HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-27 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Com m ission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Council Chambers
Thursday, October 27, 2016
6:00 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda
IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes
A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 15, 2016
V.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," t he Board/Commission will invite resi dent s to share r elevant
i ssues or concerns. Individuals must l i mi t t heir comments to three mi nutes. The Chair may limit
the number of speakers on the same i ssue in t he int erest of time and topic. Gener al ly speaking,
i tems that ar e elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed dur i ng Communit y Comment.
Indi vi dual s should not expect the Chai r or Boar d/Commission Member s to respond to t heir
comment s tonight. Instead, the Board/Commi ssion might refer the mat ter to st a% for
consi derat i on at a future meeting.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Discussion with Edina Public Works Director
B.Passenger Rail Serv ice in Edina: Response to City Council
Questions
C.Additional Updates on 2016 Work Plan Initia tiv es
D.Tra2c Safety Report of October 7, 2016
E.Transportation Commission Policy
VII.Correspondence And Petitions
VIII.Chair And Member Comments
IX.Sta 5 Comments
A.Sta5 Comments for October 2016
X.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Meeting a nd E v ent Dates as of October 27, 2016
XI.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the
publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli 7c ation, an
interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861
72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting.
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Minutes
From:Sharon Allis on - Engineering Spec ialis t
Item Activity:
Subject:Ap p ro val o f Minutes - Regular Meeting of Septemb er
15, 2016
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the meeting minutes of the regular Edina Transportation Commission meeting of September 15, 2016.
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Minutes , ETC, Sept. 15, 2016
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
1
Minutes
City of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
Community Room
September 15, 6:00 p.m.
I. Call To Order
Chair LaForce called the meeting to order.
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Brown, Iyer, Janovy, Koester, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Miranda
and Olk. Absent at roll call was member Olson.
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by member Janovy and seconded by member Bass approving the meeting agenda. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by member Bass and seconded by member Iyer approving the edited Aug. 18, 2016, minutes.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Community Comments
None.
New student members David Koester and Megan Olk were welcomed and introduced.
VI. Reports/Recommendations
A. Stop Sign Reflective Strip Study
Engineering Department intern, Sean Hayford Oleary presented the study. Mr. Hayford Oleary explained that
the study was done to determine the effects of vertical reflective strips on stop sign compliance because stop
sign complaints. He said for three days, they collected video data at W. 42nd Street and Alden Avenue – this
intersection has a 3-way stop sign and is near a school. They measured wheel stoppage and speed within a
certain distance of the stop sign and the conclusion is to not recommend installation because “the reflective
strips do not show a meaningful improvement in driver behavior.”
Discussion
• What else can be done? Planner Nolan said enforcement.
• It may be that the two crosswalks in the area draw drivers’ attention more than the stop signs; the stop
signs are probably not warranted.
• Have studies been done to see if drivers come to a complete stop at stop signs? Planner Nolan said not
specifically but it is noted when observed in other studies.
• Is the traffic cut thru or local? The presumption is it is local traffic.
B. Passenger Rail Service in Edina: SWOT Analysis
Opportunities
• Add: Peer review literature that supports access to transportation and economic benefits.
Weakness
• Revise #1: Construction of stations will be more expensive.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
2
• They discussed the purpose of the SWOT Analysis, how to respond the three questions asked by city
council, public engagement, and hiring a consultant
C. 2017 Neighborhood and MSA Street Reconstruction Draft Engineering Studies
Planner Nolan said streets would be narrowed per their practice for streets with or without sidewalk.
• Parklawn Avenue Roadway Reconstruction
Mr. Toby Muse, project manager, with Short Elliott Hendrickson, presented the study. Mr. Muse said the project
area is from W. 76th Street to France Avenue. The project will include almost all entirely new curb and gutter,
the two curves will be redesigned but will not meet MSA standards (a variance has already been granted),
construction of a 10 ft. Nine Mile Creek trail, consolidation of Metro Transit bus stops, new crosswalks, etc.
Discussion
• Suggestion to install a covered bus shelter; it was noted that this would be a City expense if not
warranted by Metro Transit.
• Would the intersection at Parklawn Avenue and Gallagher Drive be a good fit for a roundabout?
Gallagher Drive was narrowed when it was reconstructed several years ago and the right-of-way is
limited.
• Who is responsible for snow plowing the trail? Public Works if they are currently plowing the existing
sidewalk.
• Concerned with low survey participation; suggestion to remove reference to the survey percentage
because it gives a distorted view of participation; another suggestion was to use a different method to
get input when reconstructing streets with apartment buildings in order to get feedback from the
residents; serving food at meetings was also suggested.
Mr. Andrew Scipioni, engineering technician with the engineering department, asked for feedback on the
following studies.
• Birchcrest A/Countryside B Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Discussion
• Staff explained that they are not recommending the sidewalk east on Valley View Road with the project
because residents were told it would be several years before it would be reconsidered. Staff was asked
if it would be more cost effective to do this sidewalk now and they said generally, yes. Chair Laforce
would like it presented to Council on a map with a “big hole” to show the gap. Staff also explained that
they are not recommending the sidewalk on W. 60th St due to low vehicle counts. Suggestion was made
to remove it from the Comprehensive Plan and to include an explanation for the removal. Another
suggestion was to present the City Council with a sidewalk map showing the gap that will continue to
exist because they did not approve the sidewalk on Valley View Road east of the project area when they
had an opportunity.
• Would like to see the bump-outs function in the Morningside Neighborhood before adding more.
Planner Nolan said they will still recommend them but they can be pulled if necessary.
• How many trees will be impacted for adding sidewalks? Engineering technician Scipioni said maybe two
will be removed on Hansen Road, and only tree trimming on Valley View Road. He could not recall any
being impacted on Maddox Avenue, and on Mildred Avenue there are 12 arborvitaes within the right-of-
way.
Motion made by member Janovy and seconded by member Boettge to write an advisory
communication to the City Council about the missing segment of Valley View Road sidewalk.
Member Iyer will write the advisory communication, and members Bass and Loeffelholz will
review. All voted aye. Motion passed.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
3
• Countryside G Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
No comment.
• Chowen Park D Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction
Discussion
• Engineering technician Scipioni explained that a multimodal survey was not done because of the smaller
size of the project; a workshop was done instead.
• Engineering technician Scipioni explained that the York/Zenith Avenue alley is too narrow for the City
to maintain it (they would encroach on private property).
D. 2017 Transportation Commission Work Plan
Discussion about work plan items
• The Comp Plan next update is next year and this will be big.
• So many developments that they’re not spending any time on; should spend most of their time on
developments as it relates to transportation.
• Eliminating walking map – member Boettge said she is willing to do this.
• The Work Plan is to be submitted to City Council by the end of September.
• Are they setting themselves up for success with the Work Plan?
• Human Rights host meetings and speakers. Each commission is different.
• Living Streets Implementation (fold into new developments that Planning Commission handles).
• Passenger Rail – support/guide study.
• Southdale redevelopment – what is their role?
o The transportation study was presented to them.
o There is a lag between the development community and transportation engineer.
o They’ve talked about forming a joint group with the Planning Commission (PC). Set up like a bill
where the review process disseminates to different bodies.
o The ETC could be sole arbiter of Living Streets or they can set it up so everyone feels
ownership because it is not only transportation related.
o How do they include Living Streets with PC’s work? Transportation Impact Analysis process
hasn’t been updated; develop guidance for it and align traffic studies with Living Streets.
• Eliminate circulator – it is hard to identify demand for this service. They could look at revising current
bus routes and there are self-driving vehicles being tested.
E. Additional Updates on 2016 Work Plan Initiatives
No updates.
F. Traffic Safety Report of Aug. 3, 2016
A.1. Make the signs aesthetically pleasing.
B.2. A roundabout was suggested. Planner Nolan said one was in the CIP but it was not funded. He was asked if
they could get it approved for 2017 and he said he would try. He was asked if PACS could fund the roundabout
and he said it would significantly impact one or two years of PACS’ budget.
B.3. With Hwy. 169 closing, how would this affect residents? Planner Nolan said after discussion with the
requestor, they found the issue was sightline related. Regarding TH-169 closure, planner Nolan said they will
have to wait and to see what happens with traffic and MnDOT will make adjustments accordingly.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
4
B.6. Move to C for further study because people are feeling uncomfortable. Planner Nolan said attempts are
being made to address issue and if moved to C, the TSC won’t know what to do besides what is already being
done, e.g. PCA, police enforcement, etc. He asked for suggestions and doing targeted enforcement two times
annually to educate the community was suggested. Planner Nolan will revise the item and discuss with the police
department.
Motion made by member Bass and seconded by member Iyer to forward the Aug. 3, 2016, TSC
report to the City Council. All voted aye. Motion passed.
• Traffic Safety Report of Sept. 7, 2016
A.1. On-street parking policy still does not permit handicap parking? Yes, and staff is reviewing this.
B.1. Seem like a partial approval.
D.8. Should be in B because it is a denial. Planner Nolan will look at this.
D.3. Should have come thru as item A or B. Planner Nolan said it was easy to resolve.
Motion made by member Janovy and seconded by member Bass to forward the Sept. 7, 2016,
TSC report to the City Council. All voted aye. Motion passed.
VII. Correspondence And Petitions
None.
VIII. Chair and Member Comments
A. Participation in 2016 Open Streets on 50th Event
Chair LaForce said Open Streets is scheduled for Sept. 25 and the plan is to set up a table, have transportation
related maps and comment boxes for residents to provide feedback. Majority of the commissioners volunteered
to work shifts at the event.
Member Iyer noted again the condition of an area on York Avenue that CenterPoint restored that is in bad
shape. Planner Nolan will reach out to CenterPoint. Member Iyer suggested a roundabout at W. 66th Street and
Valley View Road, hopefully paid for by developers.
Member Bass said she attended a planning meeting with City staff regarding an urban design symposium with
speakers and she recommended the City consider strategic communication and have the ETC and/or PC write
an opinion letter to the editor and also ask speakers to address specific issues that comes up in the City.
Member Brown noted how difficult it was to travel on France Avenue between TH-62 and W. 50th Street
because of increased traffic. He said it is becoming unlivable.
Member Boettge said mayor Hovland had suggested a crosswalk at Dunberry with the Cornelia Sidewalk and
asked planner Nolan if this was still planned. Planner Nolan said staff is planning on conducting a pedestrian
count at this location to determine need.
Student member Koester said it is impossible to cross the intersections of Antrim Road/Valley View Road/Tracy
Avenue at the high school, even with a crossing guard.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
5
Chair LaForce said he attended a visioning session. Chair LaForce said he spoke with his neighbor about Benton
Avenue and TH-100 who still feels the area is dangerous but it seems to be a sightline issue. The stop sign needs
to be pulled back because of its current location to the crosswalk.
IX. Staff Comments for September 2016
• The 2016 projects are wrapping up.
• 2016 sidewalk projects are progressing; Xerxes Avenue will begin next week.
• Arden Park D ‘no parking’ sign study: director Millner will update the City Council next week on the no
parking study and survey of residents that was done. Results of the survey showed that residents favor
one-sided parking, except for Bruce Avenue and Bruce Place (removing these signs), and they favor the
12x12 size signs.
• TH-169 construction schedule was revised to closing from January to September; MnDOT is holding
outreach meetings and the first one is scheduled for 9/21 in St. Louis Park.
• Chuck Marohn with StrongTowns.org, will be doing an all-day event in Edina on Sept. 30, including a
luncheon with the ETC and PC and a driving tour of several locations.
• Reminder that the ETC’s October meeting will be the 4th Thursday, instead of the regular 3rd week
schedule.
X. Calendar of Events
A. Schedule of Meeting and Events as of September 15, 2016
XI. Adjournment at 9:40 p.m.
J F M A M J J A S O N D SM WS
# of
Mtgs
Attendance
%
Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
NAME TERM
(Date) 6/21
Bass, Katherine 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
Boettge, Emily 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
Brown, Andy 3/1/2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 90%
Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100%
Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 80%
Janovy, Jennifer 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 100%
Miranda, Lou 3/1/2019 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 100%
Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90%
Koester, David (student) 9/1/2017 1 1 100%
Olk, Megan (student) 9/1/2017 1 1 100%
Ding, Emily (student) 9/1/2016 1 1 2 20%
Ruehl, Lindsey (student) 9/1/2016 1 1 1 1 4 40%
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Dis c us s io n with Edina Public Wo rks Direc tor Dis cus s ion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
T he Edina Transportation Commission’s (ET C) 2016 Work P lan includes the Ongoing Responsibility to “meet
with P olice Department and P ublic Works annually to discuss shared interests.” Edina P ublic Works Director
Brian Olson will be present to discuss these items with the ET C.
