Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-19 TPC PacketAgenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota Community Room Thursday, November 19, 2015 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 October 22, 2015 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Grandview District Transportation Study VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Recommended 2016-2017 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects B.Traffic Safety Report of November 4, 2015 VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments A.Traffic Safety Process Review Committee X.Staff Comments A.Staff Comments for November 2015 XI.Calendar Of Events A.Schedule of Meetings Dates/Events XII.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 amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Sharon Allison - Engineering Specialist Item Activity: Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of October 22, 2015 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the meeting minutes of the regular Edina Transportation Commission meeting of October 22, 2015. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes Oct. 22, 2015 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Council Chambers October 22, 2015, 6:00 p.m. I. Call To Order Chair Bass called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Bass, Ding, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Nelson, Olson, Ruehl, and Spanhake. Absent at roll call was member Boettge. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member Spanhake approving the meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member Janovy approving the Sept. 17 minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Special Recognitions and Presentations V.A. Metro Transit Green Line LRT Extension Presentation Mr. Dan Phieffer, assistant manager, public involvement, Metro Transit, shared that the Southwest LRT which is expected to begin operating in 2020, is an extension of the Green Line. The 14.5 mile line will have 15 stations with the Eden Prairie Town Center Station deferred due to cost. The closest station to Edina will be the Opus Station at Bren Road, west of TH-169. Stations will have park and ride and bus connections. A sector study will be done in 2018 to identify bus connection needs and Mr. Phieffer recommended that the ETC participate because this will directly impact Edina. He also recommended that the ETC contacted Hennepin County who is responsible for developing pedestrian and bike access at each station. Also in attendance with Mr. Phieffer was Mr. Nkongo Cigolo; Mr. Cigolo is the contact for Edina, Hopkins and St. Louis Park. VI. Community Comment – None. VII. Reports/Recommendations VII.A. 2016 Neighborhood Reconstruction Project Draft Engineering Studies City engineer Chad Millner presented the following draft engineering studies: Morningside A & Whites Oaks C Total roadway to be reconstructed is 1.0 mile, plus utility improvements. Mr. Millner said staff was surprised to learn from area residents that their biggest concerns were traffic issues and not wetland related. Because of this, staff is proposing several Living Streets traffic calming measures on specific streets, for example, a section of Sunnyside Road will be narrowed and bump-outs added; the intersections of Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Grimes Avenue and Curve Avenue at Sunnyside Road will be realigned and narrowed, and a marked crosswalk added at Grimes Avenue; bump-outs will be added on Grimes and Curve Avenues on certain sections; additionally, there are varied street widths and some will be narrowed or widened slightly. Mr. Millner said the proposed changes for Sunnyside Road are specifically meant to calm traffic and shift it to W. 44th Street which is the state aid road designed to carry the traffic that is currently on Sunnyside Road. Mr. Millner asked specifically for feedback regarding an access “road” off of Townes Circle. He explained that it is a private road with four properties that is being maintained by the City. It also has a utility easement that is signed by three of the property owners. Staff is proposing to upgrade the watermain, adding a fire hydrant and allow the property owners decide if the road remains private (City would stop maintenance) or turn it over to the City. The ETC’s feedback included the following: • Concerned about diverting traffic from one street to another; • Understands the need to control speeding but narrowing to 20 ft. and 21 ft. seemed very narrow; (Mr. Millner said the turning movement software shows that fire trucks and school buses will be able to navigate through but other vehicles at the intersection will need to allow them to get thru first; the design is for smaller vehicles); • Impacts will be to three neighborhoods with over 800 households, and two cities, and proposals made based on feedback from fewer than 100 households; • Solving a speeding problem that doesn’t exist because the 85th percentile speed on Sunnyside Road is 30.3 mph for a 30 mph road; volume seems to be the issue – has volume increased? (Mr. Millner did not know if volume increased); implementation should be based on threshold; • Threshold and engineering judgment are important; • Use the ‘donut’ concept to see how the broader community will be impacted. • Agreed with staff regarding Townes Circle access “road.” Also present with Mr. Millner were Mr. Andrew Scipioni, engineering technician and Mr. Toby Muse, from Short Elliott Hendrickson, the consultant working on this project. Golf Terrace B and Strachauer Park A Mr. Millner said both neighborhoods are similar – one is 2.7 miles, the other is 2.0 miles. Improvements will include utilities, new curb and gutter, sidewalks, one-sided parking only and intersection realignment in Strachauer Park. Mr. Millner answered questions related to residents’ feedback on one-sided parking (Strachauer residents are in favor and only few have commented from Golf Terrace); which side of street to place sidewalk (follow existing pattern or look for side with least impacts). VII.B. Traffic Safety Report of October 7, 2015 A.1. Planner Nolan explained that the distracted driver study was the traffic safety coordinator observing and documenting what drivers were doing. Chair Bass requested that this information be added to the appendix in the future. Regarding the vegetation, Planner Nolan said it is not an issue for drivers but could Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. be for pedestrians so staff will evaluate further. He said based on feedback from other roundabouts in the cities of Minneapolis and Richfield, staff did not plan to move the crosswalk. A.2. This section will be revised to clarify that adding a centerline was the recommendation. B.1. Planner Nolan stated he was not aware of warrants for stop sign removal. Two improvement suggestions were made: 1) consider moving stop sign to the other side of the street – difficult to see because of tree; 2) good location for a traffic calming circle. C.1. It was noted that this was an example of why observational data is important because pedestrians will cross wherever it is most convenient for them. Planner Nolan clarified that the Grandview Study will begin immediately and some implementations will be short term and others long term. C.2. Planner Nolan said staff was reviewing a school speed zone study that was done previously. Change ‘Antrim’ to ‘St. Patrick’s.’ D.5. Change ‘state statute’ to ‘city code.’ Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to forward the amended Oct. 7, 2015, TSC report to the City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried. VII.C. Results of 2015 Open Streets on 50th Event Planner Nolan said the event was very successful with approximately 9,000 attendees. He said there were lessons learned that they will improve upon for next year’s event. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions VIII.A. Board and Commission Communication with City Council Regarding the memo from Manager Neal clarifying purpose and expectation of advisory boards and communication submitting an Advisory Communication to City Council, the consensus was that the ETC started this process to communicate their opinions when they differed from staff and it is a useful tool for them to share their feedback with Council. If it is linked to their work plan and the minutes insufficiently reflect their feedback, they should be able to include an advisory communication with staff’s report clearly stating their view. Furthermore, the ETC does not use advisory communication to communicate new initiatives; it is generally work plan related, and, communicating at an annual meeting with Council is not enough. IX. Chair and Member Comments IX.A. Discussion: Review and Recommend Modifications to Traffic Safety Request Process After discussion, chair Bass motioned to form a committee to review the Traffic Safety Committee process and their responsibility will be to evaluate and recommend improvement to the process that align with multimodal and Living Streets policy. Committee members are Bass, Janovy and Loeffelholz and they will submit their recommendation in November. The motion was seconded by member Loeffelholz. All voted aye. Motion carried. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. IX.B Guiding Principles for Transportation Studies Chair Bass said the City Council had positive feedback for the ETC’s work plan and they asked that the ETC include Guiding Principles for Transportation Studies into the work plan which will be tied in with information requested from developers. Chair Bass said she will be attending the City’s first annual all-chair meeting on Oct. 26. Chair Bass said that MNDOT is updating two of their transportation plans and is seeking feedback from the public on Nov. 6; she suggested having someone from the ETC attend. Member Nelson said the City of Bloomington recently publicly stated their opposition to improving the bridge that would result in more freight train traffic on the Dan Patch rail line and asked if staff could report on this next month. Planner Nolan said he’s aware of a study the City of Savage is doing to evaluate improving a swing bridge that would allow TH-100 to continue through Bloomington and into Savage and Bloomington has stated their opposition because this would run through residential neighborhoods. Chair Bass suggested waiting for the conclusion of the study to see if there is any connection to the Dan Patch rail line. Member Spanhake invited commissioners to a workshop on Nov. 9, titled ‘Man vs Machine or Man Plus Machine,’ and informed them of a survey that MNDOT is conducting seeking feedback on what makes your community walkable and features to improve walking experience for developing their statewide pedestrian system plan. Member Janovy reminded residents not to blow their leaves into the streets. X. Staff Comments • The 2015 projects are either complete or, are nearing completion; the W. 54th Street bridge will open in 2-3 weeks. • The Grandview Transportation Study was approved by City Council on Oct. 20; the consulting company will present to the ETC in November. • Preparation work is underway for the sidewalk on Oaklawn Avenue at W. 72nd Street to the cul- de-sac – staff is reaching out to four property owners for an easement and will be applying for grant funding. • City of Eden Prairie has a circulator that is doing very well and staff met recently with the operator and invited them to give a presentation to the ETC in November or December. • In 2015, 2 miles of sidewalk were added to public works’ snow plowing responsibility; 2 miles will be added in 2016 and 1.25 miles in 2017. XI. Adjournment at 8:31p.m. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J* J A S O N D SM WS # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 NAME TERM (Enter Date) 6/17 Bass, Katherine 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Boettge, Emily 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Ding, Emily 1 1 2 100% Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78% Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 100% Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 100% Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91% Ruehl, Lindsey 1 1 2 100% Rummel, Anna 9/1/2015 1 1 1 3 27% Campbell, Jack 9/1/2015 1 1 1 1 4 36% *cancelled Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Grandview District Transportation Study Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: At its Oct 20, 2015 meeting City Council approved a request for purchase with LHB, Inc. for the Grandview District Transportation Study. On Nov 2 LHB and the Project Management Team (PMT) held a kick-off meeting to begin the project. The PMT consists of staff from the engineering, administration and planning departments, as well as representatives from the Transportation and Planning Commissions. The community engagement process for the Study will begin with an intensive “Convene Week” intended to help stakeholders develop a shared understanding of the Transportation Study’s place in the larger set of efforts around the Grandview District. It is an opportunity to reconnect with the outcomes of previous planning processes, reassess existing conditions, and develop a deeper understanding of the transportation system’s role in guiding public and private investments in the area. During Convene Week, there are three key opportunities for the public to connect with the process. First, there will be brief presentation to the City Council on Nov 17 at 7:00pm at Edina City Hall. Next there will be a public workshop on Nov 18 at 6:00pm at the Public Works & Park Maintenance Facility. Finally, there will be a wrap-up presentation for the week’s efforts at the Transportation Commission meeting on Nov 19 at 6:00pm at Edina City Hall. Of these meetings, the Nov 18 public workshop will be the only meeting where public comments will be taken regarding the Study. Staff from the LHB, Inc. consultant team will lead a brief presentation to introduce the goals and process of the Study, and to share outcomes of the Nov 18 public workshop. Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Recommended 2016-2017 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Staff wishes to share with the Commission the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund projects proposed for 2016 and 2017, and to solicit their feedback. ATTACHMENTS: Description Recommended 2016-17 PACS Fund Projects November 19, 2015 Edina Transportation Commission Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Recommended 2016-2017 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects Information / Background: As part of the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund budgeting and management process, staff tracks available funds from year to year, and projects these funds into future years. The utility franchise fees generate approximately $1.1 million per year for PACS Fund-eligible projects, and staff budgets for 95% of this amount each year. When PACS Funds go unused, at the end of the year those funds are rolled over into the next year’s PACS Fund budget. Staff is estimating that approximately $660,000 will roll over from 2015 to 2016 funds (approximately $1.2 million will be spent from the PACS Fund in 2015). Based on the anticipated 2016 budget amount of approximately $1.8 million and estimated construction/ installation costs, staff is recommending the attached list of projects be implemented and funded by the PACS Fund in 2016. Additionally, staff estimates that approximately $300,000 will roll over from 2016 to 2017 funds (based on the 2016 projects listed below), resulting in an anticipated 2017 PACS Fund budget amount of approximately $1.4 million. In recommending sidewalk construction projects, staff considers a number of criteria. Several factors can affect if and how each criterion is applied and the relative weight given to each. Often, opportunities such as planned road construction projects and outside funding present themselves, and the sometimes fluid nature of these opportunities can affect if and when sidewalk projects are recommended and constructed. Below are some of the key criteria staff considers, generally listed in descending order of relative weight. • Part of neighborhood street reconstruction project (up to 50 percent cost savings) • Part of state-aid reconstruction project (state-aid funds pay up to 80 percent of construction) • Active Routes to School Sidewalk (recommended in the ARTS Plan) • Included in the Comprehensive Plan (on the sidewalk facilities map) • Estimated cost of project relative to remaining PACS Fund budget • Additional funding/grant opportunities • Surveys and/or design documents completed • Petition for a sidewalk submitted by residents Recommended 2016 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects Project Type Street/Location Sidewalk Length Notes Sidewalk Concord Ave 850’ (Southview Ln to Lakeview Dr) Golf Terrace B Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Beard Ave S 1,790’ (W 60th St to service road) Strachauer Park A Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Interlachen Blvd 1,220' (Mirror Lakes Rd, Summit) ARTS recommendation, completion of 2015 project Sidewalk Cornelia Dr 2,600' (W 66th St to W 70th St) ARTS recommendation, 80% federal SRTS funding Sidewalk Xerxes Ave S 2,500' (W 56th St to W 60th St) 25% cost participation by Hennepin County Sidewalk Vernon Ave 1,740' (Gleason Rd to Blake Rd) Applying for Hennepin County cost participation Sidewalk Edina Industrial Blvd 470’ (Metro Blvd to Normandale Blvd) Arterial roadway, ease of design/construction Sidewalk Tracy Ave 750’ (Valley Ln to Hwy 62) ARTS recommendation, coincident with roundabout construction Sidewalk/ Bike Facility Tracy Ave 640’ (Benton Ave to Hwy 62) State-aid road reconstruction (PACS Fund pays 20%) Sidewalk/ Bike Facility Valley View Rd/Valley Ln Intersection Associated with roundabout State-aid road reconstruction (PACS Fund pays 20%) Ped Safety W 77th St & Parklawn new crosswalk N/A North leg of intersection, approved traffic safety item Ped Safety Railroad crossing at Valley Ln N/A CP Rail replacement of railroad crossing (PACS Fund pays for sidewalk only) Recommended 2017 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects Project Type Street/Location Sidewalk Length Notes Sidewalk Hansen Rd 2,000’ (Darcy Ln to W 60th St) Birchcrest A Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Maddox Ln 1,075’ (Hansen Rd to Mildred Ave) Birchcrest A Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Valley View Rd 205’ (Mildred Ave to Code Ave) Birchcrest A Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Valley View Rd 2,165’ (Tracy Ave to Hansen Rd) Countryside G Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Olinger Rd 1,615’ (Vernon Ave to Olinger Blvd) Countryside G Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Sidewalk Oaklawn Ave 1,500’ (W 72nd St to south of Gilford Rd) ARTS recommendation, connect to Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (via easement) Sidewalk W 58th St 2,400’ (Wooddale Ave to France Ave) ARTS recommendation, collector road Sidewalk Highway 169 Frontage Road 2,750’ (Braemar Blvd to Valley View Rd) Connect to Braemar Arena, arterial road Consulting Pedestrian/Bicycle Plan Update N/A Amend to 2018 Comprehensive Plan update G:\ENG\TRAN\NON MOTOR TRAN\PACS Fund\Recommended 2016-17 PACS Fund Projects.docx Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Joseph Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of November 4, 2015 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Report of Wednesday November 4, 2015 be forwarded to City Council for approval. INTRODUCTION: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting. An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their December 15, 2015 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of November 4, 2015 Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 1 of 11 Traffic Safety Report November 4, 2015 The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on November 04, 2015. The Transportation Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator, Assistant City Planner, City Engineer, the Police Department Lieutenant, and Public Works Director were in attendance at this meeting. From these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, these can be included on the November 19 Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) and the December 15 City Council agenda. Section A : Items on which staff recommends action. A1. Request for change in speed limit signage at 70th Street, east of Highway 100 This request regards the signage on 70th Street east of Trunk Highway 100. This requestor references city maps, which show that the speed limit of 25 mph starts before the signage which informs drivers of this speed limit, and that this signage is obscured and drowned out by the amount of signage in the area as well as the geometry of the street. The speed limit sign for eastbound traffic is 184 feet from the start of the eastbound bike lane, 155 feet from the two- way left turn only lane signage, and 100 feet to the end of the westbound bike lane. Speeds on this road are seen as an issue, with an 85th- percentile speed of 33.2 mph, even after the sign, and a volume of 11,530 vehicles per day. After review, staff found that the bike lane marks the start of the lowered speed limit by City Council resolution and state law. Therefore the signage informing drivers of this speed limit should be further west so drivers are aware of this speed limit. Staff recommends adding the speed limit signage to the post which currently has the Two-Way Left Turn Lane signage, and moving the center turn lane signage down on the post, such that the speed limit signage is in the current location of the center turn lane signage. Photo : Center turn lane signage eastbound on 70th Street, the speed limit sign in circles in the back Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 2 of 11 A2. Request for moving, alteration, or removal of the 30 mph speed limit sign from Valley View Road, east of Antrim Road This request comes from a resident who lives within the area designated for a school speed zone, where Valley View Road’s speed limit is reduced to 20 mph when children are present. However, two blocks (nearly 650 feet) before the school speed limit zone ends, there is a sign stating that the speed limit is 30 mph. The requestor believes that this makes for a confusing situation, especially for emerging skill drivers, who may not be aware that they are still in the school speed zone. The requestor believes that this will also assist the movement of vehicles into and out of the driveway of the requestor’s residence on Valley View Road. A similar situation can be seen on Normandale Road, in front of Our Lady of Grace church and school. No crashes have been reported during school release or start times in the last ten years along this stretch of roadway. The 85th-percentile speed of this section of Valley View Road is 38.1 mph and Valley View Road has an ADT of 7543 in this segment. This item was previously recommended for further study, for investigation for on the lawfulness of the signage as placed, as well as the school speed zone plan from 2009, which identified crashes in the school zone east of the school itself. The law for the school zone speed reduction states as follows : The school zone is legally defined as that section of road which abuts the school grounds where children have access to the street or highway from school property, or where there is an established school zrossing with advance school signs that define the area. Further guidance on the issue includes the item 6) Sidewalks – children walking in the street is dangerous. Continuous sidewalks that do not intermittently disappear and force children into the road are the best. The sidewalk in this area is continuous, but is only on one side of the road and is on the opposite side of the street of the school. According to the MNMUTCD, the use of a normal speed limit sign may be used alone to signify the end of a school speed zone, and when placed, does indicate that the school speed zone has ended (Figure 7B-3). Copies of the school speed zone study’s site enhancement maps for this area, as well as Our Lady of Grace and Normandale Road, are available in appendix C. After review, staff recommends maintaining the current School Speed Zone, but changing the signage by removing the End School Speed Zone signage and moving the current Speed Limit 30 signage to the End School Speed Zone sign’s vacated position. This is being done to be consistent with the MNMUTCD as shown in Appendix C. Map : Valley View Road and Antrim Road, red is the school speed limit area, the 30 mph speed limit sign is marked with a star. Photos : These photos illustrate the order of the signage along Valley View Road, the requestor would like to move the Speed Limit 30 sign such that it is not within the school speed zone. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 3 of 11 Map : Indian Hills Pass and Gleason Road A3. Request to maximize safety for school crossing at Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass North of Creek Valley Elementary School, the school requested that the City of Edina look at the intersections of Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass, and to a lesser extent, Creek Valley Road. A video study of Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass was conducted. This study found that because school release is also during the evening rush hour, the traffic loads at this intersection had enough traffic on all streets to force traffic to come to a full and complete stop before entering the intersection. Several school children cross Gleason Road at this crosswalk. Awkward situations were observed, including several vehicles not yielding to pedestrians in the hours after school release, or other times when there is not enough traffic on the cross streets to “force” traffic to stop on Gleason. Another common awkward occurrence was with bicyclists crossing from the school grounds to the Indian Hills neighborhood. Because there is a sidewalk on one side of the intersection, and the crosswalk across Gleason Road connects only to a curb, and not to a sidewalk or pedestrian ramp, bicyclists cross the intersection diagonally so that they are biking on the correct side of Indian Hills Pass when they leave the school grounds. This is seen most with child bicyclists who are sidewalk-riding as they leave the school grounds. This diagonal biking has been seen as causing some confusion for drivers who appear to assume that they would be able to complete a movement at this intersection concurrent with the bicycles, as the driver’s desired movement would not conflict with a crossing in the crosswalk. There are no school patrols at this time, but a teacher is stationed at Gleason Road and Indian Hills Pass and conducts children across the street, but wears no reflective clothing nor has a sign for flagging operations. After review, staff recommends that the school reinstate the school patrol, to bring attention to crossings related to the school day. Further, staff recommends adding a pedestrian landing pad at the south corner of the intersection, and upgrading two pedestrian ramps at the school entrance to be ADA compliant. Staff also recommends that the existing marked crosswalk be replaced with the standard school zone “ladder” crosswalk, and it be realigned slightly to match the new landing pad. Section B : Items on which staff recommends no action B1. Request for crosswalks at Arbor Lane and Arbor Avenue This request comes from a resident who would like a crosswalk south from Countryside School’s schoolyard, to highlight the pedestrian movements in this area. This summer, a sidewalk was added on the east side of Arbor Avenue, along school grounds. Examination of the city’s proposed sidewalks indicates that the sidewalk in this area should extend a block further south, which was outside of this year’s reconstruction Photo : Arbor Lane and Arbor Avenue, looking south Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 4 of 11 Map : Arbor Lane and Arbor Avenue, the crossing is marked, the sidewalk is not shown Photo : 61st Street and Oaklawn Avenue, looking west Map : Oaklawn and W. 61st is circled, W. 59th and Kellogg is starred, and the line represents speed concerns on Oaklawn project. This means that at this time, there is no pedestrian landing or sidewalk across the street from the existing sidewalk. A video study was performed and found that during days of normal usage the maximum number of crossings in a two hour period was seventeen (17). These volumes do not meet volume warrants for crosswalks. No crashes related to this intersection have been reported in the past five years. Full warrants may be seen in appendix A. After review, staff recommends no action on this request, as there are not enough crossings to warrant installation of a crosswalk. Future consideration of a crosswalk should be considered when the sidewalk is constructed further, as this is seen as possibly increasing pedestrian volumes and further channelizing the crossings into one crosswalk. B2. Request for stop control at the intersection of W. 61st Street and Oaklawn Avenue This request comes from a resident who is concerned that previous traffic safety requests failed to consider pedestrian movements at the intersection of 61st Street and Oaklawn Avenue. Previous investigations of the area resulted in yield signs being placed for 61st Street, on the east and west legs of the intersection. A video study was performed and found that 934 movements are made in this intersection on the average day, including bicycling and pedestrian movements. This is half of what warrants would require. The number of entering movements on 61st Street is 271 while Oaklawn has 663 entering movements. Two right angle crashes have occurred at this intersection in the past five years. All these crashes have been property damage only. These crashes are seen a susceptible to correction by stop signs. Full warrants for stop signs may be seen in appendix B. After review, staff recommends no action on this request. This recommendation considered warrants for stop signs, and existing volumes being less than half of what is needed to warrant signage. In addition the traffic patterns as observed on the camera were not seen as abnormally dangerous. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 5 of 11 Photo : Oaklawn Avenue, looking south from 59th Street Photo : 57th and Abbott, looking west B3. Request for creation of a 4-way stop at 59th Street and Kellogg Avenue to slow traffic in the neighborhood This request concerns the intersection of Kellogg Avenue and 59th Street. Currently the intersection is controlled by stop signs on 59th Street, but a request was received for the intersection to have stop signs added to it specifically. The request also included an ask for slowing traffic in the neighborhood using stop signs at intersections. Even when informed that this strategy was not used by the City of Edina and alternate traffic calming measures were presented, the requestor continued to ask for more stop signs to slow traffic in the neighborhood. Counters were placed and Kellogg Avenue was found to carry 207 vehicles per day with an 85th-percentile seed of 28.1 mph. These numbers are very similar to studies conducted in 2007, 2012 and 2013 on this roadway. 59th Street was seen as carrying 85 vehicles per day with an 85th-percentile speed of 17.9 mph. This may be due to the extremely narrow construction of 59th Street, which is only 18 feet wide east of Kellogg and 23 feet wide west of Kellogg. Complete warrants for stop signs can be seen in appendix B. After review, staff recommends no action on this request. Counters placed did not observe excessive speeds, and stop sign warrants were not met. Using stop signs to control volumes and speeds is not recommended by the City of Edina. B4. Request for slowing traffic on Oaklawn Avenue south of 59th Street This request concerns traffic on Oaklawn Avenue, which is perceived to be very fast moving and detrimental to the safety and tranquility of the area. A counter was placed in this location and found that an average of 422 vehicles use Oaklawn Avenue in this location, with an 85th-percentile speed of 29.7 mph. Only one crash has occurred in the last five years on this stretch of Oaklawn Avenue, this was a rear- end crash which was determined to be due to driver distraction. After review, staff recommends no action on this request. The requestor’s concerns were not supported by traffic data. Photo : Kellogg Avenue and 59th Street, looking east Photo : Kellogg Avenue looking south from 59th Street, even with a 27 foot roadway, two sided parking can make a narrow driving surface. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 6 of 11 Photo : Sight obstructions on the north side of the intersection Map : Code Avenue between Porter Avenue and 60th Street B5. Request for stop signs at the intersection of 57th Street and Abbott Avenue This request concerns the intersection of 57th Street and Abbott Avenue. 57th Street has 226 ADT and a 25 mph 85th-percentile speed from a 2014 study. A 2015 count on Abbott Avenue found that the street had 140 ADT and 23.8 mph 85th-percentile speeds. There has been one crash at this intersection in the last ten years, in 2007, as a vehicle southbound and eastbound collided in the intersection. The crash did not result in injury and was not noted as having any influencing or improper factors by the reporting officer. This intersection had some sightline issues, of which those covered by city ordinance have been removed. The intersection also is skewed, with the streets connecting at an angle of approximately 70- degrees instead of the full 90-degrees associated with the grid in the surrounding area. This skew can make some drivers uncomfortable. Full warrants for stop signs may be seen in appendix B. After review, staff recommends no action on this request. This recommendation considers the lack of warrants met, and no recent crash history. B6. Request for slowing traffic on Code Avenue between Porter Avenue and 60th Street Over the summer, traffic from the Birchcrest B roadway reconstruction projects was perceived by residents as detouring down Code Avenue to reach Benton Avenue. Residents had concerns that traffic patterns would remain, and that the vehicle traffic was traveling too quickly as it descended a hill north of 60th Street and south of Porter Avenue. While data was not collected during the construction season due to the needed street sweeping in the area, counts taken after construction revealed that 369 vehicles per day used Code Avenue and the 85th-percentile speed was 27.9 mph. Both Porter Avenue and 60th Street maintain their crown through the intersection and create vertical deflection, acting slightly like speed bumps in reducing vehicle speeds. This area will be reconstructed in 2017. There have been two crashes on Code Avenue in the past five years, neither of which appear to be related to speed. After review, staff recommends no immediate action be taken on Code Avenue. This request has been forwarded and added to the Birchcrest A reconstruction, which will include this street, such that calming measures may be added in the 2017 reconstruction. Photo : Code Avenue at Porter Avenue Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 7 of 11 Photo : This is a close up aerial of the intersection of Halifax Avenue and 50th Street B7. Intersection lane assignment concerns at the intersection of 50th Street, and Halifax Avenue This request concerns the lane assignments on Halifax Avenue as it intersects 50th Street. Currently there are two lanes entering the intersection on both the north and south approaches. On the north side, there is a right- turn only lane and a shared left/through lane, while on the south side of the intersection there is a left-turn only lane and the right lane is a shared right/through lane. The requestor feels that this set up is confusing and causes persons traveling north to assume that the lane assignments for southbound traffic mirror their own, and thus begin their left turns in front of oncoming traffic. There have been no crashes at this intersection in the past five years that reflect such confusion. After review, staff recommends no action on this item. There have been crashes at this intersection, but none of them reflect the scenario as described by the requestor. Therefore, there is no evidence that this situation causes dangerous confusion. The requestor did not leave contact information with staff to be informed of this recommendation. Section D : Other items handled by traffic safety D1. The Edina Colonial Church and Edina Methodist Church wish to change or add signage on Tracy Avenue concurrent with reconstruction of the road. The relevant code sections were examined and found to be acceptable so long as the signs were brown with white lettering, at least fifty feet from any traffic control devices and intersections. D2. A Deaf Child sign was slated for removal, as the child for which it was placed is now eighteen, in college, and no longer residing with her parents. D3. A resident wished to express concern on the future of Maloney Avenue as U.S. 169 is reconstructed in the coming years. The area has several pre-existing counts, and there is a good understanding of how the area functions currently. When U.S. 169 is shut down counts may be retaken to understand if this area warrants traffic calming, diversion or other measures to maintain its safety for residents. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 8 of 11 Appendix A: Crosswalk Warrants A. Marked crosswalks are placed at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations not readily apparent as having pedestrian movement. B. Marked crosswalks will only be placed in an area that has 20 or more pedestrian crossings in a two-hour period. C. Marking for crosswalks will be established by measuring the “Vehicle Gap Time”. This is the total number of gaps between vehicular traffic recorded during the average five minute period in the peak hour. Criteria for markings are: 1) More than five gaps – pavement marking and signage only. 2) Less than five gaps – add actuated pedestrian signals. D. Crosswalks will not be placed on arterial roads or roads with a speed limit greater than 30 mph unless in conjunction with signalization. E. Other conditions that warrant crosswalks: 1) Routes to schools 2) Locations adjacent to libraries, community centers, and other high use public facilities. 3) Locations adjacent to public parks. 4) Locations where significant numbers of handicapped persons cross a street. 5) Locations where significant numbers of senior citizens cross a street. F. Crosswalks will only be placed at intersections. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 9 of 11 Appendix B: Stop Sign Warrants When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection a STOP (R1- 1) sign shall be used. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs. The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions: A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway. C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction with the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users from the minor street failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway. Additional warrants which do not specify the type of control are as follows; A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or C. An un-signalized intersection in a signalized area. In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more the 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Additional warrants from the city of Edina list that: 1. If an intersection experiences five (5) or more right angle accidents in a three (3) year period, stop signs should be considered. 2. If the presence of a sight obstruction is contributing to accidents at an intersection, removal of the sight obstruction should be sought before considering a stop sign. 3. If the 85th percentile speed on any leg of an intersection is more than five (5) MPH over the posted speed limit, a stop sign should be considered for the intersecting street. 4. If traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day on each of the intersecting streets, stop signs should be considered. 5. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control speed. 6. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control volume. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 10 of 11 Appendix C: School Speed Zone Figures Figure 1 - MNMUTCD Figure Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 4, 2015 Page 11 of 11 Figure 2 - Our Lady of Grace 2009 Signage Plan Figure 3 - Edina High School and Valley View Middle School 2009 Signage Plan Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Members of the Traffic Safety Process Review Committee met with the traffic safety committee (City staff) and wish to have a discussion with the Commission regarding this topic. Please find the attached information regarding the vision and objective of this ETC committee. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Overview Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Objective: Review the Traffic Safety process and make recommendations that will help to align the process with the City’s vision for Living Streets and advance Living Streets implementation. Support: The City Council adopted the Living Streets Policy in 2013 and the Living Streets Plan in 2015. According to the Plan, Living Streets will be implemented through the neighborhood street reconstruction process, and through standalone stormwater, pedestrian, bicycle, and safety projects. The City will promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan through “all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their work.” ETC Role: The ETC was established to help guide the City in implementing its vision for an integrated, multi-modal local transportation system. The ETC is responsible for advising the City Council on the operation of the local transportation system (all modes, users, and abilities); developing strategies, plans and recommendations to implement the City’s multi-modal transportation vision; and reviewing and commenting on citizen transportation concerns, traffic complaint reports, and data. Each year, the City Council approves the ETC work plan. The 2015 Council-approved ETC work plan includes “Review and recommend modifications to Traffic Safety Request process.” At the October 2015 ETC meeting, the ETC formed a committee to make progress on this work plan item by the end of the year. Committee members are Katherine Bass, Jennifer Janovy, and Ralf Loeffelholz. Committee Vision: The ETC holds accountability for making recommendations that will help to advance and implement Living Streets. Sometimes, the ETC recommends updates to City code or policy. Sometimes, the ETC recommends process improvements. An example of the latter is the ETC’s work earlier this year to recommend revisions to the neighborhood street reconstruction survey so that the survey can be a useful tool in advancing the implementation of Living Streets. In a similar way, the Traffic Safety process holds great potential for helping to communicate the Living Streets vision to residents and advancing Living Streets implementation. It is through the lens of Living Streets implementation that the Committee views its task. Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: X.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Staff Comments for November 2015 Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Staff will update the ETC on the following topics: Status of other current construction projects Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan Funding American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Date: November 19, 2015 Agenda Item #: XI.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Schedule of Meetings Dates/Events Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Thursday November 19: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday December 17: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday January 21: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday February 18: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday March 17: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday April 21: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday May 19: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday June 16: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday July 21: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS ThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday