as the
proposed alignment for Subsegment A4.
Option C has several advantages over Option A and B, including
cost, directness, job access and coordination with local planning
efforts. Option A was the most direct alignment, but requires
the construction of a new bicycle and pedestrian bridge that
parallels the existing bridge over the railroad. Option C was the
second most direct alignment and does not require a costly
bridge construction or retaining walls.
A portion of Option C on Bush Lake Road and Dewey Hill Road
is identified in the City of Edina’s DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle
Plan as a recommended new shared use path. Neither Option A
nor Option B is routed along the recommended new shared use
path. The City of Edina is also undergoing a small area planning
process near 70th Street, Amundson Avenue and Cahill Road,
which is included in their 2018 Comprehensive Plan. Option C will
benefit from future redevelopment that results from the small area
planning process.
Cost Estimate Analysis
In addition to general trail construction costs, there are several
physical challenge areas that will require special construction
expenses and/or property acquisition costs for subsegment
A4. These areas and associated cost estimates are illustrated in
Appendix B – Physical Challenge Areas, which include:
• 640’ of easement for trail construction along East Bush Lake
Road/I-494 north ramp and West 78th Street - $20,480
• Traffic signal at East Bush Lake Road/Industrial Boulevard
- $300,000
• Widening the existing railroad crossing surface on Dewey
Hill Road - $125,000 (based on figures provided by CP Rail)
• 2,650’ of easement along Cahill Road - $84,000
• Retaining wall along West 70th Street - $27,500
These costs are shown alongside general trail construction
costs in Appendix C – Cost Estimates.
CHARACTERISTIC OPTION A OPTION B OPTION C
Approximate Length 1 mile 1.2 miles 1.3 miles
Signalized Intersections 2 1 1
Driveway & Intersection Crossings
(range varies depending on side of
street)
18-27 20-22 22-23
Benefits to Pedestrians
Sidewalks exist on Cahill Road
and West 70th Street, but not
on West 78th Street
Greater benefit to pedestrians
due to lack of existing
sidewalks along route
Sidewalks exist on Cahill Road and W
70th, but not on Bush Lake Road or
Dewey Hill Road
Number of Turns Along Route 2 3 4
Residential Access
Adjacent to several residential
developments along west
side of Cahill Road
None
Adjacent to several residential
developments along west side of Cahill
Road
Job Access Adjacent to several
businesses on Cahill Road
Adjacent to several businesses
in the industrial park area on
Bush Lake Road, 74th Street and
Ohms Lane
Adjacent to several businesses in
industrial park area on Bush Lake Road,
Dewey Hill Road and Cahill Road
Major Cost Factors
Requires new bike/pedestrian
bridge over railroad on West
78th Street (~$525,000)
Requires new signalized
intersection at Bush Lake Road
and Industrial Boulevard
Requires new railroad crossing over
Dewey Hill Road; Requires new
signalized intersection at Bush Lake
Road and Industrial Boulevard
Estimated 2019 Engineering + Construction Administration Costs $420,000 $148,000 $325,000
Estimated 2019
Construction Costs $1,670,000 $592,000 $1,300,000
Estimated 2019 Total Costs $2,090,000 $740,000 $1,625,000
Table 14: Subsegment A4 Route Option Characteristics
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
37
Map 13: Subsegment A4 Alternatives Analysis Cost Estimate Assumptions
*This map illustrates considerations that were included in the cost estimate for the alternatives analysis. It is not intended to serve as
recommendations for the final trail design of Subsegment A4. Additional engineering analysis will be required to arrive at a final trail design.
0 0.065 0.13 0.195 0.260.0325 Miles
Alignment Option A
Alignment Option B
Alignment Option C
Narrow Dewey Hill Rd unstriped shoulders from 9’ to 7’ to move curb and drainage structures 4’ to provide 14’ for trail on north side
Widen existing CP Railroad crossing to accommodate a 10’ trail. Based on discussions with the railroad, no signal improvements are included.
Obtain 2’ easement from properties on east side of Cahill Road to provide 14’ for trail (Option A south of Dewey Hill Road; Options A and C north of Dewey Hill Road)
Remove median and move curb 7’ to create space for trail on south side of West 70th Street
Obtain 10’ easement from railroad on north side of West 78th Street from East Bush Lake Road to Cahill Road
Retaining walls and bridge over railroad on north side of West 78th Street
Trail on south side; Narrow outer lane from 14’ to 12’ and inner lane from 13’ to 11’ (incl gutter). Move drainage structures 4’ to provide 14’ for a trail
Install traffic signal for crosswalk across west leg of intersection
Narrow Bush Lake Rd unstriped shoulders from 9’ to 7’ to move curb and drainage structures 4’ to provide 14’ for a trail on the west side
Narrow West 74th Street unstriped shoulders from 9’ to 7’ to move curb and drainage structures 4’ to provide 14’ for a trail on north side
Narrow Ohms Lane travel lanes from 13’ to 11’ to move curb and drainage structures 4’ to provide 14’ for trail on west side
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
W 7
8
th Str
e
e
t Bush Lake RoadCahill RoadDewey Hill Road
W 70 th Street
W 74 th Street Ohms Lane
Three Rivers Park District38
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles
CP Rail Regional Trail Segment
MLCCS Landcover Classifications within 1 Mile of Trail
Artificial Surface (>95% Impervious)
Cultural Vegetation
Forest
Wetland
Shrubland
Herbaceous Plants
Open Water
TRPD, ExistingTRPD, Non Existing, Approved Master Plan
Search Corridor, Proposed, Met Council ApprovedSearch Corridor, Proposed, Park District Concept
Other Agency, Non Existing
Map 14: MLCCS | Segment A
SEGMENT A LAND COVER AND NATURAL HERITAGE INFORMATION
Segment A travels through landcover areas that are primarily classified as artificial surfaces. The three route alignment options
analyzed for Subsegment A4 all travel through landcover areas classified as artificial surfaces. Therefore, the landcover classification
had no implication on the route alignment selection for Subsegment A4.
Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
MnDNR’s Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) defines the land cover through Bloomington as a mix of forest,
herbaceous plants, cultural vegetation, and open water ponds. The southern portion of the segment through Bloomington runs
through a mix of artificial surfaces and cultural vegetation. The proposed trail segment connecting from Bloomington to Nine Mile
Creek Regional Trail in Edina is entirely on land classified as artificial surface. There are wetlands in the area—mainly near Highway
169, in a neighborhood west of Cahill Road, and along Nine Mile Creek. There are some small areas classified as shrubland that
border wetlands. (Map 13).
