HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-28 Meeting PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, October 28, 2004
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Community Room
I. Approve Minutes
a. September 23, 2004*
II. Transportation Commission Schedule (October 2004 – February 2005)*
III. Transportation Commission Policy (October 2004 DRAFT) – Consideration for
Recommendation to the City Council for Review and Open Public Comment Period*
IV. Other Governmental Activities
a. 2030 Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan – City of Edina
Supporting Resolution (Information Only)*
b. Other Business, Commissioner’s Presentations, Visitor Presentations
V. Adjournment
* Note: Attachment included.
?S24 NYT THE NEW YORK TIMES, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2004
TRAFFIC
To Smooth Your Drive
Slow It Down He Says
Kevin Moloney for Ille Ne
PEACE Dan Burden on a traffic-calming island that he inspired.
By KEITH SCHNEIDER
T HE answer to traffic congestion in
most towns, Dan Burden says, is to put
roads on a diet. By taking lanes away,
traffic slows down, drivers feel safer as they
get closer to the car in front, and the road
will actually carry more vehicles more effi-
ciently, .
Mr: Burden, a photographer and planning
consultant, has other traffic-calming reme-
dies, including making intersections small-
er, constructing roundabouts, building boul-
evards divided by medians and designing
places where people _walk, bike and use
public transit.:
In
It 1996, he founded a nonprofit group
called Walkable Communities in High
. Springs, Fla, where he still lives. Since then, .
Mr. Burden, who is 60, has been exceptional-
ly energetic about teaching his counterintui-
tive approach to fixing traffic problems,
holding workshops in 1,700 communities in
the United States and Canada.
Q. What do you call your job?'
A A. I'm a specialist in converting towns that
were overdesigned for cars back into towns
for people. It's kind of like being a bumble-
bee but having a vast field. I do a- lot of
photography. I analyze the towns I've been
in. I read about how things, come to work
and why they work. I collect the pollen from
one town, and I disperse it as quickly as I
can to people who want the information.
Q. In terms of traffic, the engineering ap-
proach is to make things bigger; wider and
faster. .
A. That's correct.
Q. You are showing that the conventional
approach is often counterproductive. Can
you give me an example?
A. By not moving vehicles as fast, by pay-
ing attention to intersections, by controlling
access and turns, roads actually move more
traffic, are safer and are more attractive.
Here's an example. The typical road
we've been building for a long time is five
lanes. The fifth lane, where people make left
turns, is called a scramble lane. By putting
the fifth lane in and getting the driver
making a left turn completely out of the
picture, the thought was that you can great-
ly increase, the capacity of the road and
- reduce the crashes. We started doing that
all over our country.
It was a mistake. By making it possible to
turn, left into every single driveway, we -
created all this incredible- friction in the
street. It reduced the carrying capacity of
the road 30 percent and increased the num-
ber of crashes. A better idea is to build
boulevards with divided medians. A typical
boulevard has an opening every 660 feet and
a lane to allow people to make left turns. By
doing that you increase the carrying capaci-
ty of the road 30 percent.
Q. Are some cities downsizing their roads?
A. They_ are, all over the country. We call
them "road diets," where we actually take
away lanes. In some cities, like Hartford, we
made a list two years ago of 12- roads that
will go on a road diet and lose some of the
lanes. They've actually done six of them so
far, and everywhere Hartford has done it,
traffic has improved. -
Typically before a road diet, speeds are 10
miles per hour too fast, which means it's not
Who's against his ideas?
Friends worried about
needing an extra minute.
as safe, it's harder to get out of driveways,
it's harder to maneuver. The road diet gets
it down to the right number of lanes, and the
speeds come down. In Hartford, the average
speed has come down 6 m.p.h. on neighbor-
hood streets. Safety goes up. It's so much
easier to get across a two-lane road instead
of a four-lane road.
Q. What are other ways to solve traffic
congestibn?
A. You have to pay attention to the intersec-
tions. That's the first place that traffic
breaks' down. We build big roads that build
'up huge volumes of traffic at the intersec-
tions. The typical response of the engineers
is to widen the entire road. Then intersec-
tions become so wide that the traffic signal
cycle is longer, and we lose efficiency. There
is a need to be more surgical in our solution
and design more compact intersections. The
signal cycles are shorter, and pedestrians
feel comfortable crossing the street.
Another solution is a roundabout. With a
roundabout, we have more volume per lane,
and therefore it can keep the intersection
much more compact. We can keep crossing
distances down to 14 feet, and because there.
are no signals, the pedestrian isn't holding
back the motorist. And there is no signal to
build up a long line of cars.
Q. You say speeding traffic up increases
congestion.
A. This surprises most people because it is
counterintuitive. We actually -lose capacity
on a road if we design it for high speed. If
you are in an urban area with a lot of
driveways and intersections, you get your
best capacity at somewhere. around 30
m.p.h. But we have designed a lot of places
where the running speed, the speed that
most motorists travel, is 40, 45, even 50
m.p.h. When you drive at a slower and more
uniform rate, you need less space between
cars. Drivers feel more comfortable being
closer to the car in front of them. Therefore
you can move more cars through than if the
cars are traveling faster, and you need
more headway, more space, between cars.
Q. Presumably not everyone agrees with
your counterintuitive approach.
A. There is resistance. Many people don't
understand how traffic works. They think if
you have a street where people aren't going
to be driving as fast and it won't be as wide,
that traffic will come into their local neigh-
horhood street. That is an unfortunate per-
ception because that is not what traffic does.
Traffic wants to stay on the significant roaJ
and does not want to go into a neighborhood
unless it gets strangled at an intersectico
and gets forced there.
Business owners also get nervous. A pei-.
fect example is in Missoula, Mont., on a
street called Broadway. It is a four-lam
road, and there were a couple of pedestrien
fatalities. The volume of traffic on Broad-
way does not warrant four lanes. The row'
needs to be only two lanes. The City Council
in 1998 approved putting Broadway on a
- road diet, reducing it from four lanes to tvn
lanes, with raised islands so that peop)e
could cross,the street. -
Some business people were worried it
would reduce traffic volumes and hurt ther
sales. It wasn't going to reduce traffic. lie
traffic would just be handled in fewer lams.
And it would move slower. When traffic
moves slower people will see stores better-
. and otherwise stop when they might rot
have before. - -
I also had lifelong friends tell me they
didn't like the idea because it would. take
them a minute longer to get home frail
work because I'm slowing down the traffic.
-So the resistance to these projects can come
from many places. By the way, construction
on this project is about to start.
Q. How did you get into this field?
A. I kind of followed my heart. I had so
background in engineering or. planning or
landscape architecture. I have a very good
background in bicycling.
- Around 1981, I made My first trip to
- Australia. When I walked around their
towns, I realized that Australia was the
country that I remembered when I was a
kid growing up in Columbus, Ohio. Somehow
my country had lost that scale, that sense of
being a place where people knew one al-
'other, where you could walk anywhere,
where anything you needed you could get by
walking or biking or public transit. At the
time, I was the state bicycle coordinator at
the Florida Department of Transportation. I
just basically went back to my job an
changed my job title, didn't even ask, to
state bicycle - and pedestrian coordinator.
Q. What places are doing it right?
A. One I like is Fairview Village, near Port-
land, Ore. [fairy iewvillage.com]. It's per-
fect. It's actually got a Target Store, a
department store, a school, lots of single-
family residential housing, apartment hous-
ing and vast amounts of open space. It's all
mixed together beautifully. It has six points
of access into the village so that all the
traffic gets distributed. None of the roads
are big. It has links and trails.
Q. What surprises you about your work?
A. I go to work in a community, and even if
I'm there two or three days, I don't have a
clue whether the leaders are Democrats or
Republicans. That means this is an issue. tot.
everybody.
September 30, 2004
TO: Metropolitan Council
FR: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
RE: 2030 Transportation Policy Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the public hearing draft of the 2030
Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is composed
of 70 cities from around the seven-county metropolitan area, who share your assessment that
transportation is one of the most important challenges facing our region today.
After closely following your work developing the draft TPP and discussing it with our Board of
Directors and member cities, the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities offers the following
comments for your consideration.
2030 Transportation Policy Plan
Overall, the draft plan does a good a job of outlining the situation facing this region — a rapidly
growing and increasingly mobile metropolitan area that is expected to add another million
residents by the year 2030. The plan is equally clear and direct in recognizing that current
funding sources and levels are inadequate to meet the needs of this region. Without additional
funding, congestion will worsen, travel times will continue to increase and both our mobility and
economic prosperity will suffer. Finally, we are encouraged by the emphasis this plan puts on
transit. AMM's members are strong supporters of a multi-modal transportation system that
combines highway investments with the regular route bus service and dedicated transitways
required in a metropolitan region of our size.
Given these areas of agreement, we would, however, like to urge the Council to make several
changes to the draft plan before giving it final approval.
1) Transportation and Land Use Planning
As an organization of cities, AMM and its members view this plan from a slightly different
perspective than other stakeholders. To cities, this is not just another needs analysis or study of
our transportation system. It is a statutorily mandated and enforceable component of our
planning process. Viewed from this perspective, we have several concerns about what the plan
expects of local governments and their comprehensive plans.
Policy 18 states that in order for a local comprehensive plan to be in conformance with the
regional transportation system, cities must plan for the forecasts allocated to them and that they
must do so in a manner that does not add traffic to any already congested roads. Furthermore, it
states that extensions or capacity expansions to the regional sewer system will be predicated on
the state or local unit of government demonstrating that "adequate transportation improvements
will be provided when needed to avoid significant negative impact" on the highway system.
This is unrealistic and unachievable in most parts of the region — especially given the congested
state we are already in and the lack of funding to address existing problems or future needs. For
the vast majority of metropolitan cities it simply will not be possible to accommodate any
additional households without adding to already congested roads. There is no reasonable way to
enforce this policy without shutting down development in many parts of the region.
Given the official role this document plays in our local-regional planning process, it is important
that all policies contained in the transportation policy plan are realistic and equally enforceable
across the region. This is not the case with the currently drafted policy #18.
Secondly, the draft plan talks a lot about encouraging cities to develop higher density and mixed-
use centers that are transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly. This brings with it an obligation on
the Council's part to commit to providing transit service to that area for the long-term.
Unfortunately, this is an obligation the Council does not appear to have the resources to meet —
especially in the case of developing cities. Cities cannot be expected to develop areas geared to
transit, with higher densities and fewer parking spaces, only to have that transit service
significantly reduced or eliminated during the next round of budget cuts.
Additionally, the draft plan uses too many ambiguous terms when referring to cities and their
comprehensive plans. In some cases, its says cities "must," while in others it says cities are
"expected to" or that they "should" do certain things. The plan needs to clearly identify what
cities must have in their comprehensive plans in order for those plans to be found in compliance
with the system plan, versus what the Council would like to see in those plans as a matter of
preference.
Finally, the draft plan talks extensively about "managing" traffic and "managing" congestion, but
there is very little discussion or mention of "accommodating" traffic or people. This region is so
far behind on its transportation infrastructure that the 30-year plan is almost entirely about
meeting existing needs. There is very little in this plan to serve future growth. For example, the
plan does not identify a single new principle arterial, despite the fact that numerous cities have
approached the Council about roads that are already functioning as principle arterials, but lack
the appropriate designation, planning or design. Furthermore, despite the Framework's
projections of significant population increases for the developing cities in Dakota, Anoka and
Scott Counties, the transportation policy plan fails to include any projects to serve that growth.
2) Transportation Funding
The plan lacks a clear and specific proposal for funding the needs identified. Experience has
shown that this region cannot afford to sit back and wait for additional funding to materialize out
of the legislative process. The Metropolitan Council has an obligation to put politics aside and
the needs of the metropolitan area first. We invite you to join with local governments and other
stakeholders to actively propose and work for additional funding.
AMM and its members have long supported a variety of means of raising the funding necessary
to build and maintain the transportation and transit system this region needs. Whether it be an
increase in traditional funding sources such as the gas tax or license tab fees, or the introduction
of new sources such as a metro-area sales tax or county-imposed wheelage tax, AMM and its
member cities are ready and willing to work with the Council to develop and pass a multi-modal
transportation funding package that can realistically address the needs of this region.
Without the voice of our regional planning authority, it will be very difficult to overcome the
partisan disagreements and special-interest battles that have left us without a permanent funding
increase for 16 years. Given the Council's responsibility to plan the regional transportation
system, it is most definitely your role to step into the heart of the issue and contribute to a
solution on the funding issues.
At a very minimum the plan should provide more specifics about what additional funding would
mean on the ground. In order to make the case for additional funding, legislators and citizens
need specific information about how additional money would be spent. The transportation
policy plan should paint a clear and specific picture of the transportation system residents can
expect in exchange for supporting higher funding levels.
Summary
In summary, while the draft plan makes many good points and includes important planned
investments, it does not go far enough in proposing a realistic funding plan, identifying the
investments necessary to support an additional million residents or providing a realistic
foundation for local comprehensive planning.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns with you. If you have any questions or
would like to discuss any of our comments in more detail, please feel free to contact Kris
Wilson, interim executive director, at (651) 215 — 4003.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF EDINA
DATE: October 19, 2004
TO: Metropolitan Council
FROM: Wayne Houle — Director of Public Works / City Engineer
SUBJECT: Draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP)
The City of Edina would like to offer the following comments regarding the above referenced
plan:
1. The draft TPP encourages the local communities to implement a system of fully
interconnected local streets. The City of Edina objects to a fully interconnected local
street system between local communities. We feel the regional, principal arterials,
should be adequately constructed to accommodate trips between communities, which
then reduces the "cut-through" traffic that currently exists in the local communities.
2. The City of Edina is concerned about the elimination of the improvement category from
the draft TPP. This change eliminates any improvement to Highway 169 within the
1494/1694 beltway and Highway 62 outside of the I35W/Crosstown Commons Project.
These corridors were identified in the 2001 Transportation Policy Plan as improvement
corridors, the 2nd highest level of investment after expansion corridors. The need for
expansion on these corridors has been acknowledged.
3. The City of Edina would like to see more emphasis placed on Counties to fill gaps and
remove barriers in the existing county or regional walkway/bikeway systems.
The City of Edina would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the
public hearing of the draft 2030 TPP.
It Metropolitan Council
Summary
Draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan
Transportation at the Crossroads
More people, more trips
Since 1970, the population of the Twin Cities metropolitan area has grown by 767,000, or
more than 40 percent. During this same period, the region has seen:
• More women entering the workforce. Between 1970 and 2000, the proportion of
women in the Twin Cities workforce increased from 48.8 percent to 71.4 percent.
Among the largest 25 metropolitan areas, the Twin Cities ranks the highest in
both male and female workforce participation.
• Dramatic growth in auto ownership. In 1970, a third of the households in the
Twin Cities metropolitan area had two cars. By 2000, the figure had increased to
62 percent. In 2000, there was slightly more than one car for every licensed
driver in the metro area.
• Increased suburbanization and decentralization. In 1970, 54 percent of the
region's households were outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul. By 2000, the
figure had risen to 73 percent. Similarly, the share of the region's jobs located
outside of the central cities grew from 44 percent in 1970 to 69 percent in 2000.
Today, more people are making more trips and traveling longer distances, with suburb-to-
suburb commutes exceeding those from the suburbs to the central cities.
By 2030, the region is expected to add nearly 1 million people, 470,000 households and
560,000 jobs. This will generate an additional 4 million daily trips, a 37 percent increase
in travel on our region's roadways.
Slowing the growth in congestion
While growth is a good thing, it poses challenges, as anyone who has traveled in peak
hour traffic can attest. In 1990, 30 percent of the region's freeway lanes were congested
during peak periods; by 2000, the figure had grown to 60 percent. In the Council's 2003
survey of metro area residents, traffic congestion ranked as the No. 1 concern, outpacing
crime, education and housing.
There are no "silver bullets" that will eliminate congestion. But the Council's
Transportation Policy Plan contains policies and strategies designed to slow the growth
in congestion and improve mobility. Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development
Framework— the umbrella chapter of the Council's metropolitan development guide —
the Transportation Policy Plan calls for:
• Planning and investing in multi-modal transportation choices based on the full
range of costs and benefits.
• Encouraging mixed-use development in centers along transportation corridors
that better links housing, jobs and amenities, and reduces the need for single-
destination trips.
• Making more efficient use of the regional transportation system by encouraging
flexible work hours, telecommuting, ridesharing and transit ridership.
• Focusing highway investments first on maintaining and managing the existing
system, and second on slowing congestion.
• Building transit ridership by expanding the current bus system and developing a
network of dedicated rail and/or bus "transitways."
• Encouraging local communities to implement a system of fully interconnected
arterial and local streets, pathways and bikeways.
Three scenarios for highways
The TPP 's highway plan — developed in close coordination with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation — focuses investments on maintaining and managing the
existing 657-mile highway system, removing bottlenecks and adding capacity where
possible.
How far and how fast the region can go in improving the highway system hinges on the
success of proposals to increase federal and state funding. Because of the political
uncertainties, the plan outlines three scenarios:
Constrained Plan Scenario: Based on current funding levels, this scenario
estimates about $283.5 million a year will be available. Of this total, $162 million would
be needed to maintain and manage the current highway system. Another $29.5 million
would be needed for other purposes, leaving just $92 million for expansion projects.
Based on current cost estimates, the region would be able to build by 2030 only those
expansion projects previously planned for construction by 2025.
Unconstrained Plan Scenario: This scenario illustrates the magnitude of highway
investments required to hold congestion on the metropolitan highway system at the same
level that existed in 1998. Its implementation would require about a 137 percent increase
in highway funding over the current levels, admittedly an unlikely prospect.
Constrained Plus 30% Plan Scenario: This scenario assumes a 30 percent
increase in highway funding over the Constrained Plan Scenario. Of the $368.5 million
in annual resources, nearly $200 million would be available for expansion projects. This
scenario would accelerate by 10 years the improvements planned by 2030 under the
Constrained Plan scenario. In addition, it would provide funds to expand the entire I-
494/694 beltway to six lanes, and expand and upgrade certain minor arterials.
Growing the transit system
The transit plan is intended to increase ridership by 50 percent, or 36 million riders per
year, by 2020 — with the goal of doubling ridership by 2030. The strategies for achieving
the 2020 target include:
• Adding new express bus routes, limited-stop routes, improved frequency and
longer hours of service, as well as additional passenger amenities such as transit
centers, bus stop shelters and park-and-ride lots.
• Funding enhancements such as bus-only shoulders, ramp meter bypasses and
signal priority that give buses travel-time advantages in mixed traffic.
• Providing additional fare incentives such as the Metropass now available through
employers and the U-Pass available to University of Minnesota students.
• Developing a network of dedicated "transitways" — including bus rapid transit,
light rail and/or commuter rail — with mode choices based on a careful cost-
benefit analysis. The region now has two such transitways in place or nearing
completion: bus rapid transit on 1-394 and LRT in the Hiawatha corridor. Five
additional transitways should be added between 2005 and 2020, with work done
to advance three more.
The cost of implementing the transit plan: $500 million in capital investments to grow the
bus system and $800 million to $1.4 billion to build the transitways, with an additional
$120 million a year for operating costs by 2020.
More resources are needed
While there are many demands competing for scarce public resource, existing revenue
streams simply will not be adequate to implement this plan and meet the region's
transportation needs.
Maintaining highway funding at current levels will result in significant increases in traffic
congestion, delaying the movement of people and goods, reducing the region's economic
competitiveness and harming our quality of life. Transit service improvements, which
could help ease the pressure on our highways, will not be possible at current funding
levels. Indeed, current funding levels will not be adequate to maintain transit service at
current levels.
Working with the Governor, the Legislature, the business community and other
stakeholders, the Metropolitan Council will actively pursue an adequate level of funding
to address the region's unmet transportation needs.
The Transportation Policy Plan also addresses issues dealing with aviation, freight,
bicycling and walking.
Submit comments for the record:
U.S. Mail:
Metropolitan Council
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 5101
Facsimile (fax): 651-602-1464
E-mail: data.center@metc.state.mn.us
Public Comment Line:
651-602-1500
TTY: 651-291-0904
Comments will be accepted until 5 p.m. Oct. 22, 2004
About the Metropolitan Council
The Metropolitan Council is a 17-member body appointed by the governor. It was
created by the Legislature in 1967 to ensure the coordinated, orderly and economical
development of the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area — consisting of Anoka,
Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties.
In addition to its planning functions, the Council operates a regional transit system that
carries about 150,000 passengers a day, provides wastewater collection and treatment
services for 103 communities, and oversees a regional parks system that attracts more
than 30 million visitors a year.
Table 4-9
Major Highway Projects Under Way or Included in 2005-2008 Transportation Improvement Program
Project Cost
Estimates
(000s)
Current
program
years
Assumed
year
open to
traffic
Project Description Status in
2001
TPP
Status and Other
Comments Highway and Bridge
I. TH 12 $60,000 2003 2006 Construct new limited access 2-lane
highway between Wayzata Blvd. to CR
6 in Orono. Parallel to existing TH 12.
In 2001-
2004 TIP
Contracts let
2. I-35E, from TH 13
to Shepard Rd.
$33,000 2002 2005 Replace and Expand Miss. River
Bridge. Project let.
Bridge in
2001-
2004 TIP
Contracts let
3. I-35W, HOV lane,
from 66th St. to 42" St.
$206,000 2006 2010 Reconstruct TH 62 and I-35W and add
the HOV lane. Stage 1 (1-494 to 60th
St.) contracts let 4/99
In 2001-
2004 TIP
Project redesign required by
legislature, to be let 2006
4.. TH 36, St. Croix
Bridge
$5,000 New 4-lane bridge and approaches.
Negotiation process underway.
Request for high priority funding has
been made
In 2001-
2004 TIP
$5M placeholder in '05-'08
TIP. Mediation process
underway.
MN cost estimates from
$150-$227 M
The cost recorded here is 1/2
of the average.
5. TH 55, Hiawatha
Av.
$129,000 2003 2004 Reconstruct the 4-lane arterial from
Crosstown to 1-94.
In 2001-
2004 TIP
Contracts let
6. TH 100, from
Glenwood Av. to
CSAH 152
$146,000 2003 2004 Construction underway to rebuild as 6
lane freeway.
In 2001-
2004 TIP
Contracts let
7. I-494/TH 61
interchange, TH 61/
local access
$250,000 2002 2009 Replace and widen 1-494 bridge,
reconstruct interchange, reconstruct TH
61. Provide local access. First contract
let
In 2001-
2004 TIP
Contracts let.
93
RESOLUTION 2004-96
APPROVING THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
2030 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN
City of Edina
WHEREAS, forecasts call for almost one million additional residents in the seven-county
metropolitan area by the year 2030;
WHEREAS, an effective and efficient transportation system, that includes both roads and
transit, is key to the successful growth and development of our region;
WHEREAS, congestion and mobility issues are already among the most pressing
challenges facing our region;
WHEREAS, a comprehensive and well-rounded plan for our regional transportation
system requires the input of numerous stakeholders, including local governments;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Edina supports the attached
comments prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and by Edina Staff in
regards to the draft 2030 Transportation Policy Plan and urges the Metropolitan Council to make
the requested changes to the draft plan before granting it final approval.
