HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-16 ETC Packet
Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda
April 16, 2026, 6:00 PM
Edina City Hall, Community Room, 4801 W. 50th St.
Accessibility Support:
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need
assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else,
please call 952-927-8861 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Meeting Agenda
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes
4.1. Minutes
5. Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share issues or concerns that are
not scheduled for a future public hearing. Items that are on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during
Community Comment. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of
speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Individuals should not expect the Chair or
Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer
the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting.
6. Special Presentations
6.1. Draft Safe & Equitable Mobility Action Plan
7. Reports/Recommendations
7.1. Traffic Safety Report of March 31, 2026
7.2. 2026/2027 Work Plan Updates
8. Staff Comments
Page 1 of 67
8.1. 2026 Meeting Dates
9. Chair and Member Comments
10. Adjournment
Page 2 of 67
Item Report
April 16, 2026
Transportation Commission
Item Number: 4.1 Department: Public Works
Item Activity: Action Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Title: Minutes
Action Requested:
Approve the minutes of the March 26, 2026 regular meeting.
Information/Background:
See attached draft minutes.
Supporting Documentation:
Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL)
and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data
request (URL).
1. Draft Minutes: Mar. 26, 2026
Page 3 of 67
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
City Hall Community Room
March 26, 2026
1. Call to Order
Chair Wright called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. Roll Call
Answering roll call: Commissioners Bildsten, Bruhschwein, Lewis, Lukens, Olson, Rosen, Vandelist, Wright
Late: Commissioner Davidson
Absent: Commissioners Bracken, Lassig
Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni
3. Approval of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Rosen and seconded by Commissioner Bildsten to approve the
agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
4. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner Bildsten and seconded by Commissioner Lewis to approve the
February 19, 2025 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
5. Community Comment
Marillene Allen, 5415 Interlachen Blvd, testified about Item A1 in the Traffic Safety Report of February 24,
2026. Allen spoke in support of the recommended crosswalk, noting that her grandson and his dog were
recently struck by a vehicle on Interlachen Blvd.
6. Reports/Recommendations
6.1. Traffic Safety Report of February 24, 2026
The Commission reviewed and commented on the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Committee.
Commissioner Davidson arrived at 6:35.
6.2. 2026/2027 Work Plan Updates
1. Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan Participation – Staff expects to receive the draft plan
next week for review. The project team will review the draft plan with the Commission at the April
16 meeting. Public open house will be held April 22 at Fire Station 2. City Council adoption expected
May 5.
2. Traffic Safety Standards – No update.
Page 4 of 67
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
3. Innovative Traffic Calming Solutions – Looking to collect examples of innovation in this area
from other cities.
7. Staff Comments – Received.
7.1. Transportation Projects Update
Staff provided an update on current and proposed transportation projects in and around Edina.
7.2. 2026 Meeting Dates
The Commission’s next regular meeting is Thursday, April 16 at 6pm at Edina City Hall.
8. Chair and Member Comments – Received.
8.1. Welcome New Commissioners
Commissioners introduced themselves and welcomed new Commissioners Bruhschwein, Davidson,
Lukens and Vandelist.
9. Adjournment
Motion was made by Commissioner Wright and seconded by Commissioner Rosen to adjourn the
March 26, 2026 regular meeting at 8:18p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance %
Meetings 1 1 1 3
SEAT NAME
1 Wright, Grant 1 1 1 3 100%
2 Davidson, Scott 1* 1 100%
3 Bildsten, Roger 1 1* 1 3 100%
4 Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 3 100%
5 Rosen, Adam 1 1 1 3 100%
6 Lukens, Laura 1 1 100%
7 Olson, Bethany 1 1 1 3 100%
8 Bruhschwein, Taylor 1 1 100%
9 Vandelist, Jake 1 1 100%
10 Lassig, Augie (s) 1 1* 2 67%
11 Bracken, Logan (s) 1 1 2 67%
* Attended remotely
Page 5 of 67
Item Report
April 16, 2026
Transportation Commission
Item Number: 6.1 Department: Public Works
Item Activity: Discussion Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Title: Draft Safe & Equitable Mobility Action Plan
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the draft plan.
Information/Background:
The Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan (SEMAP) is a roadmap for reducing and eliminating traffic
deaths and serious injuries on all roadways within the City of Edina. Developed with funding from the
federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, the plan identifies actions toward implementing
Edina’s commitment of zero traffic fatalities by 2050.
The Commission will review and comment on the draft plan. The public can review and comment on
the draft plan at https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/safe-equitable-mobility-action-plan-semap or
by attending the open house on Wednesday, April 22 from 5-7pm at Fire Station 2 (4401 W 76th St). City
Council will consider adoption of the plan at their May 5 regular meeting.
Supporting Documentation:
Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL)
and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data
request (URL).
1. Draft SEMAP (Board Portal)
Page 6 of 67
04/10/2026
4000618-00
Prepared for:
City of Edina
7450 Metro Blvd
Edina, MN 55439
Prepared by:
Alliant Engineering
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Edina Safe and Equitable
Mobility Action Plan
[NOTE: THIS DRAFT FOR REIVEW IS IN MEMO
FORMAT. FINAL DOCUMENT WILL BE FORMATTED
SIMILAR TO OTHER CITY PLANS.]
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW (4/10/2026)
Page 7 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
PAGE i
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................... 1
2. Introduction: Why this Plan? ............................................................. 1
2.1 Transportation Context .................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Vision Zero .................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Safe System Approach ................................................................................................... 2
2.4 Planning Process ........................................................................................................... 3
2.4.1 Alignment and Integration with Existing Plans ..........................................................4
3. Safety Understanding: Technical Analysis and Community Input ...... 6
3.1 Crash Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Descriptive Crash Analysis ......................................................................................6
3.2 High Injury Network ..................................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Methodology......................................................................................................... 13
3.2.2 All Modes High Injury Network ............................................................................... 13
3.2.3 Vulnerable Road User High Injury Network ............................................................ 15
3.2.4 Motorist High Injury Network ................................................................................. 17
3.3 High Risk Network ....................................................................................................... 18
3.3.1 SEMAP Task Force ................................................................................................ 20
3.4 Community Input ......................................................................................................... 21
3.4.1 Engagement Strategies ......................................................................................... 21
3.4.2 What We Heard .................................................................................................... 24
3.5 Community Context ..................................................................................................... 27
3.5.1 Social Vulnerability ............................................................................................... 27
3.6 Priority Network ........................................................................................................... 29
3.6.1 Prioritization Findings ........................................................................................... 31
4. Recommendations: Getting to Zero ................................................ 34
4.1 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 35
4.1.1 Systemic Safety Countermeasures........................................................................ 35
Page 8 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
PAGE ii
4.1.2 Location-Specific Countermeasures ..................................................................... 40
4.2 Policy and Process ...................................................................................................... 40
4.3 Outreach & Education .................................................................................................. 42
4.4 Supplemental Planning and Engineering Activities ........................................................ 42
5. Measuring and Reporting Progress .................................................. 44
Appendices ............................................................................................ 46
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Safety Considerations within Reviewed Documents ......................................5
Table 2. Weighted FSI + MPI Crash Risk Factors .......................................................................... 19
Table 3. SEMAP Pop-Up Events by Participation .......................................................................... 23
Table 4. Edina Roadway Prioritization Metrics ............................................................................. 30
Table 5. Policy and Process Recommendations .......................................................................... 40
Table 6. Outreach and Education Recommendations.................................................................. 42
Table 7. Supplemental Planning and Engineering Recommendations .......................................... 43
Table 8. Progress Reporting Metrics ............................................................................................ 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Safe System Approach ...................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Crashes by Year and Severity on All Roadways ................................................................7
Figure 3. Pedestrian Crashes ........................................................................................................7
Figure 4. Bicyclist Crashes ...........................................................................................................8
Figure 5. Motorist Crashes ...........................................................................................................8
Page 9 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
PAGE iii
Figure 6. Pedestrian Crashes by Severity (left), Bicyclist Crashes by Severity (center), and Motorist
Crashes by Severity (right) on All Roadways ..........................................................................9
Figure 7. Number of Crashes by Crash Type on All Roadways (left) and Local Roadways (right) .... 10
Figure 8. Intersection Related Crashes by Severity on All Roadways ............................................ 11
Figure 9. Intersection Crashes by Severity on Local Roadways .................................................... 11
Figure 10. Crashes by Month on All Roadways ............................................................................ 12
Figure 11. Crashes by Month on Local Roadways ........................................................................ 12
Figure 12. All Modes All Roadways High Injury Network (HIN) ...................................................... 14
Figure 13. All Modes Local Roadways High Injury Network (HIN) .................................................. 14
Figure 14. Vulnerable Road User (VRU) All Roadways High Injury Network (HIN) .......................... 16
Figure 15. Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Local Roadways High Injury Network (HIN) ...................... 16
Figure 16. Motorist All Roadways High Injury Network (HIN) ........................................................ 17
Figure 17. Motorist Local Roadways High Injury Network (HIN) .................................................... 18
Figure 18. High Risk Network ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 19. Survey Responses by Zip Code ................................................................................... 22
Figure 20. Comment Map Pins by Category ................................................................................. 23
Figure 21. Survey results, “How safe do you feel when using the following modes of transportation
in Edina?” .......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 22. Survey results, “Thinking of your experience traveling on roadways within your
community, how strongly would you agree that roadways in Edina are safe?” ...................... 26
Figure 23. Survey results, "What are your biggest safety concerns in Edina? (Select up to 3)" ....... 27
Figure 24. Composite Social Vulnerability Score for Edina Census Block Groups ......................... 29
Figure 25. Edina Roadway Safety Priority Network (All Roadways) ................................................ 33
Figure 26. Edina Roadway Safety Priority Network (Local Roadways Only) ................................... 33
Page 10 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
PAGE iv
Figure 27. Edina Roadway Safety Priority Network (Local + County Roadways) ............................ 34
Figure 28. Safety Countermeasures Index ................................................................................... 37
Page 11 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 1
1. Executive Summary
Traffic safety profoundly impacts the well-being of Edina community members. Between 2015 and
2024, there were 57 fatal or serious injury crashes on Edina’s roadways. Pedestrian crashes were
18 times more likely to result in a fatality or serious injury than motorist crashes, and bicyclist
crashes were four times more likely.
The Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan (SEMAP) is a roadmap for reducing and
eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries on all roadways within the City of Edina, regardless
of ownership. Developed with funding from the federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
program, the plan identifies actions toward implementing Edina’s Vision Zero commitment of zero
traffic fatalities by 2050.
This plan is organized around three primary questions:
■ Understanding: what is the current transportation safety situation in Edina? This section
analyzes crash data, assesses risks, reports findings from community engagement, and
examines Edina’s community context. The result is a Roadway Safety Priority Network which
will guide how Edina achieves its Vision Zero goal.
■ Recommendations: how do we get to zero? This section defines both infrastructure and
non-infrastructure actions the City should take to achieve its Vision Zero goals
■ Tracking progress: are we achieving our goals? This final section defines annual reporting
metrics to track progress towards Vision Zero.
2. Introduction: Why this Plan?
This action plan serves to consolidate Edina’s values within an implementation framework for
transportation safety investments and other actions. This new plan combines technical and
community input processes, supported by a foundation of transportation safety work the City has
already conducted, to identify Edina’s priority roadway safety needs and develop specific, high-
impact projects to address them. In the process of identifying safety needs and matching them
with proven strategies, the development of this plan has also brought new opportunities for
community members to engage with the City on transportation safety.
The next sections describe the context and framework which shaped the development of the
SEMAP, including situating Edina’s safety challenges within its local and statewide context,
introducing Vision Zero and the Safe System approach as concepts guiding the plan, and finally
outlining how the SEMAP was developed and where it fits within Edina’s existing policy and
investment landscape.
Page 12 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 2
2.1 TRANSPORTATION CONTEXT
Established in 1888, Edina is a diverse community of 53,564 people located in Hennepin County
immediately west of Minneapolis. The city originally grew as a streetcar suburb but over time has
developed its transportation network primarily around motor vehicles. In addition to the local
street network, community members benefit from major highways providing direct access to
Minneapolis, Saint Paul, MSP airport, regional employment centers and destinations throughout
the state. Highway 62 and Interstate 494 run east-west through the City’s center and along its
southern edge, while Highways 100 and 169 run north-south. Convenient access to this robust
arterial network has made Edina an attractive destination for both investment and new residents,
with the City’s population increasing by 13 percent during the last two decades. Like many other
cities, Edina remains heavily reliant on motor vehicles and continues to grapple with the
associated safety impacts. It is within this context that the City developed the SEMAP.
2.2 VISION ZERO
Vision Zero is a values-based philosophy, developed in Sweden in the late 1990s, that holds that
traffic deaths and serious injuries are avoidable and unacceptable. Beyond placing blame solely
on individual road users, Vision Zero recognizes traffic safety as a systemic challenge, one that
must be addressed through design, policy, and behavior change. While Vision Zero goals are
intentionally ambitious, communities around the country and around the world have achieved
them.
On July 15, 2025, the Edina City Council formally adopted a Vision Zero resolution, committing to a
goal of achieving zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all roadways within the City of Edina
by 2050 and an interim goal of a 50% reduction in fatal and serious injury crashes by 2035. This
leadership commitment, found in Appendix A, is a foundational requirement of the federal Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, which funded the development of the SEMAP.
The SEMAP is Edina's primary tool for achieving these goals. Together, the analyses, prioritization
decisions, and recommendations in this plan are oriented toward the Vision Zero targets.
2.3 SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
The plan utilizes the Safe System Approach to traffic safety, a multi-faceted method of improving
transportation safety. The Safe System Approach, which has been adopted by the United States
Department of Transportation and MnDOT’s Toward Zero Deaths initiative among many others,
focuses on five pillars:
■ Death and serious injuries are unacceptable
■ Humans make mistake.
Page 13 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 3
■ Humans are vulnerable
■ Responsibility is shared
■ Redundancy is crucial
The SEMAP recommendations incorporate these elements, which the City of Edina can influence
through roadway design, engineering, education strategies, enforcement, post-crash care, and
more. The Safe System Approach requires cooperation across agencies and departments in the
City, as well as with regional and state-level partners. A task force convening members of these
organizations was created alongside the SEMAP in order to adhere to the Safe System Approach,
and will continue to meet after the completion of the plan.
Figure 1. Safe System Approach
2.4 PLANNING PROCESS
The SEMAP was developed over approximately 16 months, from February 2025 through May 2026,
by a consultant team led by Alliant Engineering with Toole Design Group. The process was guided
by a Project Management Team (PMT) comprising City staff representing Engineering, Public
Works, Sustainability, Engagement, and the citizen members of the Edina Transportation
Commission. A broader Task Force including representatives from Edina Public Schools, Edina
Police and Fire Departments, Metro Transit, Hennepin County, MnDOT, and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) provided technical review and input at key milestones.
Page 14 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 4
The plan was developed in two primary phases. The first phase (spring–fall 2025) focused on data
collection, safety analysis, and community engagement. This included a ten-year descriptive
crash analysis, High Injury Network development, risk assessment, community context
(demographic and social vulnerability analysis), and community engagement through pop-up
events and an online survey. The second phase (fall 2025–early 2026) focused on synthesizing
findings, developing and prioritizing the Roadway Safety Priority Network, and preparing
recommendations for infrastructure investment, policy and process improvements, and outreach
and education.
2.4.1 Alignment and Integration with Existing Plans
One of the SEMAP objectives was to use the comprehensive safety analysis as a tool to coordinate
and integrate related policies, projects and recommendations from existing City plans and ongoing
work. To this end, the study process began with a review of existing City plans, policies, and
programs related to traffic safety that provided context for the SEMAP. The full results of this
review are in Appendix F and summarized in Table 1.
Page 15 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 5
Table 1. Summary of Safety Considerations within Reviewed Documents
Document Safety-Related
Policies
Roadway
Design
Projects
Identified
Implementation/
Funding
Traffic Safety Review
process X X X
Edina Pedestrian
Crossing Policy X X
City’s Dynamic Display
Speed Sign Policy X X X
Comprehensive Plan –
Transportation Chapter X X X
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Master Plan X X X X
Living Streets Plan X X X
Active Routes to
School Plan X X X X
Citywide Speed Limit
Reduction Report X X X
Climate Action Plan X X X
Race and Equity
Initiative Final Report
and Recommendations
X
Vision Edina - Strategic
Vision & Framework X
Code of Ordinances –
Traffic and Vehicles
Chapter
X X
Code of Ordinances –
Streets, Sidewalks, and
Other Public Places
Chapter
X X
Page 16 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 6
3. Safety Understanding: Technical
Analysis and Community Input
To fully understand Edina’s traffic safety challenges, the planning team explored the
transportation safety problem from multiple angles. This included a crash analysis, development
of a High Injury Network and a High Risk Network, community and stakeholder engagement, and a
review of community context. Combined, these inputs were used to develop a Roadway Safety
Priority Network, the foundation for location-specific and system-wide safety recommendations.
3.1 CRASH ANALYSIS
The crash analysis is the data-driven foundation of the SEMAP. It includes a descriptive analysis of
characteristics and patterns present in the city’s crash history from 2015 to 2024. The full Safety
Analysis Memo is included in Appendix B.
3.1.1 Descriptive Crash Analysis
The safety analysis methodology consisted of data collection, consolidation, and analysis based
on provided crash data and various other data such as roadways, schools, and demographics.
Crash data used in this analysis was retrieved from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool
(MnCMAT2), accessed on May 20, 2025.
The analysis covers all roadways within the city regardless of ownership, including roadways
maintained by the City of Edina, Hennepin County, and MnDOT. Of Edina’s 273 total miles of
roadway, 79 percent are city-owned, six percent are county-owned, and 15 percent are state-
owned.
There were 6,438 total crashes on Edina roadways between 2015 and 2024, an average of roughly
two per day. Of these, 57 were fatal or serious injury crashes, including four fatalities and 53
serious injuries. Total annual crashes dipped sharply in 2020 due to reduced travel during the
COVID-19 pandemic and have partially returned to previous levels but remain below pre-
pandemic numbers. Fatal and serious injury crashes (FSI) – the focus of this plan – do not follow
this same trend, appearing more randomly distributed over time. Minor and Possible Injury (MPI)
crashes and Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes made up the largest percent of total crashes.
Figure 2 provides further detail.
Page 17 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 7
Figure 2. Crashes by Year and Severity on All Roadways
Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 below show the total 10-year crashes by mode (pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicle, respectively) severity, location, and roadway ownership.
Figure 3. Pedestrian Crashes
Page 18 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 8
Figure 4. Bicyclist Crashes
Figure 5. Motorist Crashes
Page 19 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 9
Key takeaways from the crash analysis are provided below.
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS FACE DRAMATICALLY GREATER RISK OF
DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY THAN MOTORISTS.
■ Crashes involving pedestrians were 18 times more likely to result in a fatality or serious injury
than motorist crashes.
■ Crashes involving bicyclists were four times more likely to result in a fatality or serious injury
than motorist crashes.
■ Vulnerable Road User crashes (those involving pedestrians and bicyclists) were much more
likely than motorist crashes to result in injury of any kind.
Figure 6. Pedestrian Crashes by Severity (left), Bicyclist Crashes by Severity (center), and Motorist
Crashes by Severity (right) on All Roadways
SINGLE VEHICLE RUN-OFF-ROAD AND PEDESTRIAN CRASHES ARE THE
DEADLIEST, WHILE REAR-END AND ANGLE CRASHES ARE THE MOST
COMMON OVERALL.
■ The most common fatal and serious injury (FSI) crash types on all roadways were single
vehicle run-off-road crashes (19) and pedestrian crashes (14).
■ The most common FSI crash types on local roadways were single vehicle run-off-road crashes
(5) and pedestrian crashes (5).
■ The most common minor and possible injury (MPI) crash types on all roadways were rear-end
crashes (684), angle crashes (283), and single vehicle run-off-road crashes (178).
■ The most common MPI crash types on local roadways were angle crashes (133) and rear-end
crashes (64).
Page 20 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 10
Figure 7. Number of Crashes by Crash Type on All Roadways (left) and Local Roadways (right)
THE MAJORITY OF CRASHES ARE NON-INTERSECTION RELATED.
■ Intersection related crashes make up relatively small portions of all crashes (23 percent), Fatal
and Serious Injury (FSI) crashes (35 percent), and Minor and Possible Injury (MPI) crashes (31
percent). This is likely due to the large number of crashes occurring on state roadways.
■ Crashes were more likely to be intersection related than not for local roadways (62 percent)
and county roadways (53 percent). The percentages were even higher when looking at only the
MPI crashes, with 65 percent for local roadways and 55 percent for county roadways.
However, the percentages were lower when looking only at FSI crashes, with 50 percent for
local roadways and 45 percent for county roadways.
■ VRU total crashes and MPI crashes were more likely to be intersection related but VRU FSI
crashes were less likely to be intersection related.
■ In most instances, VRU crashes were more likely to be intersection related than not. A few
exceptions were VRU FSI crashes on county roadways (43%) and when combining all
roadways (44 percent).
Page 21 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 11
Figure 8. Intersection Related Crashes by Severity on All Roadways
Figure 9. Intersection Crashes by Severity on Local Roadways
FATAL AND SERIOUS INJURY CRASHES ARE CONCENTRATED IN LATE
SUMMER, ON WEEKENDS, AND DURING DAYTIME HOURS.
■ There is a noticeable spike in FSI crashes in September (14 FSI crashes). August and
September had 35 percent of FSI crashes.
■ FSI crashes on all roadways were distributed relatively evenly between each day of the week
except for Saturday, which had a noticeably higher number of FSI crashes.
■ 75 percent of FSI crashes on local roadways occurred between 9am and 6pm.
Page 22 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 12
Figure 10. Crashes by Month on All Roadways
Figure 11. Crashes by Month on Local Roadways
3.2 HIGH INJURY NETWORK
A High Injury Networks (HIN) is a tool used to identify street segments with elevated crash
densities weighted by severity. This section outlines the data sources, methodology, applied
thresholds, and findings from a sliding window analysis of crashes in Edina. This analysis was
used to develop six HINs:
Page 23 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 13
■ All Modes All Roadways HIN
■ All Modes Local Roadways HIN
■ Vulnerable Road User (VRU) All Roadways HIN
■ VRU Local Roadways HIN
■ Motorist All Roadways HIN
■ Motorist Local Roadways HIN
3.2.1 Methodology
The HINs were developed using a sliding window analysis, which identifies street segments with
higher densities of crashes, with additional weight given to fatal and serious injury crashes. For
Edina, the analysis evaluated crashes within a half-mile window that shifted along each roadway
in one-tenth-mile increments. Each crash was assigned a weighted score based on severity: fatal
and serious injury crashes were weighted three times higher than minor injury crashes and three
times higher than possible injury crashes. Corridors were then classified into low, medium, high,
and very high crash density tiers based on these weighted scores.
Separate analyses were conducted for all modes combined, motorist-only crashes, and
Vulnerable Road User (VRU) crashes. Each of these were run twice, once for all roadways
regardless of ownership, and once for local roadways only, producing six HINs in total. The full
methodology, including crash score thresholds by mode and roadway type, is detailed in
Appendix B.
3.2.2 All Modes High Injury Network
The All Modes HIN shows that, among all roadway types, freeways are the roadways with the
highest weighted crash density (Figure 12). High Injury roadway segments include Highway 62,
Highway 169, and Highway 100. Sections of Vernon Ave, 44th St W, 50th St W, France Ave S, 51st W,
Gus Young Lane, Londonderry Rd, 64th W, Drew Ave S, York Ave S, Parklawn Ave, Minnesota Dr,
and Edina Industrial Blvd are also identified on the HIN.
The All Modes Local Roadways HIN, shown in Figure 13, shows that roadways with the weighted
crash density are concentrated within the southeastern quadrant of the city. High Injury roadway
segments include those east-west routes in the Southeast quadrant, such as 64th through 70th
Streets, Hazelton Road, Parklawn Avenue, and Minnesota Drive, and north-south routes along
Valley View Road, Drew Avenue South, and Edinborough Way. High crash density corridors are
also present in the other three quadrants: Tracy Avenue and Gleason Road in the southwest; Blake
Road South, Interlachen Boulevard, and Londonderry Road in the northwest; and 44th Street West,
50th Street West, Wooddale Avenue, and Valley View Road in the northeast. The complete list of
corridors is available in the Safety Analysis Memo (Appendix B).
Page 24 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 14
Figure 12. All Modes All Roadways High Injury Network (HIN)
Figure 13. All Modes Local Roadways High Injury Network (HIN)
Page 25 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 15
3.2.3 Vulnerable Road User High Injury Network
The VRU All Roadways HIN (Figure 14), identifies a network of corridors with the highest weighted
crash density for pedestrians and bicyclists concentrated in the eastern half of the city.
Highlighted corridors include France Avenue, 44th Street West, 50th Street West, Wooddale
Avenue, Vernon Avenue, Valley View Road, and Edinborough Way in the north and central portions
of the city, and York Avenue, Xerxes Avenue, Drew Avenue South, Dewey Hill Road, Parklawn
Avenue, and 76th Street West in the south. The VRU HIN is notably more distributed across the
eastern half of the city than the motorist HIN. The complete corridor listing is available in the
Safety Analysis Memo (Appendix B).
The VRU Local Roadways HIN (Figure 15), is similar to the VRU All Roadways HIN, with the highest
weighted crash density concentrated in the eastern half of the city. Key corridors include 44th
Street West, 50th Street West, Wooddale Avenue, Vernon Avenue, Valley View Road, Drew Avenue
South, and the southeastern commercial district corridors extending south to 76th Street West
and Edinborough Way.
Page 26 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 16
Figure 14. Vulnerable Road User (VRU) All Roadways High Injury Network (HIN)
Figure 15. Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Local Roadways High Injury Network (HIN)
Page 27 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 17
3.2.4 Motorist High Injury Network
The Motorist All Roadways HIN (Figure 16) shows that roadways with the highest weighted crash
density are primarily on freeways. Highlighted segments include Highway 62, Highway 169, and
Highway 100. Sections of 50th St W, France Ave S, Gus Young Lane, Londonderry Rd, Drew Ave S,
70th St W, Minnesota Dr, and Edina Industrial Blvd are also shown.
The Motorist Local Roadways HIN (Figure 17), shows roadways with the highest weighted crash
density to be primarily within the southeastern quadrant of the city, in areas with heavy
commercial and mixed land uses. The east-west routes in this section are 64th St W, 65th St W,
66th St W, 69th St W, 70th St W, Hazelton Rd, Parklawn Ave, 76th St W, Minnesota Dr, 77th St W;
the north-south routes are Valley View Rd, Drew Ave S, Galleria, and Edinborough Way. Moving
clockwise to the southwestern quadrant, the roadways containing segments with the highest
crash density are Gleason Rd, Tracy Ave, Valley View Rd, Ikola Way, Highway 169 Frontage Rd,
70th St W, and 77th St W. In the northwestern quadrant is Maloney Ave, Blake Rd S, Vandervolk
Ave, Lincoln Dr, Eden Ave, Interlachen Blvd, and Londonderry Rd. In the northeastern quadrant is
42nd St W, 44th St W, Maple Rd, 50th St W, Grange Rd, Eden Ave, 51st St W, 54th St W, 55th St W,
Halifax Ln, 58th St W, and 60th St W.
Figure 16. Motorist All Roadways High Injury Network (HIN)
Page 28 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 18
Figure 17. Motorist Local Roadways High Injury Network (HIN)
3.3 HIGH RISK NETWORK
In addition to crash history – where crashes have already occurred – an important component a
comprehensive safety analysis is a risk assessment – identifying conditions that could contribute
to a crash, regardless of crash history. The Risk Assessment conducted for the SEMAP identifies
factors correlated with increased likelihood of FSI and MPI crashes. This proactive approach can
help identify roadways with the greatest potential for improvement in safety. For further insight
into the methodology, see Appendix B.
There are 231 miles of local and county roadways (surface streets) within Edina. During the 10-
year analysis period, there were 40 FSI crashes and 745 MPI crashes on surface streets, equating
to a total of 865 weighted FSI+MPI crashes. The surface streets in Edina had an average of 3.74
weighted FSI+MPI crashes per mile. Factors correlated with higher-than-average frequency of
FSI+MPI crashes were county roadways, areas with high zero vehicle households, areas within 1/8
of a mile of a commercial land use, areas within 1/8 of a mile of a transit route, areas with high
poverty, and areas with high senior population. Factors correlated with lower-than-average
frequency of FSI+MPI crashes were areas with high youth population, areas within 1/8 of a mile of
a park, areas within 1/4 of a mile of a school, library, or community center, and local roadways.
The factors and associated weighted FSI+MPI crashes per mile are shown in Table 2. Although this
analysis did not include state roadways, these roads had a weighted FSI+MPI crash rate of 19.13
Page 29 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 19
crashes per mile. This shows that state roadways in Edina have elevated crash risk compared to
the average surface street.
Table 2. Weighted FSI + MPI Crash Risk Factors
Roadways that fit within the definition of a higher weighted FSI+MPI crash risk compared to the
average were given a score of 1 to 6, with 6 given to the highest crashes per mile (county roadways)
and 1 given to the lowest crashes per mile (high senior population). The scores were added to
calculate the total weighted FSI+MPI crash risk score. Figure 18 shows the results (High Risk
Network).