Natural Heritage Information System
MnDNR’s Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) includes the following rare plants and animals, native plant communities,
geologic features and/or animal aggregations within one-mile of Segment A: Actinonaias ligamentina (Mucket), Ammodramus henslowii
(Henslow’s Sparrow), Pituophis catenifer (Gophersnake), Pleurobema coccineum (Round Pigtoe), and Tritogonia verrucose (Pistolgrip), none
of which are anticipated to be negatively affected by the development of the CPRRT.
39CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
SEGMENT B OVERVIEW
This 4.47-mile trail segment is located in the cities of Edina
and St. Louis Park, spanning from Nine Mile Creek Regional
Trail in the south to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail in the north
(Table 15 and Map 14). This segment is currently unplanned
and will be planned in a future phase. Future planning work
will include route evaluation, community engagement, and
route selection.
SEGMENT BNine Mile Creek Regional Trail to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
Bicyclists overlooking the Mississippi River | Minneapolis, MN7
B
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN N ESOTA R I V E R
NorthMississippiRegionalPark
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
Map 15: Segment B Context
SEGMENT B | Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail to Cedar
Lake LRT Regional Trail
#City Status Length Notes Acquisition & Construction Operations & Maintenance
B1
B2
B3
B4
$3,120,903Subtotal4.47 miles
Table 15: Segment B | Length and Cost (TBD)
B
Three Rivers Park District
40
This page left intentionally blank
41CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
SEGMENT C OVERVIEW
This 1.68-mile trail segment is located in the City of St.
Louis Park, spanning from Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to
North Cedar Lake Regional Trail (Table 16 and Map 15).
This segment is currently unplanned and will be planned
in a future phase. Future planning work will include route
evaluation, community engagement, and route selection.
SEGMENT CCedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
Caption here | City name here, MN8
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN N ESOTA R I V E RNorthMississippiRegionalPark
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
C
Map 16: Segment C Context
SEGMENT C | Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
#City Status Length Notes Acquisition & Construction Operations & Maintenance
C1
C2
C3
C4
$xxSubtotal1.68 miles
Table 16: Segment C | Length and Cost (TBD)
Three Rivers Park District
42
This page left intentionally blank
43CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
SEGMENT D OVERVIEW
This 2.12-mile trail segment is located in the cities of St. Louis
Park and Golden Valley, spanning from North Cedar Lake
Regional Trail to Luce Line Regional Trail (Table 17 and Map
16). This segment is currently unplanned and will be planned
in a future phase. Future planning work will include route
evaluation, community engagement, and route selection.
SEGMENT DNorth Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Luce Line Regional Trail
Dog bundled up for winter walking 9
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN N E SOTA R I V E RNorthMississippiRegionalPark
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
D
Map 17: Segment D Context
SEGMENT D | North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Luce
Line Regional Trail
#City Status Length Notes Acquisition & Construction Operations & Maintenance
D1
D2
D3
D4
$xx,xxx,xxSubtotal2.12 miles
Table 17: Segment D | Length and Cost (TBD)
Three Rivers Park District
44
This page left intentionally blank
45CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
SEGMENT E OVERVIEW
This 2.7-mile trail segment is located in the cities of Golden
Valley, New Hope and Crystal, spanning from Luce Line
Regional Trail to Bassett Creek Regional Trail (Table 18 and
Map 17). This segment is currently unplanned and will be
planned in a future phase. Future planning work will include
route evaluation, community engagement, and route
selection.
SEGMENT ELuce Line Regional Trail to Bassett Creek Regional Trail
Caption here | City name here, MN10
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
M IN N ESOTA R I V E RNorthMississippiRegionalPark
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
E
Map 18: Segment E Context
SEGMENT E | Luce Line Regional Trail to Bassett Creek
Regional Trail
#City Status Length Notes Acquisition & Construction Operations & Maintenance
E1
E2
E3
E4
$xx,xxx,xxSubtotal2.7 miles
Table 18: Segment E | Length and Cost (TBD)
Three Rivers Park District
46
This page left intentionally blank
47CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
SEGMENT F OVERVIEW
This 2.66-mile trail segment is located in the cities of New
Hope and Crystal, spanning from Bassett Creek Regional
Trail to Crystal Lake Regional Trail (Table 19 and Map 18).
This segment is currently unplanned and will be planned
in a future phase. Future planning work will include route
evaluation, community engagement, and route selection.
SEGMENT FBassett Creek Regional Trail to Crystal Lake Regional Trail
11
Plymouth
NewHope
Crystal
GoldenValley
Minnetonka
EdenPrairie
Hopkins
Richfield
Woodland
Greenwood
SilverwoodPark
FrenchRegional Park
Hyland-Bush-AndersonLakes Park Reserve
The Landing
Bloomington
Bryant LakeRegional Park
Glen LakeGolf & Practice Center
St.Louis Park
Edina
MIN N ESOT A R I V E RNorthMississippiRegionalPark
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
0 1 2 3 4Miles
F
Map 19: Segment F Context
SEGMENT F | Bassett Creek Regional Trail to Crystal
Lake Regional Trail
#City Status Length Notes Acquisition &
Construction
Operations &
Maintenance
F1
F2
F3
F4
$xx,xxx,xxSubtotal2.66 miles
Table 19: Segment F | Length and Cost (TBD)
The CPRRT travels along Bush Lake Road adjacent to the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MN
Three Rivers Park District
48
This page left intentionally blank
49CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
The Park District’s Research and Evaluation Section provides
visitation estimates for new regional trails. They are based on
an estimating methodology, which treats each regional trail as
a unique entity with its own set of specific characteristics. The
projected annual visits are based on a fully-built, contiguous
regional trail corridors.
When fully constructed, the CPRRT is projected to generate
305,000 annual visits. This visitation estimate is calculated
based on the following methodology: 1) Metropolitan Council’s
annual estimated visits to a comparable regional trail (Luce Line
Regional Trail) and 2) population within 1.5 miles of the regional
trail. Table A-1 shows the methodology used to determine the
annual visitation estimates.
APPENDIX A VISITATION METHODOLOGY
The CPRRT travels through the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MNA
THE BOTTOM LINE
key message
theBL
When fully constructed, the CPRRT is estimated to attract 305,000 annual visits.
Annual Visits to Luce Line Regional Trail
(Comparison trail to CPRRT) based on 2017
Metropolitan Council estimate
521,000 visits
50% of Annual Visits to Luce Line Regional Trail 260,500 visits
Distance that 50% of visitors live from Luce
Line Regional Trail (2014 TRPD Visitor Survey)
*Assumption: 50% of CPRRT’s annual visits will
be from residents that live within 1.5 miles
1.5 miles
Population within 1.5 miles of Luce Line
Regional Trail 88,076 people
Average annual visits to Luce Line Regional
Trail by people living within 1.5 miles
2.95 Visits
(260,500 visits/88,076
residents)
Population within 1.5 miles of CPRRT 51,439 people
Projection for 50% of CPRRT’s Annual Visits
152,140 visits
(2.95 visits/resident X 51,439
residents)
Projected Annual Visits to CPRRT Approximately 305,000
visits (152,140 visits x 2)
Table A- 1: Future Visitation Estimate Methodology
Three Rivers Park District
50
This page left intentionally blank
51CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL CHALLENGE AREAS
Regional trail user passes Level A wayfinding signage configuration.B
Three Rivers Park District52
494494
28
78TH ST W
76TH ST W
CAHILL RDBUSH LAKE RDA M E R I C A N BLVDWDELANEYBLVD PICTURE DREDINA INDUSTRIAL BLVD
GREEN VALLEY DRCECILIA CIRG LENROYRDG
L
A
S
G
OW
D
R
N
OR
MANCR
E
E
K
TRLBUSH LAKE RD E0 0.045 0.09 0.135 0.180.0225 Miles
October 4, 2017 AR
Existing trail segment
Proposed trail segment
Special Construction
Easement Area
BLOOMINGTON | SUBSEGMENT A3
Easement area
53CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
28CAHILL RD70TH ST W
78TH ST WBUSH LAKE RDO
H
M
S
L
N
74TH ST W
DELANEYBLVDLANHAM LN76TH ST W
METRO BLVDDEWEY HILL RD
EDINA INDUST R IA LBLVDFLEETWOOD DRABERCRO M B I E D R
73RD ST W
KEMRICHDR
L O NG B R A K E T RL 72ND ST
W
A MUNDSONAVECECILIA CIRG
L
A
S
G
O
W
D
RCOVENTRYWAYTARA RDLOCHMERE TERVILLAGE DR
LEEVAL LEYCIRMETRO BLVDOAKGLENRD
0 0.065 0.13 0.195 0.260.0325 Miles
October 4, 2017 AR
Existing trail segment
Proposed trail segment
Special Construction
Easement Area
EDINA | SUBSEGMENT A4
Widen railroad crossing for trail
130’ retaining wall
300’ retaining wall
Easement areas
Traffic signal
Three Rivers Park District
54
This page left intentionally blank
55CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX C COST ESTIMATES CThe CPRRT crosses Bush Lake Road near the Hyland-Bush-Anderson Lakes Park Reserve | Bloomington, MN
Three Rivers Park District 56CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
Proposed Design Consideration(s)Rest Stops & Amenities Private Property Impacts
Sub-
segment Implementation Notes Miles Linear
Feet
Bituminous
Cost
Construct
New Bituminous
Reconstruct
Substandard Bituminous
Maintain
Existing Bituminous
Trailheads &
Rest Stops
Site
Amenities & Signage
Property
Acquisition
Temporary
Easements
Special
Construction
Total Subsegment
Cost (rounded)
S
BLOOMINGTON & EDINAA1
• Maintenance on existing trail, including sealcoat/
striping ($7 LF)
• (1) Level A Kiosk, (1) Level C Sign, update
existing signs.
0.75 3,956 $27,692 ----X --$60,000 ------$90,000
A2
• Maintenance on existing trail, including sealcoat/
striping ($7 LF)
• (1) Level B Kiosk, (2) Level
C Signs
4.35 23,075 $161,525 ----X --$50,000 ------$210,000
A3
• Maintenance on existing
trail, including sealcoat/
striping ($7 LF)
• 640’ of easement
and trail construction between E. Bush Lake
Road/I-494 north ramp
and W. 78th St.
• (1) Level C Sign
0.64 3,290 $212,300 X ------$10,000 $20,480 ----$245,000
A4
• Traffic signal at E. Bush
Lake Road/Industrial Blvd.
- $250,000
• Wider crossing surface
at CP Rail Crossing - $120,000
• 2,650’ of easement along
Cahill Road
• 528 SFF retaining wall
along W. 70th St. (fill) -
$52/SFF
• (1) Level B Kiosk, (1) Level
C Sign
1.28 6745 $2,192,125 X ------$40,000 $84,800 --$397,500 $2,715,000
APPENDIX C | SEGMENT A: Minnesota River to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
$3,260,000$397,500--$105,280$2,593,6427.02 --$160,000MASTER PLAN COST ESTIMATE TOTALS 37,066
Three Rivers Park District 57CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX C | SEGMENT B: Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail to Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail
Proposed Design Consideration(s)Rest Stops & Amenities Private Property Impacts
Sub-
segment Implementation Notes Miles Linear
Feet
Bituminous
Cost
Construct
New
Bituminous
Reconstruct
Substandard
Bituminous
Maintain
Existing
Bituminous
Trailheads &
Rest Stops
Site
Amenities
& Signage
Property
Acquisition
Temporary
Easements
Special
Construction
Total Subsegment
Cost (rounded)EDINA & ST. LOUIS PARKB1 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
B2 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
B3 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
B4 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
$8,050,000$XX$XX$950,000$7,100,0004.47 $XX $XX--GENERALIZED COST ESTIMATE TOTALS
Three Rivers Park District 58CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX C |SEGMENT C: Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail to North Cedar Lake Regional Trail
Proposed Design Consideration(s)Rest Stops & Amenities Private Property Impacts
Sub-
segment Implementation Notes Miles Linear
Feet
Bituminous
Cost
Construct
New
Bituminous
Reconstruct
Substandard
Bituminous
Maintain
Existing
Bituminous
Trailheads &
Rest Stops
Site
Amenities
& Signage
Property
Acquisition
Temporary
Easements
Special
Construction
Total Subsegment
Cost (rounded)ST. LOUIS PARKC1 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
C2 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
C3 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
C4 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
$3,010,000$XX$XX$360,000$2,650,0001.68 $XX $XX--GENERALIZED COST ESTIMATE TOTALS
Three Rivers Park District 59CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX C | SEGMENT D: North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to Luce Line Regional Trail
Proposed Design Consideration(s)Rest Stops & Amenities Private Property Impacts
Sub-
segment Implementation Notes Miles Linear
Feet
Bituminous
Cost
Construct
New
Bituminous
Reconstruct
Substandard
Bituminous
Maintain
Existing
Bituminous
Trailheads &
Rest Stops
Site
Amenities
& Signage
Property
Acquisition
Temporary
Easements
Special
Construction
Total Subsegment
Cost (rounded)ST. LOUIS PARK & GOLDEN VALLEYD1 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
D2 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
D3 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
D4 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
$3,800,000$XX$XX$450,000$3,350,0002.12 $XX $XX--GENERALIZED COST ESTIMATE TOTALS
Three Rivers Park District 60CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX C |SEGMENT E: Luce Line Regional Trail to Bassett Creek Regional Trail
Proposed Design Consideration(s)Rest Stops & Amenities Private Property Impacts
Sub-
segment Implementation Notes Miles Linear
Feet
Bituminous
Cost
Construct
New
Bituminous
Reconstruct
Substandard
Bituminous
Maintain
Existing
Bituminous