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
)SS
CITY OF EDINA
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby
certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City
Council at its Regular Meeting of October 19, 2004, and as recorded in the Minutes of
said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of ,20 .
City Clerk
City Hall
952-927-8861
4801 WEST 50TH STREET
FAX 952-826-0390
EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424-1394
www.cityofedina.com TTY 952-826-0379
CORRECTED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Community Room
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairperson Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni
Bennett, Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis, Bill Skallerud
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison
Approval of Minutes from June 24, 2004.
Bennett had significant amendments to the minutes. After the Commissioners reviewed
the amendments, Bennett moved that her corrections be made to the minutes. The
motion failed for lack of support.
A motion was made by Dovolis and seconded by White to accept the minutes as
submitted. Abstained — Skallerud. Opposed — Bennett.
II. Presentation and Review of Transportation Commission Policy (Revisions)
Lillehaug informed Commissioners that information on the Transportation Commission
is now on the website. He stated that all approved minutes and current agenda, along
with pertinent approved policies and applications will be listed.
a. Policy Revisions
Lillehaug went through the draft policy, highlighting areas where changes were made as
a result of Commissioners and staff recommendations. Lillehaug said a title page was
added to include contributors to the formulation of the policy. Other changes
recommended by Commissioners and staff is also reflected in the revisions.
Lillehaug noted that White recommended including calming measures on arterials in the
roadway design which he explained would be in opposition to what the policy is trying to
accomplish (getting the arterials to move traffic through and off residential streets).
White said her recommendation to include arterial roadways is a reflection of 50th &
France (an arterial) where stripping were added to allow traffic to flow more easily.
1
CORRECTED MINUTES
b. Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices/Measures
Lillehaug said some revisions were made to this section. He said Police, Fire and
Public Works would be reviewing the draft policy concurrently and giving their feedback.
Regarding speed enforcement, Lillehaug said it is often a misconception that stop signs
help to reduce speed and accidents. Stop signs are typically used to indicate drivers'
right-of-way at an intersection.
c. Appendix C — Application Request
A Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application was added for residents to use to
submit requests. This will be added to the website upon approval.
d. Appendix D — Petition-to-Study
The current Petition Application being used by the City will be used.
Handout — Examples of Traffic Calming in Minnesota
Lillehaug reviewed a 1999-01 report compiled by a consultant for the MN Local Road
Research Board and Mn/DOT. The report, Effective Traffic Calming Applications and
Implementation, is a listing of various traffic calming devices that were implemented in
various Minnesota cities and residents' reactions to the effectiveness of each
implementation.
Bennett noted that the examples in the report included traffic calming devices on minor
and major arterial streets. 12 of 34 examples listed were collector and arterial roadways.
Lillehaug said based on the report it is possible, however, they must approach this with
caution because traffic could move from arterial to residential roadways. Houle said it is
his understanding that the State does not typically allow traffic calming devices on State
Aid roads because they are collector roads and they will not fund maintenance of these
devices. 50th and France was pointed out as an example of a county road with traffic
calming implementation. Dovolis suggested creating a policy for arterial roadways so
that devices can be implemented where possible.
IV. Review/Discussion/Recommendations of Transportation Commission
Policy (continued from previous meeting)
White asked if the Commission is going to initiate or wait for residents to bring issues
forward. Richards said the Commission could begin working on studies as soon as they
adopt the policy, but the Council is expecting them to respond to the Task Force
findings regardless of neighborhood requests.
The procedure for residents to bring issues forward will start by residents submitting a
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application. The Petition-to-study process will
be conducted after the application has been submitted. After the policy is adopted,
Houle said staff will create a fact sheet listing the step-by-step procedure for residents
to follow.
2
CORRECTED MINUTES
Plante suggested adding language under the Vision of the policy to reflect the business
sector. Bennett submitted her re-wording of the Vision statement. Wanninger
suggested submitting all re-wording changes to staff and all staff to incorporate all the
changes into the policy.
Bennett said her name was listed incorrectly on the title page. It should be listed as
Joni Kelly Bennett.
Wanninger said he agrees with including arterial in the scope of the policy to the extent
that they can make the arterials safer but not to discourage traffic as stated in the
Roadway Design, item #4. The recommendation is to separate arterial from item #4.
Bennett said the Edina Transportation Plan of 1999 states that "traffic calming can be
appropriate on lower volume local and collector streets.. it should not be employed
solely as a means to discourage thru traffic in a neighborhood." She asked what is the
intent in terms of consistency. Houle stated that the intention is to update the
Transportation Plan with the ETC Plan.
White asked if implementation of traffic calming devices would result in cut-thru traffic
reduction in neighborhoods or at least an acceptable level (is this why arterial should be
separated?). Dovolis said they do not want to reduce/discourage traffic on arterial
roads, which is where the conflict is in item #4. White stated her concern is that speed
does not increase on arterial roads. Houle said in some cases an arterial should be at a
faster speed to avoid cut-thru traffic.
Instead of using "...supplements..." on page 2, under the heading City of Edina
Transportation Commission Policy, Bennett suggested using 'incorporates or adopts'
because the draft policy is restating what is already in the Edina Transportation Plan.
Bennett suggested rewording item #7 on page 2 to read as "Encourage beautification of
local corridors where appropriate, with amenities such as boulevard trees, decorative
street lighting and monuments."
Wanninger suggested expanding item #9 on page 3, to include a public relations
campaign that focus on individual responsibility to each other rather than individual
rights. Thorpe suggested creating an action plan that will outline how the Commission
will address the education issue and how/where people will get the information. Houle
said an Action Plan is listed on page 6 that outlines different ways in which the public
will be informed.
Bennett's suggestion of possible conflict between item #11 on page 3 and page 2 will be
deferred to the City Attorney. Bennett asked what was the definition of non-local traffic
in item #11, page 3. Houle said if not already listed under definitions, staff will have to
create one. Thorpe suggested there might be two categories of definitions: one for local
traffic and one for the regional system. Lillehaug said the policy is not for all streets as
a whole. Thorpe said this confirms the need for more than one definition.
3
CORRECTED MINUTES
Regarding item #12, page 3, Bennett asked if it's feasible to add "....by the Planning
Commission and residents,...." since questions or concerns may not always originate
with the Planning Commission. Wanninger asked if the Planning Commission usually
consider traffic issues in their planning. Skallerud said it is done on a case-by-case
basis. Plante asked if traffic impact was a big issue during planning of the 70th Street &
Metro project. Skallerud said the residents were more concerned about safety issues
and less about traffic. Bennett asked if there's a way to create a procedure for public
comment on issues that may have been overlooked. Houle suggested having a
workshop with Council to get their feedback on some of these issues before the policy is
adopted.
The review and discussion of the draft policy ended at page 3.
V. Other Governmental Activities
White reported there will be a public comment period for the 35W/Crosstown expansion
through August 19th; Street Car Memories by the Edina Historical Society on August 7th,
10-1 p.m.; and a special segment by KSTP called Street Speeders where they targeted
motorists on Cedar Lake Rd and Shady Oak Rd driving over the speed limit.
Residents in attendance commented as follow:
Kristy Anderson, regarding Bennett's changes to the minutes, Ms. Anderson stated that
inaccuracies in the minutes are not a negative reflection on the person taking the
minutes. She said failure of the Commissioners to be willing to adopt changes to create
accurate minutes reflect poorly on the Commissioners.
Jennifer Janovy stated she is concerned that the Commissioner is plagiarizing by using
documents and photos without giving credit to the original author.
Rob Webb, 4516 Drexel, thanked the Commissioners for taking their time to work on the
transportation issues.
Richards stated that White had suggested inviting a member of the 494 Commission to
update the Commissioners on their activities and he recommended doing this after
they've had a chance to review the draft policy in its entirety.
Richards asked if the draft policy should be circulated to the city departments now or
later. Houle suggested circulating it before the Commissioners get to the traffic calming
devices so that they can give some input on them.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Next meeting is scheduled for August 26. 2004, 6:00-
8:00 p.m. in the Community Room, City Hall.
4
MINUTES OF THE
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Community Room
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairperson Fred Richards, Marie Thorpe, Jean White, Warren Plante, Joni
Bennett, Les Wanninger, Dean Dovolis, Bill Skallerud
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Warren Plante, Dean Dovolis
STAFF PRESENT:
Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison
Chairperson Richards called the meeting to order. He announced the resignation of
William Skallerud from the Commission. He noted that letters were received from
residents Julia Silvis, dated Sept. 23rd, and Rob Webb. Keith Wolf, a resident in
attendance also presented a letter dated Sept. 23rd.
Approve Minutes from August 26, 2004
The first sentence of the minutes should have read 'Corrections' instead of
'Amendments.'
The following is a correction to the July 22nd minutes: page 3, para. 3 - add 's' to
arterial.
The following are corrections to August 26' minutes:
Page 2, last para. the sentence beginning with "Bennett said..." delete "local" and insert
"collector."
Page 3, item b., Traffic Calming Devices — the four departments that reviewed the
Traffic Management Devices/Measures report gave negative feedback on a number of
the devices. For a detail list please see the report. Item b, last sentence should read
"...for future use and deleting devices with all negative reviews from the list of devices.
Para. 4 — should read "...everyone listed was consulted..."
A motion was made by Wanninger to approve the minutes with the corrections as stated
above. Seconded by Bennett.
1
Transportation Commission Policy (September 2004 DRAFT) — Consideration for
Approval and Recommendation to the City Council
Lillehaug noted the following changes to the draft policy:
"Collector and arterial" were added to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
although some procedures within the policy may not be applicable to those streets.
Staff is recommending that the petition-to-study be circulated to the benefited areas to
first determine if residents are willing to be assessed. If they are not in favor of the
assessment there would be no need to move forward. If in favor, the survey-to-test
would then be distributed to the impacted area, which would also serve as the
notification area. The benefited (assessed) area would be approximately one block,
while the impacted area would be significantly larger. Notifications would be done via
the website, the Edina Sun as well as the US mail. Bennett said the Edina Sun is not
reliable because of 'spotty' delivery in some areas. Bennett said she recalled from a
previous meeting there was a consensus to keep the impacted area broad. She recalls
language changes which states as follow "If significant diversion to other residential
streets or limitations of access from other residential areas in Edina are reasonably
expected, those area's residents are included in the study area or impacted area." She
stated that Appendix A-2 would have a corresponding definition and recalls the deletion
of the last sentence under the definition of Impacted Area. After discussion, the
consensus is to keep the impacted area defined as is.
In response to Bennett's opinion on impacted area, which differs from the rest of the
Commissioners, Tim Rudnicki addressed the Commission. He thanked and
commended the Commissioners for volunteering. He stated that several months ago he
questioned the process being used (a lack of public input) because the Commission
does not speak for everyone and hope there will be some changes before the policy
goes to Council for approval.
Lillehaug concluded his presentation by explaining that before final implementation
there would be surveys, open houses and public meetings with the Commission.
Wanninger stated that he supports the process being used by the Commission and see
it as a starting point so they have a framework with which to work. He stated further
that there would always be controversies regardless of the process being used.
DRAFT Review:
The following are final omissions, additions or other changes that Commissioners made
to the draft policy:
Wanninger
Page 7: Review volume and speed criteria — why is it included? Lillehaug indicated
that this criteria has been presented to the Commission as part of the Transportation
Plan overview and that the Commission my want to review this again.
Page 11, para. 4: After discussion, the consensus is to delete the 3rd sentence.
Page 12, para 1: After discussion, the consensus is to delete the last two sentences.
2
Appendix A-5, first line, top of the page: After discussion, the consensus is to delete the
word "yet."
Thorpe
Page 9, para 1: Thorpe does not believe "collector and arterial" should be in the
Neighborhood Traffic Plan, instead it should be mentioned elsewhere. Lillehaug said it
would be hard to apply the policy to those streets and typically other cities do not
mention them in their neighborhood traffic plan because they do not add traffic calming
measures to collector and arterial streets. Richards said they couldn't exclude collector
and arterials because residents on or near those streets will need help also. Bennett
suggested that a title change is probably what's needed so as not to exclude them.
Houle said from staffs perspective, they can list more specifically what would be
applicable to local streets vs. collector/arterials. He said residents living on collector
and arterial streets often ask for calming measures and/or stop signs because they do
not understand the function of their street. Bennett said the Met Council does not
mention collector and arterials together, and in fact, collector streets seem to function
more as a local street. Thorpe asked what is the process for collector and arterial
streets. Houle responded by stating that the process will be determined based on the
issues, it may not necessarily follow the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan.
Richards said this is where they deal with substantive issues and the rule may be
different based on the particular need. Wanninger suggested adding a sentence or
paragraph so that residents on collector and arterial streets will know where they fit in
the plan.
The consensus is to leave "collector and arterial" under the Neighborhood Traffic Plan
and add an explanatory paragraph.
White
Page 4, item #12: Lillehaug said a process is not yet developed. Houle said
communications with the Planning Commission is to be facilitated through the liaison
that serves on both Commissions.
Bennett
Page 1, para 3: add `and' after "where appropriate;"
Page 2, para 1: should be "supplement" rather than "incorporate." Para. 2: it is not clear
if the Edina Plan is being adopted or incorporated.
Page 4, item 12: concerned that issues may arise where there could be a fresh look and
solutions proposed but the Commission will not get a chance to weigh-in.
Page 5, Pedestrian/Bicycle, item 1: "...including necessary storage facilities (eg.,
bicycle racks and bicycle lockers)..."
Page 6, item 2: "Support research..."
Page 8, Long Term, 5th bulleted sentence: "to" does not seem to be the right connector.
Page 9: If the title is the problem, instead of Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
suggested Edina Traffic Management Plan. Add 'Feasibility of solutions' to list of
factors.
Page 12: continues to be concerned with the benefited and impacted areas and it is still
her recollection that they added limitation of access language to para. 2. Para 3:
'...study areas residents...' rather than "study's area" and change "with" to `concerning
or regarding.' Language will need to be developed defining who will be notified. Para 4:
3
Plan Development, "...the City's Fire, Police, Public Works and Engineering
Departments..." 3rd item in the bulleted list: add 'Determination of and delete "Define
the"
Pace 13, para. 1: add 'ecf' to impact. Petition-to-study and survey-to-test should be
reworded. Item 6, Project Evaluation, reword as "...project, including residential streets
or neighborhoods affected by diversion of traffic onto or through them and/or limitation
of access." The consensus of the Commission is to leave the wording as is. Item 7
Survey: add 'ed' to impact.
Page 17: Renumber; would prefer to keep the function category headings of traffic
calming measures.
Page 18, Benefited Area, last sentence: add a comma between "...areas, but..."
Benefited Area, first bulleted sentence: "...300 feet, between device and/or..."
Concerned that Diagonal Road Closure is included because it has four negative reviews
and would prefer to see it eliminated.
Volume control measures: concerned about this more so than speed. In the past
opposition have come from both inside and outside the neighborhoods.
Definitions: if there will be a photo inventory of traffic calming devices and measures,
the recommendation is to decrease the volume of the document and the length of the
list of definitions by defining traffic calming devices and measures where they are
depicted and not include them in the list of definitions. This would cut down on the
amount of information the public would have to review. Houle stated he would prefer to
give more information than less.
Richards is concerned that the belief is that the 'buck stops' with the Commission as the
final decision-making body. He stated that the Council is the final decision-making body
and while some people believe they should have had input into the development of the
policy, the final decisions rest with the Council. He stated further that when the public
gets a chance to review the policy, they may not agree with it and Council's decision
may favor the opinion of the general public.
Regarding survey-to-test and petition-to-study, Bennett asked if a specific number was
established. Richards said they did not so that Council could make the final decision.
Bennett asked how would they know the level of support. Richards said the will of the
people would determine the level of support. The consensus is to eliminate the 50%
majority.
Bennett asked what will the Commission do after getting the prioritized requests from
staff. Richards said this is for the Commission to decide. He said the policy is a guide
to deal with substantive issues but they will have to decide which area should be
worked on first and they currently have six areas that were identified by the Task Force.
Bennett asked how will they chose the projects to work on. Richards said some may be
chosen based on staffs recommendation or the Commission's selection. Bennett
asked what procedure will be developed for residents to voice their concerns on the
selection process without the petition at the different steps of the process. Wanninger
said the petition-to-study process will still be used, but they will not define the criteria by
which they will be selecting areas to work on. Houle recommended deleting the first
sentence in para. 4, page 12 and joining the 2' sentence with the 3rd para. Bennett
said she understood the concept and likes the idea of direct access to Council but is
4
Houle asked if the document is still a draft? Richards said it is the Commission's
approved draft po
Residents VAtteiidanc
Ti udng-q-b— Mr.
proc and he's dis
developing their policy.
aid that the Council stated that it wants a more open
ointed that the Commission chose not to include the public in
concerned that the Commission's plan is very different from that of other cities.
Wanninger said there is some virtue in going the path that others have not gone.
Page 17, line item #1, Lillehaug asked the Commission to discuss the "70% to remove."
Bennett is concerned that residents who did not support the device's installation are
being asked to pay for its removal. Richards said once the device is in place, it should
be made a little more difficult for one person to request the removal. Richards said he is
not comfortable with the 70%. Wanninger recommended leaving it out and suggested
that the Commission could make recommendations to the Council about removal. He
said an argument could be made for the Council footing the bill for removal if they
approved an installation when only 20% of the residents were in favor. Houle said any
assessment is always brut
Richards said Mr. Rudni ki and Mr. Webb raised questions regarding public comments
and asked the Commission if they believe the policy should be adopted and then
forwarded to Council for approval or, do they hold public hearings first. Thorpe's
recommendation is to do one more revision and formally adopt the policy. Richards'
recommendation is to send the policy to Council and hold public hearings before
Council adopts it. White's recommendation is to make changes, do a workshop with
Council to get feedback from them and then public hearings. Richards said the same
process that is used for Ordinances could be used — first reading followed by comment
period and then adopt. Wanninger suggested adding a paragraph that states the
Commission's philosophy so that the public will realize that the Commission is not
leaving them out of the process. Richards suggested erring on the side of more
participation, broadly defined areas, etc. The consensus was to schedule a workshop
or joint meeting with the Council, at their convenience, as soon as possible, so that
public hearings can be scheduled. Bennett said she would have preferred public
participation earlier in the process.
In response to the letters received from residents, Richards said the discussions by the
Commission have addressed the issues raised.
Meeting adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for October 28, 2004, 6:00 — 8:00
p.m., in the Community Room.
5
Dear Traffic Commission:
As an Edina resident who has been following your progress as a commission, I thank you
for all of your hard work on the Traffic Policy. It is much needed, and the community
appreciates it. As one of your constituents, I would appreciate it if I could offer some
input. I wanted to recommend that you include in the Policy a clearer prioritization of the
neighborhood/ community, and some quantitative guidelines. Additionally, it may be
helpful to include some recognition of the data that documents the inverse relationship
between traffic volumes in a neighborhood and the sense of community. I believe these
modifications will make the Commission's focus on neighborhoods explicitly clear, and
will make the Policy much easier to implement in practice.
As you know, the Commission won't be the only readers of this document. A broad set of
residents will read this document for guidance on how to think about and approach traffic
issues that may affect them as a home owner or driver. It'd be helpful if the document
gave them some priorities, some quantitative guidelines, and an idea of why this is such
an important subject.
After reading several traffic policies from other cities, I've noticed that most of them
clearly articulate that the neighborhood will be prioritized over the automobiles/ drivers. I
believe inclusion of such a statement in the Edina Policy will help guide decision-
making. Otherwise, I believe the Commission risks getting into a vicious cycle that Edina
neighborhoods have lived through before. The logic goes like this: the drivers are
benefiting by cutting through a neighborhood at the expense of the neighborhood's
quality of life, then changes are evaluated that would benefit neighborhood's quality of
life at the driver's expense in reduced mobility. Clearly, no party wants to move from the
"benefiter" role to the "at the expense of' role. Unless some priority is determined there
is a struggle between the two constituencies that is difficult, if not impossible, to resolve
without contention. Worse, without an articulated priority, the Commission risks getting
pulled into a no-win process of trying to please everyone. As a side note, I know several
commissioners don't live on cut-through affected streets, if you ever want to see first-
hand the impact on quality of life/sense of community you're welcome at my house for a
beer or drink of choice anytime.
Directly tied to the subject of priorities is the idea of an "Impact Zone" that gets to vote
on a neighborhood's traffic calming process that extends materially beyond the
neighborhood's borders. This has the potential to fan the flames of the vicious cycle in
that it, by definition, it has drivers voting on a neighborhood's traffic pattern. This term,
especially in the absence of other priorities, may lead uninvolved readers to question the
commitment to the neighborhoods. This may be something worth further evaluation.
Also, I realize that there are quantitative guidelines in other Edina City Policies that
define desired residential volumes to be less than 1,000 vehicles per day. I believe it is
worth repeating in the Traffic Policy so that your constituents, the average resident that
hasn't benefited from a year on a traffic commission, can have some quantitative
guidelines for the magnitude of a neighborhood's problem without having to reference
multiple documents. Otherwise, residents are placed in the awkward position of trying to
define a problem in qualitative terms/ perception versus hard, quantitative figures.
Last, or maybe first, it would be helpful if the policy had a bit of a softer side in that it
explicitly recognizes the erosion of the sense of community in neighborhoods adversely
affected by high traffic volumes. Tom Samuels, of the IL DOT said it well when he said
the following about Chicago's efforts to keep traffic out of neighborhoods, "The city is
concentrating on livability by preventing the inappropriate use of residential streets like
cut-through and speeding traffic. There's an inverse correlation between the amount of
cars on a street, and the social interaction between neighbors. Traffic calming comes with
the understanding that arterials carry the burden of the city, the arterial system should not,
and will not, be compromised." There is also a lot of good data in the book "Livable
Streets" by Donald Appleyard that also provides objective data to support this fact.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input, and thank you again for your time and
effort on this important process.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Rob Webb
4516 Drexel Avenue
Edina
Julia Silvis
4246 Grimes Ave S
Edina MN 55416
Transportation Commission
4801 West 50th Street
Edina MN 55424
September 23, 2004
Dear Transportation Commissioners,
I had the privilege to attend your last meeting as a member of the public and write
to offer a few comments on the meeting. My name is Julia Silvis and my family moved
to Edina's Morningside neighborhood in 1984, when I was 4, and has been there ever
since. I attended Edina Schools, graduating in 1998 and went to college at Harvard
University. I have been living at home for the past year, but this fall, I will start graduate
school in transportation planning at the University of California-Davis. So, while I have
yet to acquire expertise in transportation, I certainly have a keen interest in the subject
and thank you in advance for the opportunity to share a few thoughts.
