HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-19 Meeting PacketAgenda
Transportation Commission
City Of Edina, Minnesota
City Hall, Community Room
Thursday, December 19, 2019
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 November 21, 2019
V.Community Comment
During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues
or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the
number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items
that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment.
Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their
comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for
consideration at a future meeting.
VI.Reports/Recommendations
A.Tra&c Safety Report of December 3, 2019
B.Draft Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS)
Fund Projects
C.Dockless Bicycle- and Scooter-Sharing Pilot Program Update
D.West 72nd Street Pedestrian Safety Assessment Engagement
Report
E.2019 Work Plan Updates
F.2020 Work Plan Review
VII.Chair And Member Comments
VIII.Sta8 Comments
IX.Calendar Of Events
A.Schedule of Upcoming Meetings and Events as of December 13,
2019
X.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public
process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli:cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: IV.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Minutes
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of November
21, 2019
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission regular meeting of November 21, 2019.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached draft minutes.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft ETC Minutes, November 21, 2019
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
Minutes
City Of Edina, Minnesota
Transportation Commission
Community Conference Room
November 21, 2019
I. Call To Order
Chair Richman called the meeting to order
II. Roll Call
Answering roll call were Commissioners Ahler, Erickson, Johnson, Kane, McCarthy, Olson, Plumb-Smith,
Richman, Ruthruff, Scherer, Venell
III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda
Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve
the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried.
IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes
Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Plumb-Smith
approving the October 24, 2019 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried.
V. Community Comment
None.
VI. Reports/Recommendations
A. Proposed 2020 Regular Meeting Dates
Commissioners reviewed the proposed meeting dates for 2020 and updated the April meeting date to
the 16th.
Motion was made by Commissioner Olson and seconded by Commissioner Ruthruff to
approve the updated 2020 Regular Meeting Dates. All voted aye. Motion carried
B. 2019 Work Plan Updates
• #1 New draft of TDM complete and a meeting has been scheduled for November 26th
to discuss with developers.
• #2 is complete.
• #3 An article was submitted to the Edina Sun Current and published in the November
21, 2019 print.
• #4 CloverRide North Loop grand opening was November 15th.
• #5 A presentation from staff will occur during the December 19th meeting.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
• #6 Work group sent a note to the Mayor and City Council to discontinue moving
forward with AARP designation.
• #7 Not moving forward.
C. 2020 Work Plan Proposal/Work Session Follow Up
Staff presented the City Managers comments to the 2020 Work Plan Proposal and selected lead
commisionsers.
• #1 Lead commissioner: Erik Ruthruff
• #2 Lead commissioner: Lori Richman
• #3 Lead commissioners: Bruce McCarthy and Kirk Johnson
• #4 Lead commissioners: Bocar Kane and Jill Plumb-Smith
• #5 Lead commissioner: Mindy with the help of student commissioners
• #6 No lead needed
• #7 No lead needed
VII. Chair and Member Comments
Commissioner Olson was contacted by Robert Have about his traffic safety request from the September 19,
2019 meeting and he was wondering if there had been a resolution.
Commisioner Johnson stated that a resident asked about adding a roundabout at Vernon & Hansen and
what would need to happen to make that a reality.
Commissioner Ahler said that the Morningside Neighborhood is circulating a petition for a crosswalk on
France Avenue at W 42nd Street.
Commissioner Richman shared an article about a group of cyclists that traveled to Minneapolis from
Pennnyslvania to learn more about how the City of Minneapolis was able to incorporate their bike-friendly
infrastructure so quickly. She also wondered how Edina could become more bike-friendly sooner rather
than later.
VIII. Staff Comments
• Metro Transit is recommending the France Avenue alignment for the E-Line bus rapid
transit (BRT) service. The Metropolitan Council will consider adopting this
recommendation in January 2020.
• Wooddale and Valley View traffic signal is up and running.
• Grandview/Melody Lake Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction is postponed until
2021.
• City Council Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing will be December 3, 2019.
• Tara Brown has requested comments to the Pollution Control Agency on greenhouse
gas emmissions and the possibility of Minnesota adopting the standards of California;
comments are due December 6th, 2019.
Draft Minutes☒
Approved Minutes☐
Approved Date:
IX. Schedule of Meeting and Events as of November 15, 2019
For information purposes only, no discussion.
X. Adjournment at 7:15 p.m.
Motion was made by Commissioner Olson and seconded by Commissioner JOhnson to
adjourn the November 21, 2019 meeting. All voted Aye. Motion Carried.
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE
J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance %
Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
NAME
Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73%
Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 100%
Kane, Bocar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91%
McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73%
Olson, Larry 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73%
Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 86%
Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 91%
Ruthruff, Erik 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 100%
Scherer, Matthew 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 73%
Veluvali, Shankar 1 RESIGNED 1 N/A
Emmanual Ayelomi (s) 1 1 9%
Yeukai Zimbwa (s) 0 0%
Tayden Erickson (s) 1 1 2 67%
Simon Venell 1 1 2 67%
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Traffic Safety Report of December 3, 2019 Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and comment on the Traffic Safety Report of December 3, 2019.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached staff report. An overview of comments received from the Transportation Commission will be
included in the staff report provided to City Council at the January 7 regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Traffic Safety Report of December 3, 2019
December 19, 2019
Transportation Commission
Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator
Traffic Safety Report of December 3, 2019
Information / Background:
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on December 3. The Traffic
Safety Coordinator, City Engineer, Traffic Safety Specialist, Transportation Planner, Public Works Director
and Assistant City Planner were in attendance for this meeting. The Police Lieutenant was not able to
attend, but was informed of the decisions and had no objections to the recommendations.
On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been
discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional
facts to present, these comments can be included on the December 19 Transportation Commission and the
January 7 City Council meeting agendas.
Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action
A1. Request for additional warning signage when approaching Valley View Rd and Mildred Ave
• Two residents contacted Traffic Safety
following two crashes at this intersection in
November following a snow/ice event.
• This neighborhood was reconstructed in
2017.
• Two additional crashes occurred in
November 2018.
• This intersection has a near 90-degree angle
• No horizontal alignment signs are present;
directional arrow signs are present
Staff recommends installing horizontal alignment signs with advisory speed placards on
Valley View Rd and Mildred Ave approaching the 90-degree turn. These signs will further
alert drivers of the sharp curve and advise them to lower their speeds.
Valley View Rd and Mildred Ave
STAFF REPORT Page 2
A2. Review the use of a No Trucks sign on Hilary Lane
• ADT on Hilary Ln is 3,330; combined traffic
with 2+ axles is 589.
• Sign was installed in 2006.
• Sign was intended to alert truck drivers to
low vertical clearance of the Braemar Golf
Course bridge (15’ 0”).
Staff recommends replacing this sign with low
clearance warning signs. More signs will be
installed throughout the City approaching bridges
with low clearance to inform truck drivers.
Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action
B1. Review resident feedback on two-sided parking on Sunnyside Rd
• A drunk driver caused a recent accident on
Sunnyside Rd resulting in property damage.
• Sunnyside Rd was reconstructed in 2016
with narrowed streets and curb extensions
for traffic calming.
• 2017 data shows ADT and 85% speed is
2,435 and 30.3 mph, respectively.
• Parking is currently restricted on the south
side of Sunnyside Rd.
• Residents received a letter asking for
feedback regarding the option of adding two-
sided parking to study speed impacts.
• Residential feedback was strongly against
allowing two-sided parking.
Staff recommends not testing two-sided parking along Sunnyside Rd due to the significant
resident opposition. Based on the traffic data, staff believes further action is not warranted.
B2. Request to extend centerline striping along Valley View Rd east of Tracy Ave
• Resident is concerned with northbound
traffic on Tracy Ave turning right onto Valley
View Rd and traveling into the westbound
lane (oncoming traffic).
• Valley View Rd was reconstructed in 2017.
• This section of Valley View Rd narrows from
33’ wide at Tracy Ave to 24’ wide further
east.
• 2014 ADT on Valley View was 2,800.
• Centerline striping was present prior to the
reconstruction project.
Staff recommends not extending the centerline striping on Valley View Rd. The previous
striping existing because Valley View Rd was designated as a Municipal State Aid route
(revoked in 2014). No crashes have occurred since 2017, and staff believes extending the
striping will encourage faster speeds.
Sunnyside Rd
Valley View Rd east of Tracy Ave
No Trucks sign along Hilary Ln
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Section D: Other traffic safety items handled
D1. A submission was received regarding the visibility of a stop sign for southbound traffic on Gleason Rd at
Indian Hills Pass. The City Forester was informed of this concern and removed branches that may have
hindered visibility.
D2. A request was made for the traffic signal at W 70th St and Cornelia Dr to automatically prompt the
“Walk” sign to lower wait times for crossing pedestrians. Staff recommends no changes as automatic
pedestrian signals will lead to increased vehicle delays on W 70th St at times when no pedestrians are
present. Push buttons are present to allow pedestrians a cycle to cross.
D3. A submission was made to restrict e-scooters use at Centennial Lakes Park due to safety and aesthetic
concerns. In response to the safety concerns, staff required Lime to install a geofence over the park. All
devices have since been collected for winter storage.
D4. A resident inquired about the purpose of the curb extensions on Xerxes Ave north of Highway 62. The
resident was informed of the recent Hennepin County project where these were installed.
D5. Two online submissions were received about excessive speed on W 44th St. Speed data was collected in
August 2019 and showed an 85% speed of 30.5 mph. Given these speeds, no action is recommended.
D6. A request was submitted to remove a large pile of leaves in the road on W 78th St near Delaney Blvd.
Public Works was contacted and moved the pile of leaves from the road into the adjacent yard.
D7. A submission was made regarding traffic signal timing on W 77th St between Highway 100 and
Computer Ave. This was forwarded to the appropriate staff for corrective action.
D8. Many concerns were submitted regarding increased traffic in the Presidents neighborhood due to the
adjacent Southwest LRT project. Concerns included increased truck traffic and vehicles failing to obey stop
signs. No official detours ran through Edina other than Metro Transit’s bus service. EPD was consider
patrolling the all-way stop intersections in the neighborhood during the evening rush hour.
D9. Parking concerns were submitted along W 44th St, Abbott Ave and near the intersection of Tracy Ave
and Warden Ave. Specific concerns included obstructed pedestrian access, illegal overnight parking and
obstructed vehicle sightlines. EPD was informed of each concern and the issues were resolved.
D10. A request was made for traffic calming on Arden Ave. Arden has a width of 24’ and one-sided parking.
85% speed data was collected at 27.9 mph. Given these speeds, no action is recommended.
D11. Five requests have been submitted regarding the safety at the intersection of Tracy Ave and Highway
62. This request was reviewed in 2017 and the concern was sent to MnDOT with collected turn counts for
review. Any changes made to this intersection require MnDOT approval as they may impact highway traffic
operations.
D12. Two requests were forwarded to Hennepin County. One request was made to restrict on-street
parking on France Ave between Market St and W 49th St. The main concern is regarding sight lines at the
exit of the parking lot from Walgreens onto France. The second request was to add crosswalk signage at
the intersection of W 44th St and France Ave.
D13. A request was made for a traffic signal at the intersection of West Shore Dr and W 66th St. The
resident was concerned with the level of safety when attempting to turn onto W 66th St during the evening
rush hour. Traffic data was reviewed and staff determined no warrents for traffic signals were met.
STAFF REPORT Page 4
D14. A request was made to add all-way stop controls on W 42nd St to help calm traffic. No action is
recommended as City practice is not to install stop signs to calm traffic. Studies show more stop controls
actually result in increased vehicle speeds, as drivers attempt to make up for the time lost at the stop
control.
D15. Three concernes were raised regarding Brookview Ave north of Pamela Park. Concerns include
vehicles speeding on Brookview Ave to pick-up/drop-off park-goers and safety regarding the allowance of
two-sided parking. Staff recommends no changes as the two-sided parking provides traffic calming and a sign
at the entrance to Brookview Ave directs drivers to access the park further east via a separate driveway.