Trailheads &
Rest Stops
Site
Amenities
& Signage
Property
Acquisition
Temporary
Easements
Special
Construction
Total Subsegment
Cost (rounded)GOLDEN VALLEY, NEW HOPE & CRYSTALE1 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
E2 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
E3 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
E4 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
$4,820,000$XX$XX$570,000$4,250,0002.7 $XX $XX--GENERALIZED COST ESTIMATE TOTALS
Three Rivers Park District 61CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX C |SEGMENT F: Bassett Creek Regional Trail to Crystal Lake Regional Trail
Proposed Design Consideration(s)Rest Stops & Amenities Private Property Impacts
Sub-
segment Implementation Notes Miles Linear
Feet
Bituminous
Cost
Construct
New
Bituminous
Reconstruct
Substandard
Bituminous
Maintain
Existing
Bituminous
Trailheads &
Rest Stops
Site
Amenities
& Signage
Property
Acquisition
Temporary
Easements
Special
Construction
Total Subsegment
Cost (rounded)NEW HOPE & CRYSTALF1 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
F2 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
F3 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
F4 • XX
• XX ----$XX ------$XX $XX $XX $XX $XX $XX
$4,820,000$XX$XX$570,000$4,250,0002.66 $XX $XX--GENERALIZED COST ESTIMATE TOTALS
Three Rivers Park District
62
This page left intentionally blank
63CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
0 0.065 0.13 0.195 0.260.0325 Miles
Alignment Option A
Alignment Option B
Alignment Option C
APPENDIX D - SEGMENT A PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS
The Project Team utilized a number of different engagement
strategies to gather feedback from members of the public and
staff from the Cities of Edina and Bloomington on Subsegment
A4 alignment options (Map D-1). Detailed engagement results
from the online survey, route evaluation ride and Edina Open
Streets event are provided in this section.
ONLINE SURVEY
An online survey was developed through Google Forms to solicit
feedback on route Options A and B in Subsegment A4 of the
CPRRT. The survey was posted from October 2017 to January
2018 and was available through direct and referral links through
the project website and Three Rivers Park District Facebook
page. The survey received 210 responses.
Respondents views were fairly balanced on alignment
preferences in general, as 52% chose Option A (110 responses)
and 43% chose Option B (90 responses) and 5% had equal
preference.
If you had to choose Option A or Option B, which would it be?
Project team members and agency partners participate in a route evaluation bike ride | Edina, MND
90
110
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Option B
Option A
Equal preference
W 7
8
th Str
e
e
t Bush Lake RoadCahill RoadDewey Hill Road
W 70 th Street
W 74 th Street Ohms LaneMap D-1: Subegment A4 Alignment Options
Three Rivers Park District
64
The survey also asked respondents which route options would have the most positive impact on biking or walking to various
destinations such as school, work, retail or restaurants and for general exercise. The charts below show survey responses in regards
to walking or biking to specific destinations.
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on biking to work?
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on biking to school?
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on biking to restaurants?
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on biking for fun or exercise?
88
85
29
0 20 40 60 80 100
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
48
67
77
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
99
77
22
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
73
115
15
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
65CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on walking to work?
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on walking to school?
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on walking to restaurants?
Which route do you think would have more positive impact on walking for fun or exercise?
76
58
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
42
65
83
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
80
72
38
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
69
96
30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Option B
Option A
I can't decide.
Three Rivers Park District66
Survey respondents also had the opportunity to describe
why they prefer one alignment over the other; their verbatim
responses are documented below:
Why did you choose Option A?
• Less traffic than Bush Lake Road
• More direct
• A route thru an industrial park is not ideal. Going down
Cahill and along Lewis Park is much prettier and attractive.
• Less need to cross traffic
• Far less traffic, more scenic
• More direct route, less turns
• Close to my work
• Less winding, more inclusive of parks (on Cahill Rd)
• I prefer Cahill Rd. because it is more residential and prettier.
I also like that option A includes a path along the very scary,
treacherous stretch on 78th St. The sidewalk on Cahill
currently dumps you off at 78th with no options. With the
curve, sight line problems and speeding by motorists is a
scary problem in need of a solution. I also like it that the
Cahill section is closer to Edina High & Valley View Schools.
The current trail on 70th ends near Cahill and option A
appears to close that gap.
• Goes by retail and parks
• Cahill is already a bike route. It is less industrial location
• Less street crossings.
• Possibly better views
• There are retail businesses on Cahill but not Ohms Lane
• Park is on option A, apartments are on option A so easy to
get on the trail. Option B is all industrial.
• Much better option away from vehicle traffic.
• As a rider who likes to go fast, I would choose Option A.
Also Option A is the in between mark where you can get
to the school and/or workplace. Option B is nice for those
who want to get around the business sites, however i think
more users would like the more scenic route.
• I work at Edina Industrial Blvd. & Bush Lake Road. When
people would be biking to work or back home, that
intersection is crazy busy, and I would expect it to be a
danger to bikers and quite a complication for auto traffic.
• Biking south on E Bush Lake Rd and trying to turn left
onto Bush Lake Rd is dangerous. Cahill seems like the
safer option and if you are trying to get into the industrial
zone that option B goes through you can just turn east
onto Dewey Hill Rd from Cahill. Basically, the car traffic
on Edina Industrial Blvd makes Option B less desirable for
pedestrians and cyclists.
• It’s straight
• Closer to Braemar facilities and less industrial traffic
interference.
• Option A is a nicer, more direct route.
• Rather bike past nature and parks instead of commercial
and industrial space.
• More convenient for my work.
• Supporting friends
• The alignment is much better for the area
• It is more accessible to residents. It provides better bike
access to Lewis Park.
• Very convenient to our home location
• I come from the west
• More direct, makes more sense
• I prefer biking on Cahill, this has been a part of my commute
for years
• Despite the increased risk by drivers entering and exiting
side streets and various parking lots, the Cahill route is
much more efficient and direct. Out of the few thousand
miles of commuting I’ve done in 2017 alone, I’ve chosen
the Cahill route 9 out of 10 times. Thank you so much for
evaluating this area and continuing to give the communities
safe routes to work and school!
• Long, straight road with good sightlines for drivers. While
traffic is present on both routes, my experience is better
with route A as it has lower overall traffic volume. Option
A heading south requires one cross-traffic turn, but has a
turn light. Option A heading north also only has one cross-
traffic turn, again with a light. B includes several more and
a turn-specific light is not always present.
• Option A is more linear than option B, it also would have a
slightly less industrial feel along that route.
• I like the scenery along Cahill road better - the other area is
pretty industrial, also it seems like a lot of turns.
• Option A is a much easier, straightforward route that is not
tucked away in a business park. There are not really any
significant retail shops along route B that would benefit
from a bike path through the area.
• I live on the west side of town and work at QBP so the
further west the route, the more likely I would be to use it.
• It is the best choice
• Commonly used if commuting to QBP. The roads are in
rough condition for commuting.
• Looks better for my commute and passes closer to some
restaurants
• I like the more direct route A through the neighborhood.
Routing through the industrial park creates lots of driveways
and businesses with distracted rush hour drivers. Route A
also creates a safe corridor for cyclists moving north. Most
important to me, whether the route is A or B, is a safe way
through the Bush Lake, 78th intersection as currently it’s
quite busy.
• This is more direct, and provides better non-motorized
access to Lewis park
• More direct, clearer line of sight, less potential for conflict
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
67
with motorists. Only issue that exists is the crossover on
70th. I have no problem jumping the median when coming
from the north, but I think many users would. I personally
love this route and can’t wait for Google maps to update
their bike route suggestion (I’m new to the area).
• Easier to follow
• More direct route to the trail
• Riding through this southern part of Edina during rush
hour can be dangerous. Taking the left from BLR/Edina
Industrial Blvd is dangerous in a car, via bike it would be a
death wish. While Cahill has dangerous points (Dewey Hill
Rd intersection). The road is long and straight with good
sight-lines. It also has a (mostly) good designated bike
lane. The most ideal option would be convert and pave the
railroad line running parallel.
• Straighter, greener, away from industrial traffic
• Direct, straight route, wide road with bike lanes.
• In my view the trail will serve more people if it runs near
commercial AND residential.
• Walking or biking through that depressing industrial
park is not fun for anyone. I’d like the path to serve the
neighborhood community better, and ideally help link to
the Cahill Shops (when redeveloped into a someplace that’s
not a soul-sucking dumpster of buildings!).
• Straight route that doesn’t wind through industrial area.
Passes directly next to Lewis Park for convenient access.
Limits time on busy, low-visibility Bush Lake Road.
• More direct
• Cahill Rd is straighter
• Cahill is a lovely location and less industrial.
• Likely a more aesthetically pleasing route rather than
through warehouses...
• That area is already so industrial and I think this would be
a nice way to add green space to an otherwise ugly area.
Having Lewis Park directly across the street would also be
really nice to tie the two spaces together!
• There is currently not a good path to get to to the Cahill
and 70th restaurants and retail and this would provide a
safe, designated space.
• Cahill is straight, near Lewis Park, attractive, and seems
safer
• The other option (B) weaves people through an industrial
park. The scenery and environment is not all that appealing.
Option A allows for a more scenic path as well as stops at
Lewis Park.
• More visually appealing to go on Cahill and near Lewis park
• Near housing and I would feel safer because of auto traffic
passing by
• Safest and most pleasant route
• Most direct route....no turns
• I currently bike on Cahill and enjoy it.. it even currently has
a bike lane. Granted, I’ve never taken Option B, so take that
with a grain of salt.
• More direct. Better connection point from the north.
• Less turning, easier to follow...
• Looks like it would be shorter, so I could get to Hyland park
faster--I wouldn’t necessarily take this trail with the purpose
of going to retail/restaurants along the route, I would take
it in order to have a safe way to get to Hyland.
• Straighter
• Seems the most straightforward
• Safer / less traffic
• I ride on Cahill now very often and it’s a nice, straight, flat
route. Option is a very direct route that would be easy to
follow. Option B has quite a few turns and people could
become confused.
• A is not through congested, low visibility industrial area
• Shortest distance in a boring area.
• More direct
• The more scenic, less industrial or “built up the better
whether for commuting or pleasure.
• Provides access to park area in Edina- it is also a somewhat
less industrial route
• More scenic than warehouses.
• Less turns makes it safer
• Option A is more unbending and linear and Option B takes
many different turns and is therefore less efficient.
• The whole route should be along the CP Rail line
• More straightforward
• Option B is the route I drive to work but I think option A
would be used more by bikers and walkers.
• More direct, less turns and industrial but must be wide
enough and safe on Cahill
• Most direct route and does not go through so much
industrial/commercial area. This option could be screened
with landscaping from the residential and commercial
properties adjacent, protecting both from unwanted noise
and views.
• Less traffic on that route
• Straightest, easiest, fairly good road.
• Location provides for easier access to retail space, school,
parks, etc.
• Option A would be a better choice due to the nicer scenery.
It would also make it easier for people to access Lewis Park
and there are less corners and turns compared to option B
• It looks more scenic
• Far less traffic and cars
• Biking to work at Norman Lake Center
• While I don’t live in this area, I can see that option A goes
Three Rivers Park District
68
through a residential area and would provide for a good
corridor for traveling throughout the neighborhood and
into the bordering retail area. I also believe that this trail
would be more useful and productive than one that goes
through what appears to be an industrial or commercial
area.
• Cahill road is the most direct
• Cahill road is shaded
• I like Cahill but either route would be fine
Why did you choose Option B?
• It seems more direct and is shorter.
• Nicer scenery because of the additional Nine Mile Creek
Trail routing.
• Makes a direct connection to my place of work.
• It would better serve the many jobs in the Edina Industrial
Park
• Safer roads
• Less traffic?
• It works great for my personal use and I see a lot of people
walking on the Ohm and the traffic gets very busy as times.
I believe families would use option B to get to Hyland also!
• It’s away from my house
• Less traffic
• More people would use it because streets are quieter and it
avoids the 70th/Cahill hill. I do like the Option A connection
to Lewis Park, though. Both are good, but both also cross
the hairy 78th/Bush Lake Road intersection. That’s the hard
part
• Many people enjoy walking over lunch in the industrial park.
Currently it is not very pedestrian-friendly, and Option B
would really help.
• Because it passes my work and a few restaurant options.
• I work on Option B
• There is a brewery & taproom opening soon right on the
option B route at Bush Lake Road and 74th. This would
make it easier and safer to bike there.
• Covers more ground within the area.
• Convenient
• Near things I’d want to visit
• More would be accessible
• Option B goes by Wooden Hill Brewing Company and then
goes right by my work. Perfect!
• Work in the industrial park that option b runs through
• Close to work
• Cahill is too busy of a street to accommodate a bike path
and option B will link to the brewery and go near the ice
arena
• Seems to make the most sense with current trails in place
• Better access to retail and other parks from where I live
• Access
• Live by
• For all the above reasons.
• Connects to everything and has less major intersections
making it safer for bikers
• Because it ties the residential part of the area into the
commercial part. It shows off more of the community.
Makes it feel a lot more like Northeast Minneapolis in that
sense that there is access by foot, bike, and car to all of the
local businesses. Would bring much needed vibrancy to an
otherwise small-scale stale area.
• It would lead to my workplace from the south
• I just like to use that route
• This is the route I ride on my way to work - I work at QBP
• Closer to my church so we could bike to church from home.
• Closer to my point of entry onto the path
• I live in South Minneapolis so this route is more direct.
• This is already the route I use for biking to work at QBP
from SW Mpls
• Proximity to where I live
• Safer on a bike
• This is the more direct route between my home (South
Minneapolis) and my work in West Bloomington.
• Would be more direct if I came through this corridor
headed to/from Hyland park
• Side streets
• Job location
• I bike through this area in a regular basis and B is the typical
direction I go. It has a good flow to it.
• Option B provides better connection from east. Plus with
bike lanes already on Cahill could add bike lanes to 78th
to provide Option A connection for commuter cyclists.
The two are very close in positive impact. Option A likely
slightly more pleasant experience especially for walking.
However, Option B is the better overall route connecting
from north and east. And perhaps in future Ohms Lane
area redevelops to provide better commercial, restaurants,
public space, housing, business, etc opportunities.
• Most accessible
• Closer to my house
• Preferred route from my location to Hyland.
• Less traffic, less hilly
• I am more likely to use the path for fun/exercise than other
purposes
• Cahill is pretty but it is long and flat, with traffic that goes
much faster
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
69
• The Cahill-78th street intersection scares me as a cyclist.
• More directional variety
• Cahill is a very busy road, I’d be concerned with interacting
with traffic, especially at the intersection of Cahill and 70th
• No sidewalk there, would be nice to have to walk from BI
to retail
• Closer to my work!
• I bike near hear often - Option B just makes more sense
• Passes by my workplace
• More convenient to more business and school traffic. In
addition, I would use this option more.
• It would open up a safe route to my workplace.
• While option A might offer a more tranquil route, Option
B offers closer access to restaurants/a coffee shop. Either
Option, though, will be welcomed and I will cycle it
frequently.
• I would prefer biking on a route that is not along a busy car
route as on Cahill.
• More scenic, less traffic
Three Rivers Park District
70
Category Criteria Option A:
Cahill Road
Option B:
Industrial Park Notes A or B?Safety and ComfortSight lines Route evaluation
ride participants
generally agreed the
sight lines were good
along this route
Route evaluation
ride participants
generally agreed the
sight lines were good
along this route
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Trees/shade Route evaluation ride
participants generally
agreed there was good
tree shade along this route
Route evaluation ride
participants generally
agreed there was
moderately good tree
shade along this route
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
# of driveway/
intersections
18-27 20-22 Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
and the count
depends on
side of street
for each option
Complexity
of driveway/
intersections
Bush Lake Road at
78th Street needs
adjustment to signal
timing and configuration;
Cahill at 78th Street is
constrained and includes
turning movements
and a lot of traffic
Bush Lake Road at 78th
needs signal timing
adjustments; Bush Lake
Road is unsignalized
as it jogs east then
north and would need
some improvements
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Directness 3-4 turning movements
between the I-494
bridge and the trail
entrance on 70th Street
3 turning movements
between the I-494
bridge and the trail
entrance on 72nd Street
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
SUBSEGMENT A4 ROUTE EVALUATION RIDE
On August 23, 2017, project team members from the Park
District, Toole Design Group and the City of Edina conducted
a route evaluation bike ride to analyze Option A and Option B
in Subsegment A4 of the CPRRT. Aerial maps and property line
data was referenced during the analysis and route alignment
notes were recorded. During the bike ride the group stopped
at various points along the route to discuss criteria for a
regional trail, including implementation feasibility, community
connectivity, safety and comfort, anticipated trail users and
existing guidance from other local plans. Table D-1 on the
following pages displays notes from the ride that evaluated
route Option A and Option B against various criteria.
Table D-1: Subsegment A4 Options A and B route alignment evaluation
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
71
Category Criteria Option A:
Cahill Road
Option B:
Industrial
Park
Notes A or B?Implementation FeasibilityROW
constraints/
opportunities
Likely more
resistance to
getting rid of
bicycle lanes to
make up space
for a trail;
Needs more
analysis
(parcel data)
Needs more
analysis (parcel
data)
As for changes to existing bicycle
infrastructure, participants in the
route evaluation ride indicate a higher
likelihood of resistance to removing
bicycle lanes on Cahill (Option A)
B, but needs
more analysis
of ROW
Requires
redesign
of major
intersection(s)
Two
intersections:
Bush Lake
Road/78th Street
and Cahill/78th
Street
Two intersections:
Bush Lake
Road/78th
Street and Bush
Lake Road/
Edina Industrial
Boulevard
Based on the route evaluation ride, it
appears Bush Lake Road/78th Street has
more room for addressing intersection
redesign, but further analysis would
be needed; Cahill Road/78th Street is
constrained because of the bridge
Likely B, but
needs further
analysis of
intersections
Requires
redesign of
bridge(s)
Two: Bush Lake
Road/I-494 and
78th/railroad
One: Bush Lake
Road/I-494
Bush Lake Road/I-494 bridge will require
some adjustments for both options;
The bridge at 78th Street over the RR/
industrial area would need more ROW
for a trail; Vehicular traffic is at capacity
according to the City of Edina, so
reallocating existing space is not feasible
Likely B. A new
trail bridge over
the railroad is
possible, but
very expensive
Utilities in
the way
Most utilities
near the roadway
edge on the
east side of
Cahill Road
Fewer utilities
than Option A
Based on the route evaluation ride, it
appears Option A has more utilities
and that they are located closer to the
roadway than Option B, but further
analysis would be needed to confirm
B, but needs
further analysis
to confirm
Number of
street crossings
(controlled)
3-4 depending
on side of street
1-2 depending
on side of street
Difficult to assess without
assuming side of street
B, but depends
on configuration
Number of
street crossings
controlled)
1-2 depending
on side of street
2-4 depending
on side of street
Difficult to assess without
assuming side of street
A, but depends
on configuration
Existing
lighting/
opportunity for
good lighting
Not noted
on route
evaluation ride
Not noted
on route
evaluation ride
Needs further
observation
School bus,
industrial
vehicle conflicts
Likely fewer
heavy vehicles
than the
industrial
park area
Likely heavier
truck traffic due to
industrial land use
Based on land use, likely more
potential for heavy vehicle presence
in Option B, but further analysis
needed to quantify the difference
A, but needs
further analysis
Three Rivers Park District
72
Category Criteria Option A:
Cahill Road
Option B:
Industrial Park Notes A or B?Community ConnectivityConnects people
to parks
Soccer field Trail connection
to the east
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Connects
residential
Connects to residential
area west of Cahill Road
Connects to some
residential, but less
directly than Option A
A
Improves walking
opportunity
Existing sidewalk along
Cahill Road; Sidewalk
between trailhead on 70th
Street and Cahill Road has
a gap and a desire line
(worn “goat path”) on the
south side of 70th Street
Many sidewalk gaps;
Observed pedestrian
walking in a bike lane
There is greater potential
to increase walking trips
in Option B because of the
sidewalk gaps; The gap in
Option A was relatively short
Likely B
Serves lower
income residents
Anecdotally during the
route evaluation ride it
was noted A is closer to
middle income housing;
Needs further analysis
(look at Census data)
Anecdotally during
the route evaluation
ride it was noted B is
closer to low income
housing; Needs
further analysis (look
at Census data)
Possibly B, but
needs further
analysis
More likely to
serve interested-
but-concerned
riders
Soccer field nearby
indicates families and
kids as potential users
Anecdotally during
the route evaluation
ride it was noted B
would capture more
"interested-but-
concerned" bicyclists
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Connects schools Anecdotally during the
route evaluation ride
it was noted A would
connect with high schools
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Connects
people to jobs
Connects commute
trips (north/south)
Currently popular QBP
commuter route;
Traverses a job center
Option B
Improves
commuter
connections
Connects commute trips
currently (north/south);
Already has bike lanes,
people would likely be
resistant to getting rid
of bicycle lanes even if
a trail replaced them
Currently popular QBP
commuter route;
Connects to office an
industrial jobs;
Already has some
bike lanes
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
73
Category Criteria Option A:
Cahill Road
Option B:
Industrial Park Notes A or B?Community Connectivity (continued)Benefits
commuters from
the north (South
Minneapolis)
Route evaluation ride
participants indicated B would
be a better connection for South
Minneapolis commuters than A
B
Benefits
commuters
from the east
Route evaluation ride participants
indicated B would be "less
inconvenient" for riders to
the west than A would be
for riders to the east
B
Benefits
commuters
from the west
Route evaluation ride participants
indicated B would be "less
inconvenient" for riders to
the west than A would be
for riders to the east
A
Complements
transit routes
Transit routes
observed along
Cahill Road
Transit routes observed
in industrial park
These observations
are based on the route
evaluation ride, further
analysis would provide
more information
about transit routes
and connections
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Category Criteria Option A:
Cahill Road
Option B:
Industrial Park Notes A or B?Anticipated UsersConnects
people to jobs
Likely connects
commute trips
(north/south)
Currently popular QBP commuter
route; Traverses a job center
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Improves
commuter
connections
Likely connects
commute trips
currently (north/
south);
Already has bike
lanes, people
would likely
be resistant to
getting rid of
bicycle lanes
even if a trail
replaced them
Currently popular QBP
commuter route; Connects
to office an industrial jobs;
Already has some bike lanes
Inconclusive
based on route
evaluation ride
Three Rivers Park District
74
Category Criteria Option A: Cahill Road Option B:
Industrial Park Notes A or B?Plan GuidanceOpportunity to
be integrated in
other planning
effort
Option A falls within Small Area
Plan zone for City of Edina
A
Referenced in
Metropolitan
Council RBTN
RBTN alignment indicates north
of I-494 the alignment continues
on Bush Lake Road until it
meets Edina Industrial, then
terminates at Metro Boulevard;
Neither alignment (A or B) takes
this path, but Route B aligns
with it more than A does; Both
options (A and B) fall within the
Tier 1 Corridor search area
RBTN alignment indicates north
of I-494 the alignment continues
on Bush Lake Road until it
meets Edina Industrial, then
terminates at Metro Boulevard;
Neither alignment (A or B) takes
this path, but Route B aligns
with it more than A does; Both
options (A and B) fall within the
Tier 1 Corridor search area.
Referenced in
Edina Bicycle Plan
The plan does not identify a
particular alignment for the
connection, but it does indicate
the general southern terminus
at 70th Street and Cahill Road
The plan does not identify a
particular alignment for the
connection, but it does indicate
the general southern terminus
at 70th Street and Cahill Road
Referenced in
Bloomington
Active
Transportation
Plan
There is a desire line identified
north of Bush Lake Road,
heading directly north, but
no specific alignment is
identified for that segment
There is a desire line identified
north of Bush Lake Road,
heading directly north, but
no specific alignment is
identified for that segment
75CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
EDINA OPEN STREETS
Project team members attended Edina Open Streets in
September 2017, a public event in Edina where the streets are
open for walking and biking and a variety of businesses and
vendors set up booths in the street. Project team members
gathered public feedback on an activity board, including trail
alignment preferences and respondents’ relationship with the
study area. The results of trail alignment preferences are below:
• Option A: 18
• Option B: 5
• Equal Preference: 8
Staff also documented comments that people made in individual
conversations. Respondents that prefer Option A made the
following comments:
• Cahill road is the most direct
• Cahill road is shaded
• I like Cahill but either route would be fine
Respondents that prefer Option B made the following comments:
• I don’t want anything to happen to Cahill road - no
construction
• The intersection of Bush Lake Rd and 78th is bad for cyclists
• Cahill has a lot of traffic
• Ohms Lane is right by my office
An engagement activity board used by project staff to gather public input at
Edina Open Streets.
Three Rivers Park District
76
This page left intentionally blank
77CP Rail Regional Trail Master Plan
APPENDIX E RESOLUTIONS OF SUPPORT E
Date: April 18, 2019 Agenda Item #: VII.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:CloverRide Task Force Recommendation Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Recommend to City Council continuation of existing CloverRide Circular Bus service through June 2020.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
CloverRide Task Force Report
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
April 18, 2019
Edina Transportation Commission
CloverRide Task Force
CloverRide Circulator Bus Service Continuation
Recommend to City Council continuation of existing CloverRide Circulator Bus service through June
2020
Information / Background:
Since June 2018, the City has been engaged in a service contract with DARTS to provide a fixed-route
circulator bus (CloverRide). This service was recommended in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan as a means to
fill voids in existing transit services offered in Edina. A primary goal of this service was to provide mobility
and access for residents and visitors to the City who can’t or chose not to drive.
CloverRide currently serves southeast Edina (specifically, the Southdale, Promenade, Edinborough,
Centennial Lakes and Parklawn neighborhoods). The service operates Fridays from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
and operates on a one-hour loop, traveling to ten stops that include senior residential properties, grocers
and retailers. Riders can also request additional stops within two blocks of the regular route. Since its
inception, CloverRide has provided over 700 rides, averaging 18 per week (one ride is the equivalent of one
passenger boarding the bus). Peak weekly ridership, to date, is 40 rides.
Given the success and popularity of this service, the Task Force recommends renewing the service contract
with DARTS for another year (the current contract will expire on June 14, 2019). The compensation to
DARTS for continuing the current route would be $25,000, the same as the previous year. The Task Force
is currently working with the City of Edina’s Communications & Technology Services Department to
implement a marketing campaign to increase public awareness of CloverRide and increase ridership. In
addition, the Task Force is assessing the viability of a second circulator bus to serve areas of Edina north of
State Highway 62.
Date: April 18, 2019 Agenda Item #: VII.B.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Impact Study Educational Seminar Update Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
ETC Educational Seminar Update
April 18, 2019
Transportation Commission
Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Traffic Impact Study Educational Seminar Update
Information / Background:
Staff and commission members are in the process of developing an educational seminar on the components
and process involved in developing traffic impact studies. This work is related to Work Plan Initiative #2 -
“serve on a cross-commission committee to determine if a process if feasible for the Transportation
Committee to provide input on transportation-related issues, including traffic study results associated with
development/redevelopment.” To conduct this seminar, the City has hired Spack Consulting, an organization
with experience in traffic education and previous experience performing traffic impact studies for
development projects in the City.
On April 4, staff and three commissioners met with representatives from Spack to discuss the content of
the seminar. Spack will conduct the seminar at the regular Transportation Commission meeting on June 20.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Commissioners can ask further questions and provide feedback on
the material presented. Spack will then revise their presentation as necessary and work with staff to record
the final presentation. The goal is to create an educational video (or series of videos) that can be shared
with future commissioners to provide a baseline understanding of traffic impact studies.
Date: April 18, 2019 Agenda Item #: VII.C.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:2019 Work Plan Updates Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
ETC members will update the Commission regarding the status of the ETC's 2019 work plan items (unless an
item is elsewhere on the current meeting agenda). See attached work plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Approved 2019 Transportation Commission Work Plan
Approved by Council 12/4/18
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Commission: Transportation Commission
2019 Annual Work Plan
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 August
2019
☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_20_
☐ CTS (including Video)
☒ Other Staff: Hrs_16__
Chair/co-chair a cross-commission committee (see partners) to review Travel
Demand Management (TDM) options and recommend a TDM policy or ordinance for
Council consideration.
☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments). Lead Commissioners: Bruce McCarthy
Partners: Transportation Commission [LEAD] and Planning Commission
Progress Report:
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 October
2019
☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_8 _
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs _ __
Serve on a cross-commission committee (see partners) to determine if a process is
feasible for the Transportation Commission to provide input on transportation-
related issues, including traffic study results associated with
development/redevelopment.
☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments). Lead Commissioners: Lori Richman
Partners: Transportation Commission and Planning Commission [LEAD]
Progress Report:
Approved by Council 12/4/18
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
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 September
2019
☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_8 _
☒ CTS (including Video)
☒ Other Staff: Hrs _ 16_
Annually, spring through fall, the commission will coordinate an educational
campaign to inform community members about pedestrian, bicycle and motorist
safety which will include an annual community event.
☒ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project ((explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments). Lead Commissioners: Mindy Ahler
Progress Report:
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 June 2019 ☒ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_12_
☒ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs _ _
Monitor and evaluate the CloverRide circulator service (charge #4) and make
recommendations to Council for future service after twelve-month agreement
expires (charge #3).
☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments). Lead Commissioners: Larry Olson
Progress Report:
Initiative #5 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
2019
☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_8 _
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs _ _
Review and comment on PACS Fund allocating process with a race and equity lens. ☒ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project ((explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments). Lead Commissioners:
Progress Report:
Approved by Council 12/4/18
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Initiative #6 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 ☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs____
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____
Serve on a cross-commission committee (see partners) to complete requirements
for Edina to receive the AARP City Designation.
-Complete Walk Audit Tool Kit provided by AARP
-October Senior Expo & Designation
☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council
approving initiative in liaison
comments).
Lead Commissioners:
Partners: Community Health Commission [LEAD], Human Rights & Relations
Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, Transportation Commission
Progress Report:
Initiative #7 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 ☐ Funds available
Funds are available for this project.
☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs 10
☐ CTS (including Video)
☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____
Serve on a cross-commission committee (see partners) to develop a draft plan on
Edina Grand Rounds, including wayfinding. ☐ Funds not available
There are not funds available for this
project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners:
Partners: Parks & Recreation Commission [LEAD] and Transportation Commission
Progress Report:
Date: April 18, 2019 Agenda Item #: X.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Schedule of Upcoming Meetings and Events as of
April 11, 2019
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings and Events as of April 11, 2019
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF APRIL 11, 2019
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
Thursday Apr 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Tuesday Apr 30 Annual Board/Commission Recognition Event 6:00 PM BRAEMAR GOLF CLUBHOUSE
Tuesday May 7 City Council Work Session – PARC/ETC 6:15 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday May 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jun 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jul 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Aug 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Sep 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Tuesday Oct 1 City Council Work Session – Board/Commission 5:30 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Work Plan Meeting (chair presentations)
Thursday Oct 24 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Tuesday Nov 19 City Council Work Session – Board/Commission 5:30 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Work Plan Meeting (staff recommendations)
Thursday Nov 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Dec 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jan 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Feb 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Mar 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM