HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-10-24 Meeting Packet
Meeting location:
Edina City Hall
Community Room
4801 W. 50th St.
Edina, MN
Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
Thursday, October 24, 2024
6:00 PM
Accessibility Support:
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 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Meeting Agenda
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes
4.1. Minutes
5. Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share
issues or concerns that are not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on
tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. 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. 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.
6. Reports/Recommendations
6.1. Presidents A/B Roadway Reconstruction Project
6.2. Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research Draft Report
6.3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Review Draft Report
6.4. Metro Transit Network Now Concept Plan
6.5. Traffic Safety Report of September 24, 2024
Page 1 of 191
6.6. 2024 Work Plan Updates
6.7. 2025 Work Plan Update
7. Chair and Member Comments
8. Staff Comments
8.1. Proposed 2025 Regular Meeting Dates
9. Adjournment
Page 2 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Action
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 4.1
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Minutes Department: Engineering
Item Title: Minutes
Action Requested:
Approve the minutes of the September 29, 2024 regular meeting.
Information/Background:
See attached draft minutes.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Draft Minutes,: Sep 19, 2024
Page 3 of 191
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
City Hall Community Room
September 19, 2024
1. Call to Order
Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Answering roll call: Commissioners Bildsten, Brown, McCarthy, Olson, Plumb-Smith, Rosen, Rubenstein,
Wright, Lassig, Lewis
Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni
2.1. Welcome Commissioner Lassig
The Commission welcomed new student Commissioner Lassig.
3. Approval of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Chair Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to approve the agenda
with the following amendments:
• Move Item 8.1 to 6.2
• Move Item 6.4 to 6.3
All voted aye. Motion carried.
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Bildsten and seconded by Commissioner Rubenstein to approve
the August 15, 2024 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
5. Community Comment
Bob Beyerl, 4109 Monterey Avenue, testified about Item A1 on the Traffic Safety Report of August 27, 2024.
Beyerl expressed concerns about the impact of removing on-street parking adjacent to Edina Morningside
Church, noting that doing so would require patrons to walk long distances to reach the church. Beyerl
requested special consideration for to allow parking on Sundays and for theatre programs.
Jim Eppel. 4106 Sunnyside Road, testified about alley north of Sunnyside Road in the County Club district. The
City surveyed property owners about reinstalling speed bumps as part of a scheduled overlay, but not enough
properties responded in favor. Eppel expressed concern about the survey process and which properties were
included. Eppel requested that the City reconsider installing removable speed bumps for the safety of children
who use the alley to access Kojetin Park.
6. Reports/Recommendations
Page 4 of 191
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
6.1. Parking Initiative Update
Members of the Planning Commission provided an update on their parking initiative.
6.2. Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
Liaison Scipioni provided the Commission with an update on the development of the City’s Safe and
Equitable Mobility Action Plan.
6.3. 2025 Work Plan Proposal
The Commission continued to discuss their work plan proposal and ranked initiatives as follows:
1. SEMAP working group participation
2. Commission-led events on promoting multimodal transportation/open house on Pedestrian and
Bicycle Master Plan
3. Review of city policies/ordinances requiring walking and biking improvements for recon/rehab
projects
4. Parking (Planning Commission lead)
5. City Code update
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosen and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith to
approve the 2025 work plan proposal. All voted aye. Motion carried.
6.4. Traffic Safety Report of August 27, 2024
The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety Report of August 27, 2024.
Item A1. Request for parking restrictions on Morningside Road west of Grimes Avenue
Motion was made by Chair Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Rubenstein to
recommend keeping two-sided parking consistent with the Living Streets Plan and to
provide the adjacent residents with information on mitigating options. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
Item A2. Request for warning signage at path entrance from Normandale Road entering
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail
Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Rosen to
recommend installing a bike warning sign for southbound Normandale Road. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
6.5. 2024 Work Plan Updates
1. Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research and Recommendations – Subcommittee consolidated
notes from meetings with cities, received example reports from staff. Aiming to have draft report to
review in October.
Page 5 of 191
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan – Subcommittee has a draft report and one-page guidance
that was requested by Council at work session.
3. Parking – The Commission received an update from the Planning Commission.
4. 20th Anniversary Proclamation – Completed.
7. Chair and Member Comments – Received.
8. Staff Comments – Received.
9. Adjournment
Motion was made by Commissioner Bildsten and seconded by Commissioner Brown to adjourn the
September 19, 2024 regular meeting at 8:37 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 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
SEAT NAME
1 Wright, Grant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
2 Rubenstein, Tricia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78%
3 Bildsten, Roger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
4 Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
5 Rosen, Adam 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 86%
6 Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78%
7 Olson, Bethany 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
8 McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 78%
9 Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
10 Lassig, Augie (s) 1 1 100%
Page 6 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Discussion
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.1
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: Presidents A/B Roadway Reconstruction Project
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the proposed 2025 roadway reconstruction project.
Information/Background:
Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler and Senior Project Engineer Ben Jore will present the
Presidents A/B
roadway reconstruction project. See attached draft engineering study.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Draft Engineering Study: Presidents A/B
Page 7 of 191
DRAFTENGINEERING STUDY
PRESIDENTS A/B NEIGHBORHOOD
ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION
Adams Avenue, Belmore Lane, Harrison Avenue, Jackson
Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, Monroe Avenue, Madison Avenue,
Tyler Avenue, Tyler Court, Van Buren Avenue, Washington
Avenue, 3rd Street
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-466 AND A-293
OCTOBER 18, 2024
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDINA
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional
Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Aaron Ditzler Reg. No. Date
Page 8 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
2
SUMMARY: The project involves reconstruction of local bituminous streets, a bituminous alley, a
gravel alley, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, installation of new
concrete curb and gutter, construction of new concrete sidewalk and shared-use
paths, and localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer
systems in the neighborhood.
The estimated total project cost is $X_________. 42.14% of the roadway cost will
be funded through property taxes and 57.86% will be funded through special
assessments at a rate of approximately $X_________ per residential equivalent unit
(REU). The estimated gravel alley construction cost is $X_________ and will be
funded through the special assessments at a rate of approximately $X_________
per REU. The alley cost will also be funded through property taxes and 57.86% will
be funded through special assessments Utility improvements amount to
$X_________ and will be funded through the City’s utility funds. Sidewalk
improvements are estimated to cost $X_________ and will be funded through the
Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund.
INITIATION: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s
Neighborhood Reconstruction Program, identified in the Capital Improvement Plan.
The project complies with the City’s Living Streets Policy, Vision Edina’s mission
statement to “provide effective and valued public services” and “maintain a sound
public infrastructure” and the “Strong Foundations” City budget goal. This project
addresses updating substandard infrastructure with improvements associated with the
roadway condition, watermain system, storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system
and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
LOCATION: The project includes Adams Avenue, Belmore Lane, Harrison Avenue, Jackson
Avenue, Jefferson Avenue, Monroe Avenue, Madison Avenue, Tyler Avenue, Tyler
Court and Van Buren Avenue. It also includes 3rd Street and Washington Avenue
within the Cities of Edina and Hopkins. A detailed location map of the project is
shown in Figure 1.
Page 9 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
3
Figure 1: Project Area Map
EXISTING
CONDITIONS: Roadways
The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed in the 1950s as gravel
streets, followed by bituminous pavement in the 1960s following utility installation
(see Photo 1).
Page 10 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
4
Photo 1: President A/B Neighborhood, 1960
Maintenance records indicate Washington Avenue was seal coated in 2007 and
overlayed in 2017. 2nd Street South was reconstructed in 2013 in a joint project led
by the City of Hopkins.
All of the streets in the neighborhood have concrete curb and gutter. The roadway
width is 30’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb).
As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program, all streets are regularly
evaluated and rated on a scale from 1 to 100; 100 representing a brand-new road
surface and 0 being extremely poor. This rating is referred to as the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) and is determined based on existing conditions and defects
(alligator cracking, raveling, potholes, etc.). The average PCI for the City of Edina is
78 and the average PCI for Presidents A/B is 26. An example of the current pavement
condition can be seen in Photo 2.
Page 11 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
5
Photo 2: Existing Pavement Condition
Alleys
There are two alleys with poor pavement condition within the Presidents A/B project
area, as shown in Photos 3 and 4 and Table 1. Both alleys are currently maintained
by the City (including snow plowing).
Alley Extents Adjacent
Properties Surface
Jefferson –
Madison Aves Belmore Ln to 3rd St S 16 Bituminous
Washington –
Adams Aves
250’ south of Belmore Ln to
Belmore Ln 9 Gravel
Table 1: Presidents A/B Alleys in Poor Condition
Page 12 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
6
Photo 3: Existing Gravel Alley Condition
Photo 4: Existing Bituminous Alley Condition
Page 13 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
7
Traffic and Crash Data
Staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at several locations within or near the
neighborhood. Average daily 2024 traffic volumes within the neighborhood range
between 143 and 2,748 vehicles per day with 85th percentile speeds between 26.8 and
38.9 miles per hour. Local street Washington Avenue accounts for the higher volume
and speed data. Traffic and crash data for this project is shown in Appendix A.
Multi-Modal Transportation
Pedestrian Facilities
A shared-use path is present on the north side of 3rd Street South in Hopkins between
Washington Avenue South and Monroe Avenue and is in good condition.
A shared-use path is present immediately adjacent to the project area on 2nd Street
South in Hopkins between Monroe Avenue and Harrison Avenue, which extends east
of Harrison Avenue along the Blake School property to Blake Road. A sidewalk is also
present immediately adjacent to the project area on Maloney Avenue between
Washington Avenue and Blake Road (see Appendix B).
Bicycle Facilities
Other than the previously mentioned shared-use paths, there are no bicycle facilities
(see Appendix C).
Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer system consists of
SECTION INCOMPLETE
Watermain
The watermain system consists of
SECTION INCOMPLETE
Storm Sewer
The storm sewer network is in the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The system
consists of
SECTION INCOMPLETE
Private Utilities
Gas, electric, communications, cable and fiber optic utilities are present in the
neighborhood. These utilities are a combination of overhead and underground
facilities located in backyards or along the boulevards. Street lighting consists of
standard “cobra head” lights mounted on wooden poles located throughout the
project area operated by Xcel Energy and 4 street lights in Arden Park operated by
the City of Edina as shown in Appendix E.
DESIGN INPUT: City Council
2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
This plan, part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, was developed to guide the City’s
efforts to create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. As shown in
Appendix B, there is a proposed sidewalk on Monroe Avenue between Maloney
Page 14 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
8
Avenue and 2nd Street. As shown in Appendices B and C, there is a proposed sidewalk
and bike lane on Washington Avenue between Maloney Avenue and 3rd Street.
Appendices B and C show proposed sidewalk and bicycle lanes on Washington
Avenue and Lincoln Drive adjacent to the project area and Van Valkenburg Park.
Appendix C also shows proposed bike lanes on Maloney Avenue adjacent to the
project area.
2015 Living Streets Policy
This policy balances the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders
in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create
economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability and provide meaningful
opportunities for active living and better health. The City will apply the Policy to all
street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction,
reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or change in the allocation of
pavement space on an existing roadway. The Living Streets Plan includes 15 principles
to guide implementation of the Policy, divided into four categories: All Users and All
Modes, Connectivity, Context Sensitivity and Sustainability. Below is a summary of
how these principles are incorporated into this project:
All Users and All Modes – This project will improve mobility and access to the
transportation network for a variety of users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children,
seniors and people with disabilities. Replacement of the pavement surfaces and traffic
control signage will enhance safety and convenience for all users.
Connectivity – This project involves maintaining a transportation system that can
accommodate all modes of travel. Existing facilities form a multimodal network within
the neighborhood.
Context Sensitivity – Engineering strives to preserve and protect natural features
within or adjacent to construction sites where feasible, including trees, waterways
and sensitive slopes. Residents within the project area were invited to complete a
questionnaire soliciting input on project design components, including multi-modal
transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems.
Sustainability – Engineering works closely with Public Works to implement
infrastructure improvements with consideration of lifecycle costs and future
maintenance. The new roadway section can be easily maintained long-term with the
use of proactive rehabilitation treatments, which will significantly extend the life of
the pavement. Reductions in impervious surfaces benefit water quality and may lessen
the demand for chemicals to manage snow and ice (such as chloride). Construction
operations are required to use the smallest footprint necessary to complete the work;
this includes utilizing trenchless technologies, such as pipe bursting or cured-in-place
sanitary sewer system, minimizing regional wastewater treatment, reducing the risk
of sewage surcharges, and limiting the risk of back-ups to residential properties.
Relevant portions of the Living Streets Plan can be found in Appendix F.
2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan
SECTION INCOMPLETE
Page 15 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
9
Climate Action Plan
The CAP identified the following strategies that align with this roadway
reconstruction project.
Transportation and Land Use (TL) 1: Decrease community-wide vehicle miles traveled
by 7% by 2030.
Action TL 1-2: Accelerate building on-street and off-street protected bike lanes,
sidewalks, crosswalks, and other walking infrastructure in high-need areas and fill
connectivity gaps as identified in the City's Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan.
TL 2: Double public transit commuter ridership from 3.3% to 6.6% by 2030.
Public Works
A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Public Works Department.
COMMENTS REQUESTED
Police and Fire
A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Police and Fire Departments.
COMMENTS REQUESTED
Parks and Recreation
A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Parks and Recreation
Department.
COMMENTS REQUESTED
Edina Transportation Commission
Prior to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) regular meeting on October
24, 2024, a draft engineering study was provided for review.
[2024 COMMENTS]
Relevant minutes from the ETC meetings are included in Appendix G.
City of Hopkins
City of Edina staff met with City of Hopkins staff in June 2024 to discuss the project
limits and the proposed scope of work.
Hopkins staff had no concerns with the proposed improvements within or
immediately adjacent to their city limits. Edina staff agreed to continue communicating
with Hopkins staff and property owners on project updates during the design, bidding
and construction phases of the project.
Residents
As part of the Engineering Department’s practice of notifying residents 2-3 years prior
to a potential reconstruction project, virtual neighborhood informational
presentations were posted on Better Together Edina in September 2022, and
October 2023. Residents were invited to an informational presentation and were able
Page 16 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
10
to directly ask questions to staff in September 2024. Residents were notified of a
recorded video version of the September 2024 informational presentation posted on
the Better Together Edina website, where residents were able to ask questions to
staff from the Better Together Edina website, as well as telephone and email.
Materials from the virtual presentation can be found in Appendix H.
On July 16, 2024, residents in Presidents A and B were asked to complete a
questionnaire, soliciting feedback on motorized and non-motorized transportation,
and local drainage problems within the project area. Unique feedback was requested
on potential support of sidewalks or bikeways on each street. The questionnaire was
completed by 46 of 301 property owners, a return rate of 15%.
The following is a summary of feedback received from residents:
20 of 46 (44%) were concerned or very concerned with the speed of traffic
in the neighborhood; 26 (56%) were not concerned.
17 of 45 (38%) were concerned or very concerned with motorist behavior in
the neighborhood; 28 (62%) were not concerned.
16 of 44 (36%) identified an unsafe intersection within the neighborhood.
37 of 46 (80%) walk, run, or jog in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per
week.
7 of 45 (16%) ride a bicycle in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week.
8 of 44 (17%) reported parking on the street at least 2-3 times per week;
31 (71%) reported parking on the street less than once per month.
6 of 46 (13%) reported having issues with drainage in the neighborhood.
Unique feedback was requested on potential support of sidewalks or bikeways on
each street on the same July 16 survey. The following is a summary of this feedback
received from residents:
27 of 46 (59%) supported a sidewalk on Belmore Lane (22 individuals, plus 5
in support of sidewalks on all streets)
16 of 46 (35%) supported a bikeway on Belmore Lane (15 individuals, plus 1
in support of bikeways on all streets)
22 of 46 (48%) supported a sidewalk on Washinginton Avenue (17 individuals,
plus 5 in support of sidewalks on all streets)
19 of 46 (41%) supported a bikeway on Washinginton Avenue (18 individuals,
plus 1 in support of bikeways on all streets)
13 of 46 (28%) supported a sidewalk on Monroe Avenue (8 individuals, plus
5 in support of sidewalks on all streets)
3 of 46 (7%) supported a bikeway on Monroe Avenue (2 individuals, plus 1
in support of bikeways on all streets)
The remaining streets had less than 20% support of sidewalks or bikeways.
*Percentages based on number of returned surveys
The full questionnaires and responses can be found in Appendix I.
Page 17 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
11
Relevant correspondence from residents regarding the project can be found in
Appendix J.
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns
raised by residents throughout the information gathering process, while still
maintaining the desired minimum standards of Engineering, Public Works and other
City staff.
Roadways
Typical Section
The bituminous roadways are proposed to be completely reconstructed to the
subgrade. The existing bituminous pavement and suitable aggregate material will be
recycled for use as base material in the new roadway where feasible. A minimum of
8” of aggregate base material will be graded and compacted as the base layer prior to
placement of 2.5” of bituminous non-wear and 1.5” of bituminous wear course.
Washington Avenue will be evaluated for a thicker pavement and aggregate section
pending a supplemental traffic study.
Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate
support for the new roadbed. The reconstructed sections will meet the requirements
of a minimum 20-year pavement design life based on projected traffic loadings.
All roadways within the project area are designated as Local Streets in the Living
Streets Plan. Per this plan’s design guidelines, Local Streets have a typical width of 27’
(measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) without sidewalks or 24’ with a
8’ shared-use path or 5’ sidewalk on one side.
Parking
Per the Living Streets Plan, on-street parking should be evaluated based on
classification, adjacent land uses, existing demand and costs of construction and
maintenance. One-sided parking is proposed on 3rd Street, Belmore Lane, Monroe
Avenue and Washington Avenue due to the proposed multi-modal facilities (see multi-
modal facilities below). Given the existing demand for parking, staff believes that
parking changes should not occur on any other streets in the project area.
The existing and proposed roadway widths, sidewalks, shared use paths and parking
recommendations for local streets that vary from the Living Streets Plan guidelines
are shown in Figures 2 through 6. The existing and proposed roadway widths, and
parking recommendations that meet the guidelines are shown in Appendix K. The
existing and proposed roadway widths, sidewalks and parking recommendations are
also shown in Table 2.
Page 18 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
12
Figure 2: Washington Avenue (facing north)
Page 19 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
13
Figure 3: Belmore Lane (facing east)
Page 20 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
14
Figure 4: Monroe Ave (facing north)
Figure 5: 3rd Street (facing east)
Page 21 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
15
Figure 6: Adams Avenue, Harrison Avenue, Jackson Avenue, Jefferson
Avenue, Madison Avenue, Tyler Avenue, Tyler Court and Van Buren
Avenue
Street
Existing
Roadway
Width
(face to
face),
feet
Proposed
Roadway
Width
(face to
face), feet
Pedestrian
/ Bikeway
Width,
feet
Boulevard
Width,
feet
Parking
3nd Street 30 24 Ex. shared-
use path 0 South Side
only
Belmore Lane 30 24 8’ shared-
use path 0-5 North side
only
Monroe Avenue 30 24 5’ sidewalk 3-5 East side
only
Washington
Avenue 30 24 8’ shared-
use path 0-5 East side
only
Adams Avenue
Harrison Avenue
Jackson Avenue
Jefferson Avenue
Madison Avenue
Tyler Avenue
30 27 - - Two-sided
Page 22 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
16
Tyler Court
Van Buren Avenue
Table 2: Street Widths, Sidewalks and Parking
Alleys
It is proposed to install bituminous pavement on the gravel alley south of Belmore
Lane between Washington Avenue and Adams Avenue within the project area to
improve maintenance operations, and reconstruct the bituminous alley north of
Belmore Lane between Jefferson Avenue and Madison Avenue within the project area
due to poor pavement and subgrade condition. Minor drainage improvements will be
completed by grade adjustments of the gravel and pavement. Based on their current
condition, no repairs are proposed for the remaining bituminous alleys.
Roadway Signage
All traffic signage within the project area, including street name blades, will be replaced
to improve visibility and reflectivity (see Appendix E). All new signs will conform to
the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
Multi-Modal Transportation
Staff seeks to balance the recommendations of the City’s guiding documents (Living
Streets Plan, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and Climate Action Plan), feedback
from affected residents, available right-of-way and potential tree and infrastructure
impacts. Figure 7 shows all existing and proposed pedestrian facilities (also detailed in
Table 2 above).
Page 23 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
17
Figure 7: Existing and Proposed Pedestrian and Mixed Use Facilities
Staff is proposing a new sidewalk on the east side of Monroe Avenue from Maloney
Avenue to 2nd Street. This sidewalk is recommended in the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Master Plan. The benefits of this sidewalk include:
Connection to existing and proposed multi-modal facilities on 2nd Street, 3rd
Street, Monroe Avenue, Belmore Lane and Maloney Avenue
Improving access to Alden Park and Harley Hopkins Park
Improving access to Harley Hopkins Family Center and Downtown Hopkins
Improving access to Metro Transit Route 612 and Green Line Extension
While the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends a sidewalk and bike lanes
on Washington Avenue from Maloney Avenue to 3rd Street, there is not sufficient
room to accommodate both facilities and maintain on-street parking. Therefore,
staff is proposing to combine these facilities into one shared-use path on the east
side. The benefits of this facility include:
Connection to existing and proposed multi-modal facilities on 3rd Street,
Belmore Lane, Maloney Avenue and Lincoln Drive
Improving access to Van Valkenburg Park
Improving access to Downtown Hopkins
Improving access to Metro Transit Green Line Extension
Page 24 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
18
Staff is also proposing a new shared-use path on the north side of Belmore Lane
from Washington Avenue to Dearborn Court (project limits). This facility is not
included in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The benefits of this facility
include:
Connection to exsting and proposed multi-modal facilities on Washington
Avenue, Monroe Avenue and in Alden Park
Improving access to Alden Park and Harley Hopkins Park
Improving access to Harley Hopkins Family Center and Downtown Hopkins
Improving access to Metro Transit Route 612 and Green Line Extension
Locations were selected by staff based on existing topography, connections to
existing facilities and private utility conflicts. The grass boulevards that will separate
the new curb and the proposed sidewalks and shared-use paths are proposed to be
5’-wide but may vary depending on construction conflicts. The separation from
vehicle traffic creates a more pedestrian-friendly environment and is preferred by
Public Works for snow storage. The extra width needed for the sidewalks, shared-
use paths and boulevards will be balanced between both sides of the street, where
feasible.
All adjacent pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed to meet the current design
standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and portions of the existing
sidewalks will be reconstructed as necessary.
The proposed shared-use path on Belmore Lane between Monroe Avenue and Van
Buren Avenue will be maintained by the City as it is adjacent to Alden Park. The
remaining shared-use paths and sidewalk will be maintained by adjacent property
owners as they are not within state or county right-of-way, along Municipal State
Aid routes, or included in the City’s Active Routes to School Plan.
Public Utilities
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer main has been televised, and portions will be repaired using a
combination of open cut and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These repairs will
address the issues of sags, cracks and groundwater infiltration into the sewer main.
The manhole castings will also be removed and replaced to reduce inflow and
infiltration of stormwater.
Watermain
SECTION INCOMPLETE
As part of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan, staff plans to engage property
owners who have unsealed private wells and encourage them to have them properly
sealed.
Storm Sewer
Based on the scope of utility work, concrete curb and gutter will be replaced
throughout the project, providing a continuous, functional conduit for stormwater.
The storm sewer network will have modifications to resolve existing drainage issues
Page 25 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
19
at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the existing structures
will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition. Sump drains will be
installed where feasible to allow property owners to connect their sump pump
discharges directly into the storm sewer system.
Private Utilities
Staff will meet with representatives of several private utility companies in December
2024, to discuss the proposed 2025 reconstruction project and preliminary
improvements. Portions of the private utility networks may receive upgrades prior to
construction; however, this work is not part of the City’s project. Currently, the City
does not have a standard to determine where and when street lighting should be
improved. Unlike other infrastructure improvements, lighting can be installed later
with minimal disturbance using trenchless technologies. The lighting in the
neighborhood is sufficient to delineate the intersections; therefore, staff are
recommending no revisions to the current street lighting.
RIGHT-OF-WAY/
EASEMENTS: Existing roadway right-of-way in this neighborhood is 60’ except for Tyler Avenue
where it is 66’ and Washington Avenue and Tyler Court which are 50’. It is anticipated
that most of this project can be constructed within the existing ROW. Half of the
ROW for 3rd Street is located within the City of Hopkins. While a portion of
Washington Avenue ROW is also located within the City of Hopkins, no roadway
infrastructure is in the Hopkins ROW. Staff is preparing a cooperative agreement with
the City of Hopkins for proposed work that occurs within Hopkins ROW. The
cooperative agreement will detail each agency’s responsibilities regarding
construction, cost allocation, ownership, and future maintenance. A ROW permit
from the Minnesota Department of Transportation may be required for roadway and
/ or utility work adjacent to the noise wall on Washington Avenue.
Many properties have retaining walls, fences, vegetation, boulders or other landscaped
items within the right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items will interfere with
some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed to
complete the necessary work.
PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $_________, (see Table 3). The total cost
includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the
start of the project to the final assessment hearing.
Page 26 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
20
Item Amount Total Cost Funding
Source
Roadway $ _______ Special
Assessments
Roadway $ _______ Property
Taxes
Gravel Alley $ _______ Special
Assessments
Gravel Alley $ _______ Property
Taxes
Roadway Total: $ __________
Sanitary Sewer $ _______
Watermain $ _______
Storm Sewer $ _______
Utility Total: $ __________ City Utility
Funds
Sidewalk Total: $ __________ PACS Fund
Project Total: $ __________
Table 3: Estimated Project Costs
ASSESSMENTS: Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties pursuant to
Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statues. Based on the City’s Special Assessment
Policy, there are _____ roadway residential equivalent units (REUs) and _____ gravel
alley REUs in the Presidents A and B project area. The estimated roadway and alley
assessments per REU are $_______ and $_______, respectively (see Figures 8 and 9).
The preliminary assessment roll can be found in Appendix L.
Page 27 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
21
Figure 8: Preliminary Roadway Assessment Map
Figure 9: Preliminary Gravel Alley Assessment Map
Page 28 of 191
DRAFTEngineering Study
Presidents A/B Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-466
October 18, 2024
22
PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule outlines the past and future tasks to be performed related to
the project:
Neighborhood Informational Video Presentations (all 2023 and Future
projects)
September 2022,
October 2023
Neighborhood Informational Open House September 24, 2024
ETC Engineering Study Review October 24, 2024
Receive Engineering Study December 9, 2024
Open Public Improvement Hearing December 9, 2024
Close Public Improvement Hearing December 11, 2024
Public Improvement Hearing Council Decision December 17, 2024
Bid Opening March/April 2025
Award Contract/Begin Construction Spring 2025
Complete Construction Fall 2025
Final Assessment Hearing October 2026
RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the project can be completed during the 2025 construction season,
assuming an efficient replacement of gas main and services schedule by CenterPoint
Energy. Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and
necessary to improve the public infrastructure in the Presidents A/B neighborhood.
APPENDIX: A. Traffic and Crash Data
B. Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities
C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities
D. Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks
E. Street Lights and Signs
F. Living Streets Plan
G. Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
H. Neighborhood Informational Presentation Materials
I. Resident Questionnaire
J. Correspondence from Residents
K. Proposed Typical Sections
L. Preliminary Assessment Roll
Page 29 of 191
APPENDIX A
Traffic and Crash Data
Page 30 of 191
Traffic Count Location Month / Year ADT 85% Speed
1 June 2024 2748 38.9
2 June 2012 / July 2012 252 / 186 30.6 / 30.8
3 May 2008 669 34.6
4 April 2014 463 33.4
5 June 2024 482 28.5
6 June 2024 143 26.8
Bike / Ped Location Month / Year Total Count Peak Count Time
A June 2017 11 4
B October 2023 60 12 8:00 AM
C October 2023 32 10 9:00 AM
Accident
Location
Month /
Year
Crash Type Notes
97 September
2017
3 car crash Northbound vehicle rear-ended a parked car into another
98 September
2021
Two car crash Construction trailer parking on eastbound side of road
rear-ended by driver due to sun impacting visibility.
99 October
2023
Vehicle
failure
Westbound vehicle tire broke then hit 2 vehicles parked
on street.
Page 31 of 191
APPENDIX B
City Comprehensive
Plan Update –
Pedestrian Facilities Map
Page 32 of 191
TRACY AVEVERNON AVEWOODDALE AVEHANSEN RD70TH ST W
FRANCE AVE SVALLEYVIEWRDMINNESOT ADRGLEASONRDWeberPark
EdinaCommunityCenter
HighlandsPark
CityHall
M innehahaCree
kNineMileCree
kNine Mile Creek
ArdenPark
SouthdaleLibrary
ToddPark
YanceyPark
Van ValkenburgPark
BredesenPark PamelaPark
RoslandPark
Fred RichardsPark
BraemarGolfCourse
LewisPark
PublicWorks
ArnesonAcresPark
EdinaHighSchool
CentennialLakes
LakeCornelia
LakeEdina
MudLake
IndianheadLake
ArrowheadLake
MirrorLake
MelodyLake
BraemarArena
Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVECAHILL RD66TH ST W
YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD
MALONEY AVE
4 4T H S T W
50TH ST W
54TH ST W
58TH ST W
70TH ST W
76TH ST W
DEWEY HILL RD
VALLEY VIEW RD
VALLEY VIEW RD
78TH ST W
October 2022
City of EdinaExisting and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities ±
0 2,250Feet
Legend
Proposed CP Rail Regional TrailNine Mile Creek Regional TrailExisting Shared-Use PathExisting Sidewalk Proposed Shared-Use PathProposed SidewalkProposed Twin Loops
Page 33 of 191
APPENDIX C
City Comprehensive
Plan Update –
Bicycle Facilities Map
Page 34 of 191
TRACY AVEVERNON AVEWOODDALE AVEHANSEN RD70TH ST W
FRANCE AVE SVALLEYVIEWRDMINNESOT ADRGLEASONRDWeberPark
EdinaCommunityCenter
HighlandsPark
CityHall
M innehahaCree
k
NineMileCreek
Ni ne Mile Cre ek
ArdenPark
SouthdaleLibrary
ToddPark
YanceyPark
Van ValkenburgPark
BredesenPark PamelaPark
RoslandPark
Fred RichardsPark
BraemarGolfCourse
LewisPark
PublicWorks
ArnesonAcresPark
EdinaHighSchool
CentennialLakes
LakeCornelia
LakeEdina
MudLake
IndianheadLake
ArrowheadLake
MirrorLake
MelodyLake
BraemarArena
Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVECAHILL RD66TH ST W
YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD
MALONEY AVE
4 4T H ST W
50TH ST W
54TH ST W
58TH ST W
70TH ST W
76TH ST W
DEWEY HILL RD
VALLEY VIEW RD
VALLEY VIEW RD
78TH ST W
October 2022
City of EdinaExisting and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ±
0 2,250Feet
Legend
Proposed CP Rail Regional TrailNine Mile Creek Regional TrailExisting Shared-Use Path Proposed Shared-Use Path
Proposed Twin Loops Advisory Bike Lane Existing Bike Boulevard Bikeable ShoulderExisting Shared Bike LaneExisting Bike LaneExisting Buffered Bike Lane
Proposed Bike BoulevardProposed Bike LaneProposed Buffered Bike Lane
Page 35 of 191
APPENDIX D
Sewer Blocks and
Watermain Breaks
Page 36 of 191
APPENDIX E
Street Lights and Signs
Page 37 of 191
APPENDIX F
Living Streets Plan
Page 38 of 191
Living Streets Plan 2015
Safety
Health
Choice
Economy
Page 39 of 191
8
2. Living Streets Policy
INTRODUCTION
The Living Streets Policy was developed to provide the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The policy
initially stood alone and included sections to guide the creation of the Living Street Plan. This revised
policy is now an integral part of the Living Streets Plan.
The Living Streets Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive
Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving; reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy
consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives
such the “do.town” effort related to community health, Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs
related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Streets Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory
requirements set by other agencies.
The Living Streets Policy is broken up into three
parts: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The
Policy is followed by a description of core services
provided by the City of Edina that are related to or
implemented in part through Living Streets.
POLICY
Living Streets balance the needs of motorists,
bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community
identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful
opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina’s vision for Living
Streets, the principles Living Streets will embody, and the plan that will guide implementation of their
construction.
LIVING STREETS VISION
Edina is a place where ...
• Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible;
• Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike;
• Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity;
• Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity;
• Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments;
• Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private
sectors alike; and
• Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses.
Mini Fact
Expect cyclists on the road. Watch for
cyclists on the road. Treat them as you
would any slow-moving vehicle.
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 40 of 191
9
LIVING STREETS PRINCIPLES
Fifteen principles guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy in the areas of all users and all
modes, connectivity, context sensitivity and sustainability. The City will incorporate these principles when
planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use
decisions.
All Users and All Modes
Principle 1: Living Streets are high-quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of
the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and
the disabled; and
Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while
enhancing safety and convenience for all users.
Connectivity
Principle 3: The City designs, operates and maintains a transportation system that provides
a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel;
Principle 4: The City seeks opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation by
preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way and adding new rights-
of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit;
Principle 5: The City prioritizes improvements to non-motorized connections to key
destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation
network and commercial areas;
Principle 6: The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and
sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks
on the perimeter of the development; and
Principle 7: Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For
example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the
traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to
ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity.
Context Sensitivity
Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to
consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place;
Principle 9: Living Streets preserve and protect natural features such as waterways, urban
forest, sensitive slopes and soils;
Principle 10: Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and
property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial
districts;
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 41 of 191
10
Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional
authorities; and
Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial
impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level.
Sustainability
Principle 13: Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life of the public,
Principle 14: Living Streets will reduce environmental impacts associated with the
construction and operation of roadways; and
Principle 15: The City will increase the life span and resilience of its infrastructure and will
build infrastructure with consideration for lifecycle costs and ease
of maintenance.
LIVING STREETS IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Edina will develop Living Streets in the regular course of business of maintaining, expanding
or redeveloping the road network and will be guided by the Vision and Principles established above.
Implementation will happen predominantly through the neighborhood street reconstruction program, but
also though specific stand-alone stormwater utility, pedestrian, bicycle or safety projects.
Project prioritization is not specifically part of the Living Streets Plan. Prioritization of projects takes
place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Budget and is determined by the City Council with
guidance from the Living Streets Vision and Principles.
The City will actively promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan by:
• Applying the Living Streets Policy and Plan to all street projects, including those involving
operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or
changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately
built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails.
• Drawing on all sources of transportation funding and actively pursuing grants, cost-sharing
opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable.
• Through all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their
work.
• By acting as an advocate for Living Streets principles when a local transportation or land use
decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency.
Projects that implement Living Streets will be guided by pedestrian and cyclist network plans and roadway
classifications and will consider the physical, social, ecologic, regulatory and economic context in a given
project area.
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 42 of 191
11
The project delivery system used to build Living Streets will:
• Systematically engage Edina residents and project stakeholders to better inform project-level
recommendations.
• Keep Edina residents and project stakeholders informed about Living Streets and the range of services
they help provide.
• Follow minimum Living Streets design requirements and standards.
• Manage construction impacts to residents and users of streets.
Network
The creation of a Living Streets network of road, pedestrian and bicycle facilities provides mobility,
accessibility and access to people, places and spaces. The resulting interconnection of neighborhoods links
people to goods and services and to one another, and increases quality of life for those who live in, work
in, or visit the city.
Existing and planned transportation networks are identified in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and
other approved/adopted plans. Network plans include:
• Roadway Network (Functional Classification, Jurisdictional Classification)
• Sidewalk Facilities
• Bicycle Facilities (Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan)
• Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan
• Transit Service
Network plans are approved by the City Council. In most cases, modification requires an amendment of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The expansion, creation and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle networks will be well planned and
prioritized:
• Expansion of existing networks and providing connections to key traffic generators or destinations
provide immediate benefit to all network users and is a top priority.
• Network connections serving vulnerable users such as children, seniors and the disabled are a top
priority.
• Network connections serving high-volume uses such as schools, retail destinations or regional
public transit are a top priority.
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 43 of 191
12
Context
Contextual variety can either constrain or create opportunity in roadway and other infrastructure
projects. The following are contexts that will be considered and will influence the planning, design and
implementation of Living Streets.
Exceptions
Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving and
rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document
proposed exceptions as part of a project proposal.
• A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable
condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair or pothole filling,
or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities,
however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.
CONTEXTS OF LIVING STREETS
Ecological
Water resource, ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams
Natural resouces, trees, and urban forest
Air quality
Climate
Sun and shade
Materials, waste, energy, sustainability
Regulatory State Aid roadway
Watershed rules
Operational Maintenance operations
Traffic control or functional constraints
Project Type
Public
Neighborhood street reconstruction
Neighborhood street reconstruction with major
associated utility work
State Aid street reconstruction
Stand-alone sidewalk, bicycle or utility project
Public
partner lead
State
County
Transit agency
Parks district
Private
development
Will remain private
Future public
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 44 of 191
13
• The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway,
walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project.
• The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because
of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native
vegetation, wetlands or other critical areas.
• Available budget is constrained or project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date.
Engagement
Members of the public have an interest in understanding and providing input for public projects. Project
recommendations will be developed with a transparent and defined level of public engagement. The
public will have access to the decision-making process and decision makers via public meetings and
other correspondence and will be provided the opportunity to give input throughout the process. Project
reports will discuss how their input helped to influence recommendations and decisions. The City of
Edina’s Living Streets will continue to engage and solicit public input as a vital component of the project
implementation process. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion regarding the purpose of and
opportunities for public engagement.
Design
The guidelines contained in the Living Streets Plan will be used to direct the planning, funding, design,
construction, operation and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The
guidelines allow for context-sensitive designs.
The Design Guidelines (see Chapter 6):
• Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary.
• Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use
pathways on all arterial, collector and local connector streets. Sidewalks shall also be required
where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park.
Termini will be determined by context.
• Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to
be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate.
• Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes.
• Allocate right-of-way for boulevards.
• Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets
principles.
• Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens
and other features to improve air and water quality.
The Design Guidelines in this Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations
and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update this Living Streets
Plan. Minimum standards will guide how vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle networks interact and share
public right of way.
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 45 of 191
14
Benchmarks and Performance Measures
The ability to measure the performance of a plan, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended,
is vitally important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor
and measure its performance relative to the Living Streets Policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate
success include:
Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling.
This does not mean that every street in the city will have walking and biking facilities. It means that each
neighborhood will provide a network of these facilities such that walking and biking to and through
neighborhoods is a comfortable experience.
Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely.
It is essential that alternatives to driving to school or parks be provided to children and their caregivers.
These alternatives – walking or bicycling – will be both safe and convenient modes of transportation. See
the Edina Active Routes to School Plan for more information.
Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably.
Opportunities to cross all streets in Edina, including local, collectors and arterial streets, will be provided.
These crossings will be safe and comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability.
An active way of life is available to all.
Opportunities for active living should be made available to all members of the Edina community by
connecting centers of activity via active, multimodal transportation. Each resident of and visitor to Edina
will have the ability to lead an active way of life.
There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries.
Perhaps the ultimate safety benchmark is zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Modeled from the Vision
Zero Initiative (www.visionzeroinitiative.com), an aspirational yet primary goal of Living Streets is to
achieve this high level of safety on the City’s roadways.
Reduce untreated street water flows into local waterways and reduce storm water volume.
Cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are strategically selected to go above and
beyond regulatory requirements to provide for flood protection and clean water services through the use of
infrastructure that retains, settles, filters, infiltrates, diverts or reduces the volume of stormwater that flows
to local surface waters.
Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations.
Part of Edina’s Living Streets vision is that “streets support vibrant commerce.” While most of the city’s
streets are residential, Edina’s business districts are a vital part of the community. The benefits of Living
Streets extend to retail streets as well, making them more attractive to businesses and consumers alike.
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 46 of 191
15
The City will draw on the following data to measure performance:
• Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department.
• Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests.
• Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys.
• Resident responses to post-project surveys.
• The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after
the project.
• Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure.
• Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented.
Mini Fact
Motorists must stop behind all
crosswalks.
Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets Policy
Page 47 of 191
APPENDIX G
Edina Transportation Commission
Meeting Minutes
Page 48 of 191
APPENDIX H
Neighborhood Informational
Meeting Materials
Page 49 of 191
EdinaMN.gov2025 Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionInformational MeetingPage 50 of 191
Agenda•Introductions•Why Reconstruct•Project Scopes•What You Can Expect•Funding Sources•Timeline•Communication•How to Prepare•Questions•SidewalksPage 51 of 191
Engineering - Design & Construction DivisionBrandon FreemanEngineering TechnicianChris MooreGraduate EngineerAaron DitzlerAssistant City EngineerChad MillnerDirector of EngineeringJon MooreSr. Engineering TechnicianTom HaatajaSr. Engineering TechnicianBen JoreSr. Project EngineerLiz MooreEngineering CoordinatorPage 52 of 191
2025 Project Area•Presidents A/B•301 PropertiesPage 53 of 191
Why My Street?•Streets grouped into neighborhoods•Maximizes economics of scale•Extends pavement life•Proactive Pavement Management Program•Prioritized based on;•Pavement condition•Underground utility issuesPage 54 of 191
Why Reconstruct?•Roadway originally constructed with gravel in the 1950’s, followed by utilities and paving in the 1960’s•Utility issues to address beneath roadway•More cost-effective than other maintenance strategies (mill & overlay, seal coat)Page 55 of 191
Existing Conditions - Roadways•Pavement reaching end of useful life•Streets have curb and gutter•Some properties already have concrete driveway aprons, some do notPage 56 of 191
Existing Conditions – Gravel Alley•230 feet of gravel alley between Washington and Adams Avenues•Concerns about required maintenance (snow plowing operations)Page 57 of 191
Existing Conditions –Asphalt Alley•580 feet of asphalt alley between Jefferson and Madison Avenues•Poor pavement condition, rutting•Portion has storm sewer and curb and gutter•Concerns about required maintenance (snow plowing operations)Page 58 of 191
Existing Conditions - Utilities•Watermain- Loss in pipe wall thickness- Main and service breaks- Undersized mains•Sanitary Sewer- Cracks, breaks, sags, etc.- Inflow and infiltration•Storm Sewer- Structure deficiencies- Undersized pipes- Curb and gutter failingPage 59 of 191
Existing Conditions – Right-of-Way•Retaining walls•Irrigation systems and pet fences•Landscaping•Outwalks/stepsPage 60 of 191
What / Where is the ROW?•Surface and space above and below public roadways used for travel purposes and utilities•Typically, 60’ width•(MSA Streets 66’)•Property corners located during surveyPage 61 of 191
Proposed Improvements – Roadways and 2 Alleys•Replacement of curb & gutter (roadways) •Subgrade corrections as needed•New roadbed and asphalt pavement surfacePage 62 of 191
Living Streets Plan•Approved by City Council in 2015•Balances needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders•Incorporates;•Minimum roadway design elements•See Exhibits•Pedestrian and Bicycle Master PlanPage 63 of 191
Proposed Improvements - Driveways•Aprons will be replaced / installed to comply with City standards•Special driveway materials•Reimbursement PolicyPage 64 of 191
Proposed Improvements - Utilities•Includes new watermain and service replacements•New fire hydrants and gate valves•May include localized sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation•Lining of sanitary sewer•Storm sewer upgradesPage 65 of 191
Proposed Improvements – Sump Drain•Installed when feasible and warranted•Homeowners encouraged to connect to City Sump Drain•Notification will be given when connecting is available•Sump connection permit available thru City websitePage 66 of 191
Utility OwnershipCity Owned UtilitiesA –Water ServiceE –Water Service ShutoffResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary ServicePage 67 of 191
Utility Ownership•Recommend inspecting private services prior to construction•Repairs/upgrades can be coordinated with street work•Associated costs can be added to special assessmentResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary ServiceCity Owned UtilitiesA –Water ServiceE –Water Service ShutoffPage 68 of 191
Private Utilities•Gas, Electric, Telephone, Cable may upgrade or repair their utilities before construction begins•Fiber optic internet installation during construction•Potential City-required relocations•Goal: streamline projects and minimize neighborhood disturbance•Streetlight upgrades typically not included with projectPage 69 of 191
What You Can Expect•Dust, mud, noise, and vibrations•Occasional delays due to inclement weather•Localized flooding during rainfall•Residents will be asked to limit water use occasionally•Homes may be connected to temporary watermainPage 70 of 191
What You Can Expect•Construction materials stored temporarily in ROW•5-10 feet of disturbance behind back of curb•Construction equipment stored on streets•Tree removals as necessary (property owners notified)Page 71 of 191
What You Can Expect•Driveways and roads will be periodically inaccessible•Driveways will be inaccessible for 7 days to allow driveways to curePage 72 of 191
What You Can Expect•Items within the City’s right-of-way may be damaged•You can remove plants and other landscape features before the project•Irrigation and pet fences will repaired•Disturbed areas will be restored with new sodPage 73 of 191
What You Can Expect•We will;•Provide opportunities for input•Keep you informed•Do our best to minimize inconveniences•Our contractor will accommodate residents with special access needsPage 74 of 191
City Utility Funds•Collection of utility service charges paid to the City•Covers 100% of:•Storm sewer (curb and gutter, driveway aprons, sump drain pipe) •Sanitary sewer•WatermainPage 75 of 191
Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund•Promotes non-motorized transportation throughout the City•Covers 100% of:•Sidewalks /shared-use paths•Bike lanes•Associated signage and pavement markings•Revenue from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy franchise feesPage 76 of 191
Do Taxes Cover Street Projects?•~23% of property taxes go to the City for expenses including Police, Fire, Parks, and Public Works•~3.5% go to Public Works •Snowplowing•Pothole repairs•Other street maintenance (sealcoating, overlays, patch repairs)•In 2022 taxes began paying for a portion of street reconstructionFigures per proposed 2024 Edina Tax Levy (not final)Page 77 of 191
Special Assessments•Assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements•Covers portion of roadway costs•Roadway and driveway removals•Asphalt pavement•Restoration•Indirect Costs – engineering, finance, soil investigations, mailingsPage 78 of 191
Residential Equivalent Units•Assessments distributed based on REUs•Factor used to compare properties to a single-family residence•Additional factors for commercial, industrial, and public-use propertiesREU FactorLand Use ClassScenario1.0Single-Family ResidentialA0.8Multi-Family Residential – DuplexBPage 79 of 191
Project Details – Presidents A and B•301 properties (291.60 REUs) •2.75 miles of road •Full removal and replacement of curb & gutter•Full watermain, water services replacement•Sanitary Lining and local replacement•Storm sewer improvements•24’ street width:•Incl. 5’ concrete walk on Monroe Ave•Incl. 8’ shared use path on Washington and Belmore Aves•3rdSt S•27’ street width remaining streetsPage 80 of 191
Project Details – Presidents A and B Alleys•230 feet of gravel alley between Washington and Adams Avenues•New 10’ wide asphalt pavement on existing gravel alley•580 feet of asphalt alley between Jefferson and Madison Avenues•Reconstruct alley with new asphalt pavementPage 81 of 191
Revised Roadway Cost Assessment - Local Sample Assessment During Transition$20,000$15,000$10,000% of Local Roadway Costs Assessed Construction Year$20,000$15,000$10,000100%2020$15,780-$12,624$11,835-$9,468$7,890-$6,31278.90%-63.12%2021-2024$11,572$8,679$5,78657.86%2025$10,520-$1,052$7,890-$789$5,260-$52652.60%-5.26%2026-2035$0$0$00%2036Page 82 of 191
Preliminary Assessments – Presidents A/B Roadway*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)Square Yards of Paving per REUSquareYards of Paving#of REUsEstimated Assessment Range per REU*% of Roadway Costs Assessed Neighborhood121.735,250291.60$7,500 - $11,50057.86%Presidents (2025)175.230,568174.49$11,900 - $17,10063.12%Concord B/C (2024)144.819,273133.11$8,500 - $14,00068.38%Morningside C(2023)Page 83 of 191
Preliminary Assessments – Presidents A/B Gravel Alley*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)Square Yards of Paving per REUSquareYards of Paving#of REUsEstimated Assessment Range per REU*% of Alley Costs Assessed Neighborhood28.92609.0$1,000 - $1,60057.86%Presidents (2025)40.665016.0$1,871100%Presidents (2006)28.92609.0$1,700 - $2,800100%Presidents (2025)Page 84 of 191
Typical Project TimelineMilestoneDateEngineering studies/estimates providedJuly –September2024Public hearingsDecember 2024Plan preparation and biddingJanuary – March 2025Construction beginsApril – May 2025Construction concludesOctober – November 2025Warranty workSpring 2026Final assessment hearingFall 2026Page 85 of 191
Assessment TimingMilestoneDateInitial Public HearingsDecember 2024Project ConstructedSummer 2025Final Assessment HearingOctober 2026Assessment Filed with CountyNovember 2026Assessment on Tax StatementJanuary 2027Page 86 of 191
Payment Options•Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid interest charges•Pay min. 25% ; balance rolls to property taxes over 15 years •Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years•2024 interest rate was 4.69%•Finance charges are 1% over City’s borrowing interest rate•Defer payment if 65 years of age or older and meet specific income requirements•Assessing Department – 952-826-0365Page 87 of 191
Communication•Regular Mail•All meetings, public hearings, and questionnaires•Final assessment notices (one year after construction)•Door hangers and flyers •Time-sensitive information (water shut-offs, concrete, temporary inaccessibility)•Better Together Edina – City Website Project PagePage 88 of 191
Better Together Edina•Best way to stay informed•www.bettertogetheredina.org•Free, access to periodic updates on project progress and schedulesPage 89 of 191
Providing Input•Questionnaires mailed to your home, weigh in on;•Traffic/pedestrian issues•Street drainage issues•Streetlight upgrades•Public hearing in December 2024•Opportunity for residents to voice comments and concernsPage 90 of 191
Questionnaire ResultsResponses Received to DateNeighborhood15% (46 / 301)Presidents A/BPage 91 of 191
How To Prepare•Complete project questionnaire•Begin financial planning•Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around street reconstruction schedule•Review Better Together Edina updates•Ask questions, stay informedPage 92 of 191
Contact UsEngineering Department7450 Metro BoulevardHours: 7:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.952-826-0371Liz MooreEngineering Coordinator952-826-0449LMoore@edinamn.govAaron DitzlerAssistant City Engineer952-826-0443ADitzler@edinamn.govPage 93 of 191
Questions?•Ask questions on Better Together Edina Q&A page•https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/presidents-ab•Call or emailPage 94 of 191
Proposed Multi-Modal Facilities•Guided by Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Living Streets Plan, Climate Action Plan•Improve access and mobility•Provide connections to parks, school, transit servicePage 95 of 191
Washington Ave•Reduce street width by 6’•One-sided parking to remain•New 8’ shared-use path (east side)•Maloney Ave to 3rdSt•Shared-use path to be maintained by adjacent property ownersExistingProposedPage 96 of 191
Monroe Ave•Reduce street width by 6’•One-sided parking (east side) •New 5’ sidewalk (east side)•Maloney Ave to 2ndSt•Sidewalk to be maintained by adjacent property ownersExistingProposedPage 97 of 191
Belmore Ln•Reduce street width by 6’•One-side parking (north side)•New 8’ shared-use path (north side)•Washington Ave to Dearborn Ct•Shared-use path to be maintained by City adjacent to Alden park•Maintained by adjacent property owners otherwiseExistingProposedPage 98 of 191
3rdSt•Reduce street width by 6’•One-side parking (south side)•Existing 10’ shared-use path to remainExistingProposedPage 99 of 191
Other Local Streets•Reduce street widths by 3’•Two-sided parking to remain•No multi-modal facilitiesExistingProposedPage 100 of 191
Thank you for your time!Page 101 of 191
APPENDIX I
Resident Questionnaires
Page 102 of 191
Neighborhood
Reconstruction Survey
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
30 January 2019 - 07 August 2024
PROJECT NAME:
Presidents A & B Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Page 103 of 191
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 1 of 42
Page 104 of 191
Q1 Does your property have drainage issues the City should know about?Examples: History
of flooding/standing water, grading, b...
6 (13.0%)
6 (13.0%)
40 (87.0%)
40 (87.0%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question (46 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 2 of 42
Page 105 of 191
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
We have a very active sump pump in the spring or after heavy rains.
There are two storm sewer drains at the property line on my
neighbor's side. One in front of the garage and one in the back yard.
The drains are very active draining both properties during a fast thaw
or heavy rain.
Jason Walden
7/21/2024 10:22 AM
Our alley drains excessively directly into our garage.
SLH
7/22/2024 10:17 AM
We have a drain running from the driveway under the garage into the
back yard. If it becomes clogged water backs up in the garage.
Tracey Z
7/29/2024 05:59 PM
Water in basement that drips in from basement ceiling into old well
room. weird grading in back and along north side of house, and
around garage
Kass
7/30/2024 04:30 PM
our driveway is at the bottom of a hill. When snow melts or rains hard
the water runs right over the lip on the end of the driveway. The water
runs down our driveway and pools or goes into the garage.
Q2 Please comment on the location and types of problems you have.
Optional question (5 response(s), 41 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 3 of 42
Page 106 of 191
Q3 How concerned are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street?
26 (56.5%)
26 (56.5%)
11 (23.9%)
11 (23.9%)
9 (19.6%)
9 (19.6%)
Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned
Question options
Optional question (46 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 4 of 42
Page 107 of 191
tfrandrup
7/18/2024 11:11 AM
Harrison Ave south. it is being used as a through street because of
excelsior Ave access. cars speed and run stop sighs
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
Harrison Ave S has a downslope heading north to south that results
in cars regularly exceeding speed limint;.
Gogo
7/18/2024 02:37 PM
Corner of Madison to cemetery- hard to see traffic
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
Belmore and Melony Ave both have a lot of cars that travel way too
fast.
Bobhall
7/18/2024 07:21 PM
416 Van Buren Ave South. Concerned because people speed thru
our area constantly.
BettyRuby
7/19/2024 06:34 AM
3rd avenue and Washington Ave
Danielleclose
7/19/2024 04:51 PM
Belmore and Maloney only
Lmeiners
7/19/2024 06:01 PM
300 block of Harrison Ave S. cars are going very fast down the street
at all hours of the day. Cars particularly are flying down or up the hill
which is dangerous to pedestrians. Buses are also speeding down
the neighborhood. Lack of street lights is dangerous to pedestrians.
CE
7/20/2024 08:02 AM
Harrison is used as a route through the neighborhood, especially
when there is construction on Excelsior or Blake. I've seen cars going
more than 35 down this road, a road with many walkers, bikers and
kids.
Jason Walden
7/21/2024 10:22 AM
The alley between Madison and Jefferson
SLH
7/22/2024 10:17 AM
People speed and fail to stop at the stop signs at Harrison &
Belmore generally heading East/West.
Q4 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel
that way.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 5 of 42
Page 108 of 191
Traci5220
7/22/2024 11:23 AM
The hill that leads down Belmore Lane to Blake Ave (or reverse -
coming up the hill to the top of Belmore) causes cars to increase their
speed and sometimes not having full visibility
Justin Elder
7/22/2024 06:00 PM
On Belmore Lane between Blake and Harrison cars drove too fast
and there are no stop signs in that section.
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
From Harrison to Blake Road on Belmore Lane, there are no stop
signs. Cars are using Belmore Lane to avoid Excelsior Blvd and
speeding to get to/from Hwy 169. We currently have no sidewalks on
Belmore Lane. Families with children, walking with strollers/bikes, and
dogs routinely go to Alden Park on Belmore Lane. We would strongly
recommend some stop signs, or other traffic slowing options, and
sidewalks on Belmore Lane. Thanks.
Bruce Juat
7/24/2024 04:57 AM
Traffic volume on Monroe due to the school near by the speed in
which people drive they are not concerned because it's not their
neighborhood!
SiriLauren
7/24/2024 07:20 PM
Maloney and Tyler down to 169
Krista
7/27/2024 06:47 AM
As it relates to putting in a sidewalk, I’d be very disappointed if that
were to happen. I feel like we’d lose the aesthetic of the
neighborhood. Many homeowners on Monroe maintain their lawns
and driveways very well. People take pride in the way their lawns
look. If we put sidewalks in, residents would likely lose some of their
yard, losing some of the charm of the area. I’ve spoken with a few
neighbors about this in my area and they’ve also expressed concern
with the idea of sidewalks.
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
Jackson Avenue is 1 block long so it is a very pedestrian friendly
street. There are however occasional instances of people
accelerating quickly down the street which is the only point of
concern.
Kass
7/30/2024 04:30 PM
Belmore has seen an increase in traffic over the last two or so years.
The cars speed on our road and ignore stop signs. I see cars run the
stop sign on my corner all day.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 6 of 42
Page 109 of 191
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
Belmore Avenue - this is a connector street and many cars drive well
over 30 mph down it to get through the neighborhood - myself and
many neighbors walk down Belmore (with no sidewalk) with our pets
and/or children. There are hills that make it difficult to see pedestrians
as a driver. A sidewalk and speed bumps would be useful on this
road. Maloney - this is another connector street (thankfully it has a
sidewalk) where cars drive well over 30 mph to get through the
neighborhood. Speed bumps on this road would be useful as well.
Van Buren Ave S - This street has one of the steepest hills in the
neighborhood. Drivers accelerate coming up the hill and also
approach the downhill too fast. The slope of the hill makes it difficult
to see pedestrians who have to walk on the street because there is
no sidewalk. Washington Ave S - this is another connector street,
very often used by freight trucks traveling between the UNFI building
(technically in Hopkins) and Highway 169. The speed limit is 25, but
often cars and semis will drive around 40 mph. There is no sidewalk
or bike lane here, making it dangerous for the people living on
Washington to walk around, or for neighborhood residents to reach
Van Valkenburg Park. That route is also often used by bikers who
have no bike lane and have to contend with fast-driving cars and
trucks. Blake Road - since construction was completed on Blake
Road this year, many vehicles speed down the roadway as a
connector between Hopkins and Edina. There is a new sidewalk and
bike route along Blake Rd now, but many residents, including myself,
cross Blake in both directions to reach various destinations. The
speed of vehicles makes that dangerous. A couple simple solutions
would be adding raised crosswalks that act as speed deterrents and
also increase visual indications of pedestrians crossing.
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Blake Road, Belmore Ave, Maloney Ave, Washington Ave
Optional question (21 response(s), 25 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 7 of 42
Page 110 of 191
Q5 How concerned are you with the volume of traffic or number of vehicles in your
neighborhood or on your street?
28 (60.9%)
28 (60.9%)
15 (32.6%)
15 (32.6%)
3 (6.5%)
3 (6.5%)
Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned
Question options
Optional question (46 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 8 of 42
Page 111 of 191
tfrandrup
7/18/2024 11:11 AM
Harrison Ave south. it is being used as a through street because of
excelsior Ave access. cars speed and run stop sighs
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
Belmore Lane and the north end of Jackson Ave can become
congested with cars parking on both sides of the street when there is
a soccer match in Alden Park. It often reduces the traffic to one lane.
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
Feels like above average levels of traffic come thru this area on
Harrison Ave S
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
Belmore and Melony Ave both seem to have a lot of unnecessary
traffic. They are using these roads as a shortcut to Blake Road.
Bobhall
7/18/2024 07:21 PM
416 Van Buren. Lots of speeding cars up and down our street.
BettyRuby
7/19/2024 06:34 AM
3rd avenue gets a lot of traffic- would not want it to increase
mpb314
7/19/2024 10:37 AM
Some homeowners have more vehicles than people in the house. Too
many cars on the street even in winter.
CE
7/20/2024 08:02 AM
Again, volume increases during construction projects in the area. It
would help to have a temporary stop sign at 2nd St & Harrison
in order to slow traffic. This can be a dangerous intersection as the
walking/biking trail behind Blake School comes out here.
srtwelves
7/22/2024 09:05 AM
Only during construction on Excelsior was it a concern
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
See #4.
Bruce Juat
7/24/2024 04:57 AM
See above answer
Q6 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel
that way.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 9 of 42
Page 112 of 191
SiriLauren
7/24/2024 07:20 PM
Lots of traffic coming through to Interlachen and other destinations off
of highway.
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
Alden Park is used for soccer and the people attending these games
largely ignore the no parking signs and create pinch points at the park
which become dangerous when people are crossing from the park to
the neighborhood.
Kass
7/30/2024 04:30 PM
As mentioned above the traffic on our road Belmore has really
increased. they speed and we have where to get off the road when
walking.
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
The volume of cars on Washington Ave S are the most concerning,
because many of them are freight trucks.
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Washington Ave has constant freight traffic with very little clearance
for walkers or bikers. Belmore and Maloney also have dangerously
blind intersections with no physical speed deterents i.e. raised
sidewalks, speed bumps, roundabouts.
Optional question (16 response(s), 30 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 10 of 42
Page 113 of 191
Q7 How concerned are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Excludes speed
and traffic volumes. Examples of poor motorist behavior include rolling through stop signs,
failing to yield and driving aggressively)
13 (28.9%)
13 (28.9%)
28 (62.2%)
28 (62.2%)
4 (8.9%)
4 (8.9%)
Concerned Not Concerned Very Concerned
Question options
Optional question (45 response(s), 1 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 11 of 42
Page 114 of 191
tfrandrup
7/18/2024 11:11 AM
Harrison Ave south. it is being used as a through street because of
excelsior Ave access. cars speed and run stop sighs
Monrosie
7/18/2024 01:41 PM
I walk my dog a couple times every day and I've witnessed people
rolling through the stop signs by my house. I feel as though I have to
be on high alert when nearing the intersection.
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
Motorists coming from the east down Belmore Lane tend to roll
through the stop sign at Monroe Ave. This is likely due to the stop
being at the bottom of the hill and a tree branch partially blocking the
sign. Parents dropping their kids off at the Harley Hopkins Center
often roll through the stop sign at 3rd St S/2nd St S and Monroe Ave.
The offset makes crossing more dangerous. A sidewalk and
crosswalk won't likely help.
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
See previous related answer
Danielleclose
7/19/2024 04:51 PM
Belmore along the park pedestrians walk in the street and cars block
the street, the cars go so fast. Cars don’t stop at the Monroe/Belmore
stop sign.
SLH
7/22/2024 10:17 AM
Rolling through stop signs at Belmore/Harrison.
Traci5220
7/22/2024 11:23 AM
corner of Belmore and Harrison - always people running that stop
sign / rolling through after speeding up Belmore Lane hill
Justin Elder
7/22/2024 06:00 PM
See above
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
Rolling thru the stop signs on Belmore/Harrison.
Bruce Juat
7/24/2024 04:57 AM
300 block of Monroe Ave So. Driving way too fast and that crazy stop
sign intersection at 3rd St and Monroe
Q8 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel
that way.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 12 of 42
Page 115 of 191
SiriLauren
7/24/2024 07:20 PM
One stop sign on maloney
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
We have noticed that there seem to be more aggressive driving
overall, including ignoring stop signs, aggressive acceleration, etc. I
doubt however if this is localized to just our neighborhood.
Kass
7/30/2024 04:30 PM
See cars running stop signs all day long.
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Each intersection on Belmore and 2nd St. Each intersection on Blake.
Optional question (14 response(s), 32 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 13 of 42
Page 116 of 191
Q9 In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are:
9 (28.1%)
9 (28.1%)
2 (6.3%)
2 (6.3%)
21 (65.6%)
21 (65.6%)
Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running
Question options
Optional question (32 response(s), 14 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 14 of 42
Page 117 of 191
Q10 Do you feel any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe?
16 (36.4%)
16 (36.4%)
28 (63.6%)
28 (63.6%)
Yes No
Question options
Optional question (44 response(s), 2 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 15 of 42
Page 118 of 191
tfrandrup
7/18/2024 11:11 AM
Harrison and Belmore and Harrison and Maloney
Monrosie
7/18/2024 01:41 PM
Monroe Ave and Belmore Lane
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
3rd St S/2nd St S and Monroe Ave The offset can make it a bit
dangerous when cars are going east/west if people aren't paying
attention, but i don't know if there is a simple solution.
Gogo
7/18/2024 02:37 PM
The corner turn around cemetery by 169
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
Washington and Belmore and Washington and Melony.
BettyRuby
7/19/2024 06:34 AM
3rd and Washington. It is the main business thoroughfare for UNFI
and cars and gets quite congested. It makes it difficult hard for
pedestrians to walk from Presidents to Hopkins under the Hwy 169
bridge.
CRV_05
7/19/2024 06:57 AM
The section of Belmore Ln between Monroe Ave S & Van Buren
Ave S becomes very congested, and difficult/dangerous to navigate
when cars are parked on both sides of the street for park events like
summer soccer games. The no-parking signs are commonly ignored
near the park entrance on Belmore Ln creating a narrow passage that
must be shared by pedestrians and vehicles. Additionally, cars
parked in the no-parking zone create visual impairment of oncoming
traffic for pedestrian traffic coming out of the park with kids commonly
running out onto the street after soccer games. this area could use
improvements or more consistent parking enforcement.
Danielleclose
7/19/2024 04:51 PM
Belmore/Monroe stop sign, cars do not stop
CE
7/20/2024 08:02 AM
Harrison and 2nd St where the walking path comes out. Maybe a sign
at the end of the path to remind walkers and bikers (esp kids) to look
for traffic, rather than adding a stop or yield sign.
Q11 Which intersection do you feel is unsafe?
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 16 of 42
Page 119 of 191
ACacka
7/20/2024 10:46 AM
Some residential bushes and shrubs are not maintained very well on
the intersections between the 300 and 400 blocks along Belmore.
This makes it challenging to see if cars are coming.
SLH
7/22/2024 10:17 AM
Belmore/Harrison
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
See #8.
Bruce Juat
7/24/2024 04:57 AM
Answer above
ajh43
7/28/2024 03:02 PM
Monroe & 2nd/3rd
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
Our neighborhood is largely pedestrian friendly, so no specific
intersection consistently feels unsafe. The intersection at Alden park
during a soccer game feels unsafe.
Kass
7/30/2024 04:30 PM
Belmore and Monroe
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
Van Buren Ave S and 2nd St. There is a 4-way stop, but the hill on
Van Buren makes it difficult to see other cars, pedestrians, or bikers
when traveling northward (coming down the hill). In winter, many cars
are not able to fully stop when coming down the hill and roll through
the stop sign. Washington Ave S and 3rd St. Myself and many
residents cross under Highway 169 using this intersection in order to
reach downtown Hopkins via 3rd St. There is no stop sign or yield
sign for drivers on Washington Ave, and no crosswalk for pedestrians
or bikers leaving or entering the neighborhood. I often have to dodge
freight trucks coming from both UNFI warehouses (on Washington
Ave and 3rd St) and cars driving down Washington Ave in order to
cross.
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Each intersection on Belmore and 2nd St. Each intersection on Blake.
Optional question (18 response(s), 28 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 17 of 42
Page 120 of 191
Q12 Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is
unsafe? (select all that apply)
Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)Issues with sight lines or clear view
Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Drivers turning corner too fast Street(s) too wide
Insufficient lighting Other (please specify)
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
3
13
14
8
11
1
5
7
Optional question (24 response(s), 22 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 18 of 42
Page 121 of 191
Q13 In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are:
9 (32.1%)
9 (32.1%)
3 (10.7%)
3 (10.7%)
16 (57.1%)
16 (57.1%)
Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running
Question options
Optional question (28 response(s), 18 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 19 of 42
Page 122 of 191
Q14 How frequently do you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood?
25 (54.3%)
25 (54.3%)
12 (26.1%)
12 (26.1%)
5 (10.9%)
5 (10.9%)
3 (6.5%)
3 (6.5%)1 (2.2%)
1 (2.2%)
Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)
Rarely (less than once per month)Never
Question options
Optional question (46 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 20 of 42
Page 123 of 191
Q15 If you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing
so? (select all that apply)
Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit
Other (please specify)
Question options
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
44
7
1
2
4
Optional question (44 response(s), 2 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 21 of 42
Page 124 of 191
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
Sidewalks
Bobhall
7/18/2024 07:21 PM
None.
morchella
7/18/2024 08:29 PM
I mostly walk/bike on Maloney. I believe the sidewalk there is
sufficient. No additional sidewalks are needed, especially not on the
side streets (Van Buren and Jackson).
Cathy Johnson
7/19/2024 06:29 AM
I think the neighborhood walkability is just fine and safe
Danielleclose
7/19/2024 04:51 PM
Cars travel very fast on Belmore and Maloney, I won’t walk on them
Jason Walden
7/21/2024 10:22 AM
More lighting for walking at night. Sidewalks on the busier streets, like
Belmore, so we can access the park (Alden Park).
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
More sidewalks, which also builds community; neighbors stop to chat
on sidewalks.
Krista
7/27/2024 06:47 AM
I do walk and jog around the neighborhood and I feel safe. I don’t
think more sidewalks is worthwhile as there are ones on the main
roads that people use. There’s also the short trail by the Blake School
and the Alden park path. I’m able to follow a nice route with that.
When I walk along Monroe to get to either route, I feel very safe.
People drive slow and are respectful of those walking on the side of
the street. Monroe is not busy enough where a sidewalk is necessary
in my opinion.
John Nightingale
7/29/2024 02:47 PM
None
Tracey Z Sidewalks, better lighting
Q16 If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what
reconstruction improvement might increase your walking, jogging, or running? Please list all
that you can think of.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 22 of 42
Page 125 of 191
7/29/2024 05:59 PM
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
None that come to mind. As mentioned prior, our neighborhood is
very pedestrian friendly.
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
Sidewalks. It is much more pleasant for me to walk in the Hopkins
part of the neighborhood because they have sidewalks on every
street. Speed bumps on connector streets (Belmore, Maloney) to
reduce vehicle speed. Raised crosswalks (doubling as speed bumps)
and signage across Blake Rd.
tljones
8/01/2024 11:43 AM
None
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Raised cross-walks/side-walks on more popular connector roads.
Sidewalks and crosswalks on at least one side of every street.
Narrowing of every street.
Optional question (14 response(s), 32 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 23 of 42
Page 126 of 191
Q17 How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood?
3 (6.7%)
3 (6.7%)
4 (8.9%)
4 (8.9%)
11 (24.4%)
11 (24.4%)
14 (31.1%)
14 (31.1%)
13 (28.9%)
13 (28.9%)
Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)
Rarely (less than once per month)Never
Question options
Optional question (45 response(s), 1 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 24 of 42
Page 127 of 191
Q18 If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so?
(select all that apply)
Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit
Other (please specify)
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
28
12
4
2
1
Optional question (30 response(s), 16 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 25 of 42
Page 128 of 191
Monrosie
7/18/2024 01:41 PM
Bike paths that are safe and easy to access
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
None, i feel safe riding my bicycle through the neighborhood.
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
Bike lanes
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
NONE
Bobhall
7/18/2024 07:21 PM
None
CRV_05
7/19/2024 06:57 AM
Bike path on Maloney Ave (option not available in list about bikeways
- why?)
srtwelves
7/22/2024 09:05 AM
Bike lane
SiriLauren
7/24/2024 07:20 PM
Bike path
Krista
7/27/2024 06:47 AM
When I bike in my neighborhood, I’m going to nearby bike path. It’s
easy to use the current sidewalks to get there. With shorter blocks
and lots of intersections, our neighborhood in general is not really an
area I would care to bike around. More sidewalks would not make a
difference in biking.
ajh43
7/28/2024 03:02 PM
Segregated travel
John Nightingale
7/29/2024 02:47 PM
None. No bike lanes needed!
Q19 If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what
reconstruction improvement might increase your bicycle riding frequency? Please list all that
you can think of.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 26 of 42
Page 129 of 191
Tracey Z
7/29/2024 05:59 PM
Easy access to bike trail
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
None, that is on me and my family to make it more of a priority.
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
Protected bike lanes on connector streets (Belmore, Maloney,
Washington).
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Bike lanes/bike boulevards on every street. Narrowing of all areas for
car traffic. Raised/curbed protection for all bike lanes. Quality
concrete bike lanes, not asphalt.
Optional question (15 response(s), 31 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 27 of 42
Page 130 of 191
Q20 How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street?
5 (11.4%)
5 (11.4%)
3 (6.8%)
3 (6.8%)
5 (11.4%)
5 (11.4%)
19 (43.2%)
19 (43.2%)
12 (27.3%)
12 (27.3%)
Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)
Rarely (less than once per month)Never
Question options
Optional question (44 response(s), 2 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 28 of 42
Page 131 of 191
Q21 How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street?
4 (8.9%)
4 (8.9%)
7 (15.6%)
7 (15.6%)
17 (37.8%)
17 (37.8%)
15 (33.3%)
15 (33.3%)
2 (4.4%)
2 (4.4%)
Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)
Rarely (less than once per month)Never
Question options
Optional question (45 response(s), 1 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 29 of 42
Page 132 of 191
Q22 How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood?
27 (60.0%)
27 (60.0%)
14 (31.1%)
14 (31.1%)
2 (4.4%)
2 (4.4%)2 (4.4%)
2 (4.4%)0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
Question options
Optional question (45 response(s), 1 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 30 of 42
Page 133 of 191
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
There are a number of houses on my street that use street parking
daily. Reducing the street to parking on only one side may increase
congestion and reduce the availability of parking.
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
The winter parking restrictions need to be addressed. We should be
allowed to park on the streets overnight as long as the are no snow
events.
CRV_05
7/19/2024 06:57 AM
Parking for Alden Park is limited - could revise the paved surface near
pumphouse on the north end of park and provide better parking
signage. Seems like most of the soccer activities are Edina residents
from other neighborhoods requiring car travel to park for activities vs
walking.
Adelle Faith Morrison
7/19/2024 02:15 PM
People should not be able to park behind a driveway making it hard
to back out
CE
7/20/2024 08:02 AM
One of the best ordinances on the books in Edina is the no-parking
overnight during the winter. The result is less street-parking, overall. It
makes a big difference for walkers and bikers, as well as drivers
navigating the streets. Living close to Hopkins border, it is stark
difference driving down the same street when entering Hopkins as it's
difficult for two cars to pass. They have a sidewalk for walking, and
bikers often use it as the street is dangerous with all the parked cars.
ACacka
7/20/2024 10:46 AM
Wishing the “winter parking restrictions” were lifted and only during
inclement weather rather than Nov-April and after 10 pm. Tickets get
issued to neighbors and with mild winters, seems a little pointless and
inconvenient for those who don’t have as much room to park in
driveways.
srtwelves
7/22/2024 09:05 AM
Parking on a single side of the street would be ideal for traffic flow,
but not necessary
Liza
7/22/2024 12:35 PM
Winter parking is very difficult given ban on street parking. We have
limited driveway/ garage space. I understand staying off the streets
when there has been snow & plows need to come through, but I
would like to park in the street on other days.
Q23 Any additional comments about parking?
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 31 of 42
Page 134 of 191
SiriLauren
7/24/2024 07:20 PM
Unable to overnight park during winter.
Krista
7/27/2024 06:47 AM
This relates to sidewalks- I really don’t like the idea of sidewalks on
my street, that would likely reduce the opportunity to park on the
street as well as shorten my driveway. Having a single car driveway
means when I have visitors or we need to move our cars around to
get a car out of the garage, we use street parking. We are respectful
of street parking and don’t leave our cars there, so I would like to
keep both the length of my driveway and the option to park on the
street as needed. I would be really disappointed if we had sidewalks
or bike paths put in.
ajh43
7/28/2024 03:02 PM
I thought on-street parking was prohibited
John Nightingale
7/29/2024 02:47 PM
Bike lanes reduce parking availability and are not wanted or needed.
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
I like the ordinance requiring people to only park in the street for a
limited time. This is a cornerstone of a pedestrian friendly
neighborhood. i.e. with limited cars parked on the street, it is easier to
see and avoid pedestrians.
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
Most of us have long driveways so there is ample space for parking in
our driveways, let alone the streets.
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
Every house has a driveway. Street parking is rarely needed. The
urban planning should be focused on designing the neighborhood to
have driveway or parking lot parking and less street parking.
andiepaterson
7/18/2024 01:05 PM
317 Adams Ave
Optional question (15 response(s), 31 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Q24 Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street
conditions in your neighborhood.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 32 of 42
Page 135 of 191
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
Overall i feel that the neighborhood is safe and very walking friendly.
Belmore Lane seems to have more traffic than the interior north/south
streets.
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
Streets are pretty worn down, potholes are regular.
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
We like our street just the way it is. We do not want sidewalks or bike
lanes. The bike riders do not follow the laws or respect the lane they
have to ride in.
Bobhall
7/18/2024 07:21 PM
How about a wild Turkey crossing sign since we have a huge Turkey
population in our neighborhood
Lmeiners
7/19/2024 06:01 PM
More street lights would make the neighborhood safer for walking in
the fall and winter.
ACacka
7/20/2024 10:46 AM
It is very dark at night in our neighborhood.
Jason Walden
7/21/2024 10:22 AM
The alleys DESPERATELY need renovations and maintenance.
srtwelves
7/22/2024 09:05 AM
Street conditions seem to be poor every spring with potholes. Can’t
wait to get new streets. Will really enjoy having driveway aprons too
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
Our alley, west of 6606 Belmore Lane, needs repair.
Judy Anderson
7/26/2024 11:24 AM
6612 Belmore lane
ajh43
7/28/2024 03:02 PM
323 Monroe Ave S
John Nightingale
7/29/2024 02:47 PM
No sidewalks, no bike lanes! Bikes do just fine without them.
Tracey Z 319 Madison Ave S
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 33 of 42
Page 136 of 191
7/29/2024 05:59 PM
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
Overall, the neighborhood has a very comfortable feel, as it is quiet,
low traffic (for the most part) and very pedestrian friendly. Little
improvement to what is already here is needed, save the game time
traffic at Alden Park. Not certain what the answer is there but it should
be explored.
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
The hills on many streets, specifically Van Buren create dangerous
conditions with blind intersections, high speeds, and rolling stops.
Optional question (16 response(s), 30 skipped)
Question type: Essay Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 34 of 42
Page 137 of 191
Q25 Do you favor improving streetlights in your neighborhood? (residential streetlights are
100% funded by special assessment)
15 (32.6%)
15 (32.6%)
28 (60.9%)
28 (60.9%)
3 (6.5%)
3 (6.5%)
Yes No Other (please specify)
Question options
Optional question (46 response(s), 0 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 35 of 42
Page 138 of 191
Q26 Which of the following streets are you supportive of sidewalks on? Please note before
answering:The street width will be 24 feet wide from the face of curb to the face of curb.
(Existing width ranges from 28-30’.)Parking will be available only on ...
2nd Street 3rd Street Adams Avenue Belmore Lane Harrison Avenue Jackson Avenue
Jefferson Avenue Madison Avenue Monroe Avenue Tyler Avenue Van Buren Avenue
Washington Avenue For All Against All No Opinion Tyler Court
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
4 4
1
22
4
2 2 2
8
1
2
17
5
14
2
Mandatory Question (46 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 36 of 42
Page 139 of 191
Q27 Which of the following streets are your supportive of bikeways on? Please note before
answering:The street width will likely be 24 feet wide from the face of curb to the face of curb.
(Existing width ranges from 28-30’.)Staff’s recommendations for ...
2nd Street 3rd Street Belmore Lane Monroe Avenue Van Buren Avenue Washington Avenue
For All Against All No Opinion Adams Avenue Harrison Avenue Jackson Avenue
Jefferson Avenue Madison Avenue Tyler Avenue Tyler Court
Question options
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
5
7
15
2
1
18
1
15
5
Mandatory Question (46 response(s))
Question type: Checkbox Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 37 of 42
Page 140 of 191
Q28 Are you supportive of sidewalks on your side of the street? Please note before
answering:Maintenance of sidewalks will be the responsibility of the adjacent property
owners. Maintenance includes removal of snow and ice within 48 hours and repair of...
3 (6.5%)
3 (6.5%)
37 (80.4%)
37 (80.4%)
6 (13.0%)
6 (13.0%)
Yes No No Opinion
Question options
Mandatory Question (46 response(s))
Question type: Radio Button Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 38 of 42
Page 141 of 191
Jessica DuBose
7/18/2024 09:08 AM
402 Tyler Ave S
tfrandrup
7/18/2024 11:11 AM
408 harrison
andiepaterson
7/18/2024 01:05 PM
317 Adams Ave
Thom
7/18/2024 01:41 PM
404 Harrison Ave S
Monrosie
7/18/2024 01:41 PM
409 Monroe Ave S
Jane Brabec
7/18/2024 01:47 PM
407 Madison Ave S
NStan
7/18/2024 02:08 PM
417 Monroe Ave
mont0113
7/18/2024 02:10 PM
416 Harrison Ave S Edina 55343
Gogo
7/18/2024 02:37 PM
311 Madison Ave S
Keith Page
7/18/2024 04:45 PM
414 Van Buren Ave S
Bobhall
7/18/2024 07:21 PM
416 Van Buren Ave S., Edina, Mn 55343
morchella
7/18/2024 08:29 PM
418 Jackson Ave
Cathy Johnson
7/19/2024 06:29 AM
403 Jackson Ave S/Edina, MN 55343
Q29 What is your address?
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 39 of 42
Page 142 of 191
BettyRuby
7/19/2024 06:34 AM
301 Jefferson Ave S
CRV_05
7/19/2024 06:57 AM
409 Van Buren Ave S
Tired of narrow streets
7/19/2024 07:00 AM
414 Monroe Ave So.
Patrice
7/19/2024 09:17 AM
Van Buren Ave S
mpb314
7/19/2024 10:37 AM
314 Jefferson Ave S
Adelle Faith Morrison
7/19/2024 02:15 PM
415 Monroe Avenue South
Danielleclose
7/19/2024 04:51 PM
302 van buren ave s
Lmeiners
7/19/2024 06:01 PM
315 Harrison Ave S
CE
7/20/2024 08:02 AM
305 Harrison Ave S
ACacka
7/20/2024 10:46 AM
309 Jefferson. Four of of us (four homes) are on incline or hill and
sidewalks would greatly affect our stairs, approaches and driveways.
Jefferson is not on the proposed list anyway.
Jason Walden
7/21/2024 10:22 AM
306 Madison Ave S
srtwelves
7/22/2024 09:05 AM
308 Van Buren Ave S
SLH
7/22/2024 10:17 AM
405 Harrison Ave S
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 40 of 42
Page 143 of 191
hennenwayne
7/22/2024 10:47 AM
318 Jefferson Ave S
Traci5220
7/22/2024 11:23 AM
6600 Belmore Lane
Liza
7/22/2024 12:35 PM
410 Monroe Ave S
DanWengenroth
7/22/2024 01:27 PM
322 Moroe Ave S
Justin Elder
7/22/2024 06:00 PM
6600 Belmore Lane
JeffLang
7/22/2024 06:44 PM
6606 Belmore Lane
Karinahayes
7/23/2024 07:26 PM
414 Jefferson Ave S
Bruce Juat
7/24/2024 04:57 AM
305 Monroe Ave So
SiriLauren
7/24/2024 07:20 PM
421 Tyler Ave S
Judy Anderson
7/26/2024 11:24 AM
6612 Belmore lane
Krista
7/27/2024 06:47 AM
311 Monroe Ave S
TheFraz
7/28/2024 10:49 AM
417 Jefferson Ave S
ajh43
7/28/2024 03:02 PM
323 Monroe Ave S
John Nightingale
7/29/2024 02:47 PM
306 Monroe Av. S.
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 41 of 42
Page 144 of 191
Tracey Z
7/29/2024 05:59 PM
319 Madison Ave S
Matthew D Lilly Lori S Lilly
7/30/2024 09:14 AM
419 Jackson Avenue South
Kass
7/30/2024 04:30 PM
401 Monroe Ave So.
Brooke Bartholomew
8/01/2024 10:55 AM
306 Van Buren Ave S
tljones
8/01/2024 11:43 AM
410 Van Buren Ave S, Hopkins, MN 55343-8462
SMCC1385321
8/04/2024 10:24 AM
306 Van Buren Ave S
Mandatory Question (46 response(s))
Question type: Single Line Question
Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 07 August 2024
Page 42 of 42
Page 145 of 191
APPENDIX J
Correspondence from Residents
Page 146 of 191
APPENDIX K
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Page 147 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Discussion
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.2
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research Draft Report
Action Requested:
Review and comment on draft report.
Information/Background:
See attached draft report.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Draft Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research Report
Page 148 of 191
To: Mayor and City Council
cc: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
From: Transportation Commission
Subject: Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research and Recommendations
Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council,
Please find below traffic safety research and recommendation from Edina’s Transportation
Commission pursuant to our 2024 work plan. Please share your thoughts on next steps.
Initiative
Research and recommend ways to address traffic safety concerns in Edina
Recommendation
Research has revealed actions Edina can take to slow vehicle speeds and make our city safer
for pedestrians and cyclists. The Transportation Commission recommends that City Council
direct City staff to:
● Continue the Drive 25 awareness campaign. Communication has been minimal since
the citywide speed limit reduction in 2021. Enforcement resources are limited, so it is
critical that the City consistently remind drivers of the impacts of speeding in order to
influence behavior. More communication resources should be allocated to reinforce the
citywide speed limit and how important it is to stop at stop signs and yield to pedestrians.
● Pilot quick-build traffic calming solutions, assess efficacy and incorporate successful
measures permanently and universally through the forthcoming Safe and Equitable
Mobility Action Plan (SEMAP). Prioritize implementation at high-risk locations in order to
focus on Edina’s most vulnerable populations - seniors and youth.
● Review additional grant programs to fund implementation.
Page 149 of 191
Background
Traffic safety is the top concern the Transportation Commission hears from residents, which
should come as no surprise. The City’s 2023 Quality of Life Survey respondents reinforced that
speeding and stop sign violations were at least a moderate problem in their neighborhoods.
The City lowered speed limits to 25 mph in 2021, but it is clear from the survey data that
residents feel this change is not enough. Police are understaffed and unable to focus on traffic
enforcement, and implementation of additional traffic calming measures has been limited.
Common traffic calming measures implemented in neighboring communities include:
● Speed humps: raised areas of pavement that force drivers to slow down
● Traffic circles: small, raised islands that force drivers to slow down and make turns
more carefully
● Delineator curb extensions / bump outs: extensions of the curb that narrow the
roadway and make it more difficult for drivers to speed
Research and Rationale
The Transportation Commission believes that there is sufficient evidence to support the need for
additional traffic calming measures in Edina. The Commission has reviewed the traffic calming
programs in other cities, and has found that these programs have been successful in reducing
speeds and improving safety.
● Minneapolis traffic calming efforts rely on data-driven processes and quick build
solutions, deploying speed humps, traffic circles, and curb extensions based on
community feedback and crash data. Public engagement is a key part of their strategy
and includes open houses, email updates, and surveys. Data such as traffic volume,
speed, and crash history guides the final treatments, emphasizing documented issues
over perceived problems. Community input focuses on identifying issues, while
decisions about solutions are data-directed. Notices are placed near upcoming work,
with information posted online for transparency.
● St. Paul has conducted research to better understand how to change driver behavior at
high-risk locations and has an ongoing initiative to reduce pedestrian-related crashes.
The city has promoted traffic calming through its Stop for Me campaign, which aims to
Page 150 of 191
improve pedestrian safety at crosswalks. The campaign involves awareness and
enforcement events, where police officers and volunteers ensure that drivers stop for
pedestrians at non-signaled crosswalks. A key focus is on preventing multi-threat
crashes, particularly on four-lane roads.
● Richfield promotes traffic calming through its Sweet Streets program, which aims to
improve street safety, multimodal accessibility, and livability by prioritizing pedestrian
needs over vehicles. Key initiatives include road diets (reducing lanes to calm traffic) on
major streets like Portland, Nicollet, and Penn Avenues, installation of roundabouts,
enhanced crosswalk lighting, and center medians. Additionally, the program supports
new bicycle routes, improved sidewalks, and public art displays to create a more
walkable and bike-friendly environment. The results have shown improved traffic flow,
increased safety, and a boost in quality of life for residents and local businesses.
Notably, the redesign has led to fewer crashes on reconstructed streets. Richfield
focuses on community engagement during reconstruction projects to balance needs and
opinions. Our contact at the City emphasized the importance of identifying a sponsor /
champion, either on City Council or City Staff, to consistently push traffic calming
initiatives.
● Bloomington promotes traffic calming through a structured Traffic Calming and
Greenways Program (“You’ll love our humps”). This resident-led initiative involves the
use of speed cushions, speed humps, and neighborhood greenways to manage traffic
and enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety. Projects are coordinated with other city
efforts and are informed by data on traffic volume, speed, and crashes. Public
engagement is central, with open houses, online surveys, and signage in areas slated
for traffic calming measures. The program prioritizes equitable treatment of applications
across neighborhoods.
Grant Programs
In addition to Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety (PACS) funds, there are a number of grant programs
that the City of Edina should pursue to fund traffic calming projects. These programs include:
● Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Active Transportation (AT)
Program helps cities implement traffic calming by funding projects that support walking,
biking, and other forms of active transportation. The program focuses on improving
safety and accessibility through measures like adding bike lanes, pedestrian pathways,
improved crosswalks, and traffic calming infrastructure such as speed humps or
narrowed streets. These projects enhance the overall safety and connectivity for non-
motorized users, making city streets safer and more livable for all residents. Grant
applications will open 11/4/2024 and close 1/17/2025.
● The Transportation Alternatives (TA) grant program, administered by MnDOT,
provides federal funding for projects like pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, Safe
Routes to School, and traffic calming measures. This grant supports non-motorized
transportation and safety improvements, making it ideal for traffic calming efforts.
● The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) can help cities implement traffic calming measures by providing funding
Page 151 of 191
for projects that reduce traffic speeds and improve safety. This includes upgrades such
as road diets, speed humps, roundabouts, improved pedestrian crossings, and better
signage. These data-driven projects focus on reducing crashes and enhancing safety for
all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, making them ideal for traffic calming
initiatives in urban settings.
● MnDOT’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program offers planning assistance,
infrastructure grants, and implementation funding to improve safety around schools.
Cities can use this funding for traffic calming projects near school zones, including
crosswalk improvements and speed reduction strategies.
● Minnesota’s Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) helps cities fund construction
and improvement of local roads, including safety enhancements like road diets,
roundabouts, or pedestrian safety infrastructure that are often part of traffic calming
projects.
● The Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program,
administered in Minnesota by MnDOT, supports projects that reduce traffic congestion
and improve air quality. Traffic calming projects that aim to reduce vehicle speed or
promote alternate transportation modes could be eligible.
● Funded by the Minnesota Department of Health, Statewide Health Improvement
Partnership (SHIP) grants support local initiatives that promote active living and
community health. Cities can apply for funding to support traffic calming measures that
encourage walking and biking, which align with SHIP’s goals.
● Managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Federal
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds can be used for
infrastructure improvements, including traffic calming, particularly in low- and moderate-
income areas.
Next Steps
The Transportation Commission recommends that City Council direct City staff to deliver a plan
to action on these recommendations. The plan should include:
● Developing plan to solicit public input and educate the community
● Developing a prioritized list of quick-build traffic calming pilot projects
● Identifying funding sources for project implementation
The Transportation Commission believes these actions will support safe streets for all - in line
with Edina’s Strong Foundation and Livable City goals.
Page 152 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Discussion
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.3
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Review Draft Report
Action Requested:
Review and comment on draft report.
Information/Background:
See attached draft report.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Draft PBMP Review Report
Page 153 of 191
Introduction
In 2018, the Edina transportation committee developed a bike and pedestrian master plan as a
tool to guide the efforts of residents, elected officials, and staff to develop a safer and inviting
comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network. The goals of the plan are to increase the
number of Edina residents, workers and visitors who walk or bike for transportation, health,
fitness and recreation. The plan was developed with active participation from the Edina
community with guidance and consultation from city staff. A vigorous engagement process
brought voice and ideas of over one thousand Edina residents. The plan is intended to serve as
guidance for the city's next investments through 2030. Edina partnered with two industry
experts Community Design Group and SEH at a total cost of [$X] to complete this plan. The
plan was approved by council on 2/21/18.
Since the plan was implemented, Edina has constructed a total of 11.2 miles, or 8.7% of the
total plan. This is below the goal of a 5% yearly increase in the total mileage of striped or
separated bike facilities. Edina is completing their proposed sidewalk projects at 85%, and
actually constructed an additional 2.64 miles. However, Edina is only completing 23% (.53
miles of 2.3 proposed) of the recommended bikeways and 46% of the recommended shared
use paths (.41 miles of .89 proposed).
At the halfway point through this comprehensive plan, the city is only 8.7% complete in
delivering its vision. Edina ranks 34th in the state of Minnesota for the quality of bike network
with a score of 22, indicating a lack of safe bikeways or gaps in the network. This compares to
Minneapolis at 71, St. Paul at 61, St. Louis Park at 55, Maple Grove at 50, Woodbury at 47,
Eden Prairie at 45 and Minnetonka at 28. 1 Edina is trailing similar communities in their adoption
of bike friendly infrastructure.
In this document, we will review the goals of the 2018 plan and our progress towards those
goals, outline the various reasons why our goals are not being met, and outline societal
changes since 2018 that could impact the effectiveness of the plan.
1 https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.org/ratings
Page 154 of 191
Goals of the 2018 Plan and Progress Towards the goals
Page 155 of 191
Goal
Number Goal 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
1
Number of crashes
involving pedestrians
and bicyle riders
decreases 10% every
year 6 6 2 7 9 10 2 (YTD)
2 Perception of safety
increases 2% every year N/A 96% N/A 93% N/A 89% N/A
3
Intercept survey for
pedestrians and bicycle
riders implemented on a
yearly basis
4
Number of pedestrians
and bicycle riders
counted at each location
increases at least 2%
every year
5
Number of children
walking or biking to
school increases by at
least 4% every year
6
Number of intersections
with ADA non-compliant
curb ramps decreases
by 2% every year
7
Implement at least 5% of
the Edina Twin Loops All
Ages and Abilities
network each year 1.12% 1.73% 0% 0.73% 1.05% 1.86% 0%
8
Increase the total
mileage of striped or
separated bicycle
facilities by 5% each
year 3.40% 0.73% -3.78% 5.96% 2.40% 6.31% 0.33%
9
Increase the number of
bicycle parking spaces
by 5% each year
10
Pedestrian and bicycle
counts are conducted
every year and
coordinated with other
Twin Cities jurisdictions
12
locations
16
locations
11
locations
5
locations
14
locations
12
locations 14 locations
Page 156 of 191
The Edina Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan had 15 goals of which 6 are being tracked. Of those
6, we are hitting X of those goals, or Y%. 9 goals are either unmeasurable or are not being
tracked.
Twin Loops Progress
Why the Twin Loops? The Twin Loops were designed as a hub and spoke model focused on
connecting residents to parks and schools. The inner loop is focused on schools and the outer
loop is focused on parks. The BIke & Ped Master Plan recommended 50 segments of
enhancements (14 inner loop, 36 outer loop). The enhancements were meant to coincide with
scheduled road reconstruction and add an 8’ - 10’ shared use pathway which would replace
existing sidewalks, bike buffer stripes and or bicycle boulevards.
The vision for the Twin Loops was ambitious, aiming to transform the city's connectivity and
accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. By aligning enhancements with road reconstruction
schedules, the plan sought to efficiently upgrade infrastructure, creating a cohesive network that
would seamlessly integrate with the urban landscape. As the city began implementing the
enhancements, it became evident that not all proposed changes were welcomed by residents,
particularly in certain neighborhoods like Concord Avenue. Understanding and addressing these
concerns became crucial in assessing the viability and acceptance of the Master Plan's
initiatives.
11
Twice yearly "hand
tallies" of student travel
to school implemented in
all Edina schools
12
Pedestrian and bicycle
maps and information
are updated at least
every two years and are
distributed to the public
Webmap
s
updated
annually
Webmap
s
updated
annually
Webmap
s
updated
annually
Webmap
s
updated
annually
Webmap
s
updated
annually
Webmap
s
updated
annually
Webmaps
updated
annually
13
Events promoting
walking and biking are
held regularly
Open
Streets
Open
Streets none none none none none
14
Heightened enforcement
of laws protecting people
walking and biking
15
The City's Pedestrian &
Cyclist Safety (PACS)
continues to be funded
at the same or higher
level
$1,186,0
87.74
$1,244,7
71.49
$1,240,1
52.24
$1,229,5
25.70
$1,221,2
16.58
$1,236,0
66.21
$1,361,000
*
(estimated)
Page 157 of 191
The community's decision not to move forward with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan for
Concord Avenue is influenced by several factors, as expressed in a petition from residents and
discussions at a City Council meeting. Here's a narrative summarizing the key points:
Residents of Concord Avenue have raised significant concerns regarding the proposed 8-foot
shared-use path as part of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Their concerns included;
Traffic and Usage Concerns:
● Lack of Traffic: Residents highlight that there is not enough pedestrian or cyclist traffic
to justify such a large path. They claim that Concord Avenue is not a busy street and is
essentially a dead-end, which limits the need for such infrastructure.
● Minimal Bicycle Use: There is a belief that few people bike on Concord, and the path's
proximity to schools does not warrant its construction, as the neighborhood is not close
enough to educational institutions to necessitate increased pedestrian infrastructure.
● Alternative Routes: Many believe that residents and visitors will continue to use other
designated roads, such as Valley View, Cornelia, and Wooddale, for biking, negating the
need for a new path on Concord.
Aesthetic and Safety Concerns:
● Neighborhood Aesthetics: The path is seen as out of place in a quiet residential area,
contrasting with areas like parks or streams where such paths are common. It is
believed to not fit aesthetically with the neighborhood's character.
● Safety Issues: Residents express concerns about potential safety hazards, including
increased cyclist speeds due to the slopes on Concord and the presence of 14
intersections. There are also worries about non-compliance with fire codes and shared-
use path standards, and safety risks related to new retaining walls.
Environmental and Financial Impact:
● Impact on Trees and Property Values: The construction of the path could harm mature
trees, reducing property values and privacy. The creation of retaining walls could further
impact the natural landscape.
● Financial Burden: The costs associated with the path, including maintenance and
assessments, are viewed as an unnecessary financial burden on residents. The path is
perceived as a waste of taxpayer money, with many believing it does not provide enough
benefit to justify these expenses.
Lack of Resident Involvement:
● Insufficient Resident Input: There is a sentiment that the 2018 Master Plan did not
adequately incorporate input from Concord Avenue residents. This lack of consultation
has led to skepticism about the necessity and benefit of the proposed path.
Page 158 of 191
● Doubt About Demand: Residents question the demand for the path, arguing that it
does not address a critical need for safety or connectivity in their quiet corner of Edina.
Council Meeting Insights:
During a City Council meeting, Councilman James Pierce expressed reservations about the 8-
foot path, stating that it is more than what is needed and emphasizing safety concerns related to
shared-use pathways. He suggested that cyclists should be directed to use the street instead,
as he finds the presence of cyclists on pathways unsettling, particularly when they approach
quickly.
Mayor Hovland echoed these sentiments, stating a preference for keeping young children on
sidewalks rather than shared-use pathways, which he views as dangerous. He acknowledged
the community's efforts to voice their concerns, indicating that the neighborhood has
successfully made its case against the path.
Alternative Proposal:
If a pedestrian facility is deemed necessary, residents suggest constructing a 5-foot elevated
sidewalk directly adjacent to the roadway, similar to the one on Wooddale Avenue. This
alternative aims to minimize negative impacts by avoiding boulevard incursion, preserving
mature trees, and reducing maintenance and financial burdens.
In conclusion, the residents' strong opposition to the 8-foot shared-use path, coupled with
aesthetic, safety, environmental, and financial concerns, has led the community to push back
against the current Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan for Concord Avenue. Their advocacy for
a more modest solution reflects a desire to preserve the neighborhood's character while
addressing any broader community benefits responsibly.
58th Street Roadway Reconstruction
In January 2020, the West 58th Street Roadway Reconstruction project faced significant
opposition from the neighborhood, echoing similar resistance seen in the Concord B&C project.
Although a plan had been approved on July 16, 2019, the proposal encountered considerable
pushback during a public hearing on December 9, 2019, which saw attendance from seven
community members. Additionally, 48 respondents participated in an evaluation of alternative
schemes via the Better Together platform.
The primary concern centered around the proposed 8-foot-wide path, which many residents felt
was excessively large, unsightly, and not in harmony with the neighborhood's character. There
were also worries about the potential removal of trees and the challenges posed by the steep
hill in the area, which residents noted could make biking, especially for children, unsafe.
Page 159 of 191
Several community members voiced their concerns through various channels. One resident
pointed out the hazards of a shared-use path, particularly due to the obstructed sightlines
caused by the hills. Another resident deemed the 8-foot path unnecessary and visually
unappealing for the neighborhood. Others preferred a single path to minimize the impact on
trees, while some residents strongly opposed the idea of an 8-foot path, arguing that it did not
belong in a residential area with modest homes and shallow yards. They suggested that the city
consider alternative routes for bikers that would better serve the community’s needs.
Some community members expressed discomfort with bikes sharing sidewalks with
pedestrians, emphasizing the need for a better-defined connection to Pamela Park. Similarly,
others echoed the sentiment that an 8-foot sidewalk was too wide and unnecessary. Overall, the
feedback from the community highlighted a strong preference for a more modest and
considerate approach to the roadway reconstruction that would preserve the neighborhood's
character and address safety concerns.
Overall, the feedback from the community highlighted a strong preference for a more modest
and considerate approach to the roadway reconstruction that would preserve the
neighborhood's character and address safety concerns.
Why 8’-10’ shared use paths?
The Edina Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan recommends 8' - 10' shared use paths to balance
safety, accessibility, and practicality. These widths provide adequate space for both pedestrians
and cyclists, reducing conflicts and enhancing safety for all users. The design accommodates
two-way traffic and allows sufficient room for passing, which is crucial in promoting a more
active transportation network. Additionally, these dimensions align with industry standards and
best practices, ensuring that the infrastructure can handle current and future usage demands
while fostering a more inclusive and inviting environment for residents of all ages and abilities
(pp. 28-29, 31).
The plan considered several factors when determining the type of shared use paths,
emphasizing the importance of creating a network that is safe, accessible, and user-friendly for
both pedestrians and cyclists. Safety was a primary concern, ensuring that both pedestrians and
cyclists can use the paths without conflicts by providing enough space for comfortable and safe
passing. Accessibility was also a significant consideration, aiming to make the paths usable for
people of all ages and abilities, including those with disabilities. The paths needed to
accommodate two-way traffic and various types of users, including walkers, runners, and
cyclists. Durability and maintenance were also considered, selecting materials and designs that
would be durable and require manageable maintenance. Additionally, the connectivity of the
paths was essential, ensuring they connected key destinations and integrated seamlessly with
existing infrastructure.
Citizen input played a significant role in these decisions. The plan was developed with active
participation from the Edina community. A vigorous engagement process was conducted,
Page 160 of 191
involving over one thousand residents who provided their voices and ideas. This input was
gathered through public meetings, surveys, and workshops, ensuring that the final
recommendations reflected the community's needs and preferences (pp. 10, 24-25, 28-29, 31).
By incorporating these considerations and citizen input, the plan aimed to create a
comprehensive and well-rounded bicycle and pedestrian network that serves the entire
community effectively.
Revisiting Shared Use Paths
The 2018 Edina Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan outlines a variety of bike and pedestrian
facilities designed to create a comprehensive and interconnected network, enhancing safety,
accessibility, and convenience for both pedestrians and cyclists. Here is a summary of the
different types of facilities, along with their pros and cons:
Shared Use Path
Description: These paths are 8 to 10 feet wide and are designed for use by both pedestrians
and cyclists. They accommodate two-way traffic and provide enough space for safe passing.
● Pros: Safe for both pedestrians and cyclists, accommodates various types of users,
supports two-way traffic.
● Cons: Requires more space than standard sidewalks, can be more expensive to
construct and maintain.
Wide Sidewalk
Description: Wider than standard sidewalks, these are primarily for pedestrian use but provide
extra space for higher foot traffic and comfort.
● Pros: Comfortable for higher volumes of pedestrians, allows pedestrians to walk side by
side.
● Cons: Limited use for cyclists, requires more space and can be more costly to
implement.
Standard Sidewalk
Description: Typically 5 to 6 feet wide, these are designed solely for pedestrian use and are
commonly located adjacent to streets or within neighborhoods.
● Pros: Provides a safe space for pedestrians, relatively inexpensive to construct and
maintain.
● Cons: Limited space can be uncomfortable during high pedestrian traffic, not suitable for
cyclists.
Page 161 of 191
Buffered Bike Lanes
Description: These are dedicated bike lanes with a buffer space separating cyclists from motor
vehicle traffic, which can be painted lines or physical barriers.
● Pros: Enhances safety and comfort for cyclists, provides separation from vehicles.
● Cons: Requires additional road space, can be more complex and expensive to
implement.
Shared Bike Lanes
Description: Also known as "sharrows," these lanes are shared with motor vehicle traffic and are
marked by shared lane markings on the roadway.
● Pros: Cost-effective, uses existing road space, promotes sharing the road between
cyclists and motorists.
● Cons: Less safe for cyclists due to close proximity to vehicles, can be confusing for both
cyclists and motorists.
Cycle Tracks (often included in similar plans)
Description: These are separated bike lanes that are physically protected from motor vehicle
traffic, either at street level with barriers or at sidewalk level.
● Pros: Provides high safety and comfort for cyclists, suitable for high bicycle traffic areas.
● Cons: Expensive to construct and maintain, requires significant space and planning.
Pedestrian Paths
Description: Dedicated paths for pedestrian use only, typically located within parks, greenways,
or other recreational areas.
● Pros: Safe and enjoyable for walking and jogging, free from vehicle traffic.
● Cons: Not suitable for cyclists, may require extensive land acquisition.
Neighborhood Greenways
Description: Low-traffic streets optimized for bicyclists and pedestrians, often using traffic
calming measures to slow down vehicle speeds.
● Pros: Safe and comfortable for non-motorized users, promotes a shared, community-
friendly environment.
● Cons: May inconvenience motorists, requires ongoing community support and
maintenance.
Page 162 of 191
Each facility type has its advantages and disadvantages, reflecting the balance between safety,
cost, space requirements, and usability for different types of users. The plan's goal is to create a
network that effectively serves the diverse needs of Edina's residents, workers, and visitors,
fostering a more active and connected community.
Conclusion/Recommendations
Work in progress
1. The Pedestrian and Bike Master Plan (the Plan) is out of date and does not adequately
reflect either current or foreseeable conditions.
2. The Plan has not been updated as specified on page 142 of the Plan.
3. Slow execution of the Plan has resulted in Edina falling behind on the Plan commitments
and also lagging similar communities in the Metro and nationally (example: People for
Bikes City Rating 2024).
4. The city has shown a lack of commitment to executing the Plan at all levels — Council,
staff, commission(s).
5. The Plan needs to be updated and/or replaced. The ETC has started to learn that Safe
Streets for All and/or SEMAP may replace the Plan but we’ve been told no clear path or
timing. Until this is clarified we could fall further behind in improving the pedestrian/bike
experience in Edina.
6. Whether the Plan is updated or replaced, we will need to instill deeper institutional
commitment (see 3, above) and address the related funding and educational challenges.
Page 163 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Discussion
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.4
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: Metro Transit Network Now Concept Plan
Action Requested:
Review and comment on Metro Transit's Network Now concept plan.
Information/Background:
See attached memo and supporting documents.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Staff Memo: Network Now Concept Plan
2. Proposed Changes to Edina Routes
Page 164 of 191
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
This memo outlines the City of Edina’s comments on Metro Transit’s Network Now concept plan,
which is currently open for public comment through November 15.
Local Routes
6 The City supports the E Line BRT service and the extent to which it will
replace portions of Route 6.
The City supports maintaining the existing frequency of stops (30 minutes) on
the remaining portions.
The discontinued 6K branch between Southdale and 78th St/Harmony Dr will
still primarily be served by Route 540 but at a lower frequency.
The discontinued 6B branch along 54th St, Wooddale Ave and Valley View Rd
will leave the commercial node at Valley View Rd and Wooddale Ave without
local transit service (limited express service will be provided by Route 587). As
this node continues to redevelop and densify, the City requests that Metro
Transit consider reinstating local transit service.
38 This new route is in close proximity to the commercial node at Lincoln
Dr/Londonderry Rd (east of Highway 169). To support redevelopment and
densification, the City requests that Metro Transit consider extending Route
38 across Highway 169 into this node. This extension would help offset the
loss of service caused by the discontinuation of Route 46 and 146 branches.
Engineering Department
EdinaMN.gov
Date: October 24, 2024
To: Metro Transit Project Team
cc: Scott Neal, City Manager
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
Marisa Bayer, Sustainability Manager
Cary Teague, Community Development Director
Stephanie Hawkenson, Affordable Housing Development Manager
From: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Subject: Metro Transit Network Now Concept Plan – Agency Comments
Page 165 of 191
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
46 The City supports increased the frequency of stops in weekday rush hours
(from 30 minutes to 15 minutes).
The discontinued 46D branch west of Eden Ave and Vernon Ave will impact
several multi-family housing properties along Vernon Ave and limit travel
options for much of western Edina. The City requests that Metro Transit
preserve this branch or consider providing limited local service.
515 The City supports the proposed increase in frequency (from 20-60 minutes to
15-30 minutes).
537 The City supports the proposed increase in frequency (from two hours to one
hour on weekdays).
538 The City supports maintaining the existing frequency of stops (30-60 minutes).
The City requests that Metro Transit consider extending service to Barrie Rd
and Heritage Dr north of the Southdale Transit Center, which is a high-density
residential neighborhood with sidewalks.
540 The City supports the proposed increase in frequency (from 30-60 minutes to
30-60 minutes).
The City supports the use of the 77th St underpass to avoid the I-494/12th Ave
interchange.
The City requests that Metro Transit consider extending service or (providing
limited service) north on Cahill Road to the commercial node at 70th St and
Cahill Rd. This would support the redevelopment and densification of the node
as well as service existing multi-family residential properties.
Express Routes
146 The City supports the proposed service at 56th St and Xerxes Ave to the
extent that it supports a potential area of change.
The discontinued branch west of Eden Ave and Vernon Ave will impact several
multi-family housing properties along Vernon Ave and limit travel options for
much of western Edina. The City requests that Metro Transit preserve this
branch.
156 The discontinuation of this route should have minimal effect within Edina.
Riders will still be able to use the 6 and 146 to access downtown Minneapolis.
578 The City supports the proposed increase in frequency (from one-two trips to
three trips on weekdays).
Page 166 of 191
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
The discontinued 578C branch along 70th St, Tracy Ave, and Benton Ave will
limit travel options for much of western Edina. The City requests that Metro
Transit consider preserving local service (or providing limit service) along 70th
St to the commercial node at 70th St and Cahill Rd. This would support the
redevelopment and densification of the node as well as service existing multi-
family residential properties.
579 The City supports the restoration of this route and the proposed frequency of
service (three trips during weekday rush hours).
587 The City supports the restoration of this route and the proposed frequency of
service (three trips during weekday rush hours).
The City supports stops along France Ave, 69th St, Parklawn Ave, Valley View
Rd and Normandale Rd. These stops will support the redevelopment and
densification of the Southdale, Valley View Rd and Wooddale Ave, and
Grandview commercial nodes.
Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Routes
METRO
Blue
and
Green
Lines
The City supports the proposed increase in frequency (from 15 minutes to 10
minutes).
The City requests consideration for a local, commuter or limited transit
service along Interlachen Blvd and Blake Rd to connect the Grandview
commercial node (including Routes 46 and 587) with the Blake Rd station on
the Green Line.
METRO
A, B, C,
and D
Lines
The City supports the proposed increases in frequency.
METRO
E Line
The City supports this service and its proposed frequency.
To support the redevelopment and densification of the Southdale commercial
node, the City requests that Metro Transit consider extending service south of
the Southdale Transit Center along York Ave, France Ave and/or other areas
currently served by Routes 6, 537 or 538.
Page 167 of 191
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Other
The City supports the expansion of Metro micro service as it supports City
goals related to mobility, accessibility and sustainable growth. The City
requests consideration for expansion zones within Edina, particularly for areas
with affordable housing, multi-family housing, and commercial nodes.
The City supports Metro Transit’s Zero Emission Bus (ZEB) transition plan
and the continued electrification of its fleet.
The City supports the timely removal of signage along discontinued routes.
Page 168 of 191
Route Information
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
6
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
303030
Service Changes
• E Line is scheduled to open in late 2025 and will replace most of Route 6.
• Service on the Route 6K branch between Southdale and 78th St./Harmony
Dr. in Edina will be discontinued but travel to the area will still be possible
with a transfer to Route 540 at Minnesota Dr.
• Service on suspended Route 6B branch via Wooddale Ave. will be discon-
tinued.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 6 will continue to operate between Uptown Transit Station in Min-
neapolis and France Ave./Minnesota Dr. via Xerxes Ave. and Southdale in
Edina every 30 minutes daily. Service will also operate on portions of Edin-
borough Way, 76th St., Parklawn Ave., Gallager Dr., France Ave., Hazelton
Rd., 44th St., Sheridan Ave., Richfield Rd., 36th St., and Hennepin Ave.
• Transfers to the E Line can be made at Southdale Transit Center and E Line
stations between 43rd St. & Upton Ave. and Uptown Transit Station.
Page 169 of 191
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
46
15
30
30
60
60
30
30
30
30
603030
Route Information
Service Changes
• Weekends: Service will operate every 30 minutes west of Blue Line 46th St. Station.
• Weekdays: Service will be improved from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes in the AM
and PM rush hours.
• All service on the suspended Route 46E branch east of the 46th St. Station will be discontin-
ued. Alternate service is available on routes 38, 74, 87 and A Line.
• Service on the suspended Route 46D branch west of Eden Ave. & Vernon Ave. in Edina will
be discontinued. Alternate service to Opportunity Partners is available on Route 612 (future
Route 38).
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 46 operates from Eden Ave. & Vernon Ave. in Edina to 46th St. & Hiawatha Ave. in Min-
neapolis, operating with stops along Vernon Ave., 50th St., Lyndale Ave., 46th St., Cedar Ave.,
42nd St., and 34th Ave. Limited-service trips serve Southwest High School.
• Customers connect with E Line at 50th St. and France Ave. station, Orange Line at I-35W and
46th St. Station, D Line at Chicago Ave and 46th St. Station, and Blue Line and A Line at 46th
St. Station.
Page 170 of 191
Route Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
146
Route Information
2 trips
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
Note: frequencies (shown in number of trips) are for the main portion of the route and are intended as guidelines.
Service Changes
• Service will be added, (1-2 trips in each direction),
during the AM and PM rush hours.
• Alternate service on Bryant Ave. and W. 50th St. is
available on Route 46.
• Suspended service west of Hwy 100 on Vernon Ave.
and Lincoln Dr. will be discontinued.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 146 will operate between I-35W & Diamond
Lake Rd. in Minneapolis and downtown Minneapo-
lis with stops along portions of Diamond Lake Rd.,
Lyndale Ave., 60th St., Xerxes Ave., 50th St., Lyndale
Ave., 46th St. and Marquette Ave. / 2nd Ave.
Page 171 of 191
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
156
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
Route Information
Service Changes
• Route 156 will be discontinued. Alternate service is available on Route 146.
Areas the Route Served
• Route 156 operated as express service from Xerxes Ave. & 60th St. in Min-
neapolis to downtown Minneapolis, operating with stops along portions of
Xerxes Ave., 60th St., Sunrise Dr., 58th St., Lyndale Ave., 56th St., Diamond
Lake Rd., and Marquette Ave. / 2nd Ave.
Page 172 of 191
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
515 Route Information
Service Changes
• Weekdays: Frequency will be improved from every 20 minutes to every 15 minutes in the AM
rush hour, midday, PM rush hour and evening.
• Saturdays: Frequency will be improved from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes in the mid-
day and late afternoon.
• On Sundays service will be improved from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes in the mid-
day.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 515 operates from Southdale Transit Center in Richfield to Mall of America Transit Cen-
ter in Bloomington, operating along portions of York Ave., 66th St., Bloomington Ave., 76th
St., 12th Ave., American Blvd., and 24th Ave.
• Customers can reach destinations along the route such as Southdale Mall, and Mall of Ameri-
ca.
• Connections to E Line can be made at Southdale Transit Center, Orange Line at I-35W & 66th
St. Station, D Line at Portland Ave. and 66th St. Station, and at the Mall of America Transit
Station connections can be made with the D Line, Blue Line, and Red Line.
15
30
15 - 20
30
20 - 30
20
15
20 - 30
15 - 20
20 - 3015 - 2015
Page 173 of 191
Route Information
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
537
Service Changes
• Weekdays: Service will be improved from every two hours to every 60
minutes.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 537 operates from Beard Ave. & 108th St. in Bloomington to South-
dale Transit Center in Richfield, operating along portions of Beard Ave.,
108th St., Old Shakopee Rd., Valley West South Driveway., Valley West
East Dr., France Ave., 98th St., Collegeview Rd., Minnesota Dr., Edinbor-
ough Way., 76th St., and York Ave.
• Customers can reach destinations along the route like Valley West Center,
Cub Foods, Normandale College, and Southdale Mall.
• Connections can be made with E Line at Southdale Transit Center.
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--60
Page 174 of 191
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
538 Route Information
Service Changes
• No changes are proposed for Route 538 in Network Now.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 538 operates from Southdale Transit Center in Edina to Mall of America in
Bloomington, operating along portions of York Ave., 70th St., Parklawn Ave., Xerxes
Ave., American Blvd., 79th St., Perimeter Rd., Knox Ave., 82nd Ave., Lyndale Ave.,
86th St., Old Shakopee Rd., 24th Ave., and Winstead Way. Limited-service trips are
provided to 76th St. & Oliver Way and Target.
• Customers can make connections with E Line at Southdale Transit Center, Orange
Line at Knox – American Blvd. Station as well as Blue, Red, and D Lines at Mall of
America Transit Center.
• Destinations along the route include Southdale Mall, Southdale Library, Target, Best
Buy Headquarters, Cub Foods, and Mall of America.
30
-
30 - 60
-
-
30 - 60
30 - 60
30 - 60
30 - 60
-30 - 6030 - 60
Page 175 of 191
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
540
Route Information
Service Changes
• Route 540 will use 77th St. underpass instead of alignment on American Blvd. to reach MoA.
• Sundays: Service will be improved from every 90 minutes to every 30 – 60 minutes.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 540 operates from Norman Center Dr. & 84th St. in Bloomington to Mall of America
in Bloomington, operating along portions of Norman Center Dr., 84th St., Normandale Lake
Blvd., American Blvd., Green Valley Dr., East Bush Lake Rd., Cahill Rd., 74th St., Metro Blvd.,
77th St., Minnesota Dr., Edinborough Way., 76th St., 12th Ave., and 24th Ave.
• Customers can connect with Orange Line at Knox – 76th St. Station, D Line at Portland Ave.
and 77th St. Station, as well as Blue, Red, and D Lines at Mall of America Transit Center.
30
30 - 60
30 - 60
-
-
30 - 60
30 - 60
30 - 60
30 - 60
303030
Page 176 of 191
Route Information
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
578
3 trips
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
Service Changes
• Two additional trips will be added in the morning and one additional trip in
the afternoon rush hours.
• Service on suspended Route 578C will be discontinued.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 578 operates from 78th St. & Johnson Ave. in Bloomington to down-
town Minneapolis, operating with stops along portions of 78th St., Johnson
Ave., 77th St., Minnesota Dr., York Ave., Perimeter Rd., Drew Ave., 65th St.,
Barrie Rd., Heritage Rd., and Marquette / 2nd Ave. in downtown Minneap-
olis.
• Customers can make connections at Southdale Transit Center, I-35W &
46th St. Station and I-35W & Lake St. Station.
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.Note: frequencies (shown in trips) are for the main portion of the route and are intended as guidelines.
Page 177 of 191
Route Information
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
579
3 trips
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
Service Changes
• Three additional trips will be added during both the morning and afternoon
rush hours when the University of Minnesota is in session.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 579 operates from Southdale Transit Center in Edina to the Universi-
ty of Minnesota, offering stops on portions of Xerxes Ave. before traveling
on I-35W with stops at I-35W and 46th St. Station with connections to
Orange Line.
• Service is offered on portions of Washington Ave., Oak St., and 4th St.
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.Note: frequencies (shown in trips) are for the main portion of the route and are intended as guidelines.
Page 178 of 191
Route Information
Route
Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
587
Service Changes
• Three trips will be added during both morning and afternoon rush hours.
Areas the Route Serves
• Route 587 operates from 78th St. & Johnson Ave. in Bloomington to down-
town Minneapolis, offering stops along portions of Johnson Ave., Parklawn
Ave., France Ave., 69th St., Valley View Rd., Normandale Ave., as well as
11th / 12th Sts., and Marquette / 2nd Ave. in downtown Minneapolis.
3 trips
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.Note: frequencies (shown in trips) are for the main portion of the route and are intended as guidelines.
Page 179 of 191
Route Planned Schedule
Rush Hour EveningMidday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Night
Note: frequencies (shown in minutes) are for the main portion of the route and intended as guidelines.
Route Information
10
15
15
20 - 30
20 - 30
12 - 15
12 - 15
12 - 30
12 - 20
15 - 3010 - 1510
Service Changes
• All Days: Service will operate at least every 12 min-
utes in the morning, every 15 minutes in the evening
and every 20 minutes at night on all days of the week.
• Weekdays: Service will operate every 10 minutes
during midday and afternoon rush hours.
• Weekends: Service will operate every 12 minutes
during midday and late afternoon.
Areas the Line Will Serve
• E Line replaces Route 6 on France Ave., Hennepin
Ave., and University Ave./4th St. SE between South-
dale Transit Center in Edina and the University of
Minnesota in Minneapolis.
• Customers can connect with B Line at Lake St near
Uptown Transit Station, C and D Lines at Hennepin
Ave and 7th St./8th St. Stations, Blue and Green Lines
on 5th St. and Orange Line on Marquette Ave., both in
downtown Minneapolis.
METRO E Line
Page 180 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Discussion
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.5
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: Traffic Safety Report of September 24, 2024
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the Traffic Safety Report of September 24, 2024.
Information/Background:
See attached report.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Traffic Safety Report of September 24, 2024
Page 181 of 191
Strong FoundationCITY GOALS:Better TogetherReliable Service Livable City Staff Report
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
October 24, 2024
Transportation Commission
Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Traffic Safety Report of September 24, 2024
Staff Recommendation:
Review and comment on the staff recommendations.
Information / Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on September 24. The City
Engineer, Streets Public Service Worker, Transportation Planner, Police Sergeant, Assistant City Planner and
Public Works Director were in attendance for this meeting.
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 October 24 regular meeting.
Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommend no action
B1. Request to restrict left turns traveling south on Ayrshire Blvd at Vernon Ave
Staff recommends no action based on crash history and the
potential impact to traffic volumes on other streets in the
neighborhood.
Description Resident requests restrictions due to limit visibility and lack of gaps
in Vernon Ave traffic.
AADT 10,250 (2024)
85% Speed N/A
Crashes One in the last 10 years (SB left-turning vehicle with WB thru
vehicle)
Previous Request Similar concerns about safety entering Vernon Ave. Vegetation has
been trimmed multiple times to improve side lines.
Unique
Circumstances
Ayrshire Blvd is over 115’ wide at Vernon Ave.
Ayrshire Blvd and Vernon Ave
Page 182 of 191
STAFF REPORT Page 2
B2. Request for all-way stop controls at 60th St and Wooddale Ave
Staff recommends no action as an all-way stop is not
warranted based on traffic volume, crash history or sight
lines.
B3. Request to remove non-vehicular warning signs on 6400 block of Tingdale Ave
Staff recommends no action as the property owner who requested the sign has confirmed it is
still needed.
B4. Request for speed limit signs on 48th and 49th Sts
Staff recommends no action based on observed speeds and volumes.
Description Resident is concerned with vehicle speeds and
volumes and is requesting stop controls to improve
safety for their grandkids.
ADT Wooddale: 3,922 (2024)
60th: 918 (2021)
85% Speed Woodale: 31.9 mph (2024)
60th: 29.7 mph (2021)
Crashes Three in the last 10 years, all resulting from failure to
yield.
Previous Requests Item B1 in September 2022 TSR.
Unique
Circumstances
Crosswalk installed over Wooddale in 2019.
Overlay scheduled for Wooddale in 2026.
Description Resident requests that the City remove the sign
located adjacent to their property.
ADT 151 (2018)
85% Speed 26.1 mph (2018)
Crashes One in the last 10 years.
Previous Requests None.
Unique
Circumstances
Two signs were installed in 1998 at the request of a
resident whose family member is disabled.
For these types of signs, staff contacts property
owners on an annual basis to verify whether the
signage is still needed.
Description Resident requests speed limit signs for westbound
traffic entering neighborhood from France Ave
ADT 49th: 900 (2022)
48th: 404 (2021)
85& Speed 49th: 29.9 mph (2022)
48th: 30.7 mph (2021)
Crashes None in the last 10 years.
Previous
Requests
Turn restrictions entering Maple Rd or W 49th and
vehicle speed concerns.
No action recommended in April 2023 (Item B1 in
TSR)
Unique
Circumstances
Speed limit sign was installed on 48th St in 2021.
Updated signal timing implemented at 50th St and
Halifax.
Previous requests reviewed as part of E Line traffic
study.
Overlay scheduled for 2027.
Residents petitioned for sidewalk construction on 48th
and 49th Sts.
Blake Rd
Wooddale Ave at W 60th St
Non-vehicular warning sign on Tingdale Ave
48th and 49th Sts
Page 183 of 191
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Section C: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommend further study
C1. Request for crosswalk markings over W 78th St at Delaney Blvd/Cecilia Cir.
Staff recommends reviewing full scope of
infrastructure improvements needed to install a
marked crosswalk, including geometric changes and traffic signal modifications.
C2. Request for pedestrian safety improvements on Delaney Blvd.
Staff recommends collecting current volume and
speed data on Delaney Blvd and reaching out to adjacent properties about a future pedestrian
facility.
Section D: Other traffic safety items handled
D1. A resident had concerns of vehicle speeds on Kipling Ave, Glengarry Ave, Grimes Ave, Dewey Hill Rd
and W 54th St. 2024 traffic studies found average speeds to be 26.3, 23.7 25.7, 30.4 and 27.3 mph,
respectively. Data was shared with Police for targeted speed trailer use.
D2. A request for signage to prevent non-local traffic detouring France Ave onto the 5800 block of Ewing
Ave and Drew Ave. A sign was placed for the remainder closures.
Description Requestor walks across W 78th at Cecelia
and is requesting crosswalk markings at
signalized intersection.
AADT 10,689 (2023)
85% Speed 41.5 MPH (2016)
Crashes Five in past ten years.
Three involved left turns failing to yield.
One rear-end due to ice.
Previous
Requests
Speed complaints along W 78th St.
Unique
Circumstances
No pedestrian ramps on south side of W
78th.
Previous Work W 78th was overlaid in 2023.
Description Resident requests police enforcement of
speed limit and signage to alert vehicles to
the presence of pedestrians.
AADT 560 (1998)
85% Speed 30.3 mph (1998)
Crashes None in the last 10 years.
Previous
Requests
Request to replace decorative stop signs in
Dewey Hill neighborhood.
Unique
Circumstances
Delaney connects neighborhood to Lewis
Park.
No parking restrictions are present.
No pedestrian or bicycle facility is proposed
in Ped/Bike Master Plan.
Previous Work Delaney was overlaid in 2015.
W 78th St at Delaney Blvd/Cecilia Cir.
W 78th St at Delaney Blvd/Cecilia Cir.
Page 184 of 191
STAFF REPORT Page 4
D3. Complaint of sight lines facing west on Mavelle Dr looking left to south Cornelia Dr. The homeowner
has removed the vegetation, improving sight lines.
D4. Two complaints for intersection functionality at Highway 62 entrance and exit ramps at Tracy Ave. Both
intersections must be reviewed by MnDOT as any change to current controls will impact traffic on Highway
62.
D5. Stop sign visibility complaints made at Hansen Rd and Benton Ave along with Hollywood Ave and
Vandervork Ave. Public Works improved the visibility of the signs.
D6. Vegetation trimming was requested in a center median along Vernon Ave near W 53rd St to improve
visibility. The Public Works Department addressed the issue.
D7. Two requests submitted for speed traps in the Grandview neighborhood, along Cheyenne Tr, one along
W 78th St and another for Valley View Rd near Concord Ave for vehicles going too fast. These requests
were sent to the EPD.
D8. Staff reviewed feedback from residents adjacent to Sunnyside Alley for speed bumps. The alley surface is
being overlaid and the threshold to install alley speed bumps (75%) was not met.
D9. A request for an added parking restriction sign on the 4200 block of Grimes Ave. Following staff’s
review, adequate restriction signs are in place.
D10. A store owner within 50th and France requested a crosswalk at the northwest corner of Halifax Ave
and Market St. The location of concern is along a curve and a crosswalk with RRFBs is located 100’ east.
Pedestrians are encouraged to use the current crosswalk.
D11. A large brush pile was left on W 64th St near York Ave. The branches were removed from the
roadway.
D12. A request for added enforcement when using the crosswalk at Xerxes Ave and W 64th St. The EPD
was notified of the issue.
D13. A request to enforce the 6-hour parking restriction on Xerxes Ave north of W 70th St. The EPD
requested to enforce.
D14. Staff was notified of lane markings needing updated along Parklawn Ave. Public Works staff will review
and install new markings if necessary.
D15. A pedestrian crossing signal was reported out at Parklawn Ave and W 77th St. An Edina electrician
fixed the signal.
D16. A parent had concerns with crosswalk markings not yet installed at Cornelia Dr and W 72nd St
following a City utility and street project. The contractor responsible for the pavement markings reiterated
they are planned for install near completion of the project.
Page 185 of 191
STAFF REPORT Page 5
D17. A resident noted sight lines needing improvement facing south on Sherwood Ave looking left to east
W 66th St. Following review, the vegetation of concern was outside of enforceable City right-of-way.
D18. Two requests made for added stop controls at W 65th St and Wilryan Ave. ADT on W 65th St and
Wilryan is 124 and 705 respectively. With no reported crashes at this intersection in the past ten years and
adequate sight lines, stop controls are not warranted.
D19. A crosswalk needed reinstallation on Tracy Ave at Countryside Rd following a nearby utility and
pavement rehab project. The contractor reinstalled a new crosswalk.
Page 186 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Discussion
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.6
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: 2024 Work Plan Updates
Action Requested:
None.
Information/Background:
Commissioners will provide updates on the status of 2024 Work Plan initiatives (unless an item is
elsewhere on
the current agenda). See attached work plan progress report.
Supporting Documentation:
1. 2024 Work Plan Progress Report
Page 187 of 191
Page 188 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Information
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 6.7
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Report and Recommendation Department: Engineering
Item Title: 2025 Work Plan Update
Action Requested:
None.
Information/Background:
Staff will provide an update on the 2025 work plan development process.
Supporting Documentation:
None
Page 189 of 191
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: October 24, 2024 Item Activity: Information
Meeting: Transportation Commission
Agenda Number: 8.1
Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Type: Other Department: Engineering
Item Title: Proposed 2025 Regular Meeting Dates
Action Requested:
None.
Information/Background:
See attached memo.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Memo: Proposed 2025 Meeting Dates
Page 190 of 191
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Historically, the Transportation Commission has held their regular meetings on the third Thursday of
each month at Edina City Hall (4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN, 55424). For the 2025 calendar year,
the regular meeting dates are as follows;
January 16 July 17
February 20 August 21
March 20 September 19
April 17 October 23**
May 15 November 20
June 26* December 18
*The June regular meeting is proposed for the fourth Thursday of the month so as not to coincide with
Juneteenth.
**The October regular meeting is proposed for the fourth Thursday of the month so as not to coincide
with the annual Minnesota Educators Academy (MEA) conference.
Engineering Department
EdinaMN.gov
Date: October 24, 2024
To: Transportation Commission
cc: Sharon Allison, City Clerk
From: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Subject: Proposed 2025 Regular Meeting Dates
Page 191 of 191