D16. A request was made to add a stop sign for southbound traffic on Wooddale Ave at Garrison Ln due to
a resident’s perspective of vehicles not advancing through the intersection safely. Staff recommends no
action as a stop contol is unwarranted at this location and could lead to a false sense of security.
D17. A request was made for traffic calming on Valley View Rd between Normandale Rd and Highway 62
and an all-way stop at Concord Ave. Fog lines were installed along Valley View Rd following the recent
overlay in an attempt to reduce speeds by narrowing the travel lanes. An all-way stop at Valley View Rd and
Concord Ave is not recommended as it does not meet necessary warrants.
D18. A request was made for traffic calming on northbound Normandale Rd between W 70th St and W 66th
St. ADT and 85th percentile speeds were measured at 2,138 and 35.6 mph, respectively. Staff may consider
implementing pedestrian or bicycle facilities on this street as part of the overlay scheduled for 2021 in an
effort to reduce vehicle speeds (a sidewalk is recommended by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan).
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.B.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Draft Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety
(PACS) Fund Projects
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and comment on proposed equity criteria for the City's Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached draft criteria and supporting documents.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft PACS Equity Criteria
Race and Equity Working Group Recommendation
Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
Facility Recommended in ARTS Score Population/Acre Score
Yes 5 More than 6.0 5
No 0 3.5 - 6.0 3
Source: Staff Less than 3.5 0
Number of Adjacent Facilities Score
2 or more 5 % of Population Under 18 or Over 65 Score
1 3 More than XX 5
0 0 XX - XX 3
Source: Staff Less than XX 0
Transit Stop/Route Score
<0.25 mi 5 % of Population Non-White Score
0.25-0.50 mi 3 More than XX 5
> 0.50 mi 0 XX - XX 3
Source: Metro Transit Less than XX 0
City Park Score Source: American Community Survey?
<0.25 mi 5 Received Petition in Favor of Facility Score
0.25-0.50 mi 3 Yes 5
> 0.50 mi 0 No 0
Source: Staff
Non-Residential District Score
<0.25 mi 5
0.25-0.50 mi 3 Maintenance Activity in 5-Year CIP Score
> 0.50 mi 0 Reconstruction 10
Source: Staff Overlay 7
Seal Coat 5
None 0
Source: Staff
Opportunity₂ for Additional Funding Score
Yes 5
No 0
Source: Staff
Equity Criteria for Pedestrian and Cyclist (PACS) Fund Project Scheduling [DRAFT]
60 Possible Points
₂ Cost Sharing opportunities may include Municipal State Aid
funding, grants or gifts
₁ "Facilities" refers to pedestriain and/or bicycle
infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, paths/trails)
Population
Density
Source: American Community Survey?
Race
Source: Staff
Connections
to Other
Facilities₁
Proximity to
Amenities
Age
Density
Source: American Community Survey?
Cost Chacteristics - 15 Possible Points
Proactive
Pavement
Management
Program
Cost
Sharing
Community Characteristics - 20 Possible PointsNeighborhood Characteristics - 25 Possible Points
Resident
Support
Active Routes
to School
Plan
.
July 19, 2017
Criteria Based System for MPRB
Regional Park and Trail
Capital Project Scheduling
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
1
Background
Beginning with the 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), MPRB used equity-driven metrics for
selecting projects in neighborhood parks. This process was driven by the 20 Year Neighborhood Parks
Funding Plan and its associated ordinance requirements.
Across the 19 Regional Parks and Trails owned, managed, and/or overseen by MPRB, projects have been
historically selected based on known facility needs and a general investment in parks on a repeating
cycle. This has led to some inequity in historic investment in certain parks, and also does not take
community characteristics into account. Therefore, beginning with the 2018-2023 CIP MPRB is seeking
to create a similar but distinct set of equity metrics for selecting regional park projects.
This effort—like the one for neighborhood parks put in place the previous year—is meant to quantifiably
evaluate regional parks and trails, and ensure that investments are equitably targeted and support the
MPRB’s Comprehensive Plan with particular focus on the Comprehensive Plan’s Theme 3: Dynamic Parks
That Shape City Character and Meet Diverse Community Needs. The criteria are a combination of
community and park asset characteristics using multiple data sources. Regional park and trail properties
that rank high according to the criteria are prioritized for investment.
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
2
Community
Characteristics
•Racially Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
•Park Access
•Neighborhood Safety
Park
Characteristics
•Historic Investment
•Use Intensity
•ADA Considerations
•Natural Resources
•Trail Quality
Regional Park
and Trail
Capital
Project
Selection
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
3
Building Equity into Park and Trail Investments:
The investment of large amounts of funding for capital and major rehabilitation projects into public
amenities and infrastructure is something that should be done with clear guidelines for how projects are
selected and prioritized over other, also important projects. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation
Board, in allocating public money for rehabilitation and replacement of park amenities and facilities has
selected the following criteria to guide the rehabilitation and capital improvement program of regional
parks and trails across Minneapolis.
How This Works:
Each of the 19 regional park properties in Minneapolis was classified as to whether it is an existing part
of the regional park and trail system or whether it is an “opportunity facility.” Opportunity facilities are
those that are not yet substantially connected into the regional park system, either because of limited
land control by MPRB, or because of incomplete pedestrian and bicycle connections to and between
other regional facilities. These Regional Opportunity Facilities (ROFs) will see allocations each year until
they can be considered part of the existing system, under specific criteria unique to each ROF.
The remaining parks—those that are part of the existing system—were given an objective score for each
of the following Community and Park Characteristics criteria. Community Characteristics were
determined relative to all the community areas a park or trail touches. Park Characteristics focus on the
attributes of the park itself. Community Characteristics have a higher collective point total because
investment priority is most critical in areas where overall community need is greatest.
Criteria Categories Maximum Possible Points
Community Characteristics [12 of 23 Total]
Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty 5
Park Access 5
Neighborhood Safety 2
Park Characteristics [11 of 23 Total]
Historic Investment / Acre 3
Use Intensity 2
Asset Condition: ADA Considerations 2
Asset Condition: Natural Resources 2
Asset Condition: Trail Quality 2
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
4
Community Characteristics:
These criteria are selected to help ensure that MPRB prioritizes parks with a focus on racial and
economic equity.
1. Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty [5 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: Areas of concentrated poverty are census tracts where more than 40% of the
population has a family income below 185% of the federal poverty threshold. Racially Concentrated
Areas of Poverty (RCAPs) are defined as Areas of Concentrated Poverty where more than 50% of the
residents are people of color. This measure is identical to the Metropolitan Council’s “Areas of
Concentrated Poverty where 50% or more of residents are people of color (ACP50).” Regional parks, in
contrast to neighborhood parks, are so large they may not always lie within RCAPs. In addition, some
regional parks touch the edge of an RCAP while existing largely outside of them. For this reason, scoring
under this metric for regional parks and trails is based on whether a regional park or trail is
SIGNIFICANTLY ASSOCIATED with a particular RCAP or ACP50. Due to the large size of many regional
parks and trails, this metric takes into account the overall community character in close proximity to
that park or trail, rather than limiting it to whether it happens to touch an RCAP or ACP.
The following chart identifies each park and its associated RCAP or ACP. Significant association means
that the park either has broad overlap with an RCAP/ACP or has extensive frontage on an RCAP/ACP.
Regional Park RCAP ACP
Above the Falls N/A: ROF N/A: ROF
Cedar Lake Trail None None
Central Mississippi None None
Columbia Parkway None Northeast Minneapolis
Grand Rounds Missing Link N/A: ROF N/A: ROF
Kenilworth Trail None None
Luce Line Trail North Minneapolis North Minneapolis
Minneapolis Chain-of-Lakes None None
Minnehaha Park None None
Minnehaha Parkway Trail None None
Mississippi Gorge South Minneapolis South Minneapolis
Nokomis-Hiawatha None None
North Mississippi North Minneapolis North Minneapolis
Northeast Diagonal None Northeast Minneapolis
Ridgway Parkway None Northeast Minneapolis
Shingle Creek Trail North Minneapolis North Minneapolis
St. Anthony Parkway None Northeast Minneapolis
Theodore Wirth Park North Minneapolis North Minneapolis
Victory/Wirth Memorial Parkway North Minneapolis North Minneapolis
ROF = Regional Opportunity Facility
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
5
RCAP 1. WEIGHT
Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty 5
Area of Concentrated Poverty 3
Neither 0
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 Year Estimate
for 2009-2013.
Why this is important: Residents who live in poverty often have less access to open space and recreation
options and are more likely to experience a variety of chronic health problems, some of which are
impacted by their physical environment. In addition, communities of color and areas of poverty often
experience a lack of public and private investment relative to other areas. Finally, individuals who live in
poverty are less likely to have access to private transportation which means that regional parks in closer
proximity to them can provide more benefit by being readily accessible. In building a more equitable
park system, it is important for the MPRB to target investment of public funds into parks in areas with
concentrations of people of color and low-income households.
NOTE: The Metropolitan Council has ceased using the term “RCAP” based on feedback from the
community, instead using the term “areas of concentrated poverty where more than half of residents are
people of color” or “ACP50.” The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) still uses
the RCAP term, however, and it was used by MPRB in the neighborhood equity metrics. Staff is still
discussing this nomenclature and is using RCAP for the time being for consistency with the neighborhood
metrics.
2. Access [5 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: This metric is an average of a park’s ease of access by three modes: walking, transit,
and automobile. A park is scored on each mode on a zero-three-five scale, then the park’s three scores
are averaged. Data is not currently available for effectively measuring bike access.
• Walking Access: the population within ½ mile of a park, regardless of city boundaries.
½ MILE WALKSHED POPULATION SCORE
More than 40,000 5
20,000 to 40,000 3
Less than 20,000 0
Data source: 2016 Population Estimates-ACS Community Survey
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
6
• Transit Access: the number of transit (bus and rail) stations immediately adjacent to or within a
park.
NUMBER OF TRANSIT STOPS SCORE
20 or more 5
10 to 19 3
9 or less 0
Data source: Metro Transit system maps analyzed by MPRB staff
• Vehicle Access: the number of MPRB parking spaces per acre of parkland, including off-street
MPRB lots and on-street parkway parking. This measure does not include on-street parking
around a park or trail.
PARKING SPACES/ACRE SCORE
More than 3 5
1.5 to 3 3
Less than 1.5 0
Data source: MPRB
Why this is important: Ability to access regional parks is regularly cited as a significant barrier to park
use. However, the mode by which people access parks is not related to race or economic factors.
According to Metropolitan Council studies, people of color are just as likely to arrive to a park by car as
by transit or on foot. Therefore, parks should be considered for their overall accessibility by a variety of
modes. The easier it is to get to a park by any mode, the more benefit the park provides to underserved
populations.
3. Neighborhood Safety [2 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: The Minneapolis Police Department reports crimes against persons data, which
includes the offenses of Criminal Homicide, Forcible Rape, and Aggravated Assault. Data is reported at
the neighborhood level. This measure looks at all the neighborhoods in which a park sits and then
determining the total number of crimes per 1000 people.
Crimes against persons/1000 people 4. WEIGHT
>10.0 / 1000 2
4.1-9.99 / 1000 1
< 4.0 / 1000 0
Data source: Minneapolis Police Department –
Uniform Crime Reporting Program data
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
7
Why this is important: Metropolitan Council studies suggest that most people, regardless of economic or
ethnic background, feel safe in regional parks. However, another Met Council study found that non-
users of regional parks who are people of color consider park safety to be a barrier to park use. Keeping
parks and park and recreation facilities safe is critical to community wellness. Developing and
maintaining safe access to nature is important to building and sustaining strong neighborhoods and
healthy populations. In those areas where crime in neighborhoods is higher or more reported, more
investment should be made in parks to ensure they can be safe havens for community gathering,
recreation, and respite.