Among roadways with an elevated crash risk, 74 percent are local roads (21 percent of all local
roads within Edina), while 26 percent are county roads (97 percent of all county roads within
Edina). These roadways are primarily located in the southeast and east portions of Edina, as well
as the area around the interchange at Highway 100 and 50th Street / Vernon Road. The
southeastern quadrant has the greatest concentration of elevated-risk roadways, including France
Avenue, York Avenue, Xerxes Avenue, Valley View Road, and the commercial street network
between 64th and 77th Streets. Elevated-risk corridors are also present in the northeast quadrant
around 44th Street, 50th Street, Wooddale Avenue, and the Morningside neighborhood and in the
northwest around Vernon Road, Interlachen Boulevard, and Eden Avenue, and in the southwest
along Valley View Road, the Highway 169 Frontage Road, and Edina Industrial Boulevard. The full
list of roadways with elevated crash risk is provided in Appendix B.
Page 30 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 20
Figure 18. High Risk Network
3.3.1 SEMAP Task Force
A multi-jurisdictional Task Force with a shared responsibility for traffic safety in Edina was
assembled for the development of the SEMAP. From within the City of Edina, Task Force members
included representatives from the City Involved with traffic safety planning, from Public Works and
Public Health to the Law Enforcement. Other represented organizations included the Edina
Transportation Commission, Edina Public Schools, Metro Transit, Hennepin County, MnDOT, the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Traffic Safety, and the FHWA.
The Task Force met four times during the development of the SEMAP, with meetings structured
around project milestones:
• Meeting 1 (June 2025): Introduction to the project, review of SS4A requirements, and a
facilitated discussion of safety needs and issues.
• Meeting 2 (October 2025): Review of community engagement findings and the safety
analysis, including the High Injury Network, High Risk Network, and early prioritization
approach, including input on factor weighting.
• Meeting 3 (January 2026): Review of final prioritization results, the Safety Strategy
Toolbox, concept development, and performance measures.
Page 31 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 21
• Meeting 4 (April 2026): Review draft recommendations and the draft plan.
The Task Force will continue to meet on an annual basis following plan adoption to review
progress toward the City's Vision Zero targets, discuss implementation of recommendations, and
adapt the SEMAP to changing traffic safety conditions.
3.4 COMMUNITY INPUT
Community engagement was conducted in Phase 1 of the SEMAP process (May–August 2025) to
gather resident experiences and concerns related to traffic safety across Edina. Engagement
activities reached participants through in-person pop-up events and an online platform. The full
Phase 1 Engagement Summary is included as Appendix C.
3.4.1 Engagement Strategies
SURVEY
The online survey was hosted on the Better Together Edina project website from May 7 to July 16,
2025, and received 236 responses. The website was promoted through City social media,
community e-newsletters, a press release, the Friday Report, neighborhood association emails,
and physical flyers distributed throughout the city. Survey responses were distributed across all
four quadrants of the city, with the northwest quadrant generating the most responses and the
southwest the fewest. Survey responses by zip code are shown in Figure 19.
Page 32 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 22
Figure 19. Survey Responses by Zip Code
COMMENT MAP
An interactive comment map was available on the Better Together Edina website throughout the
online engagement period. Participants could place pins on a map to identify specific locations of
concern. A total of 55 pins were placed over the 10-week comment period. The largest category of
pins identified issues related to general safety concerns (19 pins), followed by pedestrian
concerns (13 pins), car-related concerns (12 pins), and bicycle concerns (10 pins). The full
comment map with pins by category is shown in Figure 20.
Page 33 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 23
Figure 20. Comment Map Pins by Category
ENGAGEMENT EVENTS
Five pop-up events were held between May and September 2025 at locations selected to reach a
variety of community members across the city (Table 3).
Table 3. SEMAP Pop-Up Events by Participation
Event Location Approximate Participants
Edina Rides Southdale YMCA 24
Edina Art Fair 50th & France 45
SW Baseball Games SW Baseball Fields 5
Juneteenth Celebration Centennial Lakes Park 46
Senior Center Edina Senior Center 13
Page 34 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 24
The Edina Art Fair and Juneteenth Celebration were the most attended events. The Juneteenth
Celebration was particularly valuable for reaching a more diverse cross-section of the community,
with participants raising concerns specifically about France Avenue, Centennial Lakes, and ADA
accessibility. The Senior Center event had lower participation, which staff attributed in part to
engagement fatigue. Project staff also conducted targeted outreach to gain additional insights into
transportation safety experiences among underserved communities in the southeast quadrant of
Edina, including participation at the Fire Station #2 public open house.
3.4.2 What We Heard
SPEEDING AND UNSAFE DRIVER BEHAVIOR ARE THE MOST WIDESPREAD
SAFETY CONCERNS AMONG EDINA COMMUNITY MEMBERS, CITED ACROSS
ALL ENGAGEMENT CHANNELS AND ALL PARTS OF THE CITY.
• Speeding or reckless driving was the top safety concern selected by survey respondents,
cited more than any other issue.
• Community members reported that drivers frequently ignore crosswalks, rolling through
stop signs, and driving aggressively near schools, hospitals, and residential
neighborhoods.
• Locations most frequently mentioned in relation to unsafe driver behavior included Valley
View Road, France Avenue, and Chowen Park.
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS FEEL UNSAFE, PARTICULARLY AT
CROSSINGS AND ON KEY CORRIDORS.
• Safer street crossings were the most requested improvement (132 responses), followed by
more sidewalks or safer walking paths (121 responses).
• France Avenue, Highway 62, Vernon Avenue, 50th Street, and Eden Avenue were the most
frequently cited locations for pedestrian safety concerns.
• Bicyclists identified Highway 62 crossings as a major barrier and said that marked bike
routes such as Wooddale Avenue lack protective infrastructure or traffic calming.
• Residents also identified gaps in sidewalk continuity along corridors including 66th Street,
Olinger Boulevard, Cahill Road, and Barrie Road.
E-BIKE SAFETY WAS AS A PROMINENT AND DISTINCTIVE CONCERN,
PARTICULARLY AROUND YOUTH.
• E-bike regulation generated strong and divided opinions across multiple engagement
events. It was one of the most discussed topics of the entire engagement process.
Page 35 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 25
• Requests ranged from age limits and licensing requirements to outright bans, with others
supporting e-bikes but calling for stronger regulation and enforcement.
RESIDENTS WANT BOTH INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES AND STRONGER
ENFORCEMENT.
• More enforcement of traffic laws was the third most requested improvement (117
responses), reflecting a desire for greater police presence and accountability for unsafe
driving.
• At the same time, many respondents supported physical design solutions such as speed
bumps, curb extensions, roundabouts, and protected bike lanes.
SAFETY CONCERNS ARE REPORTED CITYWIDE BUT SHOW PARTICULAR
CONCENTRATION IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE CITY.
• Survey responses were distributed across all four quadrants of the city.
• Comment map pins and frequently cited locations — including Chowen Park, Wooddale
Avenue, Valley View Road, France Avenue, and the Highway 62 crossings — were
concentrated in the eastern portions of the city, consistent with the High Injury Network
and High Risk Network findings.
Survey results are detailed further in Appendix C.
Page 36 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 26
Figure 21, Figure 22, Figure 23 show highlights from the survey.
Figure 21. Survey results, “How safe do you feel when using the following modes of transportation
in Edina?”
Figure 22. Survey results, “Thinking of your experience traveling on roadways within your
community, how strongly would you agree that roadways in Edina are safe?”
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Driving Walking Bicycling Taking Public Transit
Very Unsafe Somewhat Unsafe Neutral Somewhat Safe Very Safe
Strongly Disagree
3%
Disagree
21%
Neutral
21%
Agree
47%
Strongly Agree
8%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Page 37 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 27
Figure 23. Survey results, "What are your biggest safety concerns in Edina? (Select up to 3)"
3.5 COMMUNITY CONTEXT
In addition to crash data and community engagement inputs, the SEMAP examined the community
context that shaped the prioritization of safety investments by completing a demographic and
social vulnerability analysis. This analysis focused on identifying areas in Edina which may be
overlooked by traditional engagement and safety analysis. Residents who are most exposed to
traffic safety risk hold a special priority in the work towards achieving Vision Zero goals.
3.5.1 Social Vulnerability
In Edina and across the nation, certain communities are disproportionately impacted by
transportation related injuries and fatalities. Addressing transportation safety in a community
includes providing safe travel options regardless of a person’s mode of transportation, race or
ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.
As part of preparing Edina’s Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan (SEMAP), the planning team
developed a multi-factor, demographic profile of the city based on American Community Survey
(ACS) data and focusing on specific indicators of social vulnerability. Social vulnerability,
according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), refers to the demographic and socioeconomic
factors that adversely affect communities that encounter hazards and other community-level
110
96
85
75 66
56 52
30
17 11 5 4 1
36
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Page 38 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 28
stressors. Traffic safety is an ever-present stressor faced by communities across Edina and the
nation.
To better understand which communities in Edina may be disproportionately impacted by traffic
safety issues, the project team used eight social vulnerability indicators. This list was drawn from
the CDC and the Minnesota DOT (MnDOT), then further refined to create a list adapted for the City
of Edina. Those indicators are:
■ Age (younger persons and older adults)
■ Race and Ethnicity
■ Disability
■ Employment Status
■ Household Vehicle Access
■ Poverty
■ Foreign-Born
Each indicator was subject to a demographic analysis. ACS data was collected and mapped to
better understand how each indicator is conveyed through time and distributed across Edina. The
demographic analysis can be found in Appendix E.
An eight-variable Composite Social Vulnerability Index was developed using data from the
demographic profile. The Index, created using geospatial and statistical analysis, combines the
eight social vulnerability indicators (race and ethnicity, younger persons, older persons, foreign
born population, disability status, unemployment status, poverty, and household vehicle access)
into a framework. This framework produces a single “social vulnerability score” for each Edina
census block group, as shown in Figure 24. The index will be used to identify locations of socially
vulnerable populations in relation to the safety analysis and future project recommendations for
the SEMAP.
Page 39 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 29
Figure 24. Composite Social Vulnerability Score for Edina Census Block Groups
3.6 PRIORITY NETWORK
Based on the safety analysis, community input, and community context inputs, a priority network
for traffic safety in Edina was developed. By combining this holistic understanding of safety needs
and opportunities, the Roadway Safety Priority Network becomes a primary tool to identify future
safety improvement actions. For more information on the Roadway Safety Priority Network, see
Appendix D.
Table 4 shows the six metrics used in the roadway prioritization process. The metrics, weighting,
and scoring categories were established through an iterative process using input from the project
management team (PMT), Task Force, and broader project goals.
The prioritization factors are categorized as follows:
Page 40 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 30
• Crash History and Risk: For prioritization, all roadways were analyzed without distinction
by roadway ownership. However, there is a distinction by mode, using two High Injury
Network (HIN) metrics, one for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) and one for Motorist-only.
• Community Input: The community input category incorporates stakeholder feedback from
engagement activities in which participants identified locations where they felt unsafe or
experienced near crashes. This information was combined with traffic safety requests
reported to the City from 2018 through 2024.
• Community Context: This category comprises the factors described above: proximity to
schools and social vulnerability index. The proximity to schools metric was recommended
by City staff to provide additional weight to risks to school children and the City’s ongoing
commitment to providing safe routes to schools.
Table 4. Edina Roadway Prioritization Metrics
Category Metric Description Weight Scoring
Crash
History and
Risk
Vulnerable Road
User High Injury
Network
Roadway segments
located on the Vulnerable
Road Users (VRU) High
Injury Network (HIN).
23% VRU HIN, Very
High - 23 points
Not on VRU HIN
- 0 points
Motorist High Injury
Network
Roadway segments
located on the Motorist
High Injury Network (HIN).
6% Motorist HIN,
Very High - 6
points
Motorist HIN,
High - 4 points
Motorist HIN,
Medium - 2
points
Not on Motorist
HIN - 0 points
High Risk Network Roadway segments
located on the High Risk
Network (HRN).
21% HRN, Very High -
21 points
HRN, High - 14
points
HRN, Medium - 7
points
Not on HRN - 0
points
Community
Input
Public Comments Roadway segments
identified as unsafe by the
public and segments with
20% 3 or more points
on a segment -
20 points
Page 41 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 31
traffic safety requests
from the public.
2 points on a
segment - 12
points
1 point on a
segment - 6
points
0 points on a
segment - 0
points
Community
Context
Proximity to Schools Roadway segments in
close proximity to schools
18% Within 1/8 mile -
18 points
Within 1/4 mile -
10 points
Within 1/2 mile -
5 points
Outside 1/2 mile
- 0 points
Social Vulnerability
Index
Roadway segments in
areas with elevated social
vulnerability
12% Highest
Disadvantage -
12 points
High
Disadvantage - 7
points
Medium
Disadvantage - 4
points
Low
Disadvantage - 2
points
Lowest
Disadvantage - 0
points
3.6.1 Prioritization Findings
Each roadway segment was assigned points according to each metric, the results of which were
then added together to give a total prioritization score out of 100 possible points. The higher the
roadway segment scores, the higher the priority. The highest score of any roadway segment was
78 points. Segments scoring between 40 and 78 points comprised the top five percent of roadways
Page 42 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 32
and were classified as “very high priority.” Segments with scores between 26 and 39 points,
representing approximately 10 percent of the network, were designated as “high priority.” Scores
ranging from 18 to 25 points, representing around 11 percent of roadways, were categorized as
“medium priority.”
Cumulatively, the very high, high, and medium priority segments represent 26 percent of the
roadway network within the city. Together, these segments are identified as the Edina Roadway
Safety Priority Network. Roadways classified as “very high priority” are mostly concentrated in the
southeast quadrant of the city, but some very high priority roadways are also present in the
northeast quadrant, and around the Highway 100 and Vernon Avenue interchange. Corridors
categorized as “very high priority” include:
■ France Avenue
■ Xerxes Avenue
■ York Avenue
■ Vernon Avenue approaching Highway 100
■ Dewey Hill Road
■ Valley View Road
■ Tracy Avenue
■ Vandervork Road
■ 60th Street
■ 50th Street
■ 44th Street
Figure 25 shows the Roadway Safety Priority Network for all roadways, while Figure 26 shows the
network for City-owned (local) only, and Figure 27 shows the network for local and County-owned
roadways. When compared to the overall network, these maps show that the “Very High Priority”
network comprises of mostly local and county roadways.
Page 43 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 33
Figure 25. Edina Roadway Safety Priority Network (All Roadways)
Figure 26. Edina Roadway Safety Priority Network (Local Roadways Only)
Page 44 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 34
Figure 27. Edina Roadway Safety Priority Network (Local + County Roadways)
4. Recommendations: Getting to Zero
The recommendations in this section are the core output of the SEMAP. The recommendations
were developed based on analysis conducted throughout the SEMAP process, including the
following inputs:
• High Injury Network (HIN), High Risk Network (HRN), and Roadway Safety Priority Network
• Recommendations by the Project Management Team (PMT) and Task Force
• Social vulnerability analysis
• Community engagement comprising five pop-up events and an online survey with 236
responses
The plan recommendations are organized into the following sections:
• Infrastructure
• Policy and Process
• Outreach and Education
• Supplemental Planning and Engineering Activities
Page 45 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 35
Together, these recommendations provide a specific, actionable program for reducing traffic
deaths and serious injuries in Edina.
4.1 INFRASTRUCTURE
By designing roadways that are forgiving of human error, infrastructure investments are a direct
way to reduce crash frequency and severity. The SEMAP Roadway Safety Priority Network is the
primary guide for where to focus infrastructure investment. The City’s Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) provides the primary vehicle for delivering infrastructure projects,
4.1.1 Systemic Safety Countermeasures
The crash patterns in Edina show that severe crashes tend to occur under similar conditions
across many locations. Severe crashes were prevalent along major roadways, particularly State
and County roadways. The eastern portion of Edina, particularly the southeast, experienced more
severe crashes and has elevated severe crash risk. In addition, Vulnerable Road Users are more at
risk of suffering a serious injury or death compared to people in motor vehicles when involved in a
crash. Addressing safety risks systemically requires more than isolated, location-by-location fixes.
Applying systemic safety treatments, or countermeasures, offers a way to improve safety across
Edina.
SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE INDEX
The Safety Countermeasure Index (Figure 28) is a tool to help determine countermeasures that
are likely to have a greater impact when implemented systemically as well as countermeasures
that are most appropriate based on the roadway context. To build the index, a set of 54 safety
countermeasures were evaluated based on their effectiveness in addressing six of the most
prevalent fatal and injury crash types in Edina as well as their relevancy to three road types. The six
crash types include single vehicle run off road (SVROR), pedestrian, angle, left turn, rear end, and
bike. The three road types include 2-lane, 3-lane, and 4+-lane roadways. Each crash type was
weighted based on its frequency of occurrence in Edina and the three road types were weighted
based on their prevalence along the roadway network. Local and county road relevancy scores
were calculated for each countermeasure by multiplying the weighted effectiveness and relevancy
scores and normalizing the results to a scale of 0 to 1, where 0 represents the least relevant and 1
represents the most relevant.
The Safety Countermeasure Index is designed to be used in three specific ways.
• 1) The first is to identify countermeasures that should be considered for systemic
implementation. The Local Road Relevancy and County Road Relevancy columns indicate
their likely suitability for implementation on local and county roads, respectively, with
Page 46 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 36
higher values indicating higher relevancy. The Safety Countermeasure Index is sorted
based upon the Local Road Relevancy since most roadways in Edina are local roads.
• 2) The second use is to identify countermeasures that are suitable for each road type. Each
countermeasure is given a general score that indicates the countermeasure’s relevancy for
addressing safety challenges on each of the three road types. The scores range from zero
(little to no relevancy) to three (high relevancy). When scoping projects, each
countermeasure’s road type relevancy should be considered based upon the road type on
which the project is located.
• 3) The third use is to identify countermeasures that are suitable for addressing specific
crash types. Each countermeasure is given a general score that indicates the
countermeasure’s effectiveness for addressing each of the six specific crash types. The
scores range from zero (little to no relevancy) to three (high relevancy). This information
can help when scoping projects in locations with the prevalence of certain crash.
Page 47 of 67
Table 28. Safety Countermeasures Index
Countermeasure
Relevancy by Crash Type Relevancy by Road Type
Local Road
Relevancy
County
Road
Relevancy
Description SVROR Pedestrian Angle
Left
Turn
Rear
End Bike
2
Lanes
3
Lanes
4+
Lanes
0.28 0.27 0.2 0.1 0.09 0.06 0.5 0.3 0.2
Multiple Countermeasures 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1.00 1.00 Multiple Countermeasures involves the systematic deployment of a package of multiple low-cost countermeasures.
Road Safety Audits 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 0.67 0.67
Road Safety Audits are performed by a multidisciplinary team and consider all road users, account for human factors,
and road user capabilities. They are documented in a formal report and require formal response from the road
owner.
Leading Bicycle &
Pedestrian Intervals 0 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 0.56 0.56 Leading Bicycle and Pedestrian Intervals (LBPIs) are programmed into traffic signals to provide pedestrians crossing
with a 3-7 second head start.
Roundabouts 1 2 3 3 0 1 3 3 2 0.55 0.40 Intersection treatments where all approaches must yield to traffic already within the roundabout. Vehicles circulate
the center island to turn or continue straight. Crosswalks are typically set back from the intersection.
School Zones (Speed Limit) 2 3 1 1 0 3 3 3 1 0.53 0.21 Areas near schools with permanent low speed limits.
Pavement Friction
Management 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 0.52 0.52 May include the measuring, monitoring, and maintaining of pavement friction especially at intersections and
locations where vehicles are turning, slowing down, and/or stopping frequently.
No Turn On Red 0 3 2 0 1 3 3 3 3 0.49 0.49 A sign or signal used to prohibit vehicles from turning right when the traffic light is red.
Protected Intersections 0 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 0.47 0.47
A type of intersection that improves safety by reducing the speed of turning traffic, improving sightlines, and
designating space for all road users. This is achieved through clearly defined pedestrian and bicyclist spaces and
corner islands.
Parking Restrictions /
Daylighting 1 3 0 0 1 3 3 3 3 0.45 0.45 Restriction of on-street parking near a crossing using signs, pavement markings, curb extensions, and/or vertical
delineators.