P lease come prepared to discuss shared transportation-related interests (e.g. street and trail maintenance activities)
with Director Olson.
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
R ep o rt and Rec o mmendation
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Pas s enger Rail S ervic e in Ed ina: R es p o ns e to City
Co unc il Questio ns
Dis cus s ion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Discuss the ET C's draft response to City Council, which will be provided to the commission either prior to or at
the Oct 27 meeting. P lease see attached draft document.
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.C.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Ad d itional Up d ates o n 2016 Work Plan Initiatives Dis cus s ion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
No action required.
INTRODUCTION:
ET C members will give brief updates on active 2016 Work P lan initiatives not on the current agenda. For
reference, the following are the 2016 Work P lan initiatives:
1. Study and report Community Circulator.
2. Organize and host a transportation-themed event with speaker(s).
3. P repare and comment on Comprehensive P edestrian and Bicycle P lan for inclusion in 2018
Comprehensive P lan.
4. Review Edina To Go app and provide recommendations to staff regarding organization/categories for
reporting concerns related to streets/transportation.
5. Review data from City’s Quality of Life Survey (2011, 2013, 2015) and conduct 2 public meetings to
identify gaps around the City’s transportation systems.
6. Make recommendations to staff for evaluation of the Living Streets and Streets Smarts outreach
campaigns.
7. P rovide input to staff on the creation of a walking map of the City indicating routes and areas of interest.
8. Review and Recommend whether the City of Edina should assume a position in favor of the addition of
passenger rail to the community.
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.D.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
R ep o rt and Rec o mmendation
From:Jo s ep h Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Safety Report of Octo b er 7, 2016 Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Report of Friday October 7, 2016 be forwarded to City Council for
approval.
INTRODUCTION:
It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting regarding the reports' recommendations. An
overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission will be included in the staff report
provided to Council for their November 15, 2016 meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Traffic Safety Report of October 7, 2016
October 27, 2016
Edina Transportation Commission
Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Traffic Safety Report of October 07, 2016
Information / Background:
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action:
A1. Request for a Disability Parking sign at 7011
Lynmar Lane
• A child with disabilities needs access to a bus
which picks up in front of their residence at 8 am
and 4 pm on weekdays.
• Cars sometimes park in front of the walkway
from home to street.
• Requestor would like this completed before
winter.
• Resident has also reached out to a city council
member regarding this request.
After review, due to hardship staff recommends
placing a Disability Parking sign in front of the
residence of 7011 Lynmar Lane. Staff will check
with resident annually to confirm the need for the
sign.
A2. Request for a No Left Turn 7:10-8:30 AM at Chapel Lane and Valley View Road
• Short left turn lane can lead to extended westbound traffic queuing.
• There currently is a sign indicating No Left Turn from 3:10-3:40 PM on School Days.
• Westbound motorists often turn left on to Chapel Lane to turn around in the neighborhood and
travel back eastbound.
Map: Location of 7011
Lynmar Lane
Photo: 7011 Lynmar Lane showing
walkout towards the street
STAFF REPORT Page 2
• Between 7:15 and 8:30 86 vehicles were counted
heading southbound on Chapel Lane.
• 90% of vehicles traveling on Chapel lane were
heading southbound during this period.
After review, given the high number of vehicles
traveling westbound on Valley View Road and
turning left onto Chapel Lane between 7:10 and
8:30 am, staff recommends adding a sign limiting
drivers turning left onto chapel lane during this
time.
A3. Request for No Parking signs on West 69th Street
• During school hours, cars (presumably students)
are parking on both sides of the street, making it
difficult for vehicles to get through.
• Residents have expressed concerns of students
littering and being loud.
• Temporary No Parking signs have been placed on
the south side of the street (see photo) by the
Police Department.
• 69th Street has had two instances where the
temporary no parking signs have been removed
by people other than the Police Department.
• Recommended No Parking no parking on South
side of street.
• Based on survey responses, residents prefer no
parking restricted to during school hours.
After review, staff recommends placing ‘No
Parking 8 am- 4 pm Mon-Fri’ on south side of
West 69th Street.
A4. Request to move a newly placed stop sign at Normandale Road and Benton Avenue
• Sign is located on east side of Highway 100
traveling northbound on Normandale Boulevard.
• Stop sign is placed past (north of) the new
crosswalk by 19 feet leading drivers to stop
beyond the crosswalk.
• Request to be moved in front (south) of the
crosswalk to prevent possible conflicts with
pedestrians.
Photo: 69th Street facing East notice: temporary
no parking signs on south side of street
Map: 69th Street Aerial photo
Map: Chapel Lane in reference
to Valley View Middle School
and Edina High School
Photo: Chapel Lane at Valley View Road
Notice: No Left turn sign from 3:10-3:40 PM
Map: Location of intersection at Benton
Avenue and Normandale Boulevard
STAFF REPORT Page 3
After review, staff recommends moving stop sign
in front of crosswalk. This request has been
forwarded to MnDOT upon changing the
crosswalk location at this intersection.
Section D: Other Traffic Safety Items handled
D1. A resident was concerned with street parking at the intersection of Oaklawn Avenue and 60th Street
West. A traffic study resulted with little issue, and will be reviewed again next summer during softball season
with Pamela Park use at its peak.
D2. A resident was concerned about too many people parking on the wrong side of Halifax Avenue in the
Arden Park neighborhood. After analysis, issue has corrected itself. Staff will continue to monitor.
D3. A resident at Lochmere Terrace reported a stolen “No Parking” sign in the street. The sign was
replaced.
D4. Residents’ wanting traffic signal timing change at 70th St and HWY 100 as roadwork is causing backups.
This was only a temporary concern with 77th Street Bridge over Highway 100 being closed, leading to
heavier traffic at 70th Street and Highway 100.
D5. A resident was concerned that the stop lights at Blake Road and Vernon Avenue were mistimed after
completed roadwork. After analyzing, lights appeared to work adequately.
D6. A resident was looking to move a crosswalk sign located at 5804 Stuart Avenue to the corner of Stuart
Avenue and Grove Street. The intersection of Grove Street and Stuart Avenue is an all-way-stop and does
not warrant a crosswalk sign. The sign will remain at its current location as it functions as a pedestrian and
crosswalk ahead sign for southbound drivers.
Photo: Location of stop
sign past crosswalk
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.E.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Co rres p o ndenc e
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Polic y Dis cus s ion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
T he attached City of Edina Transportation Commission P olicy was approved by City Council in April of 2005.
No other board or commission has such a policy. City staff is asking the ET C to review this policy for relevance.
Edina’s City Code outlines the Transportation’s P olicy and Establishment as well as their P urpose and Duty. In a
case of a conflict with City Code, City Code would prevail. Additionally, City Ordinance, ET C work plans,
engineering department work plans, the traffic safety request process, and the Living Streets P olicy/P lan are all
examples of existing City regulatory/implementation tools that cover much of what is in the 2005 Transportation
Commission P olicy.
Staff would like member of the ET C to have an opportunity to review and comment about removing it from the
City's official policies.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
April 2005 Transportation Commis s ion Policy
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
April 2005
-Edina Transportation Commission recommended the FINAL
DRAFT on January 6, 2005 for City Council consideration.
-Edina City Council action taken on April 5, 2005 – Approved.
City of Edina Transportation Policy i April 2005
CITY OF EDINA
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
April 2005
Contributors:
Mayor & City Council
Mayor James Hovland
Councilmember Scot Housh
Councilmember Alice Hulbert
Councilmember Linda Masica
Councilmember Ann Swenson
Transportation Commission
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
Marie Thorpe
Les Wanninger
Jean White
Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E., P.T.O.E., Traffic Engineer/Assistant Engineer
Wayne D. Houle, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Edina Engineering
City of Edina Transportation Policy ii April 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Sheet .......................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents............................................................................................... ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background .........................................................................................................1
Purpose...............................................................................................................1
Vision...................................................................................................................1
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK 1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................1
City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy .................................................6
III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 6
Transportation Commission Policy Adoption .......................................................6
Action Plan ..........................................................................................................7
Sources of Funding .............................................................................................8
Plan Acceptance Requirements and Costs .........................................................8
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS (“NTMP”) 8
Introduction ..........................................................................................................8
Process and Schedule .........................................................................................9
NTMP Process ..................................................................................................10
Criteria for Screening ......................................................................................13
Scoring for Ranking...........................................................................................14
Removal of Traffic Management Devices/Measures.........................................15
Traffic Management Devices/Measures – City of Edina Approved Options ......16
Benefited Area (Assessed Area) .......................................................................17
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Definitions
Appendix B – Traffic Management Devices / Measures
Appendix C – Application Request for Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan
Appendix D – Acknowledgments and References
Appendix E – Functional Classification Road Map
City of Edina Transportation Policy 1 April 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Sustaining, improving and operating a sound street and transportation system are integral
parts of the long-term vision of the City. Congestion on the regional roadway system and
the failure of that system to accommodate the continued growth in traffic volumes has
both created and exacerbated traffic volumes, speed and congestion on local streets.
These conditions adversely affect the quality of life of the City’s residents and the
activities of the businesses located in the City.
The Edina City Council in December 2003 established the Transportation Commission to
address these issues and to work to improve the local transportation system, consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and Vision 20/20.
PURPOSE
The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) was established to advise the Council on
matters relating to the operation of the local street system with respect to traffic volumes,
congestion, and functional classification, but not maintenance activities, of the City; to
review and comment on plans to enhance mass transit opportunities in the City; to
evaluate methods for traffic calming and other speed and volume mitigation measures
and to recommend their implementation where appropriate; and to review the findings of
the Local Traffic Task Force (2002-2003) and offer recommendations for implementation
of those findings.
VISION
Edina will maintain a transportation system that will accommodate the efficient
movement of people and goods throughout the City while fostering safe and livable
neighborhoods and business areas connected by aesthetically beautiful, pedestrian and
bicycle friendly streets and pathways.
II. POLICY FRAMEWORK
INTRODUCTION
The Edina Transportation Commission Policy (“Policy”) was developed as a supplement
to the City of Edina Transportation Plan (March 1999). The purpose of the Policy is to
guide the ETC in the identification and evaluation of traffic and transportation issues in
the community and prioritize projects and improvements to the transportation system.
The Policy is created to encourage public input and decisions that will be based upon
objective and subjective factors.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 2 April 2005
CITY OF EDINA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY
The City of Edina Transportation Commission Policy implements the purposes and
objectives of the ETC as provided in Section 1225 of the City Code (Transportation
Commission). Except with respect to maintenance issues, the Policy also incorporates
the policies of the Transportation Plan as follows:
Roadway Design
1. Design roadway facilities constructed in conjunction with new developments
according to the intended function.
2. Upgrade existing roadways when warranted by demonstrated volume, safety or
functional needs, taking into consideration environmental limitations.
3. Emphasize improvements to management, maintenance and utilization of the
existing street and highway system.
4. Design residential street systems to discourage through traffic and to be compatible
with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle and walking, including
traffic calming measures on local streets and, in some cases, collector streets.
5. Use adequate transitions and buffers including, but not limited to, earth berms, walls,
landscaping and distance to mitigate the undesirable impact of high volume
roadways.
6. Promote use of sound mitigating features for residential development adjacent to
high volume roadways, and make property owners and land developers responsible
for noise attenuation at new developments near high volume roadways.
Roadway Function and Access
1. Provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway
system and local activity centers.
2. Adequately control access points to the regional roadway system (including minor
arterials) in terms of driveway openings and side street intersections.
3. Provide access to the local street system (including collector and local streets) in a
manner that balances the need to safely and efficiently operate the street system with
the need for access to land.
4. Encourage intra-area trips on minor arterials rather than the principal arterial system,
and promote serving regional trips on the metropolitan highway system.
5. Separate, to the extent possible, conflicting uses on the public street system in order
to minimize safety problems. Give special attention to pedestrian and bicycle routes.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 3 April 2005
6. Provide access to redeveloping sites using current functional classification and
standards rather than the existing access at the sites.
Roadway Maintenance and Operation
1. Cooperate with other agencies having jurisdiction over streets and highways in Edina
to assure good roadway conditions and operating efficiency.
2. Continue the implementation of the I-494 frontage road system and Integrated
Corridor Traffic Management system through ongoing coordination with Mn/DOT,
Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington.