Regional Park and Trail Characteristics:
For this group of metrics, MPRB analyzed assets within each park and trail to identify the highest priority
parks and trails for investment. Factors considered include historic investment in a park or trail, which
can provide a window into the overall quality of park and trail facilities; the intensity of use of a park or
trail, which can suggest the likely wear and tear on facilities; and three specific asset condition metrics.
Unlike with neighborhood parks, which are composed mainly of built assets like pools and playgrounds
and buildings, the primary purposes of regional facilities are to provide protection of natural resources
and access to nature-based recreation. In addition, assets in regional parks and trails are often far flung,
difficult to comprehensively assess, and include natural resources that require very different
consideration than built assets. Therefore, instead of a single overall asset condition ranking (as was
done for neighborhood parks), these metrics include three, which together provide a general picture of
the quality of the most important assets in a regional park: the degree to which the park or trail is
accessible to people of all ability levels, the quality of natural resources, and the quality of trails—the
most used facility in the regional system.
4. Historic Investment [3 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: This measure is calculated as the amount of capital invested since 2000 relative to
the acreage of the park or trail. Unlike the neighborhood metrics, overall built asset value is not used as
an equalizer between parks because it is impossible to quantify a regional park’s total asset value once
natural resources are taken into account. Regional parks, however, vary widely in size, so this measure
is used to create consistency between parks. In other words, we need to identify parks where the least
ongoing capital investment has been made over the last 16 years, relative to the park’s size, and
prioritize those parks for new investment.
INVESTMENT/ACRE 4. WEIGHT
Up to $10,000 3
$10,001 to $50,000 2
$50,000 to $100,000 1
More than $100,000 0
Data Source: MPRB Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
8
Why this is important: Measuring previous investments in existing park and trail assets is an important
way to identify parks and trails that have historically received lower levels of investment. Parks where a
smaller dollar-per-acre amount has been invested since 2000 are much more likely to be due for
significant reinvestment. The per acre criteria captures MPRB’s history of investment and is a good
approximation of where additional investment is needed by highlighting regional parks and trails that
have received lower levels of investment between 2000 and 2016. This category is given a moderate
priority of 3 possible points, with parks that have received lower historic proportionate investment
receiving higher points.
5. Intensity of Use [2 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: This measure looks at visitor count data and divides that number by a park or trail’s
acreage. A very large park with moderate use may not, therefore, see the same intensity as a small park
with moderate use. Those parks with the highest intensity of use receive more points.
VISITS PER ACRE 5. WEIGHT
More than 20,000 2
5,000 to 20,000 1
Less than 5,000 0
Data source: Metropolitan Council Annual Regional Park Visitor Counts
Why this is important: How often a park is visited has much to do with the likely quality of its facilities.
More visitors translates to more wear and tear and a greater need for investment. Intensity of use is a
general stand-in for overall facility quality and can suggest which facilities may be declining in quality.
6. Asset Condition: ADA Considerations [2 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: Using the MPRB’s Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan, this
measure considers the total cost of resolving identified ADA considerations. Those parks with farther to
go toward compliance receive more points, in recognition of the likely older, possibly more worn
character of facilities in the park. However, there is no current ADA standard for accessible trails; thus,
the Transition Plan did not evaluate them. Therefore, Regional Trails all receive the same standard
weight, in the middle of the spectrum, at “1.” The reason for this is that though the trails themselves
have no standard and are therefore technically compliant, it is likely that many curb cuts, pedestrian
ramps, benches, drinking fountains, and other associated assets have compliance issues. This measure
makes the assumption that Regional Trails have less work to do toward compliance, but still have ADA
considerations to be taken into account.
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
9
ESTIMATED COST OF
IMPROVEMENTS
6. WEIGHT
Parks more than $200,000 2
Parks from $100,000 to $200,000 1
All Regional Trails 1
Parks less than $100,000 0
Data source: MPRB ADA Transition Plan
Why this is important: Considering ADA compliance is important for two reasons. First, ensuring that
people of all abilities can access regional parks and trails creates equity across the system. Second, parks
that are less compliant with ADA likely have older assets that have not been updated in some time. ADA
considerations, then, are a stand-in for overall asset quality in parks. Parks with greater need in terms of
achieving ADA compliance likely have greater need for improvement in general.
7. Asset Condition: Natural Resources [2 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: This metric is an average of a park’s or trail’s natural resource quality and
importance under three factors: remnant native plant communities, tree canopy, and water quality. A
park is scored on each factor on a two-point scale, then the three scores are averaged. Facilities
without water resources only have two scores averaged. Unlike other condition metrics, which give
higher scores to poorer condition, the natural resources score does the opposite. When it comes to
natural resources, it is most important to protect those areas of highest quality before restoring new
areas. To lose, say, Eloise Butler Wildflower Garden would be more egregious than to never restore
Above the Falls riverine habitat.
• Remnant Native Plant Communities: presence or absence of remnant native plant communities
in a park
REMNANT NATIVE PLANT
COMMUNITIES
SCORE
Present in park 2
Not present in park 0
Data source: MPRB Comprehensive Plan
• Tree Canopy: percent of park rated with “good” tree canopy quality
% GOOD TREE CANOPY SCORE
Greater than 50% 2
25% to 50% 1
Less than 25% 0
Data source: MPRB Forestry Department
DRAFT Criteria Based System for MPRB Regional Park and Trail Capital Project Scheduling
10
• Water Quality: based on trophic state index (TSI) rating, or, where TSI is unavailable, the number
of total impairments
TSI RATING SCORE
Good 2
Fair 1
Poor 0
Data source: MPRB Environmental Management Department
Why this is important: Natural resources and nature-based recreation is the primary purpose of the
regional park system and goes back to the system’s founding in 1974. As the “State Parks of the Metro,”
Regional Parks and Trails provide large-scale opportunities to interact with natural environments. It is
therefore critical to consider this factor as a measure of park need.
8. Asset Condition: Trail Quality [2 Possible Points out of Possible 23 Total Points]
About the measure: This measure considers the overall average trail condition in each park. Parks with
poorer trails get more points.
AVERAGE TRAIL QUALITY 8. WEIGHT
Low 2
Moderate 1
High 0
Data source: Trail pavement condition index prepared by
MPRB Planning staff
Why this is important: Trails are the most heavily used asset in regional parks and trails, according to
user surveys. Therefore, the overall trail condition will have impact on peoples’ choice of and number of
visits to parks.
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.C.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Dockless Bicycle- and Scooter-Sharing Pilot Program
Update
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and comment on the City's dockless bicycle- and scooter-sharing pilot program and staff's
recommendations regarding future service.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report: Dockless Bicycle- and Scooter-Sharing Pilot Program Update
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
December 19, 2019
Transportation Commission
Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Dockless Bicycle- and Scooter-Sharing Pilot Program Update
Review and comment on the City’s bicycle- and scooter-sharing pilot program and staff’s
recommendations related to future service
Information / Background:
Given the recent emergence of bicycle- and scooter-sharing (also known as micro-mobility) services within
the Twin Cities, Edina conducted a two-year pilot program with the goal of understanding how such services
would function within the City. This program was implemented through Memorandums of Understanding
(MOUs) with service provider Lime that allowed use of the public right-of-way for distribution and
operation of micro-mobility devices (a combination of standard pedal-assist bicycles and electric foot
scooters). At the time this program was launched, the City understood that micro-mobility services have
the potential to significantly contribute to the City’s long-term transportation goals, by;
- Improving multi-modal mobility for residents, visitors and businesses
- Minimizing the environmental impacts of transportation by promoting modes that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
- Reducing overall dependence on and use of single-occupancy motor vehicles
- Supporting connections to transit services
The initial MOU was effective from June to December of 2018, though initial deployment of mobility devices
did not occur until August. Due to this limited window of observation, staff recommended continuing the
pilot program for another year by entering into a second MOU with Lime (effective March 2019 through
March 2020). Below is a brief summary of staff’s observations and experiences during this pilot program.
Industry Change
When this subject was original presented to City Council in April 2018, the focus was solely on bicycle-
sharing programs, as this industry comprised the majority of the micro-mobility market at the time. By the
end of 2018, the popularity of e-scooters had grown dramatically. Following this national trend, Lime
introduced e-scooters into Edina in late September of 2018 to compliment their fleet of standard bicycles.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2
The resulting data paralleled the national trend; 1,300 bicycle trips were taken over a 16-week deployment
while 1,900 e-scooter trips were taken over an 8-week deployment. By early 2019, Lime and many other
service providers had publicly announced a shift in their business models away from bicycle-sharing and
towards increased deployment of e-scooters. At the time Edina entered into the second MOU, the City had
permitted Lime to deploy a mix of bicycles and e-scooters. Lime subsequently expressed their intention to
only deploy e-scooters within the City.
Regulatory Difficulties
In the initial year of the pilot, regulating the use of micro-mobility devices was relatively simple because the
majority were standard bicycles and subject to the same local and state regulations as privately-owned
bicycles. Bicycles are generally permitted on roadways, bike lanes, trails and sidewalks with a few minor
exceptions (e.g., users must yield to pedestrians present on sidewalks). State legislation, however, puts more
strict regulations on users of e-scooters (referred to as “motorized foot scooters” in statute language). E-
scooters are generally given all of the same rights applicable to bicycles with a key exception that they
cannot be operated on sidewalks. Additionally, users must be at least 12 years of age and must wear
protective headgear if under 18 years of age. While the MOU requires Lime to “encourage appropriate user
behavior by providing customer education materials that, at a minimum, require users to acknowledge
applicable Minnesota Law,” staff received complaints reflecting inappropriate user behavior. The City is
unable to completely ensure compliance with state regulations at the current staffing level.
Insufficient Infrastructure
Since e-scooters are not permitted on sidewalks, the require an adequate network of bicycle facilities. While
the City has made great strides in the last decade to improve its bicycle network, it still lags behind micro-
mobility epicenters like Minneapolis and St. Paul (which boast 244 and 189 miles, respectively, compared to
Edina’s 50). Between this lack of infrastructure and the desire to separate from motor vehicles, users
typically resort to illegally riding on sidewalks because this is where they feel the most comfortable.
Common Concerns
It is difficult for staff to accurately state the number of complaints received regarding Lime bicycles and e-
scooters because they were received through multiple channels (direct correspondence with the
Engineering, Public Works, Parks or Police Departments, indirect correspondence received through
reception and complaints made directly to Lime). Lime’s 2018 usage report showed 49 complaints received,
and data from 2019 is not available yet. Complaints received by Lime primarily related to parking of devices
and reports of damaged/broken devices.
Complaints received by the City generally fell into one of three categories; Safety, Usage and Aesthetics.
Safety – Concerns were raised for both e-scooter operators and for the general traveling public. In
the case of e-scooter operators, many residents shared anecdotes of observing users failing to utilize
protective headgear, failing to yield to pedestrians, or disregarding applicable traffic laws. Some residents
also reported suspected underage users, but the City is unable to verify such claims. Inappropriate parking of
devices was also a common complaint, whether that meant devices were obstructing pedestrian or motor
vehicle traffic or that devices were parked on private property. All complaints which violated the terms of
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3
the MOU were advanced to Lime’s local representative for corrective action. The Edina Police Department
has not received any accident reports or issued any citations involving e-scooters.
Usage – Some concerns related to the general usage of e-scooters. Though micro-mobility devices
are mainly intended to replace single-occupancy trips or provide last-mile connections to and from transit
facilities, much of the usage in Edina is recreational in nature. This is demonstrated by the prevalence of
usage in areas including the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, Centennial Lakes Park and the Promenade. To
address safety concerns, staff directed Lime to discontinue deployment of devices to Centennial Lakes Park
and the Promenade per the terms of the MOU. Additionally, staff directed Lime to install a geofence around
these areas to prohibit users from parking devices within the parks.