Listening to your discussion of definitions, I was struck by how there seemed to
be another, unspoken and much more specific discussion occurring. The definition that
seemed to demand the most time was that of 'cut-through traffic.' I objected to Marie
Thorpe's proposal that it be defined as "any traffic that has no business being in a
neighborhood." This definition is too flimsy and subjective for any policy crafted around
it to have meaning. It is telling that you are even struggling to define a concept of 'cut-
through traffic;' that in itself makes a statement that certain kinds of traffic are better than
others, rather than just seeing all traffic as citizens trying to get from point A to point 13 in
the most convenient way. The city would get into muddy water were it try to determine
the morality of the traffic, an inherently amoral phenomenon. If a definition along these
lines must be proposed, I would suggest that more might be accomplished taking a
positive stance than a negative one. Rather than seeking to minimize 'illegitimate'
traffic, the city could seek to improve efficiency of legitimate traffic.
The other statement that forcefully struck me was Chairman Richards' assertion
(in response to a query about public input) that the Transportation Committee is the
public. I am sure that all seven of you are fine upstanding people, but you are not the
public, and cannot claim to represent them. You were appointed, not elected, and are not
held accountable to constituents. Furthermore, I have found it exceedingly difficult to
keep abreast of what your activities are. Your minutes are not online, I could not find
any press releases relating to the Commissions current agenda, and the meetings are
barely publicized. Before the Council passes its approval on any document or plan, it
should be open to public comment and debate. This would allow the plan to be the best,
most useful guide possible, less in need of future corrections. To propose that you write a
plan, have the Council approve it, and then have people comment (object, most likely) is
counterproductive and exclusionary.
Finally, I found it ironic that Keith Wolf, a resident of the Country Club
neighborhood, spoke of preserving 'livability' after a detailed conversation about
definitions. "Livability" is a highly flexible term, one that everyone can agree should be
part of a transportation policy, without actually agreeing on the goals of that policy. For
me, livability means access: I want to be able to drive directly and efficiently from my
home to my destination, whether downtown Minneapolis, Southdale, or City Hall.
Livability also means choice; when I go to the grocery store, I want to be able to choose
between walking, busing, biking or driving.
In the discussion of definitions, and underlying Mr. Wolf's comments, I heard
voiced that the city should inhibit traffic, even to the point of blocking roads. I believe
the euphemism used was "traffic calming." Obviously there are differences in traffic
patterns between residential, collector and artery streets, but if 'traffic calming' is to be
used to enforce those differences, it would be more productive if it targeted the speed,
rather than the volume of traffic. The city should never put itself in the position of saying
to some of its residents "You can't drive by those houses to get home, but be sure to
wave to their owners as they pass your house on their way home."
I realize that the tools at the disposal of the city are somewhat limited by the fact
that Edina is not as large as Minneapolis. But transportation is simultaneously a local and
a regional issue, and the keys to an efficient, safe and effective transportation plan lies in
careful consideration of the issues, which can only occur in an open public debate.
In closing, I respectfully suggest that the Transportation Commission:
• include as many opportunities for public disclosure and debate as possible. This
should happen before the Commission sends its recommendation to the City
Council. Please put the Commission's draft documents and meeting minutes
online.
• serve the needs of the entire city rather than those of one (vocal) neighborhood
above all others.
I'd appreciate being updated on the Commission's activities and actions. To that end, my
e-mail address is below.
Thank you.
Sincerely
t)ite-Zi9L S9 /17/
Julia Silvis
jsilvis@ucdavis.edu
cc: City Council do Debra Mangen [copy delivered to City Hall]
Gordon Hughes [copy delivered to City Hall]
vSteven Lillehaug [copy delivered to City Hall]
Sharon Allison [copy delivered to City Hall]
September 23, 2004
I would like to provide some input with respect to an issue being discussed by the Edina
Traffic Commission.
During the August meeting, there was some discussion and attempt by the Commission to
define terms including "benefit area" and "impact area". It appeared that the attempt to
differentiate these two "areas" was premised upon the following:
• Decision makers with respect to proposed traffic calming measures in a
designated area, or simply who should be empowered to "weigh in" on proposed
traffic calming measures. "Weighing in" may be as formalized as a democratic
vote or simply an opportunity to be invited and express oneself at a public hearing
(i.e. notification area).
• If there is going to be a direct assessment, which area (or group of residents)
should be directly "assessed" for the cost of any traffic calming measures that are
implemented.
Although these terms (benefit area and impact area) were not defined, it appeared that the
purpose is to differentiate a group of residents that may "weigh in" on the proposed
changes, but not necessarily be subject to a financial assessment. Structuring the process
in this manner is an arbitrary class distinction, or simply not democratic.
In a democracy, there would be no difference. In other words, IF the costs of any traffic
calming measures are going to be directly assessed (which appears likely) to a specified
group of taxpayers, ONLY that specified group of taxpayers should be allowed to "weigh
in" on the decision. All "empowered decision makers" should be either assessed OR not
assessed. One group (or the other group) should not be able to "weigh in" without
financial responsibility.
In opposition to this argument, one could suggest .that one group of residents may
benefit while the other group may be adversely affected by the proposed traffic calming
measure. However, the converse is also true inaction may have an adverse affect
on the opposite group. Therefore, ALL decision makers "weighing in" on the issue
should be held financially liable, or NONE-AT-ALL.
I am not opposed to being assessed for traffic calming measures, but I am opposed to
having others "weigh in" and possibly affect the outcome of the decision, without being
subjected to the same financial responsibility.
Thanks for all of your efforts,
Keith Wolf
4600 Wooddale Ave.
Edina Transportation Commission Schedule
10/15/2004
(October 2004 - February 2005)
October 2004 November 2004 December 2004
S 0T IF SSS TWTFSSMIWTFSSM WT F SSMT WT F SSMT WI F S SM WT F S SM TWTFSSM WTF SSMTWTF
24 25 26 27 28 29 ao 31 2 3 4 5 0 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17161920212223242526272520301 2 4 6 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31
TAS
K
I 1
F -ETC Recommendation of DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy (Ten for Public Comment and to Council Oct. 28 2004
1 1 I I
t -ETC DRAFT Trans•ortation Commission Polic -DRA - • • • II,
1111 Pl."—
•-Joint Council/Transportation Commission Meeting -- ew DRAFT Transportation Commission Po icy (Nov. 16, 2004)
1[1111 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 1 11 . xxxxxxxxxxxx ir=. -..--
(Oct. 28 to Dec. 2, 2004)
r c.j.
n
c
„ A
•
I
,,,
6- - Transportation Commission/Public
-
- DRAFT Transportation
.
Commission Poll (Nov. 18,2004) -Open House
„ 1— 5r-- 1111111 11111 11111111 1111111 \--.1-*----
ETC Consideration of Public Comments and Review/Comment/Revise Transportation Mil---) / i ,I•itq1/4.
Commission Policy / Recommend Final Draft to Council for Approval (Dec. 23, 2004)
...Er
I I 1 I 1
Janua 2005 February 2005
SSM WTFSSMTWTFSSM
27
FSS 1.4 WTFSSMTWIFSSM
24 1 2 3 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23
WTFSSMTWTFSS
024 25 26 26 29 3 31 2 3 4
M WTFSSKITWT
10 5 6 7 6 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 25 28 27 20
I
TA
S
K
I 1
-Council Consideration of Approv Final Transportaton Commission Policy (Jan. 4 2005
111111PNI
I
-Review 2002-2003 Local Traffic Task Force Recommendations
,
, •
-Northeast Edina Scheduled Reconstruction between 44th and 50th?- Summer 2005
I I I
1)C MI I , . . -Neighborhood Traffic Management
Ap ons Due Feb. 14, 2005
fl
-Review 2005 Neighborhood Traffic Management Applications
. Regular CC Meeting
Regular ETC Meeting
c kQ cU-Ltg
ScuAkcjGAt — tic .‘) 4 71- a IA
Schedule-ETC Policy Adoption.xls
To: Transportation Commissioners
From: Steven Lillehaug, P.E.
Traffic Engineer
Subject: Transportation Commission
Policy, October 2004 DRAFT
x
Regular Transportation
Commission Meeting
Date: October 28, 2004
Agenda Item No. III
Recommendation/Motion
Information
Discussion
Info/Background:
The following documents are being provided to you as indicated:
• Transportation Commission Policy October 2004 DRAFT (BOLD and Strike-out
format including up-to-date Commission revisions)
• Transportation Commission Policy October 2004 DRAFT (Corrected Final
DRAFT format)
Staff recommends the Transportation Commission approve the Transportation
Commission Policy October 2004 DRAFT for Public Comment from October 28, 2004
to December 2, 2004.
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
October 2004
(DRAFT)
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
DRAFT - October 2004
Contributors:
Transportation Commission
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
Marie Thorpe
Les Wanninger
Jean White
Steven L. Lillehaug, RE., Traffic Engineer/Assistant Engineer
Wayne D. Houle, RE., Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Edina Engineering
City of Edina Transportation Policy i DRAFT - October 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Sheet
Table of Contents ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
Vision 1
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK 2
Introduction 2
City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy 2
III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 7
Transportation Commission Policy Adoption 7
Action Plan 7
Sources of Funding 8
Plan Acceptance Requirements 8
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
Introduction 9
Process and Schedule 10
Criteria for Screening 14
Scoring for Ranking 15
Removal of Traffic Calming Measures 16
Traffic Management Devices — City of Edina Approved Options 17
Benefited Area (Assessed Area) 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Definitions
Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices / Measures
Appendix C — Application Request for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
Appendix D — Acknowledgments and References
City of Edina Transportation Policy ii DRAFT - October 2004
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Sustaining, improving and operating a sound street and transportation system are integral
parts of the long-term vision of the City. Congestion on the regional roadway system and
the failure of that system to accommodate the continued growth in traffic volumes has
created and exacerbated traffic volumes, speed and congestion on local streets. These
conditions adversely affect the quality of life of the City's residents and the activities of
the businesses located in the City.
The Edina City Council in December 2003 established the Transportation Commission to
address these issues and to work to improve the local transportation system, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20.
PURPOSE
The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to advise the Council on
matters relating to the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic volumes,
congestion, and functional classification, but not maintenance activities, of the City; to
review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the City; to
evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and
to recommend their implementation where appropriate; and to review the findings of the
Local Traffic Task Force (2002-2003) and offer recommendations for implementation.
VISION
Edina will maintain a transportation system that will accommodate the efficient
movement of people and goods throughout the City while fostering safe and livable
neighborhoods and business areas connected by aesthetically beautiful, pedestrian and
bicycle friendly streets and pathways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 1 DRAFT - October 2004
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION
The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed as a supplement to the City
of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999). The purpose of this policy is to guide the
ETC in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation issues in the
community and the prioritization of projects and improvements to the transportation
system. The policy is created to encourage public input and decisions that will be made
on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors.
CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
The City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy implements the purposes and
objectives of the ETC as provided in Section 1225 of the City Code (Transportation
Commission). The Policy also incorporates the amended policies of the Transportation
Plan as follows:
Roadway Design
1. Design roadway facilities constructed in conjunction with new developments
according to the intended function.
2. Upgrade existing roadways when warranted by demonstrated volume, safety or
functional needs, taking into consideration environmental limitations.
3. Emphasize improvements to management, maintenance and utilization of the
existing street and highway system.
4. Design residential street systems to discourage through traffic and to be compatible
with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking, including
traffic calming measures on local streets and, in some cases, collector streets.
5. Design collector and arterial roadway corridors to be compatible with other
transportation modes including transit, bicycle and pedestrian.
6. Use adequate transitions and buffers including but not limited to earth berms, walls,
landscaping and distance to mitigate the undesirable impact of high volume
roadways.
7. Promote use of sound mitigating features (noise walls) and aesthetic barriers along
residential development adjacent to high volume roadways, and, where economically
feasible, make property owners and land developers responsible for noise attenuation
at new developments near high volume roadways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 2 DRAFT - October 2004
8. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities such
as boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments.
Roadway Function and Access
1. Review and update regional and local functional street classification and coordinate
with adjacent cities and Hennepin County. Establish subcategory classifications and
criteria for local streets if warranted. Revise local roadway classifications when
warranted.
2. Provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway
system and local activity centers.
3. Adequately control access points to the regional roadway system (including minor
arterials) in terms of driveway openings and side street intersections.
4. Provide access to the local street system (including collector and local streets) in a
manner that balances the need to safely and efficiently operate the street system with
the need for access to land.
5. Encourage intra-area trips on minor arterials rather than the principal arterial system,
and promote serving regional trips on the metropolitan highway system.
6. Separate, to the extent possible, conflicting uses on the public street system in order
to minimize safety problems. Give special attention to pedestrian and bicycle routes.
7. Provide access to redeveloping sites using current functional classification and
standards rather than the existing access at the sites.
eview and monitor citywide traffic volumes, congestion, existing traffic calming
s„accident history, vehicle violation history, speed limits and enforcement
annually.
,/
9. Educate public on vehicle operations including public relations campaigns that focus
on individual responsibilities to each other rather than individual rights.
10. Review and recommend traffic calming policies and consider traffic calming
implementation where requested by residents.
11. Implement measures to reduce non-local, cut-through traffic in cooperation with
County and State efforts by developing a local traffic calming policy to mitigate the
effects of cut-through traffic. Identify the origin and destination of cut-through
traffic.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 3 DRAFT - October 2004
12. When requested by the Planning Commission, review landuse that may impact traffic
implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and
activity that impact the City of Edina.
Roadway Maintenance and Operation
Cooperate with other agencies having jurisdiction over streets and highways in Edina
to assure good roadway conditions and operating efficiency.
2. Continue the implementation of the 1-494 frontage road system and Integrated
Corridor Traffic Management system through ongoing coordination with Mn/DOT,
Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington.
3. Maintain roads by repairing weather-related and other damage.
4. Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice
removal.
5. Replace substandard bridges and bridges that present safety or traffic problems, and
include bicycle and pedestrian features.
Transit/TDM
1. Participate in the 1-494 Commission to encourage all forms of travel demand
management in order to reduce vehicle miles of travel, reduce petroleum
consumption, and improve air quality.
2. Review all major new developments in light of the potential for ridesharing including
bus accessibility, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, and mixed-use
development.
3. Support HOV bypasses and other preferential treatments for transit and high
occupancy vehicles on streets and highways.
4. Include transit planning in the construction or upgrading of streets and highways.
5. Pursue development of a demonstration project to provide a circulator system within
the Greater Southdale Area.
6. Encourage the legislature to increase funding for efficient mass transit. Review and
recommend policies requiring a mass transit component with all types of
development.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 4 DRAFT - October 2004
Parking
I. Review new developments for adequacy of parking based upon need, the potential for
joint use of parking facilities and opportunities to encourage ridesharing.
2. Continue to limit on-street parking in and near congested commercial areas.
3. Find location of an additional Park and Ride facility located in close proximity to
major mass transit routes.
4. Work with appropriate commissions such as Planning and Zoning to review City
Code, Section 850.08 Parking and Circulation to identify parking based upon needs.
5. Evaluate present parking facilities found in Edina. Where appropriate, amend Section
850 to give commuter parking some spaces in City-owned ramps.
Pedestrian/Bicycle
1. Provide accessibility to pedestrians and bicycles at major activity centers, including
necessary storage facilities (e.g. bicycle racks and bicycle lockers) near visible points
of entry, wide sidewalks where there is no boulevard or sidewalks with boulevards.
Appropriate signage should be present at these facilities.
2. Create pedestrian and bicycle interconnections among major generators, with
continuity across major roadways and other barriers. Include painted striping on
roadways and paths designated as bicycle riding areas.
3. Provide sidewalks and safe crossing in high pedestrian danger areas, including high-
traffic streets, commercial areas, park and school areas, areas with transit access, and
in high-density residential locations.
4. Provide adequate signage along all bike paths including areas of conflict with
pedestrians and automobile traffic.
5. Review and recommend construction of pedestrian and bike paths throughout Edina
cooperatively with the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County.
6. Promote safe walking, bicycling and driving. Promote vehicle driver respect for
bicycles and pedestrians along with bicycles and pedestrian observance of signs and
designated paths.
y yelist
,Y3
City of Edina Transportation Policy 5
DRAFT - October 2004
Goods Movement
1. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to
the metropolitan highway system.
Funding and Jurisdiction
1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community finding sources for improvements
that provide regional or multi-community benefit. Support public funding for transit.
2. Support research efforts into more efficient and cost-effective management,
maintenance and replacement of street surfaces.
3. Support governmental jurisdiction over roadways that reflect the role of the roadway
in the overall transportation system.
4. Develop and support legislation permitting a transportation utility.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 6 DRAFT - October 2004
III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This section provides the steps necessary to implement the transportation policies and
discusses a general strategy for carrying out the policies.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY ADOPTION
By adopting the Transportation Commission Policy, the City Council establishes the
guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities are made in Edina. It
should be revised as necessary to respond to changing conditions and needs, both locally
and regionally.
The policy should be circulated widely so the residents and the business community are
aware of the opportunities and limitations that the policy provides, thus enabling all
interested parties to voice their concerns and issues with full knowledge.
ACTION PLAN
Short Term (Immediate):
• Review and approve Transportation Commission Policy:
o Review and identify problems and causes of Edina traffic issues
(determine what's fact versus perception).
o Review volume and speed criteria.
o Present Draft Policy to Council.
o Open public comment period.
o Recommend to Council for approval.
• Review Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations as it reflects the
adoptive policies and procedures. Rank the six identified traffic "issue areas" and
review and recommend action for them as Neighborhood Traffic Management
Projects to the City Council.
• Review and approve a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP).
• Publicize transportation issues to be studied by ETC.
• Establish a means for public communication for transportation issues:
o City of Edina Web site
o About Town
o Public Access Station 16
o Edina Sun Newspaper
o Local Schools
• Create a citizen's guide to transportation issues
City of Edina Transportation Policy 7 DRAFT - October 2004
Long Term (Continually):
• Review and recommend Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans.
• Review and update local roadway functional classification.
• Hold yearly public open house for transportation issues.
• Review and update Transportation Commission Policy yearly.
• Review and make recommendations for collector and arterial roadway planned
improvements.
SOURCES OF FUNDING
The following sources of funding are explained in more detail in the Transportation Plan.
Existing Sources of Revenue:
• Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds
• Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ)
• State Aid
• Special Assessments
• Livable Communities Grants
• Ad Valorem Taxes
• Tax Increment Financing
Potential Sources of Revenue:
• Impact Fees
• Road Access Charge
• Transportation Utility
PLAN ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS
Educate residents about the possibility that they may be asked to fund the installation and
maintenance of NTMP Projects through additional taxes and/or special assessments.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 DRAFT - October 2004
IV.NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) include local, collector and arterial
street studies and neighborhood area studies. These studies would be conducted by the
City Engineering Department.
The NTMP studies are intended to respond to speeding and excessive cut-through traffic
on streets in a residential neighborhood and on multiple streets in one or more
neighborhoods yet are intended to be sensitive to areas where there may be a potential for
diversion of this traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods. These plans
are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider problems, such
as congestion or lack of capacity on the arterial system. Possible solutions may include
revisions to the local street to slow traffic or to completely or partially divert traffic off
the street. While solutions will be considered for collector and arterial streets, only a
limited number of management devices will be allowed due to state design standards and
funding requirements (see Appendix B).
NTMP studies are developed primarily through the City Engineering Department, with
the involvement of the Transportation Commission and other City Departments. They are
scheduled based on available resources and given priority by factors that include, but are
not limited to, the following:
• Previous efforts, requests and studies in the area
• Intensity and extent of the problems
• Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses
• Availability of data
• Regional improvement projects scheduled or planned
• Feasibility of solutions
City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 DRAFT - October 2004
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
This section details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plans (See Table 1).
Table 1. Nei hborhood Traffic Management Plan Schedule
Step
_
Item
_
Period (Typical)
- General Traffic Management Information Open House Late September
Step 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Applications Due 2nd Monday in
February
Step 2 Initial Screening, Scoring and Ranking of Applications
Before data collection
March/April/May
Step 3 • Petition-to-study prepared and circulated by City Staff
• Presentation to ETC for recommendation and to
Council for approval to order plan development
May/June
Step 4 Plan Development
• Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works
and Engineering, Transit and School (transportation)
agencies
• Public Open House
• Survey-to-test circulated and evaluated by City staff
• Trial Project Plan prepared
June
Step 5a Presentation to ETC for recommendation June
Step 5b • Council approval of trial projects
• Schedule temporary installations, removals and after
data collection (minimum period of 2 weeks after
installation)
July
Step 5c • Temporary installations July/August
Step 6 • After data collection (trial projects)
• Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works,
Transit, and School (transportation) agencies
• Prepare evaluation summaries
September
Step 7a Mail Surveys October
Step 7b • Summarize returned surveys
• Open House
November
Step 8a Recommendations to ETC, Public comment December
Step 8b Recommendations to Council, Improvement Hearing,
Preliminary Assessment Hearing, Order Project
January
Step 9a Survey and Design February / March
Step 9b Final approval of plans by Council, Set bid schedule April
Step 9c Letting, Assessment Hearing May
Step 9d Construction June / July
Step 10 After data collection July / August
Step 11 Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 yrs
City of Edina Transportation Policy 10
DRAFT - October 2004
STEPS:
1. Study Request (Application)
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) studies can be requested by individual
citizens or by neighborhood organizations. Requests to consider a NTMP study must be
in writing and are due by 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday in February of each year. See
Appendix C for application request.
2. Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking
City staff gathers and reviews preliminary data about the traffic request including volume,
speed and accident information and applies the criteria for screening and ranking to
prioritize for trial and evaluation of a NTMP. The Engineering Department ranks the
studies based on score (methodology outlined under "Scoring for Ranking") and
schedules order of trial studies for ETC review. The number of trial studies depends on
equipment and personnel availability. Some trial studies may be deferred if not feasible
due to conflicting construction, development in the area, county or state restrictions or
other concerns.
Requests are also reviewed by the Engineering Department for other possible solutions. If
the preliminary review shows that an immediate hazard to the public exists, the City may
choose to address the problem separately from the NTMP.
Studies are ranked citywide, based on the point score from Step 2. The highest-ranking
study is undertaken first. The number of studies initiated each year depends on City
resources.
The City notifies all study requestors of the status of their request after Step 2. The City
also notifies the ETC of the status of all ranked studies and asks for comments.
Once in the process, a study is considered in the annual priority ranking step for up to 3
years. If, after 3 years, a study has not received a high enough priority to proceed, it is no
longer eligible for consideration. This time limitation ensures that the study request has
not become obsolete because of changing traffic conditions and/or new residents in the
area.
The study requestor is notified when the 3-year limit expires. Then, a new request may be
made to re-enter the study in the program. Step 1 is then repeated to obtain current
information.
3. Petition-to-Study
If a study is ranked high enough to proceed, a petition-to-study must be circulated within
a defined study area.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 11 DRAFT - October 2004
City staff establishes the petition-to-study area (benefited area), based on information
obtained in the preliminary review. This area is generally defined as those households and
businesses fronting on the affected segments of the study area. In the case of a single
intersection problem, the minimum area is approximately one block in all directions. If
significant diversions to other residential streets are reasonably expected, those streets'
residents are included in the study area (impacted area).
