HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-16 Meeting PacketAGENDA
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
April 16, 2015
6:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of March 19, 2015
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. Grandview District Update
B. Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Multimodal Traffic Survey
C. 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Summary Report
D. Traffic Safety Report of April 1, 2015
E. Updates
i. Student Member
ii. Bike Edina Working Group
iii. Living Streets Working Group
iv. Walk Edina Working Group
v. Communications Committee
Agenda / Edina Transportation Commission
April 16, 2015
Page 2
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
IX. STAFF COMMENTS
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 April 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Monday April 20 Boards and Commissions Annual Meeting 5:30 PM CENTENNIAL LAKES
Thursday May 21 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Tuesday June 16 City Council and ETC Work Session 5:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday June 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday July 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday August 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday September 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday October 22 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday November 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
GAPW\CENTRAL SVCATRANSPORTATION DIV \Transportation Commission \Agendas & RR's \ 2015 Agendas \ 20150416 Agenda.docx
MINUTES OF
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
COMMUNITY ROOM
MARCH 19, 2015
6:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Campbell, Iyer, Janovy, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Nelson, Olson,
Rummel and Spanhake.
ABSENT
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Motion was made by member Spanhake and seconded by member Nelson to approve the meeting agenda. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF February 19, 2015
Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member lyer to approve the amended minutes of Feb. 19, 2015.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
COMMUNITY COMMENT — No comments but students were present, observing for their government class.
Chair Bass welcomed new member Ralf Loeffelholz to the ETC.
REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Vision Edina Update
Assistant city manager Karen Kurt said she was seeking input from boards and commissions on the draft Vision Edina which is
an update to Vision 20/20. She said the process that began in Aug. 2014 included hiring a consultant who conducted
research and a think tank workshop to understand the driving forces of the future, development ideas and shared/seek input
on these.
Ms. Kurt said four plausible scenarios were identified as — 1) Reinventing Tradition; 2) Nodes and Modes; 3) Complete and
Connected; and 4) Edina Today — Extended. From these scenarios, survey results showed the following key drivers:
1) Residential Development Mix — mixed opinions;
2) Transportation Options— skewed towards multi-modal;
3) Community Development — skewed towards strong neighborhoods;
4) Live and Work — no strong preference
5) Education — skewed towards futuristic
6) Population Mix—mixed reaction
7) Environmental Stewardship — more environmental practices
Overall, assistant city manager Kurt said the data seem to indicate a preference towards Edina Today - Extended with an
acknowledgment toward a need for change but they need to be careful because the community values what has made them
successful.
Assistant city manager Kurt said the Vision Strategic framework was drafted by the consultant and staff is seeking feedback
on it. Complete data is on the City's website, including the detailed strategic focus for each of the surveyed area. Feedback is
also being taken on Speak Up, Edina! The final report will go to City Council in May for approval.
1
Discussion
Member Laforce asked about total number of household (approximately 22,000) and how the survey was done. Assistant
city manager Kurt said the survey was posted online and approximately 600 households participated. Member LaForce said
the data is skewing towards change but wondered if it could be from activist residents and not necessarily reflective of the
broader community. He said he would be more comfortable with a random selection similar to the process used for the
Quality of Life survey. Assistant city manager Kurt said the survey included a good sampling of high school students and those
50 years and older. Member Janovy said she thought the outreach was good and sees the residents wanting stability, biking
and walking. She said in the session she attended, there were residents that she had not met before.
Member lyer asked if the bubble chart reflected feedback from both City leaders and regular residents, or if their opinions
skewed differently. Assistant city manager Kurt said the think tank workshop included both City leaders and regular
residents. Member lyer asked how Edina was different from other comparable communities and assistant city manager Kurt
said this was the consultant's first time working in North America so they did not have any comparable communities.
Member lyer said the data tend to skew to the middle and asked if they should eliminate those and focus on the areas like
transportation that shows stronger preference. Assistant city manager Kurt said it would make leadership easier in the
stronger areas but they need to be cautious on the others to balance opinions. Member lyer said the data shows they do not
want to be cautious in some areas. Member Janovy said she recalled people complaining about the questions because the
answers weren't either/or.
Member Boettge said she attended a session and the environment felt comfortable and safe for her to provide input and this
is important when seeking public input. She said it would be good to get younger residents involved.
Chair Bass read a section of the report that said there was "...lesser appetite for transit forward strategy." and asked how
they arrived at this conclusion when the data is skewed towards multi modal. Assistant city manager Kurt was not sure and
will look into this. Member Nelson said this is an area that the ETC is working on. He asked if they could access the survey
data to understand the reasons because if residents aren't in favor why are they pursuing it. Member Janovy said it could be
because transit is regional and not controlled by the City. Chair Bass noted that the report shows eight drivers that are
regionally connected and other communities are ahead of Edina in these areas because of transit development in and
around them. Chair Bass also noted that under Transportation Options, the report talked about "...to advance policies and
developments deemed to be in the larger public good." and one of the strategic actions is "Undertake community education
and promotion,..." -- she said this is important to highlight to the City Council because it has been on the ETC's work plan for
a couple years but they do not feel there is support for it.
Member Spanhake said a lot of general terms are used in the report such as "diversity of transportation," "local access," etc.
and asked what they meant. Member Loeffelholz added that "local transportation" needs to be identified and asked if they
are referring to Edina or the metro area.
Draft Living Streets Plan
Planner Nolan said he is seeking feedback from the ETC, the Planning Commission, Living Streets Advisory Group and staff.
He said the communications department will receive all the feedback and make the final edits to the plan. A public hearing,
City Council review and approval are scheduled for May 5. Planner Nolan said feedback could be given now or sent to him via
email. Feedback will also be taken via Speak Up, Edina!
Planner Nolan was asked if the Comprehensive Plan was going to be updated because the Planning Commission was included
in the review and he said no; he said the Planning Commission requested to see the final draft and staff is honoring their
request.
Member Olson said the Bike Plan referenced is 10 years old and asked if it was going to be updated and both planner Nolan
and member Janovy said it will be updated eventually.
2
Member Boettge said there is a desire to make people feel comfortable and safe and she has seen signs that make people
look more realistic and human-like other than the stick figure signs. She asked if staff would consider these signs. Planner
Nolan said they follow the practices of the state for signage but he will look into it.
Member LaForce asked if Chap. 2 of the plan was also being reviewed and planner Nolan said yes. Regarding Principle 8,
"...designed to reflect the existing neighborhood character...," Member LaForce said it is interesting that this is a principle
which he agrees with, but it is also used as roadblock. Member LaForce asked what was the meaning of Principle 15, "The
City will increase the resilience of municipal public works." Planner Nolan said to strive to make the infrastructure more
sustainable, to last longer.
Member Nelson asked about street classification — local streets vs local connector — and planner Nolan said more clarity is
needed. Regarding posting streets as no parking, member Nelson asked what was the guideline and planner Nolan said signs
will be posted every 200-250 ft. Member Nelson said he was concerned with sign pollution and asked if a policy could be
written that would eliminate the signs or if this would make enforcement difficult. Member Janovy asked why are they
automatically eliminating parking and suggested a policy that would be silent but allow for changes as needed. She said the
community strongly objects to no parking and asked why they are including it when it could potentially become their sticking
point.
Chair Bass said the background could be strengthened by including the vision and the robust process that got them to this
point. She suggested changing "Residents in these neighborhoods tend to become isolated due to the lack of walkable
streets." She said it is probably a factual statement but is most likely not backed up by data. She suggested changing it to
lack of walkability is associated with less social connectedness or another sentence that communicates isolation instead of
calling them isolated. Another suggestion was whenever bicycle and pedestrian safety is referenced she would prefer to lead
with pedestrians because most people can more closely associate with being a pedestrian. Finally, chair Bass said she
struggles with using the term 'community engagement' because residents do not think of it this way, for example, she said
street reconstruction is not community engagement, it is input and outreach. Defining the meaning and the levels of
community engagement was suggested.
Member Loeffelholz said there are a lot of references to multi modal but he could not find anything tangible listed. Member
Janovy explained that the plan is heavy on background information; it does not talk enough about the how and where to
implement. Member Loeffelholz said he likes the vision statement but he has no idea what was being implemented. Planner
Nolan suggested adding a sentence to address this.
Member lyer said there are so many parallel things going on — Sidewalk Plan, Comprehensive Plan, etc. Planner Nolan said
they all feed into the Living Streets Plan. Member lyer said he was concerned that there are no end dates associated with any
of the plans. To clarify member lyer's concern, chair Bass said it sounded like he was asking that they include dates to hold
themselves accountable and member lyer agreed. Member Nelson said the Sidewalk Map is implemented with street
reconstruction. Member Janovy suggested tying the Pavement Condition Index with neighborhoods that has sidewalks on
the map.
Tracy Avenue/Valley View Road/Valley Lane Roundabout: Preliminary Layout
Planner Nolan said staff is seeking feedback on the preliminary layout. He said staff was looking at improving this intersection
because of the future Nine Mile Creek Trail that will cross here, plus ongoing traffic and pedestrian complaints. Planner
Nolan said other improvements that have been considered but are not feasible for various reasons included a traffic signal,
overpass, tunnel, and a rapid flashing beacon. Planner Nolan said MNDOT is hesitant to deviate from approved designs
unless there are compelling reasons. A meeting is scheduled for Mar. 23 to gather input from the public.
Discussion
Adding a sidewalk on the eastside of Tracy leading up TH-62 bridge was asked about and planner Nolan said it is being
considered for 2016.
3
Member Janovy said it seemed the roundabout is the preferred option and asked what led staff to believe there is a queuing
problem. Planner Nolan said queuing was only one of the problems. Chair Bass said she's witnessed queuing on Valley Lane
and also on Tracy in the mornings and imagined the afternoons are the same as well. She said drivers come from the bridge
at high speeds and the improvement would slow them down.
Member Nelson said it does not look like the improvement will help the trail because of the trail location in proximity to the
roundabout and asked about a tunnel but this is not feasible because of the creek. He is concerned that staff is asking for
input but the roundabout seemed to be the only option and questioned why residents would want to attend the meeting.
Member Loeffelholz asked if there were any plans to improve the exit ramp off TH-62 to Tracy and also Antrim. Planner
Nolan said the exit ramp is MNDOT's jurisdiction and Antrim is being looked at in conjunction with the school district's
referendum.
Member LaForce said he would like to see a solution that create gaps but recognized that the problem wasn't just at the
intersection — it extends much further away.
Student member Campbell said he avoids this area because of the left turn and use 70th & Antrim instead. He said this
solution does not create gaps but the roundabout is probably better.
Student member Rummel said left turns from Valley View on to Tracy at TH-62 is also difficult and wondered if this area
would be improved as a result.
Member Janovy said it does not look ideal for children.
Chair Bass suggested a cycle track and also asked if staff would consider a temporary simulation such as placing bollards that
would act like a roundabout to see the effect before placing something permanently. Planner Nolan said anything they try
would have to meet State Aid requirements.
Chair Bass said she favors something that will slow traffic and the roundabout seems to be it. Maybe look at each scenario
separately — trail, traffic, pedestrian.
Member lyer said he would like to know the roundabout costs compared to other options.