Shoulders 3 1 0 0 1 2 3 3 3 0.44 0.44 Paved shoulders extend the roadway surface on the outside of travel lanes.
Yellow Change Interval
Audit 0 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 0.44 0.44 The assessment of the length of time the yellow light shows before turning to red and the appropriate timing of the
yellow change signal length according to the intersection's traffic patterns.
Smaller Design Vehicles
(Dl-23/27) 0 3 0 3 0 3 3 3 3 0.43 0.43 Using a smaller, context-specific design vehicle to design roadways and active transportation facilities.
Off-Street Trails 1 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0.42 0.42 Shared-use paths that accommodate two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic not located along streets.
Raised Crossings 1 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 0.40 0.28 Raised crossings are elevated above the roadway to match sidewalk level.
Enhanced Curve
Delineation 3 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 0.39 0.39 Includes a variety of potential strategies that can be implemented in advance or within curves in the roadway. These
strategies include pavement markings, signage, and the addition of retroreflective materials to signs.
Sidewalks 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 0.38 0.38 Any type of defined space or pathway for use by a person traveling by foot or using a wheelchair
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFB) 1 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 0.37 0.14
Pedestrian-activated bright, irregularly flashing LEDs with pedestrian crossing signs at uncontrolled crossings used to
make a crosswalk more visible to people driving and alert drivers that a person is trying to cross. They can be
activated by pedestrians/bicyclists manually by a pushbutton or passively by a pedestrian/bicycle detection system.
Rest In Red 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 3 3 0.36 0.36 Traffic signals display red lights in all directions during late night and early morning when vehicle volumes are low.
Lights will change when a vehicle is detected but are timed to activate when a vehicle is traveling at a desired speed.
(Raised) Driveway
Crossings 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0.33 0.33 Provides visual cues of the presence of a sidewalk or bikeway as it crosses a driveway. These cues may include signs,
pavement striping or color, raised crossing, and/or a tightened curb radius.
Backplates with
Retroreflective Borders 0 0 3 3 1 0 3 3 3 0.33 0.33 By framing the traffic signal with a retroreflective border, the signal head becomes more visible and conspicuous in
both daytime and nighttime conditions. Backplates can be added to existing traffic signal heads.
Curb Extensions 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 0.33 0.33 Also called bulb outs or neck downs, curb extensions extend a section of sidewalk into the roadway at intersections
and other crossing locations.
Hardened Centerlines 0 2 0 3 0 2 3 3 3 0.32 0.32 Hardened centerlines are flexible delineator posts or raised speed humps placed along the yellow centerline at an
intersection to outline the path of travel of turning vehicles.
Chicanes / Roadway
Curvature 2 2 0 0 1 3 3 2 0 0.32 0.00 Chicanes are typically made with curb extensions or islands to create "S" curves along a roadway.
Advance Stop Lines 0 2 1 0 1 2 3 3 3 0.32 0.32 The stop bar is shifted 20 to 50 feet in advance of the uncontrolled crossing. Typically used in conjunction with Bike
Boxes.
Boulevards 1 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0.31 0.31 A space separating the off-street walkways or share-use paths from adjacent travel lanes.
Dedicated Right & Left
Turn Lanes 0 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 0.31 0.47 Provide separation at intersections between traffic that is travelling through and traffic that is stopping, slowing, and
turning.
Page 48 of 67
Countermeasure
Relevancy by Crash Type Relevancy by Road Type
Local Road Relevancy
County Road
Relevancy
Description SVROR Pedestrian Angle
Left
Turn
Rear
End Bike
2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4+ Lanes
0.28 0.27 0.2 0.1 0.09 0.06 0.5 0.3 0.2
Shared-Use Paths 1 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0.31 0.31 Shared-use paths that accommodate two-way traffic for bicyclists and pedestrians. Located inside of and parallel to
the street right-of-way but separated from vehicle traffic.
Neighborhood Traffic
Circle 1 3 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 0.31 0.00 Raised circular islands in the center of intersections that guide users counterclockwise through turning movements.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 1 3 0 0 0 3 2 2 3 0.31 0.42 These signals at crossing locations remain dark until a pedestrian or bicyclist activates it via a pushbutton. Once
activated, the beacon turns yellow and then red to give pedestrians the right-of-way.
Buffered Bike Lanes 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 3 3 0.31 0.31
Buffered bike lanes are a section of the roadway designated for bicyclist use using signage, striping, and bicycle
symbols placed within the lane. They include a marked buffer space alongside them to separate the bike lane from
vehicle traffic or parking.
Protected Bike Lanes 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 3 3 0.31 0.31 Bike lanes that are separated from vehicles with a buffer and vertical object. Vertical separation objects may be flex
posts, parking spots, planters, or concrete barriers. These may be one-way or two-way cycle facilities.
Pedestrian Gateway
Treatment 1 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 0.31 0.13 Place "Stop for Pedestrian" signs on the left and right sides of all travel lanes approaching a crosswalk.
Corner Radius Reduction 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 0.31 0.22 A reduction in corner radius involves tightening the curve of an intersection corner either through an extension of the
curb or using paint and bollards.
Lighting 0 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 0.31 0.31 Intentionally located lighting improves visibility for all road users. Shorter lighting fixtures illuminating sidewalks and
crossings improve pedestrian safety and taller, roadway-scale light fixtures improve roadway visibility.
Additional Signal Heads 0 2 3 3 0 2 1 2 3 0.29 0.52 At intersections with traffic signals, each vehicle lane should have one dedicated signal head. Dedicated arrows signal
to motorists when it may be safe to make a left turn.
Speed Humps, Tables, and Cushions 1 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 0.29 0.21 Speed humps are paved ramps measuring 3-to 4-inches high that extend the full width of the street. Speed tables are wider or have a flat top. Speed cushions have wheel cutouts to allow large vehicles to pass through unaffected.
Pedestrian Refuge Islands 1 3 0 0 0 3 1 3 3 0.28 0.42 Crossing islands are medians with a section cut out for pedestrian and bicyclist refuge. These are supplements to
crosswalks.
Roadside Improvements at
Curves 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0.28 0.28 Enhance delineation and friction; creating or widening shoulders; improving clear zones; flattening slopes; or adding
barriers such as cable barriers, guardrails, or concrete barriers at curves.
Neighborhood Slow Zone 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0.27 0.00 Areas with permanent low speed limits, marked by signs on both sides of the street. Additional traffic calming
measures are needed to ensure effectiveness.
Neighborhood Yield
Streets 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0.27 0.00
Similar to Local Connectors in the Living Streets Plan. Narrow, two-way streets without centerline lane markings that
allow parking on both sides. Vehicles have to weave through the roadway and occasionally must yield to oncoming
vehicles.
Crosswalk Visibility
Enhancements 0 2 0 1 1 1 3 3 3 0.26 0.26 The use of paint markings, lighting, and signage to indicate to pedestrians and drivers that crossings are coming up.
Shared Streets 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0.26 0.00 Streets designed such that pedestrians and bicyclists can walk or ride on the street and cross at any location instead
of at designated locations.
Roadway Reconfiguration 2 3 3 3 1 3 0 1 3 0.25 0.85 Reducing the number or width of vehicle lanes, repurposing lanes, or all three. Eliminating a travel or turn lane can
make room for other roadway features such as wider sidewalks or a bicycle lane.
Corridor Access
Management 0 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 0.23 0.50 Designing, and controlling the entry and exit points along a roadway.
Protected Signal Phases 0 2 0 3 1 2 1 3 3 0.23 0.35 Green- or red-arrow signals used to restrict left or right turn movements for motor vehicles, allowing pedestrians and
bicyclists to use crossings without interacting with turning vehicles
Truck Aprons 0 2 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0.22 0.22 Mountable curbs in the middle of roundabouts and intersection corners for large vehicles to more easily navigate
turns.
Raised Medians 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 3 0.21 0.42 Curbed sections in the center of a roadway that separate opposing directions of motor vehicle travel. The medians
may include vegetation.
Posted Speed Limits 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 3 3 0.20 0.20 Using speed limit signs, pavement markings, and other speed reduction tools to achieve target speeds on roadways.
Conventional Bike Lanes 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 0.19 0.08 A portion of the street designated exclusively for active transportation (bicycles, scooters, etc.) users. Bike lanes are
distinguished from traffic lanes with pavement markings and signage.
Positive Offset Left-Turn
Lanes 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0.15 0.30 Left-turn lanes are shifted to the left, offset from opposing left-turn lanes so that visibility of oncoming vehicles is
improved for left-turning vehicles.
Page 49 of 67
Countermeasure
Relevancy by Crash Type Relevancy by Road Type
Local Road Relevancy
County Road
Relevancy
Description SVROR Pedestrian Angle
Left
Turn
Rear
End Bike
2 Lanes 3 Lanes 4+ Lanes
0.28 0.27 0.2 0.1 0.09 0.06 0.5 0.3 0.2
Bicycle Crossings 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0.13 0.13 Marked crossing specifically for bicycles to use when crossing intersections.
Advisory Bike lanes 1 1 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0.11 0.00 Dashed bike lanes on narrow, un-laned residential lanes. Due to narrow streets, vehicles are allowed to enter dashed
bike lanes.
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict
Intersections 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 3 0.08 0.39 A variety of geometric designs can be used to reduce left-turn conflicts at intersections. These roadway changes alter
how left-turn movements are made.
Bike Boxes 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0.04 0.04 Designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection specifically for bicyclists.
Page 50 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 40
4.1.2 Location-Specific Countermeasures
[THIS SECTION TO BE DEVELOPED]
• Discuss relation of SEMAP to CIP in terms of prioritization (overlay)
• Insert list of specific high-priority locations
4.2 POLICY AND PROCESS
This section provides recommendations to Edina’s existing policy and process framework related
to traffic safety. Recommendations are organized by whether they are directly informed by SEMAP
findings or whether they will require additional study or coordination to implement.
Recommendations include recommended timing: short term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), or
long-term (10+ years).
