HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-23 Meeting PacketAGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
6:00 PM, Thursday, September 23, 2004
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Community Room
I. Approve Minutes from August 26, 2004*
II. Transportation Commission Policy (September 2004 DRAFT) — Consideration for
Approval and Recommendation to the City Council*
III. Handouts
a. Updated Handout Summary*
b. Correspondence — Resident Letter*
IV. Other Governmental Activities
V. Adjournment
* Note: Attachment included.
MINUTES OF THE
Regular Meeting of the
Edina Transportation Commission
Thursday, August 26, 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
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Skallerud
STAFF PRESENT:
Wayne Houle, Steve Lillehaug, Sharon Allison
I. Approval of Minutes from July 22, 2004.
<o it c N't
Amendments to the minutes: Page 3, para. 4 should read 'collector and arterial.' Page
4, para. 1 should read 'overlooked.'
Note: Handout — Examples of Traffic Calming in Minnesota. 12 of 34 examples listed in
1,/ the report were collector and arterial roadways.
A motion was made by Wanninger and seconded by Bennett to approve the minutes
with the amendments as noted above.
November's meeting is scheduled for the third Thursday, November 18, 2004 because
of the Thanksgiving Holiday. December's meeting is still scheduled for the fourth
Thursday, December 23, 2004. Bennett's motion to accept the new date was seconded
by White.
Presentations
a. Arterial and Collector Roadways — State Aid Design Standards and
Variances from these Standards
This discussion was to determine what policies might be developed to calm arterial and
collector roadways. Lillehaug explained that the City's roadways are made up of three
primary classifications (arterial, collector and local roadways), each serving different
functions. The bold colored roadways on the Functional Classification Map, shows the
arterial and collector roadways, these are county state aid roads. County state aid
roadways with county jurisdictions are Vernon Avenue, portions of Gleason (from
1
crosstown to the north, France Avenue (entire length), York Avenue/Xerxes Avenue (TH
494 to W. 50th ), and W. 66th Street (Valley View Road. to Xerxes Avenue). Funding for
maintenance of these roadways comes from the state's gas tax funds. County and
State design standards are followed for these roadways. The other colored streets are
municipal state aid streets (City jurisdiction) with the same funding mechanism and
design standards. Local streets are funded locally by means of assessments to
property owners. City design standards, as well as state aid design standards are used.
Lillehaug explained that calming measures on arterial and collector streets must be
designed according to MN state aid design rules such as the minimum 30 mph speed.
Lillehaug said a variance would be needed to lower the speed. The variance would
require a resolution from the Council to the Commissioner of Transportation Board and
it must justify the safety issues that cannot be met with the road design. A variance
would not be required to calm a street down to its design speed, however, it is unlikely
that a speed bump or hump variance would be granted on a street such as France
Avenue.
While calming on arterial and collector streets would promote safety for pedestrians,
Lillehaug explained that traffic would be diverted from the street that was designed to
carry the most traffic at a certain speed. Calming may also create a substandard
design, which would mean no state aid funding.
Bennett suggested defining arterial and collector streets more clearly because 44 th for
example, has homes on both sides while France has businesses. Lillehaug said the
two streets function differently but are grouped together for funding purposes only (both
receive state aid).
White asked if a city could choose not to have a street classified as a state aid street
and fund internally. Richards said this is something for the Commission to discuss later
but they must keep in mind that approximately $1.2M in state aid funds would no longer
be available to the City.
Lillehaug recommended against a cookie cutter policy for all streets. He recommended
calming some streets but not to the point of reducing speed on all streets. Wanninger
stated that some of the issues may be perception only because a sidewalk close to the
street creates a feeling of speeding while one further away does not.
White suggested conducting studies of local streets in an attempt to reduce the speed
limit to 25 mph. Richards said this is an option for discussion once the policy is
adopted. Bennett suggested a process that would allow residents living on collector
roadway to request a traffic study for their particular street. Lillehaug said a process is
already established in the Actioril,plan with an emphasis on collector and arterial streets.
Bennett said residents on loCal(treets should also be given the opportunity to request
studies in the event something is overlooked and the policy, as it is written, excludes
them. Lillehaug said in some cases it will be difficult to determine the notification and
assessment areas, therefore it is not feasible to allow the option to study for every
2
street. He said staff would work to take proactive measures to eliminate unsafe streets
like they did with the intersection of Valley Lane and Valley View Road. Richards said if
the policy is not clearly defined it should state that all traffic issues should be brought
before the Transportation Commission. Staff was directed to change the language to
include all residents in spite of which street they live on.
Lillehaug reported that there are some calming devices that staff does not believe is
relevant on collector and arterial streets, speed bumps for example. Houle explained
that changes could be made during the design phase of a roadway that could
discourage motorists from going more than 30 mph.
b. Traffic Calming Devices — City Staff Comments
Lillehaug reported that staff from the Police and Fire Departments had negative
comments on calming devices such as speed humps and bumps because these would
slow response time. They were receptive to implemgntRtions that did not slow response
time. Public Works did not take exceptions to anyONAe devices. Lillehaug noted,
however, that the cost of sweeping, plowing and maintenance would increase.
Richards said it might not be necessary to incorporate the comments in the policy, but
instead use them as reference points. Bennett said the report was very helpful and
asked if it could be made more concise and useful to the public. She also asked what
weight would be given to the comments. Richards said it is up to the Commissioners to
decide. Bennett recommended keeping the report available for future use and possibly
shortening the list. , (j4st <-n Sk t, „ t
Ill. Transportation Commission Policy (DRAFT) Appendix D —
Acknowledgements and References
Lillehaug stated that after review, staff is recommending against including the sample
Petition-to-Study. Staff is recommending using the Petition-to-Study after requests
have been reviewed and prioritized.
Regarding the Acknowledgements and References list, Bennett is concerned that one
may assume everyone listed were consulted in developing the policy. She is also
concerned that the Commission, as a body, did not discuss most of the resources listed.
Houle stated that at a previous meeting, a resident commented that they might be
plagiarizing, so staff decided to list the resources used to develop the policy. Lillehaug
stated that he's used all the listed resources during his research.
Miscellaneous Items
Staff would like the Commissioners' help in creating a definition for 'local traffic.'
Dovolis said it might be best to create a vague/loose definition. Thorpe said there
should be two definitions, one for local traffic and one for cut-through traffic.
3
Removal of traffic calming devices: staff recommended majority of votes of benefit area
to proceed with plan development and 70% votes to remove. To be discussed further.
Budget for Commissioner-requested studies: Lillehaug said no, but staff can undertake
small studies as time permits. A more in-depth study would require Council approval.
IV. Review/Discussion/Recommendations of Transportation Commission
Policy (continued from previous meeting)
Page 5
Pedestrian/Bicycle, para. 3, insert `parks' to read '...including high traffic streets,
commercial areas, parks and schools, areas with...'
Funding and Jurisdiction, para 1, Wanninger stated he is not in favor of 'dedicated'
funding, it may be better stated as 'supporting public funding for transit.'
Page 8
Introduction, para. 2, insert '...traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods.'
Para 2, sentence beginning with "Solutions may include revisions...," Bennett would like
the Commission to discuss this and decide if it is something they want to recommend
because this is a recommended change to the existing Council-approved transportation
policy. After discussion the consensus is for the sentence to read `Possible solutions...'
Page 10
Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking, para. 4, Bennett said she would like to receive
a list of all the issue areas in addition to the top 10. The consensus is to change the
language to reflect the Commissioners getting a summary of all studies requested.
Page 11
Para 1, sentence beginning with 'This area is.. .to include properties within 300 feet...'
Reword as `impacted area' to eliminate the restriction created by footage.
Para. 2, The purpose of.. .study's area..! instead of 'street.'
Para. 3, Bennett is recommending at least 60% for initial study. The consensus is a
majority.
Last para, insert '...City staff will..."Staff then MC.'
Application Process
In the application process, Richards stated that the policy is asking the residents to
identify a solution for the issue area they've identified. Richards is recommending
changing this so that the residents do not feel forced into identifying a solution. Dovolis
recommended adding 'suggested' so they at least think about a possible solution. And if
more than one solution is recommended, list in order of priority.
4
Page 12
Benefited area: The Commissioners will rely on staffs recommendation of the benefited
area, but Commissioners will make the ultimate decision.
Test installation: Bennett said most cities test for 3 months. Houle said 12 months is
necessary because of the winter months.
Definitions
Cut-through Traffic: definition remains the same.
Impact Area: 'Area for a project.. .speeding, or that may be positively or negatively
impacted by proposed traffic calming.'
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP): 'Formalized process...' instead of
'tool.'
Principal Arterials: 'The high.. .system, including all interstate freeways.'
Regarding the toolbox sheets, Bennett asked if they could be streamlined to make them
more user friendly to the public. Richards said he's envisioning creating a brochure for
the public.
Staff will prepare a final draft for the next meeting.
V. Other Governmental Activities
Richards reported that Councilmember Jim Hovland is scheduling a meeting with the
1494 Commission and the Transportation Commission for September 8th, time still to be
determined.
Resident in Attendance: Keith Wolf stated he appreciated the opportunity to sit in and
listen to the discussion. He said it is important that something is done to improve the
livability throughout the city.
Meeting adjourned. The next meeting is scheduled for September 23, 2004, 6:00-8:00
p.m. in the Community Room.
5
To: Transportation Commissioners
From: Steven Lillehaug, RE.
Traffic Engineer
Subject: Transportation Commission
Policy, September 2004
DRAFT
Regular Transportation
Commission Meeting
Date: September 23, 2004
Agenda Item No. II.
X Recommendation/Motion n Information
Discussion
Info/Background:
The attached DRAFT Transportation Commission Policy includes revisions addressing
the review and recommendations of the Commissioners and staff.
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
.J (.1
44,
tr- tkotAt1 "%_•A
Ntis. k° 45. Se tember 2004
61* 6,- L (DRAFT)
.App40,-2( C p iic-"- 5 CELLA Lic
cott c_A co, ("AA r s (0 (.0_1,3 t i Lite 11-
,
6C1
5cL,Akulk jc,<AK
— ec,c6-kiccuk eck,w, bR an
as ( --trJ
4 Ltu,
Oc4
el 00164 (Arm.)
4.ou'isA2 $t*IL 4
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
September 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, RE., Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Edina Engineering
City of Edina Transportation Policy i September 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Sheet I
Table of Contents ii
I. Introduction 1
II. Policy Framework
2
III. Plan Implementation 7
IV. Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Definitions
Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices/Measures
Appendix C — Application Request for Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan
Appendix D — Acknowledgements and References
City of Edina Transportation Policy ii September 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. As such, these deficiencies aro These
conditions adversely affecting 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, to stay
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20.
PURPOSE
The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to advises 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; The
ETC will to review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the
City; The ETC will to evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volu
mitigation measures and to recommend their implementation where appropriate;
ETC will to review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force (2002-2003) and offer
recommendations for implementation.
VISION
Edina shall will maintain a Gtreet transportation system that will accommodate the
efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while innevatiwly-ereating-a
preeminent—plane—a fostering safe and livable neighborhoods and business areas
connected by aesthetically beautiful, beautified pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets
and pathways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 1 September 2004
VNt
LICYCFFWVIEWORK
INTRODUCTION
The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed as a supplement to\ite-
, -ingorpurate_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.
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 supplements 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 September 2004
O fj et
7 \tn
fiZ
•P' 1
8. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities
such as planting boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments. and
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 September 2004
-7 - ein roa-i
' lb \vt CZ:-n :c11‘a 4.k c c,_ ,—• 5
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 September 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 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 pedes ria and bicycles at major activity centers, including
necessary storage facilities g bicycle racks and bicycle lockei4rear 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.
