Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-19 Meeting PacketAGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY ROOM December 19, 2013 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of November 21, 2013 V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Transportation Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. 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. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS A. Southwest LRT Freight Rail Re-Route: The "Southern Arm" B. Human Services Grant/Transportation Options C. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 6, 2013 D. Meeting Schedule for 2014 E. Updates i. Student Member ii. Bike Edina Task Force — Minutes of November 14, 2013 iii. Living Streets Working Group iv. Communications Committee VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Agenda / Edina Transportation Commission December 19, 2013 Page 2 IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Project Updates X. ADJOURNMENT 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 72 hours in advance of the meeting. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS Thursday January 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday February 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday March 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday April 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday May 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday June 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday July 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday August 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM G: \Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \TRANSP COMM \Agendas & RR's \ 2013 Agendas \ 20131219 Agenda.docx xø 3IKEEDINA November 14, 2013 Meeting Notes Present: Don Eyberg, Rob Erickson, Sally Dunn, Peter Kelley, Lori Richman, Larry Olson, Jennifer Janovy Absent: Brad Schaeppi, Tim Sudeith Guest(s): John Gunyou, Three Rivers Park District Commissioner; Bob Byers, Hennepin County; Antonio RoseII, Community Design Group; Sierra Saunders, Community Design Group Recorded by: Jennifer Janovy I. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. II. Updates a. Marty Mathis resigned due to conflicts with meeting schedule; Tom Randall resigned due to moving out of state b. Three Rivers Park District will begin public engagement related to final design of the 9MCRT in February. Sign up for updates at http://www.threeriversparks.org/newsletters.aspx. Ill. Hennepin County Bicycle Plan—The county is working with Three Rivers Park District to update the Hennepin County bike plan to reflect current and growing uses of cycling in the region. Antonio RoseII, Community Design Group, presented an overview of the project and led BETF members in a series of activities. Members are invited to complete an online survey and add comments to an interactive map. Go to http://www.hennepin.us/bikeplan. IV. Adjourn at 9:00 p.m. 1 To: Edina Transportation Commission Agenda Item #: VI. D. From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Date: December 19, 2013 Action 101 Discussion CI Information El REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Subject: Meeting Schedule for 2014 Action Requested: Review and approve the attached meeting schedule for 2014. Information / Background: Below is the proposed 2014 meeting schedule. Please note that the October meeting is proposed for the fourth Thursday versus the third Thursday due to MEA Week. Thursday January 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday February 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday March 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday April 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday May 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday June 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday July 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday August 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday September 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday October 23 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS Thursday November 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Thursday December 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM Attachments: 2014 City of Edina Council, Advisory Boards, Committees, and Commissions Meetings, Holidays and Election Dates G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \ TRANSP COMM \ Agendas & RR's\ 2013 R&R \ 20131219 \ Item VI.D. Meeting Schedule for 2014.docx City of Edina . 4801 W. 5001St. . Edina, MN 55424 Holidays City Council Nite to Unite Pln Comm HP Brd Trns Com Park Brd • Indicates a religious holiday's observance • Precinct Caucus Elect Day Health Human R/R Corn E& E Comm Arts & Culture Comm JANUARY SMTWTF S 1 2 3 4 5 6 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 APRIL SMTWT F S 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 `'2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 JULY SMTWTF S -t, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 iv '- '''' 30 31 OCTOBER SMTWTF S 1 2 3 , 6 ".", I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . - - 15 16 17 18 19 20 /1 _ 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 FEBRUARY S MTWT FS 1 2 NIt::4 ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 , 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 25126 MAY S MTWT FS 1 2 3 4 5 , 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20, , 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AUGUST SMTWTFS 1 2 3 4,„ 5,., 6 7 8 9 10 11 t c2 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NOVEMBER S MTWTF S 1 = , 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,.....i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 MARCH SMTWTFS 1 2 3 '—I NA ., 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 LI 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 JUNE SMTWTFS 1 2 Nck 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Si 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SEPTEMBER SMTWTFS mfri: ,. 