Updates
Student Members
Student member Campbell said it was interesting learning about how to build roads more effectively to minimize infiltration
in his environmental class and the parallel discussions that the ETC has.
Student member Rummel said she watched a You Tube video on solar roadways that melts snow and creates energy. She
said Edina should be progressive and try it.
Bike Edina Working Group
Member Janovy said assistant engineer Patrick Wrase attended their meeting and shared upcoming projects and asked for
feedback. She said they will be organizing a bike ride but it is not planned yet.
Living Streets Working Group
See the Draft Living Streets Plan discussion above.
Walk Edina Working Group
Member Boettge said a member resigned and she nominated a replacement.
4
Motion was made by member Boettge and seconded by member Janovy to approve John Hamilton to the Walk Edina
Working Group.
All voted aye.
Motion carried.
Member Boettge said they discussed goals and work plan and they've decided to focus on doing a walking audit and asked
for input on locations. She mentioned Strachauer Park because two members live in the area. She said they also talked about
creating a brochure of walking routes. Member Janovy suggested including walking time from one destination to another.
Communications Committee — None.
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS — None.
CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
Member Nelson said he attended a webinar on Bicycle Stress Level Mapping that focused on mapping the stress level of bike
routes. He said if a section of the route is rated at the highest stress level, the entire route is rated as such. He will email the
web link.
Member Iyer said the 4th annual Edina Environmental Forum is taking place at the high school, Apr. 8, 6-7 p.m.
Member La Force said while on vacation in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, he developed a new appreciation for curb cuts
because of an incident that required him to push a wheelchair.
Member Loeffelholz thanked everyone for welcoming him to the ETC.
Member Janovy said Speak Up, Edina! street lighting offers no context or education and this is a general feeling about Speak
Up, Edina! She said she was concerned with the message board on Valley View Rd because it was in the bike lane and the
message was incorrect because the issue being addressed wasn't traffic. She said the message board should be used for
notification of hazards. She asked if when Tracy, south of Benton is to be constructed, if this will open the discussion again
about the Benton/Tracy intersection and planner Nolan said he didn't know if it would.
Member Boettge said she is concerned about the intersections at France Ave where drivers continue to pull into the
crosswalk and are not looking for pedestrians before turning right. Planner Nolan said they are still evaluating stop bars for
these intersections.
Chair Bass made changes to the minutes.
Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Iyer to approve amended minutes.
All voted aye.
Motion carried.
STAFF COMMENTS
Resources available to boards and commissions were distributed.
The City was not awarded the Active Routes to School grant for the Cornelia Drive Sidewalk in part because it could not
demonstrate that there were safety issues such as crashes and also because of the lack of involvement by the school district.
The sidewalk will be installed and paid for from the PACS Fund.
Regarding the ETC survey suggestion, planner Nolan said staff reviewed what was submitted and selected some questions
and will be meeting with the communications department next for feedback. The plan is to use the survey two years before
street reconstruction.
5
A meeting was held last week to discuss the proposed noise wall at 50th from TH-100 to Vernon and residents were
supportive. The noise wall is on MNDOT's schedule for 2016. MNDOT will fund 90% and residents assessed 10% or
$3,000/$2,000/$1,000 in a 3-tiered system.
Hennepin County is taking applications for 2015 to fund sidewalks and staff plans to apply for funds for Xerxes Ave which is
on the County's priority map. You may recall, last year the City received funding from the County for two sidewalks.
Tracy Ave reconstruction from Benton to crosstown was approved last week by City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned.
ATTENDANCE
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
JF MAMJJASOND SM SM WS
# of
Mtgs
Attendance
%
Meetings/Work
Sessions 1 1 1 3
NAME TERM
(Enter
Date)
(Enter
Date)
(Enter
Date)
Bass, Katherine 2/1/2017 1 1 1 3 100%
Boettge, Emily 2/1/2017 1 1 1 3 100%
lyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 3 100%
LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 2 67%
Loeffelholz, Ralf 1 1 100%
Janovy, Jennifer 2/1/2017 1 1 1 3 100%
Nelson, Paul 2/1/2016 1 1 1 3 100%
Olson, Larry 2/1/2016 1 1 2 67%
Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 100%
Spanhake, Dawn 2/1/2016 1 1 1 3 100%
Rummel, Anna 9/1/2015 1 1 2 67%
Campbell, Jack 9/1/2015 1 1 33%
6
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
REPORT! RECOMMENDATION
Edina Transportation Commission
Mark Nolan, Transportation Planner
Bill Neuendorf
Economic Development Manager
April 16, 2015
Grandview District Update,
Redevelopment Planning for Former Public Works Site
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Agenda Item #: VI. A.
Action D
Discussion
Information 0
lel
Action Requested:
None.
Information / Background:
In November 2014, the City entered into a Collaborative Development Planning partnership with
Frauenshuh Inc. to prepare possible development scenarios for the City-owned property at 5146 Eden
Avenue.
The City/Frauenshuh team has completed the "Exploration" phase of this land planning process and is
midway through the "Discovery" phase. Preliminary scenarios for the site are being prepared and refined. It
is anticipated that the City Council will select a final scenario in June. Full scale site planning would then
begin.
Throughout the process, the need for District-wide transportation improvements has been discussed. While
the scope of this project is limited to only one site, input from the Edina Transportation Commission would
be highly valuable as the design team continues to refine the possible scenarios.
Members of the design team will present the project update and be available to answer questions and listen
to your recommendations and suggestions.
Attachment:
Project Update (27-pages)
Reynolds
Design conFL.,EncE
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
THE OPUS GROUP
P',4ff
G RAN DVIEW
Former Public Works Site
Edina Transportation
Commission Update
April 16th, 2015
Former Public Works Site
FRAUENSHUH
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 2 Commercial Real Estate Group
Staga St a g e :1; Stage 5 Stages 1-2
Discove
„Selection of WW1
Preferred Financing &
Scenario Construction
3
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
Process Overview
FUTURE OF THE FORMER PUBLIC WORKS SITE
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING TIMELINE
2015-2017 September to October 2014 November 2014 to February 20
Interview Potential
Partners
Select Preferred
Partner
Prepare
"Collaborative
Development
Planning
Agreement"
Survey and Studies
Large Group
Exploration Session
Small Group
Sessions
Boards &
Commissions
ublic Open
House
ketch Plan
Reviews
nline Comments
Suggestion Box
Online Comments
I
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
• PLANNING
• COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Suggestion Box
1
2012 Development Framework
* SEVEN GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Leverage publicly-owned parcels and civic presence to create a vibrant and connected district
that serves as a catalyst for high quality, integrated public and private development.
2.) Enhance the District's economic viability as a neighborhood center with regional connections,
recognizing that meeting the needs of both businesses and residents will make the district a good
place to do business.
3.) Turn perceived barriers into opportunities. Consider layering development over supporting
infrastructure and taking advantage of the natural topography of the area.
4.) Design for the present and the future by pursuing logical increments of change using key parcels
as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life-filled place.
54 Organize parking as an effective resource for the district by linking community parking to public
and private destinations while also providing parking that is convenient for businesses and
customers.
6.) Improve movement within and access to the district for people of all ages by facilitating multiple
modes of transportation, and preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor.
74 Create an identity and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high quality
and sustainable development reflecting Edina's innovative development heritage.
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
1.)
4
Exploration Phase Outreach Activities
• December 4th Exploration
Session (general public)
• Small Group Sessions
— Offered to all
— 120 community groups
contacted
— Youth, sports, education,
neighborhoods, civic,
business, commissions
• January 15th Exploration Session
at Edina High School
• Online suggestions
• Roving suggestion box
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 5
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
I I III IMI
Exploration Phase - Recurring Themes
• Strong and diverse opinions about the site
• Recognition that some City and School District facilities are outdated
— Dissatisfaction with existing Edina Community Center
• Recognition that Grandview functions as a neighborhood commercial
center with a mixture of uses
• Concerns with the cost of new public facilities and impact to tax payers
• Preference to coordinate improvements at City owned property and
adjacent School District property
• Importance of community gathering space welcoming to all ages
• Transportation improvements throughout Grandview
— Convenient public parking
— Pedestrian and bicyclists, as well as vehicles
I 6
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Croup
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
Preliminary Preferences
Streetscape & Parking
Community Exploration Session [100 participants]
Edina Student Exploration Session [42 participants]
December 4th. 2014
Jenuery 15th, 2015
Streetscape + Parking
MOST PREFERRED
Streetscape + Parking
MOST PREFERRED
:7; 1
Awl= • .40,06
n ••••-•-•
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
' .40111111~
-8 — I
,
7
March lith, 2015 Discovery Session
FRAUENSHUH
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
,00
e proo.
8
"
Commercial Real Estate Group
March 11th, 2015 Discovery Session
Three preliminary sketches to discuss massing &
arrangement: South Civic Corner, Central Civic Cascade,
North Civic Tower
4111r 11°'-
South Civic Corner
I
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 9
Use
Croc. 16.00D • 1111{0,11-405 ,11 6. low%
Pst.< Pde 21.490
Odd dectidd
Ofs•
21.490 sq ft
.o .cooq n- S.tt1.t4n 200
ReAperna. 1570494209 Louts 211 vdddrodsurs
%dater...di 5000499 dod1000
Pas h
Tss,Oodsal
11:0
dead.
Thad Fords !lid,
Tod Oariury Demand 435 19.9
neva+.
Tod Des,soserl 218000 d ft Tod Psno.9 SuppY 492 sown
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
I
Four Popular Themes for Community Uses
Multi Generation Community Center
Typical Size &
Program Elements
10,000 to 20.000 square feet on 1 or 2 levels.
Flexible space that can be used for a variety of community needs as
needed.gallery space, history exhibit. 10-20 person meeting rooms.
multi-purpose room for 100-200 people, all-ages programming for
fitness, education. teens. & seniors, café.
Competitive
Landscape Low — similar services scattered at multiple sites in Edina
Parking Demand — predictable usage with higher demands for special events
Construction Costs Low /
Operating Costs - Some existing staff can be retained with some new staff
likely
Potential
Revenue Sources
Long-term debt, sale of public land, philanthropic donations, user fees.
rental fees; retail sales
Fitness/Wellness Center
Typical Size &
Program Elements
20.000 to 60,000 square feet on I or 2 levels.
Indoor multi-purpose court. cardio equipment. strength training, weight
room, multiple rooms for fitness classes, indoor walking loop. lap pool,
locker rooms.
Competitive
Landscape
High — Six existing full-service fitness centers within 5-miles.An
additional 10 smaller facilities also within 5-miles.
Parking Demand High — dramatically high peaks in the early evening and weekends
Construction Costs / High
Operating Costs High - New staff and enterprise budget will be needed
Potential
Revenue Sources
Long-term debt, sale of public land, some philanthropic support possible,
monthly/daily user fees. rental fees
FRAUENSH1JH
Commercial Real Estate Group
I
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 10
3
, .41r11
^.1
Four Popular Themes for Community Uses
Arts & Culture Center
Typical Size &
Program Elements
15,000 to 30.000 square feet on I or 2 levels.
Spaces for visual arts education, classrooms, pottery, artist studios,
history exhibit, gallery space. poetry readings and small group lectures,
artists lockers, teen hangout, multipurpose/flexible community meeting
space, community oven, café, gift shop
Competitive
Landscape
Low — Four similar facilities located within 14 miles are sponsored by
communities with little competition from the private market.