Goods Movement
1. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to
the metropolitan highway system.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 5 September 2004
Funding and Jurisdiction
1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community funding sources for improvements
that provide regional or multi-community benefit. Support dedicated public funding
for transit.
2. Support lit 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 September 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 will establishes the
guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities will be 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
cOgeLmine what's fact versus perception). ,
Caieview volumeird'i speed - a 1-te Ct7
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 September 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 io collector and arterial roadway
planned improvements.
%ot
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.
U4s.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 September 2004
(e: 1,8,7
IV. NEG HOIOD 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 lec-al 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. c‘=- 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 in the area
• Intensity and extent of the problems
• Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses
• Availability of data
• Regional improvement projects §cheduled or planned bertcc—t—)) kti t‘i _tja, rem( esA-
c h es,' [eck /IL
A ILL4-.-
ft—e
ch.L.Ctt
c-4-v->
t( v._ e d GI c (1
ti 4e- f e l ‘s
City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 September 2004
Process and Schedule
This section details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plans (See Table 1).
Table 1. Nei hborhood Traffic Mana 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
efore data collection
March/April/May
Step 3 on-to-study prepared and circulated by City Staff . . May
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 I
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
September 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 will 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 will 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 will 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 will be undertaken first. The number of studies initiated each year will depends
on City resources. At-atly-timeT-a-neighberhoed-may-request_approval-to-presered-with-the
develepment-and-i - -City-does-not---i nding the-
ap . • • e--seme.
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 the 10 highest 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 will 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 September 2004
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. The-appropriate-rieiy se est ,VOUp 11•11M; ; - the
ion- o-s u y.
ns
:a a 111 all_ • I e ner ior o LI 111111 IS"
requ
City staff establishes the petition-to-study area (notification) (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 street to
include properties within 300 feet of this area. In the case of a single intersection
problem, the minimum area would-be is approximately one block in all directions. If
significant diversions to other residential streets are reasonably expected, those streets'
residents are would-also-be-included in the study area (impacterea).
ecc
The purpose of the petition-to-study is to drnine the level of agreement among the
study's street are-yesidents that-there-i the problem they want to address. City
staff will prepares the petition, describing the problem and the procedures to be followed
if a study is undertaken. The
then circulates the petition.
Signatures representing a jolty_ (greater than 5 '1 --110u-s-eho ithin the
Rettion-to-st audy_i_ta- ,_argreguir_e_d_to move-111e strii_orward to s e house
entitled to one signature. Property owners not living in the—study aria are not inc u
petition-to-study process.
circulating
4 c) ,\U,t,,etlk1/4 4. Plan Development
er a-
Based on a positive petition, the NTMP study will moves forward. The NTMP will be is 3D7A- reviewed by the City's Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works and
Engineering, and by transportation agencies including transit and school.
The ETC will 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 the benefited area and impacted area
• Identification of evaluation criteria
• Establish threshold criteria (on project-by-project basis)
• Development of alternative plans/solutions
C
City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 September 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 (impaq\area).
The survey-to-test area must 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 eyaluation. includes th.e subjectAeq_l_kr.„/Ia44,
and streets affected by the projecOind islilSeYeM-before.-1-ndlaietr` 'Speeds and volumes, . • .
impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation criteria
determined during steps 4 and 5. 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 will be are reviewed with the ETC, area residents, and relevant City
staff, and the information will be 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 houselolds, businesses and non-resident property owners within a defined
survey area (impacIlarea) will be 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 residential -streets4hat-either-14-are_within an_urea approximatelyi_block from the
City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 September 2004
wojectexperi-ence-a-t-raffic_volume-increase-t-Ira nt--of the
maximumacce_ptable increase (as determined b_y_the
The ETC will 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.