7 •1 8 3 9 10 11 12 Fil 21 15 _1 in 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 DECEMBER SMTWTFS 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 'PO, 25 26 27 28 29 30 "1 2014 CITY OF EDINA COUNCIL, ADVISORY BRDS, COMS. COMMS. MEETINGS, HOLIDAYS ELECTION DATES Draft Meeting Schedule for 2014. Dates Subject to Change Revised: 10/30/2013 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP — Transportation Planner Date: December 19, 20 13 Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of December 4, 2013 Agenda Item #: VI. C. Action El Discussion 0 Information 0 Action Requested: Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of Wednesday, December 4, 2013, be forwarded to City Council for approval. Information / Background: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting regarding any of the attached issues. An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their January 21, 2013, meeting. Attachments: Traffic Safety Committee Report for December 4, 2013. G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure \ Streets\ Traffic \Traffic Safety Committee\ Staff Review Summaries\ 13 TSAC & Min\ 12-04-13 Cover.docx City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT Wednesday, December 4, 2013 The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on December 4. The Public Works Director, Transportation Planner, Police Traffic Supervisor, and Traffic Safety Coordinator were in attendance for this meeting. From these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and 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 be included on the December 19 Edina Transportation Commission and the January 21 City Council agenda. SECTION A: Requests on which the Committee recommends approval: Al. Request for No Parking on one side of Wooddale Avenue south of Garrison Lane, Garrison Lane, and on Nancy Lane. This request comes from a resident who lives at the intersection of Garrison Lane and Wooddale Avenue. The requestor states large vehicles and cars park along Garrison and Wooddale / Nancy Lane, visibility and access are issues. The resident would like to have no parking on one side of Garrison, no parking on Wooddale south of Garrison and no parking on Nancy Lane. Measurements were taken of the road widths; Garrison Lane 31.5 ft. back of curb to back of curb, Nancy Lane 30.5 ft., Wooddale Ave. south of Garrison 21.5 ft. Neither Nancy Lane nor Wooddale Ave. have curb. Wooddale Avenue is a bike route. Map: Wooddale Ave at Garrison and Nancy Ln There are no reported crashes at the intersection of Garrison Lane and Wooddale Avenue, and none on Nancy Lane. Staff recommends approval of No Parking on the east side of Wooddale Avenue south of Garrison Lane. Staff recommends denying the request for No Parking on Garrison Lane and Nancy Lane. Page 1 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Picture: Nancy Lane and Wooddale Ave. facing north SECTION B: Requests on which the Committee recommends denial: B1. Request for a four-way stop at the intersection of Tracy Avenue and Brook Drive. This request comes from a resident who lives near the intersection. The requestor states that the intersection is "dangerous" for pedestrians due to vehicles speeding through the intersection. Requestor would like to see a four-way stop at the intersection as well as speed counts on Tracy Avenue. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MNMUTCD) has guidelines that the City of Edina uses. The guideline states: Map: Tracy Avenue and Brook Drive The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. Page 2 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Photo: Tracy Avenue and Brook Drive looking west Photo: Tracy Avenue and Brook Drive looking B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest peak hour; but 3. If the 8.5 th percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Page 3 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Map: Drew Avenue and Fuller Street (Ne-,28 .201 3.„12 5'0' , • Traffic counts and pedestrian counts were conducted at this intersection. This intersection has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 1565 vehicles entering. A total of 34 pedestrians, including bikes, entered the intersection during that time. 1599 total intersection volume being below the required 2000. There are no visibility issues at the intersection. There are no recorded crashes at this intersection. A speed count was also done with the 85th percentile speed of 30.65 mph, the posted speed limit is 30 mph. After discussion, staff recommends denying the request, since the intersection did not meet warrants for an four-way stop. B2. Request for stop signs at the intersection of Drew Avenue and Fuller Street. This request comes from a resident who travels this intersection frequently. The requestor states that this intersection is dangerous to pedestrians and motorists because there is no traffic control. Requestor feels that placing a stop sign(s) would increase the safety of the intersection. See map below. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MNMUTCD) has guidelines that the City of Edina uses. The guideline states: In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic Photo: Drew Ave and Fuller St looking north Page 4 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Photo: Drew Ave and Fuller St looking west on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Traffic, pedestrian and bicycle counts were conducted at this intersection. This intersection has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 406 vehicles and a total of 53 pedestrians and bicycles entering the intersection during that time, for a combined total of 459. There are two recorded crashes at this intersection (a property damage accident in November, 2007 and a personal injury accident in December 2010). In June 2011 the committee recommended the denial of stop signs at the intersection of Drew Ave. and Fuller St. Staff recommends denying the request, since the intersection did not meet warrants for a stop sign. B3. Request for stop signs at the intersection of Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane. This request comes from a resident who lives at this intersection. The requestor states that vehicles are travelling at a high rate of speed through the intersection on Larada Ln (stop signs exist on Willow Wood Rd on the east and west legs). Requestor feels that placing stop signs on the north and south legs would increase the safety of the intersection. See map below. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MNUTCD) has guidelines that the City of Edina uses. The guideline states: The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: Page 5 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Photo: Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane looking north A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signal. B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: 1. The vehicular volume Map: Willow Wood Road and Larada Lane entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor- street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest peak hour; but 3. If the 85 th percentile approach speed of the major-street exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, Cl, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition. Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; Page 6 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Map: Wycliffe Road C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. Traffic, pedestrian and bicycle counts were conducted at this intersection. This intersection has an ADT of 426 vehicles and a total of 36 pedestrians and bicycles entering the intersection during that time, for a combined total of 426. There are no recorded crashes at this intersection. Staff recommends denying the request, since the intersection did not meet warrants for an all- way stop. B4. Request for No Parking on one side of Wycliffe Road north of Grove Street. This request comes from a resident who lives in the area. The requestor states that when vehicles are parked on both sides of Wycliffe Road there is not enough room for two cars to pass each other. Also, the curving nature of the street hinders drivers' ability to see approaching cars between the parked vehicles. There is a church located at the intersection of Wycliffe Road and Grove Street. Requestor would like No Parking on one side of Wycliffe. Currently there is no parking Monday thru Friday from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on the east side of the street in front of the church property. The road width from back of curb to back of curb is 30.5 ft. Typical residential streets are 31 ft. After discussion the staff recommends denying the request, finding the street wide enough to accommodate parking and traffic. Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Photo: Wycliffe Road looking north Page 7 of 10 Photo: Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue Photo: Grimes Ave. and Sunnyside Rd looking south E15. Request for painted crosswalks at the intersection of Sunnyside Road and Grimes Avenue. This request comes from a resident who lives in the area. The requestor states that vehicles are not stopping for pedestrians at the intersection of Grimes Avenue and Sunnyside Road. There is a Stop sign on southbound Grimes at Sunnyside. There is a Stop sign on Sunnyside at Arden. There are no other Stop signs on Sunnyside between Arden and France Avenue. There is a marked crosswalk on Sunnyside at Arden. Curb ramps exists for crosswalks as shown in the picture. There are no other marked crosswalks between Arden and France Avenue. There are recorded crashes at the intersection. The criterion for placement of crosswalks and type of control is outlined within the City of Edina Local Traffic Control list. It states: Marked Pedestrian Crosswalk • Marked crosswalks are placed at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations not readily apparent as having pedestrian movement. • Marked crosswalks will only be placed in an area that has in excess of 20 pedestrians crossing for a minimum of two hours during any eight hour period. • Marking for crosswalks will be established by measuring the "Vehicle Gap Time". This is the total number of gaps between vehicular traffic recorded during the average five minute period in the peak hour. Criteria for markings are: • More than five gaps — pavement marking and signage only. • Four to five gaps — add activated pedestal mounted flasher. • Less than three gaps — add activated overhead mounted flasher Page 8 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 After discussion staff recommends doing more research on nearby similar streets for comparison, and to research how this compares with the Living Streets policy. Requestor would like parking restrictions on the east side of Grimes near these addresses. Currently there is no parking allowed on the west side of the street. Pavement at this location is 25.5' (face to face). In 2005 a traffic count was taken. The ADT was 806 vehicles with an 85th percentile speed of 31.3 mph. The calculated Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) based on the MNDOT road design manual; for this section of Grimes with a 30 mph speed limit and a grade of 14 percent is 171.7 ft. The measured SSD was 172 ft. This request comes from a resident who lives in the area and often travels through this section of Grimes Avenue. Requestor states that vehicles travelling northbound on Grimes have to swerve around vehicles parked on the east side of the street, potentially ending up in the southbound lane. Requestor states that this section of Grimes (4215-4219) is on a hill which could potentially block sightlines of vehicles. Map: 4200 block of Grimes Ave Photo: 4213 Grimes Ave, looking south Counts of pedestrians were taken at the intersection. A maximum total of 7 pedestrians were recorded crossing Sunnyside Road and a maximum total of 7 pedestrians crossing Grimes Avenue at