Aesthetics – Throughout the course of the two-year pilot, residents also expressed general
dissatisfaction with seeing e-scooters and bikes parked in residential areas. Even when devices were parked
in accordance with the requirements of the MOU, some residents still requested them to be relocated away
from their properties or their neighborhoods. Approximately 35% of the complaints reported to Lime in
2018 were of this type, referred to as “unfounded” parking complaints.
Staff Recommendations
At this time, for the reasons listed above, there does not seem to be sufficient resident support to continue
authorizing micro-mobility service, nor does staff believe such services provide significant benefit to the city.
It is recommended to allow the current MOU with Lime to expire in March 2020 and not to renew for
another year. Staff does not believe that the current demand in Edina is sufficient to attract other service
providers in the near future.
It is important for the City to acknowledge that though micro-mobility service may not be appropriate for
Edina at present, such services are expected to continue to be provided in neighboring communities and
across the country. Because a time may come when micro-mobility service is more suitable for the City,
staff will take the following actions;
1. Continue to engage with adjacent municipalities to keep informed of administrative and
regulatory practices for micro-mobility providers
2. Continue to monitor regional and national trends in micro-mobility
3. Continue to implement bicycle infrastructure as recommended by the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Master Plan, as these facilities can also be utilized by e-scooters
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.D.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Report and Recommendation
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:West 72nd Street Pedestrian Safety Assessment
Engagement Report
Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Review and comment on the West 72nd Street Pedestrian Safety Assessment engagement report.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
West 72nd Street Pedestrian Safety Assessment Engagement Report
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 1
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
REPORT
PROJECT: WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Date: December 19, 2019
ENGAGEMENT PLAN
DECISION TO BE MADE
- Determine if intersection improvements are warranted on West 72nd Street
- Project Decision: Staff will make a recommendation to City Council
PROJECT TIMELINE
- April – May 2019
o Gathered information on Better Together
- Council decision November 19, 2019
o Amended to January 7, 2020 to allow for data analysis and Transportation Commission input
PARTICIPATON LEVEL
INVOLVE
- Goal: We will work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and
aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
- Promise: We will work to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the
alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.
PROCESS
1. Concept Development
2. Testing/Data Collection
3. Data Analysis
4. Recommendation
5. Close the Loop
STAKEHOLDERS
- Residents in South Cornelia neighborhood - Edina Public Schools
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 2
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Staff has received many concerns over the years about pedestrian safety along West 72nd Street, particularly at the
intersections of Cornelia Drive and Oaklawn Avenue. In order to better understand these concerns, staff planned
to work with residents in the South Cornelia neighborhood to develop a trial assessment of safety improvements
that could be implemented at these intersections.
The City’s public engagement followed protocols developed by the International Association for Public
Participation. Better Together Edina, the City’s online engagement platform, allowed residents to participate in the
process online the same way individuals participate at in-person meetings. The website allowed residents to join
forum discussions, provide feedback, ask questions and stay up-to-date the project.
The following report includes online and in-person feedback together to show all input was equally valuable. The
final recommendations were influenced by the feedback received as well as the traffic data collected.
BETTER TOGETHER EDINA PROJECT PAGE
Aug 30
- Site Visits: 639
- Aware Visitors: 435
- Informed Visitors: 242
- Engaged Visitors: 24
Oct 31
- Site Visits: 1.1K
- Aware Visitors: 726
- Informed Visitors: 369
- Engaged Visitors: 67
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
Stage Techniques Measures
1 Concept Development - Online Forum - 57 visitors
- 13 contributors
2a Testing/Data Collection
(Temporary Pavement Markings)
- Online Survey - 139 visitors
- 42 contributors
- Pop-Up Meeting - 12 visitors
- 5 contributors
2b Testing/Data Collection
(Temporary Delineators)
- Online Survey - 34 visitors
- 19 contributors
- Pop-Up Meeting - 25 visitors
- 5 contributors
INPUT
The public input process was designed around answering the following question;
1. Do curb extensions (striped or physical) improve pedestrian safety at the intersections of Cornelia Drive
and/or Oaklawn Avenue?
Scope of Project – During this process, the public can influence the final decision around design concepts which
will increase pedestrian safety.
Out of Scope Elements – Increased enforcement/police presence, increased signage, additional pedestrian/bicycle
facilities, additional stop signs
Legal or Technical Requirements – The project must meet Watershed District, City of Edina and other regulatory
minimum design standards.
Other Considerations – Collected traffic data, Pedestrian Crossing Policy, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan,
Living Streets Plan
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 3
STAGES OF PARTICIPATION
STAGE 1: CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY
Public engagement for the project began in March 2019. Staff began by soliciting feedback from residents in the
neighborhood about these two intersections through Better Together Edina. The goal was to determine if the City
could perform a short-term test of a temporary improvement and study its efficacy. The questions asked were:
1. Tell us about your experiences using West 72nd Street as a pedestrian or bicyclist.
2. What improvements do you think could be made to enhance pedestrian safety at the intersections of
Cornelia Avenue and/or Oaklawn Avenue?
The table below provides a high-level summary of the most common topics of concern or improvements suggested
by the residents, as well as staff’s response to the feasibility of the suggestions.
FINDINGS FROM STAGE 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Topic of Concern/
Suggested Improvement Resident Comments Staff Response
Stop sign
non-compliance
Vehicles disobeying the existing stop
signs was cited as a contributing
factor to feeling unsafe at these
intersections.
There are additional treatments that can increase
stop sign compliance, such as installing curb
extensions.
Increased enforcement/
police presence
Some suggested asking the Edina
Police Department to monitor these
intersections more frequently to
improve driver behavior.
While this is undoubtedly effective for a short
period of time, it is not a practical long-term
solution.
Increased signage/
pavement markings
A few suggestions included adding
more signs (including activated
flashers) or pavement markings
alerting drivers to the pedestrian
crossings and/or stop signs.
The City’s Pedestrian Crossing Policy provides
guidance on when treatments like activated flashers
are warranted based on traffic volumes and
roadway characteristics. In staff’s experience,
increased signage and/or pavement markings are
only temporarily effective unless they correspond to
a physical change in the roadway geometrics.
Additional pedestrian/
bicycle facilities
Some suggested constructing an
additional sidewalk on the south side
of West 72nd St or installing a separate
facility for bicycles along this corridor.
While these improvements may improve safety for
pedestrian and bicyclists traveling along West 72nd
Street, it would likely have little-to-no effect on
safety of pedestrians crossing at the intersections.
The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan does not
recommend additional facilities on West 72nd Street.
Adding 4-way stop
east of Cornelia Drive
Installing an additional 4-stay stop on
West 72nd Street at one of the four
intersections between Cornelia Drive
and France Avenue was suggested to
slow down vehicles.
Stop signs are not effective for calming traffic. There
are industry-standards for when stop signs should
be installed based on traffic volumes and physical
obstructions to sightlines. Unwarranted stop signs
tend to have a high rate of non-compliance.
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 4
After reviewing the resident suggestions and concerns,
staff determined that installing curb extensions at the
intersections of Cornelia Drive and Oaklawn Avenue
could be a way to improve pedestrian safety. Curb
extensions (see Figure 1) physically narrow the roadway,
creating shorter crossing distances for pedestrian and
compelling drivers to slow down as they drive by them or
turn around them. Curb extensions have previously been
installed in Edina (see Figure 2).
STAGE 2: TESTING/DATA COLLECTION
SUMMARY
Staff developed a two-tiered approach to testing curb extensions at the intersections. The first test involved
installing temporary curb extensions using pavement markings (see Figure 3). This scenario was intended to mimic
the curb extensions previously installed on Wooddale Avenue. The second test involved installing temporary curb
extensions using portable traffic delineators (see Figure 4). This scenario was intended to mimic the curb
extensions previously installed on Sunnyside Road. Both test scenarios were designed to narrow the existing 30’
roadways to approximately 20.’
The tests ran for approximately two weeks each. During the tests, public input was primarily solicited through
online surveys on Better Together. Staff also hosted a pop-up meeting on-site during each test to solicit feedback
and answer questions about the project. Additionally, staff collected traffic data during both tests to compare
vehicle speeds on W 72nd Street and compliance with the all-way stops at Oaklawn Avenue and Cornelia Drive.
Figure 1: Curb Extension Example (NACTO)
Figure 2: Curb Extensions in Edina
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 5
44 residents responded to the Test 1 survey; 24 residents responded to the Test 2 survey. Below is a summary of
the survey responses received during both tests.
SUMMARY OF STAGE 2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As a pedestrian/cyclist:
Test 1
(Pavement Markings)
Test 2
(Delineators)
Vehicles seem to be traveling slower on W 72nd St. 88% disagree 52% disagree
More vehicles seem to be obeying the stop signs. 78% disagree 67% disagree
More vehicles yield to me when I cross W 72nd St. 81% disagree 76% disagree
I feel safer crossing W 72nd St. 86% disagree 80% disagree
The delineators are an improvement over the pavement markings. - 78% disagree
I support making the curb extensions permanent. 73% disagree 91% disagree
As a motorist:
Test 1
(Pavement Markings)
Test 2
(Delineators)
I travel slower on W 72nd St. 64% disagree 75% disagree
I am more watchful of pedestrians/cyclists along W 72nd St. 68% disagree 79% disagree
I feel safer traveling on W 72nd St. 84% disagree 92% disagree
The delineators are an improvement over the pavement markings. - 71% disagree
I support making the curb extensions permanent. 73% disagree 88% disagree
Survey respondents were also given the opportunity to voice additional comments and observations related to the
two tests (parenthesis represent the number of comments received under each category);
• The curb extensions make the intersections more dangerous for the traveling public (23).
• Snow and ice will create unsafe conditions in these narrowed intersections (17).
• The curb extensions are not changing driver behavior (14).
• The temporary curb extensions are confusing (12).
• Large vehicles, including school buses, will have difficulty in these narrowed intersections (10).
• No problem seems to currently exist at these intersections (7).
Figure 3: Temporary Pavement Marking Curb Extensions Figure 4: Temporary Delineator Curb Extensions
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 6
• Added signage would be more effective (3).
• Construct a new pedestrian bridge over France Avenue at W 72nd Street (2).
• Dynamic display speed signs would be more effective (2).
• Increase speed on W 70th Street to reduce non-local traffic (2).
• Reduce speed limit on W 72nd Street and/or Cornelia Drive (2).
• Construct additional pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure within the neighborhood (1).
• Install rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) (1).
• City needs to address non-local traffic from W 70th Street and/or France Avenue (1).
In addition to resident feedback, the City received comments from Edina Public Schools’ Transportation Services
Department. While they understand the intention behind narrowing the roadways and intersections and agree on
the importance of protecting pedestrians and cyclists, they noted that these extremely narrowed intersections are
difficult for bus drivers to traverse safely. In particular, difficulty occurs when there is another vehicle at the
intersection or when there is a vehicle parked too close to the intersection. The intersection of Curve Avenue and
Sunnyside Road was cited as a specific illustration of where such difficulties have been encountered.
STAGE 3: ANALYSIS
As previously stated, staff also collected traffic data during both tests. Traffic volumes and speeds were measured
at three locations near the test intersections, as shown in Figure 5 below.
Figure 6 summarizes the 85th-percentile speeds measured at each location during the three stages of the test. In
general, no statistically significant reductions in speeds were measured as a result of the temporary curb
extensions. The greatest change was observed east of Cornelia Drive, where speeds reduced from 28.5 mph to
27.5 mph (or 3.5%). No change was observed between Oaklawn Avenue and Cornelia Drive, where the observed
Figure 5: W 72nd Street Traffic Count Locations
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 7
speeds were the lowest (all below 24 mph). A slight increase in speeds (about 1%) was measured west of Oaklawn
Avenue.