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 will be is
dropped from the list and the neighborhood will is not be 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 will prepares and
recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority granted by Minnesota
Statute Chapter 429
10. Monitoring
The City will monitors constructed traffic management devices and will 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 shall 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 Weal streets under the Public Works Department
jurisdiction.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 September 2004
Federal Highways.
• Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State,, or
bessdailz-stmets.
2,-Aaetition-te-Study-Required4
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 five 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
City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 September 2004
• 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 lin. 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
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 Division 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 petitioning property owners (previously defined benefited area). The following
procedure will be used for neighborhood initiated removals:
City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 September 2004
1. Petition requesting removal representing a major majority of over 70% of the
properties in the benefited area 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 will be are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff will makes
recommendation to the ETC.
4. ETC will forwards a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation is for
removal, improvement and assessment hearings will be are scheduled for Council.
z; /6-. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule.
7. Letting, final assessment and construction.
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.
Speeel-Reduetien 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
cltr* • Roundabout
•
• Diagonal Road Closur
• Partial Street Closure
• Cul-de-sac
City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 September 2004
• 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)
BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA)
This section generally defines the benefited area of the traffic management devices for
use ilrdetermining the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical benefited
areas but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project by project basis.
/
Sp ed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured
Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments,
Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle:
\to \
• Benefited area extends 300 feetifrom the device along the street affected by the
device or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less.
Diagonal Road Closure,iRound-a-bout:
-90
• Benefited area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the intersection.
Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median
y
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 September 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 September 2004
Appendix A - Definitions
City of Edina Transportation Policy September 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 September 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 September 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 September 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 tool 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 September 2004
that have a high number of accidents. This enforcement method is noIy3t I gal 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. 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.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-5 September 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 September 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 September 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 September 2004
Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices/Measures
City of Edina Transportation Policy September 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-4 Speed Hump Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Possible
Drainage
Problem
B-5 Speed Table Probable Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Possible
Drainage
Problem
B-6 Raised Crosswalk Possible Possible Small Increase Small Increase Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Possible
Drainage
Problem
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
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
B-14 Realigned Intersection Varies Varies Small Decrease Small Decrease High Varies Permanent
Installation Only
B-15 Traffic Circle Possible Possible Slight Increase Small Increase Medium Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
Increased
Maintenance
City of EdinaTransportation Policy B-1 September 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-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
B-18 Partial Street Closure Possible Probable Small Increase Small Increase Medium Minimal Impact Test Installation
Possible
B-19 Cul-de-sac Probable Yes Small Increase Small Increase High Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test Installation
Possible
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
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
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
City of P,linaTransportation Policy '-2
Se- -ter 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-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
September 2004
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.)
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 streets.
• Not intended for use on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement, not at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with curb extensions.
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.
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
Test
Installation
Possible
Drainage
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-4
September 2004
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 streets.
• Not intended for use 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 curb extensions.
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.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed Table
Definition: Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to regular speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps,
speed platforms.)
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 cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Speed Traffic Fuel Air/Noise Cost Emergency l est vs. Omer
Reduction Reduction Consumption Pollution Services Permanent
Probable Possible Small Small Low Possible Test Possible
Increase Increase Increased Installation Drainage
Response Possible Problem
Time
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-5 September 2004
..... ......
n i :".1. lit
777:,
...
A
'ci
A
t... el.
.... ..... —...... ..... ..... .... ....,. ..... .....,
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.
Description:
• Speed Table with flat area to accommodate
pedestrian traffic.
Applications:
• Residential streets.
• Not intended for use 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.
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
Possible
Drainage
Problem
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-6
September 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.
• 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.
R ed Intersection
fq=1,
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
September 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:
• Local streets.
• 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
September 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
3"
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
September 2004
Description:
• Realignment of curb, reducing street width at
intersections.
Applications:
• Residential 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
September 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.
Gatewa ment.. .,... ,..„..„*.•
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
September 2004
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.)
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.
-
••n •n • -.No an.
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.
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
September 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 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.
Chicane
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
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-1 3
September 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.
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
September 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.
• 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 Circ e
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
Increased
Maintenance
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-15
September 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
undabout
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-1 6
September 2004
Description:
• Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection,
blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• 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.
Diagona 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
B-17 September 2004 City of Edina Transportation Policy
Ufa
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.
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:
• 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.
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
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-18
September 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.
• 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
City of Edina Transportation Policy
B-19
September 2004
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.
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.
'7—M3
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
September 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.
• 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).
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
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-21
September 2004
Targeted Police Enforcement
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
September 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
B-23 September 2004 City of Edina Transportation Policy
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).
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns
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
September 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.
ky;,. Stop Sign
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
September 2004
Definition: The use of regulatory signs to restrict turning movements entirely or partially (e.g. restrictions for certain
time periods during peak traffic periods).
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).
Advantages:
• Low installation cost.
• May increase safety.
Disadvantages:
• High violation rates without constant
enforcement or physical barriers.
• May inconvenience residents.
Evaluation Considerations
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
September 2004
Definition: Streets that are designated for use by traffic in one direction only. Typically controlled by the use of "One-
Way" regulatory signs.
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.
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
September 2004
Traffic Signa ("Rest on Re 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
September 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.
Definition: Paint or thermoplastic street markings commonly placed for delineation that provides guidance and
information to the road user.
t
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.
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
September 2004
Appendix C - Application Request for Neighborhood
Traffic Management Plan
City of Edina Transportation Policy September 2004
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form
Contact Name Day Phone
Address
E-mail Address
Suggested Traffic Calming Measure (See Appendix A, 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:
City of Edina, Engineering Department
4801 W. 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424-1394
Edina NTMP Application Form-September 2004
Appendix D — Acknowledgments and References
City of Edina Transportation Policy September 2004
Acknowledgments and References
Edina Transportation Commission:
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
William Skallerud
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/page.asp?view=1056
• City of Bloomington Traffic Calming Policy and Procedure Manual
http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/conunissittac/calming/calming.htm
• City of Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Management
http ://wwvv. springsgov. com/P age. asp ?NavID=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. c a/engsvcs/
• City of Gresham's Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
http://wvvw.ite.org/traffic/documents/Gresham.pdf
• City of Portland Office of Transportation
http ://www . trans .ci.portland. or. us/Trafficc alming,/how/how .htm
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-1 September 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://wwvv.ci.savage.mn.us/traffic safety.html
• City of Tempe Traffic Management Program
http://www.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://wvvw.ci.rochester.ny.us/streetcalm/index.htin
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://wwvv.trafficcalming.org/
• LessTraffic.com
http://www.lesstraffic.com/Programs/SR/SR.htm
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Roundabouts
http://www.tfluc.gov/safety/00068.pdf
• Victoria Transportation Policy Institute
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/
• Minnesota Safety Council — Crosswalk Safety
http://www.mnsafetycouncil.org/crosswalk/
• Bucknell University — Traffic Calming Measures
http://www.students.buckneledu/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://wvvw.3etrafficcalming.com/
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration — Safety Research
http://www.tfhrc.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 September 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 ('alming. 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 September 2004
To: Transportation Commissioners
From: Steven Lillehaug, RE.
Traffic Engineer
Subject: Transportation Commission
Policy, September 2004
DRAFT
Regular Transportation
Commission Meeting
Date: September 23, 2004
Agenda Item No. III a & b.
Recommendation/Motion
F Information
Discussion
Info/Background:
The following documents are being provided to you as indicated:
• Summary of Handouts — update of all handouts provided to the ETC
• Correspondence — Letter received from Edina resident (Rob Webb, 4516 Drexel
Avenue)
Updated: June 23, 2004
City of Edina Date Printed:9/20/2004
By: Steve L. Transportation Commission
Summary of Handouts
Handout
No.