Parking Demand — predictable usage with increases for special events and
special programming
Construction Costs Low /
Operating Costs Low - Existing staff and existing enterprise budget can be retained; any
increases in staffing to be determined
Potential
Revenue Sources
Long-term debt, sale of public land, high potential for philanthropic
donations, registration fees, rental fees, retail sales
Performing Arts, Culture & History Center
Typical Size &
Program Elements
20,000 to 35.000 square feet.
Spaces for visual arts education, classrooms, pottery, artist studios.
history exhibit. history archives/library, gallery space, poetry readings
and small group lectures, artists lockers, teen hangout. 200-400 seat
auditorium, black box/multipurpose/flexible community meeting space,
community oven, café, gift shop
Competitive
Landscape
Low — Four similar facilities located within 14 miles are sponsored by
communities with little competition from the private market. Nearby
auditoriums are 600-800 seats, with little competition for a smaller
fixed-seat hall.
Parking Demand / High — predictable usage with higher demands for special
performances
Construction Costs / High
Operating Costs
Low / - Existing staff and existing enterprise budget can be
retained with some staff increases likely
Potenital
Revenue Sources
Long-term debt, sale of public land, high potential for philanthropic
donations, registration fees, rental fees: retail sales
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 11
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
, FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group ij
District
Context
'
District
Context
RESIDENTIAL OVER
COMMERCIAL WITH
STRUCTURED PARKING
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 13
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
)istrict
ontext
Transitional
1
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group 14
• fi
_ t • 1.4 .1$ •I r
'
4:1 1 5 1 .‘
a _ f! I
' ' '1,1 • ! _J,
- _
• , w A p
ri
1
6
,
2
0
15
E
T
C
U
•
da
t
-
17
I r
-
‘1'
..- .-- •
Conceptual Rendering
,) '
Corner of Eden and Arcadia facing northwest with art garden and civic building.
FRAUENSHUH
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 16 I Commercial Real Estate Group
,
Conceptual Rendering
North woonerf facing northwest with entry gateway and north green wall with public art.
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 17
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
=Iasi IrAWIndr7all.f.,_-_.."111111~1111.111111111n 11M111111111411W-YA-K-_--VAnr--_ it:71-J4 kW'!" •'•Ir1:-._-,-1.-.AP_Oer-.7,./r4POWIra
Conceptual Rendering
- North woonerf facing southeast with performance area and projected imagery on trellis,
with office in background
[1 April 16, 2015 ETC Update
18
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
LrY, iefrMil-
arr
4mer
I
#1
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
Revised Concept #1
Program Elements:
• Residential tower: 140-150 units
• Office: 40-60,000 sq. ft.
• Civic: 40-60,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant and retail: 5-8,000 sq. ft.
• Park/Ride: 100+/- spaces
• Total targeted site parking: 600-800
(depending on shared parking efficiencies programmed
among uses)
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group 19
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
#1
20
Revised Concept #1
Key Transportation Elements:
• New east-west street
• Low speed
• Woonerf-style
• Pedestrian priority
• District parking approach
• Park-and-Ride stalls
• 5 access points to parking structure
• Relieve traffic flow on Eden
• Simplify access for patrons
• On street parking
• Traffic calming
• Broad sidewalks
• Pedestrian priority
• Bicycle routes on Eden & Arcadia
• Access for future transit connection
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
ff
Revised Concept #1
~
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 21
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
I
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 22
Revised Concept #2
Program Elements:
• Residential (two separate buildings): 290
units
• Civic: 40-60,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant and retail: 5-8,000 sq. ft.
• Park/Ride: 100+/- spaces
• Total targeted site parking: 600-800
(depending on shared parking efficiencies programmed among
uses)
#2
Revised Concept #2
LANs,
FRAUENSHUH
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 23 Commercial Real Estate Group
IrEOPL
Revised Concept #3
Program Elements:
113 • Residential: 140-150 units
• Office: 40-60,000 sq. ft.
• Civic: 40-60,000 sq. ft.
• Restaurant and retail: 5-8,000 sq. ft.
• Park/Ride: 100+/- spaces
• Total targeted site parking: 600-
800 (depending on shared parking efficiencies
programmed among uses)
coif
4rwer
#3
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
It
24
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
Revised Concept #3
25
FRAUENSHUH
Commercial Real Estate Group
1
I
April 16, 2015 ETC Update
Direction from City Council - April 7th, 2015
On April 7th, 2015, the City Council members provided additional direction and
clarification to the design team. These changes will be incorporated in the next
iteration of the concept plans. Key clarifications are summarized below:
• Civic use must anchor the site with significant indoor & outdoor presence
and prominent entrances
• Add option with Civic Use on north side; adjacent to outdoor plaza
•
Refine option with high rise on south side
•
Some of the new housing should be affordably-priced
• Preferred civic uses include: arts & culture, performing arts and multi-
generational, multi-purpose community space
• Clarify pedestrian and vehicular improvements leading to/from the site
• Provide cost summary and economic analysis
26
FRAUENSHUH
April 16, 2015 ETC Update Commercial Real Estate Group
Upcoming Events
April 22, 2015
Open House
public opportunity to review multiple Development
Scenarios and provide feedback to refine the viable
options for the site
May 19, 2015 presentation of the Development Scenarios along with
City Council Work public input received; opportunity for City Council to pose
Session questions about the Scenarios
June 2, 2015
City Council Meeting
anticipated request to identify a preferred Scenario
I
FRAUENSHUH
r-
April 16, 2015 ETC Update 27 Commercial Real Estate Group
Ed
e
n
Av
e
n
u
e
20
0
9
:
6,
9
0
0
AD
T
(2
9
mp
h
)
20
1
3
:
5,
6
0
0
AD
T
(3
3
mp
h
)
Gu
s
Yo
u
n
g
La
n
e
20
1
3
:
4,
3
0
0
AD
T
(2
2
mp
h
)
Ar
c
a
d
i
a
Av
e
n
u
e
20
1
3
:
1,
2
0
0
AD
T
(2
0
mph)
W.
Fr
o
n
t
a
g
e
Ro
a
d
20
0
8
:
2,
9
0
0
AD
T
(2
4
mp
h
)
Ve
r
n
o
n
Av
e
n
u
e
20
1
1
:
13
,
2
0
0
AD
T
(M
n
D
O
T
)
Infrastructure Engineering Planning Construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite #300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763 541-4800
Fax: 763 541-1700
Memorandum
DATE: March 6, 2014
TO: Mr. Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager
Mr. Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
City of Edina
FROM: Charles Rickart, P.E., PTOE
RE: Grandview District Development Area
Transportation Summary
City of Edina, MN
WSB Project No. 1686-53
The GrandView District is located in the area surrounding the TH 100 and W. 50th Street/Vernon
Avenue and Eden Avenue corridors. The project area is shown on the attached Figure 1. The
following sections of this memorandum summarize or update the results of the transportation
aspects from the GrandView District Development Framework Plan.
Background / History
In 2010 the City Council adopted the GrandView District Small Area Guide Plan process. That
process resulted in adoption of Seven Guiding Principles for the redevelopment of the
GrandView District. These included:
1. Leverage publicly-owned parcels and
civic presence to create a vibrant and
connected District that serves as a
catalyst for high quality, integrated
public and private development.
2. Enhance the District’s economic
viability as a neighborhood center with
regional connections, recognizing that
meeting the needs of both businesses
and residents will make the District a
good place to do business.
3. Turn perceived barriers into
opportunities. Consider layering
development over supporting
infrastructure and taking advantage of
the natural topography of the area.
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 2 of 14
4. Design for the present and the future by pursuing logical increments of change using key
parcels as stepping stones to a more vibrant, walkable, functional, attractive, and life-filled
place.
5. Organize parking as an effective resource for the District by linking community parking to
public and private destinations while also providing parking that is convenient for businesses
and customers.
6. Improve movement within and access to the District for people of all ages by facilitating
multiple modes of transportation, and preserve future transit opportunities provided by the
rail corridor.
7. Create an identity and unique sense of place that incorporates natural spaces into a high
quality and sustainable development reflecting Edina’s innovative development heritage.
In April of 2011 the process of developing a GrandView District Development Framework
began. The objective in creating a Development Framework was to build upon the Seven
Guiding Principles. The vision of that process was summarized in three goals:
1. Create a place with a unique identity announced by signature elements like:
A central commons on the Public Works site with indoor and outdoor public
space that connects the civic cornerstones of the District and serves the
neighborhood and community needs;
A “gateway” at Highway 100 that announces the District as a special place, using
elements like an iconic pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning Highway 100; and
An innovative, cutting-edge approach to 21st-century sustainability
2. Completely rethink and reorganize the District’s transportation infrastructure to:
Make the District accessible and inviting to pedestrians and cyclists;
Create connections between the different parts of the District;
Maintain automobile-friendly access to convenience retail;
Create separate pathways for “pass-through” and “destination” automobile traffic;
and
Preserve future transit opportunities provided by the rail corridor in a way that
ensures that the kinds of opportunities pursued in the future are consistent with
the character we envision for the District and provide benefit to the surrounding
neighborhood.
3. Leverage public resources to make incremental value-creating changes that enhance
the public realm and encourage private redevelopment consistent with the vision
that improves the quality of the neighborhood for residents, businesses, and
property owners.
As part of the Framework Plan process a work group was established that guided the
development of the transportation sections of the plan. A summary of the Work Group meeting is
included in the Appendix. This group identified several goals for the transportation GrandView
District transportation system including:
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 3 of 14
Support a more efficient, compact, and safe interchange access to Highway 100 from
Vernon and Eden.
Create a more bike and pedestrian friendly environment by applying Complete Streets
and Living Streets principles to Vernon, Eden, and the local street network.
Create an improved circulation and access network between public streets/parcels and
private development/destinations.
Create an enhanced parking environment that, in part, depends on shared, centrally-
located District parking supplies.
Partner with Metro Transit to implement a community-scale Park and Ride and bus
turnaround loop in the area.
Complete the historical transition of Vernon from old Highway 169 to a local District
street.
Identify and implement a demonstration project for “Complete/Living” streets principles.
Provide additional auto, bike, and pedestrian connections east and west in the District.
Maintain and improve parking, access, and circulation in the short term for convenience,
retail, and service uses.
Complete the pedestrian and bike system. Make bikes and pedestrians a priority and
allow for a safe crossing over Highway 100.
Take a leadership role related to the Highway 100 interchange. Build the “reason
platform” for multi-modal access and gateways.
Preserve the CP Rail corridor for future, possible public transit, and non-motorized
movement/connection in the District.
Reduce congestion by providing safe travel choices that encourage non-motorized
transportation options, increasing the overall capacity of the transportation network.
In addition the group identified seven Major Transportation Issues associated with the
GrandView District:
1. Rail or other mass transit
2. Multimodal access to the district
3. Multimodal circulation within the district
4. Park and Ride role, and other parking issues
5. Connections across TH 100 and rail line
6. Reconfiguration of TH 100 ramps
7. School bus garage alternatives
These issues are summarized in a table and included in the Appendix.
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 4 of 14
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 5 of 14
Current Transportation System
The key roadways within the GrandView District and their characteristics is shown below in
Table 1. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume shown in the table is the most recent
available traffic volumes; these have been updated from the April 2012 plan. The attached
Figure 2 shows the ADT volume with the year counted on the area roadways.
Table 1 – Roadway Characteristics
Roadway Functional
Classification
Roadway
Jurisdiction
Roadway
Design
Existing ADT
Volume
TH 100
Principal
Arterial MnDOT
4-Lane
Freeway
107,000 –
111,000
50th Street
A Minor
Arterial Edina - MSA
4-Lane
Divided 22,500 – 24,800
Vernon Avenue
A Minor
Arterial
Hennepin
County
4-Lane
Divided 13,200- 18,600
Interlachen Blvd Collector Edina - MSA 2-Lane 9,400
Eden Avenue / Link
Road Collector Edina - MSA
3- Lane /
2-Lane 4,200 – 8,500
Gus Young Lane Collector Edina 2-Lane 4200
Arcadia Avenue Collector Edina 2-Lane 1,100
Brookside Avenue
(north of Interlachen) Collector Edina - MSA 2-Lane 3750
Grange Road Collector Edina 2-Lane 11,700 - 5,100
The crash data included with this study was obtained using the Minnesota Crash Mapping
Analysis Tool (MnCMAT) developed by MnDOT. The database includes crashes reported to
MnDOT by local law enforcement agencies.
The crash data presented is for the years of 2010-2013. However, there is a lag time between
crash occurrence and data entry into the crash database of approximately two to three months. As
such, the data for 2013 is current only through 11/4/2013. Any crashes that occurred after
11/4/2013 are not included in this analysis. The updated existing crash data is shown on the
attached Figure 3 and below in Table 2.
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 6 of 14
Table 2 – Crash Summary
Location
Year
Total
Crashes 2011 2012 2013
PD PI PD PI PD PI K
Vernon Ave at 53rd St 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Vernon Ave at Eden Ave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Vernon Ave at
Commercial Access 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Vernon Ave at Interlachen
Blvd 1 1 3 1 4 0 1 10
Vernon Ave at Arcadia
Ave 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
Vernon Ave at TH 100 SB
Ramps 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
50th St at Grange Rd 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 4
50th St at Dale Dr 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
50th St at Eden Ave 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
50th St at Sunnyslope Rd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Eden Ave at Sherwood Rd 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Eden Ave at Grandview
Square 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eden Ave at Brookside St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eden Ave at Field Access
Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave/
Normandale Rd 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eden Ave at TH 100 SB
Ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eden Ave at Grange
Rd/Willson Rd 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Interlachen Blvd at
Brookside St 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Arcadia Ave at Gus
Young Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arcadia Ave at TH 100
SB Ramp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grange Rd at TH 100 NB
Ramps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Crashes 4 3 7 1 8 4 1 28
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 7 of 14
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 8 of 14
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 9 of 14
Plan Recommendations
The Transportation section of the Framework Plan identified several key recommendations. Each
is discussed in this section.
District Street Framework
The movement framework for the District began with addressing policy issues including Living
Streets principles, as well as considering larger and longer term ideas like reconstructing the TH
100 interchange using a “split diamond” configuration. This approach accomplishes a number of
objectives that meet the District Principles and provides an incremental approach to addressing
change over time.
The existing slip ramp location off the
southbound ingress ramp would be
retained but would be combined with
an additional connection to Gus Young
Lane as part of the one way frontage
road system. Traffic would be
controlled at four signalized
intersections. In the short term, there is
an opportunity to begin implementing
streetscape, bike, and pedestrian
improvements. Another important
recommendation was to implement the
GrandView Crossing/Gus Young Lane
one-way street pair that would help
manage traffic access and circulation in
the upper core of the District. Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Vernon Avenue
It was recommended that south of the Interlachen Parkway intersection, Vernon Avenue would
be reconfigured to a three lane, divided section that would better accommodate local traffic
movement, provide a dedicated bike lane, and capture some of the right-of-way for pedestrian
improvements and street crossings.
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 10 of 14
TH 100 Improvements
One of the primary recommendations involved the short term and long term configuration of the
Highway 100 interchange. The plan includes a “split-diamond” arrangement that would manage
access on an off the highway at
signalized intersections. These
intersections would be at Vernon
Avenue and Eden Avenue, and
would connect with parallel, one-
way frontage roads.
This configuration would allow
regional traffic too clearly and
safely access the highway and still
move into the District with
predictability and safety. Long term
prospects might include the transfer
of unused MnDOT right-of-way for
local and community uses such as
civic building sites, future bus rapid
transit support, parking, and open
space.
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Park and Ride
Metro Transit operates the #587 Express route through the GrandView District before turning
north on TH 100 to downtown. They have a well-documented market that they serve in
southwest Edina, and board
riders on a daily basis who are
parking in front of the library,
in the city ramp, and in front
of a number of businesses.
They are highly motivated to
locate a “community” scale
park and ride facility that
would accommodate no more
than 200 cars. At least two
sites have the potential to
serve this need: the existing
city ramp and a potential
structure on the public works
site.
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 11 of 14
Bike Lane Improvements
Bike lanes were recommended for
Vernon Avenue, a secondary bike
route, and Eden Avenue, a primary
bike route, through the District. The
lanes would be enhanced paint and
striping as well as additional lane
area. A potential bike facility using
the CP Rail right-of-way or adjacent
land could connect Eden, at grade,
to Brookside, thereby providing an
off -road option to move through the
District.
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Parking
The plan recommended the following parking improvements:
Consider the use of the current city parking ramp (located behind Jerry’s) to
accommodate future park and ride patrons and general parking district supply; increase
the capacity of this structure in the future if economically possible/practical.
The public works site should be considered as a location for a Metro Transit park and ride
facility as a way to provide
parking to weekly commuters
and to provide parking for a
community/civic building,
public green, residences and
other uses. In addition, the top
level (deck) of this structure
is intended to serve as the
GrandView Green, the major
public realm amenity in the
district.
Additional parking (structure)
is proposed to the south and
contiguous to Jerry’s grocery
store to provide better service
access to the loading area and
provide additional parking
supply.
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 12 of 14
Next Steps / Implementation
Future Traffic Conditions
The City’s 2008 Transportation Plan included household, population and employment
projections by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). For the TAZ that includes the GrandView District it
was projected, at the time for a 5% increase in population and households and a 7.5% increase in
employment by the year 2030. This resulted in 2030 traffic forecasts on the adjacent roadways.
Table 3 shows the future 2030 projected traffic volumes from the City’s Transportation Plan.
Table 3 – Projected 2030 Traffic Volumes
Roadway 2030 ADT
Volume
50th Street 28,000
Vernon Avenue 17,000
Interlachen Blvd 13,800
Brookside Avenue
(north of Interlachen) 5,500
Phase 1 Implementation
The GrandView District Development Plan included an example for implementing an initial, or
Phase 1, project for the area. Outlined below are the key components of the implementation plan
including estimated traffic generation and preliminary cost estimates
A. Public Works Site
Community Commons:
o GrandView Crossing (street)
o GrandView Green
o Community/Civic building
Arcadia steps
Community/Civic building
Variety of residential building types
Structured parking
Park and ride structure
Estimated Daily Traffic Generation = 3,000 vpd
Estimated Preliminary Cost = $37,730,000
B. Bus Garage Site
Multi-level parking
Retail/service/office use
Estimated Daily Traffic Generation = 800 vpd
Estimated Preliminary Cost = $9,980,000
Source: GrandView District Development Framework Plan, April 2012
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 13 of 14
C. Wanner Site
Townhouses fronting OLG open space
Estimated Daily Traffic Generation = 200 vpd
Estimated Preliminary Cost = $52,500
D. Eden Avenue Streetscape
Bus stop integrated
Boulevard organizes intersection alignments
Estimated Daily Traffic Generation = N/A
Estimated Preliminary Cost = $1,719,750
E. Jerry’s Streetscape
Pedestrian enhancements
Streetscape/Stormwater treatment
Estimated Daily Traffic Generation = N/A
Estimated Preliminary Cost = $306,250
F. Infrastructure and Streets
Vernon Avenue Street and Landscaping
Gus Young Lane Street and Landscaping
Bridges
TH 100
Estimated Daily Traffic Generation = N/A
Estimated Preliminary Cost = $4,920,000
This information can be used as a guide in determining future transportation needs and potential
funding sources. However, in order to determine the actual needed transportation and
infrastructure improvements necessary, a detailed Traffic Study and Feasibility Study would
need to be completed based on a development proposal.
Grandview District Development Area – Transportation Summary
City of Edina
March 6, 2014
Page 14 of 14
APPENDIX
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: April 16, 2015
Subject: Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Multimodal Traffic Survey
Agenda Item #: VI. B.
Action 0
Discussion
Information LII
Action Requested:
Review proposed Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Multimodal Traffic Survey and share feedback
with staff.
Information / Background:
Please recall that the Commission previously discussed this Work Plan item at its Jan. 15 meeting. At that
time, there was consensus among commissioners to focus on the data collected prior to the neighborhood
roadway reconstruction projects. On Jan. 27 engineering staff met with commissioners lyer, Janovy and
LaForce to discuss the survey/questionnaire content and methodology and how the data is utilized. At that
time commissioners discussed how the current questionnaire lacks the ability to gather data specific to
transportation issues. Relatedly, commissioner Janovy shared a set of proposed questions with the purpose
of gathering more useful transportation-related data.
Based on the meeting with ETC commissioners and the proposed questions discussed above, staff has
prepared a "Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction Multimodal Traffic Survey" that would be conducted
two years prior to construction. The recommended survey questions are below. The data collected during
this survey will allow staff to better understand localized traffic issues and to focus on collecting additional
data or other efforts if necessary (e.g. traffic/speed counts at specifically-identified locations, alternative
intersection designs, EPD enforcement).
Staff proposes that two years before a neighborhood roadway reconstruction project the Multimodal Traffic
Survey be made available on line and by mail should residents prefer (excepting 2016 projects, for which the
Survey will be made available this year). Staff will continue to use the pre-project neighborhood roadway
reconstruction questionnaire, which is sent out one year prior to construction. This questionnaire focuses
on obtaining data relating to utilities and other items. In the past, there was typically one question related to
traffic management; since staff will have detailed transportation-related data obtained from the year prior
-1711i1 -
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
(see above), this question can be changed to address any issues that were found in the multimodal traffic
survey, if necessary.
Staff is asking the ETC for feedback, and will consider suggestions before making the Neighborhood
Roadway Reconstruction Multimodal Traffic Survey available for 2016 projects. Staff plans to do so (via
Survey Monkey and mail) by May I.
Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction: Multi-Modal Traffic Survey
1. To which street reconstruction project is this survey in response?
a. Morningside A
b. White Oaks A
c. Golf Terrace B
d. Strachauer Park A
2. How satisfied are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street?
a. Very satisfied
b. Satisfied
c. Neutral
d. Dissatisfied
e. Very dissatisfied
f. If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please enter the location(s) and describe why you feel that
way.
i. Location of issue
ii. Why is it an issue of concern?