Additionally, traffic cameras were utilized to measure vehicle compliance with the existing all-way stops. At
Cornelia Drive (see Figure 7), full stops decreased by over 40% while rolling stops increased by over 40%. The
percentage of no stops also increased by almost 2%. Staff believes some of this change may be attributable to the
confusion experienced by drivers traveling through the intersection.
26.5
23.5
28.5
26.6
23.6
28.126.8
23.4
27.5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Count Location 1 Count Location 2 Count Location 385th-Percentile Speed, mphBaseline Test 1 Test 2
69.7%
39.5%
25.1%24.6%
53.8%
67.3%
5.7%6.7%7.6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Baseline Test 1 Test 2% of VehiclesFull Stops Rolling Stops No Stops
Figure 6: W 72nd Street Measured Speeds
Figure 7: W 72nd Street/Cornelia Drive Stop Sign Compliance
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 8
At Oaklawn Avenue (see Figure 8), stop sign compliance showed no significant change between Test 1 and Test 2
(baseline data was not collected).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Considering the input from residents, Edina Public School and the collected traffic data, staff does not recommend
installing permanent curb extensions at the intersections of West 72nd Street and Cornelia Drive or Oaklawn
Avenue. The data clearly shows that this measure did not have the desired impact on vehicle speeds or stop sign
compliance and is generally unsupported by the adjacent residents. However, staff also recommends the following
action items for future consideration;
1. Minimum roadway widths recommended by the Living Streets Plan should be implemented when areas of
the South Cornelia neighborhood are scheduled for roadway reconstruction. These recommendations
include 24-foot widths for West 72nd Street, Cornelia Drive and Oaklawn Avenue.
2. Facilities recommended by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the Active Routes to School Plan
within the South Cornelia neighborhood should be prioritized for implementation. Additionally, staff
should consider additional engagement with the neighborhood to consider facilities not recommended by
either plan (e.g., a sidewalk on the south side of West 72nd Street).
3. As the observed 85th-percentile speeds along West 72nd Street all were under 30 mph, staff does not
recommend installing dynamic display speed signs.
4. Staff does not recommend installing rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) at these intersections
until such time as the pedestrian volume meets the warrants of the City’s Pedestrian Crossing Policy.
5. Staff does not recommend increasing the speed limit on West 70th Street as a means to reduce non-local
traffic in the South Cornelia neighborhood.
6. Staff will investigate the effect of speed limit reductions on local roads and make City-wide
recommendations to Council.
29.8%29.9%
52.7%53.1%
17.4%17.0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Test 1 Test 2% of VehiclesFull Stops Rolling Stops No Stops
Figure 8: W 72nd Street/Oaklawn Avenue Stop Sign Compliance
ENGAGEMENT REPORT I WEST 72ND STREET PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ASSESSMENT I CITY OF EDINA 9
NEXT STEPS
CITY COUNCIL
Approve staff’s recommendation not to install permanent curb extensions at West 72nd Street and Cornelia Drive
or Oaklawn Avenue.
CITY STAFF
With Council approval, staff will proceed with implementing the recommendations detailed in this report as part of
their regular work plans;
- Roadway reconstruction in the South Cornelia neighborhood is currently not in the City’s 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
- New sidewalks on Kellogg Avenue, Claremore Drive, Andover Road and Wooddale Avenue are proposed
to be constructed in 2021 as part of the Pedestrian and Cyclists Safety (PACS) Fund work plan.
- Future requests made within the neighborhood will be assessed through the City’s standard Traffic Safety
review process.
LESSONS LEARNED
To continue to improve strategies around public participation, City staff want to continue to gain knowledge from
past projects and use these experiences for future projects. Evaluating and documenting the process will provide
us with guidance as to which aspects of the process worked well and which may require some improvement.
1. Communication
To direct residents to participate in the project through Better Together, staff placed yard signs immediately
adjacent to the two intersections for the duration of the trial. However, given the context of the roadway, staff
may have considered additional communication efforts in other areas within the South Cornelia and Lake Edina
neighborhoods. For future projects, staff should also consider posting a “project board” at the location of the test.
This board would include basic information about the project which would be accessible to passing pedestrian and
cyclists. Such a tool would help the City convey the purpose of the project, its duration, and how residents can
provide their feedback.
2. Scheduling of Pop-Up Meetings
In order to provide residents an opportunity to provide feedback in-person, staff scheduled two pop-up meetings
on-site, one during each curb extension test, where staff would be available to answer questions and solicit
feedback. These meetings were scheduled for 2 p.m. with the intention of serving residents walking children home
from nearby Cornelia Elementary School. However, the majority of the residents who attended these meetings
were not walking children home from school, and some expressed frustration that these meetings were scheduled
during the work day. For future projects, staff should consider either varying the timing for such meetings (i.e.,
hosting one in the afternoon and another in the evening) or surveying the residents to determine an appropriate
meeting time.
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
As a pedestrian/cyclist:
-5 25 12
-11.9%59.5%28.6%
-9 21 11
-22.0%51.2%26.8%
1 7 25 9
2.4%16.7%59.5%21.4%
-6 21 16
-14.0%48.8%37.2%
3 8 10 19
7.5%20.0%25.0%47.5%
As a motorist:
4 12 22 6
9.1%27.3%50.0%13.6%
8 5 21 7
19.5%12.2%51.2%17.1%
4 3 25 11
9.3%7.0%58.1%25.6%
5 6 9 21
12.2%14.6%22.0%51.2%
W 72nd St Pedestrian Safety Assessment
Test 1: Temporary Pavement Markings
I feel safer crossing W 72nd St.
More vehicles yield to me when I cross on W 72nd St.
More vehicles seem to be obeying the stop signs.
Vehicles seem to be traveling slower on W 72nd St.
11.9%88.1%
22.0%78.0%
19.0%81.0%
14.0%86.0%
27.5%72.5%
I support making the pavement markings permanent.
73.2%
I am more watchful of pedestrians/cyclists along W 72nd St.
I feel safer traveling on W 72nd St.
I support making the pavement markings permanent.
36.4%63.6%
31.7%68.3%
16.3%83.7%
26.8%
I travel slower on W 72nd St.
Survey Report
30 January 2019 - 27 October 2019
Test 1 Survey (Temporary
Pavement Markings)
PROJECT: West 72nd Street Living Streets Demonstration
Project
Better Together Edina
Q1 As a pedestrian or cyclist;
1
1
3
3
5
5
9
9
7
7
6
6
8
8
22
22
18
18
21
21
18
18
9
9
11
11
10
10
8
8
14
14
16
16
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Question options
10 20 30 40
Vehicles seem to be
traveling slower on W
72n...
More vehicles seem to be
obeying the stop sig...
More vehicles yield to me
when I cross on W 7...
I feel safer crossing W
72nd St.
I support making the
pavement markings
perman...
Optional question (38 responses, 4 skipped)
Test 1 Survey (Temporary Pavement Markings) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 1 of 6
Q2 As a motorist;
4
4
8
8
4
4
5
5
10
10
5
5
3
3
6
6
20
20
19
19
21
21
8
8
6
6
7
7
11
11
18
18
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Question options
10 20 30 40 50
I travel slower of W 72nd
St.
I am more watchful of
pedestrians and cyclist...
I feel safer traveling on W
72nd St.
I support making the
pavement markings
perman...
Optional question (40 responses, 2 skipped)
Test 1 Survey (Temporary Pavement Markings) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 2 of 6
Many-years-on-Fondell
9/09/2019 02:37 PM
As a motorist I find the temporary pavement markings confusing. Are we
supposed to treat them like shoulder lines and veer to the middle of the
street, which seems dangerous. Instead of watching for pedestrians, we're in
a state of confusion and wondering about our own driving. I think
conventional signage would be more effective.
Love our neighborhood
9/10/2019 09:03 AM
Markings and/or barriers will not stop motorists from ignoring the Stop Sign. If
barriers are installed, too little space will be available for 2 cars trying to use
the intersection at the same time. Cars and large vehicles, especially school
buses, will fine the available space inadequate. The narrower intersection will
create problems when Snow and icy conditions exist.
Oaklawn Ave Resident
9/10/2019 04:30 PM
I chose disagree because I have always felt safe walking my children and
pets here, the new sidewalk down Oaklawn makes it even safer!! I think
putting barriers in our streets will cause way more harm, as it is now school
busses have a very hard time making a turn, plus garbage trucks, snow
plows maintenance trucks etc will also have a tough time which could cause
a fender bender and be dangerous!!! I think we are putting the cart before
the horse here. The drivers are very conscious and respectful and safe as it
is, putting up barriers will only cause problems and is needless.
Cornelia II
9/10/2019 04:38 PM
I don’t see this intersection as any different than 100’s of other intersections
in Edina. It is traveled by buses that the narrowing of the street will make
difficult as it will for all other large vehicles. Don’t see this intesection a
danger that tax dollars need to be spent on. Re pave the road if you want to
do anything here.
Bech
9/11/2019 09:52 AM
The white striping at the corners does not make more motorists fully stop at
the Oakland intersection. We walk around here often and I would guess only
10% of motorists come to a complete stop.
Amy Olson
9/11/2019 10:24 AM
I travel that road by car and by foot. The markings are not apparent enough
to make a difference.
KevinOak
9/11/2019 11:21 AM
The marking alone aren't changing driver behavior. Cut through traffic from
70th Street and France Ave is way too frequent and needs to be addressed
as well. This will only get worse with development of 7200 and 7250 France
Ave. Drivers heading West bound on 72nd often roll through the Cornelia
intersection. My opinion is they get to much speed West bound from France
to Cornelia so that stretch needs to be included in this dangerous situation.
Aat1219
9/11/2019 12:56 PM
Nobody stops and some don’t even bother slowing down at the stop sign at
72nd and Oaklawn. The markings have made no difference. I still see at
least one car a day blow through that intersection and it horrifies me with how
many of our kids cross that street to get to Cornelia elementary.
Hibiscus45
9/11/2019 01:40 PM
The markings are silly. Vehicle drivers think they are silly and ignore them.
They create even more dangerous intersections as they encourage children
to stand on the street instead of waiting on the sidewalk or corner yard. The
lines will not show up in the winter anyway. Vehicles are much more likely to
respond to yellow “crosswalk” signs!!! I think crosswalk signs should be
Q3 Additional comments or observations related to the temporary pavement markings:
Test 1 Survey (Temporary Pavement Markings) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 3 of 6
installed. Most drivers I observe are careful and give right-of-way to
pedestrians and bicyclists. It is actually the children pedestrians and bicyclists
who are most at fault for creating unsafe situations as they are poorly trained
by their parents as to road safety. Kids are forever riding their bikes down the
middle of the road, taking sudden U-turns without looking, and riding right
into the street from their driveways without looking. Likewise, children in this
neighborhood run right across streets without even looking. Yesterday I had
to stop my car because a child was actually sitting in the middle of the road
while the parents chatted with friends!! Seriously! The problem with safety
today in this neighborhood resides 98% with parents not adequately
teaching/observing their children. Last week I knocked on the parents’ door
after I saw their kid do a sudden U-turn in front of a car without looking. The
patent did not care. Also, in this neighborhood I have to slow practically to a
stop because kids are riding bikes right down the middle of the road and
even if they hear/see me they don’t move over to the side, but continue right
down the middle as though they own the street! This summer I also observed
4 first graders cut across Gilford right in front of an SUV. The driver rolled the
window down to tell them to be careful and the leader of the bikers told off
the driver!!! Unbelievably rude, entitled and careless kids in this
neighborhood, with parents who don’t take the time to educate/adequately
supervise their kids. I guarantee you, if a vehicle ever hits a child in this
neighborhood, 98% chance it will be the child’s fault do to reckless behavior.
Most of the vehicles I observe driving around this neighborhoods
neighborhood are very careful. When I see yards with signs saying “Drive like
your kid lives here,” I think, “I do!” But parents can’t just put up a sign and fail
to teach their kids proper safety behavior!!! That’s a recipe for disaster.
Asneller
9/11/2019 02:03 PM
These markings seem to have little to no effect, whatsoever. If anything,
they’ve raised questions as to their purpose, as it is unclear why they are
there or how they are supposed to effect driver/cyclist/pedestrian behavior. I
don’t see any improvement whatsoever. The only deterrent I noted was the
placement of the camera at the intersection for a day or two. That had
impact!
Suenelson9
9/11/2019 03:21 PM
No one knows what those markings are for!!!!!!! I live on the corner of
cornelia Dr and 72nd. I live here and until I read this I had no idea what the
poles were doing in my yard! I had to take down lilac bushes down that have
been there for over 33 years. We called the city for some explanation and
never received a call back. This is the most ridiculous idea the city has ever
had. I walk daily and this has made no positive impact at all. If anything it has
impacted us negatively!
manfreds
9/11/2019 09:46 PM
I have no idea what the markings are for, or what I'm supposed to do with
them. I'm not aware of other intersections that have similar markings so it's
confusing. It also looks sloppy.
Memerson
9/12/2019 06:23 AM
I "disagreed" to multiple questions because I don't feel the markings are
enough.
Sandy
9/12/2019 10:48 AM
To have any impact, the pavement markings need to be done in additional
places on 72nd Street (further east). I am concerned that having permanent
Test 1 Survey (Temporary Pavement Markings) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 4 of 6
pavement markings at the top and bottom of the hill on 72nd Street will make
it difficult to go up and down the hill on a slippery day.
Kristi
9/12/2019 06:22 PM
I don’t think they have changed any behavior by motorists or pedestrians.
Lpresthus
9/16/2019 09:28 AM
The markings make no sense to a motorist. I drive that route several times a
day and questioned what the markings mean.
CorneliaCares
9/18/2019 08:30 AM
I am more worried about car accidents and now looking at how close I am to
the cars in the intersection and if I am over the white line than the
pedestrians. I am already a cautious driver and looking out for bikers and
walkers. I am worried about the snow plow and how hard this will be for cars
in the winter when the snow banks come out an extra 5-12 inches. Please
give the bus drivers a survey specifically for buses as they need to pass this
intersection everyday for their job and I want to make sure they feel safe
driving in such a tight intersection with our kids! I still see cars going the
same speeds, going over the white lines, and rolling through the stop sign.
mmcraig
9/18/2019 09:07 AM
Unfortunately, the pavement markings alone don't seem to have made an
effect on the safety of 72nd street and Cornelia Dr. Perhaps the markings
alone have created additional confusion. Sadly, I see many cars just driving
over the white lines. Please continue to explore options to slow traffic and
increase the safety of the intersection.
richard
9/19/2019 07:57 PM
I can't believe the city is wasting money with such an experiment. If you are
concerned with pedestrian safety, build a pedestrian bridge over France
Avenue so that we pedestrians can cross to areas east of France AVE from
the South Cornelia neighborhood.
REG
9/19/2019 08:36 PM
I is not clear what the pavement markings are for. The posts placed on the
markings are a nuisance making walking and driving more difficults
JK777
9/20/2019 04:22 AM
I don't think people understand what the markings mean and they are very
confusing. We would recommend a speed detection driver feedback sign
going each way on Cornelia Drive by the school. We live on this road and
see many cars driving too fast by the school. There is a speed detection sign
on 70th by the school, but we observe far less children walking here than on
Cornelia. These traffic calming devices are proven to show measurable
results.
HeatherEdam
9/20/2019 04:32 AM
The markers that are there are causing more problems than they are helping.
It has made the street/intersection too tight. Watching buses try to turn onto
our street is painful. There's confusion about who should go, and there's not
enough room for two cars to pass each other. NOT a fan of the
cones/markers there at all.
Jana Whear
9/20/2019 07:37 AM
I think the markings help. I believe more needs to be done to slow down
traffic. I walk and bike along 72nd and find it dangerous to cross 72nd to get
over to the south side of 72nd.
Joan Jonswold
9/20/2019 08:37 AM
There needs to be much better communication informing motorists what the
expectations are at those intersections. The intersection is way too crowded
when two cars are passing and making turns when swinging out around lines.
Oaklawn rez what a waste of time and money. show the actual statistics how many
Test 1 Survey (Temporary Pavement Markings) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 5 of 6
9/20/2019 09:02 AM pedestrians have been hurt? less government is always better.
Kellogg70
9/20/2019 10:36 AM
The pavement markings have not influenced my driving habits on 72nd Street
because, as a neighborhood resident, I have always chosen to drive like I
live there. I think the pavement markings don't go far enough--your question
about supporting making the pavement markings permanent misses the
opportunity to reshape the street to better balance pedestrian and vehicle
traffic.
JaneF
9/20/2019 12:14 PM
No one seems to be driving any slower or yielding to my sons and I when we
cross 72nd, because people always seemed to be very cautious anyway.
Current traffic isn’t the neighborhood concern. If the point of this exercise is
to minimize additional car trips *after* the redevelopment of the 7200 block of
France Ave is completed, additional crosswalk(s)/stop sign at Glouchester,
Heatherton and/or Bristol and a speed limit of 20 mph would deter far more
cars while keeping the street safer for pedestrians and would likely be
significantly less expensive. Furthermore, additional resevations that I have
regarding this project include: 1) the approach from Cornelia toward to
school. There are no sidewalks there, so will the “living street” have my
children and me walking in the street, or will these bump outs also have curb
cuts in the back? Who is going to maintain these in the winter? 2) how will
these affect street snow removal? Winters seem to be getting worse on
average as the climate warms and the curbs had *so* much snow on them. I
can’t see these things improving plowing or sight lines for drivers or
pedestrians. 3) if you really wanted to improve the pedestrian experience and
safety, you would take the money for this project and put it toward a
pedestrian bridge over France Ave. That is an unpleasantly large intersection
and because large suburban parking lotted areas aren’t pleasant to walk in or
through, drivers almost seem shocked at the presence of pedestrians. This
project seems wasteful and unnecessary and its aims seem more easily
accomplished by dropping the speed and adding another stop sign and
crosswalk.
GB
9/20/2019 01:04 PM
I understand that there is a desire to slow down the traffic on 72nd Street. As
a pedestrian I have not felt unsafe crossing either of these two intersections.
As a driver I find the temporary markings uncomfortable when I am going
through the intersection with another vehicle. I am also concerned about
getting up the hill at 72nd Street from Oaklawn in the winter with less room to
manuever. The right turn from Cornelia Drive onto 72nd St. south is also an
issue with the drop in that turn. I visited the intersections of 44th and Grimes
and 45th and Grimes, and do not think the Grimes intersections are
comparable to the intersection of 72nd and Oaklawn.
TERRIREA
9/20/2019 03:18 PM
what are the pavement markings supposed to accomplish? It would be nice
to see before you put them down so we could see the difference, if any.
George Rea
Optional question (29 responses, 13 skipped)
Test 1 Survey (Temporary Pavement Markings) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 6 of 6
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
As a pedestrian/cyclist:
1 10 6 6
4.3%43.5%26.1%26.1%
1 7 13 3
4.2%29.2%54.2%12.5%
1 4 13 3
4.8%19.0%61.9%14.3%
-4 9 7
-20.0%45.0%35.0%
3 2 1 17
13.0%8.7%4.3%73.9%
2 -2 19
8.7%-8.7%82.6%
As a motorist:
1 5 13 5
4.2%20.8%54.2%20.8%
1 4 12 7
4.2%16.7%50.0%29.2%
1 1 9 13
4.2%4.2%37.5%54.2%
2 5 1 16
8.3%20.8%4.2%66.7%
1 2 3 18
4.2%8.3%12.5%75.0%I support making the curb extensions permanent.
W 72nd St Pedestrian Safety Assessment
Test 2: Temporary Delineators
Vehicles seem to be traveling slower on W 72nd St.
More vehicles seem to be obeying the stop signs.
More vehicles yield to me when I cross on W 72nd St.
I feel safer crossing W 72nd St.
The delineators are an improvement over the pavement markings.
47.8%52.2%
33.3%66.7%
I support making the curb extensions permanent.
I travel slower on W 72nd St.
I am more watchful of pedestrians/cyclists along W 72nd St.
I feel safer traveling on W 72nd St.
The delineators are an improvement over the pavement markings.
23.8%76.2%
20.0%80.0%
21.7%78.3%
8.7%91.3%
25.0%75.0%
20.8%79.2%
8.3%91.7%
29.2%70.8%
12.5%87.5%
Survey Report
30 January 2019 - 27 October 2019
Test 2 Survey (Temporary
Delineators)
PROJECT: West 72nd Street Living Streets Demonstration
Project
Better Together Edina
Q1 As a pedestrian or cyclist;
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
10
10
10
10
8
8
2
2
1
1
6
6
3
3
3
3
7
7
16
16
14
14
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Question options
10 20515
Vehicles seem to be
traveling slower on W
72n...
More vehicles seem to be
obeying the stop sig...
More vehicles yield to me
when I cross on W 7...
I feel safer crossing W
72nd St.
I support making the curb
extensions permanen...
The delineators are an
improvements over the ...
Optional question (19 responses, 0 skipped)
Test 2 Survey (Temporary Delineators) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 1 of 5
Q2 As a motorist;
4
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
5
5
10
10
8
8
8
8
2
2
1
1
5
5
7
7
10
10
15
15
13
13
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Question options
10 20515
I travel slower of W 72nd
St.
I am more watchful of
pedestrians and cyclist...
I feel safer traveling on W
72nd St.
I support making the curb
extensions permanen...
The delineators are an
improvement over the p...
Optional question (19 responses, 0 skipped)
Test 2 Survey (Temporary Delineators) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 2 of 5
MDY
9/21/2019 10:06 AM
Too tight for cars to fit during turns.
Kalliope
9/21/2019 02:09 PM
I’m concerned about these as another car and I could barely get through the
street without swiping each other and I had my 4 month old in the back. I’m
also extremely concerned about the bottom of the hill on 72nd and Oaklawn
as that hill is icy in the winter and if there is a curb or something permanent,
there’s no doubt cars will unintentionally slide into it and it’ll become a
different safety concern.
Our2bugs
9/22/2019 01:33 PM
The intersection has become more dangerous and motorists are less likely to
watch for pedestrians and watch for other cars. The lanes are too narrow and
there have been a couple narrow misses. The focus is on the road vs the
sidewalks and pedestrians. As a walker and cyclist, I avoid that area now.
There is not enough roadway for vehicles, especially those that are turning. If
the road becomes narrow it will be very dangerous in the winter when the
pavement can be icy and the snowbanks eat up more of the roadway. It
would be better to have a sidewalk with pedestrian/cyclist lanes on the north
side of 72nd for the lentgth of Cornelia park.
carl0178
9/22/2019 07:24 PM
The delineators at this much frequented intersection are harmful to
neighborhood safety. The narrower street is visibly causing vehicle traffic to
react erratically as it attempts to navigate much narrower passage. The
intersections join together a short section of street with a significant grade
change that ices heavily in winter, narrower streets are likely to cause
increased accidents even for the most careful of drivers. Drivers are more
focused on the narrow streets and are not noticing pedestrians, who seem
angry when this happens. As an avid bicyclist, the intersections feel highly
dangerous to navigate now. The street has a significant grade change and
when biking up this hill the decreased road space is dangerous. Do not make
this permanent, you are putting people... drivers and even more so bikers
and pedestrians at risk and opening the city up to a lawsuit.
sajung
9/23/2019 11:35 AM
Residents have large suvs and it is very tight getting through the intersection
when driving. I feel fortunate to not have come across a bus or UPS truck. I
walk this intersection all the time and have not had any difficulty crossing the
street in the past.
jmankowski
9/24/2019 01:38 PM
As a pedestrian I feel that these improvements are more of a hindrance. I
think they may present a false feeling of safety. I have seen several near
accidents at the Cornelia / 72nd street intersection due to the narrowed
roadway. I have seen car race through the intersection trying to beat the on
coming car through the narrow lanes.
PA
9/26/2019 05:13 PM
This survey is useless. Ask questions that matter like did you contemplate
buses can no longer make the turns, there is now absolutely no space for a
bicyclist to to next to a car, and the side of the road walkers used is now
unusable due to cones. Absolutely ridiculous this is a consideration.
HMB Are you kidding?? There is no longer room for 2-way vehicular traffic at
Q3 Additional comments or observations related to the temporary delineators:
Test 2 Survey (Temporary Delineators) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 3 of 5
9/29/2019 07:34 AM these two intersections! In an effort to help pedestrians (which I personally do
not perceive is a current problem- we have sidewalks and crosswalks
already), this will now create a new problem for vehicular traffic. I walk my
streets often, have lived in this neighborhood for 11 years, and have not had
a problem with pedestrian safety. Cars not stopping at stop signs and/or
flashing lights is a City-wide problem.....making the streets narrower only
confuses drivers and could potentially make them more aggressive as no one
knows which driver in the 2-way situation has the right-of-way. And a HUGE
concern for our winters when the streets will be even narrower due to snow
cover! During winter months when cars may slide when coming to a stop at
the intersections, I predict there will now be a huge increase in vehicular
accidents at these intersection....one of which is at the base of a hill, which is
already difficult enough to stop at during icy conditions. If vehicular traffic is
not stopping at stop signs, then increase police monitoring. For these
selected intersections, I think they are already too narrow to install round-
abouts?? And a pop-up meeting at 2:00 in the afternoon??? What working
adult can make that time? The communication about this project has been
terrible.....I contacted the City when the white lines first went up as I did not
know what they meant......and even the City rep did not know what they were
for!! And to assume people will somehow connect the BetterTogether "lawn
signs with tiny print" with this traffic project was a huge assumption......I
guarantee you most people in this neighborhood do not know what is going
on with those intersections, so your feedback from residents is going to be a
very small sampling. Very unfair and very unfortunate.
Peter
9/30/2019 08:08 AM
This is BAD- open up 70th street to higher speeds, more traffic to reduce cut-
through vehicle loads
Love our neighborhood
10/01/2019 10:15 AM
Icy conditions on 72nd St hill, snow plowing, school buses, trucks will all
make for problems if 72nd is narrowed. Main objective is to insure traffic
exiting 7200/7250 cannot turn west of 72nd. Also, the following can help safer
traffic flow: flashing speed limit sign telling drivers they are going too fast,
raise speed limit on 70th Street to 30 mph(should reduce cut through) traffic
or lower 72nd to 25mph.
Leo
10/02/2019 09:45 PM
I have lived in the neighborhood for 40 years and have never seen nor heard
of an accident or safety issues at either of these two intersections. There is
no need for any of these markings. In fact the delineators in the winter will be
a traffic hazard themselves. I forsee more accidents with these because of
ice and snow. Since they have been in place I have narrowly diverted from a
turning vehicle from hitting my car as there is no room. Please leave these
intersections as they were. If there has been a safety issue, please let us
know the accidents that have occurred here. Thank You
Sandy
10/03/2019 08:31 AM
I think it will be very difficult to go up and down the hill on 72nd Street in the
winter with permanent curbs. Please try a 3D trial project. It’s just paint!
Cheryl
10/03/2019 06:02 PM
This is nonsense.
richard the proposal will result for a traffic jam for those of us living in the
Test 2 Survey (Temporary Delineators) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 4 of 5
10/03/2019 07:15 PM neighborhood. during the snow season, doubt large vehicles like garbage
trucks will navigate the new curb. like the idea of visual 3D curb pedestrian
markings. also favor flashing speed limit light. also separate flashing light to
be activated by pedestrians crossing the street. if worth doing, then spend the
money!
Many-years-on-Fondell
10/04/2019 11:49 AM
The delineators are an improvement over markings because there is less
ambiguity. But I'm still concerned with permanent curb extensions, especially
in the winter. Moreover, I'm most concerned with the SE corner of 72nd and
Oaklawn. Permanent curbing there will likely make it much harder to navigate
the hill going west on 72nd (which is already tricky in the winter due to slick
conditions). Cars turning right onto 72nd from Oaklawn are unlikely to be cut-
through traffic--rather, we are residents who live here and are attentive. I
strongly urge you to consider whether curb extensions are needed on every
corner, or whether they can be used more strategically to target cut-through
traffic (in other words, please don't install curb extensions on the SE corner
of Oaklawn and 72nd). Thanks for listening.
GB
10/04/2019 12:27 PM
It is easier to drive very close to the tall delineators, but I feel it will be harder
to drive so close to a low curb; consequently, I think traffic will travel more in
the middle of the street if curbs are installed. I feel the curbs will be harder to
navigate in the winter with snow and ice. In the winter making the turn to
drive up the hill on 72nd St. from Oaklawn will be more difficult with the curbs
and possibly bring cars passing each other too close for comfort. I am
concerned about school buses and garbage trucks making the turns with
narrower insections. I am also concerned about how the snow plows will
operate and wonder if the intersections will get even narrower if the snow is
not plowed to the curbs. (Side note: One concern raised in the last pop-up
meeting was that traffic from 70th St. cuts through the neighborhood because
of the 25 mph speed limit on 70th St. compared to 30 mph speed limit within
the neighborhood. While I agree that the differing speed limits are
incongruous, I think congestion on 70th St is the more likely reason why a
person would drive through the neighborhood, not the speed limit. When
traffic heading east on 70th St. is so congested that it is at a standstill, it's
easy to understand why a person would seek another route. The congestion
on Hwy 62 heading east probably also plays into this issue.)
LMC
10/04/2019 01:09 PM
The delineators do not slow traffic except through the very short area where
they are, where they cause vehicles come to do a two step to proceed when
there is a car int he opposite lane. They will be very cumbersome when
winter snow piles up alongside them . More expense will be incurred to clear
the snow from this curbed-out area, with extremely little gain in terms of
traffic slowing.
CorneliaCares
10/04/2019 08:05 PM
Too many big trucks and buses hitting the cones almost daily Confusing
where to stop.. before the curb cut and then again at the stop sign? Worried
about plows and snow build up Cars are backing up 3 deep during rush hour,
what will happen once 7200 France development goes in? So glad you are
looking into this but don’t think it’s the right solution yet.
Optional question (18 responses, 1 skipped)
Test 2 Survey (Temporary Delineators) : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 27 October 2019
Page 5 of 5
Count
Start Date
Count
End Date
M-F
Total ADT
M-F
EB ADT
M-F
WB ADT
M-F
85% Speed
M-F EB
85% Speed
M-F WB
85% Speed
Peak AM
Hour
Peak AM
ADT
Peak PM
Hour
Peak PM
ADT
Baseline 8/27/2019 8/30/2019 532 267 265 26.5 25.9 26.9 7:00 48 4:45 65
Test 1: Pavement Markings 9/17/2019 9/20/2019 535 262 273 26.6 25.9 27.4 7:30 45 4:45 69
Change from Baseline 0.56%-1.87%3.02%0.38%0.00%1.86%
Test 2: Delineators 9/30/2019 10/4/2019 509 258 251 26.8 25.7 27.3 7:00 52 4:45 68
Change from Test 1 -4.86%-1.53%-8.06%0.75%-0.77%-0.36%
Change from Baseline -4.32%-3.37%-5.28%1.13%-0.77%1.49%
Count
Start Date
Count
End Date
M-F
Total ADT
M-F
EB ADT
M-F
WB ADT
M-F
85% Speed
M-F EB
85% Speed
M-F WB
85% Speed
Peak AM
Hour
Peak AM
ADT
Peak PM
Hour
Peak PM
ADT
Baseline 8/27/2019 8/30/2019 1535 771 764 23.5 23.6 23.6 7:00 123 5:00 162
Test 1: Pavement Markings 9/17/2019 9/20/2019 1605 829 776 23.6 23.2 23.7 7:15 139 4:45 176
Change from Baseline 4.56%7.52%1.57%0.43%-1.69%0.42%
Test 2: Delineators 10/1/2019 10/4/2019 1474 729 745 23.4 23.3 23.6 7:15 133 4:30 170
Change from Test 1 -8.16%-12.06%-3.99%-0.85%0.43%-0.42%
Change from Baseline -3.97%-5.45%-2.49%-0.43%-1.27%0.00%
Count
Start Date
Count
End Date
M-F
Total ADT
M-F
EB ADT
M-F
WB ADT
M-F
85% Speed
M-F EB
85% Speed
M-F WB
85% Speed
Peak AM
Hour
Peak AM
ADT
Peak PM
Hour
Peak PM
ADT
Baseline 8/27/2019 8/30/2019 2246 941 1305 28.5 27.9 29.1 7:00 185 4:30 246
Test 1: Pavement Markings 9/17/2019 9/20/2019 2292 1023 1269 28.1 27.4 28.5 7:15 220 4:45 241
Change from Baseline 2.05%8.71%-2.76%-1.40%-1.79%-2.06%
Test 2: Delineators 9/30/2019 10/4/2019 2030 897 1133 27.5 27.5 28.4 7:15 207 4:30 227
Change from Test 1 -11.43%-12.32%-10.72%-2.14%0.36%-0.35%
Change from Baseline -9.62%-4.68%-13.18%-3.51%-1.43%-2.41%
West 72nd Street west of Oaklawn Avenue
West 72nd Street between Oaklawn Avenue and Cornelia Drive
West 72nd Street east of Cornelia Drive
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
332 144 47 523 5 9 2 16 88 53 32 173 520 68 0 588 173 121 13 307 40 14 0 54 Full Stop 1,158 69.7%
63.5%27.5%9.0%31.3%56.3%12.5%50.9%30.6%18.5%88.4%11.6%0.0%56.4%39.4%4.2%74.1%25.9%0.0%Rolling Stop 409 24.6%
332 5 88 520 173 40 No Stop 94 5.7%
63.5%31.3%50.9%88.4%56.4%74.1%Total Vehicles 1,661 100.0%
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
187 351 17 555 4 12 2 18 67 101 18 186 307 245 29 581 68 166 46 280 31 29 1 61 Full Stop 664 39.5%
33.7%63.2%3.1%22.2%66.7%11.1%36.0%54.3%9.7%52.8%42.2%5.0%24.3%59.3%16.4%50.8%47.5%1.6%Rolling Stop 904 53.8%
187 4 67 307 68 31 No Stop 113 6.7%
33.7%22.2%36.0%52.8%24.3%50.8%Total Vehicles 1,681 100.0%
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
143 369 34 546 5 10 1 16 33 108 15 156 162 377 22 561 40 184 45 269 20 35 6 61 Full Stop 403 25.0%
26.2%67.6%6.2%31.3%62.5%6.3%21.2%69.2%9.6%28.9%67.2%3.9%14.9%68.4%16.7%32.8%57.4%9.8%Rolling Stop 1,083 67.3%
143 5 33 162 40 20 No Stop 123 7.6%
26.2%31.3%21.2%28.9%14.9%32.8%Total Vehicles 1,609 100.0%
8/27/2019
WB Thru WB Right WB Left
W 72nd St and Cornelia Dr Baseline
EB Thru EB Right EB Left
11 85
36.5%68.8%49.1%
Total
9/17/2019 W 72nd St and Cornelia Dr Test 1 (Pavement Markings)
EB Thru EB Right EB Left WB Thru WB Right
68
11.6%
134
43.6%
14
25.9%
191
WB Left
Total 368
66.3%
14
77.8%
119
64.0%
274
47.2%
212
75.7%
30
49.2%
10/1/2019 W 72nd St and Cornelia Dr Test 2 (Delineators)
EB Thru EB Right EB Left WB Thru
Total 403 11 123 399
73.8% 68.8% 78.8% 71.1% 85.1% 67.2%
WB Left
229 41
WB Right
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
118 101 6 225 8 20 5 33 57 120 49 226 118 291 116 525 Full Stop 301 29.8%
52.4%44.9%2.7%24.2%60.6%15.2%25.2%53.1%21.7%22.5%55.4%22.1%Rolling Stop 532 52.7%
118 8 57 118 No Stop 176 17.4%
52.4%24.2%25.2%22.5%Total Vehicles 1,009 100.0%
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
Full
Stop
Rolling
Stop
No
Stop
106 117 16 239 11 20 2 33 56 106 50 212 123 282 100 505 Full Stop 296 29.9%
44.4%49.0%6.7%33.3%60.6%6.1%26.4%50.0%23.6%24.4%55.8%19.8%Rolling Stop 525 53.1%
106 11 56 123 No Stop 168 17.0%
44.4%33.3%26.4%24.4%Total Vehicles 989 100.0%
107 25 169
9/17/2019 W 72nd St and Oaklawn Ave Test 1 (Pavement Markings)
EB Thru EB Right WB Thru WB Left
407
47.6% 75.8% 74.8% 77.5%
Total 133 22 156
10/1/2019 W 72nd St and Oaklawn Ave Test 2 (Delineators)
Time
EB Thru EB Right WB Thru WB Left
382
55.6% 66.7% 73.6% 75.6%
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.E.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:2019 Work Plan Updates Discussion, Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Commissioners will provide updates on the status of 2019 Work P lan initiatives (unless an item is elsewhere on
the current agenda). See attached work plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2019 Work Plan
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commission: Transportation Commission 2019 Annual Work Plan Progress Report: 11/19/2019 Initiative #1 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒☒☒☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility August 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_20_ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☒ Other Staff: Hrs_16__ Chair/co-chair a cross-commission committee (see partners) to review Travel Demand Management (TDM) options and recommend a TDM policy or ordinance for Council consideration. ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Bruce McCarthy Partners: Transportation Commission [LEAD] and Planning Commission Nov: New draft of ordinance is complete, meeting is scheduled for November 26 to solicit input from developers. Oct: Committee presented draft ordinance for review and discussion. Sept: Draft ordinance proposal will be available in October. Aug: Committee held another meeting. Jul: Committee held another meeting, draft ordinance will be available in September or October. Jun: Committee held another meeting, first draft of TDM proposal will be presented at future meeting. May: Committee has reviewed existing policies, developed areas of focus and drafted a framework for their final recommendation. Apr: Committee held a brainstorming session to identify next steps. Mar: Committee has held two meetings to date. Feb: Selected committee members, background materials will be shared at future meeting. Jan: Commissioners are seeking subcommittee members, are developing research and implementation questions.
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Initiative #2 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility October 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_8 _ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs _ __ Serve on a cross-commission committee (see partners) to determine if a process is feasible for the Transportation Commission to provide input on transportation-related issues, including traffic study results associated with development/redevelopment. ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Lori Richman Partners: Transportation Commission and Planning Commission [LEAD] Nov: Staff will share development traffic studies with Commissioners for comments. Any received comments will be included in the staff memo that is submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff will develop a checklist document to aid commissioners in reviewing these studies. Oct: No update. Sept: No update. Aug: Committee meet last month, discussed ideas to allow Transportation Commission input on development traffic studies. Jul: Chairs/co-chairs are meeting tomorrow to begin discussion on this initiative. Jun: Traffic impact study educational seminar was presented to the commission. May: With input from the Commission, staff has hired a consultant to conduct an educational seminar on traffic impact studies. The seminar will be presented to the commission on June 20, and then will be recorded and made available for future commissioners. Apr: No update. Mar: No update. Feb: No update. Jan: No update.
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Initiative #3 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒☒☒☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility September 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_8 _ ☒ CTS (including Video) ☒ Other Staff: Hrs _ 16_ Annually, spring through fall, the commission will coordinate an educational campaign to inform community members about pedestrian, bicycle and motorist safety which will include an annual community event. ☒ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project ((explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Mindy Ahler Nov: Second article was published in the Sun Current this month on traffic impact studies associated with new developments. Oct: Article will be submitted to Sun Current for publication. Commissioners participated in City’s Open Streets event last month by hosting a booth. Sept: No update. Aug: Article has been drafted on traffic impact studies associated with new developments. Commissioners are interested in publishing this article in About Town or the Sun Current. Jul: First article has been published online. Commissioners participated in Twin Cities Bike to Work Day by hosting a pit stop. Jun: Another article is being drafted on traffic impact studies. May: Article was published in the Sun Current on patience during road construction season. Apr: Article was submitted to the Sun Current and will be published in a future edition. Mar: Article will be submitted to the Sun Current for publication. Feb: Commissioners and staff discussed scope and goals of educational campaign. Jan: Commissioners would like to educate people about the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Initiative #4 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒☒☒☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒☒☒☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☐ New Initiative ☒ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility June 2019 ☒ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_12_ ☒ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs _ _ Monitor and evaluate the CloverRide circulator service (charge #4) and make recommendations to Council for future service after twelve-month agreement expires (charge #3). ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Larry Olson Nov: Grand opening event for CloverRide North was held at Senior Center November 15. Oct: Adjustments will be made to North Loop based on rider feedback. Sept: North loop expansion authorized by Council, launched September 13. Aug: After discussing with staff and Metro Transit, the Task Force is proceeding with expansion recommendation. Staff developed a new route map. Jul: Staff discovered state legislation that restricts Edina from operating a transit system outside of the southeast quadrant. The Task Force is meeting next week to discuss next steps. Jun: Existing service was authorized for another year, Task Force is working on expansion recommendation. May: Task Force, commissioners and staff will recommend continuing existing service to City Council on May 21. Task Force is working with staff to implement a marketing campaign and is assessing the viability of a second circulator bus to serve other areas of Edina. Apr: Task Force will meet May 2 to discuss expansion recommendations. Mar: Task Force is planning to recommend continuing existing service and expanding service with a second bus loop. Feb: Task Force meets next week to review ridership data. Jan: No update.
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Initiative #5 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility December 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs_8 _ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs _ _ Review and comment on PACS Fund allocating process with a race and equity lens. ☒ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project ((explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Nov: Staff will present recommendation in December. Oct: Staff is revising PACS Fund Policy to include race & equity criteria, will meet with representatives from Edina Public Schools to discuss Active Routes to School implementation. Sept: Staff requested GIS data from Metro Transit to aid in creation of a prioritization tool. Aug: Staff is developing a tool to prioritize PACS projects through a race and equity lens. Jul: Staff and commissioners discussed what the deliverable for this initiative should be. Jun: Staff has met again to continue developing this initiative. May: Staff has met with the City’s Race and Equity Coordinator to begin scoping out this initiative. Apr: No update. Mar: No update. Feb: City will be hiring Race & Equity Coordinator soon, staff is researching what demographic information is available. Jan: No update.
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Initiative #6 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐☐☐☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒☒☒☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility December 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs____ ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Serve on a cross-commission committee (see partners) to complete requirements for Edina to receive the AARP City Designation. -Complete Walk Audit Tool Kit provided by AARP -October Senior Expo & Designation ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Bocar Kane Partners: Community Health Commission [LEAD], Human Rights & Relations Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, Transportation Commission Nov: Committee recommends discontinuing this initiative. Oct: No update. Sept: Committee held first meeting. Aug: No update. Jul: No update. Jun: 4 areas were identified to use the walk audit tool. May: No update. Apr: Commissioner Kane will represent the Transportation Commission on the committee. Mar: No update. Feb: No update. Jan: CHC will reach out to commissioners to assemble cross-commission committee.
Approved by Council 12/4/18 TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Initiative #7 Council Charge (Proposed Charge Completed by CM) ☐☐☐☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒☒☒☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐☐☐☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐☐☐☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Target Completion Date Budget Required (Staff Liaison) Staff Support Required (Staff Liaison) Initiative Type: ☒ New Initiative ☐ Continued Initiative ☐ Ongoing Responsibility December 2019 ☐ Funds available Funds are available for this project. ☒ Staff Liaison: Hrs 10 ☐ CTS (including Video) ☐ Other Staff: Hrs_____ Serve on a cross-commission committee (see partners) to develop a draft plan on Edina Grand Rounds, including wayfinding. ☐ Funds not available There are not funds available for this project (explain impact of Council approving initiative in liaison comments). Lead Commissioners: Erik Ruthruff Partners: Parks & Recreation Commission [LEAD] and Transportation Commission Nov: No update. Oct: Staff presented the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan to PARC on October 7. This initiative is considered completed as the work is being handled by staff. Sept: Staff will present to PARC on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan next week. This Plan already incorporates recommendations related to the Ground Rounds and wayfinding. Aug: Committee held first meeting to discuss this initiative. Jul: No update. Jun: No update. May: No update. Apr: Commissioners Ruthruff will represent the Transportation Commission on this committee. Mar: No update. Feb: No update. Jan: PARC will reach out to commissioners to assemble cross-commission committee.
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI.F.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:2020 Work Plan Review Discussion, Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Commissioners will review the 2020 Work P lan approved by City Council at the December 3 regular meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
2020 Work Plan
Approved by Council 12/3/19
Transportation Commission
2020 Work Plan
Initiative #1 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge
Continue Q3 3 (review and recommend)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
NA Staff Liaison, CTS
Initiative #2 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge
Ongoing Q4 2 (review and comment)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
Staff Liaison
NA
Initiative #3 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge
New Q4 2 (review and comment)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
Staff Liaison
NA
Progress Report:
Review and Comment
Review and comment on staff's recommendations for Travel Demand
Management policy / ordinance.
Bruce McCarthy, Kirk
Johnson
Progress Report:
Review and Recommend
Review and evaluate performance of CloverRide circulator services
(North and South) and make recommendations to Council for future
service after contracts expire.Erik Ruthruff
Review and Comment
Progress Report:
Review and comment on traffic impact studies associated with proposed
developments.
Lori Richman
Initiative #4 Initiative Type Completion Date
New Q4 2 (review and comment)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
Staff Liaison
NA
Initiative #5 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge
Continue Q4 4 (review and decide)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
Funds not available
Staff liaison, CTS
Initiative #6 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge
Ongoing Q4 2 (review and comment)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
Funds not available Staff Liaison
Initiative #7 Initiative Type Completion Date Council Charge
Ongoing Q4 2 (review and comment)
Lead Commissioners Budget Staff Support
Staff Liaison
NA
Review and Comment
Review and comment on staff's framework for the completion of traffic
impact studies conducted for proposed development / redevelopment
projects.Bocar Kane,
Jill Plumb-Smith
Progress Report:
Develop and coordinate up to six educational activities to inform the
community about transportation safety (which will include an annual
community event).Mindy Ahler
Review and Decide
Progress Report:
Review and comment on proposed Capital Improvement projects,
including roadway reconstructions and projects funded by the Pedestrian
and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund
Progress Report:
Review and Comment
Progress Report:
Review and comment on monthly Traffic Safety Reports
Review and Comment
Date: December 19, 2019 Agenda Item #: IX.A.
To:Transportation Commission Item Type:
Other
From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner
Item Activity:
Subject:Schedule of Upcoming Meetings and Events as of
December 13, 2019
Information
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
See attached schedule of upcoming meetings and events.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Schedule of Upcoming Meetings and Events as of December 13, 2019
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF MEETING AND EVENT DATES AS OF DECEMBER 13, 2019
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS/DATES/EVENTS
Thursday Dec 19 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jan 16 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Feb 20 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Mar 19 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Apr 16 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday May 21 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jun 18 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Jul 16 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Aug 20 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Sep 17 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Oct 22 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM
Thursday Nov 19 Regular Meeting 6:00 PM COMMUNITY ROOM