Date
Received
by ETC Title Description
1 2/26/04 AMM Handout Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) - Mission,
Organization and Policy
2 2/26/04 MTA Handout Minnesota Transportation Alliance (MTA) - Transportation
Primer and January 2004 Legislative Update
3 2/26/04 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Map 1999 Transportation Plan
4 2/26/04 Future Sidewalk Financing Policy
5 2/26/04 Municipal State Aid Sidewalk Study January 27, 2004
6 2/26/04 2004 thru 2008 CIP Public works 2004 thru 2008 Roadway CIP
7 2/26/04 Edina Traffic Task Force Report Adopted by City Council May 6, 2003
8 2/26/04 Edina Traffic Task Force Minority Report Submitted by Jennifer Janovy January 30, 2004
9 3/25/04 Minnesota City Transportation Commission Survey Survey showing type of transportation commissions other
Minnesota Cities have and miscellaneous handouts from
these cities.
10 4/22/04 City of Edina Transportation Plan March 1999
11 4/22/04 Old vs. New Road Development Patterns Typical community development patterns
12 4/22/04 Historical Twin Cities Map - 1974
13 4/22/04 Landuse Map, Twin Cities 1949 Minneapolis / St. Paul
14 4/22/04 Transportation Systems Map, Twin Cities 1997 Metropolitan Council Map - Functional Classification
of Roadways, Railroads and Airports
15 4/22/04 Functional Classification Map, Edina October 2003, City of Edina Roadways - Also shows
perceived "issue" areas
16 4/22/04 Transitway Map, Twin Cities January 2002 Metropolitan Council Map
17 4/22/04 Potential Redevelopment Site Map Figure from Local Traffic Task Force Report, May 2003
18 4/22/04 Forecast 2020 Daily Traffic Volume Percent Change from 1September 2002, City of Edina - 2020 ADT's from regional
model
19 4/22/04 Speed Limit Map September 2002, City of Edina
20 4/22/04 Three River Trail Plan for Edina Current 2004, Hennepin County
21 4/22/04 State Speed Limit Brochure August 2002, Mn/DOT
Page 1
Updated: June 23, 2004
City of Edina Date Printed:9/20/2004
By: Steve L. Transportation Commission
Summary of Handouts
22 4/22/04 Sidewalk Fact Sheet City of Edina
23 4/22/04 Local Roadway Reconstruction Fact Sheet City of Edina
24 4/22/04 Regional Bottleneck Removals Mn/DOT article summarizing the Twin Cities area
bottleneck sites
25 4/22/04 Traffic Calming package Sample of Traffic Calming Measures, City of Savage
26 4/22/04 Accident Statistic Comparison 2002-2003, City of Edina
27 5/27/04 DRAFT Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) Policy May 2004 DRAFT
28 5/27/04 Edina Roadway Functional Classification Criteria Chart Criteria Chart for Edina (Summary of Transportation Plan
criteria)
29 6/24/04 DRAFT ETC Policy (additional sections) Definitions, Traffic Management Devices/Measures, Option
B for Scoring for Ranking, Option B for Process and
Schedule
30 7/22/04 DRAFT ETC Policy (Revised) Complete DRAFT policy document
31 7/22/04 Effective Traffic Calming Applications Implementation Examples of traffic calming used in Minnesota
32 8/26/04 Minnesota Rules 8820-9936, 9946, 9995, 3300 & 3400 State Aid Design Standards and Variances from these
standards
33 8/26/04 DRAFT ETC Policy Appendix D Acknowlegements and References
34 8/26/04 Traffic Management Devices and Measures Summary of City Staff comments for each device
35 9/23/04 ETC Policy September 2004 DRAFT Complete DRAFT policy document
36 9/23/04 Correspondence - Resident Letter Letter received from Rob Webb, 4516 Drexel Ave.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Page 2
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
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.