3. How satisfied are you with the volume of traffic or the number of vehicles in your neighborhood or on
your street?
a. Very satisfied
b. Satisfied
c. Neutral
d. Dissatisfied
e. Very dissatisfied
f. If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please enter the location(s) and why you feel that way?
i. Location of issue
ii. Why is it an issue of concern?
4. How satisfied are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Examples of poor motorist
behavior include speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to yield and driving aggressively.)
a. Very satisfied
b. Satisfied
c. Neutral
d. Dissatisfied
e. Very dissatisfied
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 3
f. If dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, please enter the location(s) and why you feel that way?
i. Location of issue
ii. Why is it an issue of concern?
g. In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are:
i. Driving
ii. Bicycling
iii. Walking, jogging, running
5. Do you feel that any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe?
a. Yes
b. No
c. If yes, which intersection?
d. Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe?
(Select all that apply.)
i. Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)
ii. Issues with sight lines or clear view
iii. Drivers failing to stop at stop sign
iv. Drivers failing to yield
v. Drivers turning corner too fast
vi. Lack of marked crosswalk
vii. Street(s) too wide
viii. Other
e. In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are:
i. Driving
ii. Bicycling
iii. Walking, jogging, running
6. How frequently do you walk, jog or run in your neighborhood?
a. Very frequently (daily or near daily)
b. Frequently (2-3x per week)
c. Occasionally (1-4x per month)
d. Rarely (less than once per month)
e. Never
f. If you walk, jog or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons? (Select all that
apply.)
i. Health/exercise
ii. Exercise dog(s)
iii. Accompany child(ren) to destination (such as school, park)
iv. Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)
v. Commute to/from work
vi. Access transit
vii. Can't drive or don't own car
viii. Other
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 4
g. If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what factors
contribute to that? Please list all that you can think of.
i. List Factors:
7. About how frequently do you ride a bicycle in the neighborhood?
a. Very frequently (daily or near daily)
b. Frequently (2-3x per week)
c. Occasionally (1-4x per month)
d. Rarely (less than once per month)
e. Never
f. If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons? (Select all that
apply.)
i. Health/exercise
ii. Accompany child(ren) to destination (such as school, park)
iii. Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)
iv. Commute to/from work
v. Access transit
vi. Can't drive or don't own car
vii. Other
g. If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what factors
contribute that? Please list all that apply.
i. List Factors
8. How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street?
a. Very frequently (daily or near daily)
b. Frequently (2-3x per week)
c. Occasionally (1-4x per month)
d. Rarely (less than once per month)
e. Never
f. How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street?
i. Very frequently (daily or near daily)
ii. Frequently (2-3x per week)
iii. Occasionally (1-4x per month)
iv. Rarely (less than once per month)
v. Never
g. How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood?
i. Very satisfied
ii. Satisfied
iii. Neutral
iv. Dissatisfied
v. Very dissatisfied
h. Any additional comments about parking?
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
Page 5
9. Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street conditions in your
neighborhood.
a.
10. Name (optional)
11. Street number (optional)
12. Street name (required)
13. Age (ranges) (optional)
14. Presenting gender (optional)
15. Number of people in household (1-6, more than 6) (optional)
16. Number age 65 and over (optional)
17. Number age 18 and under (optional)
18. Number of members in household with a physical disability impacting their ability to walk, ride a bicycle,
or drive (optional)
Attachments:
None
G:\ PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ TRANSPORTATION DIV \Transportation Commission \ Agendas & RR's\ 2015 R&R \ 20150416 \ Item VI.B. Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Multimodal Traffic Survey.docx
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, A1CP, Transportation Planner
Date: April 16, 2015
Subject: 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Summary Report
Action Requested:
None
Agenda Item #: VI. C.
Action El
Discussion CI
Information
Information / Background:
For commissioners' information, attached is a report that engineering staff prepared for the City Manager
that summarizes how the PACS Fund was budgeted and utilized in 2014. It is intended that a similar report
will be prepared each spring to summarize the previous year's PACS Fund utilization.
Attachments:
Memorandum: 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Summary Report
G:\ PW \CENTRAL SVCS \TRANSPORTATION DIV \ Transportation Commission\ Agendas & RR's \ 2015 R&R \ 20150416 \Item VI.C. 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safely Fund
Summary Report.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
MEMO CITY OF EDINA
Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371
Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com
Date: March 18, 2015
To: Scott Neal, City Manager
Chad Millner, Director of Engineering
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Re: Summary Report: 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund
2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund Summary Report
This memorandum briefly summarizes how the PACS Fund was budgeted and utilized in 2014. Its primary intent is
to indicate what share non-motorized transportation infrastructure construction projects have of the Fund's
expenditures for last year, in addition to general Fund information for 2014. As shown below (and in the attached
table), the PACS Funds available in 2014 was $1,644,267. This includes a rollover of over $502,867 of unused
PACS Funds from 2013. Note that over $750,000 is estimated to roll over from 2014 into the 2015 PACS Fund.
This rollover amount is projected to decrease in future years as efficiencies increase with planning and
management of the PACS Fund. Additionally, with the revised Sidewalk Facilities Map amended to the
Comprehensive Plan in December, staff has more guidance on recommending sidewalk projects in future years.
$812,584 of available funds was spent on PACS-related projects (not including the transportation planner labor
costs). Of that, over 93% ($758,824) was spent on construction projects , with 68% spent on sidewalks alone. Of
the sidewalk projects expenditures, 44% went to sidewalks associated with the 2014 Neighborhood Roadway
Improvement Projects while the remaining 56% went to "stand alone" sidewalk projects. Overall, approximately
1.6 miles of sidewalk was installed in 2014 using the PACS Fund.
PACS Project Type Cost Total Percentage
Sidewalks $553,708 68.1%
Bike Facilities $78,805 9.7%
RRFB Crossings $22,517 2.8%
50th & France Ramps $100,000 12.3%
Hawkes/Hawkes Streetlight $3,793 0.5%
Total Construction: $758,824 93.4%
Thermoplastic Supplies $43,232 5.3%
Consulting/Other $10,528 1.3%
Total Other: $53,760 6.6%
Total 2014 PACS Expenditures (not including
staff labor costs)
$812,584 100.0%
Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439
I CITY OF EDINA MEMO
Engineering Department • Phone 952-826-0371
Fax 952-826-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com
Please note that while many of the costs indicated on the attached table are actual construction costs, some costs
are estimated based on pending final payments and expected Hennepin County reimbursement. Also, as of the
time of this memorandum the 2014 utility franchise fees for the fourth quarter have yet to be received; these have
been estimated.
Attachments:
Table: 2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Expenditures
Map: 2014 PACS Fund Projects
Engineering Department • 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439
2014 Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund Expenditures
Available PACS Funds (2014 utility franchise fees + 2013 rollover ) = $ 1,644,267
95% of PACS Funds (use for 2014 budget) = $ 1,562,053
Project Type Street/Item Location
Map
Key Facility
Approx. LF of
Notes
---,-"r7-r•it,--.-,-,,,-^,-- ...
Cost
Sidewalk
W 62nd St (south side) Beard PI to Zenith Ave S A 864 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Improvements $ 34,830
W 42nd St (north side) Oakdale Ave to France Ave
B
3,973
2014 Neighborhood Roadway Improvements
$ 188,628
Grimes Ave (east side) North of 42nd St 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Improvements
Crocker Ave (east side) South of 42nd St 470 2014 Neighborhood Roadway Improvements $ 28,212
Valley View Rd (south side) Gleason Rd to Chapel Ln C 930 Active Routes to School recommendation $ 125,707
York Avenue (west side) W 66th St to Southdale Transit Center D 710 Hennepin County CIP (25% County cost participation) $ 58,774
Vernon Ave (west side) Doncaster Way to Ayrshire Blvd E 1,190 Hennepin County CIP (25% County cost participation) $ 92,796
Xerxes Ave (west side) 1/2 block north of W. 70th St F 215 In association with watermain project $ 18,538
Metro Blvd (2013) Industrial Blvd to W 74th St -- — Final payment for 2013 project $ 6,223
Bike Facility
W 70th Street Green Bike Lane Metro Blvd G 140 Thermoplastic pavement markings (replacement) $ 16,140
Olinger Blvd bike lane pavement markings, ped ramps Vernon Ave to Tracy Blvd H 5,200 Municipal State Aid mill and overlay $ 62,666
Pedestrian
Safety
Streetlight Hawkes Terr & Hawkes Dr I Xcel Energy install/invoice $ 3,793
66th Street RRFB Crossings Southdale Rd & Cornelia Dr J Pedestial-mounted, pedestrian-activated flashers $ 19,598
W. 51st St RRFB Crossing (retrofit existing) Halifax Ave K Pedestial-mounted, pedestrian-activated flashers $ 2,919
50th 8c France Parking Ramps: Pedestrian Improvents L High-visibility crosswalk, paint, curbs, bollards $ 100,000
Thermoplastic equipment Council-approved purchase of installation equipment $ 34,264
Thermoplastic materials Council-approved purchase (for crosswalks, etc) $ 8,968
Consultant
fees
TLC Bike Boulevard Evaluation Valley View Rd, Wooddale Ave, 54th St Required 2-year evaluation report $ 3,025
Living Streets Branding Campaign Branding and outreach campaign $ 4,609
Other Living Streets Branding Campaign Printing, materials, outreach, etc for campaign $ 2,894
Subtotal $ 812,584
Transportation Planner Labor Costs $ 79,752
TOTAL 2014: $ 892,336
* Some costs above are estimated, pending final contractor payments and receipt of fourth-quarter utility franchise fees Remaining in 2014 budget: $ 669,718
Rollover to 2015: $ 751,931
Legend
City of Edina
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 2014 PACS Fund Projects
Existing - — Future Future
Sidewalk State-Aid Sidewalk Active Routes
To School Sidewalk
— Future
City Sidewalk
h o Future
Nine Mile Creek
Regional Trail N
WE
Engineering Dept
March 2015
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Joseph Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Date: April 16, 2015
Subject: Traffic Safety Committee Report of April 1, 2015
Agenda Item #: VI. D.
Action 10I
Discussion El
Information 111
Action Requested:
Review and recommend Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) Report of Wednesday April I , 2015 be
forwarded to City Council for approval.
Information / Background:
It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting. An overview of the comments from
the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) will be included in the staff report provided to Council for
their May 19, 2015 meeting.
Attachments:
Traffic Safety Committee Report for April 1, 2015.
G:\ PW \CENTRAL SVCS \TRANSPORTATION DIV \ Traffic Safety Comrniffee \ Staff Review Summades \ 15 TSAC & Min \ 4-01-15 Cover.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Traffic Safety Preview
Wednesday, April 01, 2015
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action
A I . Request for 50th and France Lunds parking
lot exit-only to be enforced
This request comes from a resident who is
concerned about the exit from the Lunds parking
lot, onto 50th Street, in the 50th and France area.
Specifically, westbound vehicles turning left into
the lot were of concern, as they disobey Do-Not-
Enter signs and cross traffic for this maneuver.