The purpose of the petition-to-study is to determine the level of agreement among the
study area's residents regarding the problem they want to address. City staff prepares the
petition, describing the problem and the procedures to be followed if a study is
undertaken. The City then circulates the petition. Each household is entitled to one
signature. Property owners not living in the study area are not included in the petition-to-
study process.
The applications and petitions-to-study are presented to the ETC and the City Council.
The City Council must order the plan development for the study to move forward to step
4.
4. Plan Development
Based on direction from the Council, the NTME-studyjnoves forward. The NTMP is
reviewed by the City's Fire, Police, Public-Works andy Engineering Departments, and by
transportation agencies including transit'and schools
The ETC then holds a public meeting kr the neigrhi5od and general public to inform
residents of the proposed project, to desci theTTMP process, and to gather additional
information about the traffic problems and related neighborhood needs.
Plan development consists of the following steps:
• Assessment of problems and needs
• Identification of project goals and objectives
• Determination of the benefited area and impacted area
• Identification of evaluation criteria
• Establishment of threshold criteria (on project-by-project basis)
• Development of alternative plans/solutions
The first two steps are accomplished through public meetings, neighborhood association
meetings, and ETC meetings. Additionally, City staff prepares a survey-to-test describing
the proposed project and calling for a temporary test installation. Staff then circulates the
survey-to-test within the defined area (impacted area).
The survey-to-test area includes all properties located on the project street and on
adjacent local residential streets within an area approximately 1 block from the project
street. The ETC or the City may expand the survey-to-test area beyond these minimum
requirements, if desired. Each household and business is entitled to one survey.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 DRAFT - October 2004
The survey is evaluated and City staff members prepare a trial installation plan. The City
proposes solutions based on the citizen responses and sound engineering principles.
Possible criteria, solutions and their impacts are evaluated by the ETC, City staff and
other affected agencies.
5. Test Installation
The NTMP is presented to the ETC and the City Council. If recommended by the ETC
and approved by Council, the test will be installed for between 3 and 12 months. If the
City Traffic Engineer finds that an unforeseen hazard is created by the test, the test
installation may be revised or removed.
6. Project Evaluation
Following the test period, the City evaluates how well the test has performed in terms of
the previously defined problems and objectives. The evaluation includes the subject street
and streets affected by the project, and is based on before-and-after speeds and volumes,
impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation criteria
determined during step 4. If, in the evaluation, desired improvements in quality of life are
not met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the traffic plan may be modified and
additional testing conducted.
The final test results are reviewed with the ETC, area residents, and relevant City staff,
and the information is distributed during the survey stage.
The City will not forward a project to the next step if the test results show it may be
unsafe or it violates NTMP policy or other City policies or regulations.
7. Survey
To forward the project to the stage where permanent implementation is approved (step 8),
a survey from households, businesses and non-resident property owners within a defined
survey area (impacted area) is obtained through a mail survey administered by the City.
The ETC then holds an open house for the neighborhood to update residents of the
proposed project.
8. City Council Action
Based on the project evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility
report and recommendations for the ETC and City Council. The report outlines the
process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the
recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and
preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the ETC before
final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll
are adopted, the project is ordered.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 DRAFT - October 2004
If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted, the plans and
specifications will not be ordered and the project is terminated. The project is dropped
from the list and the neighborhood is not able to reapply for five years.
9. Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction
Final design and construction are administered by the City and are generally completed
within 12 months after final action by the City Council. City staff prepares and
recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota
Statute Chapter 429
10. Monitoring
The City monitors constructed traffic management devices and gathers post data,
including volume, speed and accident information.
11. Follow-up Evaluation
Within 3 to 5 years after construction of an NTMP project, the City conducts a follow-up
evaluation to determine if the project's goals and objectives continue to be met. This
evaluation may entail traffic studies of volumes, speeds and accidents, as well as public
opinion surveys.
CRITERIA FOR SCREENING
1. Roadway Classifications
• Eligible: All Edina streets under the Public Works Department jurisdiction.
• Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State, or
Federal Highways.
2. Minimum Distance of the traffic calming device from the following (all must
apply for eligibility):
• Traffic Signals (except neckdowns) 300
• Stop Signs (except neckdowns) 300 ft.
• Other Traffic Calming Devices 300 ft.
• Driveway/Alleys 20 ft.
• Horizontal or Vertical Curves affecting sight lines 200 ft.
• Railroad Crossing 300
• Dead End 400 ft.
3. Access:
• No dead-end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right-of-
way roadway.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 DRAFT - October 2004
4. Not-Critical Emergency Route:
• To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief.
All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration.
SCORING FOR RANKING
1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points):
• None + 100
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 0
2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited
area (0 to 200 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side + 100
• All of 2 sides + 200
3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 100
4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available
data (0 to 200 points):
• 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points
5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points):
• 50 points maximum
• (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 un. ft. = 0 points
• 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 50 points)
6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points):
• ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points
• For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street
City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 DRAFT - October 2004
7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points):
• Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80%
over limit)
• For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher
speeds
Scoring based on benefited area
Correctable crashes determined by Engineering Department
REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
The City of Edina's Traffic Calming Program is intended to avoid the costly installation
and later costly removal of traffic calming devices. On occasion, it may be determined to
be desirable to remove a traffic calming device.
If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City
expense. If the removal is at the neighborhood's request, the removal will be charged to
the property owners (previously defined benefited area). The following procedure will be
used for neighborhood initiated removals:
1. Petition requesting removal is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer.
2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously on the
device, is mailed to each property owner in the benefited area.
3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the
ETC.
4. ETC forwards a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation is for removal,
improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled for Council.
5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule.
6. Letting, final assessment and construction.
7. New traffic calming devices will not be considered for five years in benefited area of
removed device.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 DRAFT - October 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS
This sections lists traffic management devices and methods that are approved for use in
the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item.
Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures:
• Speed Hump
• Speed Table
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Textured Pavements
• Center Island Narrowings
• Gateway Treatments
• Neckdowns
• Choker
• Chicane
• Realigned Intersections
• Traffic Circle
• Roundabout
Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures:
• Diagonal Road Closure
• Partial Street Closure
• Cul-de-sac
• Median Barriers
• Forced Turn Islands
Education and Enforcement:
• Targeted Police Enforcement
• Radar Speed Display Units
. Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns
Regulatory Measures:
• Stop Sign
• Turn Restrictions
* One Way Streets
• Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green")
• Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse)
City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 DRAFT - October 2004
BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA)
This section generally defines the benefited area of the traffic management devices for
use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical benefited
areas, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project by project basis.
Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured
Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments,
Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle:
• Benefited area extends 300 feet between the device and the street affected by the
device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less.
Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout:
• Benefited area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection.
Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median
Barrier:
• Benefited area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection
partially closed, realigned or restricted.
Cul-De-Sac:
• Benefited area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg
that is closed.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 18 DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A — DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX B — TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES / MEASURES
APPENDIX C — APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
PLAN
APPENDIX D - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
Definitions
Benefited Area — The properties expected to receive the majority of the positive impacts
from the proposed traffic calming. (Assessed Area)
Center Island Narrowings — An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to
segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median slowpoints, median chokers, central
islands.)
Chicane — Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight
line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing
curves, twists.)
Choker — Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly
adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock
narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.)
Circulator Service — A means provided within a major activity center, (such as a
regional business concentration, a metro center or community) for movement from place
to place within the center; such a system may be entirely pedestrian or may use transit.
Collector Street — Roadways that are designated to "collect" traffic from neighborhood
streets and get that traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets are described in the City of
Edina Comprehensive Plan.
Corridor Studies — Typically, highway corridor studies focus on a segment of a
particular travel corridor or travel shed. Land use, access issues, capacity, level of
service, geometries and safety concerns are studied; alternatives analyzed; and
recommendations made. Corridor studies are usually prepared with the participation and
cooperation of the affected communities and governmental agencies. Recommendations
for improvements are often incorporated into the local comprehensive plans of the
participating cities and continue to be used by implementing agencies as improvements in
the corridor are made.
Cul-de-sac — Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a
circular turn-around area.
Cut-through Traffic — Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid
congestion or other problem from an arterial or other high level street.
Diagonal Road Closures — A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection,
interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This type of barrier may be used to create
a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-1 DRAFT - October 2004
Feasibility Report — A report analyzing the recommended type of construction, the
estimated construction cost, estimated engineering cost and the estimated assessment.
Forced Turn Islands — Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning
movements. (Forced turn barriers, diverters.)
Gateway Treatment — Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or
other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood identity.
Guide Signs — A sign that shows route designations, destinations, directions, distances,
services, points of interest, or other geographical, recreational, or cultural information.
Impact area - Area for a project that is defined as those residences along local residential
streets that are positively or negatively impacted by excessive through traffic volumes and
speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic calming.
Inconvenience caused by limitation of access is not considered to be a negative impact
under this definition.
Infrastructure — Fixed facilities, such as roadways or railroad tracks; permanent
structures.
Level of Service (as related to highways) — The different operating conditions that
occur on a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. It is a
qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed and travel time,
interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, and indirectly, safety
and operating costs. It is expressed as levels of service "A" through "F." Level "A" is a
condition of free traffic flow where there is little or no restriction in speed or
maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. Level "F" is forced-flow operation
at low speed with many stoppages, the highway acting as a storage area.
Local Street — A roadway that connects blocks within neighborhoods.
Local Traffic — Traffic that originates from or is destined to a location within a
neighborhood or area.
Major Street — The street normally carrying the higher volume of vehicular traffic (vs.
Minor Street).
Median Barriers — Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to
segregate traffic.
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) — The portion of the metropolitan area
identified in the Regional Blueprint where development and redevelopment is to occur
and in which urban facilities and services are to be provided. The purpose of the MUSA
is to define the areas within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area that are eligible for "urban
services", specifically sewers, municipal water systems and particular types of
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-2 DRAFT - October 2004
transportation systems. This boundary line is defined and maintained by the Metropolitan
Council to assist in the orderly development of the metropolitan area. All of Edina is
within the MUSA area.
"A" Minor Arterials — Roadways within the metropolitan area that are more regionally
significant than others. These roadways are classified into the following groups:
a) Relievers — Minor arterials that provide direct relief for traffic on major
metropolitan highways. These roads include the closest routes parallel to the
principal arterials within the core, urban reserve and urban staging areas.
These roadways are proposed to accommodate medium-length trips (less than
eight miles) as well as to provide relief to congested principal arterials.
Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic.
b) Expanders — Routes that provide a way to make connections between
developing areas outside the interstate ring or beltway. These routes are
located circumferentially beyond the area reasonably served by the beltway.
These roadways are proposed to serve medium to long suburb-to-suburb trips.
Improvements focus on preserving or obtaining right-of-way.
c) Connectors — This subgroup of "A" minor arterials are those roads that would
provide good, safe connections among town centers in the urban reserve, urban
staging and rural areas within and near the seven counties. Improvements
focus on safety and load-carrying capacity.
d) Augmenters — The fourth group of "A" minor arterials are those roads that
augment principal arterials within the interstate ring or beltway. The principal
arterial network in this area is in place. However, the network of principal
arterials serving the area is not in all cases sufficient relative to the density of
development that the network serves. In these situations, these key minor
arterials serve many long-range trips. Improvements focus on providing
additional capacity for through traffic.
Minor Street — The street normally carrying the lower volume of vehicular traffic (vs.
Major Street).
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route — A designated City roadway that receives state
funds as allocated from the State gas tax for maintenance and construction.
Approximately 20 percent of the City roadways are designated as MSA routes. State of
Minnesota rules and standards, in addition to local jurisdiction guidelines, apply to these
roadways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-3 DRAFT - October 2004
Neckdowns — Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane
narrowing but used at intersection(s). Widening of street corners at intersections to
discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help define
neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe
crosses.)
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) — Formalized process where
residents, commissioners and City staff evaluate the various requirements, benefits and
tradeoffs of traffic calming projects within neighborhoods. The overall objectives for the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan are to improve neighborhood livability by
mitigating the impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods; to promote safe
and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents on
neighborhood streets; to encourage citizen involvement and effort in neighborhood traffic
management activities; to make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing traffic
management requests; and to support the Comprehensive Plan policy that livability and
safety of established residential neighborhoods be protected in transportation operations.
Non-Local Traffic — Traffic that does not originate from or is not destined to a location
within a neighborhood or area.
Off-Peak Period — Time of day outside the peak period (see peak period).
Partial Street Closure — Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way
street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One way", and traffic from the blocked lane is
not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.)
Peak Hour — The hour during the peak period when travel demand is highest. Typically,
peak hours are found to be from 7 to 8 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Peak Period — Typically, the time between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 and 6
p.m. on a weekday, when traffic is usually heavy.
Person Trip — A one-way journey between two points by one person in a vehicle.
Photo-radar Speed Enforcement — An automated camera system used to enforce speed
limits. It includes the camera, an attached radar "gun" and a display that shows the speed
of each passing vehicle. When a speeding vehicle is detected, the photo radar system
takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. The registered owner of the vehicle then
receives a ticket in the mail. This enforcement method is not legal in Minnesota.
Photo-Red Light Enforcement — Implementation of a photo red light, an automated
camera and computer system can be mounted on a traffic signal pole at an intersection for
red light enforcement. Photo red light takes pictures of any vehicles that run a red light,
records the time elapsed since the light turned red and the vehicle entered the intersection,
and issues a ticket. The photo red light systems are typically installed at key intersections
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-4 DRAFT - October 2004
that have a high number of accidents. This enforcement method is not legal in
Minnesota.
Platoon — A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either
voluntarily or involuntarily because of traffic signal controls, geometries, or other factors.
Principal Arterials — The high capacity highways that make up the metropolitan
highway system, including all interstate freeways.
Radar Speed Display Units — Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists
with an instant message, displayed on a reader board, telling them how fast they are
driving.
Raised Crosswalk — A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at
mid-block locations. (Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions.)
Raised Intersection — A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4"
above the surrounding street. (Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.)
Realigned Intersections — Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote
better through movements for a major roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified
intersections.)
Regional Blueprint — The Metropolitan Council plan that sets a general direction for
future development patterns in the metropolitan area and establishes guidelines for
making decisions about major regional facilities that are needed to support the
commercial, industrial and residential development of the area. It establishes urban and
rural areas and certain development policies for different geographic policy areas.
Regulatory Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of traffic laws or regulations.
Right-of-Way (Assignment) — The permitting of vehicles and/or pedestrians to proceed
in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles or pedestrians by the display of sign or
signal indications.
Roadway striping — Highlighting various areas of the road to increase the driver's
awareness of certain conditions (e.g., edge of road striping to create a narrowing/slowing
effect while defining space for cyclists).
Roundabout — Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers
travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modem roundabouts are "yield
upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the
circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an
intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-5 DRAFT - October 2004
Signal Preemption — Usually referred to in this plan as a technology that triggers the
green go-ahead on meters or signal lights to allow emergency vehicles (and sometimes
transit vehicles) to move more quickly through signalized intersections.
Speed— Speed is defined based on the following classifications:
a) Advisory Speed — A recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a
section of highway and based on the highway design, operating
characteristics, and conditions.
b) Design Speed — A selected speed used to determine the various geometric
design features of a roadway.
c) 85th-Percentile Speed — The speed at or below which 85 percent of the
motorized vehicles travel.
d) Posted Speed — The speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed
Limit signs.
e) Statutory Speed — A speed limit established by legislative action that
typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional,
jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown
on Speed Limit signs.
Speed Hump —Wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump
determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or
damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases. Typically
speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps, undulations.)
Speed Limit — The maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway or
roadway as established by law.
Speed Table — Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to speed humps.
(Trapezoidal humps, speed platforms.)
Speed Zone — A section of highway with a speed limit that is established by law but
which may be different from a legislatively specified statutory speed limit.
Street Closure — Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards, or barriers, etc.
Targeted Police Enforcement — Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by
police due to observed, frequent law disobedience.
Textured Pavements — A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick
crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a change in the driving environment.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-6 DRAFT - October 2004
Traffic Calming — A combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-
motorized street users. Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation
of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut-through volumes
in the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes. Traffic calming
measures are intended to be self-enforcing. Traffic calming measures rely on the laws of
physics rather than human psychology to slow down traffic.
Traffic Circle — Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections,
requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they
traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.)
Traffic Signal Control Systems — The degree of traffic management of an arterial is
grouped and defined as follows:
a) Fixed Time — The traffic signals on an arterial are controlled locally through a
time clock system. In general, the progression of a through band (the amount
of green time available along an arterial at a given speed) along the arterial in
the peak direction is determined by past experience and is not a function of
immediate traffic demand.
b) Semi-actuated — The traffic signals along the arterial are designed to
maximize the green time on the major route in the major direction. Timing and
through band are based upon historical records. Use of green time on the
minor leg dependent upon real-time demand and maximized based upon total
intersection delay.
c) Interconnection — A traffic signal system in which data collected at individual
signals is shared with a central processor or controller. Adjustments in traffic
signal control can be made based upon incoming data as opposed to historical
data.
d) Optimization — The process in which a traffic signal or system is modified to
maximize the amount of vehicles passing through the intersection for all
approaches or on the major road in the peak direction.
e) Real-time Adaptive Control — An advanced traffic control system that
incorporates current technologies in communications, data analysis, and traffic
monitoring to provide real-time traffic control of arterials, corridors or roadway
networks.
Transportation Comprehensive Plan — Assists the City in making correct
transportation-related decisions today by anticipating the character, magnitude and timing
of future transportation demand.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-7 DRAFT - October 2004
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — Programs and methods to reduce
effective demand. In the broadest sense, any activity or facility that reduces vehicle trips
would fall within this classification. The highest priority in the region is given to
reducing single-occupant vehicle trips in the peak periods. Techniques that might be
utilized are carpooling, vanpooling, transit, alternative work hours, transportation
management organizations, and land development or ordinances that discourage vehicle
trips and encourage walk, bike, rideshare and transit trips.
Transportation Policy Plan - This document is one chapter of the Metropolitan
Development Guide, as provided for in Minnesota Stat. 473, Sections 145 and 146.
Section 145 states: "The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt...a comprehensive
development guide for the metropolitan area."
Vehicle Trip — A one-way journey made by an auto, truck or bus to convey people or
goods.
Volume-to-capacity Ratio (v/c) — The hourly number of vehicles expected to use a
roadway in the busiest hour, divided by the number of moving vehicles the roadway can
safely accommodate in an hour.
Warning Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of a situation that might not be
readily apparent.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-8 DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
(Not in priority order)
PAGE
NO.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
DEVICE/MEASURE
SPEED
REDUCTION
TRAFFIC
REDUCTION
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
AIR/NOISE
POLLUTION COST
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
TEST VS.
PERMANENT OTHER
B-4 Speed Hump Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-5 Speed Table Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-6 Raised Crosswalk Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-7 Raised Intersection Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium
to High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation Only
Possible Drainage
Problem
B-8 Textured Pavement Possible No Effect No Change Minimal Effect Low to
Medium
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation Only
Increased
Maintenance
B-9 Center Island
Narrowings
Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-10 Neckdowns Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium
to High
Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-11 Gateway Treatment Possible Possible No Change Small Decrease Medium
to High
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation Only
Increased
Maintenance
B-12 Choker Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-13 Chicane Probable Possible Slight Increase Slight Increase Medium
to High
Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-14 Realigned Intersection Varies Varies Small Decrease Small Decrease High Varies Permanent
Installation Only
Cit dinaTransportation Policy B-1
DRAFT - October 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
(Not in priority order)
PAGE
NO.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
DEVICE/MEASURE
SPEED
REDUCTION
TRAFFIC
REDUCTION
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
AIR/NOISE
POLLUTION COST
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
TEST VS.
PERMANENT OTHER
B-15 Traffic Circle Possible Possible Slight Increase Small Increase Medium Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-16 Roundabout Probable Possible No Effect Slight Increase Medium
to High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation Only
Increased
Maintenance
B-17 Diagonal Road
Closures
Probable Probable Small Increase Small Increase Low to
Medium
Varies Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-18 Partial Street Closure Possible Probable Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-19 Cul-de-sac Probable Yes Small Increase Small Increase High Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-20 Median Barriers Small Possiblity Possible No Effect No Effect Varies Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
B-21 Forced Turn Islands Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low to
Medium
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-22 Targeted Police
Enforcement
Depends on
Amount
Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary
B-23 Radar Speed Units Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-24 Neighborhood Traffic
Safety Campaigns
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-25 Stop Sign Varies (may
increase)
Varies Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Temporary or
Permanent
City of EdinaTransportation Policy B-2
DRAFT - October 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGM ENT DEVICES/MEASURES
(Not in priority order)
PAGE
NO.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
DEVICE/MEASURE
SPEED
REDUCTION
TRAFFIC
REDUCTION
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
AIR/NOISE
POLLUTION COST
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
TEST VS.
PERMANENT OTHER
B-26 Turn Restrictions Varies Yes -Small Increase No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-27 One-Way Streets No Possible Small Decrease Small Decrease Low Varies Temporary or
Permanent
B-28 Traffic Signal
("Rest on Red" and
"Rest on Green")
Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-29 Pavement Striping Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent
Installation Only
Cit linaTransportation Policy
DRAFT October 2004
Description:
• Rounded raised areas of pavement typically 12 to 14
feet in length.
• Often placed in a series (typically spaced 300 to 600
feet apart).
• Sometimes called road humps or undulations.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement, not at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with neckdowns.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 12 to 14 feet in length; other lengths (10,
22, and 30 feet).
• Speed hump shapes include parabolic, circular, and
sinusoidal.
• Hump heights range between 3 and 4 inches with
trend toward 3 - 3 1/2 inches maximum.
• Difficult to construct precisely; may need to specify a
construction tolerance (e.g. ± 1/8 inch) on height.
• Often have signage (advance warning sign before
first hump in series and warning sign or object
marker at hump).
• Typically have pavement markings (zigzag, shark's
tooth, chevron, zebra).
• Taper edge near curb to allow gap for drainage.
• Some have speed advisories.
• Bicyclists prefer that it not cover or cross a bike lane.
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Does not impact parking.
• Works well with curb extensions.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• Tend to reduce air quality and increase
energy consumption.
• May increase speeds between humps.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some horizontal/vertical
curves.
• Requires signage that may be considered
unsightly.
Definition: Speed humps are wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how
fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as
speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps,
undulations.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
_ Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-4 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Typically does not impact parking.
• Typically preferred by fire department over
speed hump.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• May increase speeds between tables.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Description:
• Long raised speed humps with a flat section in the
middle and ramps on the ends; sometimes
constructed with brick or other textured materials on
the flat section.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a
passenger car to rest on top.
• Midblock placement or at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with neckdowns.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot
ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the
middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet).
• Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as
high as 6 inches).
• Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long)
and are either parabolic or linear.