As a result of the completion of the SEMAP, the following actions can be advanced directly. These
recommendations update existing City policies and plans to reflect current traffic safety data
analyzed as a part of the SEMAP so that Edina’s Policy and Process framework aligns with SEMAP
findings.
Table 5. Policy and Process Recommendations
Action Timing
General Policy and Process
Integrate CIP project scheduling with the Roadway Safety Priority Network
to prioritize safety improvements for planned reconstruction projects. Short-Term
Develop a process for identifying and advancing standalone safety projects
in years when no reconstruction projects align with the high-priority safety
network. Funding has been added to the 2027-2032 CIP and should
continue to be available for safety projects in future CIPs.
Short-Term
Add the Vision Zero leadership commitment to the code of ordinances. Short-Term
Have the City formally identify France Ave as a priority safety corridor. Use
this statement and the plan’s findings as a communication tool with
Hennepin County to support comprehensive improvements.
Short-Term
Formally acknowledge where the Hennepin County SS4A Safety Action
Plan overlaps with the SEMAP to strengthen cooperation. Short-Term
Page 51 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 41
Incorporate the SEMAP safety analysis in an update of the Comprehensive
Plan. Describe targeted goals and policies described in the SEMAP in an
update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mid-Term
Motor Vehicle
Update the City’s Dynamic Speed Sign Policy to identify if a potential
Dynamic Speed Sign location overlaps with Roadway Safety Priority
Network.
Short-Term
Update the Traffic Safety Review Process to identify if a suggested location
overlaps with the Roadway Safety Priority Network. Short-Term
Revisit the Citywide Speed Limit Reduction "Drive 25" initiative and
consider amending speed limit designations based on the SEMAP safety
analysis to further reduce speed limits at priority locations.
Short-Term
Allocate a consistent funding source for addressing traffic safety concerns
in the Traffic Safety Review Process. Mid-Term
Active Transportation
Update the Active Routes to School Plan based on the SEMAP safety
analysis. Short-Term
Re-prioritize projects identified in the city Reconstruction Program based
on overlap with the Roadway Safety Priority Network. Short-Term
Update the Edina Pedestrian Crossing Policy to identify if a potential
crossing location overlap with the Roadway Safety Priority Network, as well
as the prevalence of speeds (both violations and higher speed roadways)
as decision inputs.
Short-Term
Prioritize improvements to pedestrian access to transit on or adjacent to
the Roadway Safety Priority Network, such as route 36 and Route 540 Mid-Term
Page 52 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 42
4.3 OUTREACH & EDUCATION
The following actions would engage residents directly in the ongoing implementation of the
SEMAP. Because reaching the City's safety targets is a sustained, shared effort between the City
and the public, outreach and education are not one-time tasks but a continuous commitment.
Table 6. Outreach and Education Recommendations
Action Timing
Develop staff communication materials explaining the difference between
regulatory speed limits and desired safe speeds. Equip staff to
communicate realistic expectations to residents.
Short-Term
Expand multilingual outreach for community-facing engagement related to
traffic safety, like the Traffic Safety Review Process. Apply Spanish and
Somali translations broadly across public-facing SEMAP materials
Short-Term
Continue targeted outreach in southeast Edina, consistent with safety and
social vulnerability analysis presented in the SEMAP.
Continuous
Develop educational content specifically addressing e-bike safety for youth
and seniors, coordinating with Edina Public Schools and parks programs
for distribution.
Short-Term
Communicate what improvements the City can make on local roads vs.
what requires county or state jurisdiction, so residents understand how to
advocate for county/state-owned corridors like France Ave.
Short-Term
4.4 SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
ACTIVITIES
To provide additional guidance on specific priority areas identified in this plan, the City of Edina
should conduct additional studies to further build upon this plan. The following actions were
identified through input from the PMT, Task Force, and community engagement. While informed by
the SEMAP, these recommendations are likely to require further study or coordination to
implement.
Page 53 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 43
Table 7. Supplemental Planning and Engineering Recommendations
Action Timing
Motor Vehicle
Follow up on the Safe Routes to School Plan (2014) by developing concepts
for roadways near schools on the Roadway Safety Network. Short-Term
The southeast quadrant of Edina was identified in the safety analysis,
community context, community engagement, and prioritization as having
the greatest need for traffic safety relief. Develop a separate plan for
addressing roadways like York Ave, Xerxes Ave, and others in the Southeast
Quadrant.
Short-Term
Conduct demonstration projects implementing new technology supporting
EMS and enforcement. Examples include distracted driving feedback signs,
improving EMS routing, and others.
Short-Term
Study stop arm violations and use findings to inform policy or enforcement
recommendations related to school bus routes.
Short-Term
Update Edina’s truck priority network so it is interconnected and remove
Section 26-106 article b, which allows trucks arriving at the end of a
designated truck route to take the most direct course back to the nearest
route.
Short-Term
Create a pilot/temporary traffic calming demonstration program. Short-Term
Formally address cut-through vehicle traffic in residential neighborhoods
as a safety concern. Study a neighborhood traffic management program.
Medium-Term
Coordinate a comprehensive plan for a corridor-scale redesign of France
Ave, which appears on both the Edina and Hennepin County priority
network
Mid-Term
Distracted driving is underrepresented in crash data due to reporting
limitations. Revisit an analysis of distracted driving in the City in future
updates to the SEMAP and as analysis methods improve.
Long-Term
Page 54 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 44
Action Timing
Active Transportation
Conduct the follow-up study of pedestrian and bicycle safety over the TH
62 and TH 100 crossings.
Short-Term
Establish a citywide crosswalk visibility program to identify obstructions
that reduce driver awareness and improve awareness of marked crossings.
Short-Term
Develop a formal e-bike ordinance with enforceable provisions. Coordinate
enforcement with Edina Public Schools and the Parks Department.
Short-Term
Revisit development requirements, like turn lane dedications, along France
Ave which may constrain future pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along
the corridor.
Short-Term
Study the development of expanded protections for pedestrians and
cyclists by ordinance, including, but not limited to, safe passing law for
overtaking vehicles and universal daylighting.
Mid-Term
Establish a plan for identifying and closing sidewalk gaps on priority
pedestrian corridors.
Mid-Term
Study how traffic safety challenges associated with reducing VMT, such as
the increased number of Vulnerable Road Users, affect traffic. Address
these challenges in future updates to the Living Streets Plan, Pedestrian
and Bicycle Master Plan, and Comprehensive Plan.
Long-Term
5. Measuring and Reporting Progress
Tracking progress toward Edina's Vision Zero goals is a required element of the federal Safe
Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) funding program. The performance metrics below were selected
to be useful – appropriately measuring progress toward safety improvements – and feasible – able
to me tracked and measured using existing staff or resources. The City will measure and report the
following metrics annually to monitor both short-term safety results and progress toward the City's
2035 and 2050 targets. Results will be posted on the city website.
Page 55 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 45
Table 8. Progress Reporting Metrics
Category Metric (Measured Annually
Crash Reduction • Total fatal and serious injury crashes compared to previous year
and to 2035 and 2050 plan goals
• Pedestrian and bicycle fatal and serious injury crashes
compared to previous year
Infrastructure
Projects and
Investments
• Number of projects with safety improvements
o Total
o On the Roadway Safety Priority Network
• Dollar value of safety improvements constructed
o Total
o On the Roadway Safety Priority Network
o Specifically addressing pedestrians and cyclists
Policy and Program
Changes
• Number of policies, processes, or programs started or
completed that contribute to improving traffic safety, as well as
the:
o Geographic extent of policy impact (spot-location, city-
wide, etc.)
o Temporal impact of policy impact (one-time, ongoing,
etc.)
o Affected population (public-facing policy, internal, etc.)
• Number of education events or campaigns that contribute to
improving traffic safety
Page 56 of 67
Edina Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan
4000618-00
PAGE 46
Appendices
A.Leadership Commitment
B.Safety Analysis Memo
C.Engagement Summary Memo
D.Roadway Safety Priority Network Memo
E.Social Vulnerability Considerations Memo
F.Policy and Process Review Memo
(Appendices provided in separate file)
Page 57 of 67
Item Report
April 16, 2026
Transportation Commission
Item Number: 7.1 Department: Public Works
Item Activity: Discussion Prepared By: Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Item Title: Traffic Safety Report of March 31, 2026
Action Requested:
Review and comment on the recommendations of the Traffic Safety Committee.
Information/Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on March 31, 2026. On
each item, the persons involved have been contacted, and the staff recommendation has been
discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have
additional facts to present, they can submit correspondence to the Transportation Commission and/or
to City Council prior to the May 5 meeting.
See attached report.
Supporting Documentation:
Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL)
and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data
request (URL).
1. Traffic Safety Report of March 31, 2026
Page 58 of 67
Staff Report
Staff Report
Date: 4/16/2026
To: Transportation Commission
From: Nick Bauler
Subject: Traffic Safety Report of March 31, 2026
Staff Recommendation: Review and comment on staff recommendations
Information/Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on March 31. The Traffic Safety
Coordinator, Public Works Coordinator, Engineering/Public Works Director, Assistant City Planner, Police Sargeant
and Traffic Safety Specialist were in attendance for this meeting.
On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with
them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can
submit correspondence to the Transportation Commission and/or to City Council prior to the May 5 meeting.
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action
A1. Request for Cross Traffic Does Not Stop placards at Edinborough Way and Minnesota Dr
Description Concerns of eastbound vehicles assuming north/south traffic is
stop controlled, mistaking crosswalk signs for stop signs.
AADT 2,427 (2023)
Crashes Five in past 10 years. Two involving pedestrians in crosswalks and
one crash describing the instance above.
Previous Work Overlaid in 2017.
Staff recommends adding “Cross Traffic Does Not Stop” placards
for eastbound traffic on Minnesota Dr.
Minnesota Dr at Edinborough Way
Page 59 of 67
Memo
Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action
B1. Final review of Sunnyside Rd on street parking.
Description Brought to staff’s attention Sunnyside Rd west of Browndale Ave is measured 17’ wide while
allowing one-sided parking.
Policy 2015 Living Streets Policy recommends 2-sided restrictions with street widths lower than 24’.
Previous Work Street reconstructed in 2008.
Crashes No reported crashes in past 10 years.
Miscellaneous When street parking is utilized, EMS access is restricted due to curb and boulevard trees
Previous Review Staff informed residents from on Sunnyside and Mackey Ave of access concerns and requested
feedback regarding street parking.
Fire Response No changes needed due to history of street. Inherited risk if parking isn’t followed properly.
Staff recommends no changes and will
provide a letter to the adjacent residents.
B2. Request for increased crosswalk treatments over W 44th St at Kojetin Park
Description Safety complaints regarding speeds on W 44th and
crossing in and out of Kojetin. Requests for RRFBs or
stop signs at crosswalk.
AADT 7,157 (2021)
Crashes Three crashes on W 44th between Wooddale and Grimes
in 2016- property damage only.
Bike & Ped
Crosses
88 crosses with peak hour of 20 at 10:15 AM (June).
Lane Layout Two parking bays adjacent to Kojetin.
Crosswalk has curb extensions, shortening crossing
distance to 27’.
Past & Future
Work
W 44th reconstructed in 2011.
W 44th overlay anticipated 2028.
Unique
Circumstances
W 44th St is a Minnesota State-Aid Street with no lane
markings.
Staff recommends no changes. Current crosswalk treatments exceed City policy.
W 44th St Crosswalk at Kojetin Park
Sunnyside Rd
Page 60 of 67
Memo
B3. Request for crosswalk over Wooddale Ave at Wooddale Ln and Edina Country Club driveway
Description Requesting crosswalk for access to Edina Country Club.
AADT 6,706 (2022)
Crashes One single vehicle run off road.
One involving parked car.
Bike & Ped
Crosses
80 total crosses.
Peak hour 17 crosses at 12:15 PM.
Future Work A 2026 overlay may add bike lanes on both sides of
Wooddale.
Future bridge work north of Edina Country Club driveway
should add a sidewalk connection from W 50th St.
Staff recommends no changes.
Section C: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends further study
C1. Request for traffic calming on Edinborough Way
Description Concerns of vehicle speeds and bicyclist safety. Notes street is
very wide and added markings can improve safety.
AADT 2,427 (2023)
Crashes One in 2025- vehicles entering Edinborough from opposing
driveways sideswiped each other.
Street Width 52 feet, face-to-face of curb.
Previous Work Overlaid in 2017.
Unique
Circumstances
Edinborough includes access to Centennial Lakes Business
parking and apartment complexes.
Recommendation Consider opportunities for marked parking and/or buffered bike
lanes (similar to northbound Normandale Frontage Rd between
W 70th and W 66th St).
More staff review and discussion is needed.
Section D: Other traffic safety items handled
D1. A resident had complaints of speeds on Wooddale Ave south of W 70th St and Malibu Dr. The portable speed
display sign was placed and the EPD was notified of the issue.
D2. A resident requested speed bumps on Claremore Dr due to driver speeds. Following the submission, a sidewalk
was installed with a narrowed street. No further traffic calming is anticipated along Claremore.
D3. A daycare facility was concerned with driver behavior adjacent to their building on Washington Ave and Valley View
Rd. The corridor falls under MnDOT (intersection), Eden Prairie (West) and Edina (East) jurisdictions. No added signage
is warranted for driver behavior. An anticipated overlay project in Edina’s CIP on Washington provides an opportunity
for updated lane markings.
Wooddale Ave at Wooddale Ln and Edina Country Club
Edinborough Way
Page 61 of 67
Memo
D4. A request for added traffic calming signage on Mendelssohn Ln. Following a site visit, adequate signage is in place and
no further signs are warranted.
D5. A report of large potholes on France Ave near W 69th St. The potholes were sent to Hennepin County staff to be
fixed.
D6. A request for a dedicated right turn signal for westbound vehicles on Hazelton Rd at France Ave. Hennepin County
was notified of the request as this signal control does not fall under Edina ownership.
D7. A request for a dedicated left arrow onto eastbound HWY 62 from Xerxes Ave. As MnDOT owns the signals at
this intersection, staff was notified of this request.
D8. Complaints for signal timing at France Ave and W 65th St. Hennepin County was dispatched for timing review.
D9. Request for parking restrictions on Oaklawn Ave near Pamela Park citing parking demand makes it unsafe for
drivers and pedestrians. No action is recommended due to no reported crashes and the high demand for parking.
D10. A complaint from the fall of 2025 regarding vegetation overgrowth impacting sidewalk users on W 50th St near the
Browndale bridge. Staff cleared the overgrowth and this request is closed.
D11. A request to add a leading pedestrian interval at Vernon Ave and Tracy Ave to improve crossing safety for
pedestrians. This was sent to Hennepin County, who owns the signal controls.
D12. A request for added speed limit signs on Blake Rd was recommended no action citing adequate signage already in
place.
D13. A complaint about a driverless car using the entire street in the Lake Cornelia neighborhood. The submission
requested Edina prevent driverless vehicles for pedestrian safety within the City. The requester was informed to contact
MnDOT with this concern.
D14. A neighbor had complaints with vehicles parked to pick up students after school on W 68th St, near Edina High
School and Valley View Middle School. Complaints included parking during restricted hours and too close to driveways.
The EPD was requested to patrol the area and will notify those of City and State parking policies.
Page 62 of 67
Item Report
April 16, 2026
Transportation Commission
Item Number: 7.2 Department: Public Works
Item Activity: Information Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Title: 2026/2027 Work Plan Updates
Action Requested:
None.
Information/Background:
Commissioners will provide updates on the status of current 2026/2027 work plan initiatives (unless an
item is elsewhere on the current agenda). See attached work plan progress report.
Supporting Documentation:
Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL)
and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data
request (URL).
1. 2026/2027 Work Plan Progress Report
Page 63 of 67
Page 3
Transportation Commission
2026-2027 Work Plan
The Commission advises the City Council on matters relating to the operation of the Cityʼs local street system.
The Commission also reviews and comments on plans to enhance non-motorized and mass transit
opportunities in the city. In addition, the Commission evaluates methods for traffic calming and other speed
and volume mitigation measures and recommends their implementation when appropriate.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
%#
Status Pending 33 1
On Track 67 2
Continued SEMAP Task Force Participation
The Commission will continue to appoint Commissioners to
represent the Transportation Commission's perspectives in the
Safe and Equitable Mobility Action Plan (SEMAP) working
group. This ongoing participation ensures that the Commission
provides continuous input as SEMAP progresses, merging the
Cityʼs current transportation-related plans (e.g., Safe Routes to
School, Living Streets, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan) into
one streamlined action plan.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
Project
Target Completion Date
Q4- 2027
Leads
Bildsten, Wright
Update provided by Andrew Scipioni on Mar 26, 2026 05:00:01
Staff expects to receive the draft plan next week for review. The project team will
review the draft plan with the Commission at the April 16 meeting. Public open
house will be held April 22 at Fire Station 2. City Council adoption expected May
5.
Commission Name 1.7 Progress 25%
Initiative 1.7.1
Jan 01, 2026 - Dec 31, 2027 On Track Progress 75%
Council Charge 2: Review & Comment
Page 64 of 67
Page 4
Traffic Safety Standards/Warrants Review and Playbook for
decision making and resident communication
The Commission will conduct a critical review of existing design
standards and decision-making processes (e.g. for traffic
control devices like 2-way vs. 4-way stops) to ensure they
effectively meet the lived experience needs of residents and
contribute to a safer transportation network. Emphasis on local
traffic management policies set by the city - pedestrian
crossing, dynamic display speed signs, speed bumps, etc.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
On-going / Annual
Target Completion Date
Q4 - 2026
Leads
Rosen, Brown, Lewis
Initiative 1.7.2
Jan 01, 2026 - Dec 31, 2026 Status Pending Progress 0%
Council Charge 4: Review & Decide
Page 65 of 67
Page 5
Innovative Traffic Calming Solutions and "Toward Zero
Deaths" Pilots Program (with Seasonal Adaptations)
Expanding on previous research into quick-build solutions, the
Commission will investigate a broader range of innovative and
context-sensitive traffic calming measures and roadway design
strategies from other municipalities, with a strong emphasis on
solutions that align with the "Toward Zero Deaths" (TZD)
initiative. Recognizing Edina's cold, snowy environment, the
research will specifically explore seasonal adaptations for traffic
calming, drawing inspiration from cities like Helsinki, Finland.
This includes examining approaches such as temporary
summer street transformations to prioritize active
transportation, and winter-specific strategies like tailored snow
removal practices that inherently encourage slower speeds or
dedicated winter cycling infrastructure maintenance. The goal
is to identify measures that effectively improve safety for all
road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists), reduce cut-
through traffic in residential areas, and contribute to Edina's
"Living Streets" principles and greenhouse gas reduction goals.
The Commission will then propose potential pilot projects for
specific areas within Edina, focusing on high-risk locations or
areas with documented safety concerns, considering both
warm and cold weather applications.
Owner: Andrew Scipioni
Initiative Type
On-going / Annual
Target Completion Date
Q4- 2027
Leads
Olson, Bildsten, Lassig
Update provided by Andrew Scipioni on Mar 26, 2026 05:00:01
Subcommittee is looking to collect examples of innovation in this area from
other cities.
Initiative 1.7.3
Jan 01, 2026 - Dec 31, 2027 On Track Progress 0%
Council Charge 3: Review & Recommend
Page 66 of 67
Item Report
April 16, 2026
Transportation Commission
Item Number: 8.1 Department: Public Works
Item Activity: Information Prepared By: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Title: 2026 Meeting Dates
Action Requested:
None.
Information/Background:
The Commission's next regular meeting is Thursday, May 28 at 6pm at Edina City Hall.
The regular meeting dates for the remainder of the year are:
• June 18
• July 16
• August 20
• September 17
• October 22
• November 19
• December 17
Supporting Documentation:
Documents marked with "Board Portal" do not meet ADA Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (URL)
and are not included in the public packet. To request a board portal document, please submit a data
request (URL).
None
Page 67 of 67