the intersection within a two-hour period. This is below the warrants for placing a crosswalk. The TSC deferred a request for an All-Way stop sign at this intersection on August 1, 2012. After discussion the staff recommends denying this request since the intersection did not meet the minimum warrants for pedestrians crossing in a two-hour window. SECTION C: Request that are deferred to a later date: Cl. Request for parking restrictions in front of 4215-4219 Grimes Avenue. Page 9 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 Photo: St. Johns Ave. looking south Photo: St. Johns Ave. and Garrison Ln. looking west C2. Request is for replacing the yield signs at the intersection of St. Johns Avenue and Garrison Lane with Stop signs. This request comes from a resident living near the intersection. Requestor states vehicles crossing St. Johns Avenue are being hit by people going too fast down St. Johns. Also, the Yield signs on Garrison and Ashcroft Lanes are hard to see and are not being observed. Currently there are Yield signs for traffic crossing St. Johns Avenue. In 2000 a traffic count was completed for St. Johns Avenue north of Garrison resulting in an ADT of 101, and an 85th percentile speed of 26.9 mph. In 2004 a traffic count was completed for Garrison Lane east of St. Johns resulting in an ADT of 212 and an 85th percentile speed of 28 mph. There are two recorded auto crashes; a crash resulting in property damage in 2002, and a crash resulting in personal injury in 2013. After discussion, the staff recommends looking further into the crash from 2013 to see if it was an unavoidable crash. SECTION D: Other traffic safety-related issues handled. Dl. Call from a resident regarding vehicles speeding on Tracy Avenue near 68th Street. Resident would like to see speed enforcement in the area. A recent speed count was forwarded to the Edina Police Department (EPD). D2. Email from a resident stating that sightlines are obstructed at the intersection of 66th Street and Valley View Road. EPD visited the site and determined there was no clear zone violation or obstructed sight lines at the intersection. Email was sent to the resident stating this. EPD sent the property owner a letter as well. Page 10 of 10 Traffic Safety Committee Report December 4, 2013 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Date: December 19, 20 1 3 Subject: Human Services Grant/Transportation Options Agenda Item #: VI. B. Action El Discussion 0 Information El Action Requested: Discuss how to move forward regarding the Human Services Grant and the Transportation Options efforts. Information / Background: Given her recent job change, commissioner Whited requested that this topic be placed on the ETC agenda for discussion. Attachments: None G:\ Engineering \ Infrastructure \ Streets \ Traffic \ TRANSP COMM \ Agendas & RR's \2013 R&R \20131219 \ Item VI.B. Human Services Grant-Transportation Options.docx City of Edina ° 4801 W. 50th St. ° Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION To: Edina Transportation Commission From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Date: December 19, 2013 Subject: Southwest LRT Freight Rail Re-Route: The "Southern Arm" Agenda Item #: VI. A. Action 111 Discussion El Information CI Action Requested: Discuss potential issues regarding the "Southern Arm" alternative of the Southwest LRT freight rail re- route options and potential impacts to Edina, and make recommendations for City Council consideration if necessary. Information / Background: Please recall that at the October 24 ETC meeting the group Safety in the Park gave a presentation regarding issues surrounding the Southwest LRT and potential freight rail re-route options. While their presentation focused on future impacts to St. Louis Park, they also discussed the planned "southern arm," which runs on MN&S track through Edina (east of Highway 100). Safety in the Park discussed how the possibility exists for increased freight traffic with this option, potentially impacting Edina neighborhoods. Attachments: October 24, 2013 Safety in the Park Presentation (slides I 8-30) G:\ Engineering\ Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \TRANSP COMM \ Agendas & RR's \ 2013 R&R \ 20131219\ Item VIA. Southwest LRT Freight Rail Re-Route Southern Arm.docx City of Edina ° 4801 W. 50th St. ° Edina, MN 55424 Sto Raub P@TE FroasGA Han Re-MEM An important component that affects Edina directly is the planned "Southern Arm". wwmsdetylalleparlcmm SkrET HEPARK Park cousAl • ' Bai lake .F 4 Oak Hill Park Wolfe Park „op U a 10/24/2013 Me IL©do Paw Fre'Osh21Fne-WoUte The Southern Arm would replace a "switching wye" in St. Louis Park that enables trains to change direction from East/West to North/South and vice versa. It's a cumbersome procedure, rarely utilized. wwasafetyinthepulcmm 6.M1,0117.PARK 1 10/24/2013 wwwsafetyinalepulccom ; ,4 't n fri: I s 4e oe'a.4 Ace. `A —4. -4 ".0.‘ IThe Loub puk FrreilEM Eon ne-EcAne 7/111511, , 401,01.1 4e* .nn ft'A 4 4 5/ill 15W s Ron Uhe M. Lomb P@Ri, Fraght ne0E1 Re-E©ate As part of the SWLRT plan the switching wye may be replaced by a southern arm to accomplish the same task- changing direction. wwwsdetyintheparicmm 2 10/24/2013 www.safetyinthepark.com www.safetyinthepark.com Vhe LM1A2 Nal PweVA nag Re-nomite The SLP City Council favors the southern arm because it eliminates the switching wye and because it removes several light industrial buildings making way for more dense economic development and a more southerly Louisiana LRT station. The cost of the southern arm is estimated by the Met Council to be $30M. Vhe Loab Pea Fmrisht nen ne-Roule In combination with the southern arm, a "swap" is also planned. As LRT approaches St. Louis Park from the west, the LRT track will be "collocated" with freight rail. LRT will be on the north side, freight on the south. The plan is to "swap" those two, placing LRT on the south and freight on the north. Doing so is favored by SLP and Hopkins because more land is available on the south side of the tracks creating more economic