Definition: Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to regular speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps,
speed platforms.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-5
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Speed Table with flat area to accommodate
pedestrian traffic.
Applications:
• Local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement or at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Works well in combination with curb extensions and
curb radius reductions.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot
ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the
middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet) reported in
U.S. practice.
• Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as
high as 6 inches).
• Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long)
and are either parabolic or linear.
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• Effective pedestrian amenity.
• May be designed to be aesthetically
pleasing.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Increases pedestrian visibility and
likelihood that driver yields to pedestrian.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Definition: A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid-block locations. (Raised crossings,
sidewalk extensions.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial
Streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-6
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with
ramps on all approaches and often with brick or other
textured materials on the flat section and ramps.
Applications:
• Local streets.
• Allowed on collector and arterial streets at all-way
stop controlled intersection only.
• Works well with curb extensions and textured
crosswalks.
• Often part of an area wide traffic calming scheme
involving both intersecting streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Storm drainage modifications may be necessary.
• Typically rise to sidewalk level.
• May require bollards to define edge of roadway
• Installations typically have gentle 1:40 slopes on
ramps.
• Not typically used in densely developed urban areas
where loss of parking would be unacceptable.
Advantages:
• Reduction in through movement speeds at
intersection.
• No effect on access.
• Makes entire intersections more
pedestrian-friendly.
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
Disadvantages:
• May slow emergency vehicles to
approximately 15 miles per hour.
• May impact drainage.
Raised Intersection
Definition: A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4 inches above the surrounding street.
(Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium to
High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Possible
Drainage
Problem
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-7
DRAFT - October 2004
Textured Paveme
Definition: A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a
change in the driving environment.
Description:
• An area within in the roadway set off from the typical
pavement (e.g. bituminous and concrete) by using
cobble stones, stamped concrete, etc.
Applications:
• Used as community enhancement and/or as a
gateway treatment.
• Works well with raised crosswalk and intersection
applications.
Design/Installation Issues:
• In some cases, not preferred by bicyclists due to
rough surface.
Advantages:
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
• May be used to define pedestrian crossing.
• May reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
• Increased Maintenance.
• May increase noise.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Change Minimal
Effect
Low to
Medium
Minimal
Impact
Permanent
Installation
Only
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-8
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Raised islands located along the centerline of a
street that narrow the travel lanes at that location.
Applications:
• Are often nicely landscaped to provide visual amenity
and neighborhood identity.
• Can help pedestrianize streets by providing a mid-
point refuge for pedestrians crossings.
• Sometimes used on wide streets to narrow travel
lanes.
• Works well when combined with crosswalks.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Bicyclists prefer not to have the travel way narrowed
into path of motor vehicles.
• Islands need to be wide enough to allow signs to
mark them.
• Driving lanes in each direction should be 12 feet plus
gutter width.
• Driveways, alleys, and snowplow operations should
be considered.
• Should not be used where on-street parking needs
are extensive.
Advantages:
• Reduces pedestrian crossing width.
• Provides a refuge for pedestrians and
cyclists.
• Provides barrier between lanes of traffic.
• May produce a limited reduction in vehicle
speeds.
• May visually enhance the street through
landscaping.
• May prevent passing of turning vehicles.
• Preferred by fire department/emergency
response agencies to most other traffic
calming measures.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• May reduce parking and driveway access.
• May reduce separation for bicycles and
pedestrians.
• May limit visibility of pedestrian crossings.
• May reduce driver sightlines if over-
landscaped.
• Increased maintenance.
Center Island Narrowings
Definition: An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median
slowpoints, median chokers, central islands.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-9
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Realignment of curb, reducing street width at
intersections.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Should not be used in locations where turn lanes or
through lanes would be lost.
• County typically does not allow neckdowns directly
adjacent to county roads.
• Can be used in multiple applications or on a single
segment of roadway.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Must result in a minimum intersection opening and
radii to accommodate turning movements.
• Drainage issues may be significant.
• Vertical delineators or object markers are often used
to make visible to snowplow operators.
Advantages:
• May be aesthetically pleasing if
landscaped.
• Reduces pedestrian crossing distance.
• May reduce speeds and traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
• May improve sight lines.
Disadvantages:
• Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to
accommodate them.
• Landscaping may cause sight line
problems.
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• May impact drainage.
• May impact bicycle accommodations.
• May impact parking.
• May require signage that may be
considered unsightly.
Definition: Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane narrowing but used at intersection(s).
Widening of street corners at intersections to discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help
define neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe crosses.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium to
High
Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-10 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Positive indication of a change in
environment from arterial/collector
roadways to residential street.
• May reduce entry speed.
• Helps give neighborhood a sense of
identity.
• Allows neighborhood creativity and
participation in design.
Disadvantages:
• Increased maintenance.
• Determination and agreement of
maintenance responsibility.
Gateway Treatment
Definition: Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate
a sense of neighborhood identity.
Description:
• Monument or landscaping used to denote an
entrance into a neighborhood.
Applications:
• Used at entrances to residential neighborhoods
typically adjacent to collector or arterial roadways.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Determination and agreement for responsibility of
maintenance.
• Drainage issues may be significant.
• Must maintain proper intersection sight lines.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible No Change Small
Decrease
Medium to
High
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation
Only
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-11
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Curb extensions at midblock that narrow a street by
widening the boulevard or sidewalk area.
Applications:
• Works well with pedestrian crossings.
• Works well with speed humps, speed tables, raised
intersections, textured pavement, and raised median
islands.
• Some applications use an island, which allows
drainage and bicyclists to continue between the
choker and the original curb line.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Bicyclists prefer not to have the travelway narrowed
into the path of motor vehicles.
• Typically designed to narrow road to 22 feet for two-
way traffic with 1:10 tapers at the ends.
• Adequate drainage is a key consideration.
• Provides opportunity for landscaping.
• Vertical delineators, bollards or object markers are
often used to make visible to snowplow operators.
• Effective when used in a series.
• Avoid narrowings of two way traffic to single lanes.
• Avoid use in locations where at the crest of a hill and
on some curves.
• Parking must be restricted at the choker.
P.ur
hi MEI
Advantages:
• Reduces pedestrian crossing width and
increases visibility of pedestrian.
• May reduce speed and traffic volume
• Self-enforcing.
• Preferred by many fire department/
emergency response agencies to most
other traffic calming measures.
Disadvantages:
• May impact parking and driveway access.
• Unfriendly to bicyclists unless designed to
accommodate them.
• May impact drainage.
Definition: Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street
parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
May Impact
Drainage
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-12
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• A series of narrowings or curb extensions that
alternate from one side of the street to the other
forming S-shaped curves.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Appropriate for midblock locations only.
• Most effective with equivalent volumes on both
approaches.
• Typically, is a series of at least three curb extensions.
• Can use on-street parking to create chicane.
• Very effective method of changing the initial
impression of the street. If designed correctly,
drivers will not be able to see through. Appears as a
road closure yet allows through movement.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Unless well designed, chicanes may still permit
speeding by drivers cutting straight paths across the
center line.
• Recommend shifts in alignment of at least one lane
width, deflection angles of at least 45 degrees, and
center islands to prevent drivers from taking a
straight "racing line" through the feature.
Advantages:
• Provides opportunity for landscaping.
• Pedestrians have reduced crossing
distance.
• Imposes minimal inconveniences to local
traffic.
• Accepted by public as speed control
device.
• May reduce speed and traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
• Emergency response typically prefer two-
lane chicanes to speed humps.
Disadvantages:
• Can impact parking and driveway access.
• Street sweeping may need to be done
manually.
• May impact drainage.
• Typically, not appropriate for intersections.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
• May cause problems during winter.
• Increased maintenance.
• May create head-on conflicts on narrow
streets.
Definition: Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of
offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Slight
Increase
Slight
Increase
Medium to
High
Minimal
Impact
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-13 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Revised street geometrics of an existing intersection
that typically improves and decreases the traffic
delay for the main through movement (vs. the less
important road).
Applications:
• Typically used to correct and provide a non-stop
condition for the legs of an existing intersection with
the larger traffic volume.
• Used to help define driver's right-of-way.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Drainage may be an issue.
• May require mitigation signage due to substandard
curvature of roadway.
Advantages:
• Provides a more fluent through movement
for the major roadway.
• Improves driver expectation by providing a
more typical intersection.
• May better define driver's right-of-way.
• May reduce traffic volume.
Disadvantages:
• May impact parking and driveway access.
• May impact drainage.
• May be perceived as an inconvenience by
some neighbors.
• May require additional right-of-way
acquisition.
Proposed Sidewalk
Realigned Intersection
Definition: Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote better through movements for a major
roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified intersections.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies Varies Small
Decrease
Small
Decrease
High Varies Permanent
Installation
Only
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-14
DRAFT - October 2004
Definition: Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them,
potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.)
Description:
• Raised islands, placed in intersections, around which
traffic circulates (this is not a roundabout).
• Motorists yield to motorists already in the intersection.
• Require drivers to slow to a speed that allows them to
comfortably maneuver around them.
Applications:
• Intersections of local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• One lane each direction entering intersection.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically circular in shape, though not always.
• Often controlled by YIELD signs on all approaches, but
many different signage approaches are used.
• Key design features are the offset distance (distance
between projection of street curb and center island),
lane width for circling the circle, the circle diameter,
height of mountable outer ring for large vehicles such
as school buses and trash trucks, and potential for
pedestrian path-vehicle path conflicts.
• Usually landscaped in center islands. Quality of
landscaping and its maintenance are key issues.
• Landscaping needs to be designed to allow adequate
sight distance.
• Not typically used at intersections with high volume of
large trucks and buses turning left.
Advantages:
• No effect on access.
• May reduce speed and traffic volumes.
• Effective in reducing intersection collisions.
• Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• Can result in bicycle/auto conflicts at
intersections because of narrowed travel
lane.
• May require parking restrictions at
intersection.
• Left turns may be confusing.
• Care must be taken to avoid routing
vehicles through unmarked crosswalks on
side-street approach.
• Increased maintenance.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Slight
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-15
DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Reduces speed at intersection approach
• Longer speed reduction influence zone.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Effective in reducing intersection collisions.
• Self-enforcing.
• Provides space for landscaping.
• Provides a good environment for bicycles.
• Provides equal access to intersections for
all drivers.
• Cheaper to maintain than a traffic signal.
Disadvantages:
• Requires a larger amount of right-of-way
than a typical intersection.
• May require additional lighting and signing.
• Initial safety issues as drivers adjust.
• Increased maintenance responsibilities.
Truck
Apron
One-way
operation at 15-
20 mph Yield at
Entry
Circular Roadway
Splitter Island
Definition: Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise
direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are "yield upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of
way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an
intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.)
Description:
• Circular intersections with specific design and traffic
control features including yield control of all entering
traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate
geometric curvature to ensure travel speeds within
the roundabout are less than 30 mph.
Applications:
• Intersections of local, collector and arterial streets.
• Used to improve the operation of an intersection.
• Sometimes used as community enhancement as a
gateway treatment.
• Used in high crash areas where the crash type is
inclined to be corrected by the use of a roundabout.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Adequate speed reduction.
• Design vehicle consideration.
• Pedestrian crossings located at least one vehicle
length upstream from crossing and only across legs.
• Circulating vehicles have the right-of-way.
• All vehicles circulate in a counter-clockwise direction
and pass to the right of the central island.
• Incorporate splitter islands to separate traffic, to
deflect entering traffic, and to provide opportunity for
pedestrians to cross in two stages.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible No Effect Slight
Increase
Medium to
High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-16 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection,
blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or have been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Often used in sets to make travel through
neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered
internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through
movement possible but less attractive than
alternative (external) routes.
• Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• There may be legal issues associated with closing a
public street.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands, walls,
gates, side-by-side bollards, or any other obstruction
that leave an opening smaller than the width of a
passenger car.
• Diverter width and curvature is dependent upon the
intersection roadway widths.
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes.
• Reduces speeds at the closure area.
• Bicycles /pedestrians may not be
restricted.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Increased emergency response in most
cases.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• May impact drainage.
• May impact parking.
• Tends to increase travel distance.
• May increase maintenance.
Diagonal Road Closure
Definition: A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection.
This type of barrier may be used to create a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Probable Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low to
Medium
Varies Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-17
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Barriers that block travel in one direction for a short
distance on otherwise two-way streets (when two
half-closures are placed across from one another at
an intersection, the result is a semi-diverter).
Applications:
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Often used in sets to make travel through
neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered
internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through
movement possible but less attractive than
alternative (external) routes.
• Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool.
• Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction
without the negative access issues of one-way
streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Partial closure must extend to centerline of the
affected street.
• A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained.
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands.
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in
one direction and possibly in the other).
• Reduces speeds at the closure area.
• Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of
the street.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• Enforcement issues (compliance may not
be 100%)
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected (they have to drive around partial
closure with care).
• Reduces access to residents.
Partial Street Closure
Definition: Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One
way", and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Probable Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Minimal
Impact
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-18
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• A street with no outlet that eliminates cut-through
traffic.
Applications:
• Used only on local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Cannot be used on truck routes, bus routes, snow
emergency routes, through streets, or any other
major roadway.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Must be a minimum of 120 feet of right-of-way
(diameter) to accommodate the minimum turn-around
radius of 40 feet.
• Obtain approval of police, fire and emergency
medical services.
Advantages:
• Eliminates through traffic.
• Reduces speed of the remaining vehicles.
• Improves safety for all the street users.
• Pedestrian and bike access maintained.
Disadvantages:
• Reduces emergency vehicle access.
• Reduces access to properties for
residents.
• May be perceived as an inconvenience by
some neighbors and an unwarranted
restriction by the general public.
• May increase trip lengths.
• May increase volumes on other streets.
• May require additional right-of-way
acquisition.
••••n •
Definition: Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a circular turn-around area.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Yes Small
Increase
Small
Increase
High Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial
streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-19 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Raised islands in the centerline of a street that
continues through an intersection that blocks the left
turn movement from all intersection approaches and
the through movement at the cross street.
Applications:
• Median closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction
without the negative access issues of one-way
streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained.
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands.
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in
one direction and possibly in the other).
• Reduces speeds at the median area.
• Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of
the street.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• Enforcement issues (compliance may not
be 100%)
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected.
• Reduces access to residents.
Median Barriers
Definition: Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Small
Possibility
Possible No Effect No Effect Varies Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-20
DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes.
• May reduce speeds at island area.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel streets.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected (they have to drive around island
with care).
• May interrupt street network connectivity.
• May increase travel distance.
Description:
• Raised island barriers placed at intersections,
typically blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Physical barrier used to divert traffic to help prevent
the temptation of drivers from making an illegal
turning or through movement.
• Intended to reduce traffic volume or to prevent a
turning movement due to safety constraints.
• Used for access management.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Island width and curvature is dependent upon the
intersection roadway widths.
• Must design corner radii to accommodate vehicle
turning movements (e.g. Trucks and buses).
Forced Turn Islands
Definition: Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning movements. (Forced turn barriers,
diverters.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low to
Medium
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-21
DRAFT - October 2004
Targeted Police Enforcement
Description:
• Use of local police to enforce traffic laws appropriate
to traffic problems identified in a neighborhood.
Applications:
• Should only be used when specific problems are
outlined or documented.
• Can be used in conjunction with speed wagon
applications.
Design/Installation Issues:
• No design needed in a physical sense.
• Due to staff time constraints, every effort should be
made to clearly identify the problem (e.g. speeding,
driving in the parking lane, running stop signs, etc.)
• The problem should be narrowed down to the
occurrence day, time, specific location, or vehicle
type.
• Follow-ups indicating the impact of enforcement are
needed to determine the effectiveness. Advantages:
• Good temporary public relations tool.
• Serves to inform puOblic that traffic law
violations are undesirable behavior for
which there are consequences.
• Easy to implement.
• Can result in area-wide positive impacts.
Disadvantages:
• Effect is not permanent.
• Enforcement is an expensive tool.
Definition: Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by police due to observed, frequent law disobedience.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Depends
on
Amount
Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-22
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Tool to help raise driver awareness.
• Displays speeds of passing vehicles on a reader
board
• Used in areas with frequent speeding
• Stationary Radar Signs direct a motorist's attention to
the posted speed limit and displays the speed of the
driver's vehicle on a large message board.
• Purpose is to remind drivers that they are speeding
to help encourage compliance.
Applications:
• The Police Department may use it as a "speed
checkpoint" and have an officer present to issue
citations to violators.
• Portable Radar Sign on a dolly enables residents to
borrow and place on their street
• Stationary Radar Signs are used in locations that do
not qualify for other physical measures, such as
speed humps.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Needs power to function.
Stationary Radar Signs Radar Dolly
Radar Speed Trailer
Advantages:
• Heightens driver awareness of the speed
limit and the speed they are traveling.
Disadvantages:
• May provide only short-term effectiveness.
• Vandalism may be an issue.
adqr Speed Display U szcs.,—
Definition: Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader
board, telling them how fast they are driving. (Permanent Radar Signs.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-23
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• An octagonal sign with a white legend and border on
red background used to require traffic to stop.
Applications:
• Used at an intersection of a less important road with
main road where application of the normal right-of-
way rule would not be expected to provide a
reasonably safe operation.
• Used at a street entering a through highway or street.
• Used at an unsignalized intersection in a signalized
area.
• Used when abnormal conditions exist such as very
high speeds, restricted view or crash records indicate
a need for stop control.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Stop signs should not be used for speed control.
• Stop signs should be installed in manner that
minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop.
• In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume
should be stopped. A stop sign should not be
installed on the major street unless justified by a
traffic engineering study.
Advantages:
• Relatively inexpensive installation cost.
• Effectively defines driver's right-of-way.
• Reduces speed at the intersection.
Disadvantages:
• When not warranted and used improperly,
they typically cause negative traffic safety
impacts (non-compliance with the signs
and increased accidents).
• May result in increased mid-block
speeding.
• Full compliance with stop control is rare.
Definition: A regulatory sign that gives notice to road users that traffic is required to stop. Used to assign right-of-way
at an intersection. Recommended for installation only when specific warrants are met in accordance with the Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Stop signs are generally not installed to divert traffic or reduce
speeding.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies
(may
increase)
Varies Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Temporary or
Permanent
Must meet
MMUTCD
warrants
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-25
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Prohibition of turns typically regulated by signs
placed where they will most be easily seen by road
users who might be intending to turn.
Applications:
• Used to restrict right, left and U- turns at intersections
to work in conjunction with medians, signal systems,
etc.
• Used during certain time periods (peak traffic hours)
to help maintain safety of certain driving situations.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Most effective when applied to peak traffic hours.
• Consideration should be given to install physical
barriers (active devices) to aid in the enforcement of
the regulatory sign (passive device).
_
4t Vernon A.
11 OOth 1St e*
Definition: The use of regulatory signs to restrict turning movements entirely or partially (e.g. restrictions for certain
time periods during peak traffic periods).
Evaluation Considerations
Advantages:
• Low installation cost.
• May increase safety.
Disadvantages:
• High violation rates without constant
enforcement or physical barriers.
• May inconvenience residents.
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies Yes Small
Increase
No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-26
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• One-way signs used to indicate streets upon which
vehicular traffic is allowed to travel in one direction
only.
Applications:
• Used to restrict through traffic in isolated applications
or in combinations that create maze-like routes
through a neighborhood.
• Used to increase street capacity and traffic flow.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Combine one-way streets in ways that force turns
every block or two to avoid speeding or cut-through
problems.
Advantages:
• May increase roadway capacity.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
Disadvantages:
• May inconvenience residents.
• May increase speeds.
• Enforcement issues.
• May increase volumes on other streets.
.... arn2671 4. WV* Vii4; A fir 1.f...:::....:-...:---...,....1.rn
Ma
One-Way Stres,
Definition: Streets that are designated for use by traffic in one direction only. Typically controlled by the use of "One-
Way" regulatory signs.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
No Possible Small
Decrease
Small
Decrease
Low Varies Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-27
DRAFT - October 2004
Traffic Signal ("Rest on Red" and Rest on Green")
Definition: Semi-actuated traffic signals that are programmed to rest on green or red for the different legs of the
intersection. Typically, signals are dependent upon traffic demand and maximized based upon total intersection delay
with the rest on red given to the leg with the lower approach volume.
Description:
• "Rest on Red" is an application of a signal system
where all approaches to an intersection face red
lights. If advance loops detect an approaching
vehicle moving at or below the desired speed and no
other vehicle is being served at the cross street, the
signal turns green. If speeding is detected, the green
phase is not triggered until the vehicle comes to rest
at the stop line.
• "Rest on Green" is an application of a signal system
where approaches along a main street will have a
green light. If the traffic on the main street is moving
at or below the desired speed and no one is waiting
on the side street, the light will remain green on the
main street. The signal will switch to red if speeding
is detected.
Applications:
• An application of a signal system used to control
speed.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Should not be used on roadways with high levels of
traffic due to operational concerns.
• May be used at non-peak times at some
intersections.
Advantages:
• Punishes or rewards based on compliance
with speed limits.
• Somewhat self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• May affect intersection operation if used at
intersections with high levels of traffic.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
Other
Agency
Approval
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-28 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Provide important information while
allowing minimal diversion of driver
attention from the roadway.
• Perception of narrowing the roadway may
modestly reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
• Visibility of markings can be limited by
snow, debris and water.
• Marking durability is limited.
Description:
• Centerline, edgeline and transverse markings on the
street used to provide guidance and information to
the driver.
Applications:
• Used to supplement other traffic control devices.
• Used to effectively convey regulations, guidance or
warning.
• Centerlines and edgeline use may have the effect of
visually narrowing the roadway.
• Used to create bicycle lanes.
• Patterns of transverse markings placed across travel
paths used to help slow traffic at intersections and at
horizontal curve locations.
Design/Installation Issues:
• The materials used for markings should provide the
specified color throughout their useful life.
• Consideration should be given to selecting materials
that will minimize tripping or loss of traction for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Definition: Paint or thermoplastic street markings commonly placed for delineation that provides guidance and
information to the road user.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent
Installation
Only
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-29
DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDIX C - APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
CITY OF
EDINA
Engineering Department
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394
(952) 826-0371
www.cityofedina.com
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form
Contact Name:
Address:
Day/Message Phone:
Today's Date:
E-mail Address:
Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your
neighborhood:
0 Speeding 0 Traffic Volumes
0 Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety 0 Accidents
0 Other:
Suggested Traffic Calming Measures (See Appendix B of the Transportation Commission Policy, please
rank, No. 1 is most favored):
Proposed Location from: to
(street name) (street name)
on
(street name)
We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed
above. We understand we may be assessed for the cost for the device.
Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per household or business.
Date Name (please print)
Address Signature
Page of
Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above.