3. Maintain roads by repairing weather-related and other damage.
4. Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice
removal.
5. Replace substandard bridges and bridges that present safety or traffic problems.
Transit/TDM
1. Participate in the I-494 Commission to encourage all forms of travel demand
management in order to reduce vehicle miles of travel, reduce petroleum
consumption, and improve air quality.
2. Review all major new developments in light of the potential for ridesharing including
bus accessibility, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, and mixed-use
development.
3. Support HOV bypasses and other preferential treatments for transit and high
occupancy vehicles on streets and highways.
4. Include transit planning in the construction or upgrading of streets and highways.
5. Pursue development of a demonstration project to provide a circulator system within
the Greater Southdale Area.
Parking
1. Review new developments for adequacy of parking based upon need, the potential for
joint use of parking facilities and opportunities to encourage ridesharing.
2. Continue to limit on-street parking in and near congested commercial areas.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 4 April 2005
Pedestrian/Bicycle
1. Provide accessibility to pedestrians and bicycles at major activity centers, including
necessary storage facilities.
2. Create pedestrian and bicycle interconnections among major generators, with
continuity across major roadways and other barriers.
3. Provide sidewalks and safe crossing in high pedestrian danger areas, including high-
traffic streets, commercial areas, areas with transit access, and in high-density
residential locations.
4. Provide adequate signage along all bike paths including areas of conflict with
pedestrians and automobile traffic.
Goods Movement
1. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to
the metropolitan highway system.
Funding and Jurisdiction
1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community funding sources for improvements
that provide regional or multi-community benefit.
2. Support research efforts into more efficient and cost-effective management,
maintenance and replacement of street surfaces.
3. Support governmental jurisdiction over roadways that reflect the role of the roadway
in the overall transportation system.
4. Develop and support legislation permitting a transportation utility.
In addition to the policies contained in the Transportation Plan, the Edina
Transportation Commission has adopted the following policies:
Roadway Design
1. Design collector and arterial roadway corridors to be compatible with other
transportation modes including transit, bicycle and pedestrian.
2. Encourage beautification of local corridors, where appropriate, with amenities such as
boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 5 April 2005
Roadway Function and Access
3. Review and update regional and local functional street classification and coordinate
with adjacent cities and Hennepin County. Establish subcategory classifications and
criteria for local streets if warranted. Revise local roadway classifications when
warranted.
4. Review and monitor citywide traffic volumes, congestion, existing traffic calming
devices and measures, accident history, vehicle violation history, speed limits and
enforcement.
5. Educate public on vehicle operations including public relations campaigns that focus
on individual responsibilities to each other rather than individual rights.
6. Review and recommend traffic calming policies and consider traffic calming
implementation where requested by residents.
7. Implement measures to reduce non-local, cut-through traffic in cooperation with
County and State efforts by developing a local traffic calming policy to mitigate the
effects of cut-through traffic. Identify the origin and destination of cut-through
traffic.
8. When requested by the Planning Commission, review landuse that may impact traffic
implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and other
activity that potentially impacts the City of Edina.
Transit/TDM
9. Encourage the legislature to both increase and establish a dedicated source for
funding for efficient mass transit. Review and recommend policies necessitating a
Transportation Demand Management and/or a mass transit component with all types
of development.
Parking
10. Find a location for an additional Park and Ride facility to be established in close
proximity to major mass transit routes.
11. Work with appropriate commissions such as Planning and Zoning to review City
Code, Section 850.08 Parking and Circulation to identify parking based upon needs.
12. Evaluate present City parking facilities. Where appropriate, amend Section 850 to
provide Transportation Demand Management and transit users some spaces in City-
owned ramps.
Pedestrian/Bicycle
City of Edina Transportation Policy 6 April 2005
13. Review and recommend construction of pedestrian and bike paths throughout Edina
cooperatively with the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County.
14. Promote safe walking, bicycling and driving. Promote vehicle driver respect for
bicycles and pedestrians along with bicyclists and pedestrian observance of signs and
use of designated paths for travel.
15. Support inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle access planning when upgrading
roadways, bridges and redevelopment projects.
III. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This section generally describes the steps necessary to implement the provisions of the
Policy and discusses a general strategy for carrying out the Policy provisions.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION POLICY ADOPTION
By adopting the Transportation Commission Policy, the City Council establishes the
guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities are made in Edina. It
should be revised as necessary to respond to changing conditions and needs, both locally
and regionally.
The Policy should be circulated widely so the residents and the business community are
aware of the opportunities and limitations that the Policy provides, thus enabling all
interested parties to voice their concerns and issues with full knowledge of the process.
ACTION PLAN
Short Term (Immediate):
• Review and approve Transportation Commission Policy:
o Review and identify problems and causes of Edina traffic issues
(determine what is fact versus perception).
o Review volume and speed criteria.
o Present Draft Policy to Council.
o Open public comment period.
o Recommend to Council for approval.
• Review Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations as it reflects
the adoptive policies and procedures. Rank the six Local Traffic Task Force
identified traffic “issue areas” and review and recommend action for them as
Neighborhood Traffic Management Projects to the City Council.
• Review and approve a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP).
City of Edina Transportation Policy 7 April 2005
• Publicize transportation issues to be studied by ETC.
• Establish a means for public communication for transportation issues including,
as appropriate:
o City of Edina Website
o About Town
o Edina Community Channel 16
o Edina Sun Current Newspaper
o Local Schools
o E-mails to Neighborhood Associations
o Utility Bill
o City Hall’s Electronic Billboard
• Create a citizen’s guide to transportation issues
Long Term (Continually):
• Review and recommend Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans.
• Review and update local roadway functional classification.
• Hold yearly public open house for transportation issues.
• Review and update Transportation Commission Policy annually.
• Review and make recommendations for collector and arterial roadway planned
improvements.
SOURCES OF FUNDING
The following sources of funding are explained in more detail in the Transportation
Plan.
Existing Sources of Revenue:
• Federal Surface Transportation Program Funds
• Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ)
• State Aid
• Special Assessments
• Livable Communities Grants
• Ad Valorem Taxes
• Tax Increment Financing
Potential Sources of Revenue:
• Impact Fees
• Road Access Charges
• Transportation Utility
City of Edina Transportation Policy 8 April 2005
PLAN ACCEPTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
Plan acceptance requirements include educating residents in the Benefited Area about the
possibility that they may be asked to fund the installation and maintenance of NTMP
Projects through additional taxes and/or special assessments. A typical project includes
all costs accrued for the improvement including all costs to perform the preliminary
studies and data collection, temporary test installations, final studies, final design and
actual construction costs. All costs associated with a Neighborhood Traffic Management
Plan study and project will be assessed to the Benefited Area if the Council approves the
project for final implementation.
IV. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS (“NTMP”)
INTRODUCTION
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) studies are intended to respond to
requests to deal with speeding and excessive volumes of traffic on streets in residential
neighborhoods and on multiple streets in one or more neighborhoods, yet are intended to
be sensitive to areas where, due to the implementation of calming measures, there may be
a potential for diversion of traffic onto other streets and/or into other neighborhoods.
These plans are required to respond to traffic problems that are symptomatic of wider
problems, such as congestion or lack of capacity on the arterial system.
NTMP studies include local, collector and arterial street studies and neighborhood area
studies. While solutions will be considered for collector and arterial streets, only a
limited number of management devices or measures will be allowed on collectors and
arterials due to State design standards and funding requirements (see Appendix B).
Studies will be conducted by the City Engineering Department with the involvement of
other City departments and upon the approval of the ETC and the City Council. Studies
will be scheduled based on available resources. Priority for studies will be based upon
factors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Previous efforts, requests and studies in the area
• Intensity and extent of the problems
• Degree of conflict between traffic conditions and land uses
• Availability of data
• Regional improvement projects scheduled or planned
• Feasibility of solutions
City of Edina Transportation Policy 9 April 2005
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE
This section generally details the process and schedule for Neighborhood Traffic
Management Plans (See Table 1).
Table 1. Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans Schedule
Step Item Period (Typical)
- General Traffic Management Information Open House Late September
Step 1 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Applications
Due
2nd Monday in
February
Step 2 Initial Screening, Scoring and Ranking of Applications
Before data collection
March/April/May
Step 3 • Petition-to-study prepared and circulated by City staff
• Presentation to ETC for recommendation and to
Council for approval to order plan development
May/June
Step 4 Plan Development
• Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works
and Engineering, Transit and School (transportation)
agencies
• Public Open House
• Survey-to-test circulated and evaluated by City staff
• Trial Project Plan prepared
June
Step 5a Presentation to ETC for recommendation June
Step 5b • Council approval of trial projects
• Schedule temporary installations, removals and after
data collection (minimum period of 2 weeks after
installation)
July
Step 5c • Temporary installations July/August
Step 6 • After data collection (trial projects)
• Review and comment by Fire, Police, Public Works,
Transit, and School (transportation) agencies
• Prepare evaluation summaries
September
Step 7a Mail Surveys October
Step 7b • Summarize returned surveys
• Open House
November
Step 8a Recommendations to ETC, Public comment December
Step 8b Recommendations to Council, Improvement Hearing,
Preliminary Assessment Hearing, Order Project
January
Step 9a Survey and Design February / March
Step 9b Final approval of plans by Council, Set bid schedule April
Step 9c Letting, Assessment Hearing May
Step 9d Construction June / July
Step 10 After data collection July / August
Step 11 Follow-up Evaluation Within 3 to 5 yrs
City of Edina Transportation Policy 10 April 2005
NTMP PROCESS:
Step 1. Study Request (Application)
A Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) study application can be filed by any
individual, a business or by a neighborhood organization. Applications to consider a
NTMP study must be in writing and are due by 4:30 p.m. on the second Monday in
February of each year. (See Appendix C for an NTMP application form).
Step 2. Preliminary Review and Priority Ranking
In response to each NTMP study application filed, City staff gathers and reviews
preliminary data including data related to volume, speed, accidents and other pertinent
safety information. City staff also applies the criteria for screening and ranking to
prioritize studies for trial and evaluation of a NTMP. The Engineering Department ranks
the studies based on the methodology outlined under “Scoring for Ranking” as defined
herein, and prioritizes the trial studies for ETC review. The number of trial studies
depends on equipment and personnel availability. Some trial studies may be deferred if
not feasible due to conflicting construction, development in the area, county or state
restrictions or other concerns.
Applications are subject to review by the Engineering Department for possible solutions
other than a NTMP study. If preliminary review indicates an immediate hazard to the
public exists, the City may choose to address the described matter separately from the
NTMP process.
The City also notifies the ETC of the status of all ranked studies and asks for comments.
The City notifies all study requestors of the status of their request after the completion of
the Step 2 process.
A selected study is considered in the annual priority-ranking step for up to 3 years. If,
after 3 years, a study has not received a high enough priority to proceed, it is no longer
eligible for consideration. This time limitation ensures that the study request has not
become obsolete because of changing traffic conditions and/or new residents in the area.
The study requestor is notified when the 3-year limit expires. A new request may
thereafter be made to re-enter the study in the NTMP process. Step 1 is then repeated to
obtain current information.
Step 3. Petition-to-Study
A petition-to-study shall be circulated within the defined study area (Benefited Area –
see page 17 and Appendix A-1) for all studies selected to proceed to Step 3.
The Transportation Commission establishes the Benefited Area, based on information
obtained in the Preliminary Review stage of the process (Step 2). At a minimum, this area
City of Edina Transportation Policy 11 April 2005
is generally defined as those households and businesses fronting on the affected segments
of the Benefited Area.
The petition-to-study defines the issue and surveys the Benefited Area to determine if the
residents within the Benefited Area agree with the issue that has been requested to be
addressed. City staff prepares the petition, describing the issue and the procedures to be
followed if a study is undertaken. The City then circulates the petition-to-study. Each
household is entitled to one signature. Property owners not living in the Benefited Area
are not included in the petition-to-study process. In order to proceed further, a minimum
of 51% of all petitions-to-study must be returned with 65% of those returned indicating
agreement to study the identified issue.
Qualifying petitions-to-study and the underlying NTMP applications are thereafter
presented to the ETC and the City Council. The ETC must recommend and the City
Council must order the plan development for the study to move to Step 4.
Step 4. Plan Development
Based on approval from the Council, the NTMP study is commenced. The NTMP is
initially reviewed by the City’s Fire, Police, Public Works, Planning and Engineering
Departments, and by transportation agencies, including transit agencies, and the school
district.
The ETC then provides notice to the Impacted Area (as defined herein) and holds a
public meeting for the Impacted Area and the general public to inform residents of the
proposed project, to describe the NTMP process, and to gather additional information
about the study issue and related concerns within the Impacted Area.
Plan development consists of the following:
(a) Assessment of study issues and concerns
(b) Identification of project goals and objectives
(c) Identification of evaluation criteria
(d) Establishment of threshold criteria (on project-by-project basis)
(e) Development of alternative plans/solutions
Steps 4(a) and (b) are accomplished through public meetings, neighborhood association
meetings, and ETC meetings. Steps (c) through (e) are determined by City staff and the
ETC. Additionally, City staff prepares a survey-to-test describing the proposed project
and calling for a temporary test installation. Staff then circulates by U.S. Mail the
survey-to-test within the Impacted Area.
Each household and business within the Impacted Area is entitled to file one survey
response. The survey responses are evaluated by City staff. Possible criteria, solutions
and their impacts are proposed based on the citizen responses and sound engineering
principles and are evaluated by the ETC, City staff and other affected agencies. Based
upon that evaluation, a trial installation plan is prepared.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 12 April 2005
Step 5. Test Installation
The proposed NTMP test installation plan is presented to the ETC and the City Council.
If recommended by the ETC and approved by Council, the test will be installed for a trial
period of between 3 and 12 months. If the City Traffic Engineer finds that an unforeseen
hazard is created by the test installation, the test installation may be modified or removed.
Step 6. Project Evaluation
Following the test period, the City evaluates the performance of the test NTMP in terms
of the previously defined study issues and objectives. The evaluation includes the subject
street and other streets affected by the project, and is based on before-and-after speeds
and volumes, impacts on emergency vehicles or commercial uses, and other evaluation
criteria determined during Step 4. If, in the evaluation, measurable improvements are not
met to the satisfaction of the ETC and City staff, the NTMP may be modified and
additional testing conducted.
The test results are thereafter reviewed with the ETC, Impacted Area, and relevant City
staff, and the information is distributed during the survey stage.
The City will not proceed to Step 7 if the test results show the NTMP may be unsafe or
otherwise violates the Policy or other relevant City policies or regulations.
Step 7. Survey
To forward the project to the stage where permanent implementation is approved (Step
8), a survey from households, businesses and non-resident property owners within the
Impacted Area is obtained through a mail survey administered by the City. The ETC
then holds an open house for the Impacted Area to update residents about the proposed
project.
Step 8. City Council Action
Based on the project evaluation and survey, City staff members prepare a feasibility
report and recommendations for the ETC and City Council. The report outlines the
process followed, includes the project findings, states the reasons for the
recommendations and includes a preliminary assessment roll. The feasibility report and
preliminary assessment roll will be presented for a recommendation by the ETC before
final action by the City Council. If the feasibility report is adopted and the preliminary
assessment roll is approved by the City Council, the project is ordered.
If the feasibility report and preliminary assessment roll are not adopted by the Council,
the plans and specifications will not be ordered and the project will be terminated. The
project will thereafter be removed from the list and the Benefited Area is not allowed to
reapply for a same or similar study for five years.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 13 April 2005
Step 9. Design, Final Assessment Roll and Construction
Final design and construction supervision are administered by the City and are generally
completed within 12 months after final approval and assessment by the City Council.
City staff prepares and recommends the final assessment roll as required under authority
granted by Minnesota Statute Chapter 429
Step 10. Monitoring
City staff shall monitor the NTMP and gather data, including volume, speed and
accident information for use in its follow-up evaluation.
Step 11. Follow-up Evaluation
Within the 3 to 5 year period following construction of an NTMP project, the City shall
conduct a follow-up evaluation to determine if the project's goals and objectives continue
to be met. This evaluation may entail traffic studies of volumes, speeds and accidents, as
well as public opinion surveys. The follow-up evaluation will be conducted by City staff
and presented to the ETC.
CRITERIA FOR SCREENING
Each NTMP study application is initially reviewed and screened for general qualification
for this process. The following prescribes the general criteria used by staff to determine
the eligibility for a NTMP study:
1. Roadway Classifications
• Eligible: All Edina streets under the Public Works Department jurisdiction.
• Not Eligible: All roadways within Edina designated as County, State, or
Federal Highways.
2. Minimum Distance of the traffic calming device from the following (all must
apply for eligibility):
• Traffic Signals (except neckdowns) 300 ft.
• Stop Signs (except neckdowns) 300 ft.
• Other Traffic Calming Devices or Measures 300 ft.
• Driveway/Alleys 20 ft.
• Horizontal or Vertical Curves affecting sight lines 200 ft.
• Railroad Crossing 300 ft.
• Dead End 400 ft.
3. Access:
City of Edina Transportation Policy 14 April 2005
• No dead-end created without adequate turn around on public roadway right-
of-way roadway.
4. Not-Critical Emergency Route:
• To be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Chief.
All four eligibility requirements must be met for scoring and consideration.
SCORING FOR RANKING
The following criteria defines the scoring for ranking that is used to prioritize a requested
NTMP study application as described in Step 2 of the NTMP process:
1. Sidewalk adjacent to the benefited area (0 to100 points):
• None + 100
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 0
2. Public school yard, play lot, playground development adjacent to benefited
area (0 to 200 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side + 100
• All of 2 sides + 200
3. Residential development adjacent to benefited area (0 to 100 points):
• None + 0
• All of 1 side + 50
• All of 2 sides + 100
4. Number of reported correctable crashes based on last 5 years of available
data (0 to 200 points):
• 20 per crash; maximum of 200 points
5. Average residential density adjacent to benefited area (0 to 50 points):
• 50 points maximum
• (0 dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 0 points
• 5+ dwelling units per adjacent 100 lin. ft. = 50 points)
6. Average Daily Traffic Volumes - ADT (0 to 200 points):
City of Edina Transportation Policy 15 April 2005
• ADT divided by 10; maximum 200 points
• For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use higher volume street
7. Percent over speed limit - ADT (0 to 200 points):
• Percent over speed limit times 2.5 (times 100); maximum 200 points (80%
over limit)
• For intersection, street segments or multiple streets, use street with higher
speeds
Scoring is based on the criteria pertaining to the Benefited Area. Correctable crashes are
determined by the Engineering Department.
REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
The City of Edina’s Traffic Calming program is intended to avoid the costly installation
and later costly removal of traffic calming devices and measures. On occasion, however,
it may be determined to be desirable to terminate the NTMP. .
If the removal is City initiated due to safety/crash issues, the removal will be at City
expense. If the removal is at the request of the Benefited Area, the removal will be
charged to the property owners in the defined Benefited Area. The following procedure
will be used for removals initiated by the Benefited Area:
1. Petition requesting removal is submitted to the City Traffic Engineer.
2. A survey, including estimated cost for removal and data collected previously for the
NTMP, is mailed to each property owner in the Benefited Area.
3. Surveys are summarized 30 days after mailing. Staff makes recommendation to the
ETC.
4. ETC forwards a recommendation to the Council. If the recommendation is for
removal, improvement and assessment hearings are scheduled by the Council with
notice to the Benefited Area.
5. Final approval of plans by Council. Set bid schedule.
6. Letting, final assessment and construction.
7. A new NTMP will not be considered for five years following the removal of a
NTMP in the Benefited Area.
City of Edina Transportation Policy 16 April 2005
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES – CITY OF EDINA APPROVED OPTIONS
This section lists traffic management devices and measures that are approved for use in
the City of Edina. Appendix B contains a detailed description and overview of each item.
Speed Reduction Traffic Calming Measures:
• Speed Hump
• Speed Table
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Textured Pavements
• Center Island Narrowings
• Gateway Treatments
• Neckdowns
• Choker
• Chicane
• Realigned Intersections
• Traffic Circle
• Roundabout
Volume Reduction Traffic Calming Measures:
• Diagonal Road Closure
• Partial Street Closure
• Cul-de-sac
• Median Barriers
• Forced Turn Islands
Education and Enforcement:
• Targeted Police Enforcement
• Radar Speed Display Units
• Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns
Regulatory Measures:
• Stop Sign
• Turn Restrictions
• One Way Streets
• Traffic Signals (“Rest on Red” and “Rest on Green”)
• Pavement Striping (Centerline, Edge and Transverse)
City of Edina Transportation Policy 17 April 2005
BENEFITED AREA (ASSESSED AREA)
This section generally defines the Benefited Area of the traffic management devices and
measures for use in determining the assessment area. The following prescribes the
typical Benefited Area, but may be adjusted by the ETC on a project-by-project basis.
Speed Hump, Speed Table, Raised Intersection, Raised Crosswalk,
Textured Pavement, Center Island Narrowings, Neckdowns, Gateway
Treatments, Choker, Chicane, Traffic Circle:
• Benefited Area extends 300 feet from the device along the street affected by the
device, or to the nearest stop sign or traffic signal, whichever is less.
Diagonal Road Closure, Round-a-bout:
• Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on each leg of the
intersection.
Partial Street Closure, Realigned Intersection, Forced Turn Island, Median
Barrier:
• Benefited Area extends to the next intersection on the leg of the
intersection partially closed, realigned or restricted.
Cul-De-Sac:
• Benefited Area extends from the point of closure to the next intersection
on the leg that is closed.
City of Edina Transportation Policy April 2005
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX B – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES / MEASURES
APPENDIX C – APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
PLAN
APPENDIX D – ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
APPENDIX E – FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ROAD MAP
City of Edina Transportation Policy April 2005
APPENDIX A - DEFINITIONS
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-1 April 2005
Definitions
Benefited Area – The properties expected to receive the majority of the positive impacts
from the proposed traffic calming strategy and which are subject to assessment for the
cost of installation or removal of a NTMP improvements. (Assessed Area)
Center Island Narrowings – An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to
segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median slowpoints, median chokers, central
islands.)
Chicane – Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a
straight line (by the installation of offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines,
reversing curves, twists.)
Choker – Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly
adding medians, on street parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock
narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.)
Circulator Service – A means provided within a major activity center, (such as a
regional business concentration, a metro center or community) for movement from place
to place within the center; such a system may be entirely pedestrian or may use transit.
Collector Street – Roadways that are designated to “collect” traffic from neighborhood
streets and get that traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets are described in the City of
Edina Comprehensive Plan.
Corridor Studies – Typically, highway corridor studies focus on a segment of a
particular travel corridor or travel shed. Land use, access issues, capacity, level of
service, geometries and safety concerns are studied; alternatives analyzed; and
recommendations made. Corridor studies are usually prepared with the participation and
cooperation of the affected communities and governmental agencies. Recommendations
for improvements are often incorporated into the local comprehensive plans of the
participating cities and continue to be used by implementing agencies as improvements in
the corridor are made.
Cul-de-sac – Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a
circular turn-around area.
Cut-through Traffic – Traffic that intrudes into a residential subdivision to avoid
congestion or other problem from an arterial or other high level street.
Diagonal Road Closures – A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection,
interrupting traffic flow across the intersection. This type of barrier may be used to
create a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.)
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-2 April 2005
Feasibility Report – A report analyzing the recommended type of construction, the
estimated construction cost, estimated engineering cost and the estimated assessment.
Forced Turn Islands – Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning
movements. (Forced turn barriers, diverters.)
Functional Classification (of Roadways) – In accordance with the City of Edina
Transportation Plan (March 1999), the City has adopted the Metropolitan Council’s
functional classification system designation and guidelines for use in the City’s roadway
system. Functional classification involves determining what role each roadway should
perform and ensures that certain transportation and non-transportation factors are taken
into account in the planning and design of roadways. A complete description of the
functional classification system criteria is found in Appendix D of the Transportation
Plan (March 1999). The following criteria lists typical vehicle volumes carried on
roadways:
Principal Arterials: 15,000 to 200,000 vehicles per day
Minor Arterials: 5,000 to 30,000 vehicles per day
Collector Streets: 1,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day
Local Streets: Less than 1,000 vehicles per day
Gateway Treatment – Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or
other structure that helps to communicate a sense of neighborhood identity.
Guide Signs – A sign that shows route designations, destinations, directions, distances,
services, points of interest, or other geographical, recreational, or cultural information.
Impacted Area - Area for a project that is defined as those residences and businesses
along local residential streets that are positively or negatively impacted by excessive
through traffic volumes and speeding, or that may be positively or negatively impacted
by proposed traffic calming.
Infrastructure – Fixed facilities, such as roadways or railroad tracks; permanent
structures.