development space and eliminating the need for LRT users to cross the freight track to get to LRT. ":,•n "4 -3 „. at —.1t1St1 3 'The M. Wars NT 3 FMEISME Me The combination of the Swap and the Southern Arm is estimated by the Met Council to cost $60M. Only the SLP re-route (in the most recent plan) REQUIRES these elements because building the northerly arm of the Brunswick Central plan would wipe out the Switching Wye and the railroad demands some way to change direction. Therefore, the actual cost of the Brunswick Central is $260M, not just $200M. Collocation does not require southern arm. wwmsdetyintheiwkxom AIVIrl IN TIFIEPARK/ - - • 10/24/2013 Irhe M. WW2 Paw Freleg Ran ne-Ecm12 wwwsafetyinthepark.com 4 Irhe St. Limb Pellsk FredeM Han ne-nage While SitP's main goal is to stop an SLP re-route, we are also concerned about the Southern Arm. Depending on market conditions, the Southern Arm will make it possible for long, heavy freight trains to cross several St. Louis Park roads, including Excelsior Blvd, at grade creating safety issues. It is, again, modifying a track that was never built for such purposes into a mainline. This should concern Edina as well since the MN&S travels past churches, homes, and more in close proximity. www.safetyinthepark.com ME E. bads PaErk Preig ht Ren Ra-Nolote How does this effect Edina? Edina If enneola -County Lilyaay0, I tighlands Our Lady of Grace . Elementary Catholic School School If market conditions are favorable, it could mean large increases in freight headed to the Minnesota River Docks. Most importantly, once this is built, there is no turning back. Federal law protects rail lines in perpetuity. _l www.safetyinthepark.com [mai ak, Ors) Carden Park 0 bfa,b • Edina Cahill listraical School 10/24/2013 5 SAFLIY I www.safetyinthepark.com Barge Loading Me M. Wars Paa' FrraSht 12e-Route www.safetyinthepark.com 10/24/2013 Me no Itoabo IFMNIC RAO Re-Emite The Minnesota River Grain Elevator and Docks 6 \ Uhe M. L©abs POT 3 Fmrght ne-H©ane If you would like to comment or learn more: www.safetyinthepark.com Facebook: Safety in the Park Email: Safetyinthepark@gmail.conn wwmsgetyinthepuk.com 10/24/2013 7 MINUTES OF CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMUNITY ROOM NOVEMBER 21, 2013 6:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Answering roll call was member Boettge, Franzen, lyer, Janovy, LaForce, Nelson, Sierks, Spanhake, and Van Dyke. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Motion was made by member Franzen and seconded by member Janovy to approve the meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2013 — Approved as corrected. Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Franzen to approve the amended minutes of October 24, 2013. All voted aye. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT — None. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS Promenade Phase 4 Mr. Ross Bintner, environmental engineer, presented the Edina Promenade Phase Conceptual Plan Outline and Narrative and asked for support for the plan from the ETC. He explained that phase 4 is guided by the 2008 Promenade Plan and will include pedestrian, water and public art features. The project location is from Hazelton Rd to just north of the Centennial Lakes/Promenade connection. He said the water feature will include an underground robust water treatment feature that they are partnering with the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District on. He said the plan was presented to the City Council this past Tuesday and to the watershed district this past Wednesday, and they have both approved it. It will be presented to other stakeholders in coming weeks. The total project cost is $1.827M and construction is planned next summer. Discussion by the ETC included closeness of building and shadow effect that could cause freeze/thaw (Centennial Lakes staff will perform maintenance); trail width will be 10-ft; dealing with conflicts at crossings (clear zones and stop signs, were suggested); and the flow of the water feature. The consensus was that since the City Council has already approved the plan, the ETC would like staff to note the suggestions made and provide progress updates. 54th Street Reconstruction and Arden Park Stormwater Management Plan - Updates Mr. Toby Muse, the City's consultant with SEH said last month he presented this project's draft feasibility study and is in attendance to answer questions regarding the updates that were submitted. In reference to a variance, member LaForce asked for some examples of hardships and the likelihood that a variance would be approved. Mr. Muse said examples would be to design a specific curve that MnDOT requires or creating 1 unsafe sightline conditions because of a driveway. He was asked if any hardships exist and he said he is not aware of any. In reference to raising the bridge, member Janovy said if it was a commercial development, the ETC would have been provided existing elevation, proposed elevation, etc. like is provided to the Planning Commission but in this case, no detail was provided that she can use to judge impacts to the road, shoreline, or intersection, though she assumed it is being designed to be safe. She said they don't have similar procedures for this structural change and since the ETC does not see the final design, they will not know how concerns are addressed. Mr. Muse said it is related to process and right now they are in the preliminary design phase and this level of detail is usually done in the final design phase. Member Spanhake asked if there will be an opportunity for the community to be involved in the bridge design and Mr. Muse said yes. She asked what the impacts are with raising the bridge 3-ft. and Mr. Muse said the area will need to be regraded to allow proper drainage and add new retaining walls. Member Janovy asked about bus stops and Mr. Muse said all bus stops will remain in the same locations, except for a few that is being removed; they will not have landing pads because landing pads are only required when new stops are being added. Member Janovy asked if a 26-ft curb to curb street width was realistic and Mr. Muse said if it was being built without bike facility it would be 26-ft wide to meet State Aid requirements and also based on feedback to stay as narrow as possible. She said the bike plan does not require a bike facility on this road and her concern is that as lanes narrow, cyclists are squeezed and so placement of sharrows are important. Mr. Muse said MnDOT has specific guidelines regarding placement of sharrows. She said designing to minimum standards is the safe thing but it is not always the best thing to do and she is skeptical if this will improve conditions for cyclists. Planner Nolan said MnDOT, TLC and staff discussed adding the dash lines. Additionally, he believes having pavement markings helps to raise awareness that there could be cyclists on the road and having consistent treatment helps to improve conditions for them. He said further that this route was identified because it connects to the Minneapolis system. Member Franzen asked if bike lane, sidewalk and two lanes of traffic are required by the Comp Plan and/or City Council and Mr. Muse said the bike facility was in the Comp Plan and this is why it is included. Member LaForce said he thought 54th was part of the TLC grant to connect to Minneapolis and asked if they are talking about removing the markings from 54th which would create a hole in the system and if this was an option. Planner Nolan and Mr. Muse said they believe TLC is okay with sharrows but if the markings are removed completely it is likely the City would have to give grant money back. Member LaForce asked if they've received any feedback about the advisory lanes on 54th (east of France) and planner Nolan said no and they can only assume it is working because staff has not heard from anyone. Member LaForce said to add a third treatment that is different is going to be confusing and member Boettge concurred. Mr. Muse said this marking was recommended by TLC because it is better understood by both cyclists and drivers. Member Janovy said the church sent a letter recently regarding their parking needs which is not limited to Sundays only. She is concerned about the extra width of the road for parking and providing parking in general for the church. Community Comment Mr. Gary Hanus, 5336 Brookview, said the following: • In favor of sidewalk; however, 6-ft is excessive; would like it to be the City standard 5-ft. including the rumble strip; he is on the north side and his property is taking the brunt of the project. Pam Starkey, 5331 Oaklawn Ave, said the following: 2 • Empathized with everyone and agreed that the north side is taking the brunt of project; • Seen what happens on 50th with huge line of traffic and traffic will move to 54th with nice, smooth roads so 13-ft seem reasonable; • Not sure why there is a big push for bike lanes; she would just as soon ride in the street and follow traffic rules; do not add another 1-ft to the road; • Keep it in proportion to the neighborhood. John Adams, 5336 W. 54th, said the following: • So many moving parts —State Aid road, secondary bike facility, etc. • Put yourself in his shoe and review the context of his street — 7-ft. parking, 12-ft. driving lanes; • Traffic speed issues as it exist today; • Parking will be closer to his dining room; • Most discriminated section of the proposal; • Does not believe anyone supports road widening; • Church that needs parking; • Neighbors having to defend their own interest; • Take away bike designation and everyone would support 13-ft lane, 5-ft. sidewalk, 7 day a week parking on both sides and same design across the bridge; Mark Epple, 5336 Kellogg, said the following: • Speaking for the west end side — all corner lots with a 15-ft. setback requirement, average housing age is 71, and several with non-conforming setback; concerned about the project coming any closer; • Wants project centered and do not touch utility poles; • Have made several attempts to find out from the consultant where the utility poles are located and to no avail; • Make sidewalk 5-ft (no boulevard); Mr. Steve Timmer, 5448 Oaklawn Ave, said the following: • Against raising bridge 3-ft. because it changes sightline, approaches and is expensive; • Could reduce road width by 2-ft based on Wooddale's example which he measured; Lori Grotz, 5513 Park PI, said the following: • The streets in her neighborhood were reconstructed two years ago; • The intersection at Park PI is wide and dangerous; the proposed plans has it narrower; now that it is paid for they want to make it smaller; retaining wall is more dangerous; • Spending too much money so canoeists can go under the bridge; concerned about crime under the bridge; • Would like Park PI to stay wide and bridge stay low. Ed Ross, 4015 W. 54th, said the following: • Supports comments John made; • Supports comments Pam made about biking; • Jumping through hoops and paying a price for bike lanes; • Church needs more parking; • Counted bikes and only 9 in 90 minutes on a Sunday; 4 or 5 during the week; • Pay the TLC money back and get rid of bike lanes. Kathryn Green, 5400 Kellogg Ave, said the following: • Residents are focused on keeping streets narrow for safety, maintain charm and property values; • Residents working to be one voice and to prioritize what the needs are; 3 • Understands that streets has to be livable, safe to walk; • Make them livable but in a responsible fashion and not only for the people who use the streets occasionally. Member Janovy asked Mr. Muse about the utility poles and he said State Aid requires a 2-ft clear zone which is shown in the graphic. He said it does not meet this today but all rules must be adhered to since they are reconstructing the road. For clarification on Wooddale lane width, chair Nelson said Wooddale was only restriped within the last two years, not reconstructed, and he is not sure what the rule was then. Member Spanhake asked if the sidewalk could be 4-ft with a 1-ft rumble strip. Yes, this would meet the requirement but Public Works prefers a 5-ft sidewalk with a 1-ft boulevard or rumble strip so they'll have a place to store snow instead of pushing it in the street. She asked if it could be a different width if not maintained by the City. Yes. Chair Nelson asked if there are other material treatments other than a concrete rumble strip and Mr. Muse said there are several options but they have decided on one yet. Chair Nelson stated that he feels that having no boulevard is acceptable. Member Boettge asked if the residents would prefer maintaining the sidewalk themselves. Member LaForce said it sounds like the residents would like to see a different plan and asked if the plan was representative of wider feedback. Mr. Muse said the 54th St residents are in attendance but the plan was developed based on the aggregate feedback (including over 700 participants) to keep street as narrow as possible. Motion was made by member Janovy to recommend the following to the City Council — from France Ave west to the bridge: 7-foot striped parking lane on the north side, two 11-foot travel lanes (no centerline stripe), 7-foot striped parking lane on the south side; do not raise the bridge and include a 6-ft sidewalk on both sides of the bridge; from the bridge west to Wooddale Ave: two 13-foot (11 ft + 2 ft reaction) unstriped travel lanes; and a 6-ft (5-ft plus 1-ft rumble strip)sidewalk on the north side. The motion was seconded by member LaForce. Ayes: Boettge, Franzen, Janovy, LaForce, Spanhake Nay: Nelson Abstain: lyer Motion carried. 2014 Neighborhood Reconstruction Projects — Updates Planner Nolan said interim city engineer Millner prepared updates included the following: Morningside B Staff met with residents regarding the 42 nd St and Grimes Ave sidewalks; speed and volume data were submitted and they will continue to monitor the area west of Grimes Ave. For the 42" St sidewalk, staff is recommending the north side of the street to the City limits. Planner Nolan said additional surveying was done and they found more conflicts on the south side including less right-of-way. Birchcrest B Updated traffic counts were provided. Community Comment Wayne Lindholm, 5024 Valley View Rd, said the following: • Reiterated what he said at the ETC's Oct. 24 meeting regarding streetlights and sidewalk survey results. 4 • On Oct. 24, he asked why staff decided to move forward with the sidewalk and not streetlights even though most were not in favor of sidewalk and Director Houle said he would check with staff and he is still waiting for a response. • ETC was misinformed that there was overwhelming support for the sidewalk; he attended the neighborhood sidewalk meeting and residents were not asked their preference for sidewalk; much of the discussion centered on traffic, parking and some talk about the sidewalk. • Petition walked around and it was 2/3 against and 1/3 for the sidewalk. • Odd that it was passed forward with an open issue on the table and he would like to know why. Art Thelemann, 5132 Valley View Rd, said the following: • Ask to have the minutes corrected to show correct spelling of his last name and that he opposed the sidewalk; • He's read everything that he could find, including Council Connection that talked about the Living Street Policy and he is curious how they are moving forward with it when the implementation plan is not yet developed. • He cross-referenced the survey results with those who attended the sidewalk meeting and 10 of the 17 families said no to the sidewalk; this is not support for the sidewalk; • Difficult to access information on the website — still looking for the difference between local and collector • streets. • Biased against the residents. Member Janovy motioned to amend the October 24 minutes as requested by Mr. Thelemann and the motion was seconded by member lyer. All voted aye. Motion carried. Traffic Safety Committee Report of November 6, 2013 Section C: member Janovy said as part of the Grandview CAT, economic development manager Neuendorf has engaged Kimley Horn to do a traffic study and she recommended that planner Nolan connect with him. Section D-2: After discussion, it was decided that this would be removed for clarification of the location. Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member lyer to forward the November 6 Traffic Safety Report to City Council without Section D-2. All voted aye. Motion carried. Updates Student Members - None Bike Edina Task Force Member Janovy reported that Quality Bicycle Products had a mini-bike summit with the cities of Edina, Bloomington and Richfield and another one is planned for January. The consultant that is developing Hennepin County's bike plan was in attendance and they are seeking input via an online survey. Planner Nolan said he is on the policy advisory committee. Living Streets Working Group Planner Nolan said they are working with Feed the Dog on branding and developing a public relations campaign. He said they are looking for feedback on the sample logos and tag lines that were handed out and are also looking for people in the community to champion the cause and help move it forward. Feedback included: • Likes the "e" but it may not have a long shelf life and people may not understand the tagline; • Not crazy about taglines and is not sure about branding Living Streets; opponents might consider it social engineering; put energy into why sidewalks are needed, etc; 5 • Will people understand what Living Streets mean? Spend time on more factual things that will inform; • Cars are not represented in the logo examples; concerned that it looks like all modes are on the same path in the second example; do not like "All" at the end of "Our Streets Connect Us All;" suggested 'Connected, Safer, Healthier' as a tagline; Communications Committee - None CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS - None CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS Member LaForce said after tonight's discussion of 54th St, he is thinking about something that member lyer has pushed for and that is to identify a plan and criteria because tonight the ETC is asking the City Council to create a hole in its bike plan by recommending that the City Council not approve bike lanes on 54th St. He said he is not feeling good about this but it seemed they did not have any substantive reasons or a plan to back up what they were doing. He said when they change their minds or do things differently it causes them to miss an opportunity for many years. He said this is an important east/west corridor for bikes, pedestrians and cars and they are recommending not doing anything. Member Franzen added that tonight's discussion exposed the big hole in the plan. He said while it is great to want bike facilities everywhere, there isn't enough room on 54th St for a nice facility and sidewalk and meet State Aid rules. He said they should first look at the corridors to be sure there is enough room or right-of-way. Member Janovy added that the plan as proposed did not do enough for cycling. She said the rules of the road are the same whether you have shared lane markings or not and bikers will be riding in the same place whether there are markings or not. She said it has become increasingly important to her that when they put in bike facility that it is the kind that increases comfort and this is dedicated space. She said using sharrows for brief sections to make a connection is fine but the concept of sharrows as the treatment has less function. Member Spanhake suggested having a debriefing on the engagement process to see what was learned because she understood the bike lane was a given and now they are recommending taking them out. She liked the idea of the engagement process but it came down to listening to those who disagreed and making changes based on this. She said she valued the engineering work and preliminary design that are already done but they should look at the process so they do not make the same mistakes again. Member Spanhake said she can get printed copies of the Bike and Pedestrian Best Practices handout (from MnDOT) if everyone is interested. She will get enough for everyone. Member lyer said the ETC does not get feedback after projects are completed. He said residents do not like projects in the beginning but it would be nice to follow up to see if changed their minds after the project is completed. He concurred with member Janovy and said the bike markings should be removed. He said they should only add dedicated bike lanes. Member Boettge concurred with member lyer on the removal of bike markings like the ones on Cornelia. Chair Nelson said the City received a Commuter Choice Award. He said he attended a Metro Transit planning session at Southdale and they are seeking feedback online as part of their transit service improvement to identify where bus services are needed. 6 STAFF COMMENTS Updates from Mr. Nolan: • France Ave intersections improvement was re-bid on Nov. 20 and the low bid was $3M; it will be recommended for approval. • Hazelton Rd project will bid in January. • The County is still planning on striping the Vernon Ave bike lane next week. • Xerxes Ave striping and temporary bump-outs were completed last week. A left turn lane was added without signage that created confusion; the County will be adding signage. • 3 sidewalk projects were submitted for funding from Hennepin County and two were approved. They are York Ave from 66th to the transit station, $8,000; and Vernon Ave from Doncaster to Ayshire, $50,000; staff has three years to complete these projects. • How do members feel about getting their packets electronically and accessing them on I:Legislate? Feeback was since not everyone has an iPad could the City provide them for the meetings? Can you mark up the electronic copy? The screen would need to be big since they look at plans in different sizes. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned. ATTENDANCE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE - 2013 NAME TERM J F M A M J J A S 0 N D Work Session # of nitgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7/16 Bass, Katherine 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 83% Boettge, Emily 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 4 100% Braden, Ann* 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 5 42% Franzen, Nathan 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 75% lyer, Surya 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 75% Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 92% LaForce, Tom 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 100% Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 100% Schweiger, Steven student 1 1 1 3 25% Sierks, Caroline student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 75% Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 70% Van Dyke, Jackson student 1 1 1 3 100% Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 83% 7 DRAFT (December 18, 2013) City of Edina and Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) Relationship Agreement City of Edina Responsibilities: O City Council will recognize BETF as the City's bicycle advisory cornmittee; O City Council will continue to appoint a member of BETF to the Edina Transportation Commission; • A staff member will be assigned to serve as liaison to BETF (staff member does not need to attend meetings, but is welcome); • Staff will inform and consult with BETF on: • Updates to the Bike Plan • Bicycling infrastructure design and implementation; • City-sponsored bike education; and • City-sponsored bike events; and • Provide meeting space and a link to the BETF website from the City's website. BETF Responsibilities: • Provide a copy of current bylaws and member list; • Distribute meeting minutes to staff liaison and City Council; • Review and comment on Bike Plan updates and bike infrastructure design and implementation; and • Assist with City-sponsored bike education and events, and with grant or award applications related to cycling, as volunteer availability permits. The relationship will be reviewed annually on an administrative basis.