One day of video was analyzed during the store's
hours of operation, and it was seen that 33
drivers misused the exit. Seven vehicles turned
left into the exit, two vehicles turned left from
the exit onto 50th (also prohibited by signage and
discouraged by design), and 24 vehicles turned
right into the parking lot. Those turning right also
commonly reversed onto 50th, or otherwise
blocked through traffic on 50th as they turned
into the lot. The prohibition on right turn from
50th into the parking lot is not well signed, but the
design of the roadway highly discourages the
movement. 61 I drivers used the exit correctly
during the same period. Lunds has been contacted
and as of March 30th, have indicated an informal
inclination to work with the city on this issue, the
company's facilities manager should respond soon.
50th Street had an ADT of 10,700 for a count
done in 2013.
Photos : Lunds parking lot exit on 50th Street, top is looking
west, bottom is looking east.
Map : The exit from Lunds parking lot onto 506 St.
After review, staff recommends altering the signage at this location to prohibit right turns
into the parking lot for eastbound, and additional enforcement will be then provided by the
police department once the sign has been placed.
A2.Request for further signage on 54th Street
to ensure correct use of the neighborhood
traffic circles
This request comes from a resident who is
concerned about the use of the 54th Street
neighborhood traffic circles, vehicles on 54th
Street specifically do not yield, and turn in front
of the island. One day of video was recorded and
analyzed, 27 drivers turned left in front of the
Map : 54th Street at Drew Avenue, controlled by a
neighborhood traffic circle.
Photo : 54th Street neighborhood traffic circle at Drew
Avenue, the signage shown matches the signage
recommended for roundabouts.
Map : Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road
circle in single passenger vehicles. Larger
trucks which may have issues navigating the
turn are allowed to turn in front of
neighborhood traffic circles and 6 drivers of
these vehicles also turned in front of the traffic
circle. Only one yielding issue was observed,
with few conflicting vehicles reaching the
intersection at times that would cause
confusion over right-of-way. Other non-typical
items observed include two vehicles stopping
in the intersection, backing in the intersection
(after missing the street the driver wished to
exit on), and a pedestrian who walked to the
center island of the traffic circle, and walked
around its outside a full rotation before continuing across the intersection. Speed was seen as a possible
factor, and a radar study of 50 vehicles, taken during midday in ideal conditions, found that the 80th-90th
percentile speeds were 16-17 miles per hour. However over 50 percent of all vehicles had speeds below
15 miles per hour (below 15 miles per hour, the radar gun no longer gives values for speeds). The
signage in place matches the recommended signage from the Federal Highway Administration.
After review, staff recommends adding a single chevron sign below the fish-hook sign now
in place in the center island (at all four legs of both intersections). This recommendation is
conditional, requiring City of Minneapolis approval.
Section B : Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends denial
B I . Request for further control at the intersection of Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road
This request comes from a resident who
uses Blake to get to and from events at the
Blake School. The requestor noted that
traffic coming north on Blake Road to
Interlachen Boulevard often has to stop and
wait for an exorbitant amount of time. The
requestor asked for all-way stop control to
be installed at the intersection, or signal
control if possible. A delay study was
performed, and found that the delay to
northbound vehicles on Blake Road was 19.4 seconds maximum during weekday rush hour periods. This
does not meet warrants for all-way stop control or signalization. However, four-hour volume warrants
for signalization of the intersection have been found to be met, the warrant will be copied and at the
Traffic Safety Committee meeting, as will an Excel of both days analyzed. The congestion might be
worse in summer months, however a delay study will be very difficult to conduct during the warmer
months due to vegetation in the area blocking sightlines of cameras or staff placed at the intersection to
investigate the issue.
Photo : Sightlines are currently clear, but leaves on brush may obscure the needed sight distance at the intersection
Sightlines were found to be acceptable in the winter; however leaves on shrubbery may cause issues in
warmer months, where only 250 feet of sight distance were clear of brush, whereas the speeds on
Interlachen make 410 feet needed for safe left hand turns according to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials in a passenger vehicle.
After review, staff acknowledges that the intersection meets warrants for signalization.
However, there is no notable safety issue in this location for vehicular traffic as this is more
an issue of inconvenience. Staff will continue to monitor the intersection, and will consider
adding signalization or stop control during a reconstruction of the intersection.
Section C : Items on which the Traffic Safety
Committee recommends further study.
B2. Request for pedestrian actuation for
crosswalk on Valley View Road at Chapel
Lane
This request comes from a resident who is
concerned for safety during morning hours as
school enters session. The concern is that left
turning vehicles from westbound Valley View
Road to southbound Chapel Lane obstruct the
views of children crossing the street. When
investigated, a person in the crosswalk was
unable to be seen by drivers while they were at
the required stopping sight distance, for
approximately the central third of the roadway.
Further investigation revealed that the
intersection meets the City of Edina's warrants
Mop : Volley View Road and Chapel Lane
Photo : Chapel Lane a Valley View road, looking west
for crossings, with approximately 25 pedestrians crossing between the hours of 2:30 and 4:30 PM every
day. However, mornings had a maximum of 10 crossings between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 AM. In the
morning, 80 out of 598 westbound vehicles turned left at this intersection between 7:00 and 9:00 on
March 10th, which was the one day that turning data was collected. Between 7:00 and 8:00 AM there
was an average of 1.33 gaps of acceptable length to cross, per five minute interval, which meets warrants
for pedestrian actuation. There is a small refuge made from plastic posts in this area, but it does not
comply with ADA specifications for a refuge island, and thus was not considered. The intersection of the
school's parking lot exit and Valley View Road is controlled by a person during times around school
release and entry, but the driveway is approximately 100 feet west of the intersection with the
crosswalk in question. A 2014 count found that Valley View Road has an ADT of 7100.
After review, staff concluded that while the signalization of a crosswalk would be
warranted, there is the potential for confusion that would be caused by the traffic control
flagger at the exit of the school's parking lot if the signal ever contradicted her/his
direction. Engineering staff will discuss possible solutions with the District to provide a
better walking environment for the students.
D Items : Other Traffic Safety Issues Handled
DI. Requestor asked for traffic data around the intersection of 70th and Cahill. Recent counts were
provided.
D2. A resident of Minneapolis called to ask about the specialty crosswalks, specifically the brick imitation
thermoplastic. These are no longer being placed by Edina. The requestor was forwarded the contact
information for contractors who do this work.
D3. Requestor came into the office for traffic information on Tracy near Benton, with concerns about a
child's walk to school. The counts and speeds of Tracy were provided in a spreadsheet and printed for
the requestor.
D4. Requestor noted that at night, on the sidewalk, and wearing all dark colors, a woman was difficult to
see as she waited for the bus at the intersection of Parklawn Avenue and 76th Street. The lights in this
location were repaired after the request was called in, and no further action was requested.
D5. Requestor believes that the signs at the southbound Trunk Highway 100 entrance at Eden Avenue
are backwards, and that the lower road should be required to yield as opposed to the upper road. The
requestor was referred to MnDOT and told this was their right-of-way, and the City of Edina cannot
change traffic control on MnDOT's right of way or highways.
Appendix A: Multi-Way Stop Warrants
The following is from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
2B.7 Multi-Way Stop Applications
SUPPORT:
Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist.
Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other
road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is
approximately equal.
The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section 2B.4 also apply to multi-way stop
applications.
GUIDANCE:
The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. 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 multiway 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:
I. 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 hour; but
3. If the 85th-percentile approach speed of the major street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum
vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items I and 2.
D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C. I, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of
the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.
Appendix VI Signal Warrants, General and Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
The following is from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. General signal
warrants are as follows:
PART 4. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SIGNALS
Chapter 4B. Traffic Control Signal's - General
411.1 General
FrapPTI
Mode sueIi un pedegtelote att.! hirrellets me wed
redundantly in selected sections o: Part 4 to racourage
sensitivity to dim elcoonla o'"Irnfio "
Standards for tattle cannot signals arc important because
nay,: z.itpioN 11.7441 Ii 0114,0..1 Thu ottudiuri ofa watery
of road watts, laeholitu Mora who ate eider, bow with
inaptired rlaion, an wall no those who are fatigued or
distracted, or who are rot expooling 0 coccunter a signal at
71 pariktdat location
4112 Basis of Tistallation or Removal of
nal& Control Signals
St ANPAitts:
As with the Installation of a traffic contrcl stoat, a corn-
prehanslve Investlgarfol and engineering study shall be
completed to determine whetter to remove or In retain a
hank cartel &prat.
I hi 11.111K1:
The fate to satisfy any warrant Is not in ;MI' justitIA-
kon kg removal cr a soot.
IGUIDANClasi
Engineering judgmera should be applied in the review of
crating traffic comm. signals to &term tie wleitter the
type of installation and the timing pragratn meet tie cannot
rcquiromorts of at fomu of traffio.
If clauses in traffic pattern elintinale the need fo- a
traffic control signal, consideration Mould he given to
removing it and teplreing ii with nisprotriater dletradve
torn control doices, ratty re needed.
It tine cif:Meeting scatty ittricates that tire Iratit control
signal is no longer herified, and a decislon is made to
remove the signal, removal should lc aceauplisled using
the fellowisg steps:
A Ileienninc ihn upprovrinte Mario ent.irol to he until
after tem.:310f the signal,
B. RCIII,IVC airy sialtHlistance faticticon as twee:matt
C. inform the public of the removal study.
Plash Cr cover the signa: heads for a inininann of 90
days, anti intuitl the appropriate stop ;oat' ot ollter
traffic cunt r.11 devktes, Al way reel flash shotild not he.
Used unless the intent tab o hava an al way slap afar
the removal of the atonal.
S. ittlYaVe tie nivel if tie ens:merits data eollmed
during the removal study period confirms that the
shoal is ne longerjardth..4
UPTICK%
In:cause Items C, U, and tn above arc not relevant whot a
temporary traffic control signal (see Section 41)32) Is
removed., a iturperary traffic. coutrol sisrml may Ix remand
immediately Mkt ItemsA and B are 4ramplered.
Instead of total remand of a traffic coltrol signal, the
contoller cabinet, and cables may remain in place
tine: remota! of the Sigittl beds for contintied analysis
414.3 Adventoges and Disadvantages of
Traffic Control Signals
SUPPOR:r
Viten properly used, traffic control sign% are valuable
devices for the control 3f velicular and pedestrian traffic.
They mare the tight-of-way to Me Imam% Italic
movements and thereby profiandly isfluente traffic flou,
Ttaflie control signals that are prorerly chaignee, located,
operated, Had maimairod will have one or nave of the
renewing advantages:
A. Tiles provile for lie Utterly toavenunt of tattle.
E. They increase the trafic-handling capacity of the
intencetion it
I. River physica layorts and coldlyi meaning arc
used, and
2, The sigml operational parameters are reviewed rod
updated (if needed) on a regular lash; ‘'rts
engineering Judgmen: determines that signi (icon
traffic flow andfor land use changes hive
tasamed) to istuaimiro the abiiity uf Ike. tom;
control tignat t) salis? curamt (relic demands
C. They reduce the froqu4moy Ind severity it cottain
types of crashes, cipecht ly right-angle collisions.
C. They sue coordinated ti worlds for tontirmom ni
nearly continuous movement cf Italic at a definite
speed alma a given route under favorable crnrlitirm.
R. They are used to islet curt heavy Iraffi: at llama's to
permit other traffic. vehicular cc pedestrian, xr
Truffle control signals MC often cousideral it panacea :or
oll trifle rohlems at ittrolUtfiuml, nit belief Ins led to
Iran: co31111 signals icing mstalled at !Wily lot:aliens
where they are not needed, adversely affecting the sifety and
efficiency uf vehicular, hicycle, and pedestrian traffic.