Edina NTMP Application Form- DRAFT-October 2004
APPENDIX D ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
Acknowledgments and References
Edina Transportation Commission:
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
Marie Thorpe
Les Wanninger
Jean White
Technical and Advisory:
City of Edina Engineering Department
City of Edina Public Works Department
City of Edina Planning Department
City of Edina Police Department
City of Edina Fire Department
City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force
Cities' Websites:
• City of Albuquerque Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
http://www.cabq.gov/streets/policies.html
• City of Boulder Planning and Public Works
http://www3.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/
• City of Las Vegas Traffic Engineering Division
http://wwvv.lasvegasnevada.gov/public_works/
• City of Bellevue Transportation Department
http ://vvww.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=1056
• City of Bloomington Traffic Calming Policy and Procedure Manual
http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/commissittac/calming/calming.htm
• City of Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Management
http ://wwvv. springsgov. com/Page. asp ?NavID=1397
• City of Austin Transportation Division
http://www.ci. austin. tx.us/roadworks/de fault. htm
• City of Vancouver Engineering Services
http ://www. city. vancouver. bc. ca/engsvcs/
• City of Gresham's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
http://wwvv.ite.org/traffic/documents/Gresham.pdf
• City of Portland Office of Transportation
http ://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Trafficcalming/how/how.htm
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-1 DRAFT - October 2004
• City of Berkley Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/
• Seattle Department of Transportation
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ntcpreports.htm
• City of Savage Traffic Safety Committee
http://www.ci.savage.mn.us/traffic safety.html
• City of Tempe Traffic Management Program
http://vvww.tempe.gov/traffic/trafmgnt.htm
• City of Asheville Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
http://www.ci.asheville.nc.us/engineer/Trafficpolicy.pdf
• City of Honolulu Transportation Services
http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/dts/index.htm
• City of Rochester, New York Neighborhood Traffic Calming Programs
http://wwvv.ci.rochester.ny.us/streetcalm/index.htm
Websites:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Calming
http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.html
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Traffic Calming
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm/
• www.Traffic Calming.org
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
• LessTraffic.com
http://www.lesstraffic.com/Programs/SR/SR.htm
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Roundabouts
http://www.tflirc.gov/safety/00068.pdf
• Victoria Transportation Policy Institute
http://vvww.vtpi.org/tdm/
• Minnesota Safety Council — Crosswalk Safety
http://www.mnsafetycouncil.org/crosswalk/
• Bucknell University — Traffic Calming Measures
http://vvww.students.bucknell.edu/projects/trafficcalming/Measures.html
• Minnesota Department of Transportation — Pedestrian Plan
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/modes/pedplan.html
• 3 E's of Traffic Calming
http://www.3etrafficcalming.com/
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration — Safety Research
http://www.tfhre.gov/safety/safety.htm
Publications and Manuals:
1) Ewing, Reid H. Traffic Calming State of the Practice. Washington, DC: Institute
of Transportation Engineers 1999.
2) City of Edina Transportation Plan. Edina, Minnesota, 1999.
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-2 DRAFT - October 2004
3) City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Edina,
Minnesota. 2003.
4) Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Collier County,
Florida.
5) Reardon, Linda. Traffic Calming — Creatively Mitigating Traffic Speeds and
Volumes. CE News. November 2001.
6) Traffic Calming, City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works Transportation
Division. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1997
7) Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming. Transportation Association
of Canada — Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers. December 1998
8) Saffel, Amy J. Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementations.
Minnesota Local Road Research Board. St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1998
9) Monahan, Bill. Getting People to Police Themselves. APWA Reporter. July
2004
10) Transportation Policy Plan. Metropolitan Council, Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area, Minnesota. December 1996
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-3 DRAFT - October 2004
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
October 2004
(DRAFT)
13 0 LI) rcfr Ito)
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
DRAFT - October 2004
Contributors:
Transportation Commission
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
William Skallerud
Marie Thorpe
Les Wanninger
Jean White
Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., Traffic Engineer/Assistant Engineer
Wayne D. Houle, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Edina Engineering
City of Edina Transportation Policy i DRAFT - October 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Sheet i
Table of Contents ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
Vision 1
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK 2
Introduction 2
City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy 2
III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 7
Transportation Commission Policy Adoption 7
Action Plan 7
Sources of Funding 8
Plan Acceptance Requirements 8
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN 9
Introduction 9
Process and Schedule 10
Criteria for Screening 14
Scoring for Ranking 15
Removal of Traffic Calming Measures 16
Traffic Management Devices — City of Edina Approved Options 17
Benefited Area (Assessed Area) 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Definitions
Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices / Measures
Appendix C — Application Request for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
Appendix D — Acknowledgments and References
City of Edina Transportation Policy ii DRAFT - October 2004
I INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Sustaining, improving and operating a sound street and transportation system are integral
parts of the long-term vision of the City. Congestion on the regional roadway system and
the failure of that system to accommodate the continued growth in traffic volumes has
created and exacerbated traffic volumes, speed and congestion on local streets. These
conditions adversely affect the quality of life of the City's residents and the activities of
the businesses located in the City.
The Edina City Council in December 2003 established the Transportation Commission to
address these issues and to work to improve the local transportation system, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20.
PURPOSE
The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to advise the Council on
matters relating to the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic volumes,
congestion, and functional classification, but not maintenance activities, of the City; to
review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the City; to
evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures and
to recommend their implementation where appropriate; and to review the findings of the
Local Traffic Task Force (2002-2003) and offer recommendations for implementation.
VISION
Edina will maintain a transportation system that will accommodate the efficient
movement of people and goods throughout the City while fostering safe and livable
neighborhoods and business areas connected by aesthetically beautiful, pedestrian and
bicycle friendly streets and pathways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy I DRAFT - October 2004
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION
The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed as a supplement to to
incorporate the City of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999). The purpose of this
policy is to guide the ETC in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation
issues in the community and the prioritization of projects and improvements to the
transportation system. The policy is created to encourage public input and decisions
that will be made on quantitative, qualitative and objective factors.
CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
The City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy implements the purposes and
objectives of the ETC as provided in Section 1225 of the City Code (Transportation
Commission). The Policy also sup.plements incorporates the amended policies of the
Transportation Plan as follows:
Roadway Design
1. Design roadway facilities constructed in conjunction with new developments
according to the intended function.
2. Upgrade existing roadways when warranted by demonstrated volume, safety or
functional needs, taking into consideration environmental limitations.
3. Emphasize improvements to management, maintenance and utilization of the
existing street and highway system.
4. Design residential street systems to discourage through traffic and to be compatible
with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking, including
traffic calming measures on local streets and, in some cases, collector streets.
5. Design collector and arterial roadway corridors to be compatible with other
transportation modes including transit, bicycle and pedestrian.
6. Use adequate transitions and buffers including but not limited to earth berms, walls,
landscaping and distance to mitigate the undesirable impact of high volume
roadways.
7. Promote use of sound mitigating features (noise walls) and aesthetic barriers along
residential development adjacent to high volume roadways, and, where economically
feasible, make property owners and land developers responsible for noise attenuation
at new developments near high volume roadways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 2 DRAFT - October 2004
8. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities such
as boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments.
Roadway Function and Access
1. Review and update regional and local functional street classification and coordinate
with adjacent cities and Hennepin County. Establish subcategory classifications and
criteria for local streets if warranted. Revise local roadway classifications when
warranted.
2. Provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway
system and local activity centers.
3. Adequately control access points to the regional roadway system (including minor
arterials) in terms of driveway openings and side street intersections.
4. Provide access to the local street system (including collector and local streets) in a
manner that balances the need to safely and efficiently operate the street system with
the need for access to land.
5. Encourage intra-area trips on minor arterials rather than the principal arterial system,
and promote serving regional trips on the metropolitan highway system.
6. Separate, to the extent possible, conflicting uses on the public street system in order
to minimize safety problems. Give special attention to pedestrian and bicycle routes.
7. Provide access to redeveloping sites using current functional classification and
standards rather than the existing access at the sites.
8. Review and monitor citywide traffic volumes, congestion, existing traffic calming
devices, accident history, vehicle violation history, speed limits and enforcement
annually.
9. Educate public on vehicle operations including public relations campaigns that focus
on individual responsibilities to each other rather than individual rights.
10. Review and recommend traffic calming policies and consider traffic calming
implementation where requested by residents.
11. Implement measures to reduce non-local, cut-through traffic in cooperation with
County and State efforts by developing a local traffic calming policy to mitigate the
effects of cut-through traffic. Identify the origin and destination of cut-through
traffic.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 3 DRAFT - October 2004
12. When requested by the Planning Commission, review landuse that may impact traffic
implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and
activity that impact the City of Edina.
Roadway Maintenance and Operation
1. Cooperate with other agencies having jurisdiction over streets and highways in Edina
to assure good roadway conditions and operating efficiency.
2. Continue the implementation of the 1-494 frontage road system and Integrated
Corridor Traffic Management system through ongoing coordination with Mn/DOT,
Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington.
3. Maintain roads by repairing weather-related and other damage.
4. Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice
removal.
5. Replace substandard bridges and bridges that present safety or traffic problems, and
include bicycle and pedestrian features.
Transit/TDM
1. Participate in the 1-494 Commission to encourage all forms of travel demand
management in order to reduce vehicle miles of travel, reduce petroleum
consumption, and improve air quality.
2. Review all major new developments in light of the potential for ridesharing including
bus accessibility, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, and mixed-use
development.
3. Support HOV bypasses and other preferential treatments for transit and high
occupancy vehicles on streets and highways.
4. Include transit planning in the construction or upgrading of streets and highways.
5. Pursue development of a demonstration project to provide a circulator system within
the Greater Southdale Area.
6. Encourage the legislature to increase funding for efficient mass transit. Review and
recommend policies requiring a mass transit component with all types of
development.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 4 DRAFT - October 2004
Parking
1. Review new developments for adequacy of parking based upon need, the potential for
joint use of parking facilities and opportunities to encourage rideshating.
2. Continue to limit on-street parking in and near congested commercial areas.
3. Find location of an additional Park and Ride facility located in close proximity to
major mass transit routes.
4. Work with appropriate commissions such as Planning and Zoning to review City
Code, Section 850.08 Parking and Circulation to identify parking based upon needs.
5. Evaluate present parking facilities found in Edina. Where appropriate, amend Section
850 to give commuter parking some spaces in City-owned ramps.
Pedestrian/Bicycle
1. Provide accessibility to pedestrians and bicycles at major activity centers, including
necessary storage facilities including (e.g. bicycle racks and bicycle lockers) near
visible points of entry, wide sidewalks where there is no boulevard or sidewalks with
boulevards. Appropriate signage should be present at these facilities.
2. Create pedestrian and bicycle interconnections among major generators, with
continuity across major roadways and other barriers. Include painted striping on
roadways and paths designated as bicycle riding areas.
3. Provide sidewalks and safe crossing in high pedestrian danger areas, including high-
traffic streets, commercial areas, park and school areas, areas with transit access, and
in high-density residential locations.
4. Provide adequate signage along all bike paths including areas of conflict with
pedestrians and automobile traffic.
5. Review and recommend construction of pedestrian and bike paths throughout Edina
cooperatively with the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County.
6. Promote safe walking, bicycling and driving. Promote vehicle driver respect for
bicycles and pedestrians along with bicycles and pedestrian observance of signs and
designated paths.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 5 DRAFT - October 2004
Goods Movement
1. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to
the metropolitan highway system.
Funding and Jurisdiction
1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community funding sources for improvements
that provide regional or multi-community benefit. Support public funding for transit.
2. Support ef research efforts into more efficient and cost-effective management,
maintenance and replacement of street surfaces.
3. Support governmental jurisdiction over roadways that reflect the role of the roadway
in the overall transportation system.
4. Develop and support legislation permitting a transportation utility.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 6 DRAFT - October 2004
III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This section provides the steps necessary to implement the transportation policies and
discusses a general strategy for carrying out the policies.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY ADOPTION
By adopting the Transportation Commission Policy, the City Council establishes the
guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities are made in Edina. It
should be revised as necessary to respond to changing conditions and needs, both locally
and regionally.
The policy should be circulated widely so the residents and the business community are
aware of the opportunities and limitations that the policy provides, thus enabling all
interested parties to voice their concerns and issues with full knowledge.
ACTION PLAN
Short Term (Immediate):
• Review and approve Transportation Commission Policy:
o Review and identify problems and causes of Edina traffic issues
(determine what's fact versus perception).
o Review volume and speed criteria.
o Present Draft Policy to Council.
o Open public comment period.
o Recommend to Council for approval.
• Review Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations as it reflects the
adoptive policies and procedures. Rank the six identified traffic "issue areas" and
review and recommend action for them as Neighborhood Traffic Management
Projects to the City Council.
• Review and approve a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP).
• Publicize transportation issues to be studied by ETC.
• Establish a means for public communication for transportation issues:
o City of Edina Web site
o About Town
o Public Access Station 16
o Edina Sun Newspaper
o Local Schools
• Create a citizen's guide to transportation issues
City of Edina Transportation Policy 7 DRAFT - October 2004
Long Term (Continually):
• Review and recommend Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans.
• Review and update local roadway functional classification.
• Hold yearly public open house for transportation issues.
• Review and update Transportation Commission Policy yearly.
• Review and make recommendations to for collector and arterial roadway planned
improvements.
SOURCES OF FUNDING
The following sources of funding are explained in more detail in the Transportation Plan.
Existing Sources of Revenue:
• Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds
• Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ)
• State Aid
• Special Assessments
• Livable Communities Grants
• Ad Valorem Taxes
• Tax Increment Financing
Potential Sources of Revenue:
• Impact Fees
• Road Access Charge
• Transportation Utility
PLAN ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS
Educate residents about the possibility that they may be asked to fund the installation and
maintenance of NTMP Projects through additional taxes and/or special assessments.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 DRAFT - October 2004
IV.NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans (NTMP) include local, collector and arterial
street studies and neighborhood area studies. These studies would be conducted by the
City Engineering Department.
The NTMP studies are intended to respond to speeding and excessive cut-through traffic
on streets in a residential neighborhood and on multiple streets in one or more
neighborhoods yet are intended to be sensitive to areas where there may be a potential for
diversion of this traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods. These plans
are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider problems, such
as congestion or lack of capacity on the arterial system. Possible solutions may include
revisions to the local street to slow traffic or to completely or partially divert traffic off
the street. While solutions will be considered for collector and arterial streets, only a
limited number of management devices will be allowed due to state design standards
and funding requirements (see Appendix B).
NTMP studies are developed primarily through the City Engineering Department, with
the involvement of the Transportation Commission and other City Departments. They are
scheduled based on available resources and given priority by factors that include, but are
not limited to, the following:
• Previous efforts, and requests and studies in the area
• Intensity and extent of the problems
• Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses
• Availability of data
• Regional improvement projects scheduled or planned
• Feasibility of solutions
City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 DRAFT - October 2004
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
This section details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plans (See Table 1).
rhood Traffic Mane ement Plan Schedule
Step
_ _
Item Period (Typical)
- General Traffic Management Information Open House Late September
Step 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Applications Due 2nd Monday in
February
Step 2 Initial Screening, Scoring and Ranking of Applications
Before data collection
March/April/May
Step 3 • Petition-to-study prepared and circulated by City Staff
• Presentation to ETC for recommendation and to
Council for approval to order plan development
May/June
Step 4 Plan Development
• Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works
and Engineering, Transit and School (transportation)
agencies
• Public Open House
• Survey-to-test circulated and evaluated by City staff
• Trial Project Plan prepared
May/June
Step 5a Presentation to ETC for recommendation June
Step 5b • Council approval of trial projects
• Schedule temporary installations, removals and after
data collection (minimum period of 2 weeks after
installation)
July
Step 5c • Temporary installations July/August
Step 6 • After data collection (trial projects)
• Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works,
Transit, and School (transportation) agencies
• Prepare evaluation summaries
September
Step 7a Mail Surveys October
Step 7b • Summarize returned surveys
• Open House
November
Step 8a Recommendations to ETC, Public comment December
Step 8b Recommendations to Council, Improvement Hearing,
Preliminary Assessment Hearing, Order Project
January
Step 9a Survey and Design February / March
Step 9b Final approval of plans by Council, Set bid schedule April
Step 9c Letting, Assessment Hearing May
Step 9d Construction June / July
Step 10 After data collection July / August
Step 11 Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 yrs
City of Edina Transportation Policy 10
DRAFT - October 2004
STEPS:
1. Study Request (Application)
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) studies can be requested by individual
citizens or by neighborhood organizations. Requests to consider a NTMP study must be
in writing and are due by 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday in February of each year. See
Appendix C for application request.
2. Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking
City staff gathers and reviews preliminary data about the traffic request including volume,
speed and accident information and applies the criteria for screening and ranking to
prioritize for trial and evaluation of a NTMP. The Engineering Department ranks the
studies based on score (methodology outlined under "Scoring for Ranking") and
schedules order of trial studies for ETC review. The number of trial studies depends on
equipment and personnel availability. Some trial studies may be deferred if not feasible
due to conflicting construction, development in the area, county or state restrictions or
other concerns.
Requests are also reviewed by the Engineering Department for other possible solutions. If
the preliminary review shows that an immediate hazard to the public exists, the City may
choose to address the problem separately from the NTMP.
Studies are ranked citywide, based on the point score from Step 2. The highest-ranking
study is undertaken first. The number of studies initiated each year depends on City
resources. At any time, a neighborhood may request approval to proceed with the
The City notifies all study requestors of the status of their request after Step 2. The City
also notifies the ETC of the status of all ranked studies and asks for comments.
Once in the process, a study is considered in the annual priority ranking step for up to 3
years. If, after 3 years, a study has not received a high enough priority to proceed, it is no
longer eligible for consideration. This time limitation ensures that the study request has
not become obsolete because of changing traffic conditions and/or new residents in the
area.
The study requestor is notified when the 3-year limit expires. Then, a new request may be
made to re-enter the study in the program. Step 1 is then repeated to obtain current
information.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 11 DRAFT - October 2004
a defined study area.
'
3. Petition-to-Study
If a study is ranked high enough to proceed, a petition-to-study must be circulated within
City staff establishes the petition-to-study area (benefited area), based on information
obtained in the preliminary review. This area is generally defined as those households and
businesses fronting on the affected segments of the study area. In the case of a single
intersection problem, the minimum area is approximately one block in all directions. If
significant diversions to other residential streets are reasonably expected, those streets'
residents are included in the study area (impacted area).
The purpose of the petition-to-study is to determine the level of agreement among the
studyls area's residents with regarding the problem they want to address. City staff
prepares the petition, describing the problem and the procedures to be followed if a study
is undertaken. The City then circulates the petition.
Each household is entitled to one signature. Property
owners not living in the study area are not included in the petition-to-study process.
The applications and petitions-to-study are presented to the ETC and the City
Council. The City Council must order the plan development for the study to move
forward to step 4.
4. Plan Development
Based on direction from the Council a—positive—petitien, the NTMP study moves
forward. The NTMP is reviewed by the City's Fire Department, Police Department,
Public Works and Engineering Departments, and by transportation agencies including
transit and school.
The ETC then holds a public meeting for the neighborhood and general public to inform
residents of the proposed project, to describe the NTMP process, and to gather additional
information about the traffic problems and related neighborhood needs.
Plan development consists of the following steps:
• Assessment of problems and needs
• Identification of project goals and objectives
• Define Determination of the benefited area and impacted area
• Identification of evaluation criteria
• Establishment of threshold criteria (on project-by-project basis)
• Development of alternative plans/solutions
City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 DRAFT - October 2004
The first two steps are accomplished through public meetings, neighborhood association
meetings, and ETC meetings. Additionally, City staff prepares a survey-to-test describing
the proposed project and calling for a temporary test installation. Staff then circulates the
survey-to-test within the defined area (impacted area).
The survey-to-test area includes all properties located on the project street and on
adjacent local residential streets within an area approximately 1 block from the project
street. The ETC or the City may expand the survey-to-test area beyond these minimum
requirements, if desired. Each household and business is entitled to one survey.
The survey is evaluated and City staff members prepare a trial installation plan. The City
proposes solutions based on the citizen responses and sound engineering principles.
Possible criteria, solutions and their impacts are evaluated by the ETC, City staff and
other affected agencies.
5. Test Installation
The NTMP is presented to the ETC and the City Council. If recommended by the ETC
and approved by Council, the test will be installed for between 3 and 12 months. If the
City Traffic Engineer finds that an unforeseen hazard is created by the test, the test
installation may be revised or removed.
6. Project Evaluation
Following the test period, the City evaluates how well the test has performed in terms of
the previously defined problems and objectives. The evaluation includes the subject street
and streets affected by the project, and is based on before-and-after speeds and volumes,
impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation criteria
determined during steps 4. If, in the evaluation, desired improvements in quality of life
are not met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the traffic plan may be modified
and additional testing conducted.
The final test results are reviewed with the ETC, area residents, and relevant City staff,
and the information is distributed during the survey stage.
The City will not forward a project to the next step if the test results show it may be
unsafe or it violates NTMP policy or other City policies or regulations.
7. Survey
To forward the project to the stage where permanent implementation is approved (step 8),
a survey from households, businesses and non-resident property owners within a defined
survey area (impacted area) is obtained through a mail survey administered by the City.
The survey area includes all properties located on the project street and on adjacent local
acceptable increase (as determined by the ETC in step 4).
City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 DRAFT - October 2004
The ETC then holds a open house for_ the -net borhoo -cl.. to update residents of the
)proposed project. ov\ oy ci\o
e JT3
8. City Council Action
Based on the project evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility
report and recommendations for the ETC and City Council. The report outlines the
process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the
recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and
preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the ETC before
final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll
are adopted, the project is ordered.
If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted, the plans and
specifications will not be ordered and the project is terminated. The project is dropped
from the list and the neighborhood is not able to reapply for five years.
9. Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction
Final design and construction are administered by the City and are generally completed
within 12 months after final action by the City Council. City staff prepares and
recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota
Statute Chapter 429
10. Monitoring
The City monitors constructed traffic management devices and gathers post data,
including volume, speed and accident information.
11. Follow-up Evaluation
Within 3 to 5 years after construction of an NTMP project, the City conducts a follow-up
evaluation to determine if the project's goals and objectives continue to be met. This
evaluation may entail traffic studies of volumes, speeds and accidents, as well as public
opinion surveys.
CRITERIA FOR SCREENING
1. Roadway Classifications
• Eligible: All Edina streets under the Public Works Department jurisdiction.
• Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State, or
Federal Highways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 DRAFT - October 2004
2. Minimum Distance of the traffic calming device from the following (all must
apply for eligibility):
• Traffic Signals (except neckdowns) 300 ft.
• Stop Signs (except neckdowns) 300 ft.
• Other Traffic Calming Devices 300 ft.
• Driveway/Alleys 20 ft.
• Horizontal or Vertical Curves affecting sight lines 200 ft.
• Railroad Crossing 300 ft.
• Dead End 400 ft.
3. Access:
• No dead-end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right-of-
way roadway.
4. Not-Critical Emergency Route:
• To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief.
All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration.
