Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-17 TPC PacketAgenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota Community Room Thursday, December 17, 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 November 19, 2015 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Presentation: Local Circulator Options for Edina VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Tra,c Safety Report of December 2, 2015 VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments A.Tra,c Safety Process Review Committee X.Sta1 Comments A.Sta1 Comments for December 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 ampli3cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: December 17, 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 November 19, 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 November 19, 2015. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes, ETC, Nov. 19, 2015 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. 1 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Community Room November 19, 2015, 6:00 p.m. I. Call To Order Chair Bass called the meeting to order. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Janovy, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Nelson, Olson, Ruehl, and Spanhake. Absent at roll call were members Ding and Iyer. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce approving the meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Olson approving the edited Oct. 22, 2015, minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Special Recognitions and Presentations V.A. Grandview District Transportation Study Ms. Lydia Major with LHB and Ms. Zabe Bent with Nelson/Nygaard presented the goals and status of the transportation study. Also in attendance were Mr. Iain Banks with Nelson/Nygaard, and Mr. Colin Harris with Alta Planning. They explained that a small area study of the Grandview District was done and a key finding was to do a transportation study. The transportation study will accomplish seven goals all having to do with how pedestrians, bikers, and drivers get around the community, plus transit and parking. They will study the entire system and provide near term, short term and long term solutions. The public engagement process which began this week will include meetings over the course of several months. Individual members asked the following of the presenters: • Were there any surprises from the walking tour? How inhospitable it was for pedestrians. • Will the scope limits of the study include surrounding neighborhoods? Yes, so they can create connections. • What will the public engagement process include? Additional services were added to the study for focus groups with residents and business owners and intercepts; boards can be set up anywhere to inform and gather information. • What is the approximate timeframe for the first implementation? Timeframe isn’t known at this time. VI. Community Comment – None. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. 2 VII. Reports/Recommendations VII.A. Recommended 2016-2017 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Projects Planner Nolan shared the projects that are scheduled for 2016-17. He said the budget for 2016 will be $1.8M, including roll over from 2015, and 2017 will be $1.4M (both years are fully budgeted). He reviewed key criteria for sidewalk recommendation. Individual members asked the following: • Are they building sidewalks fast enough? Approximately 2 miles are built annually which is in line with the 30-year build-out goal. • The missing segment of sidewalk on Valley View Road from Code Avenue to Clover Ridge creates a hole in the system (was scheduled for 2015). Planner Nolan was asked if the ETC can offer any help to get the sidewalk built and he said the road was constructed to accommodate the sidewalk at a future date. Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member LaForce to add the Valley View Road Sidewalk from Code Avenue to Clover Ridge for construction with 2017 proposed construction projects. All voted aye. Motion carried. • Look back at sidewalk feedback from the public to see which location(s) was named multiple times and add to the list for construction. • Missing segment of sidewalk on Valley View Road between Gleason Road to Mark Terrace Drive. • Is the current budget enough? Planner Nolan said a franchise fee increase would be necessary if the budget is not enough and secondly, sometimes money is rolled over to the next year because there is a limit to how many projects staff can handle in-house. • How do they evaluate if residents are happy with the rate of sidewalk installation and the cost from franchise fees? Suggested adding a question to the quality of life survey. • In addition to the Pavement Condition Index, consider prioritizing street reconstruction based on sidewalk needs. • Is there money for intersection improvements? Planner Nolan said only if a project is eliminated. Councilmember Stewart who was in attendance thanked members and staff for all the work they do. VII.B. Traffic Safety Report of Nov. 4, 2015 A.1. The 25 mph sign is being relocated to make it more obvious where the 25 mph speed limit begins. B.2. & B.3. It was noted that stop sign requests were frequently received from these areas and specifically, in B.3., the request is to slow traffic. How can they teach residents so they do not continue to request stop signs for slowing traffic? It was noted that there was a video available. A noted drawback to stop signs is noise and air pollution if vehicles are stopping and accelerating at every intersection. Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Boettge to forward the Nov. 4, 2015, Traffic Safety Report to City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions – None. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. 3 IX. Chair and Member Comments IX.A. Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Chair Bass stated the committee that includes her, members Janovy and Loeffelholz, met with the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC). She said they have three years of reports to review and they will look for patterns such as what was approved, etc. Member Loeffelholz said they will need to look at the data to tell what needs to be improved and chair Bass added that the TSC was established well before the Living Streets Policy and that it will be a process to align the TSC with new vision and policies. Member Nelson noted that a resident sent him an email regarding safety concerns on Olinger Road which he forwarded to planner Nolan. He also mentioned a noticeable bump in the road on W. 66th Street as you cross the bridge over TH-100 in the straight-thru lane. Chair Bass reported that at the all-chair meeting, they talked about functions and processes of boards and commissions including feedback on advisory communication, writing minutes to be consistent with City Council minutes, proposed format for forming working groups and receiving clarity from City Council when they direct them to work on a project not on their work plan. She said it was a good opportunity for chairs to share information and that this may become an annual or bi-annual meeting. Member Janovy expressed concerns about information that was not provided to the ETC as part of the Morningside A Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction, namely in the Appendix, 17 households to wrote staff against the narrowing of streets and seeing their comments dissuaded her. She said residents raised questions that were not addressed. Planner Nolan said the public hearing on Dec. 8 will proceed as scheduled and residents will be able to address concerns to the City Council. X. Staff Comments • The 2015 projects are either complete or, are nearing completion; the W. 54th Street Bridge will open Nov. 20. • The sidewalk on Interlachen Boulevard is completed and is being used regularly. • A grant application was submitted for Safe Routes to School funding for the sidewalk on Oaklawn Avenue from W. 72nd Street to the cul-de-sac. Staff is reaching out to four property owners for an easement for the section that will connect to the Nine Mile Creek Trail on Parklawn Avenue. A meeting with residents is being planned for January. • Alliant Engineering was contracted to review extension of the bike facility on Valley View Road under TH-62. • Staff met with Hennepin County about the York Avenue and W. 66th Street intersection because extensive redevelopment is planned and the intersection is unsafe for pedestrians. They discussed ways to work with developers to improve each site which could include sidewalk, median refuge, etc. The City of Richfield will be improving their portion of W. 66th Street next year. • Manager Neal gave permission to use PACS funds to update the Bicycle Plan but planner Nolan said they should first try to find other funding sources. • The City will be vacating a transit easement on Galleria’s property in exchange for a pedestrian easement. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. 4 • Cities are required to have an American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan and as the ADA coordinator, planner Nolan is developing the plan. XI. Calendar of Events XI.A. Schedule of Meeting Dates/Events XII. Adjournment at 8:25p.m. 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 1 12 NAME TERM (Enter Date) 6/17 Bass, Katherine 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% Boettge, Emily 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% Ding, Emily 1 1 2 67% Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 83% LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80% Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 100% Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 100% Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% Ruehl, Lindsey 1 1 1 3 100% Rummel, Anna 9/1/2015 1 1 1 3 25% Campbell, Jack 9/1/2015 1 1 1 1 4 33% *cancelled Date: December 17, 2015 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Presentation: Local Circulator Options for Edina Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Please recall that the 2015 ETC Work Plan includes a new initiative titled "Greater Southdale Area Transportation and Circulator Study Implementation." This initiative was continued to the 2016 ETC Work Plan (approved by Council this month) as "Study and report Community Circulator." In October City staff met with SouthWest Transit CEO Len Simich and other staff to discuss their agency's experience with transit circulator options and how they might apply in Edina. We have invited senior staff from SouthWest Transit to share with the ETC their thoughts on this topic. They have indicated that they will bring with them trolley and cutaway style buses, so commissioners can look at bus styles that may be used as circulators. They will be in the City Hall parking lot, so please arrive early if you wish to look at these buses before the 6:00 meeting. Date: December 17, 2015 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Joseph Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of December 2, 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 December 2, 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 January 19, 2016 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Committee Report, Dec. 2, 2015 December 02, 2015 Edina Transportation Commission Joseph Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of December 02, 2015 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on December 02. The Public Works Director, City Engineer, Transportation Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator, and Assistant City Planner were in attendance for 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 comments can be included on the December 17 Edina Transportation Commission and the January 19 City Council reports and agendas. Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action A1. Request for improvements to the crosswalk across Cahill Road, north of Amundson Avenue A request came for improving the crosswalk across Cahill Road, north of Amundson Avenue. This request was prompted by a crash witnessed by the requester between a motor vehicle and pedestrian in this crosswalk after sundown. The requestor believed that a lack of lighting of this crosswalk was to blame for the crash, and either better lighting or signalization would increase the visibility of crossings. The police report has not been added to the state’s database and crash map, but records from the police department show that this crash did occur, but also that the pedestrian was intoxicated and seemed to Map : The crossing in question is circled, the three-way intersection at the top of this map is 70th and Cahill. STAFF REPORT Page 2 have left the curb quickly and without warning. The crosswalk is currently lit, and the City of Edina has no written standards for the amount of light needed for roadways within the city. Visiting the site after dark did not show a deficiency of light, as perceived by the Traffic Safety Coordinator. A gap analysis was performed for the crosswalk, with a width of 34 feet, the needed crossing gap was calculated as 13 seconds. Evening peak hours, from 4-6 PM were analyzed and from 4:45-5:45 PM the average of 2.75 gaps per five minute interval. This number of gaps warrants improvement to the crosswalk. The full crosswalk warrants are listed in appendix A. After review, this site was seen to meet warrants for further signalization of the crossing. The placement of rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) signalization in this location is recommended. However, due to funding constraints, the placement of this signal will be deferred and evaluated alongside other current and future recommended RRFB installations to determine priority and time of installation as funding becomes available. A2. Request for staff comments and approval of a crosswalk to be added across West 66th Street with new development at Barrie Rd. Near a upcoming approved development of homeless adolescent housing at 66th Street and Barrie Road, the developer requests that the traffic safety committee investigate a crosswalk to be added to the intersection to connect to Southdale Mall employment, shopping and transit destinations. The developer would pay for such a crossing as part of the redevelopment agreement. Currently, there is a signalized intersection one block east and half of a block (250’) west of the intersection. Due to the development not being completed at this time a pedestrian volume study has not been performed. The proposed crossing would would significantly reduce the walking distance to Metro Transit’s Southdale Transit Center. If a crosswalk were installed in this location, it would allow access to the transit center, with some protection at 665 feet. Whereas using the crosswalks currently would result in a minimum distance of 1240 feet. 66th Street is a county road in this location, and classified as a minor arterial, thus this crosswalk would be required to have at least RRFB signalization installed. There is also a wide median in this location, which could be used as a pedestrian refuge area. After review, staff recommends adding crossing improvements to this intersection. It was seen as unlikely that pedestrians would cross at the lights and add several hundred feet to their crossings, and the corner of Barrie and W. 66th Street is an intersection and therefore has legal crosswalks. Improvements suggested include addition of RRFB flashers and altering the median to support a pedestrian refuge area, and moving the proposed crosswalk to the eastern edge of the redevelopment parcel. W. 66th Street is a County road in this location, and Map : The development and transit station are marked with a star, the intersection in question is circled. Photo : Crosswalk in question STAFF REPORT Page 3 this recommendation is only representative of the City of Edina position, and installation of any pedestrian improvements must be approved by Hennepin County. Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action B1. Installation of pedestrian flags at various crosswalks, such as to allow pedestrians to carry a flag across the street, increasing visibility, safety, and making the area more pedestrian friendly. There have been two recent requests for the City of Edina to install handheld pedestrian flags at crosswalks so that pedestrians may use them for further visibility. Staff contacted the cities of Eagan, Saint Louis Park, Seattle, Berkeley, Salt Lake City and Saint Paul. Maintaining the flags has been an issue in every city; Eagan reported having all their flags missing within eight months of implementation at their sole crossing, Seattle was unable to evaluate if the flags were effective or not because it was too difficult to keep them stocked, and Saint Louis Park had its flags all go missing within a week of installation. Few cities contacted maintained any flags, relying on sponsors from the community to maintain and stock the flags. In a literature review on the topic, it was found that yielding rates of drivers, when pedestrian flags are used, was higher than signage and marking of crosswalks alone, but less than crosswalks which utilize in-street pedestrian signs (46-80% yielding rates, with not staged crossings averaging 74% yielding vs. 82-94% yielding with a 90% observational average for not staged crossings)1. Different cities have seen wide discrepancies in how the flags were used by pedestrians crossing the street, with only 2% of pedestrians in Berkeley using the flags for their intended purposes, but 14% in Salt Lake City using the flags as they crossed the street. As a reference, the same study referenced that 35% of pedestrians push the buttons for a walk signal or RRFB2. While not discussing the presence of flags themselves, an article did find that simply raising, or extending one’s hand into the crosswalk was effective in increasing the chances that drivers would yield to the pedestrian3. In a conversation with Salt Lake City’s engineering department, the flags also highlight the existence of a crosswalk, even when they are not being used and sitting in the cups on the side of the road. The Traffic Safety Coordinator observed crossings on Grand Avenue in Saint Paul, which is a three lane road and has an average daily traffic of about 14,300 at the location observed, additional crossings were also staged. Only the Traffic Safety Coordinator’s staged crossings used the pedestrian flags. No significant difference was seen in yielding behavior with these two crossing strategies, but what was seen is that the act of taking a flag often delayed the crossing, whereas crossing without a flag often let pedestrians begin their crossing immediately. Of Saint Paul’s five crossings which had flags installed on Grand Avenue, only two were seen to have any flags remaining. After review, staff recommends that the City of Edina not utilize pedestrian flags as a city program. This recommendation was made considering the difficulty of maintaining these crossings and the questionable effect of these flags in their applications were central issues for implementation. In discussions with the requestors after the recommendation had been made it was further clarified that while the City of Edina would not participate in a flag program, if neighbors wished to create such a program using private property and funding that would be within their rights. 1 Shawn Turner, Kay Fitzpatrick, Marcus Brewer, and Eun Park Motorist Yielding to Pedestrians at Unsignalized Intersections: Findings from a National Study on Improving Pedestrian Safety Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2006 1982:, 1-12 2 Cottrell, Wayne ; Pal, Dharminder Evaluation of Pedestrian Data Needs and Collection Efforts Transportation Research Record, 1/1/2003, Vol.1828 3 Crowley-Koch, B. J., Van Houten, R. and Lim, E. (2011), Effects of Pedestrian Prompts on Motorist Yielding at Crosswalks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44: 121–126. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-121 STAFF REPORT Page 4 Section D : Other items handled by traffic safety D1. At 44th Street and Wooddale Avenue, a resident was concerned with school bus yielding rates. A camera to identify times of school buses in the area was placed, and not stopping when the bus arm was extended. This data was sent to police for enforcement. D2. Various residents asked for traffic count data on 44th Street, near France Avenue. This information was provided from our databases and the State of Minnesota’s traffic mapping application. D3. A resident wrote about reducing the speed limit on Valley View Road, between TH 62 and TH 100, which segment of Valley View Road which does this was not noted in the request. Contact was made asking for more information as well as explaining some of the challenges to such a change. No further comments have been received. D4. A request concerning the westbound TH 62 exits at France Avenue and the lane assignments of the light was received. The requestor was forwarded to Hennepin County and MnDOT for this as the county controls this signal, but the ramp is on state right-of-way. D5. A request was received for the installation of a bus shelter on 65th Street, across from the Fairview Medical Center. The requestor was forwarded to Metro Transit, and provided with 2013 boarding and alighting data from the stop, which indicated many fewer than the required boardings took place at this stop, as it is mostly used for alighting passengers. This was confirmed by Metro Transit in a phone conversation. D6. A request was received for the installation of in-street pedestrian signs at the intersections of Benton Avenue, and Normandale Road, on the east and west of TH 100. These signs were requested due to dangerous maneuvers by drivers in these areas. These approaches to the intersection are already controlled by stop signs, and thus cannot receive these additional signs, as these messages would conflict with each other. However, this request came with specific times for high risk and has been forwarded to the police department for enforcement. 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. Date: December 17, 2015 Agenda Item #: X.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Staff Comments for December 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: 2016 construction projects (Dec 8 public hearings) Grandview District Transportation Plan Status of the following 2016 sidewalk projects: Interlachen Boulevard (near Mirror Lakes Dr and Vernon Ave) Xerxes Avenue (W 56th St to W 60th St) Vernon Avenue (Gleason Rd to Blake Rd) Oaklawn Avenue (south of W 72nd St) Date: December 17, 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 December 17: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday January 21: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday February 18: ETC Annual 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 Thursday August 18: Regular ETC Meeting - 6:00 PM, COMMUNITY ROOM ThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday