The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-05-20 TPC PacketAgenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING This meeting will be held electronically using Webex software. The meeting will be streamed live on the City's YouTube channel, YouTube.com/EdinaTV or you can listen to the meeting via telephone by calling 1-415-655-0001 with Access Code 177 270 5313. Thursday, May 20, 2021 6:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 15, 2021 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Annual Commission Member Review B.Safe Routes to School Engineering Study VI.Reports/Recommendations A.CloverRide Service Contract Renewal B.Tra+c Safety Report of April 27, 2021 C.2021 Work Plan Updates D.Advisory Communication: O2-Street Parking Ordinance Amendments VII.Chair And Member Comments VIII.Sta2 Comments IX.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 ampli5cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 15, 2021 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission regular meeting of April 15, 2021. INTRODUCTION: See attached draft minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Minutes, April 15, 2021 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission WebEx April 15, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were Commissioners Ahler, Brown, Johnson, Kane, Lewis, Plumb-Smith, Richman, Atri, Clark. Absent: Commissioners Lafferty, Khariwala Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner Lewis to approve the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Ahler and seconded by Commissioner Richman to approve the March 18, 2021 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Reports/Recommendations A. Traffic Safety Report of March 30, 2021 The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety report of March 30, 2021. B. Draft Parking Ordinance Amendments Liaison Scipioni provided an update on the Planning Commission’s draft ordinance amendments for on- street parking requirements and reviewed the opportunities for Commissioner to comment on the initiative. The Commission discussed drafting an advisory communication to City Council. C. 2021 Work Plan Updates • #1 Organized Trash Collection – Midpoint meeting with the VANTAGE team is tomorrow. The Commissioners have not gotten as much feedback as they would like. The team has drafted a survey asking residents how they feel about trash collection; distribution could be a next step for the Commission. • #2 Street Funding Task Force – Completed. • #3 CloverRide – Staff will send a letter to residential properties along the route and distribute bus passes for riders to share with friends. • #4 Traffic Safety Reports – Reviewed the March 30, 2021 report. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: • #5 Capital Improvement Projects – Staff will ask City Council to approve the Melody Lake reconstruction project April 20. The Creek Knoll reconstruction project is out for bids. Other PACS Fund projects being designed include shared-use paths on Eden Ave, Highlands Park and McCauley Trail and sidewalks on France Ave. • #6 Traffic Impact Studies & TDM – Staff will present the TDM policy to City Council for approval April 20. Staff is reviewing the traffic study for a proposed project at 4917 Eden Ave and awaiting traffic studies for 5146 Eden Ave, 4040 W 70th St and 4404 Valley View Rd. D. Work Plan Modification Process Liaison Scipioni reviewed the work plan modification process and the Commission discussed adding a new initiative to the 2021 work plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Kane to propose the following new work plan initiative to City Council, to be led by Commissioner Brown: “Review the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and recommend changes to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks to improve connectivity to future Metro Transit LRT and BRT services.” All voted aye. Motion carried. VI. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Ahler watched a webinar on Complete Streets and noted some key take-aways. Ahler noted that the City is working on a Climate Action Plan and is seeking to engage Edina’s youth. Ahler asked if electric vehicle chargers installed by the City could be used to generate revenue; Liaison Scipioni answered that they could but only most are currently free of charge. Commissioner Brown watched a webinar called “Dangerous by Design” about preventable pedestrian deaths on roads designed for speed over safety. Brown noted that the City’s Safe Routes to School engineering study was completed and suggested that it be shared at a future meeting. Commissioner Lewis suggested adding an initiative to the parking lot to review the degree to which transportation habits around schools have changed since the pandemic. VII. Staff Comments • 5 Commissioners have provided staff with their Better Together Edina account email addresses. Document links and web links cannot be mixed on the Commission Resource Portal, contact information can be posted and push notifications are not automatically sent when new material is posted but staff can send notifications out through BTE or through email. • The temporary RRFB at W 58th St/France Ave was removed this week along with portions of concrete sidewalks and signal foundations. The new foundations for the traffic signal have begun to be installed; the estimated project duration is 3-5 weeks. • Two listening sessions will be held Wednesday, April 28: Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: o I-494: Airport to Hwy 169 project, specifically related to France Ave/frontage road improvements o Metropolitan Airports Commission Noise Oversight Committee • The next meeting is Thursday, May 20 at 6 p.m. VIII. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to adjourn the April 15, 2021 meeting at 7:28 p.m. All voted aye. Motion Carried. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 4 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 1 4 100% Brown, Chris 1 1 2 100% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 4 100% Kane, Bocar 1 1 1 1 4 100% Lafferty, Peter 1 1 2 50% Lewis, Andy 1 1 2 100% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 4 100% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 4 100% Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 4 100% Atri, Nihar (s) 1 1 1 1 4 100% Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 1 3 75% Khariwala, Anand (s) 1 1 1 3 75% Scherer, Matthew RESIGNED 0 N/A Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Annual Commission Member Review Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; information only. INTRODUCTION: Community Engagement Coordinator MJ Lamon will present an annual review of Board and Commission policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Description Commission Member Review Presentation Board & Commission Member Handbook MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator Updated 2021.05.05 Commission Member Review 2021 Agenda 2 Roles Communication Guiding Documents Work Plan Development Council StaffCommissions Decide Strategy Advise Council Community Perspective Manage Operations, Implement Policy, Advise Council Technical Analysis Council •Make policy-level decisions •Hire & supervise City Manager•Approve -Budget and related work plan -Ordinances and policy decisions -Development proposals -Variances and rezoning requests•Appoint advisory boards and commissions Staff •Provide best efforts and technical advice to Council •Manage operations and staff •Propose budget and policies•Carry out Council decisions •Deliver services •Equitable enforce codes and policies Advisory Boards, Commission & Task Forces •Provide community perspective on values and needs•Propose work plan items •Advise the council through work plan charges •Hold hearings as directed by Council •Assist as directed in work plan with engagement efforts Supporting Council Technique Examples on the Spectrum Increasing Impact on the Decision Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower Board & Commissions Task Forces Website Open House Public Hearing Workshop Survey Focus Groups Public Meetings Publications City Extra Correspondence Stakeholder Interviews Fact Sheets Comment FormsFairs/Events Tours & Field Trips SHARE COLLECT BRING TOGETHER 5 Commission Subcommittee Working Group Task Force Tenure Ongoing Temporary Temporary Temporary Members Residents Commission members only Commission + Public members As defined Scope Work Plan Work Plan Item Work Plan Item Task Force Charge OML Required Not required Not required Not required Staff Yes No Not typically Yes Reports To Council Commission Commission Council or City Manager Key Roles 6 CHAIR STAFF LIAISON •Work with liaison to prepare agenda •Lead meetings and facilitate discussion •Facilitate development of the annual work plan and provide progress updates •Encourage member participation •Manage areas of conflict •Support chair with agenda and preparation of meeting materials •Provide official notice of meetings •Record & prepare minutes. •Maintain BC official records •Provide technical expertise and access to City staff and resources •Relay information to council 7 Meeting Minutes •Staff Liaison submits in council packet once approved. •Provide a summary of discussion. •All meetings are audio or video recorded. Work Plan •Approved by the council, assigns work for the year and authority level (Council Charge) Joint Work Session •Annual meeting of Council & one BC to discuss progress on work plan. Staff Report •Staff reports are prepared by the liaison to forward a work plan item to the council for approval or direction. •Staff reports outline: 1) BC recommendations, 2) Staff recommendations, and 3) Highlight any differences between. Advisory Communication •Prepared and approved by the BC. •Placed on “Report & Recommendations” if an approved work plan item. •Placed on “Correspondence” if not a work plan item. Communication with Council www.EdinaMN.gov 8 Guiding Documents City Code Roles of Boards and Commissions generally and specifically Polices & Procedures Member Handbook (updated annually) Work Plan Work approved and directed by Council 9 Work Plans 10 Commission Work Plan Calendar 10 Annual Work Plan Begins January Commissions develop proposed work plans with liaison advice and feedback June–Aug. Commission approves proposed work plan September 25 Chairs present proposed work plans to Council October Staff present recommendations to Council November 4 Council approves work plans December 7 Work Plan Development 11 Commission Chair •Lead work plan development •Make sure work plan is not overloaded •Ensure there is a “lead to each initiative •Present proposed work plan to City Council Staff Liaison •Provide technical expertise, recommendations and advice to the commission •Provide clear recommendations to City Management and/or Council to consider •Ensure work plan template fields are completed 12 Title Be clear and provide detail Outcome What exactly will be the product / result of your initiative Budget Commission’s can not approve spending of money Liaison Comments Liaisons will provide you technical advice and feedback Target Completion Be realistic, impacts to supporting departments Partner Projects Cross commission initiatives, outside requests Work Plan Tips Questions? www.EdinaMN.gov 13 Board/Commission Member Handbook 1 | P a g e Inside the City ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Mission ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Local Government Structure ..................................................................................................................... 3 Department Functions ................................................................................................................................. 3 City Council ................................................................................................................................................... 4 City Leadership .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Staff Liaisons ................................................................................................................................................... 4 About Boards & Commissions ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Roles ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Membership & Guidelines ........................................................................................................................... 6 Types of Members ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Key Players ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Committees and Working Groups ........................................................................................................... 7 Committee / Working Group Membership & Guidelines .................................................................. 7 Appointments and Chair Assignments ..................................................................................................... 9 Disbanding....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Guiding Documents ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Annual Calendar .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Meetings ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Types of Meetings ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Attendance ................................................................................................................................................... 11 Quorum and Voting ................................................................................................................................... 12 Meeting Packet ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Agenda ........................................................................................................................................................... 12 Minutes .......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Robert’s Rules of Order............................................................................................................................ 13 Communication ......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Open Meeting Law...................................................................................................................................... 14 Communication with City Council ......................................................................................................... 14 Annual Work Plan....................................................................................................................................... 15 Communication with the Public .............................................................................................................. 17 Ethical and Respectful Conduct ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Board/Commission Member Handbook 2 | P a g e Conflict of Interest ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Gifts ................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Respectful Behavior .................................................................................................................................... 17 Code of Ethics ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Novus Boardview ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Board/Commission Member Handbook 3 | P a g e Mission Our mission is to provide effective and valued public services, maintain a sound public infrastructure, offer premier public facilities and guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improves the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses. Local Government Structure Edina is a statutory Plan B City. • City Council consists of the Mayor and four Council members. • The vote of the Mayor counts the same as a Council member vote. • The City Council is responsible for policy and legislative decisions. • City Council employs the City Manager, who oversees the day-to-day operations of the City. Department Functions Human Resources • Recruitment and selection • Compensation and benefits • Employee and labor relations • Employment policies • Performance management • Training and development • Safety and worker’s compensation • General liability and risk management • Payroll Communications • Media and publications • Marketing • Website and social media Finance • Budget • Investments • Accounts payable • Accounts receivable Police • Patrol • Investigations • Dispatch • Records • Community Health Fire • Fire suppression and prevention • Emergency medical • Emergency preparedness • Building plan review Public Works • Street maintenance • Utility Operations • Fleet Maintenance • Electrical • HVAC Engineering • Design • Project management • Environmental services • Transportation • Sustainability strategy & measurement • Property management Parks and Recreation • Recreation programs • Manage enterprise facilities • Liquor Store Operations • Parks maintenance Community Development • Planning • Zoning • Heritage preservation • Sign permits • Residential & commercial appraisal • Economic Development Administration • Council relations • Boards and Commissions • Strategic Planning • Neighborhood Associations Board/Commission Member Handbook 4 | P a g e • Building permits • Building inspections I.T. • Network management • Telecommunications • End-user support and training • GIS • Elections • Records Management & Licenses • Performance measurement City Council Mayor James Hovland James Pierce Carolyn Jackson Kevin Staunton Ron Anderson City Leadership Scott Neal City Manager • Responsible for hiring and managing City staff • City Manager carries out policy direction of Council Lisa Schaefer Assistant City Manager Staff Liaisons Susan Tarnowski Arts & Culture Commission Cary Teague Planning Commission Perry Vetter Parks & Recreation Commission Andrew Scipioni Transportation Commission Bob Wilson Board of Appeals & Equalization Emily Bodeker Heritage Preservation Commission Dave Fisher Construction Board of Appeals Grace Hancock Energy & Environment Commission Jeff Brown Community Health Commission Heidi Lee Human Rights & Relations Commission Board/Commission Member Handbook 5 | P a g e Roles Objectives of Boards and Commissions: • City Council establishes Boards and Commissions to engage residents into city work. • City Staff supports Boards and Commissions to assist with effective governance. • Board and Commission members serve the community and can participate in meaningful work. Supporting City Council: Edina’s Boards and Commissions are established by the City Council and serve as advisors to the council. Boards and Commissions and City Staff are accountable to City Council. Council • Make policy-level decisions • Hire & supervise City Manager • Appoint advisory boards and commissions • Approve - Budget and related work plan - Ordinances and policy decisions - Development proposals - Variances and rezoning requests Staff • Provide best efforts and technical advice to Council • Manage operations and staff • Propose budget and policies • Carry out Council decisions • Deliver services • Equitable enforce codes and policies Advisory Boards, Commission & Task Forces • Provide community perspective on values and needs • Propose work plan items • Advise the council through work plan charges • Hold hearings as directed by Council • Assist as directed in work plan with engagement efforts Board/Commission Member Handbook 6 | P a g e Membership & Guidelines BOARDS & COMMISSIONS Membership • Members are selected by City Council. • Membership consists of regular and student members. • All appointments have term limits. • Subject to Open Meeting Law • The City Manager appoints a staff liaison who provides administrative support to the board/commission as a body. Guidelines: • Boards and commissions are established to advise the City Council • Establishment and missions are outlined in City code • Boards and commissions are on-going • Meetings of boards and commissions are public meetings • Commissions can establish committees and working groups Types of Members There are two types of board and commission members: Key Players 1 Chair • Prepare agenda with Staff Liaison • Lead meeting and facilitate discussion • Facilitate development of annual work plan • Maintain meeting decorum • Consult with members regarding attendance issues • Encourage participation by all members and the public 2 Vice-chair • Supports the Chair as needed • Performs the Chair duties if the Chair is unavailable 3 Staff Liaison • Support Chair in preparing agendas and meeting materials • Work with Chair to ensure bylaws are followed • Record and prepare meeting minutes • Maintain records • Provide technical expertise and access to City resources • Provide official notice of meetings • Relay information from City Council Regular Members Must be 18 years of age or older Must live in Edina Voting member Terms are typically 3 years in duration Student Members Full time sophmore, junior or senior Open enrolled at Edina High School Non voting member Serve a one year term Board/Commission Member Handbook 7 | P a g e Committees and Working Groups Local governments often use a variety of Citizen Advisory groups, including Boards and Commissions, to complete the mission of the City. Commissions may create Committees and Working Groups to assist them with their work plan, however, committees and working groups work at the direction of the whole board and commission. Role of these groups: • Study issues in greater depth and report findings • Assist with community initiatives or events Committee / Working Group Membership & Guidelines COMMITTEES Membership • The commission selects at least two, but less than a quorum of members • All members must be members of the commission • The commission selects a chair or co-chairs • Not subject to Open Meeting Law Guidelines: • Committees are established with the approval of the commission to assist with a work plan initiative • The commission has final recommendations on all matters which the committee has been given guidance • Staff does not provide support to committees • Meetings of Committees are not public meetings Board/Commission Committee Commission Members only Working Group Commission Members Public Members Board/Commission Member Handbook 8 | P a g e WORKING GROUPS Membership • A Working Group is comprised of one or more members of the Board/Commission, but less than a quorum of members and includes members of the public. • Commission selects the chair or co-chairs • The chair will recommend to the commission other working group members who are outside of the Board/Commission. The board/commission appoints additional working group members. • Not subject to Open Meeting Law Guidelines: • Established with the approval of the commission • Created when work requires more support • Set timeline • Notice is given to the public of the formation of the working group providing a minimum of 14 days for the public to express interest before members are selected • Commission has final recommendations on all matters of the working group • Staff liaison does not support working groups • Meetings of working groups are not legally required to be public Boards and commissions should consider creating a working group when: • The board or commission members need more support. • The work requires a specific expertise or time. • The work needs more community engagement to identify issues and concerns Key Components of Working Groups Establishment • Prior to the establishment of a working group, the commission should complete a “greenprint” which is a template for determining the need of the working group • The “greenprint” should be approved by the commission at a regular scheduled meeting Public Notice • The commission must put out notice of the establishment of the working group (i.e. press release, city communication channels) • Notice should be given a minimum of 14 days so interested individuals can come forward to volunteer Leadership • The chair or co-chair positions should be held by voting commission members • The commission appoints the chair or co-chairs Size • Working groups should not exceed 7 members (5 is preferable) Time • Working groups are established for a set time in order to complete a task set forth by the commission Disbanding • The commission can disband a working group at any regular meeting by a majority vote • In the case that no member of the commission is available to serve, the working group will be automatically disbanded Work • Working groups do not provide direction to the commission • The commission has final recommendation on all matters Board/Commission Member Handbook 9 | P a g e Appointments and Chair Assignments Appointments: Committees and working groups work at the discretion of the entire commission so therefore the commission makes the appointments of all members. Resignation or Removal: Committee and working group members may voluntarily resign by notifying the chair of the group. A committee or working group member may be removed by a majority vote of the commission. Chair Assignments: Every committee and working group should have regular member(s) serving as the chair or co-chairs. The commission approves the selection of chairs. Chair Duties: • Set the meeting schedule • Prepare meeting agenda • Maintain meeting decorum • Recommend members (working group) and notify commission of changes in membership • Report on the group’s activities to the regular commission meetings • Ensure the group is working as directed by the commission • Communicate to the Committee or Working Group any directives, questions or input from the commission Disbanding Committees and working groups are not intended to be ongoing. These groups can be disbanded by a majority vote of the commission or they will automatically disband in the following instances: • Completion of work / charge • No member of the commission is available to serve Guiding Documents 1 City Code • Outlines general roles of boards and commissions • Identifies each board or commissions mission • If there is discrepancy between city code and other guiding documents, city code prevails 2 Work Plan • Work approved and directed to the commission by Council 3 Member Handbook • The guide you are reading right now! Board/Commission Member Handbook 10 | P a g e Annual Calendar Annual work plans ensure that the Commissions’ initiatives are aligned with the City Council’s priorities. Types of Meetings 1 Regular Meetings • All Commissions have a regular meeting schedule; e.g., “7 p.m. on the fourth Thursday of each month.” • Regular meetings can be rescheduled if members and the public are given notice at a prior meeting • If notice at a prior meeting cannot be given for a schedule change, the regular meeting is considered to have been cancelled and a special meeting called • At the regular February meeting, each commission holds annual elections for Chair and Vice Chair 2 Special Meetings • A meeting held in addition to the regular meeting schedule • A meeting scheduled without notice at a prior meeting 3 Joint Work Session Meeting • Work sessions are held jointly with City Council • Every Commission has at least one a year • Goal is to review work plan and get direction if needed **All meetings are audio recorded and some are televised. Annual Work Plan Calendar January: Annual Work Plan Begins June-August: Proposed work plan created by Commissions September: Work plans due!! October: Work Plan proposals presented by each chair to Council at Work Session November: Staff present comments to Council December: Council approves work plans Board/Commission Member Handbook 11 | P a g e Attendance Attendance Policy: There are two ways members fail to meet attendance requirements. Student members do not have an attendance requirement. 1 75% Requirement • If a member fails to meet the 75% attendance requirement, they will not be removed from the Board or Commission until the end of the calendar year. At this time, if the member wants to ask to be reappointed, they can request the Community Engagement Coordinator to include this in the staff report. 2 3 Consecutive Meeting Requirement • If a member fails to attend 3 consecutive meetings (4 for Planning Commission), they will be removed from the Board or Commission effective immediately upon their 3rd absence (4th for Planning Commission). Under this scenario, members cannot request reappointment, but can reapply for the Board or Commission for the following year. Counted vs Not Counted: Board and commission meetings listed under “Counted towards Attendance” will be used to factor into the board and commission attendance policy. “Not Counted towards Attendance” are not used in the formula. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is given, the previously scheduled meeting is considered to have been cancelled and replaced with special meeting. **A cancelled meeting can be done by the Chair, City Council, City Manager or by the majority of voting members. Reasons a meeting may be cancelled include: • Insufficient business • Lack of quorum • Conflict with a holiday or religious observance • Inclement weather • Community emergency Attendance Sheets: Attendance sheets are maintained by the Staff Liaison. Annually the City conducts an attendance assessment to identify attendance issues. Members Responsibility: Since attendance impacts quorum and the ability for a board or commission to conduct business, it is important to communicate conflicts in advance of the meeting. Members should contact the staff liaison if: • They cannot attend a scheduled meeting • They will be late or need to leave early Counted towards Attendance Regular Meeting with Quorum Regular Meeting without Quorum Rescheduled Meeting* Canceled Meeting** Not Counted towards Attendance Special Meetings Joint Work Sessions Subcommittee or working group meetings Board/Commission Member Handbook 12 | P a g e Quorum and Voting Voting: • Regular members can participate in voting • Student members are expected to participate in the discussion but do not vote and do not count towards quorum Quorum = A majority of seated voting members • Quorum is required to vote on business items • Meetings can be held without a quorum, however, members cannot “conduct business” by taking votes on motions Meeting Packet Each meeting packet contains: • Agenda • Draft Minutes • Reports and Recommendations The packet posted in Novus Agenda Board web at least three days prior to your scheduled meeting. It is important that you review the packet in advance to be prepared. Agenda Static Items (will always appear): I. Roll Call II. Approval of Meeting Agenda III. Approval of Meeting Minutes IV. Community Comment V. Reports & Recommendations VI. Chair & Member Comments VII. Staff Comments VIII. Adjournment Additional Categories (in green): I. Roll Call II. Approval of Meeting Agenda III. Approval of Meeting Minutes IV. Special Presentations & Recognitions V. Public Hearings VI. Community Comment VII. Reports & Recommendations VIII. Chair & Member Comments IX. Staff Comments X. Adjournment Community Comment: • Residents can speak during community comment on any topic that is NOT already on the current agenda. • Members should not engage in direct debate or dialogue with the resident outside of thanking them for the comment or noting when the item might be discussed by the BC in the future. • Commissions should not take action from the content of the community commenter. • Commenters must provide their name and address before speaking. • Commenters have 3 minutes to speak. Board/Commission Member Handbook 13 | P a g e Minutes Minutes are recorded at each Board or Commission meeting. Commissions may have an additional city staff person in attendance that supports the liaison with this particular task. Meeting minutes’ document actions taken at a meeting, not discussion. Meeting minutes will include: • Meeting name including the date, place and time • Members in attendance • Approval of previous meeting minutes and corrections, if any • Motions made (exact wording of the motion, who made the motion, seconded the motion, and the result of the vote) • Reports (can use bulleted lists) • Other actions Meeting minutes will NOT include: • What was said • Who said it Each meeting packet will contain a draft of the minutes from the previous meeting. After the minutes are approved, your City Staff Liaison will submit the approved minutes for publication on the City’s website and to City Council for receipt. This is an important channel of communication to City Council from the Commissions. Robert’s Rules of Order Edina Boards and Commissions use Robert’s Rules of Order to transact business through motions. Robert’s Rules of Order will prevail in the event of a procedural conflict. General Principles: • Only one subject (main motion) is before the group at one time. • Negative motions are generally not permitted; phrase the motion as a positive action. If the BC does not want to take action, the motion should be voted down. • Only one member speaks at a time. Each speaker should first be recognized by the Chair. The maker of a motion is usually allowed to speak first and last. • Each item is presented for full debate. Each member speaks once until all members have had an opportunity to speak. • All members have equal rights. The rights of the minority are protected and heard, but the will of the majority prevails. Steps to a motion: • Member addresses the Chair and the Chair recognizes the member. • Member states motion “I move to adopt the policy.” • Another member seconds the motion “I second.” • Chair repeats the motion to the BC. • Motion is discussed by the group. • Members can make subsidiary motions that assist the group in disposing of the main motion, “I move to table this discussion to the next meeting.” • Members vote on the subsidiary motion. • If applicable, members vote on the main motion. • Chair announces the results. Board/Commission Member Handbook 14 | P a g e Open Meeting Law Why it exists: • Prohibits actions from being taken at a secret meeting, where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning decisions of public bodies or to detect improper influences. • Ensures the public’s right to be informed. • Afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body. To Comply: • Provide public notice of the meeting a minimum of three days in advance. • Hold meetings in public places. Violation of Open Meeting Law: There is a violation of open meeting law if there is discussion of business between quorums of members outside of a publicly noticed meeting. Serial communication defined below is an open meeting law violation. Serial Communication: Serial communication is communication between Board and Commission members that lead to a concurrence among the majority of the members. Serial communication may involve a series of communications (example: email, face-to-face, text) with each communication involving less than a quorum of the Board or Commission, but when taken as a whole, involve a majority of the Board or Commission. Ensure Compliance: • Email communication intended for the group to your Staff Liaison for distribution. • Members should not “reply all” to group messages. • Members should not blind copy other members. Committees and Working Groups: While Committees and Working Groups are not covered under the Open Meeting Law, some Committee or Working Group meetings may be designated as public meetings by the City Council, or the Commission based on potential public interest in the topic. Communication with City Council When presenting recommendations to City Council it is essential that Board and Commission members keep the following in mind: • Recommendations should be in written form. • Ideas should be expressed in clear and concise language. • Proposed solutions should be viable and cost-effective. • Recommendations should identify reasons for the changes suggested. • Advice should reflect the views of a consensus or a majority of Board and Commission members. Role of Staff Liaison. One of the primary roles of the Staff Liaison is to assist in delivering information from the City Council to, and vice versa. It is the responsibility of the Staff Liaison to communicate the guidance of their Board and Commission completely and impartially. Board/Commission Member Handbook 15 | P a g e Communication Tools. Boards and Commissions have five primary tools for communication with the City Council. Since Council time is limited and it is important that all members of the Council receive the information, it is imperative that communication is done through these formal channels. The table below outlines each tool and its intended purpose: 1 Meeting Minutes • Meeting minutes are intended to give members a record of Board and Commission proceedings. After the minutes are approved, they are included as part of the upcoming Council packet. Council members are very diligent about reading Board and Commission minutes. 2 Joint Work Session • Joint work sessions are held at least once a year. This is an opportunity to update the Council on the Commission’s work plan and to get Council feedback on the progress to date. 3 Annual Work Plan • The annual work plan process enables Commissions to share their goals for the upcoming year. The Council reviews those goals and other ideas before giving final direction on Commission priorities. • Council will assign each work plan item a Council Charge 4 Staff Reports • Staff reports are prepared by staff to forward a regulatory item or other goal from the Commission’s approved work plan to a Council meeting for approval or direction. It is staff’s responsibility to outline the Commission's recommendation, as well as staff recommendations, and to highlight any important differences between the two. 5 Advisory Communication • Advisory communication is prepared by the Commission members under the direction of the Commission. This template should be used when the Commission wants to give input on an issue but due to timing or the nature of the issue, meeting minutes are deemed insufficient. Advisory communications should be used if the Commission wishes to advise the Council on a topic not included on their approved work plan. Annual Work Plan Council Charge: • The Council Charge is a guide for Council to provide clear and specific direction to Boards and Commissions on. • Council Charge is given in instances when Council tasks a board or commission with an initiative. • City staff ensures Council identifies the charge level of the task. • The Council Charge concept is implemented in Board and Commission work plans. Board/Commission Member Handbook 16 | P a g e Charge 1: Study & Report 2: Review & Comment 3: Review & Recommend 4: Review & Decide Commission Role Study a specific issue or event and report its findings to Council Review a specific policy issue and staff will seek comments from each individual member of the group to pass on to Council Review a specific policy issue and provide a recommendation on the issue to Council Study, review and decide on an issue. The Decision will be the City’s official position on the matter unless the issue is formally reversed by Council Commission Vote No vote is taken by the commission No vote is taken by the commission A majority vote is required A majority vote is required Commission Recommendation No official recommendation is provided to Council No official recommendation is provided to Council An official recommendation is provided to Council No official recommendation is provided to Council Report Type Required: Advisory Communication & Staff Report Required: Staff Report Required: Staff Report Optional: Advisory Communication None Work Plan Approval Process: Approving work plans is a three-part process. Work plans development starts in the summer months and ends in December. 1 Chair Presents Proposed Work Plan • Annual work session meeting (typically October) • Meeting Purpose: Chair to present proposed work plan and allow Council to ask clarifying questions from the chair 2 Staff Presents Proposed Work Plan • Annual work session meeting (typically November) • Meeting Purpose: City staff (City Manager Comments) will present proposed work plans along with recommended changes 3 Council Review and Final Approval • Annual City Council meeting (typically first meeting in December) • City staff will incorporate council changes from previous meeting and present proposed work plans for approval Board/Commission Member Handbook 17 | P a g e Communication with the Public We want members to promote their Board and Commission’s work with the public. Members are asked to take care when conveying: • Any decisions of the Board or Commission based on the information shared and resulting discussion of the group during open meetings. Conflict of Interest Definition: any member who has a financial interest in, or who may receive a financial benefit as a result of, any BC action or if there is potential for the appearance of conflict of interest. Members who have a conflict of interest must: • Disclose the conflict of interest to the group, and • Abstain from discussing or voting on the matter. Gifts • Members may not receive gifts from any “interested person” in conjunction with their BC duties. • BC can recommend acceptance of general gifts through the City’s donation policy. Respectful Behavior Members should strive to: • Treat people with courtesy, politeness and kindness. • Encourage others to express their opinions and ideas. • Listen to what others have to say. • Use the ideas of others to improve decisions and outcomes. • Recognize and respect differences. Members should avoid: • Speaking over or cutting off another individual’s comments. • Insulting, disparaging or putting down people or their ideas. • Bullying other members by displaying a pattern of belittling, demeaning, judging or patronizing comments. Violence or the threat of violence will not be tolerated. The Chair or the Staff Liaison can call for the removal of any anyone who threatens or commits an act of violence. Board/Commission Member Handbook 18 | P a g e Code of Ethics • I have been entrusted by the Edina City Council to perform my duties and services as a volunteer Board or Commission Member in manner that is always in the best interests of the community of Edina. • While honest differences of opinion may develop, I will work harmoniously with other Board or Commission members to assure residents the services they require. • I will invite all residents to express their opinions so I may be properly informed prior to making my decisions. I will make them based solely upon the facts available to me. I will support the final decision of the Board or Commission. • I must devote the time, study and thought necessary to carry out my duties. • I understand that the Board or Commission members recommend policies, the City Council establishes policies and the staff is responsible for administering the policies of the City Council. • I understand that as a Board or Commission Member, I have no authority outside of the proper meeting of the Board/Commission. • I understand that all Board/Commission meetings shall be open to the public, except as provided by law. • I understand that it is my duty as a Board or Commission member to treat all residents, staff and fellow Board and Commission members in a respectful and professional manner at all times. • I will withdraw from discussions and decision-making actions in cases where I have a conflict of interest and I will disclose those conflicts of interest when they arise. Novus Boardview Packets are created electronically by each Board and Commission’s staff liaison. Liaisons complete packets three business days prior to the regular scheduled meeting. Members are asked to review meeting packets in advance using the Novus Boardview Portal. URL: Edina.novusagenda.com/boardweb Username: first letter of first name and full last name Password: New Members should receive a password reset email. Contact MJ Lamon, if you have questions or forgot your password. 952-826-0360 mlamon@edinamn.gov Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Safe Routes to School Engineering Study Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; information only INTRODUCTION: Staff will present the findings of the Safe Routes to School engineering study. This study was prepared by SRF Consulting Group through grant funding provided by MnDOT. The study's objective was to complete a technical analysis of mutli-modal infrastructure focused on improving the safety, comfort, and convenience for children walking, rolling or bicycling to school. The focus schools include Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary and Highlands Elementary. ATTACHMENTS: Description Safe Routes to School Engineering Study EDINA ENGINEERING STUDY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL April, 2021 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Study was made possible by funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Special thanks to the individuals below who provided their expertise, time, and feedback for this Study to ensure it encompassed the needs of the children and broader community who will benefit when walking, rolling, or bicycling from these improvements. Project Team Chad Millner, P.E. – City Engineer, City of Edina Andrew Scipioni – Transportation Planner, City of Edina Eric Hamilton – Director of Buildings & Grounds, Edina Public Schools ISD #273 Girma Feyissa, P.E. – State Aid Programs Support Engineer, MnDOT State Aid for Local Transportation Consultant Team SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Renae Kuehl, P.E., PTOE – Principal-in-Charge Chris Brown, AICP – Project Manager Matt Pacyna, P.E. – Project Advisor Anna Chunying Schwartz – Project Support, Associated Consulting Services EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................................. 1 Identified Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Alternative Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Proposed Projects................................................................................................................................................... 4 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Engineering Study Framework .......................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Study Background .................................................................................................................................................. 11 What is Safe Routes to School? ............................................................................................................................ 11 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Analysis........................................................................................................... 13 Study Location and Focus Schools ....................................................................................................................... 13 Previous Plans and Other Studies ....................................................................................................................... 25 Community Engagement (Parent Survey) ........................................................................................................ 28 Transportation Network .......................................................................................................................................30 School Access and Site Operations .................................................................................................................... 47 Safety Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 3: Issue Identification and Needs Summary ...................................................................................... 66 Identified Transportation Issues........................................................................................................................... 66 Summary of Needs ............................................................................................................................................... 70 Chapter 4: Alternative Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 71 Cornelia Elementary ............................................................................................................................................ 72 Creek Valley Elementary ..................................................................................................................................... 92 Highlands Elementary ........................................................................................................................................ 109 Chapter 5: Potential Projects .......................................................................................................................... 122 Quick Build Crossing Infrastructure ................................................................................................................. 124 P1. Cornelia Elementary Parking Lot – Alternative 1 ....................................................................................... 126 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY P2. Cornelia Elementary Parking Lot – Alternative 2 .................................................................................... 128 P3. Cornelia Elementary Parking Lot – Alternative 3 .................................................................................... 130 C1. Cornelia Drive and 72nd Street Crossing ..................................................................................................... 132 C2. Claremore Drive and Oaklawn Avenue Crossing ..................................................................................... 134 S1. Claremore Drive Sidewalk .............................................................................................................................136 S2. Cornelia Park Shared-use Sidewalk ............................................................................................................ 138 I1., I2., and I3. TH 62 and Gleason Road Interchange Improvements – Alternative 1, 2, and 3 ................... 141 C1. Gleason Road and McCauley Trail Crossing .............................................................................................. 143 C2. Gleason Road, Indian Hills Pass, and School Access Crossing ................................................................ 145 S1., S2., S3., and S4. Creek Valley Shared-use Sidewalk – Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 ................................. 147 P1. Creek Valley Parking Lot ............................................................................................................................. 149 R1. Ayrshire Boulevard Improvements .............................................................................................................. 152 R2. Ayrshire Boulevard Improvements ............................................................................................................ 154 R3. Ayrshire Boulevard Improvements ............................................................................................................ 156 C1. Doncaster way and School Access Crossing .............................................................................................. 158 S1. Creek Valley Shared-use Sidewalk .............................................................................................................. 160 Other Considerations ......................................................................................................................................... 162 Chapter 6: Next Steps ..................................................................................................................................... 168 Agency Coordination ......................................................................................................................................... 168 Identify Priorities ................................................................................................................................................ 168 Focused Timeline and Actionable Steps ........................................................................................................... 169 Celebrate Wins ................................................................................................................................................... 169 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ................................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Focus Schools Overview ............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 3. Cornelia Elementary Roadway Network Overview ................................................................................. 33 Table 4. Creek Valley Elementary Roadway Network Overview ......................................................................... 38 Table 5. Highlands Elementary Roadway Network Overview .............................................................................. 43 Table 6. Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................ 77 Table 7. Traffic Operations by Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative .......................................................................... 78 Table 8. Queue Analysis by Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative .............................................................................. 79 Table 9. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Cornelia Drive, Mavelle Drive, and the School Access ................ 81 Table 10. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 72nd Street and Cornelia Drive ..................................................... 82 Table 11. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 72nd Street, Claremore Drive, and Oaklawn Avenue .................. 83 Table 12. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 70th Street and Cornelia Drive ..................................................... 84 Table 13. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 70th Street and Wooddale Avenue ............................................... 86 Table 14. Gleason Road Traffic Operations – Four-to-Three Lane Conversion ................................................. 97 Table 15. TH 62 and Gleason Road Interchange Warrant Analysis ...................................................................... 98 Table 16. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Gleason Road and McCauley Trail ............................................... 99 Table 17. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Gleason Road, Indian Hills Pass, and School Access ................ 102 Table 18. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Gleason Road, Cherokee Trail, and Creek Valley Road ........... 103 Table 19. Existing and Proposed Traffic Operations for Creek Valley Parking Lot ........................................... 107 Table 20. Ayrshire Boulevard Alternatives Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................. 110 Table 21. Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue Intersection Traffic Operations........................................... 114 Table 22. Vernon Avenue and Ayrshire Boulevard Intersection Warrant Analysis ............................................ 115 Table 23. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue .................................... 115 Table 24. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Doncaster Way and the School Access ..................................... 116 Table 25. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ............................................................................................. 122 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects – Cornelia Elementary .......................................................... 6 Figure 2. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects – Creek Valley Elementary .................................................. 7 Figure 3. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects – Highlands Elementary ...................................................... 8 Figure 4. Project Area and Focus School – Cornelia Elementary ........................................................................ 15 Figure 5. Residential Density – Cornelia Elementary ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 6. Project Area and Focus School – Creek Valley Elementary ................................................................. 17 Figure 7. Residential Density – Creek Valley Elementary .................................................................................... 18 Figure 8. Project Area and Focus School – Highlands Elementary ...................................................................... 19 Figure 9. Residential Density – Highlands Elementary ........................................................................................ 20 Figure 10. Student Population – Cornelia Elementary ......................................................................................... 22 Figure 11. Student Population – Creek Valley Elementary ................................................................................... 23 Figure 12. Student Population – Highlands Elementary ....................................................................................... 24 Figure 13. Future Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Network (half-mile buffer) ...................................................... 25 Figure 14. Typical Mode by Student ....................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 15. Parent Perception of Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling to School ........................................................ 29 Figure 16. Existing Transportation Network – Cornelia Elementary ................................................................... 34 Figure 17. Existing Turning Movement Counts – Cornelia Elementary .............................................................. 35 Figure 18. Existing Transportation Conditions – Cornelia Elementary ................................................................ 36 Figure 19. Existing Transportation Network – Creek Valley Elementary ............................................................ 39 Figure 20. Existing Turning Movement Counts – Creek Valley Elementary .................................................... 40 Figure 21. Existing Transportation Conditions – Creek Valley Elementary ......................................................... 41 Figure 22. Existing Transportation Network – Highlands Elementary ................................................................44 Figure 23. Existing Turning Movement Counts – Highlands Elementary ........................................................... 45 Figure 24. Existing Transportation Conditions – Highlands Elementary ............................................................ 46 Figure 25. Existing School Access and Circulation – Cornelia Elementary ........................................................50 Figure 26. Existing School Access and Circulation – Creek Valley Elementary ................................................ 53 Figure 27. Existing School Access and Circulation – Highlands Elementary ...................................................... 56 Figure 28. All Crashes by Severity (2015-2019) – Cornelia Elementary ........................................................... 59 Figure 29. All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) – Cornelia Elementary ...................................... 60 Figure 30. All Crashes by Severity (2015-2019) – Creek Valley Elementary .................................................... 61 Figure 31. All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) – Creek Valley Elementary ................................. 62 Figure 32. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Severity (2010-2019) – Highlands Elementary ...................... 63 Figure 33. All Crashes by Severity (2015-2019) – Highlands Elementary ........................................................ 64 Figure 34. All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) – Highlands Elementary ..................................... 65 Figure 35. Identified Issues – Cornelia Elementary .............................................................................................. 67 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Figure 36. Identified Issues – Creek Valley Elementary ....................................................................................... 68 Figure 37. Identified Issues – Highlands Elementary ............................................................................................ 69 Figure 38. Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................ 74 Figure 39. Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................... 75 Figure 40. Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................... 76 Figure 41. 70th Street RRFB Warrant Analysis for Low-Speed Roadways (<35 mph) ..................................... 87 Figure 42. 70th Street FHWA STEP Guidance Analysis ...................................................................................... 88 Figure 43. Example of Sidewalk Pedestrian Clear Zones ..................................................................................... 90 Figure 44. Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance – 70th Street .................................................................................... 91 Figure 45. TH 62 Interchange Alternative Cross-sections ................................................................................... 93 Figure 46. TH 62 Interchange Alternative 1 .......................................................................................................... 94 Figure 47. TH 62 Interchange Alternative 2 .......................................................................................................... 95 Figure 48. TH 62 Interchange Alternative 3a and 3b ........................................................................................... 96 Figure 49. Gleason Road RRFB Warrant Analysis for Low-Speed Roadways (<35 mph) ............................. 100 Figure 50. Gleason Road FHWA STEP Guidance Analysis ................................................................................ 101 Figure 51. Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance – Gleason Road ............................................................................. 105 Figure 52. Ayrshire Boulevard Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................... 111 Figure 53. Ayrshire Boulevard Alternative 2 ..........................................................................................................112 Figure 54. Ayrshire Boulevard Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................ 113 Figure 55. Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 FHWA STEP Guidance Analysis ......................................................... 118 Figure 56. Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance – Vernon Avenue .......................................................................... 120 Figure 57. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects – Cornelia Elementary .................................................... 125 Figure 58. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects – Creek Valley Elementary ........................................... 140 Figure 59. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects – Highlands Elementary ................................................. 151 Figure 60. Stopping and Sight Distance ................................................................................................................ 162 Figure 61. Likelihood of Injury or Death by Traffic Speed ....................................................................................163 Figure 62. Lighting Design Guidance for Pedestrians and Bicyclists ................................................................. 164 APPENDICES Appendix A – Edina Safe Routes to School Grant Application (Parent Survey) Appendix B – Concept Designs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Edina Safe Routes to School Engineering Study focused on three schools: Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary. The study’s objective was to complete a technical analysis of multimodal improvements on, or adjacent to, the school campuses, as well as parking lot improvements at two of the three schools. As a part of Safe Routes to School (SRTS), proposed infrastructure specifically focused upon improving the safety, comfort, and convenience for children walking, rolling, or bicycling to school. SRTS is a national program intended to improve safety for children to access school and encourage a more active lifestyle through physical activity. The Edina Safe Routes to School Engineering Study was led by Edina Public Schools and the City of Edina. It illustrates strategies and potential improvements as recommended by the Director of Building & Grounds and the City Engineer. The study organizes needs and justifies potential improvements for future funding requests by the City of Edina and/or Edina Public Schools to implement the potential projects identified. EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Location and Focus Schools The three focus schools are all kindergarten through 5th grade. The study areas surrounding each of the three schools, Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary, are within the southeast, west, and north areas of the City, respectively. The three schools enroll a total of 1,796 students or over 20 percent of the district total (8,500 students). There are approximately 600 students at Cornelia Elementary, 616 students at Creek Valley Elementary, and 580 students at Highlands Elementary. The surrounding context for each school is primarily low- and medium-density residential with pockets of higher-density multifamily housing near Cornelia Elementary and Highlands Elementary. Student household location data was studied to identify where students live who are enrolled at one of the three focus schools and identify key nodes that may support infrastructure improvements. Previous Plans and Other Studies Other applicable studies were reviewed as a part of the planning process including:  Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)  Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY These planning efforts identified key locations for sidewalk and bike infrastructure which guided the planning process for this study. Additional locations were identified for each school to further enhance multimodal connections that support the SRTS objectives. Parent survey responses collected in 2013 were also studied. Though the data’s value has decreased with age, it was still reviewed to identify general themes. Infrastructure improvements that would sway parents or guardians to consider allowing their child(ren) to walk, roll, or bike include:  implementing upgrades that balance walking and bicycling with traffic volumes  safety improvements at intersections and crossings  addressing vehicular speed  implementing multimodal connections via sidewalks or trails Note that most students at all three schools live further away than the typical threshold for a child to walk or bike (i.e., greater than one mile) and most students access their school by family vehicle or school bus today. Transportation Network The transportation network was reviewed for each school to identify existing infrastructure for walking, rolling, bicycling, and driving on, and adjacent to, the school properties. Existing multimodal facilities were studied to identify sidewalk, bicycle facilities, marked crossings, and overall inter-neighborhood connectivity. School access and connectivity on all three school campuses is primarily auto focused with wide driveways and limited internal sidewalk connectivity. The parking lot access, circulation, and queueing capacity at Cornelia Elementary and Creek Valley Elementary was also evaluated to improve congestion at each school during peak arrival and dismissal periods. Ten years of vehicle-to-bicycle and vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes and all crashes over the last five years were reviewed. One bicycle crash was recorded near Highlands Elementary (and was not a student). No other pedestrian or bicycle crashes were recorded. Vehicular crashes immediately surrounding the schools were studied, along with the manner of collision which details the way in which the crash occurred (e.g., rear end). Detailed analysis of multimodal elements, traffic volumes and operations, school access and circulation, and safety is covered for each school in Chapter 2. IDENTIFIED NEEDS Broadly identified needs were recorded from the existing conditions analysis which discovered potential issues. These needs include access and circulation enhancements at two schools, as well as crossing upgrades, improved sidewalk connections, and bicycle infrastructure at all three schools. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Cornelia Elementary School Property Access and Circulation (all modes) Reconstruct the parking lot along Cornelia Drive to improve vehicular access and circulation that supports expanded internal queueing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods. Enhance driveway crossings and internal sidewalk connectivity through and across the parking lot to limit conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Crossing Intersections Enhance crossing infrastructure at key locations to improve the safety and comfort of those walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as ensure they are not barriers for children to do so. Includes locations along 70th Street, Cornelia Drive, 72nd Street, and Claremore Drive. Connectivity to Walk, Roll, or Bike Key corridors do not have sidewalk or bicycle connections which hinders multimodal access to/from the school. Includes Claremore Drive, Cornelia Park, 70th Street, and other adjacent neighborhood streets. Creek Valley Elementary School Property Access and Circulation (all modes) Reconstruct the parking lot and access along Gleason Road to improve vehicular circulation that supports expanded internal queueing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods. Enhance driveway crossings and internal sidewalk connectivity through and across the school campus to limit conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Crossing Intersections & Uncontrolled Locations Enhance crossing infrastructure at key locations to improve the safety and comfort of those walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as ensure they are not barriers for children to do so. Includes locations along Gleason Road and the TH 62 interchange. Connectivity to Walk, Roll, or Bike Key corridors do not have sidewalk or bicycle connections which hinders multimodal access to/from the school. Includes Gleason Road, the school campus, and other adjacent neighborhood streets. Highlands Elementary Crossing Intersections & Uncontrolled Locations Enhance crossing infrastructure at key locations to improve the safety and comfort of those walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as ensure they are not barriers for children to do so. Includes locations along Ayrshire Boulevard and Doncaster Way. Connectivity to Walk, Roll, or Bike Key corridors do not have sidewalk or bicycle connections which hinders multimodal access to/from the school. Includes Ayrshire Boulevard, Vernon Avenue, the school campus, and other adjacent neighborhood streets. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION Project alternatives are based upon evaluated opportunities to improve or eliminate identified needs. Chapter 4 organizes potential improvements and project opportunities to address the high-level needs identified by the Study using the latest state and national guidance. Potential projects were vetted using engineering judgment and reviewed by both the City of Edina and Edina Public Schools. Crossing Improvements Potential crossing improvements were studied near each school at adjacent side-street stop-controlled, all- way stop-controlled, and signalized intersections, as well as uncontrolled locations where traffic control is free-flowing at a marked crossing. Infrastructure improvements could enhance each crossing and support a safer and more comfortable environment for children to cross. Crossing projects are further detailed in Chapter 5 and those that require further study, and are not included in Chapter 5, are noted as such. Multimodal Connectivity Shared-use path, sidewalk, and bicycle facility connections were considered for each school as a limited network surrounds each campus today. Infrastructure was reviewed using Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) and MnDOT’s Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) to determine the best route for sidewalk expansion or most comfortable bicycle option for all ages and abilities. This study evaluates other opportunities in addition to Edina’s plan to further expand and support SRTS around each school. Additional project details can be found for certain projects in Chapter 5 and those that require further study are noted. School Property Access and Circulation The Cornelia Elementary and Creek Valley Elementary parking lots were studied for potential redesign to improve access, circulation, and multimodal connectivity. The Cornelia Elementary alternatives were studied using an evaluation matrix to identify tradeoffs and a potentially favorable option. A proposed design from 2015 at Creek Valley Elementary was reviewed and updated accordingly per analysis completed for this study. The access operations, circulation, parking supply, and multimodal elements are further analyzed for both schools. Additional project details can be found in Chapter 5. PROPOSED PROJECTS This Study offers a range of potential projects including crossing enhancements and multimodal connectivity improvements around all three schools (see Table 1 and Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3). Potential redesign of parking lots to improve vehicular and multimodal safety and connectivity are also described for Cornelia Elementary and Creek Valley Elementary. Detailed summaries of each project are included in Chapter 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Table 1. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ID1 Location Project Type Description Estimated Cost2 P1 Cornelia Parking Lot Parking lot reconstruction. $355,000 P2 $595,000 P3 $600,000 C1 Cornelia Drive and 72nd Street Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop. $70,000 C2 Claremore Drive and Oaklawn Avenue Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop. $15,000 S1 Claremore Drive Sidewalk Construction of sidewalk from Oaklawn Avenue to Wooddale Avenue. $140,000 S2 Cornelia Park Shared-use Sidewalk Construction of shared-use sidewalk through Cornelia Park. $50,000 I1 TH 62 and Gleason Road Interchange Interchange Roadway geometry and crossing improvements at the interchange and approaches. $280,000 I2 $430,000 I3 $275,000 C1 Gleason Road and McCauley Trail Intersection Crossing upgrades to an uncontrolled crossing. $95,000 C2 Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop and access to the school. $30,000 S1 Creek Valley Shared-use Sidewalk Construction of shared-use sidewalk to school from Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. $100,000 S2 $45,000 S3 $110,000 S4 $30,000 P1 Creek Valley Parking Lot Parking lot reconstruction. $1,525,000 R1 Ayrshire Boulevard Intersection, Sidewalk Crossing upgrades to a side-street, stop- controlled intersection, and construction of sidewalk from Vernon Avenue to immediately north of Glenbrae Circle. $395,000 R2 $250,000 R3 $255,000 C1 Doncaster Way Intersection, Sidewalk Crossing upgrades and construction of sidewalk along school access. $140,000 S1 Highlands Shared-use Sidewalk Construction of shared-use sidewalk between the school and Ayrshire Boulevard. $50,000 1 Order does not denote priority. 2 Cost estimates for crossing infrastructure does not include pedestrian-scale lighting and were developed using the concept designs produced by SRF Consulting Group. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Potential Enhanced Crossing Potential RRFB Potential Bikeway: Protected Bike Lane or Shared-use Path Potential Sidewalk Potential ADA-compliance Upgrade Potential Bikeway: Bike Boulevard Potential Improvement not designed for this study or identiﬁed in a previous plan Improvement ID Focus School #Potential Safe Routes to School Projects Edina, MN Figure 1 Cornelia Elementary Dunberry Lane Andover Road Belvidere Lane Cornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol Boulevard72nd Street West Cornelia Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ft P1 P2 P3 S2 S1 Clare m o r e D r i v e C2 C1Wooddale Avenue70th Street West Mavelle Drive Review school speed zone signage for improvements Improvement designed for this study Potential enhanced crossing at Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive included with P1, P2, or P3.West Shore DriveSome sidewalk or bicycle infrastructure upgrades identiﬁed in the report are outside this map's viewshed.Kellogg Avenue Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Potential Safe Routes to School Projects Edina, MN Figure 2 62MINNESOTA *Intersection improvements could be coupled with the parking lot upgrades. Gl e a s o n R o a d I1 McCauley Trail I2 I3 C1 S1 P1 S4 P1 S2 S3 Nordic CircleP1 Creek Valley Road Potential Enhanced Crossing Potential Bikeway: Shared-use Path Potential Sidewalk Potential Bikeway: Bike Boulevard Potential Improvement not designed for this study or identiﬁed in a previous plan Improvement ID Focus School # Improvement designed for this study Potential RRFB C2* Review school speed zone signage for improvements Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ftGlengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Hansen RoadPotential Safe Routes to School Projects Edina, MN Figure 3 Glenbrae Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d 158 Highlands Elementary R1 R2 R3 S2S1Ayrshire Boulevard C1 Potential Enhanced Crossing Potential Bikeway: Protected Bike Lane or Shared-use Path Potential Bikeway: Buered Bike Lane Potential Sidewalk Potential Bikeway: Bike Boulevard Improvement ID Focus School # Review for potential enhanced crossing of CSAH 158 Potential Improvement not designed for this study or identiﬁed in a previous plan Improvement designed for this study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY NEXT STEPS This Study offers a range of potential infrastructure improvements to enhance access to Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary. Actionable next steps were organized to ensure this document is fully utilized and implemented to the best of the City of Edina and Edina School District’s ability.  Agency Coordination: Identify a champion and regularly coordinate within a small team that includes various agency and school district representatives, as well as other key area stakeholders.  Identify Priorities: Prioritized projects using the Study and small group discussion.  Focused Timeline and Action Plan: Create a timeline and action plan that identifies planned improvements, responsible parties, the estimated cost, and associated time period. The action plan will focus implementation, identify synergies with other planned projects, and allow agencies to be prepared for funding opportunities.  Celebrate wins! Doncaster Way crossing (top right), Cornelia Drive crossing (top right), Creek Valley Drive crossing (bottom). Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 ENGINEERING STUDY FRAMEWORK 10 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY ENGINEERING STUDY FRAMEWORK This engineering study is organized into six chapters outlined herein: Chapter 1: Introduction Study introduction and Safe Routes to School program background. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Analysis Outlines the quantitative and qualitative approach undertaken for the Study and foundational elements to support the planning process. Chapter 3: Issue Identification and Needs Summary Identifies issues and summarizes needs from the existing conditions analysis. Issues could include an unsafe crossing or sidewalk gap for example. Chapter 4: Alternative Evaluation Analyzes and evaluates potential infrastructure opportunities to address known issue areas. Potential improvements are identified within two broadly defined options. Chapter 5: Potential Projects Summarizes the potential transportation infrastructure improvements derived from the alternative evaluation into project fact sheets. Chapter 6: Next Steps Actionable next steps to organize project champions and implement the Study’s potential improvements. Of note, each Chapter of this report (excluding Chapters 1 and 6) will be divided into sub-sections describing each school’s applicable items. Each school functioned as a separate project during the planning process, therefore requiring such document organization. CHAPTER 1 – Introduction 11 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION STUDY BACKGROUND The Edina Safe Routes to School Engineering Study (herein known as “the Study”) sought to improve access to Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary for children to walk, roll, or bike safely, comfortably, and conveniently to each school, as well as for parents or guardians to efficiently drop-off or pick-up their child(ren) during peak arrival and dismissal periods. The Study’s objective was to complete a technical analysis of multimodal improvements on, or adjacent to, the school campuses, as well as identify parking lot improvements at two of the three schools. The Edina Safe Routes to School Engineering Study was led by Edina Public Schools and the City of Edina. It illustrates strategies and potential improvements as recommended by the Director of Building & Grounds and the City Engineer. The Study organizes needs and justifies potential improvements for future funding requests by the City of Edina and/or Edina Public Schools to implement the potential projects identified. WHAT IS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL? Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program that receives federal and state funding in Minnesota with the objective of increasing safety for children to walk, roll, or bike to school and encourage more active lifestyles through physical activity. The program began in 2005 with federal funding and has continued to receive support from all levels of government. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) administers the SRTS program in Minnesota which includes technical and programmatic support, as well as competitive grant funds for SRTS studies, programs, education, and infrastructure. The statewide program is guided by a five-year strategic plan that was completed in September 2020 with a vision for youth in Minnesota to safely, confidently, and conveniently walk, bike, and roll to school and in daily life.1 The Minnesota Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan was updated in the fall of 2020. It updates the 2015 Strategic Plan and establishes a five-year action plan for MnDOT, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Department of Education, and other participating agencies and partners. There are six overarching goals that guide the Strategic Plan, as well as a three-phase strategic planning process. Visit the Safe Routes to School webpage hosted by MnDOT for more information or to view the Strategic Plan. 1 MnDOT. (n.d.). About Safe Routes to School. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/about.html CHAPTER 1 – Introduction 12 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SRTS focuses on a multidisciplinary approach guided by the “6 E’s”:  Evaluation: Understand the issues that need to be addressed and the projects and/or programs of each of the following 5 E’s that could be most effective.  Education: Classes and activities that teach children (and their parents or guardians) pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety skills, the benefits of walking, rolling, or bicycling to school, the best route to get to school, and the positive impacts on personal health and the environment.  Encouragement: Events and activities that create interest in both students and parents to walk, roll, or bike to school.  Equity: Ensure that SRTS initiatives benefit all, with specific attention toward addressing barriers and inclusivity for lower-income students, students of color, and others that face ongoing disparities.  Enforcement: Strategies to deter unsafe behavior of drivers and other modes to encourage all road users to obey traffic laws and share the transportation network safely around schools.  Engineering: Infrastructure improvements designed to enhance the safety of children (and more broadly benefit parents, guardians, and/or community members) walking, rolling, bicycling, and driving along school routes. The Study focuses on the “engineering” component to enhance the built environment for children walking, rolling, or bicycling near schools in Edina. It was funded and supported by MnDOT to complete planning and conceptual design for local agencies and school districts across Minnesota. Source: Minnesota Department of Health CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 13 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Existing conditions data provides a foundation in which to identify issue areas, organize opportunities that attempt to resolve those issues, and summarize potential improvements. The following section outlines school- specific data and previous planning efforts, data analyzed for the existing transportation system, operations, and safety, and school circulation and accessibility. STUDY LOCATION AND FOCUS SCHOOLS Location The City of Edina is immediately southwest of Minneapolis in Hennepin County and has an estimated population of approximately 53,000 as of 2018. The study areas surrounding each of the three schools, Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary, are within the southeast, west, and north areas of the City, respectively. The following details each school’s location as well as the residential character and density. Residential density can be the precursor for a higher propensity to walk or bike; however, due to the suburban context density is less of an identifier as opposed to other elements such as broader multimodal connectivity and accessibility. Residential density can also provide insight into where children may be living, which is further organized using student enrollment data later in this document. Cornelia Elementary The study area is approximately one-third of a mile west of France Avenue, also known as Hennepin County State Aid Highway 17 (CSAH 17), and two-thirds of a mile east of Trunk Highway (TH) 100 (see Figure 4). The built environment surrounding the school is primarily residential with low- to medium-density single family housing and medium- to high-density multi-family housing (see Figure 5). The densest housing is located to the east and southeast of the school near France Avenue/CSAH 17. Creek Valley Elementary The study area is immediately south of the TH 62 and Gleason Road interchange (see Figure 6). The built environment surrounding the school is residential with primarily low- to medium-density single- family housing (see Figure 7). The densest housing is located north of TH 62. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 14 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Highlands Elementary The study area is approximately three-quarters of a mile west of TH 100 and immediately north of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 (see Figure 8). The built environment surrounding the school is residential with primarily low-density single-family housing and medium-density multi-family housing (see Figure 9). The densest housing is located east of the school, closer to TH 100. Cornelia Elementary School (top), Creek Valley Elementary (middle, and Highlands Elementary (bottom). Source: Google Streetview Focus School School Boundary Project Area and Focus School Edina, MN Figure 4 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane 70th Street West Andover Road West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueKellogg AvenueCornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Mavelle Drive Claremo r e D r i v e 72nd Street West Residential Population Focus School Higher Density Residential Population Lower Density Residential Population Edina, MN Figure 5 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft 70th Street West West 66th Street West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueCornelia DriveFrance Avenue SouthYork Avenue SouthMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Clarem o r e D r i v e 72nd Street West 17 31 100MINNESOTA Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Gl e a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Focus School School BoundaryProject Area and Focus School Edina, MN Figure 6 62MINNESOTA Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Indian Hills Pass Gl e a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Residential Population Focus School Higher Density Residential Population Lower Density Residential Population Edina, MN Figure 7 62MINNESOTA 158 Focus School School BoundaryProject Area and Focus School Edina, MN Figure 8 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Cir cle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadGlenbrae Circle 158 Highlands Elementary West 56th Street Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt CircleGa t e P a r k R o a d Vernon A v e n u e S o ut h Hansen RoadGle n b r a e C i r c l e Residential Population Focus School Higher Density Residential Population Lower Density Residential Population Edina, MN Figure 9 158 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 21 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Focus Schools The Edina Public School District No. 273 serves the City of Edina. As of 2020, the District had approximately 8,500 students, of which 1,796 students or over 20 percent of the district total attend one of the three focus schools. Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary are all kindergarten through 5th grade (see Table 2). Table 2. Focus Schools Overview Focus School Location Student Population School Day Arrival and Dismissal Times Cornelia Elementary West of Cornelia Drive and immediately south of 70th Street. 600 7:50 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. 7:25 to 7:50 a.m. and 2:25 to 2:45 p.m. Creek Valley Elementary East of Gleason Road and immediately south of TH 62. 616 7:50 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. 7:25 to 7:50 a.m. and 2:25 to 2:45 p.m. Highlands Elementary East of Doncaster Way and north of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158. 580 7:50 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. 7:25 to 7:50 a.m. and 2:25 to 2:45 p.m. Source: Edina Public Schools Student household location data identifies the potential SRTS benefit from enhanced multimodal infrastructure to/from the schools and is helpful toward understanding the routes students could use to access their respective school. Potential improvements for those key areas such as a busy intersection are important to ensure a location is not a barrier for children to access their school safely, comfortably, and conveniently. The location of where students live who are enrolled at one of the three focus schools was analyzed using data shared by the school district for the purposes of this Study. There are a total of 386 students among the three schools that live within one-half of a mile of their school, accounting for over 20 percent of enrollment. The school district uses a “neighborhood” format, though due to both the large catchment areas and primarily suburban context many students live outside of the walkshed. The densest student population nodes correspond with denser housing found near each school.  Cornelia Elementary: Over 40 percent of students (249) live within one-half of a mile of school. The high-density, multi-family apartment housing along France Avenue/CSAH 17 between roughly 72nd Street and 76th Street has the highest concentration (see Figure 10).  Creek Valley Elementary: Approximately seven percent of students (45) live within one-half of a mile of school. Low-density, single-family housing along Gleason Road between Valley View Road and Nordic Circle has a higher concentration (see Figure 11).  Highlands Elementary: Over 15 percent of students (92) live within one-half of a mile of school. The higher-density, multi-family apartment housing along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 between roughly Hansen Road and Eden Avenue has the highest concentration (see Figure 12). Student Population Focus School Higher Density Student Population Lower Density Student Population Edina, MN Figure 10 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft 70th Street West West 66th Street West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueCornelia DriveYork Avenue SouthMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Clarem o r e D r i v e 72nd Street West France Avenue South17 31 100MINNESOTA Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ft Student Population Focus School Higher Density Student Population Lower Density Student Population Edina, MN Figure 11 Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary Indian Hills Pass Gl e a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road 62MINNESOTA 158 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Student Population Focus School Higher Density Student Population Lower Density Student Population Edina, MN Figure 12 Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Vernon A v e n u e S o ut h 158 West 56th Street Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt CircleGa t e P a r k R o a d Vernon A v e n u e S o ut h Hansen RoadGle n b r a e C i r c l e CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 25 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY PREVIOUS PLANS AND OTHER STUDIES A review of previous plans and ongoing studies was completed to identify supportive planning elements and synergies with this Study and included Edina’s Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Each plan was applied separately to the study area surrounding each school. The Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) plays a critical role in identifying and confirming multimodal infrastructure around each school. As the City’s guide for implementation of a pedestrian and bicycle network, it significantly informed areas of improvement for this Study. An important element of the plan is the Edina Twin Loops – All Ages and Abilities Network which would directly connect two of the three schools in the future (i.e., Cornelia Elementary and Creek Valley Elementary). This network would be designed and implemented with separated or protected infrastructure that will be low-stress and accessible for children, providing important linkages and supporting SRTS objectives. The plan also includes an infrastructure toolkit for implementing bicycle infrastructure and enhanced crossings that will be further reviewed and applied in Chapter 4. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks were reviewed within one-half mile of each school (blue circles) (see Figure 13). Figure 13. Future Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Network (half-mile buffer) CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 26 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) Cornelia Elementary Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018)  Located along the future Edina Twin Loops – All Ages and Abilities Network via upgrades along 70th Street and Cornelia Drive to a separated or protected facility.  Implement extension of bike lane along 70th Street from Bristol Boulevard, through the roundabout, to France Avenue.  Implement Neighborhood Slow Street/Bike Boulevard primarily along West Shore Drive.  Construct sidewalk along 72nd Street/Claremore Drive, Kellogg Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, Gilford Drive, and West Shore Drive. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 27 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)  Improve bicycle parking around the school at accessible locations.  Construct sidewalk along 72nd Street/Claremore Drive, Gilford Drive, and Kellogg Avenue.  Construct a sidewalk connection between Oaklawn Avenue and Parklawn Avenue to connect apartments with school. Requires acquisition of an easement from private property owners.  Reduce width of parking lot access points to improve safety.  Add a crossing guard at each of the three intersections along Cornelia Drive from 70th Street to 72nd Street. Creek Valley Elementary Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018)  Located along the future Edina Twin Loops – All Ages and Abilities Network via upgrades along Gleason Road and McCauley Trail to a separated or protected facility.  Implement a buffered bike lane north of TH 62 along Gleason Road/CSAH 158 and Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158.  Implement Neighborhood Slow Street/Bike Boulevard along Indian Hills Road and Dakota Trail.  Construct sidewalk along Gleason Road/CSAH 158 north of TH 62, Indian Hills Pass, Indian Hills Road, Creek Valley Road, and Dakota Trail. Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)  Improve bicycle parking around the school at accessible locations.  Add a crossing guard at two intersections along Gleason Road at Indian Hills Pass and Creek Valley Road. Highlands Elementary Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018)  Implement buffered bike lanes along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 and Tracy Avenue.  Construct sidewalk along Ayrshire Boulevard, Doncaster Way, Glengarry Parkway, Mirror Lakes Drive, and Dundee Road. Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)  Improve bicycle parking around the school at accessible locations.  Obtain an easement and construct a sidewalk connection between Ayrshire Boulevard immediately north of Glenbrae Circle to the northeast corner of the school. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 28 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (PARENT SURVEY) The school district has engaged with parents at the three schools in the past to identify walking and bicycling demand and perceived issues for children to be able to access their school by those transportation modes. A survey has not been administered by the school district since 2013. More frequent data collection is recommended to better track issues and needs. Though the data’s value has decreased with age, it was still reviewed as a part of this study to identify general themes. A total of 76 survey responses were received as a part of the reporting process by the school district (see Appendix A for raw data). Typical Mode by Student Most students take the school bus to arrive and depart from their school. However, several students at two of the three schools walk or bike to access their school (see Figure 14). There is a higher percentage of students at Cornelia Elementary who walk to/from school as compared to Creek Valley Elementary. No children used alternative modes to access Highlands Elementary; however, this has likely changed since 2013. There is some desire by students to walk or bike to/from their school with an estimated 56 percent, 74 percent, and 36 percent asking for permission from their parents to do so at Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary, respectively. Figure 14. Typical Mode by Student Source: Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan, 2013 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary Highlands Elementary Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary Highlands Elementary Morning Afternoon Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 29 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Perception of Walking/Bicycling to School A parent’s perception will either allow or prohibit their child (or children) from walking, rolling, or bicycling to/from school (see Figure 15). Understanding trends from this survey question aids in the identification of issues and organization of project alternatives that could improve these perceptions. Parents largely agree on the key perceived issues for their children. The top four perceptions are the same for all three schools, of which all directly apply to infrastructure improvements including:  implementing upgrades that balance walking and bicycling with traffic volumes  safety improvements at intersections and crossings  addressing vehicular speed  implementing multimodal connections via sidewalks or trails Figure 15. Parent Perception of Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling to School Source: Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan, 2013 A child’s age is another factor a parent or guardian may consider when allowing their children to walk, roll, or bike to/from school. By the end of their children’s education at all three schools (i.e., 5th grade) 64 percent, 78 percent, and 32 percent of parents would allow them to travel by an alternative mode to/from the Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary, respectively. This illustrates that with infrastructure improvements and other educational and programmatic opportunities, there is interest from students and potential approval by parents to participate in SRTS. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80% Amount of Traffic Along Route Safety of Intersections and Crossings Speed of Traffic Along Route Sidewalks or Trails Distance Weather Accompanied by Adults After School Programs Crime Time Crossing Guards Covenience of Driving Highlands Elementary Creek Valley Elementary Cornelia Elementary CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 30 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK The transportation network was reviewed to identify existing infrastructure for walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as driving on, or adjacent to, the three school campuses. The review includes multimodal facilities such as sidewalks, bike lanes, and marked crossings, as well as school access and connectivity for all transportation modes. This section summarizes each element as it exists today for each focus school. Note the following items regarding the transportation network analysis that are consistent for all schools:  Sidewalk Connectivity: Due to the time in which the City of Edina primarily developed (i.e., post- WWII and before new urbanism in the 2000s), a sidewalk network was not fully developed with most streets absent of sidewalk entirely. Sidewalk connectivity is focused along busier streets with some short segments along lower volume roadways. Since 2013, the City has implemented over ten miles of sidewalk, while also upgrading facilities and planning for a more complete network. The sidewalk proposed in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan has nearly all been implemented while a vision has been set by the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan to further expand the network which this Study incorporates and expands upon.  Pedestrian and Bicyclist Activity: Multimodal activity was studied at each crossing; however, pedestrian and bicyclist counts were not collected as a part of this Study. The frequency for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross at specific intersections surrounding each school was studied using StreetLight. The data does not provide raw counts but rather an estimated level of use that can identify areas of higher activity. The data is organized using app-based locational cell phone data that is anonymized and organized by StreetLight using proprietary algorithms. Activity is estimated using this data and normalized using sample trip counts and Census Block population. StreetLight data can assist in identifying locations with higher usage, which can aid in the prioritization of improvements.  Bicyclist Level of Traffic Stress: Bicycle LTS (i.e., perceived comfort and safety) is a measure of how bicycle infrastructure aligns with roadway design, traffic volumes, and vehicular speeds to create an accessible and comfortable environment for those of all ages and abilities. Protected or separated infrastructure is ideal for children along most corridors other than local streets that are low-volume and speed. Bicycle stress is a consideration at intersections and other crossings as well, to ensure a corridor is accessible along its entirety. Source: Bicycle Selection Guide (2019), Federal Highway Administration CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 31 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY  Functional Classification: Functional classification is the grouping of roadways into classes that define how the roadway serves vehicular travel within the broader roadway network. Local roadways service short, localized trips, while collector roadways provide key connections between local streets and the regional arterial network. The City of Edina also has city-specific functional classification for certain streets that differs from MnDOT or Hennepin County. That local classification was included for all schools in this Study to align with the Edina Comprehensive Plan (2020). The city-specific classifications include minor collector and local collector.  Traffic Volumes: Average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes were analyzed along most corridors surrounding each school using one of two data methods. For state-aid roadways, MnDOT’s publicly available data was used. For non-state aid roadways, StreetLight traffic volume data was used. This data includes hourly and daily traffic volumes from 2019 and focuses on weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday) during the months when school was in session. The data is collected the same way as the pedestrian and bicycle volumes using anonymized app-based cell phone locational data and applied using proprietary algorithms. Traffic volumes play a key role in determining appropriate multimodal infrastructure such as a bike lane versus multiuse trail or the type of pedestrian and bicycle crossing treatments (e.g., the threshold for a rectangular rapid flashing beacon). Intersection turning movement counts (TMCs) at all intersections near each school were also collected using StreetLight due to the COVID-19 pandemic that significantly impacted traffic volumes and travel patterns in 2020. 70th Street and Cornelia Drive intersection looking north. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 32 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Cornelia Elementary The following describes the existing transportation conditions at Cornelia Elementary (see Figure 16). Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling Sidewalk connectivity exists along key corridors near the school, though is more limited within the broader network. Sidewalk connectivity is focused along busier streets such as 70th Street (along both sides) and Cornelia Drive (along one-side). Some short sidewalk segments also exist along one-side of nearby streets including 72nd Avenue, Oaklawn Avenue, and Mavelle Drive. Marked crossings exist at four intersections adjacent to the school, including:  70th Street and Cornelia Drive (traffic signal): High Estimated Activity  Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive (side-street, stop-controlled): Medium Estimated Activity  72nd Street and Cornelia Drive (all-way, stop- controlled): Medium Estimated Activity  72nd Street/Claremore Drive and Oaklawn Avenue (all-way, stop-controlled): Medium- Low Estimated Activity A marked, uncontrolled crossing of 70th Street at Wooddale Avenue is also present. The crossing has push button-activated auburn flashers, as well as advanced warning signage. Other marked crossings exist along 70th Street at signalized intersections, such as West Shore Drive, as well as the single-lane roundabout at Valley View Road. All existing marked crossings could be potential barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely and comfortably to Cornelia Elementary due to the traffic volumes, crossing widths, and/or uncontrolled crossing infrastructure. Bicycle infrastructure including bike lanes and signed bike route exist along 70th Street and Cornelia Drive (north of 70th Street), respectively. Both connections could be higher stress due to traffic volumes or speeds, especially along 70th Street, and may not be accessible for children to utilize. Sidewalk along Cornelia Drive looking north. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 33 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Roadway Network The school property is surrounded by 70th Street to the north, Cornelia Drive to the east, 72nd Street/ Claremore Drive to the south, and Kellogg Avenue to the west (see Figure 16). The 70th Street corridor provides east-west connectivity across most of Edina, and into neighboring Richfield. It is a key connection between the regional commercial retail and office district along France Avenue/CSAH 17 and TH 100. Cornelia Drive and 72nd Street are also important local connectors to access the school from 70th Street or France Avenue/CSAH 17. All roadways are urban in context (i.e., curb and gutter). An analysis of each surrounding roadway was performed, highlighting key items such as the functional classification, roadway cross-section, AADT volume, and posted speed limits (see Table 3). Table 3. Cornelia Elementary Roadway Network Overview Street Functional Class Number of Lanes Width (ft) On-Street Parking AADT1 Posted Speed2 School Zone 70th Street Major Collector 2 + left turn lanes 40 Intermident north side 10,300 (2015) 25 mph 20 mph Cornelia Drive Local Collector 2 30 Both sides4 1,500 30 mph 15 mph 72nd Street / Claremore Drive3 Local Collector 2 30 Both sides 2,100 / 1,100 30 mph N/A Kellogg Avenue Local 2 30 Both sides 200 30 mph N/A 1 AADT without a year included is derived using Streetlight estimates, while all those with years are produced by MnDOT. 2 Default posted speed limits on Edina city streets are 30 mph unless otherwise signed. 3 72nd Street becomes Claremore Drive at Oaklawn Avenue as the roadway turns to the northwest. 4 Parking is restricted to the east side of Cornelia Drive from 70th Street to 300 feet south of Mavelle Drive. Source: MnDOT, City of Edina, SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Of note, a review of historic AADT volumes over the last twenty years along 70th Street showed that traffic volumes have decreased over 40 percent. This decrease has occurred even with increased development nearby. The change in travel behavior is expected to continue. Existing traffic operations were studied using TMC volumes at all intersections immediately surrounding the school (see Figure 17 and Figure 18). Additional review of driveway operations for accessing the school campus are described in the following section. Adjacent intersections experience some congestion for brief periods of time during the peak morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. All intersections operate at a level of service (LOS) A or B during both peak periods which means the traffic volume, number of travel lanes, and intersection traffic controls provide adequate capacity for the area. The LOS, which is dictated by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Capacity Manual, does not account for brief congestion (less than 15 minutes) or queuing. Focus School Existing SidewalkSchool Crossing Sign Trac Signal Pedestrian Flashing Beacon Roundabout Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection Marked Crosswalk STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY Existing Transportation Network Existing Bike Lane Existing Signed Bike Route Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardCornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Kellogg AvenueSTOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOP ALL WAY STOPSTOP ALL WAY SPEED LIMIT25 SPEED LIMIT20 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT20 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT25 SPEED LIMIT15 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT30 Cornelia Drive70th Street West Mavelle Drive Edina, MN Figure 16 Claremo r e D r i v e SPEED LIMIT15 SCHOOL 72nd St. W. Existing Turning Movement Counts Focus School Morning School Peak Hour Volume # Afternoon School Peak Hour Volume (#) Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection Trac Signal STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAYEdina, MN Figure 17 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane 70th Street West Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveClaremore DriveKellogg AvenueCornelia DriveHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Claremore Drive 10 11795 (13) (265)(76)131916(17)(17)(15)17259 100 598052(48)(20)(22)(27)(277) (40) STOP 6 18 (1) (6)3214(28)(21)1335 30 529(61)(5) (18)16846(84)(49)STOP2258(4)(48)2 2052(6)9(22) STOP210(0)(6)09(0)(17) 17 15 (11) (17) 172(23)(3)250(6)(24)3016 (22)(46) 50304 (9)(47)(19)91437(18)(5)(31)15 520 779(2) (38)(7)(3)(7)(2)(28)(8)(4)(14)72nd Street West STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOPSTOP ALL WAY 70th St. W.Cornelia Dr.School Entry Cornelia Dr.STOP Mavelle Dr.School Exit Cornelia Dr.STOPCornelia Dr.School Access STOPSTOP ALL WAY Claremore Dr.Oaklawn Ave.STOPSTOP ALL WAY W 72nd St.Cornelia Dr.Claremore Dr.Kellogg Ave.STOP Existing Trac Conditions AADT A or B Level of Service C D E or F Overall Intersection Worst Movement Morning Afternoon # Edina, MN Figure 18 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane 70th Street West Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueKellogg AvenueGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Mavelle Drive 10,300 1,100 1,500 1,100 2,700 9,200 Claremo r e D r i v e 72nd Street West CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 37 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Creek Valley Elementary The following describes the existing transportation conditions at Creek Valley Elementary (see Figure 19). Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling Sidewalk connectivity exists primarily along Gleason Road near the school and is very limited within the broader network. Gleason Road’s sidewalk is along only the east side of the roadway north of Creek Valley Road and along both sides to the south (though the west side is not well-maintained and does not have a buffer present). A short sidewalk segment is also located within the school property along Creek Valley Road. Marked crossings exist at four intersections adjacent to the school, including:  Gleason Road and TH 62 EB Ramps (side-street, stop-controlled): Medium-Low Estimated Activity  Gleason Road and TH 62 WB Ramps (side-street, stop-controlled): Medium-Low Estimated Activity  Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass (all-way, stop-controlled): High Estimated Activity  Gleason Road and Creek Valley Drive (all-way, stop-controlled): Medium Estimated Activity Of note, the City plans to implement a marked, uncontrolled crossing of Gleason Road at McCauley Trail in 2022. The crossing has medium estimated activity today and will provide a key connection to a planned share- use path along McCauley Trail. Additional analysis of this crossing is described in Chapter 4. All existing marked crossings could be potential barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely and comfortably to Creek Valley Elementary due to the traffic volumes, crossing widths, and/or uncontrolled crossing infrastructure. Bicycle infrastructure includes the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail which travels behind the school campus though does not directly connect to the school. The trail could provide connectivity to the school campus from the east and north, as well as to the Valley View Middle School and Edina High School campus if connections were improved. The paved trail travels nearly 15 miles between Minnetonka, Edina, and Richfield. Gleason Road adjacent to the school and looking north. Source: Google Streetview CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 38 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Roadway Network The school property is surrounded by TH 62 to the north, Nordic Circle to the east, Creek Valley Road to the south, and Gleason Road to the west (see Figure 19). The Gleason Road corridor provides north-south connectivity across the western portion of Edina and serves as a key connection to TH 62. All roadways are urban in context (i.e., curb and gutter). An analysis of each surrounding roadway was performed, highlighting key items such as the functional classification, roadway cross-section, AADT volumes, and posted speed limits (see Table 4). Table 4. Creek Valley Elementary Roadway Network Overview Street Functional Class Number of Lanes Width (ft) On-Street Parking AADT1 Posted Speed2 School Zone Gleason Road Major Collector 23 36 No parking 8,100 (2014) 30 mph 20 mph Creek Valley Road Local 2 30 Both sides 800 30 mph 20 mph Nordic Circle Local 2 30 Both sides Less than 500 30 mph 20 mph 1 AADT without a year included is derived using Streetlight estimates, while all those with years are produced by MnDOT. 2 Default posted speed limits on Edina city streets are 30 mph unless otherwise signed. 3 Gleason Road is four-lane, undivided for approximately 1,000 feet from McCauley Trail to the westbound TH 62 ramp. Source: MnDOT, City of Edina, SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Of note, a review of historic AADT volumes since 1997 along Gleason Road south of TH 62 showed that traffic volumes had largely remained the same. Historic AADT volumes collected at the TH 62 interchange and north, most recently in 2018, showed moderate increases with fluctuates in recent years between 10,000 and 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd). These increases could be tied to congestion along TH 62 and potential diversion. Existing traffic operations were studied using TMC volumes at all intersections immediately surrounding the school (see Figure 20 and Figure 21). Additional review of driveway operations for accessing the school campus are described in the following section. Adjacent intersections experience congestion for brief periods of time during the peak morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. The worst congestion is primarily concentrated along Gleason Road from McCauley Trail (LOS D) through the two intersections at the TH 62 interchange (LOS F) which largely drives the area’s congestion. The other three intersections along Gleason Road near the school operate at a LOS C, which illustrates some delay due to peak period congestion. During the afternoon peak period, all intersections operate at a LOS A or B except at the eastbound ramp intersection at TH 62. Unacceptable traffic operations under existing conditions are likely because of limited gaps in traffic along Gleason Road coupled with the side-street, stop-control at the TH 62 interchange. Additional analysis of the existing traffic controls is described in Chapter 4. Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Focus School Existing Sidewalk School Crossing Sign Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection Marked Crosswalk STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY Existing Transportation Network Existing Multiuse TrailEdina, MN Figure 19 Gleason RoadSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOPSTOP ALL WAY SPEED LIMIT20 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT15 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT20 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT20 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT30 SPEED LIMIT30 62MINNESOTA STOP SPEED LIMIT30 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Existing Turning Movement Counts Focus School Morning School Peak Hour Volume# Afternoon School Peak Hour Volume(#) Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAYEdina, MN Figure 20 330 64 (87)(2) (58)292374(135)(156)159373(100)(233)O-RampOn-Ramp CSAH 15862MINNESOTA36474(143)(71)1861562 (148)(2)(84)346105(185)(63)On-RampO-Ramp Gleason Rd.CSAH 15886440(50)(177)669(23)(5)2385(6)(225)McCauley Tr. W.Gleason Rd.4 14 (14) (2)(14)2739032(37)(141)(4)775 17 (28)(1) (10)103062(5)(189)(4)School AccessIndian Hills Pass Gleason Rd.13447(30)(55)38031(105)(60)184150(168)(25)School Access Gleason Rd.444 13 (37)(0) (9)641110(1)(154)(5)70 5 (11)(2) (4)52838(3)(145)(11)Creek Valley Rd.Cherokee Trail Gleason Rd.STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP Indian Hills Pass STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOP STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOPSTOP ALL WAY Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Gle a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Existing Trac Conditions AADT A or B Level of Service C D E or F Overall Intersection Worst Movement Morning Afternoon # Edina, MN Figure 21 10,200 85,000 8,100 62MINNESOTA CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 42 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Highlands Elementary The following describes the existing transportation conditions at Highlands Elementary (see Figure 22). Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling Sidewalk connectivity exists along key corridors near the school, though is more limited within the broader network. Sidewalk connectivity is focused along busier streets such as Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 (along both sides, though there is only intermittent buffer, and the east side is not well maintained) and Tracy Avenue (along one-side). Short sidewalk segments also exist along one- side of nearby streets including Doncaster Way and Ayrshire Boulevard (to be upgraded in 2021). Marked crossings exist at four intersections adjacent to the school, including:  Vernon Avenue and Ayrshire Boulevard (side- street, stop-controlled): High Estimated Activity  Doncaster Way and School Entrance/Exit (side- street, stop-controlled): High Estimated Activity  Ayrshire Boulevard and Doncaster Way (side-street, stop-controlled): Medium-Low Estimated Activity  Vernon Avenue and Tracy Avenue (traffic signal): Low Estimated Activity No marked crossing, controlled or uncontrolled, are present across Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 between Tracy Avenue and Eden Avenue which is an approximately 4,300-foot gap. Due to this, Vernon Avenue /CSAH 158 serves as a barrier for north-south multimodal connectivity within the surrounding neighborhoods and to destinations including the school, as well as Garden Park and Highlands Park which are south and north of the corridor, respectively. Tracy Avenue serves as the only controlled crossing approximately 300 feet west of a 50-foot segment of sidewalk that connects Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 with Doncaster Way. All existing marked crossings could be potential barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely and comfortably to Highlands Elementary due to the traffic volumes, crossing widths, and/or uncontrolled crossing infrastructure. The only bicycle infrastructure nearby are bike lanes along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158. This connection is high-stress due to existing traffic volumes and speeds and is not accessible for children to use. Sidewalk along the school entrance/exit looking west. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 43 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Roadway Network The school property is surrounded by Ayrshire Boulevard to the north and east, Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 to the south, and Doncaster Way to the west (see Figure 22). The Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 corridor provides connectivity between TH 100 and TH 62 along a roughly northeast to southwest alignment. It is a key connection between the commercial retail and office district at TH 100 and 50th Street, and points west. Doncaster Way and Ayrshire Boulevard are also important local connectors to access the school from Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158. All roadways are urban in context (i.e., curb and gutter). An analysis of each surrounding roadway was performed, highlighting key items such as the functional classification, roadway cross-section, AADT volumes, and posted speed limits (see Table 5). Table 5. Highlands Elementary Roadway Network Overview Street Functional Class Number of Lanes Width (ft) On-Street Parking AADT1 Posted Speed2 School Zone Vernon Avenue / CSAH 158 Minor Arterial 2 + left turn lanes 45 No parking 12,400 (2018) 40 mph N/A Doncaster Way Local Collector 2 30 Both sides 1,100 30 mph 15 mph Ayrshire Boulevard Local Collector 2 30, 1003 Both sides 700 30 mph N/A 1 AADT without a year included is derived using Streetlight estimates, while all those with years are produced by MnDOT. 2 Default posted speed limits on Edina city streets are 30 mph unless otherwise signed. 3 An approximate 750-foot segment for Vernon Avenue to Glenbrae Circle exists with a large, landscaped median and wide, one-way travel lanes. Source: MnDOT, City of Edina, SRF Consulting Group Of note, a review of historic AADT volumes over the last twenty years along Vernon Avenue/CSHA 158 showed that traffic volumes have decreased nearly 20 percent. This coincides with the surrounding context of established neighborhoods. The change in travel behavior is expected to continue. Existing traffic operations were studied using TMC volumes at all intersections immediately surrounding the school (see Figure 23 and Figure 24). Additional review of driveway operations for accessing the school campus are described in the following section. Adjacent intersections experience some congestion for brief periods of time during the peak morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. All intersections operate at a LOS A or B during both peak periods which means the traffic volume, number of travel lanes, and intersection traffic controls provide adequate capacity for the area. One movement, southbound on Ayrshire Boulevard at Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158, operates at a LOS C which illustrates some delay. This is likely due to limited gaps in traffic along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 coupled with the side-street, stop-control at the intersection. The LOS, which is dictated by the FHWA’s HCM, does not account for brief congestion (less than 15 minutes) or queuing. SPEED LIMIT30 STOP STOP Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadFocus School Existing Sidewalk School Crossing Sign Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection Marked Crosswalk STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPExisting Transportation Network Existing Bike Lanes Trac SignalEdina, MN Figure 22 STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP SPEED LIMIT25 SPEED LIMIT40 SPEED LIMIT40 SPEED LIMIT30 SPEED LIMIT15 SCHOOL SPEED LIMIT15 SCHOOL Glenbrae Circle 158 Trac Signal 77277177 (36)(221)(107)764(7)(9)(18)26 37752 376085(30)(34)(124)(5) (249)(34) STOP 11464(25)(337)6735(27)(44)5 466 (11) (375)STOP 10 (108)1319(34)(23)5980(9)(66)STOP 7 811 (2) (13)(11)232(5)(9)(0)4 843 728102(51)(1)(65)(0) (6)(37) Existing Turning Movement Counts Focus School Morning School Peak Hour Volume# Afternoon School Peak Hour Volume (#) Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAYEdina, MN Figure 23 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadGlenbrae Circle 158 STOP STOP STOP Ayrshire Blvd.Doncaster WayVernon Ave. S.Merritt Cir.School AccessDoncaster WayAyrshire Blvd.Vernon Ave. S. 1,600 12,400 3,650 10,700 Doncaster WayExisting Trac Conditions AADT A or B Level of Service C D E or F Overall Intersection Worst Movement Morning Afternoon 1,100 700 # Edina, MN Figure 24 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayChantrey RoadMerritt Cir cle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadGlenbrae Circle 158 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 47 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SCHOOL ACCESS AND SITE OPERATIONS Vehicular access to school property is important for family vehicle drop-off and pick-up, as well as school buses, staff, and teachers. Access and site operations are key toward limiting barriers, such as inadequate accommodation of drop-off and pick-up activity and ensuring acceptable site operations. Unacceptable site operations could create safety hazards as well as spillover congestion to surrounding streets and impact pedestrian or bicyclist safety. It is critical to balance vehicular improvements with multimodal enhancements to ensure driving is not over- incentivized in lieu of walking or bicycling. Environmental and health benefits are key SRTS objectives directly supported by expanded multimodal access and connectivity. The following sections describe access locations and operations, and parking lot circulation for the three focus schools. Cornelia Elementary and Creek Valley Elementary were analyzed in greater detail in Chapter 4 as both schools identified a need for improved access and parking facilities. The following school access and site operation analysis items are consistent for each school:  Access Volumes: The estimated volumes at each driveway were derived using a combination of MnDOT’s AADT volumes, StreetLight traffic volume estimates, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition. The ITE manual uses decades of data collection to produce peak hour and daily vehicular estimates for a variety of land uses (e.g., single-family home, fast-casual food establishment, elementary school, etc.) within primarily urban or suburban contexts. The elementary school land use produces peak hour vehicle count estimates for schools based upon student enrollment and then cross-referenced to the other traffic volume data sources.  School Bus Policy: Edina Public Schools provides school bus transportation to students who live outside of 0.7 miles for elementary schools (grades K-5) and one-mile for secondary schools (grades 6-12). Bus transportation is offered to those who live within those thresholds via the District’s Pay- to-Ride program. The annual cost as of 2020 is $350 per student or a family cap of $525. Cornelia Elementary exit looking east. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 48 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Cornelia Elementary The following describes existing access and circulation conditions at Cornelia Elementary (see Figure 25). Drop-off and Pick-up Activity Drop-off and pick-up accessibility, design, and operations are a key component of this Study for Cornelia Elementary. The 2020 enrollment is 600 students and typically up to 25 percent may be dropped off in the morning or picked-up in the afternoon on a given day. Therefore, the school is a significant generator of traffic in the area and may contribute up to an estimated 25 percent of the vehicles per day along Cornelia Drive. This is corroborated by parent surveys which assist in estimating mode share, as well as the ITE vehicular trip generation estimates. Access and Circulation The current configuration of access and circulation is not adequate during peak school periods for the volume of drop-offs and pick-ups occurring. The school uses one-way entrance and exit driveways to circulate counterclockwise past the main entrance so a child may exit or enter the vehicle directly from the sidewalk.  Entrance: Approximately 100-feet south of 70th Street along Cornelia Drive. The entrance is 120 feet wide and has a wide turning radius which allows motorists to turn into the school campus at a high rate of speed. In August 2020, the school district changed access by restricting northbound left- turns using jersey barriers which limited access to only southbound right-turns via 70th Street. This was implemented by request from the school’s principal due to concerns regarding northbound vehicles cutting into the queue which created safety concerns. Moreover, most vehicles access the school via 70th Street already thereby limiting disruption via the new access controls.  Exit: Exit-only driveway at the Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive intersection. The driveway is side- street, stop-controlled with three turn lanes providing left, through, and right-turn movements. The driveway is 80-feet wide and can be busy during arrival and dismissal periods. Due to the design and width of the driveways, multimodal access and safety is very limited during the peak periods before and after school. Turning speeds, as well as inattention and unsafe decision making by motorists, exacerbates the problem. Additionally, internal queueing capacity is inadequate under existing conditions due to the one-way circulation and location of the two access points. Access Operations The two access points can experience some congestion during the peak arrival and dismissal periods under existing conditions. The driveways operate at a level of service (LOS) A or B during both peak periods which means the traffic volume, number of travel lanes, and intersection traffic controls provide adequate capacity for the parking lot. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 49 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The outcome of this analysis shows that up to 170 vehicles are estimated to access the school during the morning peak period. This can create queues that extend onto Cornelia Drive and toward the 70th Street intersection. In the afternoon, the vehicle estimates are less due to a variety of factors including after school programs. The queues reduce slightly during dismissal, though queueing still exceeds internal capacity. School Bus Approximately 60 percent of students take the school bus in the morning or afternoon. School buses park in the far southwest corner of the parking lot. Parking The existing supply of parking in the off-street lots at Cornelia Elementary is 125 spaces. Parking capacity was considered in the alternative analysis of three potential parking lot designs in this Study to improve site access and operations which are detailed in Chapter 4. Along with school site operations, parking is another opportunity to balance demand while providing enough supply to ensure school access is not severely impacted. Thoughtful balancing of supply by estimated demand can manage modal priorities and incentivize walking, rolling, or bicycling. Cornelia Elementary drop-off/pick-up access looking south toward the main entrance. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Existing School Circulation and Access Focus School Main Entrance Peak Trac Queue Edina, MN Figure 25 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane 70th Street West Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueKellogg AvenueCornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Mavelle Drive School Bus Circulation Parent Circulation Parking Lot Circulation Cornelia Elementary AM Queue: 100 feet PM Queue: 150 feet Cornelia Elementary AM Queue: 225 feet PM Queue: 175 feet AM Queue: 200 feetPM Queue: 150 feet AM Inbound: 170PM Inbound: 85 AM Outbound: 170 PM Outbound: 85 AM Inbound: 40 AM Outbound: 10 PM Inbound: 10 PM Outbound: 30 Claremo r e D r i v e 72nd Street West 1 1 Cornelia Parking Lot Access Parking Lot Access C 2 2 C C C CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 51 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Creek Valley Elementary The following describes existing access and circulation conditions at Creek Valley Elementary (see Figure 26). Drop-off and Pick-up Activity Drop-off and pick-up accessibility, design, and operations were one consideration for SRTS improvements around Creek Valley Elementary. The 2020 enrollment is 616 students and typically up to 30 percent may be dropped off in the morning or picked-up in the afternoon on a given day. Therefore, the school is a generator of traffic in the area and may contribute up to an estimated five percent of the vehicles per day along Gleason Road. This is corroborated by parent surveys which assist in estimating mode share, as well as the ITE vehicular trip generation estimates. Access and Circulation The current configuration of access and circulation for Creek Valley Elementary is not adequate during peak school periods for the volume of drop-offs and pick-ups occurring. The school uses one two-way entrance and exit driveway to circulate counterclockwise through a circular driveway so a child may exit or enter the vehicle directly from the sidewalk. The entrance/exit driveway is approximately 275 feet north of the Gleason Road and Creek Valley Drive intersection. The access point is 60-feet-wide and has a wide turning radius which allow motorists to turn into the driveway at a high rate of speed. Due to the design and width of the driveway, multimodal access and safety is very limited during the peak periods before and after school. Turning speeds, as well as inattention and unsafe decision making by motorists, exacerbates the problem. Access Operations The access point can experience some congestion during the peak arrival and dismissal periods under existing conditions. The driveway operates at a level of service (LOS) C during the morning period and LOS A or B during the afternoon. This means that in the morning there is some delay due to peak congestion along Gleason Road which creates limited gaps in traffic coupled with the side-street, stop-control. The outcome of this analysis shows that up to 180 vehicles are estimated to access the school during the morning peak period. This can create queues that extend to the driveway entrance and some queuing of vehicles turning into the school property along Gleason Road. In the afternoon, the vehicle estimates are less due to a variety of factors including after school programs. The queues are slightly less during dismissal, though some queueing continues to impact operations. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 52 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY School Bus Approximately two-thirds of students take the school bus in the morning and over 50 percent in the afternoon. The buses are accessible via the roundabout immediately in front of the main entrance. Parking The existing supply of parking is 109 spaces. Parking capacity was identified in the potential parking lot improvement detailed in Chapter 4, though it was not a consideration in the analysis. Creek Valley Elementary school access road looking east (top) and existing drop-off and pick-up access looking east (bottom). Source: Google Streetview Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Gle a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Existing School Circulation and Access Focus School Parking Lot Circulation Main Entrance Peak Trac Queue Edina, MN Figure 26 Bus and Sta Circulation Route Parent Circulation Route AM Queue: 150 feet PM Queue: 75 feet AM Inbound: 180AM Outbound: 180PM Inbound: 85PM Outbound: 85 62MINNESOTA AM Inbound: 35 AM Outbound: 10 PM Inbound: 10 PM Outbound: 30 1 1 2 2 Creek Valley Parking Lot Access Parking Lot Access C C C CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 54 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Highlands Elementary The following describes existing access and circulation conditions at Highlands Elementary (see Figure 27). Drop-off and Pick-up Activity Drop-off and pick-up accessibility, design, and operations were studied, though not considered, for SRTS improvements at Highlands Elementary. The 2020 enrollment is 580 students and typically up to 25 percent may be dropped off in the morning or picked-up in the afternoon on a given day. Therefore, the school is a significant generator of traffic in the area and may contribute up to an estimated 25 percent of the vehicles per day along Doncaster Way. This is corroborated by parent surveys which assist in estimating mode share, as well as the ITE vehicular trip generation estimates. Access and Circulation The current configuration of access, circulation, and internal queueing capacity for Highlands Elementary is adequate during peak school periods for the volume of drop-offs and pick-ups occurring. The school uses one two-way entrance and exit driveway to circulate counterclockwise through a parking lot immediately south of the school so a child may exit or enter the vehicle directly from the sidewalk. The entrance/exit driveway is along Doncaster Way which is a low-volume, residential street. The access point is 50-feet-wide and has a wide turning radius which allow motorists to turn into the driveway at a high rate of speed. During peak periods, outbound vehicles are restricted to a right-turn only onto northbound Doncaster Way and must circulate through the neighborhood via Ayrshire Boulevard. The driveway has two inbound travel lanes to divide those accessing the front parking lot versus the drop-off/pick-up area. Due to the design and width of the driveway, multimodal access and safety is very limited during the peak periods before and after school. Turning speeds, as well as inattention and unsafe decision making by motorists, exacerbates the problem. Access Operations The access point can experience some congestion during the peak arrival and dismissal periods under existing conditions. The driveways operate at a level of service (LOS) A or B during both peak periods which means the traffic volume, number of travel lanes, and intersection traffic controls provide adequate capacity for the parking lot. The outcome of this analysis shows that up to 210 vehicles are estimated to access the school during the morning peak period which includes parents or guardians, as well as teachers and school staff. In the afternoon, the vehicle estimates are less due to a variety of factors including after school programs. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 55 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY School Bus Approximately 70 percent of students take the school bus in the morning or afternoon and access the bus via the main entrance. Parking The existing supply of parking in the off-street lot at Creek Valley Elementary is 109 spaces. Parking capacity improvements were not considered as a part of this Study. Access point to Highlands Elementary looking west (top) and drop-off/pick-up parking lot access (bottom). Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Existing School Circulation and Access Edina, MN Figure 27 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadGa t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadGlenbrae Circle 158 Focus School Main Entrance School Bus Circulation Parent Circulation Parking Lot Circulation 1 Highlands Parking Lot Access Parking Lot Access H 2 1 2AM Inbound: 210AM Outbound: 180PM Inbound: 90PM Outbound: 110 H CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 57 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SAFETY ANALYSIS Crash analysis is a critical piece of the existing conditions data review process. Analyzed crashes include ten years of vehicle-to-bicycle and vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes as well as all crashes over the last five years. Due to the multimodal focus of this Study, an additional five years of pedestrian and bicycle crash data was reviewed to provide a larger sample size of data. The manner of collision was also studied over the last five years which details the way in which the crash occurred (e.g., rear end). The data was derived from MnDOT’s Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2) and includes recorded crashes by law enforcement that provide crash details and approximate location. The following sections describe crashes immediately adjacent to each school campus. Source: streets.mn Cornelia Elementary Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2010-2019) No pedestrian or bicyclist crashes were recorded along streets near Cornelia Elementary. All Crashes (2015-2019) A total of seven crashes were recorded immediately surrounding the school, of which five occurred at, or within the vicinity, of the 70th Street and Cornelia Drive intersection (see Figure 28). The severity of all recorded crashes was either possible injury or property damage only (PDO). Four of the seven crashes were rear end crashes (see Figure 29). CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 58 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Creek Valley Elementary Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2010-2019) No pedestrian or bicyclist crashes were recorded along streets near Creek Valley Elementary. All Crashes (2015-2019) A total of 21 crashes were recorded immediately surrounding the school, of which 18 occurred at the TH 62 and Gleason Road interchange (see Figure 30). The intersection of Gleason Road and the TH 62 eastbound ramps had 11 crashes, of which one resulted in minor injuries. The time of day for most crashes was during the evening peak hours from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. It was noted during field review in the summer of 2020 that overgrown vegetation at this location severely limited sight distance for eastbound motorists attempting to turn onto Gleason Road. All remaining crashes recorded in the vicinity were either possible injury or PDO of which three occurred at the school entrances (two at Indian Hills Pass and one at the drop-off/pick-up access). Most crashes were rear end, with some sideswipe and right-angle crashes, which are consistent with side-street, stop-controlled intersections and involve a vehicle failing to yield to traffic along Gleason Road (see Figure 31). Highlands Elementary Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2010-2019) One bicyclist crash was recorded at Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 and Villa Way resulting in minor injuries (see Figure 32). The bicyclist was traveling southbound along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 when a vehicle turning out of Villa Way struck the bicyclist. The time of day was night, and the motorist did not see the bicyclist. All Crashes (2015-2019) A total of 17 crashes were recorded immediately surrounding the school (see Figure 33). Three of those resulted in minor injuries, while the remaining were either possible injury or PDO. Three crashes occurred at Hansen Road and Venon Avenue/CSAH 158 and are attributed to limited sight distance for vehicles turning from Hansen Road. This is attributed to the curvature of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 at this location which limits motorist sight distance, most notably of westbound vehicles. Otherwise, all other crashes were random in nature. Ten of the 17 crashes involved either a rear end or right-angle crash which are consistent with side- street, stop-controlled intersections and involve a vehicle failing to yield to traffic (see Figure 34). 70th Street West All Crashes by Severity (2015 - 2019) Edina, MN Figure 28 Cornelia Elementary School Focus School Fatal (0) Serious Injury (0) Minor Injury (0) Possible Injury (4) Property Damage Only (10) Unknown Severity (0) Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueKellogg AvenueCornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Claremo r e D r i v e 72nd Street West Focus School Angle (3) Front to Front (0) Front to Rear (8) Sideswipe (1) Other (2) All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) Edina, MN Figure 29 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Dunberry Lane 70th Street West Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueKellogg AvenueCornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Cornelia Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Kellogg AvenueClaremo r e D r i v e 72nd Street West All Crashes by Severity (2015 - 2019) Edina, MN Figure 30 Cornelia Elementary School Focus School Fatal (0) Serious Injury (0) Minor Injury (1) Possible Injury (3) Property Damage Only (16) Unknown Severity (1) Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Gl e a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Gl e a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road 62MINNESOTA Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Gl e a s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Focus School Angle (9) Front to Front (2) Front to Rear (6) Sideswipe (3) Other (1) All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) Edina, MN Figure 31 62MINNESOTA Pedestrian and Bike Crashes (2010 - 2019) Edina, MN Figure 32 Focus School Fatal (0) Serious Injury (0) Minor Injury (2) Possible Injury (0) Property Damage Only (0) Unknown Severity (0) Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadGlenbrae Circle 158 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadAll Crashes by Severity (2015 - 2019) Edina, MN Figure 33 Focus School Fatal (0) Serious Injury (0) Minor Injury (3) Possible Injury (1) Property Damage Only (12) Unknown Severity (0) Glenbrae Circle 158 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadFocus School Angle (3) Front to Front (0) Front to Rear (7) Sideswipe (0) Other (6) All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) Edina, MN Figure 34 Glenbrae Circle 158 Page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 3 – Issue Identification and Needs Summary 66 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 3: ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND NEEDS SUMMARY The next step in the planning process includes the application of existing conditions data to understand issues that will highlight areas of need. Those locations will be the focus of the Study to devise opportunities to develop project solutions for the three focus schools. IDENTIFIED TRANSPORTATION ISSUES The access, circulation, and/or multimodal transportation issues include broad themes to devise key needs for further consideration at Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary (see Figure 35, Figure 36, and Figure 37). Issue Description Cornelia Creek Valley Highlands #1 Parking lot access causes safety and operational issues within school property and adjacent roadways during peak periods. The width and design of driveways does not support multimodal connectivity or comfort. Parking lot circulation is inefficient, contributing to limited internal queueing capacity which exacerbates safety and operational issues. #2 Intersections adjacent, or near, the school campus represent a barrier for children to walk, roll, or bike safely or comfortably to the school. Some have marked crosswalks; however, lack other enhancements. #3 Gaps in the sidewalk or bicycle network exist which hinder convenient multimodal access to the school. Identiﬁed Issues Focus School Identiﬁed multimodal issueEdina, MN Figure 35 Cornelia Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ft Andover Road Belvidere Lane West Shore DriveWooddale AvenueKellogg AvenueCornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol BoulevardMavelle Drive Dunberry Lane 70th Street West Limited neighborhood sidewalk network within 1/2 mile of the school. Lack of low-stress bike connection. Long crossing distance and wide turning radii. Not a level crossing. Access too close to 70th Street. Upgrade crossings to ADA-compliant curb ramps. One-block sidewalk gap along Lynmar Lane. High-volume intersection dicult to cross for children.Upgrade crossing ﬂasher to RRFB. Circulation modiﬁcations needed to increase internal queue capacity and streamline access and circulation. Absence of marked crosswalk, stop bar, and stop sign. Crossing distance could be dicult for children. Long crossing distance and wide turning radii. Driveway not level to sidewalk. Some congestion during peak periods. Absence of N/S multimodal connectivity between high-density housing and the school.Not all curb ramps are ADA-compliant and crossing distance could be dicult for children. Cornelia Elementary Claremo r e D r i v e Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Glea s o n R o a d McCauley Trail Che r o k e e T r a i l Nordic Circle Creek Valley Road Identiﬁed Issues Focus School Identiﬁed multimodal issue Other identiﬁed issue Edina, MN Figure 36 Cornelia Elementary Lack of enhanced pedestrian/bike facilities along Gleason. Sidewalk width is not accessible or comfortable through the interchange. Opportunity for 4-3 conversion, along with intersection improvements and control modiﬁcations to enhance safety and reduce congestion at the intersections. Ramp crossings have larger turning radii and can be uncomfortable for pedestrians/bicyclists. High delay for side-street during peak periods. Dicult intersection for children to cross during peak periods due to crossing width. Timber Ridge No E/W sidewalk connectivity from neighborhood. No sidewalk connection to park/school. No direct connection between the school entrance and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Sidewalk gap to access soccer ﬁelds. Sidewalk gap between Creek Valley Elementary and the middle/high school campus. Long crossing distance and wide turning radii. Congested at peak times due to side-street stop control. 62MINNESOTA Busy crossing for children with a long crossing distance. High-speeds and limited multimodal facilities or marked crossings. Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School Lack of E/W multimodal connectivity to the school. Lack of sidewalk connectivity.Lack of sidewalk connectivity. No sidewalk connection. Highlands Elementary 0 500 1,000 ft Ayrshire Boulevard Glengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d Hansen RoadIdentiﬁed Issues Focus School Identiﬁed multimodal issueEdina, MN Figure 37 Crossing can be dicult during peak periods. Driveway is very wide. High-volume intersection dicult to cross for children. Wide crossing with high exposure. Intersection does not have lane markings, wide for turning vehicles, and has limited site distance. Glenbrae Circle 158 CHAPTER 3 – Issue Identification and Needs Summary 70 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SUMMARY OF NEEDS The needs are informed by the broad issues defined for the Study by each school (see corresponding colors). Cornelia Elementary School Property Access and Circulation (all modes) Reconstruct the parking lot along Cornelia Drive to improve vehicular access and circulation that supports expanded internal queueing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods. Enhance driveway crossings and internal sidewalk connectivity through and across the parking lot to limit conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Crossing Intersections Enhance crossing infrastructure at key locations to improve the safety and comfort of those walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as ensure they are not barriers for children to do so. Includes locations along 70th Street, Cornelia Drive, 72nd Street, and Claremore Drive. Connectivity to Walk, Roll, or Bike Key corridors do not have sidewalk or bicycle connections which hinders multimodal access to/from the school. Includes Claremore Drive, Cornelia Park, 70th Street, and other adjacent neighborhood streets. Creek Valley Elementary School Property Access and Circulation (all modes) Reconstruct the parking lot and access along Gleason Road to improve vehicular circulation that supports expanded internal queueing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods. Enhance driveway crossings and internal sidewalk connectivity through and across the school campus to limit conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Crossing Intersections & Uncontrolled Locations Enhance crossing infrastructure at key locations to improve the safety and comfort of those walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as ensure they are not barriers for children to do so. Includes locations along Gleason Road and the TH 62 interchange. Connectivity to Walk, Roll, or Bike Key corridors do not have sidewalk or bicycle connections which hinders multimodal access to/from the school. Includes Gleason Road, the school campus, and other adjacent neighborhood streets. Highlands Elementary Crossing Intersections & Uncontrolled Locations Enhance crossing infrastructure at key locations to improve the safety and comfort of those walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as ensure they are not barriers for children to do so. Includes locations along Ayrshire Boulevard and Doncaster Way. Connectivity to Walk, Roll, or Bike Key corridors do not have sidewalk or bicycle connections which hinders multimodal access to/from the school. Includes Ayrshire Boulevard, Vernon Avenue, the school campus, and other adjacent neighborhood streets. Page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 71 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION Potential alternatives are based upon evaluated opportunities that would improve or eliminate identified issues and needs. This section organizes potential improvements and project opportunities to address the high-level needs identified by the Study at Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary using the latest state and national guidance. Potential projects were vetted using engineering judgment and reviewed by both Edina Public Schools and the City of Edina. This chapter organizes the evaluations by focus school. The following transportation network analysis items are consistent for all schools:  Guidance Sources: Potential crossing or bicycle infrastructure was reviewed using the latest guidance from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018), MnDOT’s Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020), Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2020), Minnesota Local Road Research Board’s (LRRB) Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Guide (2020), Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide.  Project Infrastructure Overview: Infrastructure items for each potential project have an estimated average cost using planning-level guidance found in the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Guide and net benefit described as a crash modification factor (CMF) from the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. A low-cost improvement could have a high benefit illustrating how the two measures are not exclusive. Infrastructure elements were identified using location-specific engineering judgment. Cost estimates are further distilled per the planning-level concept designs produced for those projects as identified for each school and described in Chapter 5. Crossing of Cornelia Drive at Mavelle Drive and the school access for Cornelia Elementary. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 72 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CORNELIA ELEMENTARY Potential improvements evaluated for Cornelia Elementary included parking lot redesigns, enhanced crossings, sidewalk connections and accessibility improvements, and bicycle infrastructure. A key potential improvement includes enhancing the access, circulation, and multimodal connectivity to the drop-off/pick-up and parking lot area in front of the school along Cornelia Drive. The existing configuration does not provide adequate queueing capacity or safe and convenient multimodal connectivity to the school’s main entrance. The alternatives were studied using an evaluation matrix to identify tradeoffs and the most favorable option. Multimodal crossings were reviewed to determine appropriate enhancements at nearby intersections. Potential infrastructure was examined at five locations, including three locations along Cornelia Drive at 70th Street, Mavelle Drive, and 72nd Street, as well as at Claremore Drive / Oaklawn Avenue and 70th Street / Wooddale Avenue. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connections were also evaluated along key corridors. School Property Access and Circulation Three parking lot alternatives were developed using existing conditions data and engineering judgment to maximize the finite space available. Each alternative is described in detail, including the pros and cons of each. Further analysis is detailed for each alternative including access operations, circulation, and queue capacity, as well as multimodal connectivity and safety. Cornelia Drive looking south at 70th Street. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 73 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Parking Lot Alternatives Alternative 1 One access point operating as an entrance/exit to the drop-off/pick-up area at the Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive intersection (see Figure 38). The drop-off/pick-up lane circulates one-way with two marked crossings along the school frontage. Curb-separated, short-term parking (60-degree) is included along the northbound drive aisle. Pros Cons Parking Supply Doubling of internal queueing capacity. Maintains the parking supply near the main entrance. Enhanced driveway crossing for safer multimodal access. Improved internal sidewalk circulation. Focuses all traffic to the Cornelia Drive / Mavelle Drive intersection. Existing: 125 Proposed: 125 Net: +/-0 Alternative 2 Maintains the location and use of the one-way entrance and exit driveways (see Figure 39). The drop-off /pick-up area is extended to circulate one-way through the entire school frontage and maintains the shared parking spaces (60-degree). Pros Cons Parking Supply Increased internal queue capacity. Enhanced driveway crossings for safer multimodal access. Improved internal sidewalk circulation. Option to use two driveways for exiting. Decrease in parking capacity. Maintains existing driveway locations which are not optimal. Most of the circulatory drop-off/pick-up aisle is not usable due to the main entrance location. Existing: 125 Proposed: 114 Net: -11 Alternative 3 Moves the school bus access and parking to the north lot, maintaining the location and use of the one-way entrance and exit driveways (see Figure 40). The drop-off/pick-up area is moved to the parking lot south of the Cornelia Drive and Mavelle intersection with access focused at the existing south driveway. Pros Cons Parking Supply Increased internal queue capacity. Some upgrades to driveway crossings. Moves the school buses adjacent to the main entrance. Decrease in parking capacity. Focuses all traffic to the south driveway, increasing the distance of travel from 70th Street along Cornelia Drive. Existing: 125 Proposed: 103 Net: -22 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 38: CORNELIA PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 1 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA 1 // 12/28/2020 - 11:38AMCornelia Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 1 X Existing Front Lot Stalls: 13Concept 1 Stalls: 13 74 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 39: CORNELIA PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 2 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA 2 // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 2 Existing North Lot Stalls: 13Concept 2 North Lot Stalls: 14 Existing South Lot Stalls: 53Concept 2 South Lot Stalls: 41 75 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 40: CORNELIA PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 3 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA 3 // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 3 Existing North Lot Stalls: 13Concept 3 North Lot Stalls: 0 Existing South Lot Stalls: 53Concept 3 South Lot Stalls: 21 76 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 77 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Alternatives Evaluation A high-level analysis of the three parking lot design alternatives was performed to determine the appropriate improvements for vehicular access, driveway location and operations, parking lot circulation, and multimodal safety and connectivity. An evaluation matrix was developed to measure five key criteria quantitatively and qualitatively (see Table 6).  Access: How the access location facilitates peak vehicular demand and connectivity inter- and intra- parking lot.  Operations: How the parking lot design accommodates traffic demand and improves operations at each access point and the surrounding roadway network.  Parking: How the parking lot design maximizes parking supply within the limited space available.  Circulation: How the location of access points maximizes internal queueing capacity and limits spillback onto surrounding roadways.  Multimodal: How the parking lot design supports safe, comfortable, and convenient connections and crossings for children walking, rolling, or bicycling within and across the parking lot area. Table 6. Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative Evaluation Matrix Access Operations Parking Circulation Multimodal Existing – No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 = positive impact, = neutral impact, = negative impact Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Based upon the evaluation matrix, the most favorable alternative appears to be Alternative 1 as it provides the greatest opportunities for improvement while limiting impacts to access and operations. The parking supply is maintained, and internal queueing capacity is doubled. Access is streamlined and focused on the Cornelia Drive and Mavelle intersection with limited impacts to operations as compared to existing conditions. Multimodal crossings and connectivity are significantly improved with intersection and driveway improvements as well as expanded internal sidewalk circulation. Additional detail regarding operations, circulation, and parking is detailed for all three alternatives. This could broadly inform future decision-making as a preferred alternative moves into design development. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 78 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Access Operations Access operations were studied using Synchro/SimTraffic 11 under existing traffic volumes (see Table 7). Table 7. Traffic Operations by Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative Alternative Traffic Operations 70th Street / Cornelia Drive1 Cornelia Drive / Mavelle Drive2 Cornelia Drive / South Parking Lot2 Cornelia Drive / 72nd Street1 AM PM3 AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing – No Build Delay (sec) 13 9 6 5 3 3 5 5 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 225 (EB) 175 (EB) 150 (EB) 125 (EB) 50 (EB) 75 (EB) 50 (SB) 75 (SB) Alternative 1 Delay (sec) 11 8 9 5 3 3 5 5 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 200 (EB) 150 (EB) 150 (EB) 100 (EB) 75 (EB) 75 (EB) 50 (WB) 75 (WB) Alternative 1 (AWS)4 Delay (sec) 11 8 5 4 3 3 5 5 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 225 (EB) 200 (EB) 150 (EB) 100 (EB) 50 (EB) 75 (EB) 50 (WB) 75 (WB) Alternative 2 Delay (sec) 10 8 5 8 1 2 5 5 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 175 (EB) 100 (EB) 100 (EB) 75 (EB) 50 (EB) 50 (EB) 50 (WB) 75 (WB) Alternative 2 (AWS) Delay (sec) 10 8 3 5 2 2 5 5 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 175 (EB) 150 (EB) 75 (NB) 75 (NB) 50 (EB) 50 (EB) 50 (EB) 50 (EB) Alternative 3 Delay (sec) 10 12 20 12 146 16 9 8 LOS A B C B F C A A Queue (ft) 175 (EB) 175 (EB) 75 (EB) 75 (EB) 250+ (EB) 150 (EB) 250+ (WB) 50 (WB) 1 Delay and LOS are measured for the overall intersection due to the control. 2 Delay and LOS are measured for the worst approach due to the side-street, stop-control. 3 The peak period is in the afternoon following school dismissal. The analysis does not represent the actual evening rush hour. 4 AWS = all-way stop, these two alternatives tested the effects of traffic operations by the change in control. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 79 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The analysis compares existing conditions which prohibits northbound left-turns into the school as of fall 2020. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, both with and without an all-way stop at Mavelle Drive, have little to no impact on existing traffic operations. Moreover, the all-way stop improves traffic operations over existing conditions for both alternatives. A warrant analysis was not completed for the all-way stop but was included based upon engineering judgment as a traffic operation, speed management, and crossing safety strategy adjacent to the school. Alternative 3 negatively impacts traffic operations due to the concentration of northbound and southbound traffic along Cornelia Drive at the existing south access, which significantly impacts operations. Of note, additional analysis should be conducted prior to implementation of a preferred alternative to ensure existing and future traffic operations are adequately accommodated. Parking Lot Circulation and Queueing Further analysis of circulation and queueing capacity was studied (see Table 8). The existing and potential queueing capacity for each alternative was analyzed. This included a comparison to average peak period queues. Table 8. Queue Analysis by Cornelia Parking Lot Alternative Alternative Internal Queue Capacity ∆ Capacity (existing 275 feet) Capacity vs. Demand1 Alternative 1 550 feet +275 feet Yes Alternative 2 300 feet +25 feet No Alternative 3 350 feet +75 feet Yes 1 Average internal queue capacity needs during peak periods ranges from 250 feet to 350 feet. The average demand was formulated using the number of cars expected during the peak hour per StreetLight and cross-referenced by demand via the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Using 25 feet, the average length of a vehicle plus space between when queued, the peak 15-minute queue length was estimated as a range to account for fluctuations in vehicle dwell time. Only a “yes” if demand could be accommodated during both peak periods. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 The three alternatives all increase queue capacity and streamline operations as compared to existing conditions, though only Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 could accommodate the estimated demand internally on-site. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person queue data was not collected to confirm the estimated demand. It is recommended that future study confirm the assumptions put forth in this Study. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 80 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Multimodal Access An important consideration of the parking lot redesign is how children will be able to safely cross driveways as well as comfortably and conveniently access the school (i.e., main entrances, bike parking, etc.). Each mode needs a well-defined and highly recognizable, separated path of travel across the parking lot.2 Focus on such enhancements ensure that the largely auto-focused parking lot reconstruction is balanced with multimodal improvements to ensure driving is not further incentivized by the potential project. Driveway Design Driveway design best practices from the SRTS National Partnership’s Keep Calm and Carry-On to School – Improving Arrival and Dismissal for Walking and Bicycling (2018) were reviewed to identity key items for consideration during the design development phase of the project.  Driveway Width: Minimize driveway width to reduce the distance and exposure for those crossing. Narrowed driveway lanes and tightened curb radii will increase safety by slowing turning speeds. Unless a turn-lane is needed, a two-way access point should be a total of 24 feet wide with two 10-foot lanes plus curb at maximum. This would significantly improve crossings over existing conditions which is supported by recommendations put forth in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan.  Driveway Crossing Infrastructure: No continuous sidewalk connection across the driveways (see existing and improved examples at right) exists today. Current design allows higher turning speeds which creates unsafe crossing conditions. The continuous sidewalk across the driveway, along with tightened curb radii, will slow turning vehicles. It will also achieve ADA-compliance by maintaining a level pathway along the corridor.  Driveway Lighting: Pedestrian-scale lighting at driveway crossings ensures pedestrians and bicyclists are properly illuminated. This is especially important in the Minnesota climate where a portion of the school year has dark or dusk conditions during peak school periods. Intra-Site Connectivity Sidewalk connectivity along and across the parking lot is key toward providing safe passage from Cornelia Drive to the main entrance. Moreover, following desire lines of travel is important toward ensuring out-of- direction travel is minimized as that can promote unsafe behavior. 2 Keep Calm and Carry On to School – Improving Arrival and Dismissal for Walking and Biking (2018), Safe Routes to School National Partnership CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 81 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Crossing Improvements A study of crossing improvements adjacent to the school was performed and included both uncontrolled and controlled crossings. Roadways with higher traffic volumes and perceived speeds can become barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely, comfortably, and conveniently to access their school. Safety improvements at intersections or crossings was one of the top issues identified in the parent surveys when considering allowing their child to walk or bike to school. Each infrastructure item has an estimated average cost using planning-level guidance in this section, while cost estimates are further distilled per the planning-level concept design produced for three of the five locations as described in Chapter 5. Cornelia Drive, Mavelle Drive, and School Access The intersection is side-street, stop-controlled and includes an uncontrolled crossing of Cornelia Drive. Infrastructure improvements could enhance this crossing location and support a safer and more comfortable environment for people of all ages and abilities to cross, especially during peak times (see Table 9). Upgrades could coencide with parking lot reconstruction to minmize impacts. As demand increases, a crossing guard could be assigned to this location as identified in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014). Table 9. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Cornelia Drive, Mavelle Drive, and the School Access Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF Alternative1 High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar Continental design at least six feet wide. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 A1, A2, A3 In-street Pedestrian Sign R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing N/A A1, A2, A3 Curb Ramps Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance and enhance accessibility. Location dependent N/A A1, A2, A3 Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Provides a two-stage crossing and shortens the overall crossing distance. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 -0.54 A1, A2 Curb Extension Maximize extension as it aligns with applicable design vehicle turning radius. Reduces the crossing distance as well as improves motorist vision of people crossing. $2,000 to $3,500 per corner2 0.55 A1, A2 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 Optional 1 Infrastructure potentially included per alternative. 2 $10,000 to $20,000 per corner with storm sewer impacts. Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota LRRB (2020) CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 82 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY To accommodate the pedestrian island refuge at the school access, along with the broader driveway redesign, one outbound lane is proposed. The traffic operations analysis showed minimal, or no impacts occur with a reduction in turn lanes exiting the site given the proposed all-way stop control. Cornelia Drive and 72nd Street The intersection is all-way, stop-controlled which can be difficult to cross for children dependent upon the traffic volumes and number of lanes (e.g., crossing distance). The intersection is a key connection point due to existing sidewalks along both corridors. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of those crossing (see Table 10). As demand increases, a crossing guard could be assigned to this location as identified in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014). Table 10. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 72nd Street and Cornelia Drive Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing N/A Curb Ramps Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance, reduce exposure, and enhance accessibility. Location dependent N/A Curb Extension Maximize extension as it aligns with applicable design vehicle turning radius. Reduces the crossing distance as well as improves motorist vision of people crossing. $2,000 to $3,500 per corner1 0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 1 $10,000 to $20,000 per corner with storm sewer impacts. Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of Transportation Officials The City performed two tests at this intersection using pavement markings, and then pavement markings and temporary delineators to record the effect of curb extensions for stop compliance and approach speeds with a 20-foot-wide roadway. City staff determined via the analysis, as well as public feedback, that curb extensions may not be advisable at this location. Further analysis of the intersection was completed for this Study, which identified three options using applicable local and national guidance, and engineering judgment.  Raised Crosswalk: Vertically aligns the crosswalk to the sidewalk, creating a speed hump. Raised crosswalks were eliminated due to the cost-benefit of implementation and design limitations due to adjacent storm sewer infrastructure and relatively low-volumes at the intersection. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 83 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY  Pedestrian Island Refuge: Six-foot-wide medians that create a two-stage crossing. Pedestrian island refuges were eliminated due to the potential turning implications for school buses. The lane width and turning radius would not be adequate for a regular size school bus (35 feet or longer). The crosswalks could be moved back from the intersection, though this was determined as cost prohibitive due to adjacent storm sewer infrastructure. If school bus access is not a primary concern, pedestrian island refuges could be further explored. The proposed crossing design of Claremore Drive at Oaklawn Avenue is an opportunity that is further detailed in Chapter 5 and could be replicated here.  Curb Extension: Crossing extended into the intersection from the curb line to reduce crossing distance and improve motorist vision of people crossing. Though the City determined in a high-level study that curb extensions may not be advisable at this location, this Study identifies them as the best option both from a cost-benefit perspective, as well as accommodating school buses and other larger vehicles through the intersection. This Study, along with Edina’s Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014), determined that crossing enhancements were needed at this location due to the intersection serving as a key point for students using the adjacent sidewalk connections, as well as access to Cornelia Park. Proposed curb extensions would provide a slightly wider roadway than the test design (20 versus 24-feet-wide) and permanent infrastructure (i.e., cement curb), likely reducing potential driver confusion and other issues recorded in public feedback following the test. 72nd Street, Claremore Drive, and Oaklawn Avenue The intersection is all-way, stop-controlled and a key connection point due to existing sidewalk along 72nd Street and recently constructed sidewalk along Oaklawn Avenue. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of those crossings (see Table 11). Proposed improvements would maintain the existing curb ramps and sidewalk approaches. Table 11. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 72nd Street, Claremore Drive, and Oaklawn Avenue Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Provides a two-stage crossing and shortens the overall crossing distance. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 -0.54 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2020); MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, MN LRRB (2020) CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 84 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The City also performed two tests at this intersection using the same process and temporary design as the 72nd Street and Cornelia Drive intersection. City staff determined via the analysis, as well as public feedback, that curb extensions may not be advisable at this location. Further analysis of the intersection was completed for this Study which identified a pedestrian island refuge as the best option for upgrading this crossing due to the low cost and less invasive infrastructure improvements as compared to a curb extension. Other Crossing Considerations Other intersections were identified in the issues analysis and studied for potential improvements. They do not have specific project pages in Chapter 5 and are proposed for further study. 70th Street and Cornelia Drive The intersection is signalized and the busiest crossing near the school. It serves as an important connection to the school via Cornelia Drive and has sidewalk connectivity on all approaches. Crossing infrastructure enhancements at this location are limited due to the finite space available which limits broader upgrades. A long-term shared-use path is planned along the corridor and will require further review of the intersection’s crossing infrastructure. Potential crossing improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of those crossing (see Table 12). Table 12. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 70th Street and Cornelia Drive Infrastructure Implementation Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar All approaches Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 Hardened Centerline All approaches Flex posts on the centerline with a modular rubber nose. Slows left-turning vehicles by impacting the turning angle. $1,000 per crossing N/A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)1 Across 70th: 5-7 sec LPI Across Cornelia: 3-5 sec LPI Provides people crossing a minimum three second and maximum ten second head start to enter the intersection with a corresponding green signal for vehicles in the same direction. N/A 0.87 No Right-Turn on Red Signage All approaches Upgrade existing signage to LED. $3,000 per crossing N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting NE and SW corner Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 1 Range was determined by measuring the distance to clear one travel lane at 3 feet/second to 3.5 feet/second. Further analysis is required. Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Portland Bureau of Transportation; Evaluation Report Left-turn Calming Pilot Project (2020) CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 85 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The City requested review of the walk duration and pedestrian clearance time currently provided at the intersection. The existing timing for all crossings is seven seconds of walk time and 17 seconds of pedestrian clearance time. The intersection meets MN MUTCD guidance which dictates a walk time of at least seven seconds unless the pedestrian volumes and characteristics do not support such time in which it can be reduced to four seconds.3 The federal MUTCD provides a visual guide for crossing distance, walking speed, and pedestrian clearance time.4 Based upon the crossing distances of 70th Street and Cornelia Drive, the pedestrian clearance time is appropriate for children walking at three feet per second. The following briefly describes potential infrastructure improvements at the intersection.  No Right-turn on Red LED Sign: Current signage may not be visible or bold enough to promote compliance. LED signage could improve compliance while providing clear visibility of the restriction at all hours of the day.  Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI): The MN MUTCD has guidance for LPIs stating that at least a three second duration and up to ten seconds may be used to provide pedestrians enough time to cross at least one lane of traffic, or far enough to position pedestrians ahead of right- and/or left-turning vehicles before traffic is released. To identify a reasonable time for crossing one lane of each intersection approach, a walking speed mesaure of three feet per second was used to accommodate children who primarily use this crossing and inherenlty walk slower. Hardened Centerline: The enhancement includes interconnected flex posts and a rubber modular speed bump at the nose. The New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) has extensively studied the improvement and identified that left-turn speeds decreased by more than 50 percent while significantly reducing pedestrian exposure to turning vehicles. This is an effective tool at locations where right- of-way cannot accommodate curb extensions or pedestrian island refuges, or low-cost and quick build improvements are desired (discussed further in Chapter 5). The NYC DOT also tracked snow maintenance and determined that about 20 percent of hardened centerlines (out of 82 locations as of 2020) were damaged over the course of one winter season. It was noted, however, that no snowplows were damaged, and the damage to the infrastructure was low enough in cost to support the overall benefit of the enhancement.5 3 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2012). Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 4E-3 – 4E-4. 4 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2015. Signal Timing Manual - Second Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22097. 5 New York City Department of Transportation. (2020). Traffic Calming Program. https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/turn- calming.shtml CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 86 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 70th Street and Wooddale Avenue The intersection is side-street, stop-controlled and is an uncontrolled crossing of 70th Street. Currently, there is a ped-activated flasher with a marked crosswalk and warning signs. The warning signage also flashes and is approximately 200 feet and 350 feet from the crosswalk in the westbound and eastbound directions, respectively. Though crossing enhancements are already in place, additional upgrades could be completed to achieve compliance with the latest crossing guidance and provide access for all ages and abilities (see Table 13). Table 13. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 70th Street and Wooddale Avenue Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Marking Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 Advanced Yield Markings Minimum 20 feet, preferred 30-50 feet from crosswalk. Markings increase the comfort of people crossing and motorist site distance. $1,500 per crossing 0.75 - 0.89 Enhanced Signage R1-5b signs to denote the location where drivers should stop from crosswalk. Additional crossing and advanced warning signs to alert drivers (such as what is present today). $1,000 per crossing N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Minimum 20 feet long, preferred 40 to 60 feet long. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 -0.54 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Increases driver awareness of pedestrians crossing and has shown to produce motorist yield compliance of 70 to 95 percent. $15,000 to $100,000 each 0.53 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Ensure existing lights adhere to illumination guidance for pedestrians and bicyclists. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of Transportation Officials A pedestrian island refuge is a potential improvement to the crossing, though this would require removal of the existing westbound left-turn lane. The improvement is supported by the City’s guidance for uncontrolled crossings of three-lane roadways with no median present and an AADT volume greater than 9,000 vpd. Further analysis is required to determine impacts to traffic operations from removing the turn lane along with pedestrian and bicyclist counts to determine a transportation modal balance or multimodal focused approach for the crossing. Two methods were used to study implementation of a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at this location including the City of Edina’s guidance per the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (see Figure 41), as well as the FHWA’s Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018) (see Figure 42). RRFBs have high motorist yield compliance when activated and are already used in several locations throughout Edina. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 87 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Figure 41. 70th Street RRFB Warrant Analysis for Low-Speed Roadways (<35 mph) = hourly range of sum for peak hour northbound and southbound volumes. Source: Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) adapted from the Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidance = 70th Street; Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 88 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Figure 42. 70th Street FHWA STEP Guidance Analysis = 70th Street Source: Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018), Federal Highway Administration Based on the City of Boulder’s guidance adapted by Edina, the minimum threshold is 20 pedestrians per hour (pph), or ten children per hour if the crossing is near a school. If that threshold is met, then an RRFB would be acceptable. Additionally, the roadway geometry, AADT volume, and posted speed limit would support implementation of an RRFB per Edina’s crossing guidance. The FHWA’s STEP Guide also supports implementation using the same traffic measures. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 89 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Pedestrian and Bicyclist Connectivity Sidewalk connectivity is a critical piece of multimodal infrastructure, providing space for children to walk, run, skate and play, and bike (if younger).6 Providing sidewalk facilities can reduce pedestrian crashes by up to 88 percent per the FHWA when compared to walking in the roadway. Bicycle infrastructure is another key multimodal connectivity element and must be low stress enough for children to comfortably ride. The existing sidewalk and bicycle network surrounding, and adjacent to, the school were reviewed to identify gaps or maintenance needs. Sidewalk Gaps Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) identifies future sidewalk at the following locations near Cornelia Elementary which this Study confirms for future implementation:  Claremore Drive: Oaklawn Avenue to 70th Street (detailed further in Chapter 5)  Kellogg Avenue: Claremore Drive to Wooddale Avenue (included in the ARTs Comprehensive Plan)  Wooddale Avenue: Claremore Drive to 70th Street  West Shore Drive: 66th Street to Hibiscus Avenue  Gilford Drive: West Shore Drive to Oaklawn Avenue  Oaklawn Avenue: Gilford Drive to Parklawn Avenue (requires easement from private property owners to complete connection, included in the ARTs Comprehensive Plan) In addition to the sidewalk proposed in Edina’s master plan, this Study identified four additional locations for consideration (~1,800 feet total) to further interconnect the existing and proposed sidewalk network, as well as provide access to nearby student households.  Cornelia Park: Claremore Drive to Cornelia Elementary parking lot (shared-use path provides a direct north-south connection between the school and neighborhood. Could be a key connector for the student populations along Parklawn Avenue if the Oaklawn Avenue connection is completed).  Durham Drive: West Shore Drive to Wooddale Avenue (connects existing east-west sidewalk at the West Shore Drive intersection to Aspasia Circle, as well as future West Shore Drive sidewalk).  Wooddale Drive: Claremore Drive to Dunham Drive (connects future sidewalk along Claremore Drive and proposed sidewalk along Durham Drive).  Lynmar Lane: Mavelle Drive to Hazelton Road (fills a one block gap between existing sidewalk). Only the Claremore Drive sidewalk was further analyzed due to the proximity to Cornelia Elementary, the natural extension of existing sidewalk along 72nd Street, and the scope of this Study. 6 Saferoutesinfo.org. (n.d.). Sidewalks. http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/sidewalks.cfm#corridor CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 90 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Sidewalk Accessibility and Widening Accessible sidewalks are important toward ensuring people of all ages and abilities can access their destination. A preliminary review identified several locations along Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive that lacked ADA- compliant curb ramps at intersection crossings. These locations should be upgraded when appropriate. Sidewalk widening is another consideration that could benefit children accessing the schools who typically like to walk in groups or alongside an adult. Nearby sidewalks are primarily five feet wide with a buffer. The clear zone of a sidewalk is the unobstructed width of the sidewalk and must be a minimum of four feet per the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (see Figure 43). Higher-volume locations near the school, such as the Cornelia Drive school frontage, are better suited by eight- or ten-foot-wide sidewalks. Figure 43. Example of Sidewalk Pedestrian Clear Zones Source: City of Seattle Bicycle Infrastructure Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) identifies future bicycle connectivity at the following locations which this Study confirms for future implementation:  70th Street: Antrim Road to Valley View Road (protected bike lanes or shared-use path. Review extension to France Avenue/CSAH 17 to connect with existing shared use paths east of the corridor).  Cornelia Drive: 70th Street to 68th Street (protected bike lanes or shared-use path).  West Shore Drive: 66th Street to Gilford Drive; Gilford Drive: West Shore Drive to Kellogg Avenue; Kellogg Avenue: Gilford Drive to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (bike boulevard). CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 91 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY To determine appropriate bicycle infrastructure, the AADT volume and posted speed limit were analyzed along 70th Street using both Edina’s guidance for bikeways per the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) as well as MnDOT’s guidance for urban and suburban roadways per the Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) (see both Figure 44). Edina provides two measures for bicycle infrastructure: “safe minimum” and “user comfort-centric”. 70th Street’s infrastructure meets the former so the latter was studied as that would better accommodate all ages and abilities as a part of the future Edina Twin Loops network (along with Cornelia Drive). The existing bike lane along 70th Street could be upgraded to a protected or separated bike lane or shared-use path to better align with both guidance documents. This would provide lower stress bicycle infrastructure that could be used by a child as opposed to today’s conditions. The removal of the remaining on-street parking could provide space for a temporary protected bike lane from approximately Wooddale Avenue to Valley View Road in the near-term. There is not currently enough curb to curb space for protected bike lanes west of Wooddale Road for most of 70th Street which would require turn lane removal. Further analysis is required before implementing potential improvements as limitations may exist, such as roadway width to accommodate these types of improvements under existing conditions. Figure 44. Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance – 70th Street CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 92 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY = 70th Street Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan (2018); MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) CREEK VALLEY ELEMENTARY Potential improvements evaluated for Creek Valley Elementary include enhanced crossings, sidewalk connections and accessibility, bicycle infrastructure, and a parking lot redesign. A key potential improvement includes the TH 62 and Gleason Road interchange. The existing configuration is not accessible, safe, or comfortable to walk, roll, or bike along Gleason Road through the interchange. The alternatives were studied by reviewing traffic operations over existing conditions, intersection warrants, and multimodal elements. The alternatives were studied as one “proposed” option due to the similarities regarding proposed intersection configurations and minor lane configuration differences between intersections. None of the alternatives expand the existing bridge width as that is not planned in future projects. Multimodal crossings were reviewed to determine appropriate enhancements at nearby intersections. Potential infrastructure upgrades were examined along Gleason Road at McCauley Trail, Indian Hills Pass, and Creek Valley Road. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connections were also evaluated along key corridors. A parking lot design concept was completed in 2015 for the school. That design was reviewed as a part of this Study and updated to accommodate needs and issues identified during the planning process. Access, circulation, and multimodal connectivity enhancements were identified. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 93 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY TH 62 and Gleason Road Interchange Repair and resurfacing of the bridge and interchange approaches are planned in 2026 by MnDOT. The planning-level concepts developed as a part of this Study could inform future improvements. The alternatives were developed using existing conditions data and engineering judgment to understand multimodal connectivity opportunities within the finite space available (see Figure 45, Figure 46, Figure 47, and Figure 48). Further analysis is completed including traffic operations, intersection warrants, and multimodal elements. Figure 45. TH 62 Interchange Alternative Cross-sections Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 46: TH 62 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE 1 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : CREEK VALLEY 1 // 12/28/2020 - 12:05PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 1 94 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 47: TH 62 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE 2 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : CREEK VALLEY 2 // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 2 95 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 48: TH 62 INTERCHANGE ALTERNATIVE 3 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : CREEK VALLEY 3 // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 3 96 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 97 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Interchange Operations Traffic operations were studied using Synchro/SimTraffic 11 under existing traffic volumes to determine potential impacts from a four-lane to three-lane conversion (see Table 14). The alternatives include either a two-lane or three-lane facility across the bridge so they were studied as one option due to similar intersection lane configurations and minor differences that would produce little, or no change in traffic operations. Table 14. Gleason Road Traffic Operations – Four-to-Three Lane Conversion Alternative1 Traffic Operations WB TH 62 / Gleason Road EB TH 62 / Gleason Road McCauley Trail / Gleason Road AM PM2 AM PM AM PM Existing Delay (sec) 29 12 16 55 12 17 LOS D B C F B C Queue (ft) 125 (NB) 100 (NB) 150 (EB) 750 (EB) 75 (EB) 125 (EB) Proposed3 Delay (sec) 35 10 19 60 15 21 LOS E B C F C C Queue (ft) 125 (WB) 75 (WB) 175 (EB) 750 (EB) 75 (EB) 125 (EB) 1 Traffic controls unchanged from existing. Delay and LOS are measured for the worst approach due to the side-street, stop-control. 2 The peak period is evening rush hour, not the afternoon following school dismissal. 3 The three-lane with two-way left-turn lane between the two interchange intersections and left-turn lanes at both interchange intersection was studied for high-level analysis of 4-3 conversion. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 The four- to three-lane conversion has some impact on existing traffic operations due to more limited gaps in traffic as compared to the existing configuration. The eastbound ramp intersection remains problematic which illustrates the potential need for a change in traffic control. A warrant analysis, as well as additional traffic operations review, was completed to study potential opportunities. Of note, additional analysis should be conducted prior to implementation of a preferred alternative to ensure existing and future traffic operations are adequately accommodated. Intersection Warrant Analysis A warrant analysis was completed under existing and proposed intersection configurations (see Table 15). The preliminary analysis shows that the traffic control at the TH 62 eastbound ramp and Gleason Road intersection could be further reviewed and considered for updates as one warrant was met. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 98 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Table 15. TH 62 and Gleason Road Interchange Warrant Analysis Warrant TH 62 WB / Gleason Road TH 62 EB / Gleason Road McCauley Trail / Gleason Road Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed MWSA (C): Multiway Stop Application Condition C No No No No No No Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume No No No No No No Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic No No No No No No Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants No No No No No No Warrant 2: Four-Hour No No No No No No Warrant 3B: Peak Hour No No Yes Yes No No Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Multimodal Access An important consideration of the interchange redesign is crossing safety at the high-volume intersections, as well as comfortable access to the school while traveling north-south along Gleason Road and across TH 62. Key improvements to the existing marked crosswalks include tightened curb radii, widened sidewalk, and enhanced signage. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail turns east immediately north of the interchange and crosses TH 62 via a dedicated pedestrian bridge and continues behind Creek Valley Elementary. This severely limits access to neighborhoods south of TH 62 and west of Edina High School. A key long-term item is a one-quarter mile connection along Gleason Road between the regional trail at Gleason Court and the future Edina Twin Loops network which will cross Gleason Road from the west at McCauley Trail and then continue south. This short segment is not identified for enhancements in Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018), thought it would provide a more direct north-south connection as opposed to the existing regional trail alignment. Crossing Improvements The study of crossing improvements adjacent to the school was performed and included both uncontrolled and controlled crossings of Gleason Road. Roadways with higher traffic volumes and perceived speed issues can become barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely, comfortably, and conveniently to school. Safety improvements at intersections or crossings was one of the top issues identified in the parent surveys when considering allowing their child to walk or bike to school. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 99 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Each infrastructure item has an estimated average cost using planning-level guidance in this section, while cost estimates are further distilled per the planning-level concept design produced for two of the three locations as described in Chapter 5. Gleason Road and McCauley Trail The intersection is side-street, stop-controlled and an uncontrolled crossing of Gleason Road. The City of Edina plans to implement ADA-compliant curb ramps and a marked crosswalk at this location in 2022. This Study identified additional upgrades to achieve compliance with the latest crossing guidance (see Table 16). Of note, Gleason Road at this location was studied as a three-lane roadway without a median due to the existing geometry of the roadway which includes two 22-foot-wide lanes. That width is enough for a left- turning vehicle to be passed on the right which creates a multiple threat to pedestrians because the turning vehicle blocks the passing motorist’s vision. Enhancements were identified through a lens of accommodating those of all ages and abilities due to the future Edina Twin Loops connection. Table 16. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Gleason Road and McCauley Trail Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Marking Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 Advanced Yield Markings Minimum 20 feet, preferred 30-50 feet from crosswalk. Markings increase the comfort of people crossing and motorist site distance. $1,500 per crossing 0.75 - 0.89 Enhanced Signage R1-5b signs to denote the location where drivers should stop from crosswalk. Additional crossing and advanced warning signs to alert drivers (e.g., Wooddale Avenue at 70th Street). $1,000 per crossing N/A Curb Ramps Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance, reduce exposure, and enhance accessibility. Tightened curb radii slow turning vehicles. Location dependent N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Minimum 20 feet long, preferred 40 to 60 feet long. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 -0.54 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Increases driver awareness of pedestrians crossing and has shown to produce motorist yield compliance of 70 to 95 percent. $15,000 to $100,000 each 0.53 Lane Markings Visually minimize lane width by adding striping. Maximum 11-feet wide, preferred 10-feet wide plus shoulder if applicable. Location dependent N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota LRRB (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 100 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Two methods were used to study implementation of a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) at this location including the City of Edina’s guidance per the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (see Figure 49), as well as the FHWA’s Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018) (see Figure 50). RRFBs have high motorist yield compliance when activated and are already used in several locations throughout Edina. Figure 49. Gleason Road RRFB Warrant Analysis for Low-Speed Roadways (<35 mph) = hourly range of sum for peak hour northbound and southbound volumes. Source: Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) adapted from the Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidance CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 101 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY = Gleason Road; Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) Figure 50. Gleason Road FHWA STEP Guidance Analysis = Gleason Road Source: Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018), Federal Highway Administration CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 102 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Based on the City of Boulder’s guidance adapted by Edina, the minimum threshold is 20 pedestrians per hour (pph), or ten children per hour if the crossing is near a school. If that threshold is met, then an RRFB would be acceptable. Additionally, the roadway geometry, AADT volume, and posted speed limit would support implementation of an RRFB per Edina’s crossing guidance. The FHWA’s STEP Guide also supports implementation using the same traffic measures. Gleason Road, Indian Hills Pass, and School Access The intersection is all-way, stop-controlled which can be difficult to cross for children dependent upon the traffic volumes and number of lanes (e.g., crossing distance). It is also a key connection to Creek Valley Elementary and the adjacent park. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of the crossing (see Table 17). As demand at this location increases, a crossing guard could be assigned to this location. Table 17. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Gleason Road, Indian Hills Pass, and School Access Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing N/A Curb Ramps Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance, reduce exposure, and enhance accessibility. Tightened curb radii slow turning vehicles. Location dependent N/A Curb Extension Maximize extension as it aligns with applicable design vehicle turning radius. Reduces the crossing distance as well as improves motorist vision of people crossing. $2,000 to $3,500 per corner1 0.55 Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Provides a two-stage crossing and shortens the overall crossing distance. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 -0.54 Lane Markings Visually minimize lane width by adding striping. Maximum 11-feet wide, preferred 10-feet wide plus shoulder if applicable. Location dependent N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 1 $10,000 to $20,000 per corner with storm sewer impacts. Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of Transportation Officials CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 103 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Gleason Road, Cherokee Trail, and Creek Valley Road The intersection is all-way, stop-controlled and a key connection point due to existing sidewalk along Gleason Road and sidewalk along the school property of Creek Valley Road. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of the crossing (see Table 18). As demand at this location increases, a crossing guard could be assigned to this location as identified in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014). No concept is provided of this crossing, though it is recommended that the intersection be further studied for future improvements based upon identified needs. Table 18. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Gleason Road, Cherokee Trail, and Creek Valley Road Infrastructure Implementation Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar West and south legs Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign All legs R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing N/A Curb Ramps NW and SW corners1 Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance, reduce exposure, and enhance accessibility. Tightened curb radii slow turning vehicles. Location dependent N/A Curb Extension All corners Maximize extension as it aligns with applicable design vehicle turning radius. Reduces the crossing distance as well as improves motorist vision of people crossing. $2,000 to $3,500 per corner2 0.55 Lane Markings North and south legs Visually minimize lane width by adding striping. Maximum 11-feet wide, preferred 10-feet wide plus shoulder if applicable. Location dependent N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 1 Implement only if curb extensions are not constructed. 2 $10,000 to $20,000 per corner with storm sewer impacts. Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, National Association of Transportation Officials CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 104 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Pedestrian and Bicyclist Connectivity Sidewalk connectivity is a critical piece of multimodal infrastructure, providing space for children to walk, run, skate and play, and bike (if younger).7 Providing sidewalk facilities can reduce pedestrian crashes by up to 88 percent per the FHWA when compared to walking in the roadway. Bicycle infrastructure is another key multimodal connectivity element and must be low stress enough for children to comfortably ride. The existing sidewalk and bicycle network surrounding, and adjacent to, the school were reviewed to identify gaps or maintenance needs. Nine Mile Regional Trail Connection A shared-use path connection between Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail and Creek Valley Elementary does not exist, which creates a gap that prohibits access to/from the existing low-stress bicycle network. Furthermore, the lack of connectivity limits options for a direct connection to Edina High School or Valley View Middle school for after school activities. Four options were developed, which could be combined, to provide a more direct and accessible connection. The potential projects are detailed further in Chapter 5. Sidewalk Gaps Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) identifies future sidewalk at the following locations near Creek Valley Elementary which this Study confirms the identified needs for future implementation:  Gleason Road: McCauley Trail to Vernon Avenue (shared-use sidewalk or protected or separated bike lanes are more appropriate than planned buffered bike lanes – see analysis below).  Creel Valley Road: Nordic Circle to 150 feet east of Nordic Circle (edge of Edina High School campus, could connect to future upgraded shared-use paths on that school campus).  Indian Hills Pass: Gleason Road to McCauley Trail  Dakota Trail: Indian Hills Pass to Valley View Road  Valley View Road: Gleason Road to Mark Terrace Drive In addition to the sidewalk proposed in Edina’s master plan, this Study identified three additional locations for consideration (~2,600 feet total) to further interconnect the existing and proposed sidewalk network, as well as provide access to nearby student households.  School Access: Gleason Road to Creek Valley Elementary (shared-use path to connect Gleason Road and the school, as well as the adjacent park).  Nordic Circle: Creek Valley Road to parking lot (sidewalk connectivity along the school property and to the parking lot at the soccer fields, could connect to a future Nine Mile Regional Trail connection). 7 Saferoutesinfo.org. (n.d.). Sidewalks. http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/sidewalks.cfm#corridor CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 105 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY  Cherokee Trail: Gleason Road to Cheyenne Trail (sidewalk connection to the adjacent neighborhood). Bicycle Infrastructure Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) identifies future bicycle connectivity at the following locations which this Study confirms the identified needs for future implementation:  Gleason Road: Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 to Dewey Hill Road (protected bike lanes or shared use path as a part of the planned Edina Twin Loops).  McCauley Trail: Gleason Road to Valley View Road (protected bike lanes or shared-use path as a part of Edina Twin Loops).  Indian Hills Pass: McCauley Trail to Dakota Trail; Dakota Trail: Indian Hills Pass to Valley View Road (bike boulevard). To determine appropriate bicycle infrastructure, the AADT volume and posted speed limit were analyzed along Gleason Road using Edina’s guidance for bikeways as well as MnDOT’s guidance for urban and suburban roadways (see both Figure 51). Gleason Road was measured by “user comfort-centric” as that would better accommodate all ages and abilities as a part of the future Edina Twin Loops network. Figure 51. Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance – Gleason Road CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 106 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY = Gleason Road; Source: Edina Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan (2018); MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) The proposed buffered bike lane along Gleason Road (and by extension Vernon Avenue) north of McCauley Trail per Edina’s master plan may be more appropriate as a protected or separated bike lane or shared-use path to enhance the accessibility for children. It was determined that an extension of a planned bikeway to the school would increase connectivity to/from the planned network. The bike boulevard along Indian Hills Pass could extend from its planned terminus at Dakota Trail to Gleason Road. This would provide a lower-stress bicycle connection from the neighborhoods west of Gleason Road directly to the school access at the Gleason Road intersection. Further analysis is required before implementing potential improvements as limitations may exist, such as roadway width to accommodate these types of improvements under existing conditions. School Property Access and Circulation A conceptual redesign of the parking lot and vehicular access at Creek Valley Elementary was completed for the school district in 2015. As a part of this Study, the design was reviewed and updated based upon existing conditions data and engineering judgment to maximize the finite space available. The previous concept design swapped the drop-off/pick-up and school bus access locations. The existing pick-up/drop-off area was proposed for expansion to accommodate the school buses while the drop-off/pick- up area would move to the existing roundabout in front of the main entrance. Updates to the concept design were completed for this Study and include: CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 107 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY  Maintain the roundabout circulation while providing two exit options for drop-off and pick-up via the roundabout or through the parking lot.  Expand the inbound access road to two lanes which provides separation for traffic entering the parking and roundabout areas.  Expand multimodal connections with new inter- and intra-parking lot sidewalk.  Increase the number of parking spots by 24. Further analysis of the alternative was completed including access operations, circulation, queue capacity, and multimodal connectivity. Access Operations Access operations were studied using Synchro/SimTraffic 11 under existing traffic volumes (see Table 19). Table 19. Existing and Proposed Traffic Operations for Creek Valley Parking Lot Alternative Traffic Operations McCauley Trail / Gleason Road2 Indian Hills Pass / Gleason Road1 School Access / Gleason Road2 Creek Valley Road / Gleason Road1 AM PM3 AM PM AM PM AM PM Existing – No Build Delay (sec) 12 5 9 6 9 7 7 6 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 75 (EB) 50 (EB) 150 (SB) 75 (SB) 100 (WB) 50 (WB) 100 (NB) 75 (NB) Proposed Delay (sec) 14 6 8 6 5 5 7 6 LOS B A A A A A A A Queue (ft) 75 (EB) 50 (EB) 125 (SB) 75 (SB) 50 (WB) 50 (WB) 100 (NB) 50 (SB) 1 Delay and LOS are measured for the overall intersection due to the control. 2 Delay and LOS are measured for the worst approach due to the side-street, stop-control. 3 The peak period is in the afternoon following school dismissal. The analysis does not represent the actual evening rush hour. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 There is little to no impact on existing traffic operations, and even some improvement at the south access point, by swapping the bus and drop-off/pick-up areas. This is due to drop-off and pick-up traffic moving to the existing all-way stop-controlled intersection instead of relying upon gaps in traffic via the existing side- street, stop-controlled access. Of note, additional analysis should be conducted prior to implementation to ensure existing and future traffic operations are adequately accommodated. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 108 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Parking Lot Circulation and Queueing Further analysis of parking circulation and queueing capacity was studied. The existing and potential queueing capacity was analyzed, as well as average queues during peak periods. The average demand was formulated using the number of cars expected during the peak hour per StreetLight and cross-referenced by demand via the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Using 25 feet, the average length of a vehicle plus space between when queued, the peak 15-minute queue length was estimated as a range to account for fluctuations due to the dwell time per vehicle. The existing internal queue capacity is approximately 200 feet, while the proposed capacity after upgrading the parking lot and swapping access points is about 550 feet or nearly triple the current condition. This would accommodate estimated peak queues of 300 feet to 400 feet while streamlining operations over existing conditions. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person queue data was not collected to confirm the estimated demand. It is recommended that future analysis confirm the assumptions put forth in this Study. Multimodal Access An important consideration of the parking lot redesign is how children will be able to safely cross driveways as well as comfortably and conveniently access the school (i.e., main entrances, bike parking, etc.). Each mode needs a well-defined and highly recognizable, separated path of travel across the parking lot.8 Focus on such enhancements ensure that the largely auto-focused parking lot reconstruction is balanced with multimodal improvements to ensure driving is not further incentivized by the potential project. Driveway Design Driveway design best practices from the SRTS National Partnership’s Keep Calm and Carry-On to School – Improving Arrival and Dismissal for Walking and Bicycling (2018) were reviewed to identity key items for consideration during the design development phase of the project.  Driveway Width: Minimize driveway width to reduce the distance and exposure for those crossing. Narrowed driveway lanes and tightened curb radii will increase safety by slowing turning speeds. Unless a turn-lane is needed, a two-way access point should be a total of 24 feet wide with two 10- foot lanes plus curb at maximum. This would significantly improve crossings over existing conditions. Where the access is proposed to widen, the maximum width could be 34 feet with three 10-foot lanes plus curb. Reducing the width would allow for an enhanced shared-use sidewalk width and buffer. 8 Keep Calm and Carry On to School – Improving Arrival and Dismissal for Walking and Biking (2018), Safe Routes to School National Partnership CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 109 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY  Driveway Crossing Infrastructure: No continuous sidewalk connection across the driveways (see existing and improved examples at right) exists today. Current design allows higher turning speeds which creates unsafe crossing conditions. The continuous sidewalk across the driveway, along with tightened curb radii, will slow turning vehicles. It will also achieve ADA-compliance by maintaining a level pathway along the corridor.  Driveway Lighting: Pedestrian-scale lighting at driveway crossings ensures pedestrians and bicyclists are properly illuminated. This is especially important in the Minnesota climate where a portion of the school year has dark or dusk conditions during peak school periods. Intra-Site Connectivity Sidewalk connectivity along and across the parking lot is key toward providing safe passage from Gleason Road to the main entrance. Moreover, following desire lines of travel is important toward ensuring out-of-direction travel is minimized as that can promote unsafe behavior. HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY Potential improvements evaluated for Highlands Elementary included enhanced crossings, sidewalk connections, and bicycle infrastructure. A key potential improvement includes an upgraded multimodal crossing and connections at the Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 intersection as well as along Ayrshire Boulevard. The existing configuration is not accessible, safe, or comfortable to walk, roll, bike, or drive at the intersection. Three alternatives were studied using an evaluation matrix to identify tradeoffs and the most favorable option. Traffic operations and a warrant analysis were completed for future consideration. Multimodal crossings upgrades were examined at Doncaster Way and the school access. A need for additional crossings of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 is highlighted, though not studied. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connections were also evaluated along key adjacent corridors. Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue The planning-level concepts developed as a part of this Study could inform future improvements. Three alternatives were developed using existing conditions data and engineering judgment to maximize multimodal access and connectivity (see Figure 52, Figure 53, and Figure 54). Further analysis is detailed for each alternative including traffic operations, intersection warrants, and multimodal elements. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 110 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Alternatives Evaluation A high-level analysis of the Ayrshire Boulevard design alternatives was performed to determine how each relates to key criteria such as access, multimodal elements, private property impacts, and overall project cost. An evaluation matrix was developed to measure the key criteria quantitatively and qualitatively (see Table 20).  Access: How the design maintains or improves access to adjacent homes, as well as the broader neighborhood and school.  Multimodal Crossings: How the design enhances crossing of Ayrshire Boulevard for pedestrians and bicyclists.  Multimodal Connections: How the design improves connections along Ayrshire Boulevard and to/from the school.  Private Property: How the design minimizes impacts to private property (i.e., right-of-way, etc.).  Project Cost: The overall estimated cost of the improvement. Table 20. Ayrshire Boulevard Alternatives Evaluation Matrix Access Multimodal Crossings Multimodal Connections Private Property Project Cost Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 = positive impact, = neutral impact, = negative impact Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Based upon the evaluation matrix, the most favorable option is Alternative 2 as it provides the most opportunities for improvement while limiting impacts to access and private property. It is also the lowest cost option while providing a high multimodal benefit. Additional detail regarding traffic operations, intersection warrants, and multimodal elements is detailed for all three alternatives. This could broadly inform future decision-making as a preferred alternative moves into design development. EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 52: AYRSHIRE BLVD. ALTERNATIVE 1 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : HIGHLAND 1 // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 1 111 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 53: AYRSHIRE BLVD. ALTERNATIVE 2 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : HIGHLAND 2 // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 2 X X X 112 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 54: AYRSHIRE BLVD. ALTERNATIVE 3 H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : HIGHLAND 3 // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 3 X X X 113 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 114 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Intersection Operations Traffic operations were studied using Synchro/SimTraffic 11 under existing conditions to determine potential impacts from modifying the intersection (see Table 21). All three alternatives were studied as one “proposed” option because all include reducing the width of the roadway and limiting the lane configuration to a left and right-turn lane where today both can be completed simultaneously due to the lane width. Table 21. Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue Intersection Traffic Operations Alternative1 Traffic Operations AM PM2 Existing Delay (sec) 20 18 LOS C C Queue (ft) 50 (SB) 50 (SB) Proposed Delay (sec) 25 20 LOS D C Queue (ft) 100 (SB) 75 (SB) 1 Traffic controls unchanged from existing. Delay and LOS are measured for the worst approach due to the side-street, stop-control. 2 The peak period is evening rush hour, not the afternoon following school dismissal. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 The proposed improvement has some impact on southbound traffic along Ayrshire Boulevard due to increased delay related to the one turn lane. Overall, delay and queues increase minimally since Ayrshire Boulevard’s AADT volume is approximately 700, which is relatively low. A warrant analysis was completed to study potential opportunities to decrease side-street delay. Of note, additional analysis should be conducted prior to implementation of a preferred alternative to ensure existing and future traffic operations are adequately accommodated. Intersection Warrant Analysis A warrant analysis was completed for the intersection under existing and the proposed configurations. No warrants were met (see Table 22). Of note, additional analysis should be completed to determine appropriate traffic controls during future planning processes. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 115 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Table 22. Vernon Avenue and Ayrshire Boulevard Intersection Warrant Analysis Warrant Existing Proposed MWSA (C): Multiway Stop Application Condition C No No Warrant 1A: Minimum Vehicular Volume No No Warrant 1B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic No No Warrant 1C: Combination of Warrants No No Warrant 2: Four-Hour No No Warrant 3B: Peak Hour No No Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Multimodal Access An important consideration of the redesign is how children will be able to safely cross the wide intersection, as well as conveniently access the school via Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 or Ayrshire Boulevard (see Table 23). Currently, the crossing of Ayrshire Boulevard is approximately 125 feet wide, with no median which creates substantial exposure for pedestrians from vehicles in all directions due to the intersection’s geometry. The alternatives reduce the crossing distance to between 30 feet and 38 feet depending upon the alternative. All options tighten the curb radius which is very wide today and promote higher-speed right-turning movements. Table 23. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Ayrshire Boulevard and Vernon Avenue Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Stop bar minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 Curb Ramps & Curb Radii Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance, reduce exposure, and enhance accessibility. Tightened curb radii slow turning vehicles. Location dependent N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Provides a two-stage crossing and shortens the overall crossing distance. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 -0.54 Lane Markings Visually minimize lane width by adding striping. Maximum 11-feet wide, preferred 10-feet wide plus shoulder if applicable. Location dependent N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota LRRB (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 116 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY In addition to crossing improvements, all three alternatives provide sidewalk along one, or both sides, of Ayrshire Boulevard from Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 to immediately north of Glenbrae Circle. The northern terminus could connect to a proposed shared-use path to the school in the northeast corner of the campus (described later). This section of sidewalk could be considered the “phase I” of a broader project to construct sidewalk along all of Ayrshire Boulevard to Dundee Road per Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Crossing Improvements A study of crossing improvements at Doncaster Way and the school entrance was completed. The planning- level concept design is further described in Chapter 5. Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 crossings are also broadly discussed, though no specific locations are identified. As a potential north-south barrier, this Study identifies as a candidate for a future multimodal corridor study. Doncaster Way and School Access The intersection is side-street, stop-controlled and is an uncontrolled crossing of Doncaster Way. The crossing is a key access point for children walking and bicycling to Highlands Elementary as it serves the only existing sidewalk connection to the school. The driveway is the only vehicular access to the school campus as well, creating potential safety hazards and conflicts during peak school periods. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of those crossing (see Table 24). As demand at this location increases, a crossing guard could be assigned to this location as identified in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014). Table 24. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Doncaster Way and the School Access Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing N/A Curb Ramps & Curb Radii Directional, ADA-compliant ramps shorten crossing distance and enhance accessibility. Tightened curb radii slow turning vehicles. Location dependent N/A Raised Crosswalk Level pedestrian crossing that increases motorist’s sight of those crossing while encouraging slow speeds doubling as a speed hump. $7,000 to $40,000 each 0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,000 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota LRRB (2020); Urban Street Design Guide, NACTO CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 117 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Vernon Avenue Crossings Consideration of future crossing infrastructure along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 is identified by this Study as a need, though no locations are identified as further evaluation and community outreach is required external to this planning process. A potential opportunity could be a future corridor study of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 from TH 100 to TH 62 (2.5 miles) which could organize a vision and develop improvements to connect the numerous destinations along the roadway. Pedestrian crossing spacing is one issue along the corridor. Adhering to reasonable spacing between crossings is important to ensure a corridor is not a barrier to walking, rolling, or bicycling. NACTO broadly defines acceptable distance between crossings as within an approximate three-minute walk, otherwise the likelihood for humans to perform risk-taking behavior exponentially increases due to the distance by out of direction travel and perceived benefit related to time savings. Of note, no state or national guidance exists identifying specific measured distances between marked crossings. Crossing placement is heavily dependent upon the surrounding context, land use and destinations, network connectivity, and other factors. A high-level analysis of agency best practices in the United States showed typical marked crossing spacing from 200 to 600 feet when warranted. A minimum spacing of 200 feet between signalized crossings is identified in the MN MUTCD.9 There are signalized crossings of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 at five intersections along the 2.5-mile corridor. The surrounding context is primarily low-density residential; however, destinations such as nearby parks and schools exist along both sides of the corridor. The closest controlled crossing to Highlands Elementary is the signalized intersection at Tracy Avenue which provides a connection to Doncaster Way via a sidewalk approximately 300 feet east of the intersection. It is the only marked and controlled crossing between Blake Road (0.7 miles west) and Eden Avenue (0.8 miles east), representing the largest gaps along the corridor. Signal timing at the Tracy Avenue intersection was studied as requested by the City to ensure pedestrian crossing times were suitable for children. The walk time of seven seconds is appropriate; however, existing pedestrian clearance time may not provide enough time for children to cross due to their slower walking speeds measured as three feet per second. Currently, all legs have 15 seconds of clearance time except for the south leg which is 17 seconds. Following state and federal MUTCD guidance, an increase of three seconds to each leg would better achieve access for all ages and abilities who may cross the road at less than the 3.5 feet per second industry standard measure. Further study is required prior to implementation. Uncontrolled crossings of the corridor could also facilitate greater connectivity. The FHWA’s Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018) was reviewed to identify potential infrastructure for future crossings of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 (see Figure 55). The corridor is two lanes, has a posted speed limit of 40 mph, and a 12,400 AADT volume near the school. 9 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2012). Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 4C.05, Paragraph 04. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 118 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Figure 55. Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 FHWA STEP Guidance Analysis = Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 Source: Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018), Federal Highway Administration The FHWA strongly advises PHBs at uncontrolled crossings where speeds are greater than 40 mph.10 The existing posted speed limit is 40 mph along most of Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158. If a pedestrian island refuge is implemented at the crossing, then RRFBs could be acceptable per the FHWA’s STEP Guide and context- specific engineering judgment. However, slower speeds could provide a more comfortable crossing and higher perceived safety for children as well. 10 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (2018). Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. https://bit.ly/3n6YH0Q CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 119 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Pedestrian and Bicyclist Connectivity Sidewalk connectivity is a critical piece of multimodal infrastructure, providing space for children to walk, run, skate and play, and bike (if younger).11 Providing sidewalk facilities can reduce pedestrian crashes by up to 88 percent per the FHWA when compared to walking in the roadway. Bicycle infrastructure is another key multimodal connectivity element and must be low stress enough for children to comfortably ride. The existing sidewalk and bicycle network surrounding, and adjacent to, the school were reviewed to identify gaps or maintenance needs. Highlands Shared-use Path Edina’s Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014) identifies a multimodal connection between the school and Ayrshire Boulevard within the vicinity of Glenbrae Circle. This Study confirmed the connection as a key need for broader connectivity where current options are limited to only Doncaster Way. The connection would reduce significant out-of-direction travel from the east which now requires a one-half to two-thirds of a mile walk that could be reduced to as little as 800 feet. Review and closely track future opportunities upon redevelopment of residential parcels or pursue purchase of the needed right-of-way from private property owners where the shared-use path would travel. Further project information is detailed in Chapter 5. Sidewalk Gaps Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) identifies future sidewalk at the following locations near Highlands Elementary, which this Study confirms the identified needs for future implementation:  Ayrshire Boulevard: Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 to Dundee Road  Doncaster Way: Ayrshire Boulevard to Highlands Park parking lot  Glengarry Parkway: Ayrshire Boulevard to Interlachen Boulevard (via Highlands Lake)  Mirror Lake Drive: Dundee Road to Interlachen Boulevard  Dundee Road: Mirror Lake Drive to Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 In addition to the sidewalk proposed in Edina’s master plan, this Study identified one additional location for consideration (~1,100 feet total) to further interconnect the existing and proposed sidewalk network.  Glengarry Parkway: Ayrshire Boulevard to Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 Future connectivity between Verona Avenue/CSAH 158 and the southeast corner of the school campus should be explored and tracked. Like the proposed northeast connector to Ayrshire Boulevard, this would remove significant out-of-direction travel via Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158. 11 Saferoutesinfo.org. (n.d.). Sidewalks. http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/sidewalks.cfm#corridor CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 120 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Sidewalk Widening Sidewalk widening is another consideration that could benefit children accessing the school who typically like to walk in groups or alongside an adult. The existing sidewalk along the school access road is six feet wide with no buffer. It was determined as the only current sidewalk connection to the school, it would be better suited by an eight- or ten-foot-wide sidewalk with buffered, landscaped space (i.e., street trees). Bicycle Infrastructure Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018) identifies future bicycle connectivity at the following locations, which this Study confirms for future implementation:  Vernon Avenue: Gleason Road to TH 100 (shared-use sidewalk or protected or separated bike lanes are more appropriate than planned buffered bike lanes – see analysis below).  Tracey Avenue: Vernon Avenue to Benton Avenue (buffered bike lanes)  Mirror Lake Drive: Dundee Road to Interlachen Boulevard; Dundee Road: Mirror Lake Drive to Vernon Avenue (bike boulevard) To determine appropriate bicycle infrastructure along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158, the AADT volume and posted speed limit were analyzed using MnDOT’s guidance for urban and suburban roadways per the Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) (see Figure 56). Figure 56. Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance – Vernon Avenue = Vernon Avenue/CSHA 158 (12,000 vpd at this location); Source: MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 121 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The proposed buffered bike lane along Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 (and by extension Gleason Road) per Edina’s master plan may be more appropriate as a protected or separated bike lane or shared-use path to better align with current MnDOT guidance. This would provide lower stress bicycle infrastructure that could be used by a child as opposed to the planned conditions. It was determined that two additional bike boulevards would enhance connectivity to/from the planned network and school.  Ayrshire Boulevard: Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 to Dundee Road  Doncaster Way: Ayrshire Boulevard to the school access A bike boulevard would provide a lower-stress bicycle connection from the surrounding neighborhoods to the school. It would also interconnect the area to Highlands Park and the planned connection to the northeast corner of the school from Ayrshire Boulevard. Further analysis is required before implementing potential improvements as limitations may exist, such as roadway width to accommodate these types of improvements under existing conditions. Source: MnDOT Page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 122 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 5: POTENTIAL PROJECTS This chapter organizes the potential projects identified and described in Chapter 4 for each school (see Table 25 and Figure 57, Figure 58, and Figure 59). Each project is described in fact sheets that are designed to be independently used external to this Study document for public outreach or grant applications. Pertinent information such as key project items, estimated cost, and infrastructure elements are included. Table 25. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ID1 Location Project Type Description Estimated Cost2 Cornelia Elementary P1 Cornelia Parking Lot Parking lot reconstruction. $355,000 P2 $595,000 P3 $600,000 C1 Cornelia Drive and 72nd Street Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop. $70,000 C2 Claremore Drive and Oaklawn Avenue Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop. $15,000 S1 Claremore Drive Sidewalk Construction of sidewalk from Oaklawn Avenue to Wooddale Avenue. $140,000 S2 Cornelia Park Shared-use Sidewalk Construction of shared-use sidewalk through Cornelia Park. $50,000 Creek Valley Elementary I1 TH 62 and Gleason Road Interchange Interchange Roadway geometry and crossing improvements at the interchange and approaches. $280,000 I2 $430,000 I3 $275,000 C1 Gleason Road and McCauley Trail Intersection Crossing upgrades to an uncontrolled crossing. $95,000 C2 Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop and access to the school. $30,000 S1 Creek Valley Shared-use Sidewalk Construction of shared-use sidewalk to school from Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. $100,000 S2 $45,000 S3 $110,000 S4 $30,000 P1 Creek Valley Parking Lot Parking lot reconstruction. $1,525,000 CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 123 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY ID1 Location Project Type Description Estimated Cost2 Highlands Elementary R1 Ayrshire Boulevard Intersection, Sidewalk Crossing upgrades to a side-street, stop- controlled intersection, and construction of sidewalk from Vernon Avenue to immediately north of Glenbrae Circle. $395,000 R2 $250,000 R3 $255,000 C1 Doncaster Way Intersection, Sidewalk Crossing upgrades to a side-street, stop- controlled intersection, and construction of sidewalk along school access. $140,000 S1 Highlands Shared-use Sidewalk Construction of shared-use sidewalk between the school and Ayrshire Boulevard. $50,000 1 Order does not denote priority. 2 Cost estimates for crossing infrastructure does not include pedestrian-scale lighting and were developed using the concept designs produced by SRF Consulting Group. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Estimated project costs derived from the concept designs are produced for high-level estimating and require additional design and engineering. The estimates in this Study include (percentages derived from total):  Unit costs of applicable removal and construction items.  Grading (10%) if applicable.  Erosion control (3-5%) if applicable.  Signing and striping (1-10%) if applicable.  Storm improvements (10%) if applicable.  Mobilization (5%) included for all projects.  Contingency (20%) included for all projects. The following are sources used for information on the project pages include:  Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020)  Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, MnDOT  Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board  Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 124 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY QUICK BUILD CROSSING INFRASTRUCTURE The cost associated with temporary installation of crossing improvements identified in this Study were reviewed. If there is a need or desire by all relevant parties to expedite implementation, one option would be to install temporary infrastructure also referred to as a “quick build” process. “Quick build” is a project delivery method that allows for the rapid deployment of multimodal safety improvements using temporary materials.12 Those materials can include signage, pavement markings or striping, and bollards or flex posts. Such materials can implement crossing upgrades or other multimodal infrastructure within an expedited timeline. Implementing the potential crossing improvements with temporary infrastructure is an interim opportunity following the completion of final design and during the process of requesting and securing funding as well as constructing the permanent improvement. A local example of an agency implementing “quick build” projects is Minneapolis Public Works via their Vision Zero program. Three considerations of quick-build infrastructure:  Ensure a maintenance plan and agreement is in place. Bollards or flex posts can be routinely knocked over by motorists, pavement markings can fade, etc. It is important to not allow temporary projects to fall into disrepair while also understanding that these projects are not long-term solutions.  Invest in temporary infrastructure to see if a design works for relatively low up-front costs. An example could be a curb extension where such a design could be tested and tracked to ensure it does not hinder larger vehicle turning movements. Depending upon the outcome, the design can be tweaked or removed from consideration. This is the opportunity in which design modifications may be completed prior to construction of curb and gutter, pavement, and other permanent infrastructure that is much more costly to move or remove.  Collect data that could support funding requests and future construction of permanent improvements at these locations, as well as general data for the school district or City to use in support of future applicable projects. It is estimated that quick-build crossings could be implemented for approximately $8,500 per location on average, though it could be higher or lower depending upon the specific location. This cost estimate does not include infrastructure items such as pedestrian-scale lighting or account for potential maintenance needs. 12 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (n.d.). Quick-Build Materials. https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian- mobility/complete-streets/quick-build-materials Figure 57 Potential Enhanced Crossing Potential RRFB Potential Bikeway: Protected Bike Lane or Shared-use Path Potential Sidewalk Potential ADA-compliance Upgrade Potential Bikeway: Bike Boulevard Potential Improvement not designed for this study or identiﬁed in a previous plan Improvement ID Focus School #Potential Safe Routes to School Projects Edina, MN Cornelia Elementary Dunberry Lane Andover Road Belvidere Lane Cornelia DriveGlouchester AvenueHeatherton TrailBristol Boulevard72nd Street West Cornelia Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ft P1 P2 P3 S2 S1 Clare m o r e D r i v e C2 C1Wooddale Avenue70th Street West Mavelle Drive Review school speed zone signage for improvements Improvement designed for this study Potential enhanced crossing at Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive included with P1, P2, or P3.West Shore DriveSome sidewalk or bicycle infrastructure upgrades identiﬁed in the report are outside this map's viewshed.Kellogg Avenue EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA 1 // 12/28/2020 - 11:38AMCornelia Elementary School - Concept 1Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 1 X Existing Front Lot Stalls: 13Concept 1 Stalls: 13 126 P1. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 1 $$355,000 (full reconstruct), $315,000 (preserve select curb)KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Preserving existing curb lines in select locations could reduce reconstruction costs. • Extends the driveway aisle and streamlines circulation by eliminating the north access point while maintaining parking supply. • Removal of north access point enhances 70th Street and Cornelia Drive intersection operations with better access spacing via concentrated operations at existing Cornelia and Mavelle Dive intersection. • One access point along Cornelia Drive enhances multimodal connectivity and safety along the corridor, most notably by removal of the very wide north driveway crossing (85 feet). • Potential implementation of all-way stop at Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive could improve intersection operations, as well as safety of pedestrians crossing Cornelia Drive. The crosswalk skew is removed with curb extensions and shift of driveway to shorten the crossing distance. BACKGROUND EXISTING & PROPOSED QUEUE CAPACITY DRIVEWAY CRASHESPEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUME CHANGE IN PARKING SUPPLY 275 feet, 550 feet 0Up to 170 0 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 127 P1. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 1 Infrastructure Improvement Description and Benefit Crosswalk & Stop Bar Markings Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. Stop bar limits vehicle encroachment (4-foot min. distance from crosswalk, preferred up to 8-feet). Implement in the west and south intersection legs. Enhanced Signage Reminds motorists of state right-of-way laws for people crossing. Implement R1-6c all legs. Curb Extension Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches. Implement SW and SE intersection corners. Pedestrian Island Refuge (median)Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches. Implement 6-feet wide in west leg. Sidewalk Internal sidewalk connects parking stalls, as well as Cornelia Drive to the school main entrance. Include street trees and landscaping when possible. Curb Ramp ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility throughout the internal sidewalk network. Parking Lot Revised circulation significantly expands internal queue capacity while maintain the existing number of visitor parking stalls. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Provide adequate lighting to properly illuminate pedestrians and bicyclists. EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 128 P2. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 2 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Preserving existing curb lines in select locations could reduce reconstruction costs. • Maintains existing driveway access and points and general circulation. Extends and widens drive aisle for two-lanes to accommodate potential short-term access along curb line south of the school’s main entrance. • North access point could be modified to revert to original access or extend pork chop island to maintain access closure for northbound vehicles. • Potential implementation of all-way stop at Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive could improve intersection operations, as well as safety of pedestrians crossing Cornelia Drive. The crosswalk skew is removed with curb extensions and shift of driveway to shorten the crossing distance.H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA 2 // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 2 Existing North Lot Stalls: 13Concept 2 North Lot Stalls: 14 Existing South Lot Stalls: 53Concept 2 South Lot Stalls: 41 $$595,000 (full reconstruct), $525,000 (preserve select curb) BACKGROUND EXISTING & PROPOSED QUEUE CAPACITY DRIVEWAY CRASHESPEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUME CHANGE IN PARKING SUPPLY 275 feet, 300 feet 0Up to 170 -11 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY P2. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 2 Infrastructure Improvement Description and Benefit Crosswalk & Stop Bar Markings Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. Stop bar limits vehicle encroachment (4-foot min. distance from crosswalk, preferred up to 8-feet). Implement to all improved crossings. Enhanced Signage Reminds motorists of state right-of-way laws for people crossing. Implement R1-6c at all legs of Cornelia/Mavelle intersection. Curb Extension Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches. Implement SW and SE intersection corners of Cornelia/Mavelle intersection. Pedestrian Island Refuge (median)Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches. Implement 6-feet wide in west leg of Cornelia/Mavelle intersection. Sidewalk Internal sidewalk connection along school frontage, as well as Cornelia Drive to the school main entrance. Include street trees and landscaping when possible. Curb Ramp ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility throughout the internal sidewalk network. Parking Lot Revised circulation expands internal queue capacity. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Provide adequate lighting to properly illuminate pedestrians and bicyclists. 129 EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 130 P3. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 3 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Preserving existing curb lines in select locations could reduce reconstruction costs.• Switches school access with school buses in the north lot and parent drop-off/pick-up in the south lot. • Focuses peak vehicular demand to the far south parking lot entrance, moving congestion south along Cornelia Drive and away from the 70th Street intersection. This circulation degrades traffic operations along Cornelia Drive during peak periods. • The crosswalk skew at Cornelia Drive and Mavelle Drive is removed by shifting the driveway curb line to shorten the crossing distance.H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA 3 // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 3 Existing North Lot Stalls: 13Concept 3 North Lot Stalls: 0 Existing South Lot Stalls: 53Concept 3 South Lot Stalls: 21 $$600,000 (full reconstruct), $525,000 (preserve select curb) BACKGROUND EXISTING & PROPOSED QUEUE CAPACITY DRIVEWAY CRASHESPEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUME CHANGE IN PARKING SUPPLY 275 feet, 350 feet 0Up to 170 -22 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY P3. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE 3 Infrastructure Improvement Description and Benefit Crosswalk & Stop Bar Markings Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. Stop bar limits vehicle encroachment (4-foot min. distance from crosswalk, preferred up to 8-feet). Implement to all improved crossings. Enhanced Signage Reminds motorists of state right-of-way laws for people crossing. Implement R1-6c at all legs of Cornelia/Mavelle intersection. Curb Extension Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramp at bus entrance, shortening the crossing distance from 85 feet to 65 feet. and sidewalk approaches. Sidewalk Internal sidewalk connection along school frontage, as well as Cornelia Drive to the school main entrance. Include street trees and landscaping when possible. Curb Ramp ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility throughout the internal sidewalk network. Parking Lot Revised circulation expands internal queue capacity. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Provide adequate lighting to properly illuminate pedestrians and bicyclists. 131 EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA & 72ND // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Cornelia Drive & W 72nd Intersection Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 4 132 C1. CORNELIA DRIVE AND 72ND STREET $$70,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • All-way stop controlled intersection which can be difficult for children to cross. Reducing the crossing distance can increase predictability of stopped vehicles and limit crossing exposure/conflict points. • Key connection point of Cornelia Drive and 72nd Street sidewalks, as well as Oaklawn Avenue via 72nd Street. Main intersection for pedestrian connectivity to the school from the south. • Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distances from up to 34 feet to as little as 28 feet, reducing exposure by 2-3 seconds while crossing. • New curb ramps will upgrade those that are not currently ADA-compliant on the north side. • Tightened curb radius slows vehicular turning speeds while maintaining appropriate roadway width. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 1,100 (west), 2,100 (east), 1,500 (north), 300 (south) Posted 30 mph all approaches. EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 133 C1. CORNELIA DRIVE AND 72ND STREET Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk & Stop Bar Markings All legs Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. Stop bar limits vehicle encroachment (4-foot min. distance from crosswalk, preferred up to 8-feet).$5,000 0.6 Enhanced Signage All legs, R1-6c Reminds motorists of state right-of-way laws for people crossing.N/A Curb Extension & Curb Ramps1 North, south, and west legs Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches.$65,000 0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000 - $40,0002 0.55 1 Curb extension could be included to east intersection leg to maintain design consistency and increase sight distance of westbound right-turning vehicles if so chosen. As a potential cost saving that location was not included. 2 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 STOPSTOP ALL WAY EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : OAKLAWN & 72ND // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Oaklawn Ave & W 72nd Intersection Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 5 C2. 72ND ST., CLAREMORE DR., OAKLAWN AVE. KEY PROJECT ITEMS • All-way stop controlled intersection which can be difficult for children to cross. Reducing the crossing distance can increase predictability of stopped vehicles and limit crossing exposure/conflict points. • Key connection point of 72nd Street and Oaklawn Avenue sidewalks which provides pedestrian connectivity to the school from the south. • Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distances from up to 32 feet to as little as 24 feet with two-stage crossing. • Medians could provide dual benefit as chicanes to slowing approach speeds. • Cost savings are realized by maintaining existing curb ramps and sidewalk approaches that were recently upgraded. 134 $$15,000 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 135 C2. 72ND ST., CLAREMORE DR., OAKLAWN AVE. Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk West leg Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers.$1,000 0.6 Pedestrian Island Refuge (median) West leg (6-feet wide & 50-feet long)Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing.$14,000 0.46-0.54 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000 - $40,0001 0.55 1 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 1,100 (west, east), 1,000 (south) Posted 30 mph all approaches. EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 STOPSTOP ALL WAY EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CLAREMORE // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Claremore Walk Extension to Wooddale Ave Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 6 136 S1. CLAREMORE DR. – WOODDALE AVE. TO OAKLAWN AVE. $$140,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a sidewalk gap identified in the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018). Other adjacent sidewalks identified in that plan include along Kellogg Avenue and Wooddale Avenue. • A five-foot sidewalk and boulevard are proposed, aligning with the cross-section for Local Collector classified roadways per Edina’s Living Streets Plan. • Provides a connection to the school for students from the west, eliminating the need to walk in the street. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 1,100 Posted 30 mph EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 137 S1. CLAREMORE DR. – WOODDALE AVE. TO OAKLAWN AVE. Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk Claremore Drive 5-foot sidewalk connection fills a 925-foot east-west gap. $140,000 N/A Curb Ramp Kellogg, Wooddale ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility.N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.N/A1 0.55 1Requires review of the cost to implement 12 to 18 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Cornelia Concepts.dwg : CORNELIA & 72ND // 12/28/2020 - 11:39AMCornelia Elementary School - Cornelia Drive & W 72nd Intersection Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 4 138 S2. CORNELIA PARK SHARED-USE SIDEWALK $$50,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a north-south gap between the school and neighborhoods to the south by limiting out-of-direction travel to Cornelia Drive via a more direct route from Oaklawn Avenue. • The sidewalk would be constructed entirely on school district property which potentially eases implementation absent private property owners. • The proposed sidewalk would connect to the existing paved connection between the parking lot and park building. Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Shared-use Path Park 10-foot shared-use sidewalk connection fills a gap and shortens distance from Oaklawn Avenue crossing to the school’s main entrance from ~1,400 feet to ~1,000 feet.$50,000 N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.N/A1 0.55 1 Requires review of the cost to implement 7 to 12 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 139 S2. CORNELIA PARK SHARED-USE SIDEWALK EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 Figure 58 Cornelia Elementary School Cornelia Elementary Creek Valley Elementary School Creek Valley Elementary 0 500 1,000 ftIndian Hills Pass Timber Ridge Che r o k e e T r a i l Potential Safe Routes to School Projects Edina, MN 62MINNESOTA *Intersection improvements could be coupled with the parking lot upgrades. Gl e a s o n R o a d I1 McCauley Trail I2 I3 C1 S1 P1 S4 P1 S2 S3 Nordic CircleP1 Creek Valley Road Potential Enhanced Crossing Potential Bikeway: Shared-use Path Potential Sidewalk Potential Bikeway: Bike Boulevard Potential Improvement not designed for this study or identiﬁed in a previous plan Improvement ID Focus School # Improvement designed for this study Potential RRFB C2* Review school speed zone signage for improvements EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : CREEK VALLEY SECTIONS // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Gleason Rd Cross Sections Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 4 Concept 3A Concept 2 Concept 1 Concept 3B 141 I1, I2, & I3. TH 62 / GLEASON ROAD INTERCHANGE $$280,000 (Alt 1), $430,000 (Alt 2), $275,000 (Alt 3)KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Three alternatives to convert Gleason Road from McCauley Trail to the westbound ramp to either a two-lane roadway with turn lanes or three-lane roadway from the existing undivided four-lane. Potential for traffic control upgrades at the interchange intersections (currently side-street, stop- controlled) upon further study. • The north-south sidewalk through the interchange is not comfortable or convenient, representing a barrier along Gleason Road. • Multimodal improvements fill a gap between the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail and future all ages and abilities network planned by the City. • The interchange is included in MnDOT’s Capital Highway Improvement Program (CHIP) for 2026. • A widened, shared-use sidewalk along the east side of the overpass would align with long- term improvements planned for Gleason Road per Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. • See Appendix X for the detailed concept designs of each option. EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 142 I1, I2, &I3. TH 62 / GLEASON ROAD INTERCHANGE Infrastructure Implementation Benefit CMFs Shared-use Sidewalk Gleason Road 7- to 10-foot shared-use sidewalk from McCauley Trail to the westbound TH 62 ramp. To increase comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists, buffer space should be maximized. N/A Curb Ramp Interchange intersections ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility. Tightened curb radii slow turning vehicles and shorten the crossing distance. N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.0.55 EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES ALL CRASHES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 4 (north int.), 11 (south int.), 1 (overpass) 8,100 (south), 10,200 (north) Posted 30 mph EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : MCCAULEY TRAIL CROSSING // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - McCauley Trail / Gleason Rd Intersection CrossingSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 6 143 C1. GLEASON ROAD AND MCCAULEY TRAIL $$95,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Side-street, stop-controlled intersection near Creek Valley Elementary. • The City plans to add a marked crosswalk with curb ramps in 2022. Further enhancements were identified to ensure those of all ages and abilities can safely cross at this location.• The crossing would connect to the future Edina Twin Loops All Ages and Abilities Network proposed in Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. • Uncontrolled crossings can be difficult for children to cross due to free-flow traffic. Reducing the crossing distance can increase predictability of vehicle gaps and limit crossing exposure/conflict points. • Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distance of Gleason Road from up to 60 feet to as little as 40 feet with the two-stage crossing. • Median could provide dual benefit as a chicane and slow Gleason Road traffic. • Add fog lines to minimize roadway width. Only a centerline is present today with 22-foot-wide travel lanes. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 8,100 (north and south), 1,000 (west) Posted 30 mph all approaches EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 144 C1. GLEASON ROAD AND MCCAULEY TRAIL Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk South leg Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. $5,000 0.6 Advanced Yield Markings 50-feet from crosswalk Increases motorist sight distance and identifies where drivers should yield in advance of crosswalk.0.75-0.89 Enhanced Signage R1-5b, other appropriate warning signage Identifies where drivers should stop in advance of the crosswalk.N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge (median) & Curb Ramps South leg (10-feet wide & 50-feet long) Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps, tightened curb radius of McCauley Trail, and sidewalk approaches.$45,000 0.46-0.54 Travel Lanes Both directions Add fog lines to tighten up travel lanes to 10-feet-wide plus shoulder to slow vehicles. Currently, 22-foot travel lanes in each direction promote speeding with only a centerline present. N/A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)1 3 in total, two-sided in median Yield compliance of 70 to 95 percent. Key at higher-volume locations to enhance crossing safety and comfort.$45,000 0.53 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000 - $40,0002 0.55 1 Infrastructure is dependent upon posted speeds, traffic volumes, and engineering judgement.2 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : INDIAN HILLS CROSSING // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Indian Hills Pass / Gleason Rd / School Access Intersection Crossing Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 7 145 C2. GLEASON ROAD, INDIAN HILLS PASS, & SCHOOL ACCESS $$30,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • All-way stop controlled intersection which can be difficult for children to cross. Reducing the crossing distance can increase predictability of stopped vehicles and limit crossing exposure/ conflict points. • Key crossing to access the school and park facilities. The crossing would also connect to the future Edina Twin Loops All Ages and Abilities Network proposed along Gleason Road and sidewalk planned along Indian Hills Pass per Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. • Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distances from up to 38 feet to as little as 28 feet with two-stage crossing. • Median could provide a dual benefit as a chicane and slow approach speeds. • Southbound left-turn lane maintains existing traffic operations if parent drop-off/pick-up are moved to this access point. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 8,100 (north, south), 1,300 (west), 500 (east) Posted 30 mph (north, south, west), Posted 15 mph (east) EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 146 C2. GLEASON ROAD, INDIAN HILLS PASS, & SCHOOL ACCESS Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk South and East legs Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers.$1,000 0.6 Pedestrian Island Refuge (median) & Curb Ramps South leg (10-feet wide & 100-feet long) Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps, tightened curb radius of the school entrance, and sidewalk approaches.$29,000 0.46-0.54 Travel Lanes Both directions Add fog lines to tighten up travel lanes to 10-feet-wide plus shoulder to slow vehicles. Currently, lanes are up to 22-feet wide with only a centerline present. N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000 - $40,0001 0.55 1 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : CREEK VALLEY TRAIL // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Trail Connection OptionsSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 5 S1, S2, S3, & S4. CREEK VALLEY SHARED-USE PATH KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Four alternatives to provide a direct connection between Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail and Creek Valley Elementary. Alternatives could be combined to provide enhanced connectivity with the regional trail. • Fills a gap between the school and regional trail which could be used to access the school from surrounding neighborhoods. • A direct trail connection could also better connect the elementary school with the middle and high school campus immediately to the east. • The trail would be constructed entirely on school district property which potentially eases implementation absent private property owners. • Some topographical challenges exist and require further review during final design. 147 $$100,000 (Alt 1), $45,000 (Alt 2), $110,000 (Alt 3), $30,000 (Alt 4) Infrastructure Implementation Multiuse Trail 10-foot shared-use path connection between the school and Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Enhances safety by better illuminating pedestrians and bicyclists. Adheres to illumination guidance. EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 148 EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 S1, S2, S3, & S4. CREEK VALLEY SHARED-USE PATH EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Creek Valley Concepts.dwg : CREEK VALLEY SCHOOL // 12/28/2020 - 12:06PMCreek Valley Elementary School - Parking and Access Drive Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 8 Existing Parking Stalls: 102Proposed Stalls: 133 149 P1. PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT $$1,525,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Flips the school bus and parent drop-off/pick-up access locations from the north and south parking lots, respectively. By switching, most traffic is now concentrated at an all-way stop-controlled intersection instead of a side-street, stop- controlled intersection improving traffic operations and potentially safety as well. • The access road, now for parents as well as staff and teachers, is expanded to three lanes near the school. This significantly expands internal queuing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods while allowing for people trying to access the parking lot to bypass the queue. The roundabout in front of the main entrance is maintained. • An 11-stall bus parking area is proposed between the tennis courts and school. • The number of parking stalls is increased via an updated parking lot configuration that roughly maximizes the existing footprint. • An 8-foot-wide shared-use path is proposed along the access driveway, as well as enhanced internal sidewalk circulation. EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 150 P1. PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 Infrastructure Improvement Description and Benefit Sidewalk Internal sidewalk connects parking stalls, as well as access driveway to Gleason Road and the school main entrance. Include street trees and landscaping when possible. Curb Ramp ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility throughout the internal sidewalk network. Parking Lot Revised circulation significantly expands internal queue capacity while also increasing the number of parking stalls. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Provide adequate lighting to properly illuminate pedestrians and bicyclists. BACKGROUND EXISTING & PROPOSED QUEUE CAPACITY DRIVEWAY CRASHESPEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUME CHANGE IN PARKING SUPPLY 200 feet, 550 feet 2 (1 possible injury, 1 property damage only)Up to 180 +24 Figure 59 Cornelia Elementary SchoolCreek Valley Elementary SchoolCornelia Elementary SchoolHighlands Elementary School 0 500 1,000 ftGlengarry ParkwayDoncaster WayChantrey RoadMerritt Circle Hansen RoadPotential Safe Routes to School Projects Edina, MN Glenbrae Circle Ga t e P a r k R o a d 158 Highlands Elementary R1 R2 R3 S2S1Ayrshire Boulevard C1 Potential Enhanced Crossing Potential Bikeway: Protected Bike Lane or Shared-use Path Potential Bikeway: Buered Bike Lane Potential Sidewalk Potential Bikeway: Bike Boulevard Improvement ID Focus School # Review for potential enhanced crossing of CSAH 158 Potential Improvement not designed for this study or identiﬁed in a previous plan Improvement designed for this study EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : HIGHLAND 1 // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 1 R1. AYRSHIRE BOULEVARD – VERNON AVENUE TO GLENBRAE CIRCLE KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a sidewalk gap identified in the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018). The cost estimate only includes listed extents, though the plan identifies sidewalk along Ayrshire Boulevard to Dundee Road. • The one-way travel lanes with on-street parking are narrowed from 28 feet wide to 18 feet wide. • A six-foot sidewalk and five-foot boulevard are proposed along both sides, exceeding the City’s guidance • A marked crossing at the end of the divided roadway provides access to the sidewalk proposed along the north-side of the road. • Provides a connection to nearby parks, as well as the school if an easement is secured for a future connection, eliminating the need to walk in the street. • The median at the intersection with Vernon Avenue/CSAH 158 is extended to provide pedestrian refuge while improving the intersection geometry. Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distances from up to 125 feet to as little as 38 feet with the two-stage crossing. 152 $$395,000 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 700 Posted 30 mph EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 153 R1. AYRSHIRE BOULEVARD – VERNON AVENUE TO GLENBRAE CIRCLE EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk Ayrshire Blvd Six-foot sidewalk connection fills a 900-foot north-south gap. $400,000 N/A Curb Ramp Multiple locations ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility.N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge (median) Extension of existing Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps, tightened curb radius of Ayrshire Boulevard, and sidewalk new approaches. 0.46-0.54 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.N/A1 0.55 1Requires review of the cost to implement 11 to 18 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 154H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : HIGHLAND 2 // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 2 X X X R2. AYRSHIRE BOULEVARD – VERNON AVENUE TO GLENBRAE CIRCLE KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a sidewalk gap identified in the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018). The cost estimate only includes listed extents, though the plan identifies sidewalk along Ayrshire Boulevard to Dundee Road. • The northbound one-way travel lane is closed at Vernon Avenue and traffic is moved to the southbound lane which becomes two-way. • A six-foot sidewalk is proposed along the former northbound travel lane, exceeding the City’s guidance.• Provides a connection to nearby parks, as well as the school if an easement is secured for a future connection, eliminating the need to walk in the street. • The closed northbound access and curb extension shortens the crossing distances from up to 125 feet to as little as 30 feet while improving the intersection geometry. $$250,000 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 700 Posted 30 mph EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 155 R2. AYRSHIRE BOULEVARD – VERNON AVENUE TO GLENBRAE CIRCLE EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk Ayrshire Blvd Six-foot sidewalk connection fills a 900-foot north-south gap. $250,000 N/A Curb Ramp Multiple locations ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility.N/A Curb Extension Ayrshire / Vernon Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps, tightened curb radii, and new sidewalk approaches.0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.N/A1 0.55 1Requires review of the cost to implement 11 to 18 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 156H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : HIGHLAND 3 // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 3 X X X R3. AYRSHIRE BOULEVARD – VERNON AVENUE TO GLENBRAE CIRCLE KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a sidewalk gap identified in the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2018). The cost estimate only includes listed extents, though the plan identifies sidewalk along Ayrshire Boulevard to Dundee Road. • The southbound one-way travel lane is closed at Vernon Avenue and traffic is moved to the northbound lane which becomes two-way. • A six-foot sidewalk is proposed along the former southbound travel lane, exceeding the City’s guidance• Provides a connection to nearby parks, as well as the school if an easement is secured for a future connection, eliminating the need to walk in the street. • The closed southbound access and curb extension shortens the crossing distances from up to 125 feet to as little as 30 feet while improving the intersection geometry. $$255,000 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 700 Posted 30 mph EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 157 R3. AYRSHIRE BOULEVARD – VERNON AVENUE TO GLENBRAE CIRCLE EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk Ayrshire Blvd Six-foot sidewalk connection fills a 900-foot north-south gap. $255,000 N/A Curb Ramp Multiple locations ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility.N/A Curb Extension Ayrshire / Vernon Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps, tightened curb radii, and new sidewalk approaches.0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.N/A1 0.55 1Requires review of the cost to implement 11 to 18 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : SCHOOL ENTRANCE // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Driveway and Raised CrosswalkSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 4 158 C1. DONCASTER WAY AND SCHOOL ACCESS $$140,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Side-street stop-controlled intersection can be difficult to cross due to free-flow traffic. Raising the crossing will slow vehicular speeds and increase yield compliance for those crossing. Tightened curb radius slows vehicular turning speeds.• Key connection point as the only sidewalk leading into the school campus. • Proposed improvements narrow the driveway from 50 feet wide to 36 feet wide. Lanes could be further reduced to 11-feet which narrows the driveway to as little as 33 feet wide. This would allow the sidewalk and buffer to be further expanded. • Existing lane configuration of access driveway is maintained with two inbound and one outbound travel lane. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Further study required. 1,100 Posted 30 mph, 15 mph school zone EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 159 C1. DONCASTER WAY AND SCHOOL ACCESS EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk South leg Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. $5,000 0.6 Enhanced Signage All legs, R1-6c Reminds motorists of state right-of-way laws for people crossing.N/A Raised Crosswalk & Curb Ramps South leg Creates a level pedestrian crossing that increases accessibility and motorists’ sight while encouraging slow speeds doubling as a speed hump. Includes upgraded curb ramps and new sidewalk approaches. $45,000 0.55 Sidewalk School access Upgrade existing sidewalk by narrowing school access driveway and adding a minimum 8-foot wide sidewalk with a buffer. Include street trees and landscaping when possible.$90,000 N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000 - $40,0001 0.55 1 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 160 S1. HIGHLANDS SHARED-USE PATH H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\2_Edina\CAD\12667_Edina_Highland Concepts.dwg : NE TRAIL // 12/28/2020 - 11:42AMHighland Elementary School - Northeast Trail ConnectionSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Figure 5 $$50,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a gap between the school and neighborhood to the north and east of the school. • A direct connection would eliminate significant out-of-direction travel from the intersection of Ayrshire Boulevard and Glenbrae Circle estimated today at one-half to two-thirds of a mile. The distance could be reduced to as little as 800 feet. • The shared-use path could require up to a 28-foot-wide easement between two private property owners. • Includes a marked crosswalk of Ayrshire Boulevard if a future sidewalk connection is completed along the north side of the roadway. • The shared-use path was identified in the Edina Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan. Infrastructure Improvement Description and Benefit Multiuse Trail 8- or 10-foot shared-use path connection between the school and Ayrshire Boulevard. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Enhances safety by better illuminating pedestrians and bicyclists. Adheres to illumination guidance. 1 Requires review of the cost to implement 4 to 6 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 161 S1. HIGHLANDS SHARED-USE PATH EXISTING CONDITION Image from Google Maps, 2020 CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 162 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Vehicle Speeds Geometric improvements (i.e., traffic calming), coupled with lowered posted speed, could reduce speeds along Arcade Street. Lowering the posted speed will not decrease speeds alone. Medians can double as chicanes that slow traffic as lanes shift. An example is Portland Avenue in Richfield, which meanders at intersections with pedestrian island refuges and narrowed lanes (ten feet plus gutter pan). Narrowed lanes and traffic calming could lower speeds due to increased friction for motorists while maximizing ROW for multimodal uses. MnDOT standards identify travel lane widths of 10 or 11 feet (inclusion of the gutter pan as a part of the lane width is location dependent) along urban and suburban collector roadways under 50 mph.13 Tighter lane widths are credited with positively impacting a street’s safety without affecting traffic operations. Portland Avenue in Richfield. Source: Google Streetview Speed is a critical factor toward lowering the risk of serious injury or death when someone is struck by a vehicle. Children are at even higher risk due to their body size and corresponding increase in the popularity of larger vehicles (i.e., sport utility vehicles) in the United States. Speed correlates directly with a motorist’s stopping distance and vision which can be life or death for people walking and bicycling (see Figure 60). Figure 60. Stopping and Sight Distance Source: City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets (2020), National Association of Transportation Officials 13 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2018). Travel Lane Width Standards for State Highways, Technical Memoranda 18-08-RS-06. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 163 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The traffic speed and corresponding risk of serious injury or death shows how even minor changes in vehicular speed can produce major benefits as severity exponentially increases with speed, most notably above 35 mph (see Figure 61). At current speeds along Gleason Road a person could have an approximate 25 percent likelihood of death if they were hit by a car at the posted speed of 30 mph while crossing the road at an uncontrolled location while there is a 50 percent likelihood of death if hit by a car at the posted speed of 40 mph along Vernon Avenue. Figure 61. Likelihood of Injury or Death by Traffic Speed Source: City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets (2020), National Association of Transportation Officials In addition to posted speed reductions and geometric improvements, the use of both dynamic speed signs and speed enforcement during peak school periods could also be considered. Locations for dynamic speed signs and school flashers were identified along 70th Street near Cornelia Elementary and Gleason Road near Creek Valley Elementary. A review of MnDOT-approved dynamic speeds signs showed one option for a school zone with speed feedback display and flashers to further draw a motorist’s attention for compliance (see example image at right). Estimated cost per dynamic speed display is $10,000 and per LED flashing school sign is $3,000. Both options draw motorist’s attention and encourage drivers to slow down by making them aware of their current speed. The LED sign alerts drivers to the school zone speed and can be programmed for specific time of day, day of week, and month of year to ensure it only flashes when necessary. Source: RU2 Systems, Fast-250 Radar Speed Feedback Sign with Flashers CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 164 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Pedestrian-scale Lighting Pedestrian-scale lighting is shorter and more frequently placed along a corridor to better illuminate people walking or bicycling as opposed to typical vehicle-oriented lighting (see Figure 62). Such lighting is critical at roadway crossings and can reduce all types of injury crashes by 59 percent.14 The shorter lighting increases the lux (amount of light in lumens per square meter) which is recommended 20 to 40 lux at five feet above the road surface to provide adequate vertical illumination within a crosswalk. Typically, pedestrian-scaled lighting is 12 to 15 feet tall (less than 20 feet) and is spaced approximately every 50 to 80 feet along a corridor or within ten feet of a crosswalk. Spacing and placement is context specific, however. Figure 62. Lighting Design Guidance for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Source: Lighting Design Guidance, Global Designing Cities Initiative School Campus Improvements Other improvements for consideration at each school campus. Signage and Striping Parking lot signage and striping was not analyzed as a part of the Study, though should be for upgrades to the parking lots. Signage and striping to facilitate orderly queueing and loading processes could be considered, though signage that is too wordy or hard to understand is discouraged (examples at right). All signage and striping should comply with the MN MUTCD. 14 Gibbons, Ronald B. (2008). Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. FHWA- HRT-08-05, 1-32, Office of Safety Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 165 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY No Idling Policy “No Idle Zones” could be considered to reduce air pollution caused by toxic vehicle exhaust. Air pollution can be exacerbated during peak periods, especially in the afternoon during student pick-up due to parents idling as they wait for dismissal. Children’s lungs are developing, and when exposed to elevated levels of these pollutants, can have increased risk of developing health problems.15 On average, one pound of carbon dioxide is released for every 10 minutes a vehicle is idling which illustrates the environmental and health benefits that could be provided by implementing the policy.16 Bicycle Parking Implement convenient, high-quality bicycle parking that match desire lines (internal sidewalk connections) and are near each school’s main entrance. Placement should be in a location where a bicyclist would not have to dismount until reaching the bike parking area. Bicycle parking was identified in Edina’s Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014) for all three schools to implement or upgrade. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’ (APBP) Essentials of Bike Parking (2015) describes the various types and styles of racks, as well as those to avoid due to various performance concerns. The three styles pictured at right are those most recommended by APBP per their analysis. Enhanced accommodations could also be provided such as shelters and well-lit areas to increase security and protect bicycles and riders from the elements. Shelters that are somewhat enclosed would be best for the wet and cold Minnesotan climate (example at right). Such amenities could incentivize ridership while easing security concerns by parents. Periodic monitoring throughout the day by staff is recommended to limit crimes of opportunity and ensure a secure parking location for student’s bicycles. 15 United States Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.). Idle-Free Schools Toolkit for a Healthy School Environment. https://www.epa.gov/schools/idle-free-schools-toolkit-healthy-school-environment 16 Environmental Defense Funds (February 2009). Attention Drivers! Turn off your idling engines. https://www.edf.org/attention-drivers-turn- your-idling-engines Source: APBP, 2015 (top), Bi-Store Cycle Shelter (bottom) CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 166 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY School and Community Space Additional space can be repurposed for outdoor school use and learning opportunities. Sheltered areas can also be used by parents who are unable to wait in the school’s main entrance. Providing sheltered waiting space for parents to pick- up their child(ren) that walked or biked to school is important, most notably due to the Minnesota climate. Finally, the space could be utilitarian community space for gatherings and events. Wayfinding and Playful Spaces NACTO’s Designing Streets for Kids (2020) is a good resource when considering how to make streets and public spaces safer, more comfortable, healthier, and joyful for children. It is important to think about street design from a three-foot high perspective (i.e., the perspective of a child). Numerous opportunities are identified in the guidance document and could be included upon further review of future improvements proposed in this Study and applications relevant to each school campus. One potentially applicable item is an example from Detroit, Michigan called the Brightmoor Runway. A sidewalk was transformed into a running track paved with red rubber surface, painted with the distance, and included a speed display. This interactive play space in the public realm provided children with an opportunity to engage in physical activity while waiting for their school bus (pictured below).17 Such artistic and playful opportunities have numerous benefits and can be low-cost improvements with lasting impacts. 17 National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2020). Designing Cities for Kids, page 41. Source: Croft Community School, Charlotte, North Caroline CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 167 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Landscaping and Trees High-quality landscaping and trees have shown to support cognitive development and improve educational experiences for children and the environment (e.g., air quality, urban heat island reduction, etc.).18 Potential improvements should consider street trees and other landscaping to improve the walking and bicycling experience, as well as the environment. Green infrastructure, such as stormwater filtration, could also be implemented as a part of potential projects. Aligning with the environmental goals of SRTS, the infrastructure could double as a living laboratory and educational space for children. 18 Turner-Skoff, Jessica B. (2019). The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Journal of Plants, People, Planet, 1(4), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.39 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency CHAPTER 6 – Next Steps 168 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS This Study offers a range of potential infrastructure improvements to enhance access to Cornelia Elementary, Creek Valley Elementary, and Highlands Elementary Schools. Actionable next steps were organized to ensure this document is fully utilized and implemented to the best of the Edina School District and City of Edina’s ability. The proposed next steps are important as they will seek to maximize the Study’s analysis and potential improvements that will enhance each school campus where children cannot safely, comfortably, or conveniently walk, roll, or bike today. AGENCY COORDINATION The most critical step toward implementing proposed infrastructure is to identify a champion at the City of Edina that will devote some portion of their time implementing this Study. Some local agencies (e.g., public works) or school districts employ Safe Routes to School coordinators to pursue project implementation in addition to managing the other “6 E’s”. Otherwise, champions could be applicable City representatives as their time permits. It is also helpful to organize a small team or committee (ideal size of five or less members) that include representatives from the City, school district, and school staff (i.e., school principals), as well as key stakeholders if applicable. The group’s objective can include identifying funding opportunities and creatively financing projects, building relationships, and educating the community about the planned improvements, and prioritizing projects identified in the Study. It may be helpful to have this group maintain a regular meeting schedule such as monthly or quarterly meeting frequencies to maintain proper engagement. IDENTIFY PRIORITIES Prioritizing projects is essential toward an orderly and timely implementation process. Key questions to consider include:  What project would provide the most benefit relative to cost and effort?  What does the City of Edina and Edina Public Schools view as key improvements?  Which projects could be incorporated into other work already taking place?  Which project is most likely to receive funding? CHAPTER 6 – Next Steps 169 EDINA SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FOCUSED TIMELINE AND ACTIONABLE STEPS Once priorities are identified, create a timeline of short- (0-1 years), mid- (1-3 years), and long-term goals (3-5 years). Do not extend past five years as that is a reasonable amount of time to require updated analysis and planning. The action plan does not need to be detailed and can simply identify planned improvements, responsible parties, the estimated cost, and associated time period. The action plan will help to focus the group on next steps and keep everyone on track, progress the plan forward each meeting, and be prepared for funding opportunities such as SRTS or those from the Metropolitan Council which are most applicable for multimodal projects. Additionally, integrating with work already planned by city, county, and state agencies, or the school district, will ensure cost effective implementation when those synergies arise. It is important to remember that project implementation takes time and each small step forward supports the broader effort and continues that longer progression forward towards eventual success. CELEBRATE WINS Make sure to celebrate wins and promote the completion of Safe Routes to School projects (Walk and Bike to School Days are good times do so) to educate the public and promote the program that is critical to children’s health (47 more minutes of physical activity per week) and their ability to walk, roll, or bike to school. Source: MnDOT APPENDICIES Appendix A – Edina Safe Routes to School Grant Application (Parent Survey) Appendix B – Concept Designs APPENDIX A A-2 Parent Survey Results School Number of Survey Responses Concord Elementary 66 Cornelia Elementary 27 Countryside Elementary 38 Creek Valley Elementary 27 Highlands Elementary 22 Normandale Elementary 41 South View Middle School 48 Valley View Middle School 57 Edina High School 38 Total 364 Question 1. What is the grade of the child who brought home this survey? School PKK123456789101112 Concord Elementary 0% 27% 21% 36% 27% 37% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Cornelia Elementary 50% 4% 12% 22% 12% 9% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Countryside Elementary 33% 23% 24% 3% 20% 24% 3% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% Creek Valley Elementary 0% 8% 6% 14% 17% 15% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Highlands Elementary 17% 15% 18% 8% 10% 2% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Normandale Elementary 0% 23% 18% 17% 12% 13% 30% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% South View Middle School 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 45% 50% 30% 50% 0% 0% 0% Valley View Middle School 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 55% 46% 67% 44% 0% 0% 0% Edina High School 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 100% 89% 100% Total 6 26 33 36 41 46 33 31 28 30 16 13 9 16 A-3 Question 2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? School Male Female Concord Elementary 22% 13% Cornelia Elementary 6% 9% Countryside Elementary 8% 13% Creek Valley Elementary 8% 6% Highlands Elementary 7% 5% Normandale Elementary 10% 13% South View Middle School 13% 13% Valley View Middle School 17% 14% Edina High School 9% 12% Total 193 171 Question 3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? School 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Concord Elementary 0% 14% 20% 37% 33% 0% Cornelia Elementary 4% 10% 9% 2% 0% 0% Countryside Elementary 4% 13% 10% 8% 11% 50% Creek Valley Elementary 0% 3% 11% 12% 11% 0% Highlands Elementary 2% 11% 3% 8% 0% 0% Normandale Elementary 0% 11% 14% 10% 22% 0% South View Middle School 9% 15% 13% 14% 0% 0% Valley View Middle School 9% 18% 18% 6% 22% 0% Edina High School 64% 5% 1% 0% 0% 50% Total 45 122 141 49 9 2 A-4 Question 6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Arrive to School School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle (only children in your family) Carpool (Children from other families) Transit (city bus) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, ect.) Concord Elementary 15% 27% 21% 14% 13% 0%0% Cornelia Elementary 15% 0%7% 5% 0% 0% 100% Countryside Elementary 26% 9% 7% 13% 0% 0%0% Creek Valley Elementary 6% 9% 9% 7% 0% 0%0% Highlands Elementary 0% 0% 8% 7% 0% 0%0% Normandale Elementary 0% 0% 14% 12% 7% 0%0% South View Middle School 9% 36% 13% 14% 0% 0% 0% Valley View Middle School 21% 18% 16% 15% 7% 0%0% Edina High School 9% 0% 6% 12% 73% 0%0% Total 34 11 209 91 15 0 1 Leave from School School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle (only children in your family) Carpool (Children from other families) Transit (city bus, subway, etc.) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, ect.) Concord Elementary 18% 18% 21% 16% 0% 0%0% Cornelia Elementary 16% 0% 7% 4% 0% 0% 50% Countryside Elementary 22% 0% 8% 15% 0% 0%0% Creek Valley Elementary 4% 9% 7% 12% 0% 0%0% Highlands Elementary 0% 0% 8% 8% 0% 0%0% Normandale Elementary 0% 0% 13% 16% 11% 0%0% South View Middle School 13% 36% 16% 7% 0% 0%0% Valley View Middle School 24% 18% 17% 10% 5% 0% 0% Edina High School 2% 18% 4% 11% 84% 0% 50% Total 45 11 211 73 19 0 2 A-5 Question 7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? Travel Time to School School < 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 11-20 minutes More than 20 minutes Don't know Concord Elementary 25% 21% 16% 0%0% Cornelia Elementary 14% 5%5%0% 20% Countryside Elementary 14% 11% 5% 11% 20% Creek Valley Elementary 9%9%7%4%0% Highlands Elementary 3%4% 12% 0% 20% Normandale Elementary 10% 6%8% 54% 0% South View Middle School 14% 16% 14% 4%0% Valley View Middle School 10% 16% 19% 14% 40% Edina High School 3% 12% 14% 14% 0% Total 80 128 116 28 5 Travel Time From School School < 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 11-20 minutes More than 20 minutes Don't know Concord Elementary 28% 21% 15% 8%0% Cornelia Elementary 10%5%6%8%25% Countryside Elementary 16% 11%7%5%0% Creek Valley Elementary 10%6%7%8%0% Highlands Elementary 4%4% 10% 3%25% Normandale Elementary 12%7%7% 39%0% South View Middle School 7%19% 14% 5%0% Valley View Middle School 6%16% 22% 11% 50% Edina High School 4%11% 12% 13%0% Total 67 114 134 38 4 A-6 Question 8. Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? School Yes No Concord Elementary 24% 10% Cornelia Elementary 7% 7% Countryside Elementary 9% 10% Creek Valley Elementary 9% 5% Highlands Elementary 4% 10% Normandale Elementary 7% 18% South View Middle School 18% 7% Valley View Middle School 15% 17% Edina High School 7% 16% Total 212 145 Question 9. At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? School PKK123456789+ Concord Elementary 0% 14% 20% 0% 12% 32% 25% 14% 16% 20% 5% Cornelia Elementary 0% 0% 0% 9% 15% 6% 10% 3% 6% 7% 7% Countryside Elementary 0% 57% 40% 9% 18% 4% 10% 8% 6% 7% 9% Creek Valley Elementary 0% 0% 20% 27% 15% 10% 7% 5% 3% 0% 5% Highlands Elementary 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 4% 3% 5% 13% 7% 16% Normandale Elementary 0% 0% 0% 18% 9% 11% 13% 9% 13% 0% 18% South View Middle School 0% 14% 0% 9% 9% 11% 14% 15% 26% 40% 2% Valley View Middle School 0% 0% 20% 9% 6% 18% 11% 27% 3% 13% 25% Edina High School 100% 14% 0% 18% 12% 4% 7% 15% 13% 7% 14% Total 1 7 5 1134727166311544 A-7School DistanceConvenienceof DrivingTimeBefore orafter-schoolactivitiesSpeedoftrafficalongrouteAmountof trafficalongrouteAdultsto walkor bikewithSidewalksorpathwaysSafety ofintersectionsandcrossingsCrossingguardsViolenceor crimeWeatherorclimateConcordElementary15% 10% 10% 15% 23% 24% 32% 19% 18% 29% 17% 15%CorneliaElementary7% 10% 1% 4% 5% 5% 10% 6% 4% 6% 9% 5%CountrysideElementary7% 5% 4% 6% 8% 10% 14% 11% 7% 10% 11% 8%Creek ValleyElementary5% 5% 6% 8% 6% 5% 14% 8% 8% 13% 5% 9%HighlandsElementary6% 0% 1% 4% 9% 9% 5% 8% 8% 3% 3% 3%NormandaleElementary15% 14% 16% 11% 11% 10% 17% 12% 13% 13% 15% 11%South ViewMiddleSchool13% 24% 22% 17% 10% 13% 3% 12% 15% 0% 14% 18%Valley ViewMiddleSchool19% 10% 22% 22% 18% 16% 3% 17% 17% 10% 17% 18%Edina HighSchool15% 24% 17% 13% 9% 8% 2% 8% 9% 16% 11% 12%Total136 21 69 72 184 210 59 180 212 31 66 117 Question 10. What of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school? A-8School DistanceConvenienceof DrivingTimeBefore orafter-schoolactivitiesSpeedoftrafficalongrouteAmountof trafficalongrouteAdultsto walkor bikewithSidewalksorpathwaysSafety ofintersectionsandcrossingsCrossingguardsViolenceor crimeWeatherorclimateConcordElementary15% 10% 10% 15% 23% 24% 32% 19% 18% 29% 17% 15%CorneliaElementary7% 10% 1% 4% 5% 5% 10% 6% 4% 6% 9% 5%CountrysideElementary7% 5% 4% 6% 8% 10% 14% 11% 7% 10% 11% 8%Creek ValleyElementary5% 5% 6% 8% 6% 5% 14% 8% 8% 13% 5% 9%HighlandsElementary6% 0% 1% 4% 9% 9% 5% 8% 8% 3% 3% 3%NormandaleElementary15% 14% 16% 11% 11% 10% 17% 12% 13% 13% 15% 11%South ViewMiddleSchool13% 24% 22% 17% 10% 13% 3% 12% 15% 0% 14% 18%Valley ViewMiddleSchool19% 10% 22% 22% 18% 16% 3% 17% 17% 10% 17% 18%Edina HighSchool15% 24% 17% 13% 9% 8% 2% 8% 9% 16% 11% 12%Total136 21 69 72 184 210 59 180 212 31 66 117 Question 11. Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? A-9DistanceConvenience ofDrivingTimeBefore or after-schoolactivitiesSpeed of traffic alongrouteAmount of trafficalong routeSchoolYes No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes No Maybe Yes No MaybeConcordElementary11% 16% 19% 11% 17% 21% 12% 16% 19% 12% 21% 19% 22% 11% 20% 22% 14% 24%CorneliaElementary4% 5% 13% 6% 4% 7% 0% 5% 15% 0% 3% 12% 2% 4% 20% 3% 4% 14%CountrysideElementary8% 16% 6% 9% 11% 7% 8% 12% 7% 11% 12% 0% 10% 7% 4% 10% 7% 5%Creek ValleyElementary9% 9% 10% 11% 6% 11% 9% 4% 15% 12% 3% 15% 7% 7% 12% 7% 4% 14%HighlandsElementary10% 2% 6% 9% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 5% 5% 15% 8% 4% 4% 9% 7% 5%NormandaleElementary18% 14% 16% 14% 14% 21% 12% 18% 15% 16% 14% 19% 14% 15% 12% 14% 14% 10%South ViewMiddleSchool14% 5% 6% 14% 11% 4% 23% 5% 7% 12% 10% 4% 11% 7% 4% 10% 11% 5%Valley ViewMiddleSchool13% 20% 13% 9% 17% 11% 14% 23% 4% 14% 21% 12% 17% 26% 4% 16% 18% 10%Edina HighSchool13% 14% 10% 17% 11% 11% 15% 11% 11% 18% 10% 4% 9% 19% 20% 8% 21% 14%Total91 44 31 35 70 28 65 57 27 57 58 26 165 27 25 174 28 21 Question 11 (continued). Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? A-10 Question 12. In your opinion, how much does your child's school encourage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? School Strongly Encourages Encourages Neither Discourages Strongly Discourages Concord Elementary 21%33%15%15%0% Cornelia Elementary 0%5%7%8%0% Countryside Elementary 11%7%9%0%17% Creek Valley Elementary 37% 21% 1% 0% 0% Highlands Elementary 21%5%6%0%0% Normandale Elementary 0% 4% 15% 8% 0% South View Middle School 11% 20% 12% 8% 33% Valley View Middle School 0% 4% 22% 31% 0% Edina High School 0%1%12%31%50% Total 19 76 216 13 6 Question 13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? School Very Fun Fun Neutral Boring Very Boring Concord Elementary 33%19%13%20%9% Cornelia Elementary 8%6%3%0%0% Countryside Elementary 13%8%3%20%18% Creek Valley Elementary 14% 10% 6% 0% 0% Highlands Elementary 5%6%1%0%0% Normandale Elementary 12% 9% 4% 0% 18% South View Middle School 8% 20% 21% 0% 0% Valley View Middle School 5% 16% 30% 40% 27% Edina High School 1%6%18%20%27% Total 76 100 67 10 11 A-11 Question 14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? School Very Healthy Healthy Neutral Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Concord Elementary 23% 17% 11%0%0% Cornelia Elementary 7%5%3%0%0% Countryside Elementary 10% 5% 8% 0% 0% Creek Valley Elementary 10% 6% 5% 0% 0% Highlands Elementary 7% 6% 3% 0% 50% Normandale Elementary 9% 16% 13% 0% 0% South View Middle School 13% 18% 5% 0% 50% Valley View Middle School 15% 18% 24% 0% 0% Edina High School 7%10% 29%0%0% Total 184 101 38 0 2 A-12 Question 15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? School Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary) Grades 9 through 11 (Some High School) Grade 12 or GED (High school graduate) College 1 to 3 years (Some college or technical school) College 4 years or more (College graduate) Graduate School (Masters degree or doctorate Prefer not to answer Concord Elementary 0% 0% 100% 22% 18% 21% 17% Cornelia Elementary 0% 0% 0% 11% 9% 4% 0% Countryside Elementary 0% 0% 0% 11% 9% 8% 0% Creek Valley Elementary 20% 0% 0% 0% 11% 5% 0% Highlands Elementary 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 6% 0% Normandale Elementary 0% 0% 0% 0% 12% 12% 0% South View Middle School 20% 0% 0% 22% 12% 15% 0% Valley View Middle School 40% 0% 0% 33% 14% 16% 50% Edina High School 20% 0% 0% 0% 8% 13% 33% Total 5 0 1 9 159 149 6 APPENDIX B Cornelia Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN X Existing Front Lot Stalls: 13 Concept 1 Stalls: 13 Cornelia Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Existing North Lot Stalls: 13 Concept 2 North Lot Stalls: 14 Existing South Lot Stalls: 53Concept 2 South Lot Stalls: 41 Cornelia Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Existing North Lot Stalls: 13Concept 3 North Lot Stalls: 0 Existing South Lot Stalls: 53 Concept 3 South Lot Stalls: 21 Cornelia Elementary School - Cornelia Drive & W 72nd Intersection Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Cornelia Elementary School - Oaklawn Ave & W 72nd Intersection Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Cornelia Elementary School - Claremore to Wooddale AveSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - Gleason Rd Cross Sections Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Concept 3A Concept 2 Concept 1 Concept 3B Creek Valley Elementary School - Trail Connection Options Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - McCauley Trail / Gleason Rd Intersection Crossing Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - Indian Hills Pass / Gleason Rd / School Access Intersection Crossing Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Creek Valley Elementary School - Parking and AccessSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MNExisting Parking Stalls: 102Proposed Stalls: 133 Highland Elementary School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Highland Elementary School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN X X X Highland Elementary School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN X X X Highland Elementary School - Driveway and Raised CrosswalkSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Highland Elementary School - Northeast Trail ConnectionSafe Routes to SchoolEdina, MN Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:CloverRide Service Contract Renewal Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on staff's draft recommendation to renew the service contract with DARTS for the CloverRide circulator bus. INTRODUCTION: See attached supporting documents. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Request for Purchase Draft 2021 Service Contract City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Request for Purchase Date: June 1, 2021 To: Mayor and City Council From: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Subject: Request for Purchase: CloverRide Circulator Bus Service Purchase Subject to: ☐List Quote/Bid ☐State Contract ☒Service Contract The Recommended Bid is: ☒Within Budget ☐Not Within Budget DARTS ($25,000.00) Information/Background: Since June 2018, the City has been engaged in a service contract with DARTS to provide a fixed-route circulator bus in the (CloverRide). 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 operates Fridays from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a one-hour loop, traveling to fixed stops that include senior residential properties, grocers and retailers in the Southdale District. Riders can also request additional stops within two blocks of the regular route. With the impact of COVID-19, ridership for most of 2020 was significantly reduced compared to previous months (7 riders per week April through December 2020 compared to 15 riders per week September 2019 through March 2020). The most recent data available indicates that ridership is starting to return to pre-pandemic levels (9 riders per week January through April 2021). Safety measures including masking requirements, limited seating capacity and regular surface disinfection will continue to be implemented in accordance with CDC and MDH guidelines. Staff recommends renewing the service contract with DARTS for another year to continue this essential service for residents. The compensation for continuing service of one bus is the same as the previous year. Date Bid Opened or Quote Received: Bid or expiration Date: May 14, 2021 June 14, 2021 (expiration of current service contract) Company: Amount of Quote or Bid: DARTS $25,000.00 Recommended Quote or Bid: Page 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Request for Purchase Department Director Authorization: ________________________________________ City Council Authorization Date: ______________________ (for purchases over $20,000 only) Budget Impact This service will be funded through the City’s general tax levy and has an approved budget. The circulator bus service was recommended in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan; this contract is a continuation of service introduced in 2018. Environmental Impact Transportation is currently the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, with the largest subcomponent being light-duty vehicles (i.e. single or low-occupancy vehicles). CloverRide replaces many light-duty vehicles trips, resulting in a reduction in energy use and carbon emissions. Community Impact A primary goal of this service is to provide increased mobility and access for residents and visitors to the City who cannot or choose not to drive personal vehicles. Some segments of the City’s population are either unable or choose not to own a personal vehicle (the elderly, those with disabilities, etc.). These members of the community will particularly benefit from the improved mobility and convenience provide by the circulator bus service. The growing and increasingly active senior population in Edina also benefits from this service. AGREEMENT Agreement entered into this 1st day of June, and covering the period from June 15, 2021 through June 17, 2022, by and between the DARTS and the City of Edina. Whereas, the City of Edina desires to provide a transportation method in their City, DARTS will provide a fixed-route bus circulator that will run at least one weekday per week. The bus will not run-on DARTS holidays, or in certain inclement weather conditions. The parties agree as follows: City of Edina: 1. The City of Edina will lead the communications and marketing of the bus circulator. 2. The City of Edina will identify Task Force members and actively participate in the planning and design of the route. DARTS: 1. DARTS will provide bus, qualified drivers and all necessary documentation of bus insurance, driver licenses and training certification. DARTS will also provide quarterly reporting on ridership. 2. DARTS will regularly (not less than twice per year) convene the Clover Ride Task Force to discuss measures of success, adjustments to the route, schedule, fares, sponsorships, etc. Compensation DARTS compensation for this 12-month program, effective June 15, 2021 through June 17, 2022, will be $25,000. Method of Payment The City of Edina will send the compensation amount of $6,250 quarterly to DARTS by the 15th of the month following the start of the quarter, beginning July 15, 2021 without need of a request for payment. Remit Payment to: DARTS 414 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55404 City of Edina: By: ______________________________ Mayor By: ______________________________ City Manager DARTS: By: ______________________________ President Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of April 27, 2021 Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; discussion only. INTRODUCTION: The Commission will review and comment on the Traffic Safety Report of April 27, 2021 (see attached staff report). Comments received by the Commission will be included in the staff report provided to City Council at their June 1 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of April 27, 2021 May 20, 2021 Transportation Commission Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of April 27, 2021 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on April 27. The Traffic Safety Coordinator, City Engineer, Streets Public Service Worker, Transportation Planner, Public Works Director and Assistant City Planner were in attendance for these meetings. The Police Sergeant was not able to attend but was informed of the decisions and had no objections to the recommendations. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can submit correspondence to the Transportation Commission and/or to City Council prior to the June 1 regular meeting. Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action A1. Request to clarify parking restrictions on Sunnyside Road • After completion of the 4500 France redevelopment, vehicles are parking along restricted area. • Sunnyside Road is 30’ wide with one- sided parking. • Curb taper begins 125’ past eastern- most restriction sign. • Requestor claims EPD has been contacted regularly. • Sunnyside Road was reconstructed in 2016. • 2017 ADT was 2,440 vehicles. • The last reported crash near this location was in 2012. Staff recommends installing a parking restriction sign with an “Ends” placard to further clarify current restrictions on Sunnyside Road. Sunnyside Road, facing east STAFF REPORT Page 2 A2. Removal of ‘Road Narrows’ sign on Ohms Lane • Sign is visible for southbound traffic past W 73rd Street. • The road width on Ohms Lane does not change. • Ohms Lane has on-street bike lanes. • 2011 ADT was 2,700 vehicles with 85% speeds of 31.9 mph. Staff recommends removing the sign as it serves no purpose. Section C: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends further study C1. Request to improve stop sign awareness at Browndale Avenue and Edgebrook Place • Resident witnessed two drivers failing to stop at stop signs when waiting for school bus at the intersection. • Intersection is two-way stop controlled on Browndale Avenue; Edgebrook Place is a one-way street. • Parking is restricted on the east side of Browndale Avenue and both sides of Edgebrook Place. • Adequate sight distance is available for the signs. • 2014 ADT was 3,500 vehicles on Browndale Avenue south of Country Club Road. • No crashes have been reported at this intersection in the last 10 years. • Resident is requesting stop bars, advanced warning signs, flags attached to the signs, or something else to improve visibility of the signs. • Staff observed traffic here on April 26 between 2:30 and 3:15 pm and observed; i. 35 NB vehicles (5 performed a rolling stop, 2 failed to stop) ii. 26 SB vehicles (4 performed a rolling stop, none failed to stop) Staff is analyzing collected traffic data to evaluate stop sign compliance at the intersection. Section D: Other traffic safety items handled D1. A staff member from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requested that the City remove old information signs for the creek at W 70th Street. Public Works removed the signs. D2. A resident requested temporary stop signs along Belmore Lane and Maloney Avenue to slow detouring traffic due to closures from the nearby Southwest LRT project. The concern was referred to EPD for additional speed enforcement in the area and staff is performing a traffic study in the neighborhood. D3. A resident was concerned with contractor parking in the north parking lot driveway at Pamela Park. Staff permitted parking here for the contractor working on a nearby project. Road Narrows sign on Ohms Lane Browndale Avenue at Edgebrook Place facing north STAFF REPORT Page 3 D4. A resident is concerned with the lane width for eastbound traffic on W 70th Street east of Cahill Rd. The resident observed close calls between northbound vehicles turning right and westbound vehicles turning left. Staff determined that the intersection dimensions are sufficient for all permitted movements. D5. A resident was concerned with a speed limit sign obstructing sight lines when exiting Scriver Road onto Blake Road. Staff determined that adequate sight distance is present and the sign does not require relocation. D6. A resident was concerned with stop sign visibility for eastbound vehicles on Country Club Road approaching Wooddale Avenue. Staff determined that adequate sight distance is present. Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2021 Work Plan Updates Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; information only. INTRODUCTION: Commissioners will provide updates on the status of 2021 Work Plan initiatives (unless an item is elsewhere on the current agenda). See attached work plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2021 Work Plan Progress Report Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Commission: Transportation Commission 2021 Annual Work Plan Initiative #1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Organized Trash Collection Investigate the impacts of organized trash collection while considering the travel demand management objectives, environmental goals and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets. Deliverable Report for City Council Lead(s) Jill Plumb-Smith Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison; periodic support from Recycling Coordinator and/or Organics Recycling Coordinator. Jan: VANTAGE project team prepared a charter; kick-off meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-February. Richfield is looking at switching to organized collection. Feb: Kick-off meeting with VANTAGE team is tentatively scheduled for the first week in March. Mar: Kick-off meeting was held March 4. Students had good questions and preliminary research; project team discussed deliverables, research methodology and potential case studies. Students are developing a survey to share with residents. Apr: Midpoint meeting with VANTAGE tomorrow. Commissioners have not gotten as much feedback as they would like. Team drafted a survey asking residents how they feel about trash collection; distribution could be next step for Commission. Initiative #2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Street Funding Task Force Continue representation on 2020 Street Funding Task Force until task force is complete. Deliverable One Commissioner will actively participate in the Task Force and provide regular updates to the rest of the Commission. Leads Matt Scherer Target Completion Date Q2 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: No staff support will be necessary beyond what has been previously committed to this initiative. Jan: No update. Feb: Task Force will present final report to City Council in March. Two options are recommended; replacing 50% or 100% of assessment costs with city taxes. The Task Force also recommends that subcut and retaining wall costs no longer be assessed. Mar: Completed. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative #3 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) CloverRide Review and comment on the CloverRide circulator bus service contract operations and marketing throughout the year as it is brought to them from the CloverRide advisory committee. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in regular meeting minutes and staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Mindy Ahler Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds are allocated in the Engineering Department’s operating budget to cover the service contract and related marketing. These funds are administered by staff. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Communications for marketing and promotional materials. Jan: Commissioners suggest reaching out to Yorktown Continental about resident outreach. The current service contract expires in June. Feb: No update. Mar: Advisory committee met March 10. Ridership is picking up and approaching pre-pandemic levels. Drivers are accommodating diverted stops. Recent surveying by DARTS shows riders are satisfied with the service and feel safe riding the bus. The City should consider providing bus passes for riders to share with friends. Apr: Staff will send a letter to residential properties along the route and distribute bus passes for riders to share with friends. Initiative #4 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Traffic Safety Reports Review and comment on monthly Traffic Safety Reports. Deliverable Commission recommendations will be included in staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Kirk Johnson (Chair) Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Staff will present the 2020 summary report at the next meeting. Feb: Commission commented on the 2020 summary report. Mar: No update. Apr: Reviewed the March 30, 2021 report. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative #5 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Capital Improvement Projects Review and comment on roadway reconstruction projects and projects funded by the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. Commission will also review and comment on staff’s application of the equity criteria. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Jill Plumb-Smith (Vice Chair) Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-5 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Staff will present the 2020 annual report at the next meeting. Feb: Commission commented on the 2020 PACS Fund report. Mar: No update. Apr: Staff will ask City Council to approve Melody Lake reconstruction project April 20. Creek Knoll reconstruction project is out for bids. Other PACS Fund projects being designed include shared-use paths on Eden Ave, Highlands Park and McCauley Trail and sidewalks on France Ave. Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Travel Impact Studies & Travel Demand Management Review and comment on traffic impact studies and Travel Demand Management plans associated with the proposed developments. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Bocar Kane, Lori Richman, Bruce McCarthy, Kirk Johnson Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Council reviewed a sketch plan for 4917 Eden Ave, TIS is being prepared. Feb: Staff is awaiting studies for projects at 4917 Eden Ave, 4040 W 70th St and 4660 W 77th St. The project application for 6600 France Ave was withdrawn. Mar: Staff presented the draft TDM policy to the Planning Commission March 10 and will bring to the City Council for approval April 20. Staff is awaiting the traffic study for a proposed project at 4917 Eden Ave. Apr: Staff will present the TDM policy to City Council for approval April 20. Staff is reviewing traffic study for 4917 Eden Ave and awaiting studies for 5146 Eden Ave, 4040 W 70th St and 4404 Valley View Rd. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Initiative #7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Metro Transit Connectivity Review the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and recommend changes to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks to improve connectivity to future Metro Transit LRT and BRT services. Deliverable Report for City Council Lead(s) Chris Brown Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Neighborhood electric vehicles, boulevard trees Date: May 20, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Advisory Communication: Off-Street Parking Ordinance Amendments Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve an advisory communication on off-street parking ordinance amendments. INTRODUCTION: See attached advisory communication. ATTACHMENTS: Description Advisory Communication: Off-Street Parking Ordinance Amendments Date: May 20, 2021 To: Mayor and City Council From: Transportation Commission Subject: Off-Street Parking Ordinance Amendments Background: In 2020, City Council requested that the Planning Commission evaluate the appropriateness of the City’s Off-Street Parking Regulations. The City’s current regulations have not been revised since 1992. Many of the current standards have not been amended since 1970. Over the past nine months the Planning Commission has been considering revisions to the off-street parking regulations, proposed draft ordinance amendments, and sought public input. The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan identifies two goals related to this topic:  Develop and manage parking provision to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride-sharing (car pools and van pools), and bicycle parking.  Promote a travel demand management (TDM) program through a coordinated program of regulations, marketing, and provision of alternative workplace and travel options. Action Requested: The Commission recommends the City Council approves the Off-Street Parking Ordinance Amendments with the following changes: Specific Changes: 1. Sec. 36-1324.1: Buildings within a quarter mile of a qualified transit stop should also be required to post applicable information of routes and schedules, visible transit advertisements in public spaces, and to provide subsidies for transit passes for residents or workers upon request to encourage the use of transit to qualify for the 10% reduction. 2. Sec. 36-1324.3: If there is to be an environmental rationale for a reduction in parking, we recommend it include electric vehicle charging stations rather than the impervious surface rationale for real environmental impact. Specific van-pool or other shared vehicles spaces can be another environmental impact strategy. Shared vehicle spaces refer to mixed-use developments where daytime and nighttime parking vary by use and can be shared (for example, residential versus office parking demand) instead of separate parking stalls per land use. 3. Sec. 1324.4: Allowance for long-term bike parking should follow the recommendations of the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals regarding appropriate style, type, and spacing. Providing covered and secure bicycle parking could also be included as an option under Sec. 36-1324.3. Page 2 General Changes: 4. A frequent concern of residents heard by the ETC and the most common safety request pertains to on-street parking in residential areas. To address off-street parking overflowing into residential areas, the ETC recommends; 1) Implementing permit parking in adjacent residential areas with the costs borne by the development that caused the problem and not by the City or residents; or 2) Off-street parking reductions occur not closer than 2 blocks from residential neighborhoods which allow on-street parking to deter possible overflow parking from moving into these neighborhoods. 5. Studies, articles, and analysis produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, the American Planning Association, the Housing Policy Debate Journal and others have shown that reduced parking requirements can offer a cost saving for developers by constructing less parking. While it is not within the scope of ETC to comment on affordable housing, it would seem prudent to take this opportunity to tie parking reduction of developments that include multiple residential units to a specific rent reduction of the designated affordable housing units.