SCORING FOR RANKING
1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points):
• None + 100
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 0
2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited
area (0 to 200 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side + 100
• All of 2 sides + 200
3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 100
City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 DRAFT - October 2004
4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available
data (0 to 200 points):
• 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points
5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points):
• 50 points maximum
• (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 un. ft. = 0 points
• 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 un. ft. = 50 points)
6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points):
• ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points
• For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street
7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points):
• Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80%
over limit)
• For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher
speeds
Scoring based on benefited area
Correctable crashes determined by Engineering Department
REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
The City of Edina's Traffic Calming Program is intended to avoid the costly installation
and later costly removal of traffic calming devices. On occasion, it may be determined to
be desirable to remove a traffic calming device.
If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City
expense. If the removal is at the neighborhood's request, the removal will be charged to
the property owners (previously defined benefited area). The following procedure will be
used for neighborhood initiated removals:
1. Petition requesting removal representing a major majority of over 70% of the
is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer.
2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously on the
device, is mailed to each property owner in the benefited area.
3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the
ETC.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 DRAFT - October 2004
4. ETC forwards a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation is for removal,
improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled for Council.
5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule.
6. Letting, final assessment and construction.
7. New traffic calming devices will not be considered for five years in benefited area of
removed device.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS
This sections lists traffic management devices and methods that are approved for use in
the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item.
Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures:
• Speed Hump
• Speed Table
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Textured Pavements
• Center Island Narrowings
• Gateway Treatments
• Neckdowns
• Choker
• Chicane
• Realigned Intersections
• Traffic Circle
• Roundabout
Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures:
• Diagonal Road Closure
• Partial Street Closure
• Cul-de-sac
• Median Barriers
• Forced Turn Islands
Education and Enforcement:
• Targeted Police Enforcement
• Radar Speed Display Units
• Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns
City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 DRAFT - October 2004
Regulatory Measures:
• Stop Sign
• Turn Restrictions
• One Way Streets
4 Traffic Signals ("Rest on Red" and "Rest on Green")
• Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse)
BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA)
This section generally defines the benefited area of the traffic management devices for
use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical benefited
areas, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project by project basis.
Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured
Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments,
Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle:
ee • Benefited area extends 300 f b een the devic d the street
affected by the device, or to th rest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is
less.
Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout:
• Benefited area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection.
Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median
Barrier:
• Benefited area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the intersection
partially closed, realigned or restricted.
Cul-De-Sac:
• Benefited area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection on the leg
that is closed.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 18 DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES / MEASURES
APPENDIX C - APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
PLAN
APPENDIX D - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
Definitions
Benefited Area — The properties expected to receive the majority of the positive impacts
from the proposed traffic calming. (Assessed Area)
Center Island Narrowings — An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to
segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median slowpoints, median chokers, central
islands.)
Chicane — Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight
line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing
curves, twists.)
Choker — Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly
adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock
narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.)
Circulator Service — A means provided within a major activity center, (such as a
regional business concentration, a metro center or community) for movement from place
to place within the center; such a system may be entirely pedestrian or may use transit.
Collector Street — Roadways that are designated to "collect" traffic from neighborhood
streets and get that traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets are described in the City of
Edina Comprehensive Plan.
Corridor Studies — Typically, highway corridor studies focus on a segment of a
particular travel corridor or travel shed. Land use, access issues, capacity, level of
service, geometries and safety concerns are studied; alternatives analyzed; and
recommendations made. Corridor studies are usually prepared with the participation and
cooperation of the affected communities and governmental agencies. Recommendations
for improvements are often incorporated into the local comprehensive plans of the
participating cities and continue to be used by implementing agencies as improvements in
the corridor are made.
Cul-de-sac — Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a
circular turn-around area.
Cut-through Traffic — Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid
congestion or other problem from an arterial or other high level street.
Diagonal Road Closures — A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection,
interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This type of barrier may be used to create
a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-1 DRAFT - October 2004
Feasibility Report — A report analyzing the recommended type of construction, the
estimated construction cost, estimated engineering cost and the estimated assessment.
Forced Turn Islands — Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning
movements. (Forced turn barriers, diverters.)
Gateway Treatment — Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or
other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood identity.
Guide sign that shows route designations, destinations, directions, distances,
ces, oin o nterest, or other geographical, recreational, or cultural information.
Impacearea - a for a project that is defined as those residences along local residential
streets th.a&iositive1y or negatively impacted by excessive through traffic volumes and
speediT1g, or that may be positively or negatively impacted by proposed traffic calming.
Inconvenience caused by limitation of access is not considered to be a negative impact
under this definition.
Infrastructure — Fixed facilities, such as roadways or railroad tracks; permanent
structures.
Level of Service (as related to highways) — The different operating conditions that
occur on a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. It is a
qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed and travel time,
interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, and indirectly, safety
and operating costs. It is expressed as levels of service "A" through "F." Level "A" is a
condition of free traffic flow where there is little or no restriction in speed or
maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. Level "F" is forced-flow operation
at low speed with many stoppages, the highway acting as a storage area.
Local Street — A roadway that connects blocks within neighborhoods.
Local Traffic — Traffic that originates from or is destined to a location within a
neighborhood or area.
Major Street — The street normally carrying the higher volume of vehicular traffic (vs.
Minor Street).
Median Barriers — Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to
segregate traffic.
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) — The portion of the metropolitan area
identified in the Regional Blueprint where development and redevelopment is to occur
and in which urban facilities and services are to be provided. The purpose of the MUSA
is to define the areas within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area that are eligible for "urban
services", specifically sewers, municipal water systems and particular types of
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-2 DRAFT - October 2004
transportation systems. This boundary line is defined and maintained by the Metropolitan
Council to assist in the orderly development of the metropolitan area. All of Edina is
within the MUSA area.
"A" Minor Arterials — Roadways within the metropolitan area that are more regionally
significant than others. These roadways are classified into the following groups:
a) Relievers — Minor arterials that provide direct relief for traffic on major
metropolitan highways. These roads include the closest routes parallel to the
principal arterials within the core, urban reserve and urban staging areas.
These roadways are proposed to accommodate medium-length trips (less than
eight miles) as well as to provide relief to congested principal arterials.
Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic.
b) Expanders — Routes that provide a way to make connections between
developing areas outside the interstate ring or beltway. These routes are
located circumferentially beyond the area reasonably served by the beltway.
These roadways are proposed to serve medium to long suburb-to-suburb trips.
Improvements focus on preserving or obtaining right-of-way.
c) Connectors — This subgroup of "A" minor arterials are those roads that would
provide good, safe connections among town centers in the urban reserve, urban
staging and rural areas within and near the seven counties. Improvements
focus on safety and load-carrying capacity.
d) Augmenters — The fourth group of "A" minor arterials are those roads that
augment principal arterials within the interstate ring or beltway. The principal
arterial network in this area is in place. However, the network of principal
arterials serving the area is not in all cases sufficient relative to the density of
development that the network serves. In these situations, these key minor
arterials serve many long-range trips. Improvements focus on providing
additional capacity for through traffic.
Minor Street — The street normally carrying the lower volume of vehicular traffic (vs.
Major Street).
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route — A designated City roadway that receives state
funds as allocated from the State gas tax for maintenance and construction.
Approximately 20 percent of the City roadways are designated as MSA routes. State of
Minnesota rules and standards, in addition to local jurisdiction guidelines, apply to these
roadways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-3 DRAFT - October 2004
Neckdowns — Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane
narrowing but used at intersection(s). Widening of street corners at intersections to
discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help define
neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe
crosses.)
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) — Formalized process where
residents, commissioners and City staff evaluate the various requirements, benefits and
tradeoffs of traffic calming projects within neighborhoods. The overall objectives for the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan are to improve neighborhood livability by
mitigating the impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods; to promote safe
and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents on
neighborhood streets; to encourage citizen involvement and effort in neighborhood traffic
management activities; to make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing traffic
management requests; and to support the Comprehensive Plan policy that livability and
safety of established residential neighborhoods be protected in transportation operations.
Non-Local Traffic — Traffic that does not originate from or is not destined to a location
within a neighborhood or area.
Off-Peak Period — Time of day outside the peak period (see peak period).
Partial Street Closure — Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way
street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One way", and traffic from the blocked lane is
not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.)
Peak Hour — The hour during the peak period when travel demand is highest. Typically,
peak hours are found to be from 7 to 8 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Peak Period — Typically, the time between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 and 6
p.m. on a weekday, when traffic is usually heavy.
Person Trip — A one-way journey between two points by one person in a vehicle.
Photo-radar Speed Enforcement — An automated camera system used to enforce speed
limits. It includes the camera, an attached radar "gun" and a display that shows the speed
of each passing vehicle. When a speeding vehicle is detected, the photo radar system
takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. The registered owner of the vehicle then
receives a ticket in the mail. This enforcement method is not yet legal in Minnesota.
Photo-Red Light Enforcement — Implementation of a photo red light, an automated
camera and computer system can be mounted on a traffic signal pole at an intersection for
red light enforcement. Photo red light takes pictures of any vehicles that run a red light,
records the time elapsed since the light turned red and the vehicle entered the intersection,
and issues a ticket. The photo red light systems are typically installed at key intersections
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-4 DRAFT - October 2004
that have a high number of accidents. This enforcement method is not yet legal in
Minnesota.
Platoon — A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either
voluntarily or involuntarily because of traffic signal controls, geometrics, or other factors.
Principal Arterials — The high capacity highways that make up the metropolitan
highway system, including all interstate freeways.
Radar Speed Display Units — Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists
with an instant message, displayed on a reader board, telling them how fast they are
driving.
Raised Crosswalk — A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at
mid-block locations. (Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions.)
Raised Intersection — A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4"
above the surrounding street. (Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.)
Realigned Intersections — Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote
better through movements for a major roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified
intersections.)
Regional Blueprint — The Metropolitan Council plan that sets a general direction for
future development patterns in the metropolitan area and establishes guidelines for
making decisions about major regional facilities that are needed to support the
commercial, industrial and residential development of the area. It establishes urban and
rural areas and certain development policies for different geographic policy areas.
Regulatory Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of traffic laws or regulations.
Right-of-Way (Assignment) — The permitting of vehicles and/or pedestrians to proceed
in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles or pedestrians by the display of sign or
signal indications.
Roadway striping — Highlighting various areas of the road to increase the driver's
awareness of certain conditions (e.g., edge of road striping to create a narrowing/slowing
effect while defining space for cyclists).
Roundabout — Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers
travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modem roundabouts are "yield
upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the
circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an
intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-5 DRAFT - October 2004
Signal Preemption — Usually referred to in this plan as a technology that triggers the
green go-ahead on meters or signal lights to allow emergency vehicles (and sometimes
transit vehicles) to move more quickly through signalized intersections.
Speed— Speed is defined based on the following classifications:
a) Advisory Speed — A recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a
section of highway and based on the highway design, operating
characteristics, and conditions.
b) Design Speed — A selected speed used to determine the various geometric
design features of a roadway.
c) 85th-Percentile Speed — The speed at or below which 85 percent of the
motorized vehicles travel.
d) Posted Speed — The speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed
Limit signs.
e) Statutory Speed — A speed limit established by legislative action that
typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional,
jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown
on Speed Limit signs.
Speed Hump —Wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump
determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or
damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases. Typically
speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps, undulations.)
Speed Limit — The maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway or
roadway as established by law.
Speed Table — Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to speed humps.
(Trapezoidal humps, speed platforms.)
Speed Zone — A section of highway with a speed limit that is established by law but
which may be different from a legislatively specified statutory speed limit.
Street Closure — Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards, or barriers, etc.
Targeted Police Enforcement — Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by
police due to observed, frequent law disobedience.
Textured Pavements — A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick
crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a change in the driving environment.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-6 DRAFT - October 2004
Traffic Calming — A combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-
motorized street users. Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation
of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut-through volumes
in the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes. Traffic calming
measures are intended to be self-enforcing. Traffic calming measures rely on the laws of
physics rather than human psychology to slow down traffic.
Traffic Circle — Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections,
requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they
traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.)
Traffic Signal Control Systems — The degree of traffic management of an arterial is
grouped and defined as follows:
a) Fixed Time — The traffic signals on an arterial are controlled locally through a
time clock system. In general, the progression of a through band (the amount
of green time available along an arterial at a given speed) along the arterial in
the peak direction is determined by past experience and is not a function of
immediate traffic demand.
b) Semi-actuated — The traffic signals along the arterial are designed to
maximize the green time on the major route in the major direction. Timing and
through band are based upon historical records. Use of green time on the
minor leg dependent upon real-time demand and maximized based upon total
intersection delay.
c) Interconnection — A traffic signal system in which data collected at individual
signals is shared with a central processor or controller. Adjustments in traffic
signal control can be made based upon incoming data as opposed to historical
data.
d) Optimization — The process in which a traffic signal or system is modified to
maximize the amount of vehicles passing through the intersection for all
approaches or on the major road in the peak direction.
e) Real-time Adaptive Control — An advanced traffic control system that
incorporates current technologies in communications, data analysis, and traffic
monitoring to provide real-time traffic control of arterials, corridors or roadway
networks.
Transportation Comprehensive Plan — Assists the City in making correct
transportation-related decisions today by anticipating the character, magnitude and timing
of future transportation demand.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-7 DRAFT - October 2004
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — Programs and methods to reduce
effective demand. In the broadest sense, any activity or facility that reduces vehicle trips
would fall within this classification. The highest priority in the region is given to
reducing single-occupant vehicle trips in the peak periods. Techniques that might be
utilized are carpooling, vanpooling, transit, alternative work hours, transportation
management organizations, and land development or ordinances that discourage vehicle
trips and encourage walk, bike, rideshare and transit trips.
Transportation Policy Plan - This document is one chapter of the Metropolitan
Development Guide, as provided for in Minnesota Stat. 473, Sections 145 and 146.
Section 145 states: "The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt...a comprehensive
development guide for the metropolitan area."
Vehicle Trip — A one-way journey made by an auto, truck or bus to convey people or
goods.
Volume-to-capacity Ratio (v/c) — The hourly number of vehicles expected to use a
roadway in the busiest hour, divided by the number of moving vehicles the roadway can
safely accommodate in an hour.
Warning Signs — A sign that gives notice to road users of a situation that might not be
readily apparent.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-8 DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDIX B - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
(Not in priority order)
PAGE
NO.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
DEVICE/MEASURE
SPEED
REDUCTION
TRAFFIC
REDUCTION
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
AIR/NOISE
POLLUTION COST
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
TEST VS.
PERMANENT OTHER
B-4 Speed Hump Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-5 Speed Table Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-6 Raised Crosswalk Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-7 Raised Intersection Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium
to High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation Only
Possible Drainage
Problem
B-8 Textured Pavement Possible No Effect No Change Minimal Effect Low to
Medium
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation Only
Increased
Maintenance
B-9 Center Island
Narrowings
Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-10 Neckdowns Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium
to High
Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-11 Gateway Treatment Possible Possible No Change Small Decrease Medium
to High
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation Only
Increased
Maintenance
B-12 Choker Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-13 Chicane Probable Possible Slight Increase Slight Increase Medium
to High
Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-14 Realigned Intersection Varies Varies Small Decrease Small Decrease High Varies Permanent
Installation Only
City of EdinaTransportation Policy B-1
DRAFT - October 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
(Not in priority order)
PAGE
NO.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
DEVICE/MEASURE
SPEED
REDUCTION
TRAFFIC
REDUCTION
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
AIR/NOISE
POLLUTION COST
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
TEST VS.
PERMANENT OTHER
B-15 Traffic Circle Possible Possible Slight Increase Small Increase Medium Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-16 Roundabout Probable Possible No Effect Slight Increase Medium
to High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation Only
Increased
Maintenance
B-17 Diagonal Road
Closures
Probable Probable Small Increase Small Increase Low to
Medium
Varies Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-18 Partial Street Closure Possible Probable Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-19 Cul-de-sac Probable Yes Small Increase Small Increase High Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-20 Median Barriers Small Possiblity Possible No Effect No Effect Varies Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
B-21 Forced Turn Islands Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low to
Medium
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Not used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
B-22 Targeted Police
Enforcement
Depends on
Amount
Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary
B-23 Radar Speed Units Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-24 Neighborhood Traffic
Safety Campaigns
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-25 Stop Sign Varies (may
increase)
Varies Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Temporary or
Permanent
City r aTransportation Policy 2
DRAFT 'ober 2004
TRAFFIC MANAGMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
(Not in priority order)
PAGE
NO.
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT
DEVICE/MEASURE
SPEED
REDUCTION
TRAFFIC
REDUCTION
FUEL
CONSUMPTION
AIR/NOISE
POLLUTION COST
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
TEST VS.
PERMANENT OTHER ,
B-26 Turn Restrictions Varies Yes Small Increase No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-27 One-Way Streets No Possible Small Decrease Small Decrease Low Varies Temporary or
Permanent
B-28 Traffic Signal
("Rest on Red" and
"Rest on Green")
Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
B-29 Pavement Striping Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent
Installation Only
City of EdinaTransportation Policy B-3
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Rounded raised areas of pavement typically 12 to 14
feet in length.
• Often placed in a series (typically spaced 300 to 600
feet apart).
• Sometimes called road humps or undulations.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement, not at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with neckdowns.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 12 to 14 feet in length; other lengths (10,
22, and 30 feet).
• Speed hump shapes include parabolic, circular, and
sinusoidal.
• Hump heights range between 3 and 4 inches with
trend toward 3 - 3 1/2 inches maximum.
• Difficult to construct precisely; may need to specify a
construction tolerance (e.g. ± 1/8 inch) on height.
• Often have signage (advance warning sign before
first hump in series and warning sign or object
marker at hump).
• Typically have pavement markings (zigzag, shark's
tooth, chevron, zebra).
• Taper edge near curb to allow gap for drainage.
• Some have speed advisories.
• Bicyclists prefer that it not cover or cross a bike lane.
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Does not impact parking.
• Works well with curb extensions.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• Tend to reduce air quality and increase
energy consumption.
• May increase speeds between humps.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some horizontal/vertical
curves.
• Requires signage that may be considered
unsightly.
Definition: Speed humps are wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how
fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as
speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps,
undulations.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-4 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Typically does not impact parking.
• Typically preferred by fire department over
speed hump.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• May increase speeds between tables.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Description:
• Long raised speed humps with a flat section in the
middle and ramps on the ends; sometimes
constructed with brick or other textured materials on
the flat section.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a
passenger car to rest on top.
• Midblock placement or at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with neckdowns.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot
ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the
middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet).
• Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as
high as 6 inches).
• Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long)
and are either parabolic or linear.
Definition: Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to regular speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps,
speed platforms.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-5 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Speed Table with flat area to accommodate
pedestrian traffic.
Applications:
• Local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement or at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Works well in combination with curb extensions and
curb radius reductions.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot
ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the
middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet) reported in
U.S. practice.
• Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as
high as 6 inches).
• Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long)
and are either parabolic or linear.
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• Effective pedestrian amenity.
• May be designed to be aesthetically
pleasing.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Increases pedestrian visibility and
likelihood that driver yields to pedestrian.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Raised Crosswalk
Definition: A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid-block locations. (Raised crossings,
sidewalk extensions.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial
Streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-6 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with
ramps on all approaches and often with brick or other
textured materials on the flat section and ramps.
Applications:
• Local streets.
• Allowed on collector and arterial streets at all-
way stop controlled intersection only.
• Works well with curb extensions and textured
crosswalks.
• Often part of an area wide traffic calming scheme
involving both intersecting streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Storm drainage modifications may be necessary.
• Typically rise to sidewalk level.
• May require bollards to define edge of roadway
• Installations typically have gentle 1:40 slopes on
ramps.
• Not typically used in densely developed urban areas
where loss of parking would be unacceptable.
Advantages:
• Reduction in through movement speeds at
intersection.
• No effect on access.
• Makes entire intersections more
pedestrian-friendly.
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
Disadvantages:
• May slow emergency vehicles to
approximately 15 miles per hour.
• May impact drainage.
Raised Intersection
Definition: A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4 inches above the surrounding street.
(Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium to
High
_
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Possible
Drainage
Problem
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-7
DRAFT - October 2004
Definition: A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a
change in the driving environment.
Description:
• An area within in the roadway set off from the typical
pavement (e.g. bituminous and concrete) by using
cobble stones, stamped concrete, etc.
Applications:
• Used as community enhancement and/or as a
gateway treatment.
• Works well with raised crosswalk and intersection
applications.
Design/Installation Issues:
• In some cases, not preferred by bicyclists due to
rough surface.
Advantages:
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
• May be used to define pedestrian crossing.
• May reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
• Increased Maintenance.
• May increase noise.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Change Minimal
Effect
Low to
Medium
Minimal
Impact
Permanent
Installation
Only
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-8 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Raised islands located along the centerline of a
street that narrow the travel lanes at that location.
Applications:
• Are often nicely landscaped to provide visual amenity
and neighborhood identity.
• Can help pedestrianize streets by providing a mid-
point refuge for pedestrians crossings.
• Sometimes used on wide streets to narrow travel
lanes.
• Works well when combined with crosswalks.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Bicyclists prefer not to have the travel way narrowed
into path of motor vehicles.
• Islands need to be wide enough to allow signs to
mark them.
• Driving lanes in each direction should be 12 feet plus
gutter width.
• Driveways, alleys, and snowplow operations should
be considered.
• Should not be used where on-street parking needs
are extensive.
Advantages:
• Reduces pedestrian crossing width.
• Provides a refuge for pedestrians and
cyclists.
• Provides barrier between lanes of traffic.
• May produce a limited reduction in vehicle
speeds.
• May visually enhance the street through
landscaping.
• May prevent passing of turning vehicles.
• Preferred by fire department/emergency
response agencies to most other traffic
calming measures.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• May reduce parking and driveway access.
• May reduce separation for bicycles and
pedestrians.
• May limit visibility of pedestrian crossings.
• May reduce driver sightlines if over-
landscaped.
• Increased maintenance.
Center Island Narrowings
Definition: An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median
slowpoints, median chokers, central islands.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-9 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Realignment of curb, reducing street width at
intersections.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Should not be used in locations where turn lanes or
through lanes would be lost.
• County typically does not allow neckdowns directly
adjacent to county roads.
• Can be used in multiple applications or on a single
segment of roadway.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Must result in a minimum intersection opening and
radii to accommodate turning movements.
• Drainage issues may be significant.
• Vertical delineators or object markers are often used
to make visible to snowplow operators.
Advantages:
• May be aesthetically pleasing if
landscaped.
• Reduces pedestrian crossing distance.
• May reduce speeds and traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
• May improve sight lines.
Disadvantages:
• Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to
accommodate them.
• Landscaping may cause sight line
problems.
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• May impact drainage.
• May impact bicycle accommodations.
• May impact parking.
• May require signage that may be
considered unsightly.
Definition: Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane narrowing but used at intersection(s).
Widening of street corners at intersections to discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help
define neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe crosses.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium to
High
Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-10 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Positive indication of a change in
environment from arterial/collector
roadways to residential street.
• May reduce entry speed.
• Helps give neighborhood a sense of
identity.
• Allows neighborhood creativity and
participation in design.
Disadvantages:
• Increased maintenance.
• Determination and agreement of
maintenance responsibility.
Gateway Treatment
Definition: Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate
a sense of neighborhood identity.
Description:
• Monument or landscaping used to denote an
entrance into a neighborhood.
Applications:
• Used at entrances to residential neighborhoods
typically adjacent to collector or arterial roadways.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Determination and agreement for responsibility of
maintenance.
• Drainage issues may be significant.
• Must maintain proper intersection sight lines.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible No Change Small
Decrease
Medium to
High
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation
Only
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-11
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Curb extensions at midblock that narrow a street by
widening the boulevard or sidewalk area.
Applications:
• Works well with pedestrian crossings.
• Works well with speed humps, speed tables, raised
intersections, textured pavement, and raised median
islands.
• Some applications use an island, which allows
drainage and bicyclists to continue between the
choker and the original curb line.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Bicyclists prefer not to have the travelway narrowed
into the path of motor vehicles.
• Typically designed to narrow road to 22 feet for two-
way traffic with 1:10 tapers at the ends.
• Adequate drainage is a key consideration.
• Provides opportunity for landscaping.
• Vertical delineators, bollards or object markers are
often used to make visible to snowplow operators.
• Effective when used in a series.
• Avoid narrowings of two way traffic to single lanes.
• Avoid use in locations where at the crest of a hill and
on some curves.
• Parking must be restricted at the choker.
I
. ..7.1STAFSA Or 4•1....7., n
..V111111111AALAn
•
Advantages:
• Reduces pedestrian crossing width and
increases visibility of pedestrian.
• May reduce speed and traffic volume
• Self-enforcing.
• Preferred by many fire department/
emergency response agencies to most
other traffic calming measures.
Disadvantages:
• May impact parking and driveway access.
• Unfriendly to bicyclists unless designed to
accommodate them.
• May impact drainage.
Definition: Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street
parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
May Impact
Drainage
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-12
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• A series of narrowings or curb extensions that
alternate from one side of the street to the other
forming S-shaped curves.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Appropriate for midblock locations only.
• Most effective with equivalent volumes on both
approaches.
• Typically, is a series of at least three curb extensions.
• Can use on-street parking to create chicane.
• Very effective method of changing the initial
impression of the street. If designed correctly,
drivers will not be able to see through. Appears as a
road closure yet allows through movement.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Unless well designed, chicanes may still permit
speeding by drivers cutting straight paths across the
center line.
• Recommend shifts in alignment of at least one lane
width, deflection angles of at least 45 degrees, and
center islands to prevent drivers from taking a
straight "racing line" through the feature.
Advantages:
• Provides opportunity for landscaping.
• Pedestrians have reduced crossing
distance.
• Imposes minimal inconveniences to local
traffic.
• Accepted by public as speed control
device.
• May reduce speed and traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
• Emergency response typically prefer two-
lane chicanes to speed humps.
Disadvantages:
• Can impact parking and driveway access.
• Street sweeping may need to be done
manually.
• May impact drainage.
• Typically, not appropriate for intersections.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
• May cause problems during winter.
• Increased maintenance.
• May create head-on conflicts on narrow
streets.
Definition: Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of
offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Slight
Increase
Slight
Increase
Medium to
High
Minimal
Impact
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-13 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Revised street geometrics of an existing intersection
that typically improves and decreases the traffic
delay for the main through movement (vs. the less
important road).
Applications:
• Typically used to correct and provide a non-stop
condition for the legs of an existing intersection with
the larger traffic volume.
• Used to help define driver's right-of-way.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Drainage may be an issue.
• May require mitigation signage due to substandard
curvature of roadway.
Advantages:
• Provides a more fluent through movement
for the major roadway.
• Improves driver expectation by providing a
more typical intersection.
• May better define driver's right-of-way.
• May reduce traffic volume.
Disadvantages:
• May impact parking and driveway access.
• May impact drainage.
• May be perceived as an inconvenience by
some neighbors.
• May require additional right-of-way
acquisition.
Valley View Road
Realigned Intersection
Definition: Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote better through movements for a major
roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified intersections.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies Varies Small
Decrease
Small
Decrease
High Varies Permanent
Installation
Only
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-14
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Raised islands, placed in intersections, around which
traffic circulates (this is not a roundabout).
• Motorists yield to motorists already in the intersection.
• Require drivers to slow to a speed that allows them to
comfortably maneuver around them.
Applications:
• Intersections of local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• One lane each direction entering intersection.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically circular in shape, though not always.
• Often controlled by YIELD signs on all approaches, but
many different signage approaches are used.
• Key design features are the offset distance (distance
between projection of street curb and center island),
lane width for circling the circle, the circle diameter,
height of mountable outer ring for large vehicles such
as school buses and trash trucks, and potential for
pedestrian path-vehicle path conflicts.
• Usually landscaped in center islands. Quality of
landscaping and its maintenance are key issues.
• Landscaping needs to be designed to allow adequate
sight distance.
• Not typically used at intersections with high volume of
large trucks and buses turning left.
Advantages:
• No effect on access.
• May reduce speed and traffic volumes.
• Effective in reducing intersection collisions.
• Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• Can result in bicycle/auto conflicts at
intersections because of narrowed travel
lane.
• May require parking restrictions at
intersection.
• Left turns may be confusing.
• Care must be taken to avoid routing
vehicles through unmarked crosswalks on
side-street approach.
• Increased maintenance.
Traffic Circle
00,
Definition: Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them,
potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Slight
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-15 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Reduces speed at intersection approach
• Longer speed reduction influence zone.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Effective in reducing intersection collisions.
• Self-enforcing.
• Provides space for landscaping.
• Provides a good environment for bicycles.
• Provides equal access to intersections for
all drivers.
• Cheaper to maintain than a traffic signal.
Disadvantages:
• Requires a larger amount of right-of-way
than a typical intersection.
• May require additional lighting and signing.
• Initial safety issues as drivers adjust.
• Increased maintenance responsibilities.
Truck
Apron
One-way
operation at 15-
20 mph Yield at
Entry
7,
Circular Roadway
Splitter Island
Definition: Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise
direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are "yield upon entry", meaning that cars in the circle have the right of
way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an
intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.)
Description:
• Circular intersections with specific design and traffic
control features including yield control of all entering
traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate
geometric curvature to ensure travel speeds within
the roundabout are less than 30 mph.
Applications:
• Intersections of local, collector and arterial streets.
• Used to improve the operation of an intersection.
• Sometimes used as community enhancement as a
gateway treatment.
• Used in high crash areas where the crash type is
inclined to be corrected by the use of a roundabout.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Adequate speed reduction.
• Design vehicle consideration.
• Pedestrian crossings located at least one vehicle
length upstream from crossing and only across legs.
• Circulating vehicles have the right-of-way.
• All vehicles circulate in a counter-clockwise direction
and pass to the right of the central island.
• Incorporate splitter islands to separate traffic, to
deflect entering traffic, and to provide opportunity for
pedestrians to cross in two stages.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible No Effect Slight
Increase
Medium to
High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-16
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection,
blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or have been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Often used in sets to make travel through
neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered
internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through
movement possible but less attractive than
alternative (external) routes.
• Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• There may be legal issues associated with closing a
public street.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands, walls,
gates, side-by-side bollards, or any other obstruction
that leave an opening smaller than the width of a
passenger car.
• Diverter width and curvature is dependent upon the
intersection roadway widths.
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes.
• Reduces speeds at the closure area.
• Bicycles /pedestrians may not be
restricted.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Increased emergency response in most
cases.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• May impact drainage.
• May impact parking.
• Tends to increase travel distance.
• May increase maintenance.
Diagonal Road Closure
Definition: A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection.
This type of barrier may be used to create a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Probable Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low to
Medium
Varies Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-17 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Barriers that block travel in one direction for a short
distance on otherwise two-way streets (when two
half-closures are placed across from one another at
an intersection, the result is a semi-diverter).
Applications:
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Often used in sets to make travel through
neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered
internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through
movement possible but less attractive than
alternative (external) routes.
• Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool.
• Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction
without the negative access issues of one-way
streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Partial closure must extend to centerline of the
affected street.
• A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained.
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands.
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in
one direction and possibly in the other).
• Reduces speeds at the closure area.
• Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of
the street.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• Enforcement issues (compliance may not
be 100%)
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected (they have to drive around partial
closure with care).
• Reduces access to residents.
_J3
Partial Street Closure
Definition: Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way street. The open lane of traffic is signed "One
way", and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Probable Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Minimal
Impact
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-18 DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Eliminates through traffic.
• Reduces speed of the remaining vehicles.
• Improves safety for all the street users.
• Pedestrian and bike access maintained.
Disadvantages:
• Reduces emergency vehicle access.
• Reduces access to properties for
residents.
• May be perceived as an inconvenience by
some neighbors and an unwarranted
restriction by the general public.
• May increase trip lengths.
• May increase volumes on other streets.
• May require additional right-of-way
acquisition.
Description:
• A street with no outlet that eliminates cut-through
traffic.
Applications:
• Used only on local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Cannot be used on truck routes, bus routes, snow
emergency routes, through streets, or any other
major roadway.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Must be a minimum of 120 feet of right-of-way
(diameter) to accommodate the minimum turn-around
radius of 40 feet.
• Obtain approval of police, fire and emergency
medical services.
Definition: Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a circular turn-around area.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Yes Small
Increase
Small
Increase
High Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial
streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-19 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Raised islands in the centerline of a street that
continues through an intersection that blocks the left
turn movement from all intersection approaches and
the through movement at the cross street.
Applications:
• Median closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction
without the negative access issues of one-way
streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained.
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands.
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in
one direction and possibly in the other).
• Reduces speeds at the median area.
• Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of
the street.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• Enforcement issues (compliance may not
be 100%)
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected.
• Reduces access to residents.
Definition: Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Small
Possibility
Possible No Effect No Effect Varies
_
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-20 DRAFT - October 2004
Forced Turn Islands
Definition: Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning movements. (Forced turn barriers,
diverters.)
Description:
• Raised island barriers placed at intersections,
typically blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Physical barrier used to divert traffic to help prevent
the temptation of drivers from making an illegal
turning or through movement.
• Intended to reduce traffic volume or to prevent a
turning movement due to safety constraints.
• Used for access management.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Island width and curvature is dependent upon the
intersection roadway widths.
• Must design corner radii to accommodate vehicle
turning movements (e.g. Trucks and buses).
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes.
• May reduce speeds at island area.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel streets.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected (they have to drive around island
with care).
• May interrupt street network connectivity.
• May increase travel distance.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low to
Medium
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-21 DRAFT - October 2004
Definition: Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by police due to observed, frequent law disobedience.
Description:
• Use of local police to enforce traffic laws appropriate
to traffic problems identified in a neighborhood.
Applications:
• Should only be used when specific problems are
outlined or documented.
• Can be used in conjunction with speed wagon
applications.
Design/Installation Issues:
• No design needed in a physical sense.
• Due to staff time constraints, every effort should be
made to clearly identify the problem (e.g. speeding,
driving in the parking lane, running stop signs, etc.)
• The problem should be narrowed down to the
occurrence day, time, specific location, or vehicle
type.
• Follow-ups indicating the impact of enforcement are
needed to determine the effectiveness. Advantages:
• Good temporary public relations tool.
• Serves to inform puOblic that traffic law
violations are undesirable behavior for
which there are consequences.
• Easy to implement.
• Can result in area-wide positive impacts.
Disadvantages:
• Effect is not permanent.
• Enforcement is an expensive tool.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Depends
on
Amount
Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-22 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Tool to help raise driver awareness.
• Displays speeds of passing vehicles on a reader
board
• Used in areas with frequent speeding
• Stationary Radar Signs direct a motorist's attention to
the posted speed limit and displays the speed of the
driver's vehicle on a large message board.
• Purpose is to remind drivers that they are speeding
to help encourage compliance.
Applications:
• The Police Department may use it as a "speed
checkpoint" and have an officer present to issue
citations to violators.
• Portable Radar Sign on a dolly enables residents to
borrow and place on their street
• Stationary Radar Signs are used in locations that do
not qualify for other physical measures, such as
speed humps.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Needs power to function.
Stationary Radar Signs Radar Dolly
Advantages:
• Heightens driver awareness of the speed
limit and the speed they are traveling.
Disadvantages:
• May provide only short-term effectiveness.
• Vandalism may be an issue.
Radar Speed Trailer
Radar Speed Display Units
Definition: Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader
board, telling them how fast they are driving. (Permanent Radar Signs.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-23 DRAFT - October 2004
Neighborhood Traffic
Management
Advantages:
• Low cost.
• May reduce speeds.
• Residents may feel better after the
experience despite lack of noticeable
results.
Disadvantages:
• Effects may be short term.
Description:
• Neighborhood traffic safety campaigns that typically
consist of personalized letters or general flyers that
are distributed to all residents of a neighborhood that
cite statistics on speeding within the neighborhood
and appeal for compliance with traffic laws.
Applications:
• Used in local residential neighborhoods.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Target all residents of an entire neighborhood (not
certain individuals).
RESPECT OUR
NEIGHBORHOO
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Cam
Definition: Educational campaign used to appeal for compliance with traffic laws.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-24
DRAFT - October 2004
Advantages:
• Relatively inexpensive installation cost.
• Effectively defines driver's right-of-way.
• Reduces speed at the intersection.
Disadvantages:
• When not warranted and used improperly,
they typically cause negative traffic safety
impacts (non-compliance with the signs
and increased accidents).
• May result in increased mid-block
speeding.
• Full compliance with stop control is rare.
Definition: A regulatory sign that gives notice to road users that traffic is required to stop. Used to assign right-of-way
at an intersection. Recommended for installation only when specific warrants are met in accordance with the Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Stop signs are generally not installed to divert traffic or reduce
speeding.
Description:
• An octagonal sign with a white legend and border on
red background used to require traffic to stop.
Applications:
• Used at an intersection of a less important road with
main road where application of the normal right-of-
way rule would not be expected to provide a
reasonably safe operation.
• Used at a street entering a through highway or street.
• Used at an unsignalized intersection in a signalized
area.
• Used when abnormal conditions exist such as very
high speeds, restricted view or crash records indicate
a need for stop control.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Stop signs should not be used for speed control.
• Stop signs should be installed in manner that
minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop.
• In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume
should be stopped. A stop sign should not be
installed on the major street unless justified by a
traffic engineering study.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost r Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies
(may
increase)
Varies Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
_ Response Time
Temporary or
Permanent
Must meet
MMUTCD
warrants
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-25
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Prohibition of turns typically regulated by signs
placed where they will most be easily seen by road
users who might be intending to turn.
Applications:
• Used to restrict right, left and U- turns at intersections
to work in conjunction with medians, signal systems,
etc.
• Used during certain time periods (peak traffic hours)
to help maintain safety of certain driving situations.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Most effective when applied to peak traffic hours.
• Consideration should be given to install physical
barriers (active devices) to aid in the enforcement of
the regulatory sign (passive device).
*Alitinpn , aoth-st et:
Turn Restrictions
Definition: The use of regulatory signs to restrict turning movements entirely or partially (e.g. restrictions for certain
time periods during peak traffic periods).
rations
Advantages:
• Low installation cost.
• May increase safety.
Disadvantages:
• High violation rates without constant
enforcement or physical barriers.
• May inconvenience residents.
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies Yes Small
Increase
No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-26
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• One-way signs used to indicate streets upon which
vehicular traffic is allowed to travel in one direction
only.
Applications:
• Used to restrict through traffic in isolated applications
or in combinations that create maze-like routes
through a neighborhood.
• Used to increase street capacity and traffic flow.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Combine one-way streets in ways that force turns
every block or two to avoid speeding or cut-through
problems.
cro isss*
Advantages:
• May increase roadway capacity.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
Disadvantages:
• May inconvenience residents.
• May increase speeds.
• Enforcement issues.
• May increase volumes on other streets.
IMO
4 irdiviti
One-Way Streets
Definition: Streets that are designated for use by traffic in one direction only. Typically controlled by the use of "One-
Way" regulatory signs.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
No Possible Small
Decrease
Small
Decrease
Low Varies Temporary or
Permanent
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-27 DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• "Rest on Red" is an application of a signal system
where all approaches to an intersection face red
lights. If advance loops detect an approaching
vehicle moving at or below the desired speed and no
other vehicle is being served at the cross street, the
signal turns green. If speeding is detected, the green
phase is not triggered until the vehicle comes to rest
at the stop line.
• "Rest on Green" is an application of a signal system
where approaches along a main street will have a
green light. If the traffic on the main street is moving
at or below the desired speed and no one is waiting
on the side street, the light will remain green on the
main street. The signal will switch to red if speeding
is detected.
Applications:
• An application of a signal system used to control
speed.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Should not be used on roadways with high levels of
traffic due to operational concerns.
• May be used at non-peak times at some
intersections.
Advantages:
• Punishes or rewards based on compliance
with speed limits.
• Somewhat self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• May affect intersection operation if used at
intersections with high levels of traffic.
Definition: Semi-actuated traffic signals that are programmed to rest on green
intersection. Typically, signals are dependent upon traffic demand and maximized
with the rest on red given to the leg with the lower approach volume.
or red for the different legs of the
based upon total intersection delay
ion Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
Other
Agency
Approval
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-28
DRAFT - October 2004
Description:
• Centerline, edgeline and transverse markings on the
street used to provide guidance and information to
the driver.
Applications:
• Used to supplement other traffic control devices.
• Used to effectively convey regulations, guidance or
warning.
• Centerlines and edgeline use may have the effect of
visually narrowing the roadway.
• Used to create bicycle lanes.
• Patterns of transverse markings placed across travel
paths used to help slow traffic at intersections and at
horizontal curve locations.
Design/Installation Issues:
• The materials used for markings should provide the
specified color throughout their useful life.
• Consideration should be given to selecting materials
that will minimize tripping or loss of traction for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
Advantages:
• Provide important information while
allowing minimal diversion of driver
attention from the roadway.
• Perception of narrowing the roadway may
modestly reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
• Visibility of markings can be limited by
snow, debris and water.
• Marking durability is limited.
Pavement Stripin
Definition: Paint or thermoplastic street markings commonly placed for delineation that provides guidance and
information to the road user.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent
Installation
Only
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-29
DRAFT - October 2004
APPENDIX C - APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
CITY OF
EDINA
Engineering Department
4801 West 50tn Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424-1394
(952) 826-0371
www.cityofedina.com
e
•
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form
Contact Name:
Address:
Day/Message Phone:
Today's Date:
E-mail Address:
Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your
neighborhood:
0 Speeding CI Traffic Volumes
0 Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety 0 Accidents
Ell Other:
Suggested Traffic Calming Measures (See Appendix B of the Transportation Commission Policy, please
rank, No. 1 is most favored):
Proposed Location from: to
(street name)
(street name)
on
(street name)
We, the undersigned, as residents, hereby request the evaluation of the traffic management device listed
above. We understand we may be assessed for the cost for the device.
Please list all addresses in the potentially benefited area. One signature per household or business.
Date Name (please print)
Address Signature
Page of
Please return the completed application form to the Engineering Department at the address noted above.
Edina NTMP Application Form- DRAFT-October 2004
APPENDIX D - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
City of Edina Transportation Policy DRAFT - October 2004
Acknowledgments and References
Edina Transportation Commission:
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
Marie Thorpe
Les Wanninger
Jean White
Technical and Advisory:
City of Edina Engineering Department
City of Edina Public Works Department
City of Edina Planning Department
City of Edina Police Department
City of Edina Fire Department
City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force
Cities' Websites:
• City of Albuquerque Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
http://www.cabq.gov/streets/policies.html
• City of Boulder Planning and Public Works
http : //www3. ci.boulder. co .us/pwplan/
• City of Las Vegas Traffic Engineering Division
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/public_works/
• City of Bellevue Transportation Department
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa. us/p age. asp?view=1056
• City of Bloomington Traffic Calming Policy and Procedure Manual
http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/commissittac/calming/calming.htm
• City of Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Management
http ://www. springsgov. corn/Page. asp?NavTD=1397
• City of Austin Transportation Division
http://www.ci. austin. tx. us/roadworks/default. htm
• City of Vancouver Engineering Services
http ://www . city. vancouver.bc . ca/engsvcs/
• City of Gresham's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
http://vvww.ite.org/traffic/documents/Gresham.pdf
• City of Portland Office of Transportation
http : //wwvv. trans. ci. portland. or. us/Trafficc alming/how/how. htm
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-1 DRAFT - October 2004
• City of Berkley Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/
• Seattle Department of Transportation
http://wwvv.seattle.gov/transportation/ntcpreports.htm
• City of Savage Traffic Safety Committee
http://www.ci.savage.mn.us/traffic safety.html
• City of Tempe Traffic Management Program
http://www.tempe.gov/traffic/trafingnt.htm
• City of Asheville Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
http://vvww.ci.asheville.nc.us/engineer/Trafficpolicy.pdf
• City of Honolulu Transportation Services
http://vvww.co.honolulu.hi.us/dts/index.htm
• City of Rochester, New York Neighborhood Traffic Calming Programs
http://wwvv.ci.rochester.ny.us/streetcalm/index.htm
Websites:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Calming
http://wvvvv.ite.org/traffic/index.html
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Traffic Calming
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm/
• www.Traffic Calming.org
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
• LessTraffic.com
http://www.lesstraffic.com/Programs/SR/SR.htm
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Roundabouts
http://wwvv.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.pdf
• Victoria Transportation Policy Institute
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/
• Minnesota Safety Council — Crosswalk Safety
http://wvvw.mnsafetycouncil.org/crosswalk/
• Bucknell University — Traffic Calming Measures
http://www.students.bucknell.edu/projects/trafficcalming/Measures.html
• Minnesota Department of Transportation — Pedestrian Plan
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/modes/pedplan.html
• 3 E's of Traffic Calming
http://www.3etrafficcalming.com/
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration — Safety Research
http://vvww.arc.gov/safety/safety.htm
Publications and Manuals:
1) Ewing, Reid H. Traffic Calming State of the Practice. Washington, DC: Institute
of Transportation Engineers 1999.
2) City of Edina Transportation Plan. Edina, Minnesota, 1999.
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-2 DRAFT - October 2004
3) City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Edina,
Minnesota. 2003.
4) Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Collier County,
Florida.
5) Reardon, Linda. Traffic Calming — Creatively Mitigating Traffic Speeds and
Volumes. CE News. November 2001.
6) Traffic Calming, City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works Transportation
Division. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1997
7) Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming. Transportation Association
of Canada — Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers. December 1998
8) Saffel, Amy J. Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementations.
Minnesota Local Road Research Board. St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1998
9) Monahan, Bill. Getting People to Police Themselves. APWA Reporter. July
2004
10) Transportation Policy Plan. Metropolitan Council, Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area, Minnesota. December 1996
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-3 DRAFT - October 2004