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
September 2004
(DRAFT)
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
September 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, RE., Traffic Engineer/Assistant Engineer
Wayne D. Houle, RE., Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Edina Engineering
City of Edina Transportation Policy i September 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Sheet i
Table of Contents ii
I. Introduction 1
IL Policy Framework 2
III. Plan Implementation 7
IV. Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Definitions
Appendix B — Traffic Management Devices/Measures
Appendix C — Application Request for Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plan
Appendix D — Acknowledgements and References
City of Edina Transportation Policy ii September 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 affecting 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, to stay
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20.
PURPOSE
: - . : " • :
The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to advises 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; The
ETC will to review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the
City; The ETC will to evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume
mitigation measures and to recommend their implementation where appropriate; The
ETC will to review the findings of the Local Traffic Task Force (2002-2003) and offer
recommendations for implementation.
VISION
Edina shall will maintain a street transportation system that will accommodate the
efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while innevatively-ereating-a
preeminent—Oaee—ef fostering safe and livable neighborhoods and business areas
connected by aesthetically beautiful, beautified pedestrian and bicycle friendly streets
and pathways.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 1 September 2004
Plan as follows: G;d--rks
.40.0,e0
'1111111111/ Roadway Design
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION
0 — e
oirr
The Edina Transportation Commission Policy was developed (as—a—supplement—t_t9to
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.
CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
The City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy implements the purposes and
objectives of the ETC as provided in Sect' n 1225 of the City Code (Transportation
Commission). The Policy also sulip-1 ents the .1"* " nded policies of the Transportation
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.
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, collect r streets.
5. Design collector and arterial roadway corridors to be compatible with other
transportation modes including transit, bicycle and ped#trian.
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 September 2004
8. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities
such as planting boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments. and
. .
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.
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 September 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.
C6) Encourage the legislature to increase funding for efficient mass transit. Review and
loot(
recommend policies requiring a mass transit component with all types of
development.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 4 September 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 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 pedestripris and bicycles at major activity centers, including
necessary storage facilities incittatilic-ycle racks and bicycle locker) 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.
Goods Movement
1. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to
the metropolitan highway system.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 5 September 2004
Funding and Jurisdiction
1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community funding sources for improvements
that provide regional or multi-community benefit. Support dedicated 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 September 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 will establishes the
guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities will be 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 September 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 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 September 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 lec-al 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. 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 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
Cc,e/(
toe:122, f 1-7
City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 September 2004
Process and Schedule
This section details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plans (See Table 1).
Table 1. Neighborhood 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 May
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
September 2004
61,:ezi/j2"
1. Petition requesting removal representing a major majority of over 70% of the
properties in the benefited area 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 will -be are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff will makes
recommendation to the ETC.
4. ETC will forwards a recommendation to Council. If the recommendation is for
removal, improvement and assessment hearings will be are scheduled for Council.
Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule.
C2 7. k etting, final assessment and construction.
- 8. N w traffic calming devices will not be considered for five years in benefited area of
re oved device.
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES — CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS
This sections lists traffic management devices and methods that are approved for use in othe City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item.
7
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 VO4-X-L"'"1- eje
(11( • Diagonal Road Closure
• Partial Street Closure
• Cul-de-sac
City of Edina Transportation Policy 17
September 2004
• 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)
BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA)
This sectio enerally defines the benefited area of the traffic management devices for
use in determi 'lig the assessment area. The following prescribes the typical benefited
areas but may adjusted by the ETC on a project by project basis.
Speed Hump, peed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk, Textured
Pavementr-C nter Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway Treatments,
Choker,-Cits ne, Traffic Circle:
b e- e,) Tv /rn
4„pistst OE-
Benefited arè extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the
devic5 or to th nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less.
DiagoñalRpad Cif) ure, 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 September 2004
V (-011,1-_E 62o1J-1----P-CL (/1 oz-cs c_y 76-,073EA) 7c) EAJ,,Lf--(
t+ .44e 4_,:2__S" A-
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 September 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, 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. 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.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-5 September 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 September 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 tool 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 t 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 September 2004