411.1 Ileeembet; 2(11
Traffic control signals, even when justified by traffic nod
roacway can I, ill-desigised, ineffectiwly
placed improperly (maimed, or poorly nointalted,
Improper or smjustified traffic mural Marais eat result in
one or more oldie follevaing disadvantages.:
A PaT2asive. delay;
tbrossivc disobcdience of the signal indications;
C. Inmeased use of less &femme v1iLfe tas mad users
anermt to avoid the traffic COI signals; and
I), Significara immures la the frequerey of collisinns
f4spechilly peer-col collisions)
ARA A I to nt irOR to TratTio flonirol
Signals
'GUIDANCE!!
Since white's. delay and the ('renteney af sorre types of
crashes arc sometimes greater under uaffic sigrol CtilEfOl
than underSTOP sign control. eonsidnuttion should be ghen
to powidirag alternatives to traffic control signals swam ifonu
or mare ofthe signal w•atriutis has hootsatisfied
I urrinan I
I heic nternatins nuy inclule, but are md hunted to, the
rolicrtVing:
I. !limning ti,gns eking the ratelor street to Nam nod
usen apprinehing tire inlersecaon;
R. Relocating the stop linos) and inakirg other changes
to improve the sight distutce a: the irteisecion;
C. Installing measures designed to reduce speeds on the
approaches
D. Insulting a nom% hracun at the Interseetiou to
supplement STOP sign control;
E. Installing Nulling bewuna int wattling oigint in
advance of a STOP sign conrollect interration on
major- ninth" ashler-street upproaohett
F. Addl.% one pt. mere lanes en Illinor4freel aPlumell
to ranee the number of votielea per late on ho
approach;
Iteriaing the pzoinelrica tr the intersersinn in
chautelize vehicular lowermost and reduce the line
moulted fat a vehicle to nomplete a movement, whets
could also assist pedestrians;
I!, Itcvising tie gomictriot at the intersection to add
'sectarian inedian refuge islands elicitor curb
extersions;
I. Installing madway lighting if a elsproportionite
number of trashes occur at night;
3, Restricting oue or Mote Mining movenwora, perhys
on a tinte-or-clai basis, if altemile mutts ire
anailublc,
14, If tin wairint is snistioti inateJiing andli-way STOP
oign nominal;
L installing a pedesrian hybrid beacon (see Chapter 4F)
or ether pedestrian safely tames if pedestrian
safety is tin major concern;
id. Instilling 3 toundaboul; and
U. Eriployi ug oilier alternatives, deperding On
condlions it the inlersenion.
411.5 Atieluate Roadway Capacity
Lm PPOIR1:
Tee &lap: inherent in the altmatiug auctitnetti ritht-
OkAY lertieciinolt gottrolled by Mont contral signals
catt liennestly he reducd by widening the inajot madn Aav,
the minor modwry, or loth roadways. Widming he mbar
midway often benefits twe operations on the major roadony,
because it reduces the too iitac 11111 into& be assignee to
ittlisommuhvay Waffle. In urban ArellS, the diem ofwidening
out be achieved by eliminating Faking on inersection
approaches It is desirable to have at team two lanes for
may lig traffic col each npproich to a sigtmlized hientian,
Additional widllon the depot rue al& of tht intenection as
well as on the opium:It ride. will taanctioro lie liesalcil Lu
clear traffic throu;gli the intersection effectilely. •
I GUIDAPtcla I
A.lemtate rotalwIty rapacity elam1.1 ha rnov11/93 to a
signalized Imagist. Berne an intersection is waned, dye
additional green lye pedestrians need to crass the widebed
roadways should be considered to determine if it wit exceed
the green tine Rind through impixweel vehicular low,
Other methods of increasing the roadway cipacity at
tlamillaod laeotione that do we tavonio rosiway oilcloths,
such as rev sions to the pavenratt markings; and tic careful
evaluation of proper Inne-nte actianrotnts (inehtrling
varying the lane toe by lime of day), should be considered
where appromitne, Such consideration should ink:kite
evaluation of ruy impacts that changes to gavenant
markings nod lane assignments will have on bicycle travel.
Orrettbri., 21111 411-1
2 CIR MORE LANES 82 OR MORE LANES
20R MORE LANES & 1 UNE
1 LANE S, 1 LANE
4
2 OR
—
MORE LANES&
2 OR MORE
I
2 OR
, LANE
LANES
I
MORE LANE&
& I LANE
e4 1 LANE
80*
400
MINOR
STREET
H 200 VOLUME
APFROACH -
VPH
100
The following three pages are from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and
relate to Four-hour and Peak Hour warrants for signals.
400
MINOR
OTREET
VOLUME
APPROACH
VP4
100
00 400 600 OM 7013 600 0(0 1000 1100 1203 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
'KIR: 116 vph apptbes as the khver thrwhokf voluma tat a mlnostrea
approach vAth two or more lanes and 80 vph apriies as the kaver Presho d
voluna for a ratnar-50aat opproath with otta
Flaw 4C4., Wanly* 2 1',40P.Hote 11.o.N.,,kular
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN '10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON V/AJOR STREET
20C 000 .100 500 (5.)0 7T0 A0) 1300 1000
MAJOR STREE° — TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES —VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
"NU ih: Ii0vph applies as the lower threshold volume tar e rnino--stree1
arproadt with two or more lanes and O0 pi apples as the how
thwtaholct Intitima for a -nirlaPaIrealapproaoh with or* fans,
fljovs, 40.2. Worreard 2 - Fvvt n Hvot Vald‘olor %Alloy (704 rvu(.v)
Deoember, lett
404
3. The vehicles perliour given is both at' the 80 per,vnt
colt:nuts ci Condition 3 in Table 4:11-11 exist ma the
majar-strect ant the higher-volnue minor-street
approaches, respectively, to th: intern:caul..
TileRe claim sired aid minor- stow! volumes sfaall lac for
the same I haul for melt confider; however, the 8 hours
smutted an Condom Ashntl not be required to b: the s-tine
8 hours soli:stied in Condition H. On the minor sheet the
hiJcrvutune Atoll nut be requital la Je on the same
approach during :ach cf the Shouts.
ceratot
pOteel Or 141001,ry slated limit or no V5lb.perettitile
veal on the niajoe street mheesels 40 mph, or if the intersep
tion lies within tie bui tom area of on Isolated conumnity
huviag a ropulniion of :es than 10,(00, the traffic volumes
in tic 56 perceal columns in Table 4C-I may be used in
place of Or 80 Iltreent :0101111S,
4C3 Warrant
Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
areLmre
The Four-lith Vcti Ictiilr Volume signal %variant
conditions are Mendell to he applied where the .polume of
ilitelsetaini tiara is the pineips.1 mem to (muskier
iuuotahhingm traffic wino! signal.
STOMA PM:
Tie noel for is troffiecontral nsI Atoll his coustideral if
nit enghweing study finds that for each °fatty 4 tutus o"an
;average day, the planted points representing the vehicles per
hour on th., major street (total of bob :mooches) and the
corresponding with:lel per :Lour on the hightr osioltilno
Isiiriamtrret apprinwla (one direction only) ill not above the
lipid cable curve in Figure 4C- for the existing combinaton
or approach' tenet. On the minor street, the higher volume
doll not by requited to he (HI LIN mini; approcti during each
tlisse 4 boort.
I °MON! I
litho posted orstatutory spe:d limit or tht 851h-pereenlile
sped ost the major street exctuN 40 mph of If dile Interfax-
lion lies wthin the built-up urn Of 111 isolated community
having a population (diem than 10,0(0, Figure 4C-2 may he
used In plow of Flom SC-1.
4C.4 Warroot 3,
Peak Hour
WPC/IrE
lie Pat Hour siond warrant is intended lot nuc rt a
location where :raffle conditions are audi (tat for a
milinum of I (mar of an mein* clay, the rninin•gneet
Ironic sutlers sirdoe delay uhen entering or crossing the
majar street.
STANDARD;
iltir tlgool warrnnt call be oppliel only in unwind ewer.
Such cases include, but are not limited to, effiee campletes,
inartifseluting plants, industrial comn:exes, or high-
occupancy vehiet faci ides that attract or discharge large
istiwbuis &vehtiduni over a stunt
The mei for a traffic control signal shall be coasidenid if
an I:tightest-In shut!, fivJa !Int the ,miteair in cher of the
following hvo categories are melt
A. If al three of the fallitvinit t.xnulitiatec CVS.1 for the.
name 1 how (coy thth consecuiee 15-11thOtte petkal)
of am avcoge day
1. Tie tool stopped tinie delay experienext by the
Nitric on one minur-atrecl rppoarreli tons direction
oiIy oaitroflo,1 by aSTOPaigis equals o; exceek
4 vehicle-hews for a oat-lane approach; or 5
vehicle-linurs for a two-lane approach, aid
2. Tiw volume on the same minor-stroll approach (.arae
calretIon onlyj equals or eseeeds IOU vddcles per
hour for one Hawing lane of trafru or 154 vehicles
vet hum ful Wu musing tuns, und
3. The total entering volume serviced &Mat the hour
elsnd3 ur cOte4:418 6$0 vubl:les per hour for Iinel-
stelions with filet afproachea of f100 vehicles per
hour for Intereections with four or inure
approaches.
II. Tho pinned point representing the vellielen per hur
no the major sired (rola;of both npp.onehes) and the
eorropondina reticles ret hour on the hisditr-voltroc
miner-street appreach (me direction only) far 1 hunt
(any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an
avengeda falls ;trove hue applicable curve in Figare
4C-3 for flue existing combinat on of sproomil hums.
cinfotia
Mini plaited nrafidulory xpeul linsk nr the Itirls•pereenila
Speed on tle: major strev.exceSsIs 40 'aiph, cc if the intente-
titan lies wilain the built-up area of tin iiolsted etininuritv
having a pcpulation of less than 10.000, Figaro 4C-4 maybe
used In [lime of Vip,stre 4C-3 to the criierin in the
second category elf the Slumlord,
trade isirratil Is slip rvity WarnAllt vnet ouch' Irak' v.kwinf..1
signet is juslitted by an engineering study, the hare control
signri may be operated in the flashing mode daring :lw
hours that fic volume cr1er4n of this wamirt are ns1 met
If this svariart is the only warrant met and a baffle,
oantiol signal is justified by an engineering study. fie (raffle
control sig,m1 sbaald
4C4 Dem her; MI
1 I I I I I I 1
N-..., .......-- 2 OR MORE LANES & 2
1
OR
i
MORE
i
LANES
--.."' -''''''''''..- jpe.e......• 2 OR MORE LANES &
I I
1 LANE
\-..,, ,:--....,....
I ANF A 1 I ANF
---_, -- -------- --•._ - -,..._ _______--------------
---.......- 100*
100*
600
600
MINOR
STREET 400
HIOHER-
VOLUME 300 APPROACH -
VPH 200
100
4100 000 10cm 1200 i400 boO
I non
MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APFROACHES VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
15fivph cppli nntis Inwar Ihrhnldjitiinn fnr 1 nitimr-Mrnn1
approach vai Iwo or more lanes and 100 vph apes as the lower
threshold volume fore minor-street approach with one lane.
Hgure 4C-3. Warrant 3- Peak Hour
(COMMUNITY LESS DIAN 10,000 POPULAT ON 03 ABOVE 40 !MON MAJOR STREET)
I I
4ro
MNOR
STREET
HICHF.R- "
VOLUME
WPROACH -
VPH 2C0
103
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES-
I I
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
1111111WERS
1(0*
75 *
Mr) 4)0 6'0 600 700 WO 000 1000 1'.00 1200 100
MAJOR STREET TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEFICLES PER HOUR (WI-I)
'NOTE: 103 vph applies as 1113 lower threshold volumes for a minor-Vol
approach with Iwo cr more lanes and 76 vph apes as 1h3 Iowa-
threshed volume fora minor-sheet approach with one lane.
rannli 4C-4. Wat aril 3 .P62-4 haat po,1 ra4104
Dvcenilier, 1)11 4C-6
Appendix C : Interlachen Boulevard and Blake Road
Table I, 12-hour intersection turning movements count, from 9-9-14
Time
WB
Right
WB
Thru
WB
Left
NB
Right
NB
Thru
NB
Left
EB
Right
EB
Thru
EB
Left
Blake
Left
Turns
Blake
Entering
(hour
long)
Interlachen
Entering
(hour long)
6:00 0 8 2 5 0 9 3 7 0 38 65 189
6:15 0 9 5 5 0 4 3 13 0 57 101 262
6:30 0 20 6 8 0 4 3 22 0 81 147 382
6:45 0 36 11 9 0 21 7 34 0 122 203 493
7:00 1 46 11 22 0 28 II 24 0 143 237 618
7:15 0 61 18 27 0 28 17 54 0 161 250 787
7:30 0 66 18 23 0 45 19 59 0 191 278 886
7:45 0 108 26 22 0 42 18 61 0 185 267 971
8:00 0 123 32 17 0 46 31 76 0 187 274 962
8:15 0 123 30 25 0 58 27 69 0 167 266 850
8:30 0 114 33 18 0 39 20 80 0 139 231 717
8:45 0 95 27 27 0 44 II 70 1 129 218 575
9:00 0 59 15 29 0 26 27 49 0 102 188 478
9:15 0 46 19 18 0 30 19 32 0 95 172 435
9:30 0 49 II 15 29 12 33 0 87 162 415
9:45 0 37 17 24 17 7 46 0 90 166 391
10:00 0 41 13 20 19 13 40 0 91 159 388
10:15 0 35 18 16 22 9 34 0 93 156 395
10:30 0 33 14 16 32 7 27 0 88 151 399
10:45 0 38 13 16 18 12 41 0 73 149 421
11:00 0 47 10 15 21 II 46 0 77 154 424
11:15 0 40 12 16 17 13 35 0 82 158 431
11:30 0 43 14 29 17 13 32 1 90 166 460
11:45 1 26 30 17 22 22 28 0 90 163 467
12:00 0 49 13 14 26 21 38 0 101 180 486
12:15 0 48 17 16 25 28 36 0 99 189 479
12:30 0 36 14 26 17 27 33 0 96 182 487
12:45 0 41 24 23 33 13 48 0 109 184 502
13:00 0 45 18 25 24 17 34 0 93 167 468
13:15 0 47 26 12 22 23 41 0 96 157 489
13:30 0 52 24 15 0 30 17 32 0 99 162 482
13:45 0 30 18 22 0 17 10 34 0 88 147 470
14:00 0 51 25 12 0 27 24 35 0 91 147 496
14:15 0 48 23 14 0 25 17 42 0 85 148 516
14:30 0 52 17 II 0 19 19 25 0 97 158 551
14:45 0 40 15 19 0 20 19 43 I 119 191 632
15:00 0 58 20 18 1 21 24 53 0 138 213 754
15:15 0 64 27 12 0 37 19 55 0 163 247 802
15:30 0 83 30 22 0 41 26 55 0 174 265 868
15:45 0 65 31 22 0 39 45 99 0 179 271 873
16:00 0 71 23 28 0 46 33 76 0 189 289 876
16:15 0 80 24 19 0 48 35 92 0 186 284 954
16:30 0 81 19 23 0 46 30 69 0 182 289 1040
16:45 0 104 24 30 0 49 29 86 0 186 271 1116
17:00 0 100 43 26 0 43 30 108 0 189 289 1147
17:15 0 117 28 34 0 44 31 140 1 187 284 1095
17:30 0 100 40 29 I 50 27 108 0 143 244 778
17:45 0 100 41 34 0 52 23 110 0
18:00 0 76 33 37 0 41 32 88 0
Table 2. 12-hour intersection turning movements count, from 9-1 1 -14, this was done to ensure that
these volumes are a normal condition, and thus times when signals were unwarranted on 9-9-14 were
not analyzed.
Time
WB
Right
WB
Thru
WB
Left
NB
Right
NB
Thru
NB
Left
EB
Right
EB
Thru
EB
Left
Blake
Left
Turns
Blake
Entering
(hour
long)
Interlachen
Entering
(hour long)
6:00 0 6 1 6 0 6 1 9 0 37 68 170
6:15 0 9 0 8 0 8 3 15 0 54 1 1 1 243
6:30 0 16 6 9 0 6 0 21 0 69 138 343
6:45 0 34 14 8 0 17 7 28 0 103 184 483
7:00 0 33 12 32 0 23 14 31 0 131 227 619
7:15 0 51 27 20 0 23 13 36 0 147 239 781
7:30 0 87 22 21 0 40 19 55 0 159 246 902
7:45 0 110 29 23 0 45 14 66 0 151 244 934
8:00 0 128 39 28 0 39 24 61 0 143 234 872
8:15 0 129 23 15 0 35 26 70 0 136 225 758
8:30 0 86 29 27 0 32 25 75 0 125 217 619
8:45 0 79 10 21 0 37 19 49 0 116 201 489
9:00 0 51 19 26 0 32 17 51 0 100 179 434
9:15 0 31 18 18 0 24 16 44 0 68 121 296
9:30 0 36 8 20 0 23 5 36 0 44 79 187
9:45 0 48 15 14 I 21 9 30 0 21 36 102
14:30
14:45
0 37 16 18 0 23 19 26 0 III 189 512
0 54 25 21 0 25 17 32 0 138 218 612
15:00 0 56 21 17 0 24 23 33 0 149 237 717
15:15 0 57 31 21 1 39 20 45 0 168 263 789
15:30 0 91 23 20 0 50 27 57 0 187 282 873
15:45 0 62 30 29 0 36 45 96 0 197 297 917
16:00 0 82 17 24 0 43 27 79 0 217 311 941
16:15 0 106 25 22 0 58 31 75 0 231 317 992
16:30 0 120 16 25 0 60 26 80 0 226 315 1039
16:45 0 102 18 23 0 56 26 III 0 228 322 1072
17:00 1 108 19 16 0 57 28 100 0 224 328 1078
17:15 0 96 21 25 0 53 28 139 0 205 313 1026
17:30 0 93 24 30 0 62 39 119 0 152 235 742
17:45 0 102 29 33 0 52 33 99 0
18:00 0 74 27 20 0 38 21 82 0
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION
To: Edina Transportation Commission
From: Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Date: April 16, 2015
Subject: Correspondence
Action Requested:
No action is necessary.
Attachments:
Attached is correspondence received since the last ETC meeting.
Agenda Item #: VII. A.
Action El
Discussion El
Information
G:\ PW \CENTRAL SVCS \ TRANSPORTATION DIV \Transportation Commission \ Agendas & RR's \ 2015 R&R \20150416 \ Item VII.A. Correspondence.docx
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
Mark K. Nolan
From: Allan Johnson <asjoh@aol.com >
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 3:47 PM
To: Mark K. Nolan
Subject: 66th and France nightmare.
To The Transportation Commission Edina
Your so called improvement to 66th and France is a nightmare for many residence at Point of France. We can no longer
get across France or 66th Street without fear of being run down. It was completely impossible during the winter but just
as impossible now this Spring.
1) Cars stop in the crosswalks.
2) Right turns, cars drive into the crosswalk and most frequently don't even stop on red they just turn.
3) Left turn, cars drive right into the crosswalk. So if you are walking you need to walk in and out of the cars.
Can you please tell me how this is safer and will encourage walking ?
Sixteen of us who walk at Southdale every morning all drive to Southdale as it is the only safe way to get across either
66th Street or France Avenue.
Have any of you looked to see the mess you have created ?
Thanks for messing up this intersection.
Allan Johnson
1
Stop Behind the Crosswalks in Southdale Area
By Tom LaForce
The goal of Edina’s recent crosswalk upgrades on France Avenue and some of the cross
streets in the Southdale Area is to provide safer crossings for pedestrians.
The finishing touches will soon be complete on the infrastructure upgrades. Now it’s
time to make sure our behavior as drivers also support the goal of those upgrades.
In addition to being much more prominent than before, you have likely noticed some
crosswalks have been added, and that the crosswalks are set back farther from the
intersection than they used to be. This was done to create the shortest possible
crossing distance for pedestrians, which increases safety, especially for people who
need more time to cross the road.
Moving the crosswalks back has created confusion about where drivers should stop.
Next time you are at one of the intersections, look at the other vehicles stopped at the
intersection. You may see cars in front, behind, and sometimes blocking the crosswalks.
While drivers may be confused, Minnesota law is clear. The Minnesota Driver’s Manual
states, “Come to a complete stop at the stop line, before the crosswalk, or before
entering the intersection.” It also states, “When stopping at a marked or unmarked
crosswalk, do not block the crosswalk with your vehicle.”
The Camera Sees You
In some cases drivers, particularly those making left turns, don’t stop behind the
crosswalks because they are concerned that they won’t trip the pavement sensors. I
know I’ve had that feeling of being stranded in the left turn lane, wondering if the
signal controls know I was waiting.
I put that concern to City Engineer, Chad Millner. He told me the signals at those
intersections are no longer controlled by pavement sensors. The sensors have been
replaced with cameras that are set up to detect vehicles and cyclists a set distance from
the intersection, anywhere from 300 to 500 feet.
If you are waiting at a red light, you can rest assured that the computer that controls
the lights knows you’re waiting. Millner advised, “Just because the camera detects a
vehicle and/or cyclist, does not mean the signal will change right away.”
Right Turns on Red
The setback crosswalks have also led to questions about how to complete a right turn
on red. The problem is that at some of the intersections, drivers can’t see if it’s safe to
make the turn because they are too far back from the intersection.
Again, we can turn to the Minnesota Driver’s Manual for guidance. It states, “At a stop
sign with a pedestrian crosswalk you must stop before entering the crosswalk. When
you have stopped, yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, bicyclists and traffic before
proceeding. If your view of the intersection is obstructed, prepare to stop again for
traffic or pedestrians in your path.”
Doing Our Part to Create Safer Crossings for All
The infrastructure changes are part of the effort to make the Southdale Area more
pedestrian-friendly. The other part depends on motorists following two simple
requirements of Minnesota state law: Stop before entering the crosswalk and yielding to
pedestrians that are present.
Tom LaForce is a member of the Edina Transportation Commission.