Level of Service (as related to highways) – The different operating conditions that
occur on a lane or roadway when accommodating various traffic volumes. It is a
qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed and travel time,
interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, and indirectly, safety
and operating costs. It is expressed as levels of service “A” through “F.” Level “A” is a
condition of free traffic flow where there is little or no restriction in speed or
maneuverability caused by presence of other vehicles. Level “F” is forced-flow
operation at low speed with many stoppages, the highway acting as a storage area.
Local Street – A roadway that connects blocks within neighborhoods.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-3 April 2005
Local Traffic – Traffic that originates from or is destined to a location within a
neighborhood or area.
Major Street – The street normally carrying the higher volume of vehicular traffic (vs.
Minor Street).
Median Barriers – Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to
segregate traffic.
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) – The portion of the metropolitan area
identified in the Regional Blueprint where development and redevelopment is to occur
and in which urban facilities and services are to be provided. The purpose of the MUSA
is to define the areas within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area that are eligible for "urban
services", specifically sewers, municipal water systems and particular types of
transportation systems. This boundary line is defined and maintained by the
Metropolitan Council to assist in the orderly development of the metropolitan area. All
of Edina is within the MUSA area.
“A” Minor Arterials – Roadways within the metropolitan area that are more regionally
significant than others. These roadways are classified into the following groups:
a) Relievers – Minor arterials that provide direct relief for traffic on major
metropolitan highways. These roads include the closest routes parallel to the
principal arterials within the core, urban reserve and urban staging areas.
These roadways are proposed to accommodate medium-length trips (less than
eight miles) as well as to provide relief to congested principal arterials.
Improvements focus on providing additional capacity for through traffic.
b) Expanders – Routes that provide a way to make connections between
developing areas outside the interstate ring or beltway. These routes are
located circumferentially beyond the area reasonably served by the beltway.
These roadways are proposed to serve medium to long suburb-to-suburb trips.
Improvements focus on preserving or obtaining right-of-way.
c) Connectors – This subgroup of “A” minor arterials are those roads that would
provide good, safe connections among town centers in the urban reserve, urban
staging and rural areas within and near the seven counties. Improvements
focus on safety and load-carrying capacity.
d) Augmenters – The fourth group of “A” minor arterials are those roads that
augment principal arterials within the interstate ring or beltway. The principal
arterial network in this area is in place. However, the network of principal
arterials serving the area is not in all cases sufficient relative to the density of
development that the network serves. In these situations, these key minor
arterials serve many long-range trips. Improvements focus on providing
additional capacity for through traffic.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-4 April 2005
Minor Street – The street normally carrying the lower volume of vehicular traffic (vs.
Major Street).
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route – A designated City roadway that receives state
funds as allocated from the State gas tax for maintenance and construction.
Approximately 20 percent of the City roadways are designated as MSA routes. State of
Minnesota rules and standards, in addition to local jurisdiction guidelines, apply to these
roadways.
Neckdowns – Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane
narrowing but used at intersection(s). Widening of street corners at intersections to
discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help define
neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe
crosses.)
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) – Formalized process where
residents, commissioners and City staff evaluate the various requirements, benefits and
tradeoffs of traffic calming projects within neighborhoods. The overall objectives for the
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan are to improve neighborhood livability by
mitigating the impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods; to promote safe
and pleasant conditions for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and residents on
neighborhood streets; to encourage citizen involvement and effort in neighborhood traffic
management activities; to make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing traffic
management requests; and to support the Comprehensive Plan policy that livability and
safety of established residential neighborhoods be protected in transportation operations.
Non-Local Traffic – Traffic that does not originate from or is not destined to a location
within a neighborhood or area.
Off-Peak Period – Time of day outside the peak period (see peak period).
Partial Street Closure – Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way
street. The open lane of traffic is signed “One way”, and traffic from the blocked lane is
not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.)
Peak Hour – The hour during the peak period when travel demand is highest. Typically,
peak hours are found to be from 7 to 8 a.m. and from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Peak Period – Typically, the time between 6:30 and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 and 6
p.m. on a weekday, when traffic is usually heavy.
Person Trip – A one-way journey between two points by one person in a vehicle.
Photo-radar Speed Enforcement – An automated camera system used to enforce speed
limits. It includes the camera, an attached radar "gun" and a display that shows the speed
of each passing vehicle. When a speeding vehicle is detected, the photo radar system
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-5 April 2005
takes a picture of the driver and the license plate. The registered owner of the vehicle
then receives a ticket in the mail. This enforcement method is not legal in Minnesota.
Photo-Red Light Enforcement – Implementation of a photo red light, an automated
camera and computer system can be mounted on a traffic signal pole at an intersection for
red light enforcement. Photo red light takes pictures of any vehicles that run a red light,
records the time elapsed since the light turned red and the vehicle entered the
intersection, and issues a ticket. The photo red light systems are typically installed at key
intersections that have a high number of accidents. This enforcement method is not legal
in Minnesota.
Platoon – A group of vehicles or pedestrians traveling together as a group, either
voluntarily or involuntarily because of traffic signal controls, geometrics, or other factors.
Principal Arterials – The high capacity highways that make up the metropolitan
highway system, including all interstate freeways.
Radar Speed Display Units – Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists
with an instant message, displayed on a reader board, telling them how fast they are
driving.
Raised Crosswalk – A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at
mid-block locations. (Raised crossings, sidewalk extensions.)
Raised Intersection – A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally
4” above the surrounding street. (Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.)
Realigned Intersections – Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote
better through movements for a major roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified
intersections.)
Regional Blueprint – The Metropolitan Council plan that sets a general direction for
future development patterns in the metropolitan area and establishes guidelines for
making decisions about major regional facilities that are needed to support the
commercial, industrial and residential development of the area. It establishes urban and
rural areas and certain development policies for different geographic policy areas.
Regulatory Signs – A sign that gives notice to road users of traffic laws or regulations.
Right-of-Way (Assignment) – The permitting of vehicles and/or pedestrians to proceed
in a lawful manner in preference to other vehicles or pedestrians by the display of sign or
signal indications.
Roadway striping – Highlighting various areas of the road to increase the driver’s
awareness of certain conditions (e.g., edge of road striping to create a narrowing/slowing
effect while defining space for cyclists).
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-6 April 2005
Roundabout – Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers
travel in a counterclockwise direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are “yield
upon entry”, meaning that cars in the circle have the right of way and cars entering the
circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an
intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.)
Signal Preemption – Usually referred to in this plan as a technology that triggers the
green go-ahead on meters or signal lights to allow emergency vehicles (and sometimes
transit vehicles) to move more quickly through signalized intersections.
Speed– Speed is defined based on the following classifications:
a) Advisory Speed – A recommended speed for all vehicles operating on a
section of highway and based on the highway design, operating
characteristics, and conditions.
b) Design Speed – A selected speed used to determine the various geometric
design features of a roadway.
c) 85th-Percentile Speed – The speed at or below which 85 percent of the
motorized vehicles travel.
d) Posted Speed – The speed limit determined by law and shown on Speed
Limit signs.
e) Statutory Speed – A speed limit established by legislative action that
typically is applicable for highways with specified design, functional,
jurisdictional and/or location characteristic and is not necessarily shown
on Speed Limit signs.
Speed Hump –Wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump
determines how fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or
damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as speed over the hump increases.
Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps,
undulations.)
Speed Limit – The maximum (or minimum) speed applicable to a section of highway or
roadway as established by law.
Speed Table – Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to speed humps.
(Trapezoidal humps, speed platforms.)
Speed Zone – A section of highway with a speed limit that is established by law but
which may be different from a legislatively specified statutory speed limit.
Street Closure – Street closed to motor vehicles using planters, bollards, or barriers, etc.
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-7 April 2005
Targeted Police Enforcement – Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by
police due to observed, frequent law disobedience.
Textured Pavements – A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick
crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a change in the driving environment.
Traffic Calming – A combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-
motorized street users. Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation
of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and cut-through volumes
in the interest of street safety, livability and other public purposes. Traffic calming
measures are intended to be self-enforcing. Traffic calming measures rely on the laws of
physics rather than human psychology to slow down traffic.
Traffic Circle – Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections,
requiring vehicles to divert around them, potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they
traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.)
Traffic Signal Control Systems – The degree of traffic management of an arterial is
grouped and defined as follows:
a) Fixed Time – The traffic signals on an arterial are controlled locally through a
time clock system. In general, the progression of a through band (the amount
of green time available along an arterial at a given speed) along the arterial in
the peak direction is determined by past experience and is not a function of
immediate traffic demand.
b) Semi-actuated – The traffic signals along the arterial are designed to
maximize the green time on the major route in the major direction. Timing
and through band are based upon historical records. Use of green time on the
minor leg dependent upon real-time demand and maximized based upon total
intersection delay.
c) Interconnection – A traffic signal system in which data collected at individual
signals is shared with a central processor or controller. Adjustments in traffic
signal control can be made based upon incoming data as opposed to historical
data.
d) Optimization – The process in which a traffic signal or system is modified to
maximize the amount of vehicles passing through the intersection for all
approaches or on the major road in the peak direction.
e) Real-time Adaptive Control – An advanced traffic control system that
incorporates current technologies in communications, data analysis, and traffic
City of Edina Transportation Policy A-8 April 2005
monitoring to provide real-time traffic control of arterials, corridors or
roadway networks.
Transportation Comprehensive Plan – Assists the City in making correct
transportation-related decisions today by anticipating the character, magnitude and timing
of future transportation demand.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) – Programs and methods to reduce
effective demand. In the broadest sense, any activity or facility that reduces vehicle trips
would fall within this classification. The highest priority in the region is given to
reducing single-occupant vehicle trips in the peak periods. Techniques that might be
utilized are carpooling, vanpooling, transit, alternative work hours, transportation
management organizations, and land development or ordinances that discourage vehicle
trips and encourage walk, bike, rideshare and transit trips.
Transportation Policy Plan - This document is one chapter of the Metropolitan
Development Guide, as provided for in Minnesota Stat. 473, Sections 145 and 146.
Section 145 states: “The Metropolitan Council shall prepare and adopt…a comprehensive
development guide for the metropolitan area.”
Vehicle Trip – A one-way journey made by an auto, truck or bus to convey people or
goods.
Volume-to-capacity Ratio (v/c) – The hourly number of vehicles expected to use a
roadway in the busiest hour, divided by the number of moving vehicles the roadway can
safely accommodate in an hour.
Warning Signs – A sign that gives notice to road users of a situation that might not be
readily apparent.
City of Edina Transportation Policy April 2005
APPENDIX B – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT DEVICES/MEASURES
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
A
N
A
G
M
E
N
T
D
E
V
I
C
E
S
/
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
(N
o
t
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
o
r
d
e
r
)
PA
G
E
NO
.
TR
A
F
F
I
C
MA
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
DE
V
I
C
E
/
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
SP
E
E
D
RE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
RE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
FU
E
L
CO
N
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
AI
R
/
N
O
I
S
E
PO
L
L
U
T
I
O
N
C
O
S
T
EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
TEST VS.
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
O
T
H
E
R
B-
4
S
p
e
e
d
H
u
m
p
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
5
S
p
e
e
d
T
a
b
l
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
6
R
a
i
s
e
d
C
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
7
R
a
i
s
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Possible Drainage Problem
B-
8
T
e
x
t
u
r
e
d
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
C
h
a
n
g
e
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
E
f
f
e
c
t
L
o
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Increased Maintenance
B-
9
C
e
n
t
e
r
I
s
l
a
n
d
Na
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
s
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
M
e
d
i
u
m
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
T
e
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
B-
1
0
N
e
c
k
d
o
w
n
s
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
T
e
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
B-
1
1
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
C
h
a
n
g
e
S
m
a
l
l
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Increased Maintenance
B-
1
2
C
h
o
k
e
r
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
T
e
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
B-
1
3
C
h
i
c
a
n
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
l
i
g
h
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
l
i
g
h
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Mi
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
T
e
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
1
4
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
V
a
r
i
e
s
V
a
r
i
e
s
S
m
a
l
l
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
H
i
g
h
V
a
r
i
e
s
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
i
n
a
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
B-
1
April 2005
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
A
N
A
G
M
E
N
T
D
E
V
I
C
E
S
/
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
(N
o
t
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
o
r
d
e
r
)
PA
G
E
NO
.
TR
A
F
F
I
C
MA
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
DE
V
I
C
E
/
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
SP
E
E
D
RE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
RE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
FU
E
L
CO
N
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
AI
R
/
N
O
I
S
E
PO
L
L
U
T
I
O
N
C
O
S
T
EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
TEST VS.
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
O
T
H
E
R
B-
1
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
i
r
c
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
l
i
g
h
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
1
6
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
S
l
i
g
h
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
to
H
i
g
h
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Increased Maintenance
B-
1
7
D
i
a
g
o
n
a
l
R
o
a
d
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
s
Pr
o
b
a
b
l
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
Va
r
i
e
s
T
e
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
1
8
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
M
e
d
i
u
m
M
i
n
i
m
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
T
e
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
1
9
C
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
Y
e
s
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
H
i
g
h
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
2
0
M
e
d
i
a
n
B
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
S
m
a
l
l
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
i
t
y
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
V
a
r
i
e
s
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
B-
2
1
F
o
r
c
e
d
T
u
r
n
I
s
l
a
n
d
s
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
t
o
Me
d
i
u
m
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
s
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
Not used on Collector and Arterial Streets
B-
2
2
T
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
P
o
l
i
c
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
De
p
e
n
d
s
o
n
Am
o
u
n
t
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
H
i
g
h
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
B-
2
3
R
a
d
a
r
S
p
e
e
d
U
n
i
t
s
P
r
o
b
a
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
B-
2
4
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Sa
f
e
t
y
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
s
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
B-
2
5
S
t
o
p
S
i
g
n
V
a
r
i
e
s
(
m
a
y
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
)
Va
r
i
e
s
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
Re
s
p
o
n
s
e
T
i
m
e
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
i
n
a
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
B-
2
April 2005
TR
A
F
F
I
C
M
A
N
A
G
M
E
N
T
D
E
V
I
C
E
S
/
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
S
(N
o
t
i
n
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
o
r
d
e
r
)
PA
G
E
NO
.
TR
A
F
F
I
C
MA
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
DE
V
I
C
E
/
M
E
A
S
U
R
E
SP
E
E
D
RE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
TR
A
F
F
I
C
RE
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
FU
E
L
CO
N
S
U
M
P
T
I
O
N
AI
R
/
N
O
I
S
E
PO
L
L
U
T
I
O
N
C
O
S
T
EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
TEST VS.
PE
R
M
A
N
E
N
T
O
T
H
E
R
B-
2
6
T
u
r
n
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
V
a
r
i
e
s
Y
e
s
S
m
a
l
l
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
B-
2
7
O
n
e
-
W
a
y
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
N
o
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
S
m
a
l
l
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
S
m
a
l
l
D
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
L
o
w
V
a
r
i
e
s
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
B-
2
8
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
S
i
g
n
a
l
("
R
e
s
t
o
n
R
e
d
"
a
n
d
"R
e
s
t
o
n
G
r
e
e
n
"
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
V
a
r
i
e
s
V
a
r
i
e
s
V
a
r
i
e
s
H
i
g
h
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
Pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
B-
2
9
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
P
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
L
o
w
N
o
E
f
f
e
c
t
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
O
n
l
y
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
i
n
a
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
B-
3
April 2005
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-4 April 2005
Definition: Speed humps are wave-shaped paved humps in the street. The height of the speed hump determines how
fast it may be navigated without causing discomfort to the driver or damage to the vehicle. Discomfort increases as
speed over the hump increases. Typically speed humps are placed in a series rather than singularly. (Road humps,
undulations.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
Speed Hump
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Does not impact parking.
• Works well with curb extensions.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• Tend to reduce air quality and increase
energy consumption.
• May increase speeds between humps.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some horizontal/vertical
curves.
• Requires signage that may be considered
unsightly.
Description:
• Rounded raised areas of pavement typically 12 to 14
feet in length.
• Often placed in a series (typically spaced 300 to 600
feet apart).
• Sometimes called road humps or undulations.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement, not at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with neckdowns.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 12 to 14 feet in length; other lengths (10,
22, and 30 feet).
• Speed hump shapes include parabolic, circular, and
sinusoidal.
• Hump heights range between 3 and 4 inches with
trend toward 3 - 3 ½ inches maximum.
• Difficult to construct precisely; may need to specify a
construction tolerance (e.g. ± 1/8 inch) on height.
• Often have signage (advance warning sign before
first hump in series and warning sign or object
marker at hump).
• Typically have pavement markings (zigzag, shark's
tooth, chevron, zebra).
• Taper edge near curb to allow gap for drainage.
• Some have speed advisories.
• Bicyclists prefer that it not cover or cross a bike lane.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-5 April 2005
Definition: Trapezoidal shaped speed humps in the street, similar to regular speed humps. (Trapezoidal humps,
speed platforms.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial Streets
Speed Table
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Typically does not impact parking.
• Typically preferred by fire department over
speed hump.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• May increase speeds between tables.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Description:
• Long raised speed humps with a flat section in the
middle and ramps on the ends; sometimes
constructed with brick or other textured materials on
the flat section.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Typically long enough for the entire wheelbase of a
passenger car to rest on top.
• Midblock placement or at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Work well with neckdowns.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot
ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the
middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet).
• Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as
high as 6 inches).
• Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long)
and are either parabolic or linear.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-6 April 2005
Definition: A speed table designed as a pedestrian crossing, generally used at mid-block locations. (Raised crossings,
sidewalk extensions.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial
Streets
Raised Crosswalk
Advantages:
• Effective speed control/reduction at the
installation.
• Effective pedestrian amenity.
• May be designed to be aesthetically
pleasing.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Increases pedestrian visibility and
likelihood that driver yields to pedestrian.
Disadvantages:
• May increase noise (breaking and
acceleration).
• May impact drainage.
• Not appropriate for grades greater than 5
percent.
• May shift traffic to parallel streets.
• May cause bus passengers discomfort.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
Description:
• Speed Table with flat area to accommodate
pedestrian traffic.
Applications:
• Local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Midblock placement or at an intersection.
• Not on grades greater than 5 percent.
• Works well in combination with curb extensions and
curb radius reductions.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically 22 feet in the direction of travel with 6 foot
ramps on each end and a 10 foot flat section in the
middle; other lengths (32 and 48 feet) reported in
U.S. practice.
• Most common height is between 3 and 4 inches (as
high as 6 inches).
• Ramps are typically 6 feet long (up to 10 feet long)
and are either parabolic or linear.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-7 April 2005
Definition: A raised plateau where roads intersect. The plateau is generally 4 inches above the surrounding street.
(Raised junctions, intersection humps, plateaus.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium to
High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Possible
Drainage
Problem
Raised Intersection
Advantages:
• Reduction in through movement speeds at
intersection.
• No effect on access.
• Makes entire intersections more
pedestrian-friendly.
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
Disadvantages:
• May slow emergency vehicles to
approximately 15 miles per hour.
• May impact drainage.
Description:
• Flat raised areas covering entire intersections, with
ramps on all approaches and often with brick or other
textured materials on the flat section and ramps.
Applications:
• Local streets.
• Allowed on collector and arterial streets at all-way
stop controlled intersection only.
• Works well with curb extensions and textured
crosswalks.
• Often part of an area wide traffic calming scheme
involving both intersecting streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Storm drainage modifications may be necessary.
• Typically rise to sidewalk level.
• May require bollards to define edge of roadway
• Installations typically have gentle 1:40 slopes on
ramps.
• Not typically used in densely developed urban areas
where loss of parking would be unacceptable.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-8 April 2005
Definition: A change in pavement texture (e.g., asphalt road to brick crossing) that helps to make drivers aware of a
change in the driving environment.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Change Minimal
Effect
Low to
Medium
Minimal
Impact
Permanent
Installation
Only
Textured Pavement
Advantages:
• Designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
• May be used to define pedestrian crossing.
• May reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
• Increased Maintenance.
• May increase noise.
Description:
• An area within in the roadway set off from the typical
pavement (e.g. bituminous and concrete) by using
cobble stones, stamped concrete, etc.
Applications:
• Used as community enhancement and/or as a
gateway treatment.
• Works well with raised crosswalk and intersection
applications.
Design/Installation Issues:
• In some cases, not preferred by bicyclists due to
rough surface.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-9 April 2005
Definition: An island or barrier in the center of a street that serves to segregate traffic. (Midblock medians, median
slowpoints, median chokers, central islands.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible No Effect No Effect Medium Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
Increased
Maintenance
Center Island Narrowings
Advantages:
• Reduces pedestrian crossing width.
• Provides a refuge for pedestrians and
cyclists.
• Provides barrier between lanes of traffic.
• May produce a limited reduction in vehicle
speeds.
• May visually enhance the street through
landscaping.
• May prevent passing of turning vehicles.
• Preferred by fire department/emergency
response agencies to most other traffic
calming measures.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• May reduce parking and driveway access.
• May reduce separation for bicycles and
pedestrians.
• May limit visibility of pedestrian crossings.
• May reduce driver sightlines if over-
landscaped.
• Increased maintenance.
Description:
• Raised islands located along the centerline of a
street that narrow the travel lanes at that location.
Applications:
• Are often nicely landscaped to provide visual amenity
and neighborhood identity.
• Can help pedestrianize streets by providing a mid-
point refuge for pedestrians crossings.
• Sometimes used on wide streets to narrow travel
lanes.
• Works well when combined with crosswalks.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Bicyclists prefer not to have the travel way narrowed
into path of motor vehicles.
• Islands need to be wide enough to allow signs to
mark them.
• Driving lanes in each direction should be 12 feet plus
gutter width.
• Driveways, alleys, and snowplow operations should
be considered.
• Should not be used where on-street parking needs
are extensive.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-10 April 2005
Definition: Physical curb reduction of road width at intersections. Similar to lane narrowing but used at intersection(s).
Widening of street corners at intersections to discourage cut-through traffic, to improve pedestrian access and to help
define neighborhoods. (Nubs, bulb-outs, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, safe crosses.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium to
High
Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
Neckdowns
Advantages:
• May be aesthetically pleasing if
landscaped.
• Reduces pedestrian crossing distance.
• May reduce speeds and traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
• May improve sight lines.
Disadvantages:
• Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to
accommodate them.
• Landscaping may cause sight line
problems.
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• May impact drainage.
• May impact bicycle accommodations.
• May impact parking.
• May require signage that may be
considered unsightly.
Description:
• Realignment of curb, reducing street width at
intersections.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Should not be used in locations where turn lanes or
through lanes would be lost.
• County typically does not allow neckdowns directly
adjacent to county roads.
• Can be used in multiple applications or on a single
segment of roadway.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Must result in a minimum intersection opening and
radii to accommodate turning movements.
• Drainage issues may be significant.
• Vertical delineators or object markers are often used
to make visible to snowplow operators.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-11 April 2005
Definition: Treatment to a street that includes a sign, banner, landscaping or other structure that helps to communicate
a sense of neighborhood identity.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible No Change Small
Decrease
Medium to
High
Minimal Impact Permanent
Installation
Only
Increased
Maintenance
Gateway Treatment
Advantages:
• Positive indication of a change in
environment from arterial/collector
roadways to residential street.
• May reduce entry speed.
• Helps give neighborhood a sense of
identity.
• Allows neighborhood creativity and
participation in design.
Disadvantages:
• Increased maintenance.
• Determination and agreement of
maintenance responsibility.
Description:
• Monument or landscaping used to denote an
entrance into a neighborhood.
Applications:
• Used at entrances to residential neighborhoods
typically adjacent to collector or arterial roadways.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Determination and agreement for responsibility of
maintenance.
• Drainage issues may be significant.
• Must maintain proper intersection sight lines.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-12 April 2005
Definition: Physical street narrowing to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street
parking, etc. (Pinch points, lane narrowing, midblock narrowings, midblock yield points, constrictions.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Minimal Impact Test
Installation
Possible
May Impact
Drainage
Choker
Advantages:
• Reduces pedestrian crossing width and
increases visibility of pedestrian.
• May reduce speed and traffic volume
• Self-enforcing.
• Preferred by many fire department/
emergency response agencies to most
other traffic calming measures.
Disadvantages:
• May impact parking and driveway access.
• Unfriendly to bicyclists unless designed to
accommodate them.
• May impact drainage.
Description:
• Curb extensions at midblock that narrow a street by
widening the boulevard or sidewalk area.
Applications:
• Works well with pedestrian crossings.
• Works well with speed humps, speed tables, raised
intersections, textured pavement, and raised median
islands.
• Some applications use an island, which allows
drainage and bicyclists to continue between the
choker and the original curb line.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Bicyclists prefer not to have the travelway narrowed
into the path of motor vehicles.
• Typically designed to narrow road to 22 feet for two-
way traffic with 1:10 tapers at the ends.
• Adequate drainage is a key consideration.
• Provides opportunity for landscaping.
• Vertical delineators, bollards or object markers are
often used to make visible to snowplow operators.
• Effective when used in a series.
• Avoid narrowings of two way traffic to single lanes.
• Avoid use in locations where at the crest of a hill and
on some curves.
• Parking must be restricted at the choker.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-13 April 2005
Definition: Mainline deviations to deter the path of travel so that the street is not a straight line (by the installation of
offset curb extensions). (Deviations, serpentines, reversing curves, twists.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible Slight
Increase
Slight
Increase
Medium to
High
Minimal
Impact
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
Chicane
Advantages:
• Provides opportunity for landscaping.
• Pedestrians have reduced crossing
distance.
• Imposes minimal inconveniences to local
traffic.
• Accepted by public as speed control
device.
• May reduce speed and traffic volumes.
• Self-enforcing.
• Emergency response typically prefer two-
lane chicanes to speed humps.
Disadvantages:
• Can impact parking and driveway access.
• Street sweeping may need to be done
manually.
• May impact drainage.
• Typically, not appropriate for intersections.
• Not appropriate on some curves.
• May cause problems during winter.
• Increased maintenance.
• May create head-on conflicts on narrow
streets.
Description:
• A series of narrowings or curb extensions that
alternate from one side of the street to the other
forming S-shaped curves.
Applications:
• Residential, local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Appropriate for midblock locations only.
• Most effective with equivalent volumes on both
approaches.
• Typically, is a series of at least three curb extensions.
• Can use on-street parking to create chicane.
• Very effective method of changing the initial
impression of the street. If designed correctly,
drivers will not be able to see through. Appears as a
road closure yet allows through movement.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Unless well designed, chicanes may still permit
speeding by drivers cutting straight paths across the
center line.
• Recommend shifts in alignment of at least one lane
width, deflection angles of at least 45 degrees, and
center islands to prevent drivers from taking a
straight "racing line" through the feature.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-14 April 2005
Definition: Physical realignment of intersection typically used to promote better through movements for a major
roadway (vs. a minor roadway). (Modified intersections.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies Varies Small
Decrease
Small
Decrease
High Varies Permanent
Installation
Only
Realigned Intersection
Advantages:
• Provides a more fluent through movement
for the major roadway.
• Improves driver expectation by providing a
more typical intersection.
• May better define driver’s right-of-way.
• May reduce traffic volume.
Disadvantages:
• May impact parking and driveway access.
• May impact drainage.
• May be perceived as an inconvenience by
some neighbors.
• May require additional right-of-way
acquisition.
Description:
• Revised street geometrics of an existing intersection
that typically improves and decreases the traffic
delay for the main through movement (vs. the less
important road).
Applications:
• Typically used to correct and provide a non-stop
condition for the legs of an existing intersection with
the larger traffic volume.
• Used to help define driver’s right-of-way.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Drainage may be an issue.
• May require mitigation signage due to substandard
curvature of roadway.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-15 April 2005
Definition: Circular, raised island placed within the middle of intersections, requiring vehicles to divert around them,
potentially forcing drivers to slow down as they traverse around the circle. (Intersection islands, similar to roundabouts.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Slight
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
Traffic Circle
Advantages:
• No effect on access.
• May reduce speed and traffic volumes.
• Effective in reducing intersection collisions.
• Self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• Can result in bicycle/auto conflicts at
intersections because of narrowed travel
lane.
• May require parking restrictions at
intersection.
• Left turns may be confusing.
• Care must be taken to avoid routing
vehicles through unmarked crosswalks on
side-street approach.
• Increased maintenance.
Description:
• Raised islands, placed in intersections, around which
traffic circulates (this is not a roundabout).
• Motorists yield to motorists already in the intersection.
• Require drivers to slow to a speed that allows them to
comfortably maneuver around them.
Applications:
• Intersections of local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• One lane each direction entering intersection.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Typically circular in shape, though not always.
• Often controlled by YIELD signs on all approaches, but
many different signage approaches are used.
• Key design features are the offset distance (distance
between projection of street curb and center island),
lane width for circling the circle, the circle diameter,
height of mountable outer ring for large vehicles such
as school buses and trash trucks, and potential for
pedestrian path-vehicle path conflicts.
• Usually landscaped in center islands. Quality of
landscaping and its maintenance are key issues.
• Landscaping needs to be designed to allow adequate
sight distance.
• Not typically used at intersections with high volume of
large trucks and buses turning left.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-16 April 2005
Definition: Raised circular areas (similar to medians) placed at intersections. Drivers travel in a counterclockwise
direction around the circle. Modern roundabouts are “yield upon entry”, meaning that cars in the circle have the right of
way and cars entering the circle must wait to do so until the path is clear. When a roundabout is placed in an
intersection, vehicles may not travel in a straight line. (Rotaries.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Possible No Effect Slight
Increase
Medium to
High
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Permanent
Installation
Only
Increased
Maintenance
Roundabout
Advantages:
• Reduces speed at intersection approach
• Longer speed reduction influence zone.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
• Effective in reducing intersection collisions.
• Self-enforcing.
• Provides space for landscaping.
• Provides a good environment for bicycles.
• Provides equal access to intersections for
all drivers.
• Cheaper to maintain than a traffic signal.
Disadvantages:
• Requires a larger amount of right-of-way
than a typical intersection.
• May require additional lighting and signing.
• Initial safety issues as drivers adjust.
• Increased maintenance responsibilities.
Description:
• Circular intersections with specific design and traffic
control features including yield control of all entering
traffic, channelized approaches, and appropriate
geometric curvature to ensure travel speeds within
the roundabout are less than 30 mph.
Applications:
• Intersections of local, collector and arterial streets.
• Used to improve the operation of an intersection.
• Sometimes used as community enhancement as a
gateway treatment.
• Used in high crash areas where the crash type is
inclined to be corrected by the use of a roundabout.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Adequate speed reduction.
• Design vehicle consideration.
• Pedestrian crossings located at least one vehicle
length upstream from crossing and only across legs.
• Circulating vehicles have the right-of-way.
• All vehicles circulate in a counter-clockwise direction
and pass to the right of the central island.
• Incorporate splitter islands to separate traffic, to
deflect entering traffic, and to provide opportunity for
pedestrians to cross in two stages.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-17 April 2005
Definition: A barrier placed diagonally across a four-legged intersection, interrupting traffic flow across the intersection.
This type of barrier may be used to create a maze-like effect in a neighborhood. (Diagonal diverter.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Probable Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low to
Medium
Varies Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
Diagonal Road Closure
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes.
• Reduces speeds at the closure area.
• Bicycles /pedestrians may not be
restricted.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Increased emergency response in most
cases.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• May impact drainage.
• May impact parking.
• Tends to increase travel distance.
• May increase maintenance.
Description:
• Barriers placed diagonally across an intersection,
blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or have been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Often used in sets to make travel through
neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered
internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through
movement possible but less attractive than
alternative (external) routes.
• Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• There may be legal issues associated with closing a
public street.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands, walls,
gates, side-by-side bollards, or any other obstruction
that leave an opening smaller than the width of a
passenger car.
• Diverter width and curvature is dependent upon the
intersection roadway widths.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-18 April 2005
Definition: Physical blockage of one direction of traffic on a two-way street. The open lane of traffic is signed “One
way”, and traffic from the blocked lane is not allowed to go around the barrier through the open lane. (Half closure.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Probable Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Medium Minimal
Impact
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
Partial Street Closure
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in
one direction and possibly in the other).
• Reduces speeds at the closure area.
• Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of
the street.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• Enforcement issues (compliance may not
be 100%)
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected (they have to drive around partial
closure with care).
• Reduces access to residents.
Description:
• Barriers that block travel in one direction for a short
distance on otherwise two-way streets (when two
half-closures are placed across from one another at
an intersection, the result is a semi-diverter).
Applications:
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Often used in sets to make travel through
neighborhoods more circuitous - typically staggered
internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through
movement possible but less attractive than
alternative (external) routes.
• Closures have been used as a crime prevention tool.
• Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction
without the negative access issues of one-way
streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Partial closure must extend to centerline of the
affected street.
• A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained.
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-19 April 2005
Definition: Physical street closure resulting in a dead end (no outlet) constructed with a circular turn-around area.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable Yes Small
Increase
Small
Increase
High Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial
streets
Cul-de-sac
Advantages:
• Eliminates through traffic.
• Reduces speed of the remaining vehicles.
• Improves safety for all the street users.
• Pedestrian and bike access maintained.
Disadvantages:
• Reduces emergency vehicle access.
• Reduces access to properties for
residents.
• May be perceived as an inconvenience by
some neighbors and an unwarranted
restriction by the general public.
• May increase trip lengths.
• May increase volumes on other streets.
• May require additional right-of-way
acquisition.
Description:
• A street with no outlet that eliminates cut-through
traffic.
Applications:
• Used only on local streets.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Cannot be used on truck routes, bus routes, snow
emergency routes, through streets, or any other
major roadway.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Must be a minimum of 120 feet of right-of-way
(diameter) to accommodate the minimum turn-around
radius of 40 feet.
• Obtain approval of police, fire and emergency
medical services.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-20 April 2005
Definition: Raised island or barrier in the center of the street that serves to segregate traffic.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Small
Possibility
Possible No Effect No Effect Varies Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Median Barriers
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes (mostly in
one direction and possibly in the other).
• Reduces speeds at the median area.
• Allows two-way traffic in the remainder of
the street.
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distance.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel local streets.
• No significant effect on vehicle speeds
beyond the closed block.
• Interrupts street network connectivity.
• Enforcement issues (compliance may not
be 100%)
• Increased maintenance if landscaped.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected.
• Reduces access to residents.
Description:
• Raised islands in the centerline of a street that
continues through an intersection that blocks the left
turn movement from all intersection approaches and
the through movement at the cross street.
Applications:
• Median closures are typically applied only after other
measures have failed or been determined to be
inappropriate.
• Intended to reduce the through traffic in one direction
without the negative access issues of one-way
streets.
Design/Installation Issues:
• A minimum opening of 14 feet must be maintained.
• Provisions are available to make diverters passable
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Barriers may consist of landscaped islands.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-21 April 2005
Definition: Small traffic islands installed at intersections to channel turning movements. (Forced turn barriers,
diverters.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Possible Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low to
Medium
Possible
Increased
Response Time
Test
Installation
Possible
Not Used on
Collector and
Arterial streets
Forced Turn Islands
Advantages:
• Typically reduces traffic volumes.
• May reduce speeds at island area.
Disadvantages:
• May divert significant traffic volumes to
parallel streets.
• Emergency vehicles may be minimally
affected (they have to drive around island
with care).
• May interrupt street network connectivity.
• May increase travel distance.
Description:
• Raised island barriers placed at intersections,
typically blocking the through movement.
Applications:
• Used only on local roadways.
• Not allowed on collector and arterial streets.
• Physical barrier used to divert traffic to help prevent
the temptation of drivers from making an illegal
turning or through movement.
• Intended to reduce traffic volume or to prevent a
turning movement due to safety constraints.
• Used for access management.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Island width and curvature is dependent upon the
intersection roadway widths.
• Must design corner radii to accommodate vehicle
turning movements (e.g. Trucks and buses).
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-22 April 2005
Definition: Specific monitoring of speeding and other violations by police due to observed, frequent law disobedience.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Depends
on
Amount
Possible No Effect No Effect High No Effect Temporary
Targeted Police Enforcement
Advantages:
• Good temporary public relations tool.
• Serves to inform pu0blic that traffic law
violations are undesirable behavior for
which there are consequences.
• Easy to implement.
• Can result in area-wide positive impacts.
Disadvantages:
• Effect is not permanent.
• Enforcement is an expensive tool.
Description:
• Use of local police to enforce traffic laws appropriate
to traffic problems identified in a neighborhood.
Applications:
• Should only be used when specific problems are
outlined or documented.
• Can be used in conjunction with speed wagon
applications.
Design/Installation Issues:
• No design needed in a physical sense.
• Due to staff time constraints, every effort should be
made to clearly identify the problem (e.g. speeding,
driving in the parking lane, running stop signs, etc.)
• The problem should be narrowed down to the
occurrence day, time, specific location, or vehicle
type.
• Follow-ups indicating the impact of enforcement are
needed to determine the effectiveness.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-23 April 2005
Definition: Driver feedback signs that use radar to provide motorists with an instant message, displayed on a reader
board, telling them how fast they are driving. (Permanent Radar Signs.)
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Probable No Effect No Effect No Effect Low
No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
Radar Speed Display Units
Advantages:
• Heightens driver awareness of the speed
limit and the speed they are traveling.
Disadvantages:
• May provide only short-term effectiveness.
• Vandalism may be an issue.
Description:
• Tool to help raise driver awareness.
• Displays speeds of passing vehicles on a reader
board
• Used in areas with frequent speeding
• Stationary Radar Signs direct a motorist's attention to
the posted speed limit and displays the speed of the
driver's vehicle on a large message board.
• Purpose is to remind drivers that they are speeding
to help encourage compliance.
Applications:
• The Police Department may use it as a "speed
checkpoint" and have an officer present to issue
citations to violators.
• Portable Radar Sign on a dolly enables residents to
borrow and place on their street
• Stationary Radar Signs are used in locations that do
not qualify for other physical measures, such as
speed humps.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Needs power to function.
Stationary Radar Signs Radar Dolly
Radar Speed Trailer
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-24 April 2005
Definition: Educational campaign used to appeal for compliance with traffic laws.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Campaigns
Advantages:
• Low cost.
• May reduce speeds.
• Residents may feel better after the
experience despite lack of noticeable
results.
Disadvantages:
• Effects may be short term.
Description:
• Neighborhood traffic safety campaigns that typically
consist of personalized letters or general flyers that
are distributed to all residents of a neighborhood that
cite statistics on speeding within the neighborhood
and appeal for compliance with traffic laws.
Applications:
• Used in local residential neighborhoods.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Target all residents of an entire neighborhood (not
certain individuals).
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-25 April 2005
Definition: A regulatory sign that gives notice to road users that traffic is required to stop. Used to assign right-of-way
at an intersection. Recommended for installation only when specific warrants are met in accordance with the Minnesota
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). Stop signs are generally not installed to divert traffic or reduce
speeding.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies
(may
increase)
Varies Small
Increase
Small
Increase
Low Possible
Increased
Response Time
Temporary or
Permanent
Must meet
MMUTCD
warrants
Stop Sign
Advantages:
• Relatively inexpensive installation cost.
• Effectively defines driver’s right-of-way.
• Reduces speed at the intersection.
Disadvantages:
• When not warranted and used improperly,
they typically cause negative traffic safety
impacts (non-compliance with the signs
and increased accidents).
• May result in increased mid-block
speeding.
• Full compliance with stop control is rare.
Description:
• An octagonal sign with a white legend and border on
red background used to require traffic to stop.
Applications:
• Used at an intersection of a less important road with
main road where application of the normal right-of-
way rule would not be expected to provide a
reasonably safe operation.
• Used at a street entering a through highway or street.
• Used at an unsignalized intersection in a signalized
area.
• Used when abnormal conditions exist such as very
high speeds, restricted view or crash records indicate
a need for stop control.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Stop signs should not be used for speed control.
• Stop signs should be installed in manner that
minimizes the numbers of vehicles having to stop.
• In most cases, the street carrying the lowest volume
should be stopped. A stop sign should not be
installed on the major street unless justified by a
traffic engineering study.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-26 April 2005
Definition: The use of regulatory signs to restrict turning movements entirely or partially (e.g. restrictions for certain
time periods during peak traffic periods).
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Varies Yes Small
Increase
No Effect Low No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
Turn Restrictions
Advantages:
• Low installation cost.
• May increase safety.
Disadvantages:
• High violation rates without constant
enforcement or physical barriers.
• May inconvenience residents.
Description:
• Prohibition of turns typically regulated by signs
placed where they will most be easily seen by road
users who might be intending to turn.
Applications:
• Used to restrict right, left and U- turns at intersections
to work in conjunction with medians, signal systems,
etc.
• Used during certain time periods (peak traffic hours)
to help maintain safety of certain driving situations.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Most effective when applied to peak traffic hours.
• Consideration should be given to install physical
barriers (active devices) to aid in the enforcement of
the regulatory sign (passive device).
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-27 April 2005
Definition: Streets that are designated for use by traffic in one direction only. Typically controlled by the use of “One-
Way” regulatory signs.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
No Possible Small
Decrease
Small
Decrease
Low Varies Temporary or
Permanent
Turn RestrictionsOne-Way Streets
Advantages:
• May increase roadway capacity.
• May reduce traffic volumes.
Disadvantages:
• May inconvenience residents.
• May increase speeds.
• Enforcement issues.
• May increase volumes on other streets.
Description:
• One-way signs used to indicate streets upon which
vehicular traffic is allowed to travel in one direction
only.
Applications:
• Used to restrict through traffic in isolated applications
or in combinations that create maze-like routes
through a neighborhood.
• Used to increase street capacity and traffic flow.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Combine one-way streets in ways that force turns
every block or two to avoid speeding or cut-through
problems.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-28 April 2005
Definition: Semi-actuated traffic signals that are programmed to rest on green or red for the different legs of the
intersection. Typically, signals are dependent upon traffic demand and maximized based upon total intersection delay
with the rest on red given to the leg with the lower approach volume.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible Varies Varies Varies High No Effect Temporary or
Permanent
Other
Agency
Approval
Traffic Signal (“Rest on Red” and “Rest on Green”)
Advantages:
• Punishes or rewards based on compliance
with speed limits.
• Somewhat self-enforcing.
Disadvantages:
• May affect intersection operation if used at
intersections with high levels of traffic.
Description:
• “Rest on Red” is an application of a signal system
where all approaches to an intersection face red
lights. If advance loops detect an approaching
vehicle moving at or below the desired speed and no
other vehicle is being served at the cross street, the
signal turns green. If speeding is detected, the green
phase is not triggered until the vehicle comes to rest
at the stop line.
• “Rest on Green” is an application of a signal system
where approaches along a main street will have a
green light. If the traffic on the main street is moving
at or below the desired speed and no one is waiting
on the side street, the light will remain green on the
main street. The signal will switch to red if speeding
is detected.
Applications:
• An application of a signal system used to control
speed.
Design/Installation Issues:
• Should not be used on roadways with high levels of
traffic due to operational concerns.
• May be used at non-peak times at some
intersections.
City of Edina Transportation Policy B-29 April 2005
Definition: Paint or thermoplastic street markings commonly placed for delineation that provides guidance and
information to the road user.
Evaluation Considerations
Speed
Reduction
Traffic
Reduction
Fuel
Consumption
Air/Noise
Pollution
Cost Emergency
Services
Test vs.
Permanent
Other
Possible No Effect No Effect No Effect Low No Effect Permanent
Installation
Only
Pavement Striping
Advantages:
• Provide important information while
allowing minimal diversion of driver
attention from the roadway.
• Perception of narrowing the roadway may
modestly reduce speeds.
Disadvantages:
• Visibility of markings can be limited by
snow, debris and water.
• Marking durability is limited.
Description:
• Centerline, edgeline and transverse markings on the
street used to provide guidance and information to
the driver.
Applications:
• Used to supplement other traffic control devices.
• Used to effectively convey regulations, guidance or
warning.
• Centerlines and edgeline use may have the effect of
visually narrowing the roadway.
• Used to create bicycle lanes.
• Patterns of transverse markings placed across travel
paths used to help slow traffic at intersections and at
horizontal curve locations.
Design/Installation Issues:
• The materials used for markings should provide the
specified color throughout their useful life.
• Consideration should be given to selecting materials
that will minimize tripping or loss of traction for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
City of Edina Transportation Policy April 2005
APPENDIX C – APPLICATION REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN
Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan Application Form
Edina NTMP Application Form- April 2005
Contact Name:
Address:
1Day/Message Phone:
Today’s Date:
1E-mail Address:
Please indicate traffic issues that concern residents in your
neighborhood:
City of Edina Transportation Policy April 2005
APPENDIX D – ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND REFERENCES
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-1 April 2005
Acknowledgments and References
Mayor and City Council:
Mayor James Hovland
Councilmember Scot Housh
Councilmember Alice Hulbert
Councilmember Linda Masica
Councilmember Ann Swenson
Edina Transportation Commission:
Joni Kelly Bennett
Dean Dovolis
Warren Plante
Fred Richards (Chair)
Marie Thorpe
Les Wanninger
Jean White
Technical and Advisory:
City of Edina Engineering Department
City of Edina Public Works Department
City of Edina Planning Department
City of Edina Police Department
City of Edina Fire Department
City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force
Cities’ Websites:
• City of Albuquerque Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
http://www.cabq.gov/streets/policies.html
• City of Boulder Planning and Public Works
http://www3.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/
• City of Las Vegas Traffic Engineering Division
http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/public_works/
• City of Bellevue Transportation Department
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=1056
• City of Bloomington Traffic Calming Policy and Procedure Manual
http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/cityhall/commiss/ttac/calming/calming.htm
• City of Colorado Springs Traffic Engineering Management
http://www.springsgov.com/Page.asp?NavID=1397
• City of Austin Transportation Division
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/default.htm
• City of Vancouver Engineering Services
http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/engsvcs/
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-2 April 2005
• City of Gresham’s Neighborhood Traffic Control Program
http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/Gresham.pdf
• City of Portland Office of Transportation
http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Trafficcalming/how/how.htm
• City of Berkley Office of Transportation
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/transportation/
• Seattle Department of Transportation
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ntcpreports.htm
• City of Savage Traffic Safety Committee
http://www.ci.savage.mn.us/traffic_safety.html
• City of Tempe Traffic Management Program
http://www.tempe.gov/traffic/trafmgnt.htm
• City of Asheville Neighborhood Traffic Calming Policy
http://www.ci.asheville.nc.us/engineer/Trafficpolicy.pdf
• City of Honolulu Transportation Services
http://www.co.honolulu.hi.us/dts/index.htm
• City of Rochester, New York Neighborhood Traffic Calming Programs
http://www.ci.rochester.ny.us/streetcalm/index.htm
Websites:
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Traffic Calming
http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.html
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Traffic Calming
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/tcalm/
• www.Traffic Calming.org
http://www.trafficcalming.org/
• LessTraffic.com
http://www.lesstraffic.com/Programs/SR/SR.htm
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration - Roundabouts
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.pdf
• Victoria Transportation Policy Institute
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/
• Minnesota Safety Council – Crosswalk Safety
http://www.mnsafetycouncil.org/crosswalk/
• Bucknell University – Traffic Calming Measures
http://www.students.bucknell.edu/projects/trafficcalming/Measures.html
• Minnesota Department of Transportation – Pedestrian Plan
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/modes/pedplan.html
• 3 E’s of Traffic Calming
http://www.3etrafficcalming.com/
• US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration – Safety Research
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/safety.htm
City of Edina Transportation Policy D-3 April 2005
Publications and Manuals:
1) Ewing, Reid H. Traffic Calming State of the Practice. Washington, DC: Institute
of Transportation Engineers 1999.
2) City of Edina Transportation Plan. Edina, Minnesota, 1999.
3) City of Edina Local Traffic Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Edina,
Minnesota. 2003.
4) Collier County Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Collier County,
Florida.
5) Reardon, Linda. Traffic Calming – Creatively Mitigating Traffic Speeds and
Volumes. CE News. November 2001.
6) Traffic Calming, City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works Transportation
Division. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1997
7) Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming. Transportation Association
of Canada – Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers. December 1998
8) Saffel, Amy J. Effective Traffic Calming Applications and Implementations.
Minnesota Local Road Research Board. St. Paul, Minnesota, October 1998
9) Monahan, Bill. Getting People to Police Themselves. APWA Reporter. July
2004
10) Transportation Policy Plan. Metropolitan Council, Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area, Minnesota. December 1996
City of Edina Transportation Policy April 2005
APPENDIX E –FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION ROAD MAP
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: IX.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Staff Comments fo r Oc tober 2016 Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
In addition to other items of interest to the ET C, staff will update the Commission on the following topics:
2016 Neighborhood and State Aid Reconstruction P rojects
2016 Sidewalk P rojects
Date: Oc tober 27, 2016 Agenda Item #: X.A.
To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type:
Other
From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner
Item Activity:
Subject:Sc hed ule o f Meeting and Event Dates as of Octo b er
27, 2016
Info rmatio n
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
INTRODUCTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings /Dates /Events
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF OCTOBER 27, 2016
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
Thursday Oct 27 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Tuesday Nov 1 City Council Work Session: 2017 Work Plan 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Nov 17 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Dec 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jan 19 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday Feb 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Mar 16 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Apr 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Thursday May 18 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday June 15 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday July 20 Regular ETC Meeting 6:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS