HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-21 TPC Packet
Meeting location:
Edina City Hall
Community Room
4801 W. 50th St.
Edina, MN
Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
Thursday, November 21, 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. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Review Draft Report
6.2. Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research Draft Report
6.3. Traffic Safety Report of October 29, 2024
6.4. 2024 Work Plan Updates
7. Chair and Member Comments
Page 1 of 38
8. Staff Comments
8.1. Proposed 2025 Regular Meeting Dates
9. Adjournment
Page 2 of 38
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: November 21, 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 October 24, 2024 regular meeting.
Information/Background:
See attached draft minutes.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Draft Minutes, Oct. 24, 2024
Page 3 of 38
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
City Hall Community Room
October 24, 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, McCarthy, Rubenstein, Wright, Lassig, Lewis
Absent: Commissioners Brown, Olson, Plumb-Smith, Rosen
Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni, Senior Project Engineer Ben Jore, Assistant City
Engineer Aaron Ditzler
3. Approval of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to amend the
agenda as follows:
Move Item 6.3 to 6.2
Move Item 6.2 to 6.3
All voted aye. Motion carried.
Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Rubenstein to approve
the amended agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Rubenstein and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to approve
the September 19, 2024 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
5. Community Comment
None.
6. Reports/Recommendations
6.1. Presidents A/B Roadway Reconstruction Project
Senior Project Engineer Jore and Assistant City Engineer Ditzler presented the draft engineering study for
review and comment. Comments from Commissioners included:
Would the City consider a shared-use path on Monroe Ave instead of a sidewalk?
Consider asking about shared-use paths on future preconstruction surveys.
Consider using yard signs in the neighborhood to increase rate of response to the
preconstruction survey.
Would the City consider turning one of these streets into a one-way?
Recommend updating typical section graphics to show user on a bicycle.
Does the City Forester offer residents street trees as part of the project?
Page 4 of 38
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Could the City provide a property tax break for residents with a multi-modal facility adjacent
to their property?
Support sticking with the recommendations in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan out of
concern that City Council will downgrade proposed shared-use paths into sidewalks. Telling
bicyclists to ride in the street isn’t safe.
Commission supports protected bikeways and protected facilities for pedestrians.
Consider communicating to residents that only 5’ of shared-use paths need to be maintained
in winter.
Support the proposed shared-use path on Belmore to promote bike ridership and safety.
Motion was made by Chair Lewis and seconded by Commissioner McCarthy to support the
proposed shared-use path on Belmore Ln and the proposed sidewalk on Monroe Ave, and to
recommend that staff consider separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities on Washington Ave
noting that this might result in the loss of on-street parking. All voted aye. Motion carried.
6.2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Review Draft Report
The Commission reviewed and commented on the draft report.
6.3. Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research Draft Report
The Commission reviewed and commented on the draft report.
6.4. Metro Transit Network Now Concept Plan
Staff Liaison Scipioni presented the draft concept plan for review and comment.
6.5. Traffic Safety Report of September 24, 2024
The Commission reviewed and commented on the report.
6.6. 2024 Work Plan Updates
1. Traffic Safety Infrastructure Research and Recommendations – Commission reviewed and
commented on the draft report.
2. Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan – Commission reviewed and commented on the draft report.
3. Parking – No update.
4. 20th Anniversary Proclamation – Completed.
6.7. 2025 Work Plan Update
Staff Liaison Scipioni provided an update on the 2025 work plan development process.
7. Chair and Member Comments – Received.
8. Staff Comments – Received.
9. Adjournment
Motion was made by Commissioner Rubenstein and seconded by Commissioner Bildsten to adjourn
the October 24, 2024 regular meeting at 9:09 p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried.
Page 5 of 38
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance %
Meetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
SEAT NAME
1 Wright, Grant 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
2 Rubenstein, Tricia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
3 Bildsten, Roger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
4 Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
5 Rosen, Adam 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 75%
6 Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70%
7 Olson, Bethany 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
8 McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
9 Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
10 Lassig, Augie (s) 1 1 2 100%
Page 6 of 38
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: November 21, 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: Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Review Draft Report
Action Requested:
Review and comment on draft report.
Information/Background:
See attached draft report and supporting materials.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Draft PBMP Review Report
2. Existing and Proposed Multi-Modal Facilities
3. PBMP Review One Page Summary
Page 7 of 38
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 8 of 38
Goals of the 2018 Plan and Progress Towards the goals
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
Page 9 of 38
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
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
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 10 of 38
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.
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.
Page 11 of 38
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.
●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.
Page 12 of 38
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.
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
Page 13 of 38
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,
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.
Page 14 of 38
●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.
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.
Page 15 of 38
●Pros:Safe and comfortable for non-motorized users,promotes a shared,
community-friendly environment.
●Cons:May inconvenience motorists,requires ongoing community support and
maintenance.
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.
7.The city has imposed “shared use path”solutions in some situations where separate and
buffered options might be more appropriate for pedestrians and bikes and consistent
with PBMP but less convenient for automobile/truck traffic.Guidelines are needed for
making and implementing these decisions on a fair and equitable basis for the entire
community.
Page 16 of 38
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
November 2024
City of EdinaExisting Sidewalks ±
0 2,250Feet
LegendExisting Sidewalks (90.12 mi)
Page 17 of 38
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
November 2024
City of EdinaProposed Sidewalks ±
0 2,250Feet
LegendProposed Sidewalks (26.14 mi)
Page 18 of 38
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
November 2024
City of EdinaExisting Bikeways ±
0 2,250Feet
Legend
Existing Shared Bikeways (10.25 mi)
Existing Standard Bikeways (11.04 mi)Existing Buffered Bikeways (0.99 mi)
Page 19 of 38
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
November 2024
City of EdinaExisting Bikeways ±
0 2,250Feet
Legend
Proposed Bikeways (34.75 mi)Upgrade Bikeways (9.37 mi)
Page 20 of 38
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
November 2024
City of EdinaExisting Shared-Use Paths ±
0 2,250Feet
Legend
Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (7.55 mi)Existing Shared-Use Paths (7.18 mi)
Page 21 of 38
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
November 2024
City of EdinaProposed Shared-Use Paths ±
0 2,250Feet
LegendProposed Shared-Use Paths (8.91 mi)Upgrade Sidewalks to Shared-Use Paths (11.24 mi)
Page 22 of 38
The 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan for the City of Edina aligns closely with the City
Council's core values—race &equity,health in all policies,community engagement,and
sustainability—by promoting a safe,accessible,and inclusive transportation network for all
residents.
Race &Equity:The plan prioritizes equitable access to transportation by improving pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure,ensuring all community members,regardless of race or
socioeconomic status,have access to safe,non-motorized travel options.This promotes
fairness in resource distribution and aligns with Edina's race and equity goals.
Health in All Policies:By encouraging walking and cycling,the plan integrates health
considerations into transportation decisions.Active transportation improves physical well-being
and mental health,which reduces healthcare costs and increases community wellness.
Community Engagement:The plan was developed through extensive public input,ensuring that
community voices shaped the vision.Ongoing engagement through open feedback channels is
also a key driver,allowing the public to stay involved as the plan is implemented.
Sustainability:The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan supports sustainability by reducing
reliance on motor vehicles,which cuts down on emissions and promotes cleaner air.By
encouraging active transportation,the plan fosters a greener,more sustainable future for Edina.
Goals,Drivers,Interested Parties,and Success Metrics:
Goals:The primary goals include increasing pedestrian and bicycle safety,promoting active
transportation,reducing car dependency,and improving overall connectivity within the city.
Drivers:The plan is driven by the need for safer,healthier,and more accessible transportation
options that support Edina’s growth and align with the city’s sustainability goals.
Interested Parties:Key stakeholders include the Edina City Council,community residents,local
businesses,and advocacy groups focused on environmental sustainability and equitable access
to transportation.
Success Metrics:Success will be measured by increased pedestrian and bicycle use,
improvements in infrastructure safety,reductions in traffic congestion,and greater participation
in ongoing community engagement efforts.
By prioritizing inclusivity,health,and sustainability,the 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
ensures that Edina’s transportation infrastructure aligns with the city's long-term vision and
values.
Page 23 of 38
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: November 21, 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 Report
Page 24 of 38
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
Recommendations
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 reinforcing the
citywide speed limit and how important it is to stop at stop signs and yield to pedestrians.
●Pilot quick-build traffic calming solutions like those outlined below.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.
Page 25 of 38
●Review additional grant programs to fund implementation.See recommended list
below.
Primary Risk /Trade-off
Many traffic calming solutions could make it harder to complete snow removal.According to the
2023 Quality of Life Survey (p.36),Edina residents rated snow removal much higher than the
national benchmark.The Transportation Commission recognizes that traffic calming measures
may make residents less satisfied with snow removal efforts.We believe this is an acceptable
trade-off.
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 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
●Pedestrian refuge islands (medians)-space in the middle of the roadway used to
narrow the roadway
●Narrowed lanes -constructing roadways with 10’wide or less travel lanes
●
Page 26 of 38
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
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.
Page 27 of 38
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 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.
●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.
●
●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.
●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.
Page 28 of 38
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:
●Solicitation 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 29 of 38
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: November 21, 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: Traffic Safety Report of October 29, 2024
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the staff report.
Information/Background:
See attached staff report.
Supporting Documentation:
1. Traffic Safety Report of October 29, 2024
Page 30 of 38
Strong FoundationCITY GOALS:Better TogetherReliable Service Livable City Staff Report
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
November 21, 2024
Transportation Commission
Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Traffic Safety Report of October 29, 2024
Staff Recommendation:
Review and comment on the staff recommendations.
Information / Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on October 29. The
Transportation Planner, 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 December 3 regular meeting.
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action
A1. Request for parking restrictions at Pamela Park entrance driveway
Staff recommends No Parking signs on both sides of the south driveway entrance to Pamela
Park. The City could consider a future project to increase the width of the driveway to permit
one-sided parking.
Description Resident is concerned about emergency vehicle
access during sporting events at Pamela Park.
ADT 161 (2014)
85% Speed 24.5 mph (2014)
Crashes One in last 10 years.
Unique
Circumstances
No parking restrictions present.
18’-20’ driveway width.
On-street parking is available on south side of 62nd
St adjacent to park.
Policy Guidance One-sided parking permitted on 24’ streets (Living
Streets Plan).
On-street parking restricted on streets 20’ or less
(City practice). Pamela Park southern driveway
Page 31 of 38
STAFF REPORT Page 2
A2. Request for safety improvements at 77th St and Computer Ave
Staff recommends installing Traffic Signal Ahead signs for eastbound and westbound traffic
approaching Computer Ave. Staff will reach out to the property manager at 4700 77th St to
request tree trimming to improve visibility.
Section C: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends further study
C1. Request for crosswalk markings at Hansen Rd/56th St
Staff recommends reviewing pedestrian crossing volumes at
the intersection to determine if a marked crosswalk is warranted.
C2. Request for parking restrictions on Creek Valley Rd
Staff recommends surveying adjacent properties on Creek Valley Rd to determine support for
added parking restrictions.
Description Resident is concerned about visibility of traffic
signal and vehicles running red lights.
ADT WB: 7,983 (2018)
EB: 10,887 (2018)
85% Speed N/A
Crashes Four in last 10 years.
Unique
Circumstances
Traffic signals replaced in 2019.
Sight lines in both directions are partially
obstructed (by trees in WB; horizontal curve/trees
for EB).
Policy Guidance Some tree branches are within clear view zone if
driveway is treated as “intersecting street.”
Description Resident is requesting crosswalk markings south of the
intersection between the two ped ramps.
AADT Hansen: 1,445 (2019)
56th: 403 (2023)
85% Speed Hansen: N/A
56th: 29 mph (2023)
Crashes One in last ten years.
Unique
Circumstances
56th St is stop-controlled.
At-grade railroad crossing with mast arm.
Intersection is near Yancey Park.
Previous Work Roadways reconstructed in 2021.
Sidewalks added in 2021.
Policy Guidance Marked crosswalk may be considered depending on
ped/bike volumes.
Description Resident is concerned with high school traffic
parking on both sides of street.
ADT 916 (2011)
85% Speed 26.9 mph (2011)
Crashes None in last 10 years.
Previous Work Roadway reconstructed in 2012.
Unique
Circumstances
No parking restrictions present.
30’ street width.
2018 High School Neighborhood Parking Study
suggested parking could be restricted during
school hours or permanently on one-side.
Policy Guidance Street width and parking is consistent with
Local street (Living Streets Plan).
77th St and Computer Ave
Hansen Rd and 56th St
Creek Valley Rd
Page 32 of 38
STAFF REPORT Page 3
C3. Request for restriping on 76th St between Edinborough Way and York Ave
Staff recommends measuring maximum queue lengths for the existing westbound left turn
lane to determine if the lane can be shortened to provide an additional eastbound left turn
lane into 7500 York Ave.
Description Resident is requesting the addition of protected left turn
lane for westbound traffic accessing 7500 York
Cooperative.
AADT WB: 4,949 (2022)
EB: 6,677 (2022)
85% Speed N/A
Crashes Two in last 10 years.
Unique
Circumstances
64’ – 75’ street width.
Two thru lanes in each direction, gore area in-between.
WB dedicated left-turn and right-turn lanes.
EB dedicated left-turn lane.
Previous Work Overlaid in 2021.
Recommendation Measure max. queue lengths in left-turn lanes to determine
if they can be shortened to provide an additional left-turn
lane.
76th St, Edinborough Way to York Ave
Page 33 of 38
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: November 21, 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: 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 34 of 38
Page 4
Transportation Commission
The Commission advises the City Council on matters relating to the operation of the Cityʼs local street system.
The Commission also reviews and comments on plans to enhance non-motorized and mass transit
opportunities in the city. In addition, the Commission evaluates methods for tra ic calming and other speed
and volume mitigation measures and recommends their implementation when appropriate.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
%#
On Track 75.0 3
Completed 25.0 1
Tra ic Safety Infrastructure Research
Residents have been vocal with the Transportation Commission
about how dangerously fast drivers drive on Edinaʼs residential
streets – even a er speed limits were lowered to 25 mph.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
Project
Target Completion Date
Q4
Leads
Wright, Olson
Update provided by Andrew Scipioni on Oct 24, 2024 05:00:01
Commission reviewed and commented on dra report.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Review
The Commission will assess progress to-date on
implementation of the plan; prioritize implementation of
recommendations within the plan that have not been yet
implemented; identify appropriate updates, revisions,
deletions or additions to the plan; and develop a community
communication strategy related to the plan.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
Project
Target Completion Date
Q4
Leads
Bildsten, Olson, Rubenstein
Update provided by Andrew Scipioni on Oct 24, 2024 05:00:01
Commission reviewed and commented on dra report.
Commission Name 1.8 Progress 75%
Initiative 1.8.1
Jan 01, 2024 - Dec 31, 2024 On Track Progress 75%
Charge 1: Study & Report
Initiative 1.8.2
Jan 01, 2024 - Dec 31, 2024 On Track Progress 75%
Charge 1: Study & Report
Page 35 of 38
Page 5
Parking
Consideration of future of parking in Edina to identify parking
initiatives to pursue in the next 10-15 years, in what order and
what commissions/resources should be assigned to each.
Planning Commission is the lead. ETC and EEC will review and
comment on final report and recommendation from Planning
Commission.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
Project
Target Completion Date
Q4
Leads
Plumb-Smith, Johnson
Update provided by Andrew Scipioni on Sep 19, 2024 05:00:01
The Commission received an update from the Planning Commission.
Edina Transportation Commission 20th Anniversary
Recognition & Celebration
The Commission will work with sta to create a proclamation
recognizing the Commissionʼs 20th anniversary and celebrating
their contributions and achievements since 2004.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
Event
Target Completion Date
Q1
Leads
Lewis, Wright
Update provided by Andrew Scipioni on May 17, 2024 05:00:01
Proclamation adopted by City Council May 7.
Initiative 1.8.3
Jan 01, 2024 - Dec 31, 2024 On Track Progress 50%
Charge 2: Review & Comment
Initiative 1.8.4
Jan 01, 2024 - Dec 31, 2024 Completed Progress 100%
Charge 4: Review & Decide
Page 36 of 38
BOARD & COMMISSION
ITEM REPORT
Date: November 21, 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 37 of 38
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 38 of 38