Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-10-28 Meeting Packet
Agenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota Public Works Facility - Multi-Purpose Room Thursday, October 28, 2021 6:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 23, 2021 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.2022 Roadway Reconstruction Projects B.East Grandview Transportation Study C.Organized Trash Collection Final Report D.Tra0c Safety Report of September 28, 2021 E.2021 Work Plan Updates F.Proposed 2022 Regular Meeting Dates VII.Chair And Member Comments VIII.Sta5 Comments IX.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 ampli7cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of September 23, 2021 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 September 23, 2021. INTRODUCTION: See attached draft minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Minutes: Sep 23, 2021 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Public Works Multi-Purpose Room September 23, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call: Commissioners Ahler, Brown, Kitui, Lewis, Richman, Johnson, Kanti Mahanty Late: Commissioner Kane Absent: Commissioners McCarthy, Plumb-Smith, Clark Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni A. Welcome Commissioner Stephen Kanti Mahanty Staff welcomed Commissioner Kanti Mahanty, who was appointed to serve as a student commissioner through August 21, 2022. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Kitui to approve the August 19, 2021 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Community Comment Paul Rosland with Suburban Waste Services spoke against organized trash collection and suggested that the Commission’s report consider alternative perspectives on the issue. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Valley View Road Bicycle Facilities Review The Commission reviewed and commented on proposed bicycle facilities along Valley View Road and staff recommendations for implementation. Comments from Commissioners included; Option 1 o The lack of protection for the bike lane means that fewer riders will use it. o There could be room for bollards or other further protection for bikers. o Recommend further reducing the drive lanes and maximizing a bike lane buffer. o Removing the center turn lane could result in a situation like France Avenue where drivers pass turning vehicles on the right. o Recommend considering turn lanes at certain locations along the corridor. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Options 2a/2b o How would a cyclist make a left turn? Seems like this would encourage unsafe behavior in cyclists. o Sections are inconsistent with that further east of Brookview Avenue. o The drive lanes could be further reduced and extra space given to adjacent properties. o It may make sense to add parking on Valley View if there is already parking elsewhere in the corridor. Option 3: o The additional boulevard space and potential room for boulevard trees is a benefit. Options 4/5: o Shared-use path would be inconsistent with the bicycle facilities east of Brookview Avenue. This section doesn’t need to be consistent with the rest of the block. It is an important section because of the amount of turning traffic. Would advocate for protected bike lanes and boulevard trees. The bicycle facility doesn’t need to be off-street to be protected. Wouldn’t be in favor of maintaining the existing configuration. Recommend consideration of bollards in addition to horizontal buffer to further protect bikers and prevent passing traffic. Recommend narrowing drive lanes to 11’. Recommend further consideration to implement Options 2a/2b if the center turn lane is necessary. More residents have been added to this area with recent developments; the need for improvement is greater. Commissioner Kane arrived at 6:30. B. 2022 Roadway Reconstruction Projects Staff introduced the proposed 2022 roadway reconstruction projects. C. 2021 Work Plan Updates #1 Organized Trash Collection – Incorporating revisions and additional information to draft report. EEC reviewed and provided comments at their Sept 9 meeting. #2 Street Funding Task Force – No update. #3 CloverRide – DARTS proposed changes to the route to allow more time for deferred stops. Staff is working with Communications to update the route map and associated promotional materials. #4 Traffic Safety Reports – No update. #5 Capital Improvement Projects – Sidewalk construction hasn’t started yet on the reconstruction projects. The Highlands Park shared-use path is completed except for turf restoration. #6 Traffic Impact Studies & TDM – Staff is expecting a studies for projects at 7300 Bush Lake Rd and 4660 W 77th St. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: #7 Metro Transit Connectivity – Subcommittee met last week, ran some ideas by staff, will meet again to put together final recommendations. D. 2022 Work Plan Proposal The Commission continued to discuss their work plan proposal and ranked their initiatives as follows: 1. Boulevard Tree Policy 2. Public Transit Partnership & Promotion 3. Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund 4. SRTS Demonstration Projects 5. Micromobility Education 6. Traffic Impact Study Process Review Parking Lot: Organized Trash Collection Commissioner Lewis left at 8:23. Motion was made by Commissioner Kitui and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the 2022 Work Plan Proposal. All voted aye. Motion carried. Commissioner Kanti Mahanty left at 8:41. VII. Chair and Member Comments – Received VIII. Staff Comments – Received IX. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Kane to adjourn the September 23, 2021 meeting at 8:50 p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100% Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100% Kane, Bocar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 100% Kitui, Janet 1 1 1 1 4 100% Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 67% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89% Richman, Lori 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89% Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 67% Kanti Mahanty, Stephen (s) 1 1 100% Lafferty, Peter 1 1 Resigned 2 N/A Scherer, Matthew Resigned 0 N/A Atri, Nihar (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Term Expired 6 67% Khariwala, Anand (s) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Term Expired 7 78% Participated virtually Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2022 Roadway Reconstruction Projects Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on the proposed 2022 roadway reconstruction projects. INTRODUCTION: Assistant City Engineer Aaron Ditzler and Project Engineer Charlie Gerk will present the proposed 2022 roadway reconstruction projects (see attached draft engineering studies). ATTACHMENTS: Description Blake Road Draft Engineering Study Morningside D/E Draft Engineering Study ENGINEERING STUDY BLAKE ROAD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION Scriver Road to Spruce Road IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-463 OCTOBER 19, 2021 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. _____ Reg. No. Date DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 2 SUMMARY: The project involves reconstruction of local bituminous streets, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, installation of new concrete curb and gutter, construction of a roundabout, new concrete sidewalks and shared-use paths and localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer systems in the neighborhood. The estimated total project cost is $X_____. The estimated roadway construction cost is $X_____ ; XX% of the roadway cost will be funded by Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds, XX% by property taxes and XX% will be funded by special assessments at a rate of approximately $X_____ per residential equivalent unit (REU). Utility improvements amount to $X_____ and will be funded through the City’s utility funds. Sidewalk improvements are estimated to cost $X_____ and will be funded through a combination of MSA and Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. INITIATION: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s Neighborhood Reconstruction Program, identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The project complies with the City’s Living Streets Policy, Vision Edina’s mission statement to “provide effective and valued public services” and “maintain a sound public infrastructure” and the “Strong Foundations” City budget goal. This project addresses traffic operations and safety as well as updating substandard infrastructure with improvements associated with the roadway condition, watermain system, storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system and pedestrian facilities. LOCATION: The project includes Blake Road between Scriver Road and Spruce Road. A detailed location map of the project is shown in Figure 1. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 3 Figure 1: Project Area Map DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roadways The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed between 1937 and 1945 (see Photo 1). Photo 1: Blake Road from Scriver Road to Spruce Road, 1969 Blake Road between Scriver Road and Spruce Road is included in the City’s Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street system, a program administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). This program provides funding to assist municipalities with the construction and maintenance of roadways which carry relatively heavier traffic than local roadways. Maintenance records indicate seal coating was performed within a portion of the DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 5 project area in 2008; bituminous overlays were performed within portions of the project area in 2003, 2009 and 2015. Approximately 65% of Blake Road does not have concrete curb and gutter. The roadway width ranges from 30’ to 36’ (measured from the face of curb or the edge of the existing bituminous pavement). A recent geotechnical evaluation of the project area performed by Braun Intertec showed the roadway section varies from 4” to 8” of pavement over an apparent aggregate base followed by primarily sandy clay soils with some silty sandy soils. As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program, all streets are regularly evaluated and rated on a scale from 1 to 100; 100 representing a brand-new road surface and 0 being extremely poor. This rating is referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and is determined based on existing conditions and defects (alligator cracking, raveling, potholes, etc.). The average PCI for the City of Edina is 76 and the average PCI for Blake Road is 25. An example of the current pavement condition can be seen in Photo 2. Photo 2: Existing Pavement Condition Traffic and Crash Data Staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at several locations within or near the neighborhood. Average daily traffic volumes along Blake Road range between 3,633 and 4,730 vehicles per day with 85th percentile speeds between 19.6 and 34.2 miles per hour. Traffic and crash data for this project is shown in Appendix A. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 6 Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities A sidewalk is present on the east side of Blake Road between Scriver and Lake Ridge Roads. The sidewalk is adjacent to the existing concrete curb and gutter for much of the block. Sidewalks are also present immediately adjacent to the project area on Blake Road and Maloney Avenue (see Appendix B). Bicycle Facilities Standard on-street bicycle lanes are present between Waterman Avenue and Spruce Road, and shared bicycle lanes are present between Scriver Road and Waterman Avenue. Standard and shared bicycle lane markings exist immediately south of the project area on Blake Road and standard bicycle lane markings exist immediately east of the project area on Interlachen Boulevard (see Appendix C). Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Watermain The potable watermain system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Storm Sewer The storm sewer network is in both the Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts. The system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Private Utilities Gas, electric, communications, cable and fiber optic utilities are present in the neighborhood. SECTION INCOMPLETE DESIGN INPUT: City Council 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan This plan, part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, was developed to guide the City’s efforts to create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. As shown in Appendix B, there is a proposed sidewalk between Lake Ridge Road and Spruce Road, and a shared-use path between the two Interlachen Boulevard intersections. This shared-use path would be part of the City’s Twin Loops facility. Appendix C shows proposed bicycle lanes between Scriver Road and Spruce Road. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 7 2015 Living Streets Policy This policy balances the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The City will apply the Policy to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or change in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. The Living Streets Plan includes 15 principles to guide implementation of the Policy, divided into four categories: All Users and All Modes, Connectivity, Context Sensitivity and Sustainability. Below is a summary of how these principles are incorporated into this project: All Users and All Modes – This project will improve mobility and access to the transportation network for a variety of users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and people with disabilities. Replacement of the pavement surfaces and traffic control signage will enhance safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity – This project involves maintaining a transportation system that can accommodate all modes of travel. Existing right-of-way will be repurposed to provide new multimodal transportation facilities, which in combination with existing and planned facilities, will form a multimodal network within the neighborhood. Context Sensitivity – Engineering strives to preserve and protect natural features within or adjacent to construction sites where feasible, including trees, waterways and sensitive slopes. Residents within the project area were invited to complete a questionnaire soliciting input on project design components, including multi-modal transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems. Sustainability – Engineering works closely with Public Works to implement infrastructure improvements with consideration of lifecycle costs and future maintenance. The new roadway section can be easily maintained long-term with the use of proactive rehabilitation treatments, which will significantly extend the life of the pavement. Reductions in impervious surfaces benefit water quality and may lessen the demand for chemicals to manage snow and ice (such as chloride). Construction operations are required to use the smallest footprint necessary to complete the work; this includes utilizing trenchless technologies, such as pipe bursting or cured-in-place pipe liners. This project will also reduce inflow and infiltration of clean water into the sanitary sewer system, minimizing regional wastewater treatment, reducing the risk of sewage surcharges, and limiting the risk of back-ups to residential properties. Relevant portions of the Living Streets Plan can be found in Appendix F. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan SECTION INCOMPLETE Staff Public Works A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Public Works Department. 2021 COMMENTS REQUESTED. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 8 Police and Fire A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Police and Fire Departments. 2021 COMMENTS REQUESTED. Edina Transportation Commission Prior to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) regular meeting on October 28, 2021, a draft engineering study was provided for review. [2021 COMMENTS] Relevant minutes from the ETC meetings are included in Appendix G. Residents As part of the Engineering Department’s practice of notifying residents 2-3 years prior to a potential reconstruction project, residents were invited to an open house in September 2019. Materials from these meetings are available upon request. Additionally, virtual neighborhood informational presentations were posted on Better Together Edina in August 2020 and October 2021. Residents were notified of the virtual meetings and were able to directly ask questions to staff from the Better Together Edina website, as well as telephone and email. Materials from this presentation can be found in Appendix I. On June 11, 2021, residents in Blake Road were asked to complete a questionnaire, soliciting feedback on motorized and non-motorized transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems within the project area. The questionnaire was completed by 9 of 48 property owners, a return rate of 19%. The following is a summary of feedback received from residents: 6 of 9 were concerned or very concerned with the speed of traffic in the neighborhood; 3 of 9 were not concerned. 7 of 9 were concerned or very concerned with motorist behavior in the neighborhood; 2 of 9 were not concerned. 3 of 9 identified an unsafe intersection within the neighborhood. 6 of 9 walk, run, or jog in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 4 of 9 ride a bicycle in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 0 reported parking on the street at least 2-3 times per week; 8 reported parking on the street less than once per month. 0 identified localized drainage problems in the neighborhood. *Percentages based on number of returned surveys The full questionnaire and responses can be found in Appendix H. Relevant correspondence from residents regarding the project can be found in Appendix J. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 9 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns raised by residents throughout the information gathering process, while still maintaining the desired minimum standards of MSA, Engineering, Public Works and other City staff. Roadways Typical Section The bituminous roadways are proposed to be completely reconstructed to the subgrade. The existing bituminous pavement and suitable aggregate material will be recycled for use as base material in the new roadway where feasible. A minimum of 8” of aggregate base material will be graded and compacted as the base layer prior to placement of 2.5” of bituminous non-wear and 1.5” of bituminous wear course. Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. The reconstructed sections will meet the requirements of a minimum 20-year pavement design life based on projected traffic loadings. Blake Road is designated as a Collector in the Living Streets Plan. Per the design guidelines of this plan, Collectors have a design width (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) of 32’ without parking and 40’ with parking. The proposed typical section will have a 34’ width (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb), including two 11’ driving lanes with bulkhead style concrete curb and gutter. Geometric Modifications A one-lane roundabout is proposed for the northern intersection of Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard (see Figure 2). This facility will reduce vehicle queues and delays during peak hours, slow traffic along Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard, and improve safety for pedestrian, cyclist and motor vehicles traveling along the corridor. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 10 Figure 2: Proposed Blake Road and Interlachen Boulevard Roundabout Parking Per the Living Streets Plan, on-street parking should be evaluated based on classification, adjacent land use, existing demand and costs of construction and maintenance. As Blake Road is classified as a Collector and given the limited right-of- way, on-street parking will continue to be restricted on both sides due to the combination of the 22’ street section width and 6’ on-street bicycle lanes as reference on Figure 3. Figure 3: Proposed Blake Road Typical Section DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 11 Roadway Signage All traffic signage within the project area, including street name blades, will be replaced to improve visibility and reflectivity (see Appendix E). All new signs will conform to the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). New signage will include No Parking, 25- and 30-mph speed limit signs. Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities A 6’ edge-of-road -style concrete sidewalk is proposed on both sides of Blake Road between Scriver and Lake Ridge Roads. This sidewalk will connect to the existing sidewalk on the east side of Blake Road south of Scriver Road. A 5’ boulevard-style concrete sidewalk is proposed on the west side of Blake Road between Lake Ridge Road and Interlachen Boulevard. An 8’ shared-use path is proposed on the west side of Blake Road between Interlachen Boulevard and Spruce Road. This path will connect to an existing sidewalk on Blake Road north of Spruce Road in Hopkins, and an existing sidewalk on Maloney Avenue west of Blake Road. Bicycle Facilities Two 6’ on-street bicycle lanes are proposed on each side of Blake Road between Scriver and Spruce Roads. The bicycle lanes will be concrete to distinguish the bicycle and vehicle travel lanes. The bicycle lanes will connect to existing bicycle lanes on Blake Road south of Scriver Road, north of Spruce Road, and on Interlachen Boulevard east of Blake Road. The bicycle lanes will provide an improved connection to the future Southwest Light Rail Transit Station on Blake Road just north of Excelsior Boulevard in Hopkins. Figure 4 shows all existing and proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 12 Figure 4: Existing and Proposed Pedestrian Facilities Locations were selected by staff based on connections to existing facilities. The grass boulevard that will separate the new curb and the proposed sidewalk and shared-use path is proposed to be 5’ wide, but may vary depending on topography and construction and private utility conflicts. The separation from vehicle traffic creates a more pedestrian-friendly environment and is preferred by Public Works for snow storage. The extra width needed for the sidewalk and path and boulevard will be balanced between both sides of the street, where feasible. DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 13 All adjacent pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed to meet the current design standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and portions of the existing sidewalk will be reconstructed as necessary. Because Blake Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid roadway, the proposed sidewalk and shared-use path will be maintained by City staff, including snow removal. Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer main has been televised, and portions will be repaired using a combination of open cut and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These repairs will address the issues of sags, cracks and groundwater infiltration into the sewer main. The manhole castings will also be removed and replaced to reduce inflow and infiltration of stormwater. Watermain Echologics, LLC was hired by the City to perform a non-invasive pipe condition assessment on the watermain within the project area, and staff has reviewed historical break data to determine the extent of improvements needed. SECTION INCOMPLETE All gate valves and fire hydrants within the project area will be replaced and, if needed, additional hydrants will be installed to meet current public safety standards. The new fire hydrants will include the Storz nozzle fittings desired by the Edina Fire Department for quick connection of fire hoses. As part of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan, staff plans to engage property owners who have unsealed private wells and encourage them to have them properly sealed. Storm Sewer Based on existing conditions and the scope of utility work, new concrete curb and gutter will be installed throughout the project, providing a continuous, functional conduit for stormwater. The storm sewer network will have modifications to resolve existing drainage issues at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the existing structures will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition. Sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the storm sewer system. SECTION INCOMPLETE Staff will communicate and coordinate with adjacent property owners as necessary. Private Utilities Staff met with representatives of several private utility companies on November XX, 2021 to discuss the proposed 2022 reconstruction projects and preliminary improvements. Portions of the private utility networks may receive upgrades prior to construction; however, this work is not part of the City’s project. Currently, the City does not have a standard to determine where and when street lighting should be improved. Unlike other infrastructure improvements, lighting can be installed at a later date with minimal disturbance through the use of trenchless technologies. The lighting DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 14 in the neighborhood is sufficient to delineate the intersections; therefore, staff is recommending no revisions to the current street lighting. RIGHT-OF-WAY/ EASEMENTS: The existing Blake Road right-of-way width is 66’. It is anticipated that the majority of this project can be constructed within existing ROW. Many properties have vegetation, boulders or other landscaped items within the right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items will interfere with some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed to complete the necessary work. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $X,XXX,XXX (see Table 2). The total cost includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. Item Estimated Cost 1 City PACS MSA Special Assessments Property Taxes Roadway Storm Sewer 2 Water Main Sanitary Sewer Sidewalk Subtotal Project Total 1 Costs are in 2022 dollars 2 Assumes 100% storm sewer participation from City. If the MSA roadway contractor bid costs are favorable, a portion of the storm sewer costs may be supplemented by MSA funds. Table 2: Estimated Project Costs DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 15 ASSESSMENTS: Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statues. Based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy, there are XX roadway residential equivalent units (REUs) in the Blake Road project area. The estimated assessment per REU is $XX,XX (see Figure X). The preliminary assessment role can be found in Appendix L. Figure X: Preliminary Roadway Assessment Map All single-family residential properties located entirely within the project area receive an assessment of 1 REU, except for the properties shown in the tables below. PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule outlines the past and future tasks to be performed related to the project: Neighborhood Open House (all 2021/2022 projects) September 26, 2019 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 and Future projects) March 11, 2021 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 projects) October 2021 ETC Engineering Study Review October 28, 2021 Receive Engineering Study December 13, 2021 Open Public Improvement Hearing December 13, 2021 Close Public Improvement Hearing December 21, 2021 Public Improvement Hearing Council Decision December 21, 2021 Bid Opening March/April 2022 Award Contract/Begin Construction Spring 2022 Complete Construction Fall 2022 Final Assessment Hearing October 2023 RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the project can be completed during the 2022 construction season, assuming sufficient MnDOT State Aid funding is available. Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and necessary to improve the public infrastructure along Blake Road. APPENDIX: A. Traffic and Crash Data B. Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities D. Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks E. Streetlights and Signs F. Living Streets Plan G. Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes H. Resident Questionnaire I. Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation Materials J. Correspondence from Residents K. Blake Road Proposed Layout L. Preliminary Assessment Roll DRAFT Engineering Study Blake Road A, B &C Roadway Reconstruction BA-463 October 19, 2021 16 DRAFT APPENDIX A Traffic and Crash Data DRAFT DRAFT Location Year ADT 85% Speed A 2001 8152 38.7 B 2005 2009 2013 2015 2021 9133 6857 9758 8604 4730 36.2 36.3 35.6 34 34.2 C 2005 9358 33.7 D 2001 11849 31.4 E 2005 7846 36.6 F 2016 2021 8684 5861 36.9 37 G 2009 2013 2016 2021 3684 4101 3289 3633 12.7 20.4 21.6 19.6 1‐ Peds 2016 NB+SB= 96 EB+WB= 37 2‐ Peds + Bikes 2020 Peds= 50 Bikes= 7 DRAFT ACBDEFGHCrash DataLocationSeverityYear Month TimeAPossible Injury– Westbound vehicle fail to yieldProperty Damage – Collision with post20142017FebruaryAugust5:00 pm.1:00 am.BProperty Damage – Eastbound collision due to ice2019 November 6:00 pm.CProperty Damage – Collision with utility/light pole2019 July 11:00 am.DMinor Injury – Collision with bicyclistMinor Injury ‐Ran off road (intoxicated)Property Damage –Rear‐endProperty Damage – Failure to yield2011201220142015AprilOctoberSeptemberSeptember5:00 pm.2:00 pm.6:00 pm.5:00 pm.EPossible Injury –Rear‐end 2016 June 2:00 pm.FProperty Damage – Northbound failure to yieldSerious Injury –Head‐onProperty Damage –Rear‐end201720172021JuneSeptemberFebruary3:00 pm.3:00 pm.10:00 am.GProperty Damage – Failure to yield 2015 August 3:00 pm.HPossible Injury –Head‐onProperty Damage –Ran off road (intoxicated)20112016JanuaryJune10:00 am.7:00 am.Blake RoadDRAFT APPENDIX B City Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities Map DRAFT ?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y Mud Lake )y ?ÞA@ ?úA@ Minneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e kBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVEFRANCE AVE SXERXES AVE SCAHILL RD70TH ST W 66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 44TH ST W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W GLEASON RD70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY VI E W R D VALLEY VIEW RD MINNESOTA DR78TH ST W / Engineering DeptJanuary 2020 Pedestrian Facilities Proposed FacilitiesExisting Facilities Existing Sidewalk Existing Park Pathway Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail New Primary Sidewalk New Secondary Sidewalk New Shared-Use Path Upgrade to Shared-Use Path Twin Loops Facility Existing Shared-Use Path Canadian Pacific Rail Regional TrailDRAFT APPENDIX C City Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities Map DRAFT æ ¹» æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º ñ ¹» æ æ ñ æ æ æ ñ ñ ñ ?ÞA@ )y ?úA@ Mud Lake LakeEdina Mir r o r L a k e Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Me l o d y L a k e LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake AldenPark VanValkenburgPark FoxMeadowPark HighlandsPark Todd Park Weber FieldPark KojetinPark BrowndalePark WooddaleParkWilliamsParkUtleyPark FrankTupaPark SherwoodPark ArdenPark YorkPark ChowenPark PamelaParkSt JohnsPark StrachauerPark RoslandPark BristolParkCorneliaPark ArnesonAcresPark LakeEdinaParkFred RichardsPark YorktownPark EdinboroughPark GardenPark MelodyLakePark TingdalePark CountrysidePark BredesenPark WalnutRidgePark KrahlHill Creek Valley Park HeightsPark NormandalePark McGuirePark LewisParkBraemar Park and Golf Course(Courtney Fields) Minneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e k Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance CalvaryChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran WooddaleChurch St PatricksCatholic New CityCovenantChurch NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessori CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBlake RdVernon AveFrance Ave SXerxes Ave SCahill Rd70th St W Interlachen Blvd Maloney Ave 44th St W 50th St W 54th St W 58th St W Gleason Rd70th St W 76th St W Dewey Hill Rd Valley View R d Valley View Rd Minnesota Dr78th St W Wooddale AveTracy AveParklawn AveConcord AveBenton Ave Gl e a s o n R dMalibu RdGreen Farms RdMcCauley Trl SMirror Lakes DrLin c o l n D rWashington AveDivision St Vernon AveGolf Ter Code AveWilryan AveNormandale RdWest Shore DrCornelia DrFrance Ave SYork Ave S77th St WOhms LnHilary Ln Olinge r B l v d 66th St W Antrim Rd63rd St W Xerxes Ave S69th St W Bush Lake RdMetro Blvd66th St W 62nd St W Valley Ln Brookside Ave?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y 74th St W Valley View Rd Engineering Dept.January 2020 / O:\Users\engineering\Projects\Bicycle_Facilities_Asbuilts.mxd Upgrade to Buffered Bike Lane Proposed Bicycle Facilities Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Neighborhood Slow Street Standard Bike Lane New Buffered Bike Lane New Shared Use Path Upgrade to Shared Use Path Twin Loops Facility Canadian Pacific Rail Regional TrailDRAFT APPENDIX D Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks DRAFT APPENDIX E Street Lights and Signs DRAFT 89:lbcdpfbcdpfbcdpf89:ybcdpf¨©1238bcdpf 89:l bcdpf¨© !"$ !"$!"$89:z !"$ !"$ ¨© ±² !"$ bcdpf !"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$ 89:;½¾¿ !"$ !"$ !"$!"$ ÅÆÇÝÞßꨩ 1238bcdpfbcdpf bcdpfÝÞßêÅÆÇbcdpf bcdpf¨© bcdpf bcdpfbcdpf bcdpf 89:;½¾¿bcdpf89:;½¾¿ !"$89:{¨©89:;89:{ !"$ 1238 °±°±°±°±°±°±°±°±ª«¬ª«¬bcdpf bcdpf89:;½¾¿bcdpf¨© bcdpf89:E bcdpf¨©89:;½¾¿ !"$bcdpf 89:=bcdpf bcdpf!"$bcdpf¨© bcdpf 89:{!"$89:=bcdpf 89:Ebcdpfbcdpf bcdpf¨©bcdpf¨© !"$89:zbcdpf bcdpf !"$89:= 89:m89:m 89:z89:z 89:z89:{!"$ ±² !"$89:{89:{±² ±² 89:z ±² 89:{!"$ª«¬ 89:l 89:l bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpfbcdpf 123889:{ 89:z 89:z1238 bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpfbcdpfbcdpfbcdpfbcdpfbcdpf 89:{ 89:{89:{ 89:lª«¬¯!"$ 6320 5008 5020 5012 5113 6205 5109 309 6228 6547 5012 5109 402 300 308 300 517 500 6201 5117 5117 5017 5113 6321 604 5020 6405 5101 5016 64096413 6405 6408 6501 6400 304 6223 6404 5101 5024 5025 412 6528 6200 5021 5025 6217 6516 62336521 5016 6204 413 5020 525 6520 6201 5004 5005 5101 5000 5121 6519 5008 5009 308 5013 609 6229 609 4916 6300 6220 5004 421 421420 6225 5115 512 5000 6419 6328 5021 605 409 5017 412 6501 51086300 5105 6229 6417 6304306 309 5125 6214 5100 4900 412 304 413 417416 401 417 405 409 413 304 413 416 409 417 416 412 405 408 404 314 6501 401 605 315 301 008 309 305 309308 5011 305 317 408 516 301 316 400 301 315 301 524 311 311 520 505 409 532 408 413 4917 6301305 6300 305 300 405 6512 308 409 309 6424 501 505 6424 6212 315 6308509 4920 6224 6304 6220 509 6413 404 529 5021 501 306 5025 509 6224 5 301 6201 6308 404 504 01 4921 6521 500 4925 6409 404 305 6527 5111 309 6312313 417 315 6221 4901 6508 6519 6412 312 508 412 4929 421 6321 6424 4928 4924 4905 5116 513 417 510 5117 504 6405 63204904 545 6301 420 321 6424 6420 5108 300 5112 6401 6428 421 6501 6512 408 6421 513 613 6420 6425 500 6433 6404 521 416 4909 544 6416 6309 6429 631665116517 64166516 310 414 6509 541 6305 6400 6313 6216 6305630963136208 540 6408 6324 62286216517 533 6320 537 521 62286412306 6202 6408 PROJECT LIMITS B L A K E R DBLAKE RDCity of Edina City of Hopkins SPRUCE RD BELMORE LN MALONEY AVE WATERMAN AVE MENDELSSOHN LN INTERLACHEN BLVD INTERLACHEN BLVD LA K E RID G E R D SCRIVER RDOAK BEND LN/ Engineering Dept October 2021 Existing Signs Blake Road Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e DRAFT APPENDIX F Living Streets Plan DRAFT Living Streets Plan 2015 Safety Health Choice EconomyDRAFT 8 2. Living Streets Policy INTRODUCTION The Living Streets Policy was developed to provide the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The policy initially stood alone and included sections to guide the creation of the Living Street Plan. This revised policy is now an integral part of the Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving; reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such the “do.town” effort related to community health, Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Streets Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. The Living Streets Policy is broken up into three parts: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The Policy is followed by a description of core services provided by the City of Edina that are related to or implemented in part through Living Streets. POLICY Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina’s vision for Living Streets, the principles Living Streets will embody, and the plan that will guide implementation of their construction. LIVING STREETS VISION Edina is a place where ... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; • Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; • Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity; • Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; • Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and • Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Mini Fact Expect cyclists on the road. Watch for cyclists on the road. Treat them as you would any slow-moving vehicle. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 9 LIVING STREETS PRINCIPLES Fifteen principles guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy in the areas of all users and all modes, connectivity, context sensitivity and sustainability. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use decisions. All Users and All Modes Principle 1: Living Streets are high-quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled; and Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity Principle 3: The City designs, operates and maintains a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel; Principle 4: The City seeks opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation by preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way and adding new rights- of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit; Principle 5: The City prioritizes improvements to non-motorized connections to key destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas; Principle 6: The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development; and Principle 7: Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Context Sensitivity Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place; Principle 9: Living Streets preserve and protect natural features such as waterways, urban forest, sensitive slopes and soils; Principle 10: Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts; Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 10 Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional authorities; and Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level. Sustainability Principle 13: Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life of the public, Principle 14: Living Streets will reduce environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of roadways; and Principle 15: The City will increase the life span and resilience of its infrastructure and will build infrastructure with consideration for lifecycle costs and ease of maintenance. LIVING STREETS IMPLEMENTATION The City of Edina will develop Living Streets in the regular course of business of maintaining, expanding or redeveloping the road network and will be guided by the Vision and Principles established above. Implementation will happen predominantly through the neighborhood street reconstruction program, but also though specific stand-alone stormwater utility, pedestrian, bicycle or safety projects. Project prioritization is not specifically part of the Living Streets Plan. Prioritization of projects takes place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Budget and is determined by the City Council with guidance from the Living Streets Vision and Principles. The City will actively promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan by: • Applying the Living Streets Policy and Plan to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. • Drawing on all sources of transportation funding and actively pursuing grants, cost-sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. • Through all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their work. • By acting as an advocate for Living Streets principles when a local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Projects that implement Living Streets will be guided by pedestrian and cyclist network plans and roadway classifications and will consider the physical, social, ecologic, regulatory and economic context in a given project area. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 11 The project delivery system used to build Living Streets will: • Systematically engage Edina residents and project stakeholders to better inform project-level recommendations. • Keep Edina residents and project stakeholders informed about Living Streets and the range of services they help provide. • Follow minimum Living Streets design requirements and standards. • Manage construction impacts to residents and users of streets. Network The creation of a Living Streets network of road, pedestrian and bicycle facilities provides mobility, accessibility and access to people, places and spaces. The resulting interconnection of neighborhoods links people to goods and services and to one another, and increases quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit the city. Existing and planned transportation networks are identified in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and other approved/adopted plans. Network plans include: • Roadway Network (Functional Classification, Jurisdictional Classification) • Sidewalk Facilities • Bicycle Facilities (Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan) • Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan • Transit Service Network plans are approved by the City Council. In most cases, modification requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion, creation and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle networks will be well planned and prioritized: • Expansion of existing networks and providing connections to key traffic generators or destinations provide immediate benefit to all network users and is a top priority. • Network connections serving vulnerable users such as children, seniors and the disabled are a top priority. • Network connections serving high-volume uses such as schools, retail destinations or regional public transit are a top priority. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 12 Context Contextual variety can either constrain or create opportunity in roadway and other infrastructure projects. The following are contexts that will be considered and will influence the planning, design and implementation of Living Streets. Exceptions Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of a project proposal. • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. CONTEXTS OF LIVING STREETS Ecological Water resource, ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams Natural resouces, trees, and urban forest Air quality Climate Sun and shade Materials, waste, energy, sustainability Regulatory State Aid roadway Watershed rules Operational Maintenance operations Traffic control or functional constraints Project Type Public Neighborhood street reconstruction Neighborhood street reconstruction with major associated utility work State Aid street reconstruction Stand-alone sidewalk, bicycle or utility project Public partner lead State County Transit agency Parks district Private development Will remain private Future public Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 13 • The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project. • The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands or other critical areas. • Available budget is constrained or project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. Engagement Members of the public have an interest in understanding and providing input for public projects. Project recommendations will be developed with a transparent and defined level of public engagement. The public will have access to the decision-making process and decision makers via public meetings and other correspondence and will be provided the opportunity to give input throughout the process. Project reports will discuss how their input helped to influence recommendations and decisions. The City of Edina’s Living Streets will continue to engage and solicit public input as a vital component of the project implementation process. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion regarding the purpose of and opportunities for public engagement. Design The guidelines contained in the Living Streets Plan will be used to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines allow for context-sensitive designs. The Design Guidelines (see Chapter 6): • Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. • Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use pathways on all arterial, collector and local connector streets. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. • Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate. • Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. • Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. • Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. • Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The Design Guidelines in this Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update this Living Streets Plan. Minimum standards will guide how vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle networks interact and share public right of way. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 14 Benchmarks and Performance Measures The ability to measure the performance of a plan, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is vitally important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor and measure its performance relative to the Living Streets Policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling. This does not mean that every street in the city will have walking and biking facilities. It means that each neighborhood will provide a network of these facilities such that walking and biking to and through neighborhoods is a comfortable experience. Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely. It is essential that alternatives to driving to school or parks be provided to children and their caregivers. These alternatives – walking or bicycling – will be both safe and convenient modes of transportation. See the Edina Active Routes to School Plan for more information. Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably. Opportunities to cross all streets in Edina, including local, collectors and arterial streets, will be provided. These crossings will be safe and comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability. An active way of life is available to all. Opportunities for active living should be made available to all members of the Edina community by connecting centers of activity via active, multimodal transportation. Each resident of and visitor to Edina will have the ability to lead an active way of life. There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Perhaps the ultimate safety benchmark is zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Modeled from the Vision Zero Initiative (www.visionzeroinitiative.com), an aspirational yet primary goal of Living Streets is to achieve this high level of safety on the City’s roadways. Reduce untreated street water flows into local waterways and reduce storm water volume. Cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are strategically selected to go above and beyond regulatory requirements to provide for flood protection and clean water services through the use of infrastructure that retains, settles, filters, infiltrates, diverts or reduces the volume of stormwater that flows to local surface waters. Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. Part of Edina’s Living Streets vision is that “streets support vibrant commerce.” While most of the city’s streets are residential, Edina’s business districts are a vital part of the community. The benefits of Living Streets extend to retail streets as well, making them more attractive to businesses and consumers alike. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 15 The City will draw on the following data to measure performance: • Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post-project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. Mini Fact Motorists must stop behind all crosswalks. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT APPENDIX G Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes DRAFT APPENDIX H Resident Questionnaires DRAFT Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 30 January 2019 - 15 August 2021 PROJECT NAME: Blake Road A, B, & C Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction DRAFT SURVEY QUESTIONS Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 1 of 26 DRAFT Q1 Does you property have drainage issues the City should know about? Examples: History of flooding/standing water, grading, b... 9 (100.0%) 9 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) No Yes Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 2 of 26 DRAFT Q3 How concerned are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 3 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/12/2021 12:47 PM Blake and Belmore.- Speeding when motorist going to work and from. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Blake Road at Maloney. Cars are often speeding Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Frequent cars going well over 30 mph in a 30 mph zone. This is on Blake Road South between Excelsior Blvd. (Hopkins) and Interlachen Blvd. -- a straight line of road. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Residential neighborhood should not have cars traveling more than 35 or 40 mphl Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM speed Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Coming around the sharp corner on Interlachen/Blake stretch of the road Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM Blake road is a straight shot and people like to speed through it Q4 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Optional question (7 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 4 of 26 DRAFT Q5 How concerned are you with the volume of traffic or number of vehicles in your neighborhood or on your street? 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 5 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Higher traffic volume = higher traffic noise. Volume is higher during morning and evening commutes, which is to be expected. Large trucks (semi-trailers, dump trucks and flatbeds) are a bigger issue, using Blake Road South as a short-cut conduit between Excelsior Blvd. and Hwy. 100. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Volume is near reasonable limit. Would be very concerned if traffic continues to increase. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM blake to interlachen...big trucks Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Interlachen/Blake intersection Q6 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Optional question (4 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 6 of 26 DRAFT Q7 How concerned are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Examples of poor motorist behavior include speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to yield, and driving aggressively.) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) Concerned Not Concerned Very Concerned Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 7 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/12/2021 12:47 PM Blake and Belmore.- Speeding when motorist going to work and from. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Blake Road at Maloney. Cars are often speeding and take the turn onto Maloney (usually going west) very fast. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Speeding (well in excess of posted 30 mph limit) and tailgating are frequent. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM We do see some vehicles over 40 mph Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM Blake and striver Q8 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Optional question (5 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 8 of 26 DRAFT Q9 In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are: 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 5 (55.6%) 5 (55.6%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 9 of 26 DRAFT Q10 Do you feel any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe? 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 6 (66.7%) 6 (66.7%) Yes No Question options Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 10 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Area before and after Interlachen Blvd/Blake Intersection Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM blake and scriver needs a crosswalk Q11 Which intersection do you feel is unsafe? Optional question (2 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 11 of 26 DRAFT Q12 Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe? (select all that apply) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 4 (100.0%) 4 (100.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)Issues with sight lines or clear view Drivers turning corner too fast Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Street(s) too wide Insufficient lighting Other (please specify) Question options 1 2 3 4 5 Optional question (4 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 12 of 26 DRAFT Q13 In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are: 1 (16.7%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) 3 (50.0%) 3 (50.0%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Optional question (6 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 13 of 26 DRAFT Q14 How frequently do you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood? 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Never Rarely (less than once per month) Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 14 of 26 DRAFT Q15 If you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 7 (100.0%) 7 (100.0%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Optional question (7 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 15 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Additional crosswalks intersecting Blake Rd. Sidewalks would also be nice. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM None. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Not needed, already have a bike lane which is rarely used and adequate for walking as well as biking Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Adding sidewalks on Interlachen/Blake in addition to the bike lane. Clear separation of the road and where pedestrian traffic would be. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 02:02 PM Lack of a sidewalk on Blake Road between Interlachen and Lake Ridge Road makes walking/running very dangerous. Q16 If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your walking, jogging, or running? Please list all that you can think of. Optional question (5 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 16 of 26 DRAFT Q17 How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood? 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 3 (33.3%) 3 (33.3%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 17 of 26 DRAFT Q18 If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 5 (83.3%) 5 (83.3%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (16.7%) 1 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 1 2 3 4 5 6 Optional question (6 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 18 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM None. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Bike lanes in streets Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Not needed, already have a bike lane Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM DO NOT MAKE MORE OR WIDER BIKE PATHS ON BLAKE ROAD!!!!!!! BIKE LANES ALREADY CONSUMED OUR VALUABLE PARKING. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 02:02 PM Lack of a bike lane on Blake Road Q19 If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your bicycle riding frequency? Please list all that you can think of. Optional question (5 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 19 of 26 DRAFT Q20 How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street? 1 (11.1%) 1 (11.1%) 2 (22.2%) 2 (22.2%) 6 (66.7%) 6 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Rarely (less than once per month)Never Very frequently (daily or near daily) Frequently (2-3 times per week) Question options Optional question (9 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 20 of 26 DRAFT Q21 How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street? 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 2 (25.0%) 2 (25.0%) 1 (12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 4 (50.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month)Rarely (less than once per month)Never Very frequently (daily or near daily) Question options Optional question (8 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 21 of 26 DRAFT Q22 How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood? 3 (42.9%) 3 (42.9%) 4 (57.1%) 4 (57.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Question options Optional question (7 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 22 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM The overnight parking restrictions for the Winter season are a little extreme / unnecessary. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Blake Road South is not a residential street in the usual sense of the term -- it is a thoroughfare or county road connecting Excelsior Blvd. to Interlachen Blvd. "Ownership" of Blake Road South has gone back and forth over the years between Edina and Hennepin County. With its high traffic volume, it very CLEARLY is not suitable for on-street parking on either side! (Note: Blake School eliminated parking along the shoulder of Blake Road South several years ago.) Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM I am on a corner facing Blake and see very frequent foot traffic crossing Blake, including by my own family on walks. Additional crosswalks would be nice. Sidewalks rounding the corner between Blake Rd and Interlachen would also be an improved safety measure. Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM More frequent Edina Police patrols along Blake Road South would help reduce speeding and tailgating. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Please don’t destroy beautiful trees for the sake of a sidewalk. If a sidewalk is deemed necessary, put it adjacent to the street to avoid excessively damaging the mature trees, including a century-old oak in my yard. Also, I have a very steep front yard due to previous installation of the bike lane. If a sidewalk is put in I would need a stone wall, similar to many others found throughout the city. Without the wall, my front yard would be unmowable or else the roots of my oak tree will be severely impacted, and probably die. Q23 Any additional comments about parking? Optional question (2 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Q24 Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street conditions in your neighborhood. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 23 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM Most of us are very curious why there have been so many projects on Blake Road that happen year after year. Our driveway access has been built up so many times that the asphalt is higher than our driveways which deteriorates our driveways with what seems to be no accountability from the city/county to remediate. We are all very tired and vexed why these projects are unable to be combined into less projects that impose the massive inconvenience and waste of tax dollars to continually tear up infrastructure that repeats practically every year. Is it project mgmt? Funding? Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Interlachen Blvd is bike friendly at some spots, but not all. I would not say it is pedestrian or truly bike friendly in the area surrounding the Interlachen Blvd/Blake intersection and around those two corners before and after where those roads intersect. Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM Excited about the sidewalk for my kids safety. Not excited about the proposed round-about. Traffic is only bad during peak rush hour. I feel a round about would only aid in people's ability to speed through the neighborhood. Optional question (6 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 24 of 26 DRAFT Q25 Do you favor improving streetlights in your neighborhood? (residential streetlights are funded by special assessment) 2 (25.0%) 2 (25.0%) 6 (75.0%) 6 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Yes No Other (please specify) Question options Optional question (8 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 25 of 26 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/12/2021 12:47 PM Blake rd s Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 07:32 PM Blake Road Screen Name Redacted 6/13/2021 08:18 PM Blake Road South (Note: the northernmost part of BRS -- approx. 2 blocks -- is in Hopkins.) Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:21 PM Blake rd Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:21 PM Blake Rd S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:42 AM blake r. s. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:33 PM Interlachen Blvd Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 02:02 PM Scriver Road Screen Name Redacted 7/13/2021 09:04 PM scriver Q26 What is your street name? Mandatory Question (9 response(s)) Question type: Single Line Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 26 of 26 DRAFT APPENDIX I Neighborhood Informational Meeting Materials DRAFT The CITYofEDINA2022 Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionInformational MeetingDRAFT The CITYofEDINAAgenda•Introductions•Why Reconstruct•Project Scopes•What You Can Expect•Funding Sources•Timeline•Communication•How to Prepare•Questionswww.EdinaMN.gov2-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov3-AEngineering - Design & Construction DivisionChad MillnerDirector of EngineeringAaron DitzlerAssistant City EngineerEvan AcostaGraduate EngineerEdinah MachaniEngineering TechnicianLiz MooreEngineering CoordinatorCharlie GerkProject EngineerTom HaatajaSr. Engineering TechnicianJon MooreSr. Engineering TechnicianDRAFT The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov4-C2022 Projects Areas•Morningside D/E •-254 Properties•Blake Road (MSA) •- 62 propertiesDRAFT The CITYofEDINA•Streets grouped into neighborhoods•- Maximizes economics of scale•- Extends pavement life•Proactive Pavement Management Program•Prioritized based on;•- Pavement condition•- Underground utility issues5-Cwww.EdinaMN.govWhy My Street?DRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhy Reconstruct?•Previously reconstructed in the 1970s-1990s *•Utility issues to address beneath roadway•More cost-effective than other maintenance strategies (mill & overlay, seal coat)www.EdinaMN.gov6-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Roadways•Pavement reaching end of useful life•Some streets have curb and gutter, some do not•Some properties already have concrete driveway aprons, some do notwww.EdinaMN.gov7-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Utilities•Watermain- Loss in pipe wall thickness- Main and service breaks- Undersized mainswww.EdinaMN.gov8-C•Sanitary Sewer- Cracks, breaks, sags, etc.- Inflow and infiltration•Storm Sewer- Structure deficiencies- Undersized pipes- Curb and gutter failingDRAFT The CITYofEDINA•Mailboxes•Irrigation systems and pet fences•Landscaping•Outwalks/stepsExisting Conditions – Right-of-Waywww.EdinaMN.gov9-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat / Where is the ROW?•Surface and space above and below public roadways used for travel purposes and utilities•Typically, 60’ width•(MSA Streets 66’)•Property corners located during surveywww.EdinaMN.gov10-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Roadways•Replacement of curb & gutter (all or sections)•Subgrade corrections as needed•New roadbed and pavement surfacewww.EdinaMN.gov11-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINALiving Streets Plan•Approved by City Council in 2015•Balances needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders•Incorporates;•- Minimum roadway design elements•- Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Planwww.EdinaMN.gov12-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Driveways•Aprons will be replaced / installed to comply with City standards•Special driveway materials•Reimbursement Policywww.EdinaMN.gov13-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Utilities•May include localized watermain and service replacements•New fire hydrants and gate valves•May include localized sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation•Storm sewer upgradeswww.EdinaMN.gov14-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements – Sump Drain•Installed when feasible and warranted•Homeowners encouraged to connect to City Sump Drain•Notification will be given when connecting is available•Sump connection permit available thru City websitewww.EdinaMN.gov15-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINA•Recommend inspecting private services prior to construction•Repairs/upgrades can be coordinated with street work•Associated costs can be added to special assessmentUtility Ownershipwww.EdinaMN.gov16-AResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary ServiceDRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements –Ped / Bike•Based on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan•Final design evaluated based on network consistency and construction conflictswww.EdinaMN.gov17-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAPrivate Utilities•Gas, Electric, Telephone, Cable may upgrade or repair their utilities before construction begins•Potential City-required relocations•Goal: streamline projects and minimize neighborhood disturbance•Streetlight upgrades typically not included with projectwww.EdinaMN.gov18-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Dust, mud, noise, and vibrations•Localized flooding during rainfall•Occasional delays due to inclement weather•Residents will be asked to limit water use occasionally•Homes may be connected to temporary watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov19-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Construction materials stored temporarily in ROW•5-10 feet of disturbance behind back of curb•Construction equipment stored on streets•Tree removals as necessary (property owners notified)www.EdinaMN.gov20-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Driveways and roads will be periodically inaccessible•Driveways will be inaccessible for 7 days to allow driveways to curewww.EdinaMN.gov21-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Items within the City’s right-of-way may be damaged•-You can remove plants and other landscape features before the project•- Irrigation and pet fences will repaired•Disturbed areas will be seededwww.EdinaMN.gov22-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•We will;•- Provide opportunities for input•- Keep you informed•- Do our best to minimize inconveniences•Our contractor will accommodate residents with special access needswww.EdinaMN.gov23-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINACity Utility Funds•Collection of utility service charges paid to the City•Covers 100% of:•- Storm sewer •(curb and gutter, •driveway aprons, •sump drain pipe) •- Sanitary sewer•-Watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov24-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAPedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund•Revenue from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy franchise fees•Promotes non-motorized transportation throughout the City•Covers 100% of:•-Sidewalks /shared-use paths•- Bike lanes•-Associated signage and pavement markingswww.EdinaMN.gov25-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINADo Taxes Cover Street Projects?•~22% of property taxes go to the City for expenses including Police, Fire, Parks, and Public Works•- Snowplowing•- Pothole repairs•- Other street maintenance (sealcoating, overlays, patch repairs)•Beginning in 2022, taxes will pay for a portion of street reconstructionwww.EdinaMN.gov26-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINASpecial Assessments•Assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements•Covers portion of roadway costs•- Roadway and driveway removals•-Asphalt pavement•- Restoration•- Indirect Costs – engineering, finance, soil investigations, mailingswww.EdinaMN.gov27-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAResidential Equivalent Units•Assessments distributed based on REUs•- Factor used to compare properties to a single-family residence•Additional factors for commercial, industrial, and public-use propertieswww.EdinaMN.gov28-CScenarioLand Use ClassREU FactorASingle-Family Residential1.0BMulti-Family Residential – Duplex0.8C Multi-Family Residential – Apartment/Condos 0.5IInstitutional – Places of Worship0.2*DRAFT The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Blake Road A, B and C•62 properties (36.13 REUs)•0.42 miles of road•Partial watermain, water services replacement•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Roundabout at Interlachen Blvd•Two 6’ on street concrete bike lanes •5’ concrete walk south of Interlachen Blvd•8’-10’ asphalt path north of Interlachen Blvdwww.EdinaMN.gov29-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Morningside D & E•254 properties (248.04 REUs)•1.98 miles of road•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Spot sidewalk repair•Localized watermain improvements•Watermain services•Substantial storm sewer improvementswww.EdinaMN.gov30-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAMorningside Flood Infrastructure Project•Improvements in 2022 and 2023•Separate but coordinated project with roadway reconstruction•https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsidewww.EdinaMN.gov31-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - Local www.EdinaMN.gov32-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of Local Roadway Costs Assessed $10,000 $15,000 $20,0002020100%$10,000 $15,000 $20,000202178.90%$7,890 $11,835 $15,780202273.64%$7,364 $11,046 $14,728202368.38%$6,838 $10,257 $13,6762024-203563.12%-5.26%$6,312-$526 $9,468-$789 $12,624-$1,05220360%$0$0$0DRAFT The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - MSAwww.EdinaMN.gov33-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of MSA Roadway Costs Assessed $5,000 $7,500 $10,000202020%$5,000 $7,500 $10,000202115.78%$3,945 $5,918 $7,890202214.73%$3,682 $5,523 $7,364202313.68%$3,419 $5,129 $6,8382024-203512.62%-1.05%$3,156-$263 $4,734-$395 $6,312-$52620360%$0$0$0DRAFT The CITYofEDINAPreliminary Assessments*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)www.EdinaMN.gov34-ANeighborhood% of Roadway Costs Assessed Estimated Assessment Range per REU*#of REUsSquareYards of PavingSquare Yards of Paving per REUMorningside D, E 73.64% $6,900 - $10,200 248.04 27,928 112.6Blake Road A, B, C14.73% $10,300 - $15,200 34.63 11,602 335.0DRAFT The CITYofEDINATypical Project Timelinewww.EdinaMN.gov35-AJuly –September2021 Engineering studies/estimates providedDecember 2021 Public hearingsJanuary – March 2022 Plan preparation and biddingApril – May 2022 Construction beginsOctober – November 2022 Construction concludesSpring 2023 Warranty workFall 2023Final assessment hearingDRAFT The CITYofEDINAAssessment Timingwww.EdinaMN.gov36-CInitial Public HearingsDecember 2021Project ConstructedSummer 2022Final Assessment HearingOctober 2023Assessment Filed with County November 2023Assessment on Tax Statement January 2024DRAFT The CITYofEDINAPayment Options•Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid interest charges•Pay min. 25% ; balance rolls to property taxes over 15 years •Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years•Defer payment if 65 years of age or older and meet specific income requirements•- Finance charges are 1% over City’s borrowing interest rate•- 2020 interest rate was 3.53%•-Assessing Department – 952-826-0365www.EdinaMN.gov37-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINACommunicationwww.EdinaMN.gov38-A•Regular Mail-All meetings, public hearings, and questionnaires- Final assessment notices (one year after construction)•Door hangers and flyers -Time-sensitive information (water shut-offs, concrete, temporary inaccessibility)•Better Together Edina – City Website Project PageDRAFT The CITYofEDINABetter Together Edina•Best way to stay informed•www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake-rd-abc•www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e•Free, access to periodic updates on project progress and scheduleswww.EdinaMN.gov39-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProviding Input•Questionnaires mailed to your home, weigh in on;•-Traffic/pedestrian issues•- Street drainage issues•- Streetlight upgrades•Public hearing in December 2021•- Opportunity for residents to voice comments and concernswww.EdinaMN.gov40-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAQuestionnaire Resultswww.EdinaMN.gov41-CNeighborhoodResponses Received to DateMorningside D & E26% (65 / 254)Blake Road A, B & C19% (9 / 48)DRAFT The CITYofEDINAHow To Prepare•Complete project questionnaire•Begin financial planning•Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around street reconstruction schedule•Review Better Together Edina updates•Ask questions, stay informedwww.EdinaMN.gov42-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAEngineering Department7450 Metro BoulevardHours: 7:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.952-826-0371Contact Uswww.EdinaMN.gov43-ALiz MooreEngineering Coordinator952-826-0449LMoore@edinamn.govAaron DitzlerAssistant City Engineer952-826-0443ADitzler@edinamn.govDRAFT The CITYofEDINAQuestions?www.EdinaMN.gov44-A•Ask questions on Better Together Edina Q&A page•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake‐rd‐abc•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside‐d‐e•Call or email DRAFT The CITYofEDINAThank you for your time!www.EdinaMN.gov45-ADRAFT APPENDIX J Correspondence from Residents DRAFT APPENDIX K Blake Road Proposed Layout DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT APPENDIX L Preliminary Assessment Roll DRAFT ENGINEERING STUDY MORNINGSIDE D/E NEIGHBORHOOD ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION Branson Street, Crocker Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Littel Street, Lynn Avenue, Morningside Road, Oakdale Avenue, West 42nd Street IMPROVEMENT NO. BA-461 OCTOBER 20, 2021 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Reg. No. Date DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 2 SUMMARY: The project involves reconstruction of local bituminous streets, replacement of existing concrete curb and gutter, installation of new concrete curb and gutter and localized rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer systems in the neighborhood. The estimated total project cost is $X_____. The estimated roadway construction cost is $X_____ and will be funded by property taxes and by special assessments at a rate of approximately $X_____ per residential equivalent unit (REU). Utility improvements amount to $X_____ and will be funded through the City’s utility funds. Sidewalk improvements are estimated to cost $X_____ and will be funded through the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. INITIATION: The project was initiated by the Engineering Department as part of the City’s Neighborhood Reconstruction Program, identified in the Capital Improvement Plan. The project complies with the City’s Living Streets Policy, Vision Edina’s mission statement to “provide effective and valued public services” and “maintain a sound public infrastructure” and the “Strong Foundations” City budget goal. This project addresses updating substandard infrastructure with improvements associated with the roadway condition, watermain system, storm sewer system, sanitary sewer system and pedestrian facilities. LOCATION: The project includes Branson Street, Crocker Avenue, Grimes Avenue, Littel Street, Lynn Avenue, Morningside Road, Oakdale Avenue and West 42nd Street. Approximately 240’ of Morningside Road west of Oakdale Avenue is within the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park. A detailed location map of the project is shown in Figure 1. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 3 Figure 1: Project Area Map DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS: Roadways The roadways in this neighborhood were originally constructed before the 1930s (see Photo 1). Photo 1: Morningside D&E Neighborhood, 1969 Maintenance records indicate bituminous surfacing and concrete curb and gutter installation occurred in 1978, and seal coating was performed within the project area in 1994. All of the streets in the neighborhood have concrete curb and gutter. The roadway width ranges from 25’ to 35’ and the average roadway width is 28’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb or edge of pavement. A recent geotechnical evaluation of the project area performed by Braun Intertec showed the roadway DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 5 section varies from 3” to 4.5” of pavement over an apparent aggregate base followed by primarily silty sandy soils. As part of the City’s Pavement Management Program, all streets are regularly evaluated and rated on a scale from 1 to 100; 100 representing a brand-new road surface and 0 being extremely poor. This rating is referred to as the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and is determined based on existing conditions and defects (alligator cracking, raveling, potholes, etc.). The average PCI for the City of Edina is 76 and the average PCI for Morningside D&E is 5. An example of the current pavement condition can be seen in Photo 2. Photo 2: Existing Pavement Condition Traffic and Crash Data Staff measured traffic volumes and speeds at several locations within or near the neighborhood. Average daily traffic volumes within the neighborhood range between 210 and 1,318 vehicles per day with 85th percentile speeds between 23.2 and 31.3 miles per hour. Traffic and crash data for this project is shown in Appendix A. Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are present on all streets in project area except Littel Street, and the sidewalks are in average condition. Sidewalks are also present immediately adjacent to the project area on Grimes Avenue, Morningside Road, West 42nd Street and West 44th Street (see Appendix B). DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 6 Bicycle Facilities There are no bicycle facilities within the project area; however, there is a signed bike route immediately adjacent to the project area on West 44th Street (see Appendix C). Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Watermain The potable watermain system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Storm Sewer The storm sewer network is in both the Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts. The system consists of SECTION INCOMPLETE Private Utilities Gas, electric, communications, cable and fiber optic utilities are present in the neighborhood. SECTION INCOMPLETE DESIGN INPUT: City Council 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan This plan, part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, was developed to guide the City’s efforts to create a comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle network. As shown in Appendix B, there are proposed bicycle lanes on Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street and Morningside Road. 2015 Living Streets Policy This policy balances the needs of motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The City will apply the Policy to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or change in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. The Living Streets Plan includes 15 principles to guide implementation of the Policy, divided into four categories: All Users and All Modes, Connectivity, Context Sensitivity and Sustainability. Below is a summary of how these principles are incorporated into this project: All Users and All Modes – This project will improve mobility and access to the transportation network for a variety of users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children, DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 7 seniors and people with disabilities. Replacement of the pavement surfaces and traffic control signage will enhance safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity – This project involves maintaining a transportation system that can accommodate all modes of travel. Existing facilities form a multimodal network within the neighborhood. Context Sensitivity – Engineering strives to preserve and protect natural features within or adjacent to construction sites where feasible, including trees, waterways and sensitive slopes. Residents within the project area were invited to complete a questionnaire soliciting input on project design components, including multi-modal transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems. Sustainability – Engineering works closely with Public Works to implement infrastructure improvements with consideration of lifecycle costs and future maintenance. The new roadway section can be easily maintained long-term with the use of proactive rehabilitation treatments, which will significantly extend the life of the pavement. Reductions in impervious surfaces benefit water quality and may lessen the demand for chemicals to manage snow and ice (such as chloride). Construction operations are required to use the smallest footprint necessary to complete the work; this includes utilizing trenchless technologies, such as pipe bursting or cured-in-place pipe liners. This project will also reduce inflow and infiltration of clean water into the sanitary sewer system, minimizing regional wastewater treatment, reducing the risk of sewage surcharges, and limiting the risk of back-ups to residential properties. Relevant portions of the Living Streets Plan can be found in Appendix F. 2018 Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan SECTION INCOMPLETE Staff Public Works A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Public Works Department. 2021 COMMENTS REQUESTED. Police and Fire A draft engineering study was provided to the City’s Police and Fire Departments. 2021 COMMENTS REQUESTED. Edina Transportation Commission Prior to the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) regular meeting on October 28, 2021, a draft engineering study was provided for review. [2021 COMMENTS] Relevant minutes from the ETC meetings are included in Appendix G. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 8 Residents As part of the Engineering Department’s practice of notifying residents 2-3 years prior to a potential reconstruction project, residents were invited to an open house in September 2019. Materials from these meetings are available upon request. Additionally, virtual neighborhood informational presentations were posted on Better Together Edina in August 2020 and October 2021. Residents were notified of the virtual meetings and were able to directly ask questions to staff from the Better Together Edina website, as well as telephone and email. Materials from this presentation can be found in Appendix I. On June 11, 2021, residents in Morningside D and E were asked to complete a questionnaire, soliciting feedback on motorized and non-motorized transportation, street lighting and local drainage problems within the project area. The questionnaire was completed by 65 of 254 property owners, a return rate of 26%. The following is a summary of feedback received from residents: 35 of 65 (54%) were concerned or very concerned with the speed of traffic in the neighborhood; 29 (45%) were not concerned. 37 (57%) were concerned or very concerned with motorist behavior in the neighborhood; 28 (43%) were not concerned. 38 (58%) identified an unsafe intersection within the neighborhood. 60 (92%) walk, run, or jog in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 26 (40%) ride a bicycle in the neighborhood at least 2-3 times per week. 18 (28%) reported parking on the street at least 2-3 times per week; 34 (52%) reported parking on the street less than once per month. *Percentages based on number of returned surveys The full questionnaires and responses can be found in Appendix H. Relevant correspondence from residents regarding the project can be found in Appendix J. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements acknowledge many of the comments and concerns raised by residents throughout the information gathering process, while still maintaining the desired minimum standards of Engineering, Public Works and other City staff. Roadways Typical Section The bituminous roadways are proposed to be completely reconstructed to the subgrade. The existing bituminous pavement and suitable aggregate material will be recycled for use as base material in the new roadway where feasible. A minimum of 8” of aggregate base material will be graded and compacted as the base layer prior to placement of 2.5” of bituminous non-wear and 1.5” of bituminous wear course. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 9 Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. Unsuitable subgrade materials will be replaced as necessary to provide adequate support for the new roadbed. The reconstructed sections will meet the requirements of a minimum 20-year pavement design life based on projected traffic loadings. Grimes Avenue, Morningside Road and West 42nd Street are designated as a Local Connector Streets in the Living Streets Plan. Per the plan’s design guidelines, Local Connector Streets have a typical width of 24’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) with a 5’ sidewalk on one side. Local Connector streets that vary from these guidelines include: Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street to Morningside Road is proposed to be reconstructed to 30’ to provide adequate access to the Morningside neighborhood while accommodating parking on both sides of the street adjacent to Edina Morningside Church. West 42nd Street is proposed to be reconstructed to 27’ to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Morningside Road is proposed to be reconstructed to 28’ to accommodate parking on both sides of the street and match the existing street width at the east and west project limits. All remaining roadways within the project area are designated as Local Streets in the Living Streets Plan. Per this plan’s design guidelines, Local Streets have a typical width of 27’ (measured from the face of curb to the face of curb) without sidewalks or 24’ with a 5’ sidewalk on one side. Littel Street is proposed to be reconstructed to 24’ since parking is currently restricted on the south side and only three residential properties directly access this street. Parking Per the Living Streets Plan, on-street parking should be evaluated based on classification, adjacent land uses, existing demand and costs of construction and maintenance. Given the existing demand for parking, staff believes that parking changes should not occur in the project area, with exception of Oakdale Avenue between Branson Street and Morningside Road. This segment is proposed to be changed from parking on both sides to parking on the east side only to be consistent with the Living Streets Plan. The existing and proposed roadway widths, sidewalks and parking recommendations are shown in Table 1. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 10 Street Existing Right-of Way Width (face to face), feet Existing Roadway Width (face to face), feet Proposed Roadway Width (face to face), feet Existing Sidewalk Parking Grimes Avenue, West 44th Street to Morningside Road 60 30-34 30 Both sides Two-sided Grimes Avenue, Morningside Road to West 42nd Street 40 25 24 Both sides East side only Morningside Road 60 28-34 28 Both sides Two-sided West 42nd Street 50 30-32 27 North side only Two-sided Branson Street 40 24 24 Both sides North side only Crocker Avenue 40 24 24 East side only East side only Littel Street 44 26 24 None North side only Lynn Avenue 40 26 24 Both sides East side only Oakdale Avenue, West 44th Street to Branson Street 40 33 27 None 1 Two-sided Oakdale Avenue, Branson Street to Morningside Road 40 26 24 East side only East side only Oakdale Avenue, Littel Street to West 42nd Street 40 27 24 Both sides East side only 1 Sidewalk exists on the west side between 4344 and 4356 Oakdale Table 1: Street Widths, Sidewalks and Parking Roadway Signage All traffic signage within the project area, including street name blades, will be replaced to improve visibility and reflectivity (see Appendix E). All new signs will conform to the standards of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Multi-Modal Transportation Pedestrian Facilities Spot replacement of sidewalks will occur where utility improvements are proposed. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 11 Sidewalk installation is not proposed where gaps are present due to lack of demand and existing topography. The grass boulevards that will separate the new curb and the existing sidewalks may vary from the existing boulevard widths on some streets due to proposed street width changes. All adjacent pedestrian curb ramps will be reconstructed to meet the current design standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and portions of the existing sidewalk will be reconstructed as necessary. Because the sidewalk segments are not along Municipal State Aid routes, adjacent to City property nor included in the City’s Active Routes to School Plan, they will continue to be maintained by the adjacent property owners. Bicycle Facilities As previously mentioned, the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan recommends bike lanes on Grimes Avenue between West 44th Street and Morningside Road. Because the narrow 40’ right-of-way width prohibits bicycle lanes, Staff recommends Grimes Avenue include Bike Boulevard pavement markings and signage to accommodate both the Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park Master Plans. Figure 2 shows all existing pedestrian and proposed bicycle facilities. Figure 2: Existing Pedestrian and Proposed Bicycle Facilities DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 12 Public Utilities Sanitary Sewer The sanitary sewer main has been televised, and portions will be repaired using a combination of open cut and cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) methods. These repairs will address the issues of sags, cracks and groundwater infiltration into the sewer main. The manhole castings will also be removed and replaced to reduce inflow and infiltration of stormwater. Watermain Echologics, LLC was hired by the City to perform a non-invasive pipe condition assessment on the watermain within the project area, and staff has reviewed historical break data to determine the extent of improvements needed. SECTION INCOMPLETE All gate valves and fire hydrants within the project area will be replaced and, if needed, additional hydrants will be installed to meet current public safety standards. The new fire hydrants will include the Storz nozzle fittings desired by the Edina Fire Department for quick connection of fire hoses. As part of the City’s Wellhead Protection Plan, staff plans to engage property owners who have unsealed private wells and encourage them to have them properly sealed. Storm Sewer Based on existing conditions and the scope of utility work, new concrete curb and gutter will be installed throughout the project, providing a continuous, functional conduit for stormwater. The storm sewer network will have modifications to resolve existing drainage issues at various locations throughout the neighborhood. Some of the existing structures will be removed and replaced due to their poor condition. Sump drains will be installed where feasible to allow property owners to connect their sump pump discharges directly into the storm sewer system. SECTION INCOMPLETE Staff will communicate and coordinate with adjacent property owners as necessary. Private Utilities Staff met with representatives of several private utility companies on November XX, 2021 to discuss the proposed 2022 reconstruction projects and preliminary improvements. Portions of the private utility networks may receive upgrades prior to construction; however, this work is not part of the City’s project. Currently, the City does not have a standard to determine where and when street lighting should be improved. Unlike other infrastructure improvements, lighting can be installed at a later date with minimal disturbance through the use of trenchless technologies. The lighting in the neighborhood is sufficient to delineate the intersections; therefore, staff is recommending no revisions to the current street lighting. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY/ EASEMENTS: Existing right-of-way in this neighborhood varies from 40’ to 60’. It is anticipated that the majority of this project can be constructed within existing ROW. Many properties have vegetation, boulders or other landscaped items within the right-of-way. A portion of these landscape items will interfere with some of the proposed infrastructure improvements and will need to be removed to complete the necessary work. PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated project cost is $X,XXX,XXX (see Table 2). The total cost includes direct costs for engineering, clerical and construction finance costs from the start of the project to the final assessment hearing. Item Amount Total Cost Funding Source Roadway $X,XXX,XXX Special Assessments Roadway $X,XXX,XXX Property Taxes Roadway Total: $X,XXX,XXX Sanitary Sewer $X,XXX,XXX Watermain $X,XXX,XXX Storm Sewer $X,XXX,XXX Utility Total: $X,XXX,XXX City Utility Funds Sidewalk Total: $X,XXX,XXX PACS Fund Project Total: $X,XXX,XXX Table 2: Estimated Project Costs ASSESSMENTS: Assessments will be levied against the benefiting adjacent properties pursuant to Chapter 429 of the Minnesota State Statues. Based on the City’s Special Assessment Policy, there are XX roadway residential equivalent units (REUs) in the Morningside D&E project area. The estimated assessment per REU is $XX,XXX (see Figure 3). The preliminary assessment role can be found in Appendix K. Figure 3: Preliminary Roadway Assessment Map All single-family residential properties located entirely within the project area receive an assessment of 1 REU, except for the properties shown in the tables below. DRAFT Engineering Study Morningside D/E Neighborhood Reconstruction BA-461 October 20, 2021 14 PROJECT SCHEDULE: The following schedule outlines the past and future tasks to be performed related to the project: Neighborhood Open House (all 2021/2022 projects) September 26, 2019 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 and Future projects) March 11, 2021 Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation (all 2022 projects) October 2021 ETC Engineering Study Review October 28, 2021 Receive Engineering Study December 13, 2021 Open Public Improvement Hearing December 13, 2021 Close Public Improvement Hearing December 21, 2021 Public Improvement Hearing Council Decision December 21, 2021 Bid Opening March/April 2022 Award Contract/Begin Construction Spring 2022 Complete Construction Fall 2022 Final Assessment Hearing October 2023 Neighborhood Open House (all 2021/2022 projects) September 26, 2019 RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the project can be completed during the 2022 construction season. Staff believes the construction of this project is feasible, cost effective and necessary to improve the public infrastructure in the Morningside D and E neighborhood. APPENDIX: A. Traffic and Crash Data B. Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities C. Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities D. Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks E. Streetlights and Signs F.Living Streets Plan G. Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes H. Resident Questionnaire I. Neighborhood Informational Video Presentation Materials J. Correspondence from Residents K. Preliminary Assessment RollDRAFT APPENDIX A Traffic and Crash Data DRAFT A B E C D F G 1 DRAFT Location Year ADT 85% Speed A 2014 2021 (July) 1011 1697 26.5 28.6 B 2011 226 26.3 C 2005 2021 (July) 806 826 31.3 27.5 D 2005 1126 30.2 E 2020 1318 29.6 F 2016 328 24.2 G 2016 210 23.2 1 – Peds Peds Bikes 2019 2021 2021 NB+SB = 209 NB + SB = 159 NB = SB = 69 EB+WB = 243 EB + WB = 191 EB = WB = 80 DRAFT 14325Crash DataLocationSeverityYear Month Time1Property damage – Collision with motor vehicle2018 February 9:00 am.2Property Damage – Collision with motor vehicle2014 November 8:00 am.3Property Damage – Collision with motor vehicle2014 November 8:00 am.4Minor Injury – Collision with bicyclist2012 July 5:00 pm.5Possible Injury – collision with motor vehicle2019 December 5:00 pm.Morningside D & EDRAFT APPENDIX B City Comprehensive Plan Update – Pedestrian Facilities Map DRAFT ?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y Mud Lake )y ?ÞA@ ?úA@ Minneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e kBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVEFRANCE AVE SXERXES AVE SCAHILL RD70TH ST W 66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 44TH ST W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W GLEASON RD70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY VI E W R D VALLEY VIEW RD MINNESOTA DR78TH ST W / Engineering DeptJanuary 2020 Pedestrian Facilities Proposed FacilitiesExisting Facilities Existing Sidewalk Existing Park Pathway Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail New Primary Sidewalk New Secondary Sidewalk New Shared-Use Path Upgrade to Shared-Use Path Twin Loops Facility Existing Shared-Use Path Canadian Pacific Rail Regional TrailDRAFT APPENDIX C City Comprehensive Plan Update – Bicycle Facilities Map DRAFT æ ¹» æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º ñ ¹» æ æ ñ æ æ æ ñ ñ ñ ?ÞA@ )y ?úA@ Mud Lake LakeEdina Mir r o r L a k e Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Me l o d y L a k e LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake AldenPark VanValkenburgPark FoxMeadowPark HighlandsPark Todd Park Weber FieldPark KojetinPark BrowndalePark WooddaleParkWilliamsParkUtleyPark FrankTupaPark SherwoodPark ArdenPark YorkPark ChowenPark PamelaParkSt JohnsPark StrachauerPark RoslandPark BristolParkCorneliaPark ArnesonAcresPark LakeEdinaParkFred RichardsPark YorktownPark EdinboroughPark GardenPark MelodyLakePark TingdalePark CountrysidePark BredesenPark WalnutRidgePark KrahlHill Creek Valley Park HeightsPark NormandalePark McGuirePark LewisParkBraemar Park and Golf Course(Courtney Fields) Minneha h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e k Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance CalvaryChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran WooddaleChurch St PatricksCatholic New CityCovenantChurch NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessori CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBlake RdVernon AveFrance Ave SXerxes Ave SCahill Rd70th St W Interlachen Blvd Maloney Ave 44th St W 50th St W 54th St W 58th St W Gleason Rd70th St W 76th St W Dewey Hill Rd Valley View R d Valley View Rd Minnesota Dr78th St W Wooddale AveTracy AveParklawn AveConcord AveBenton Ave Gl e a s o n R dMalibu RdGreen Farms RdMcCauley Trl SMirror Lakes DrLin c o l n D rWashington AveDivision St Vernon AveGolf Ter Code AveWilryan AveNormandale RdWest Shore DrCornelia DrFrance Ave SYork Ave S77th St WOhms LnHilary Ln Olinge r B l v d 66th St W Antrim Rd63rd St W Xerxes Ave S69th St W Bush Lake RdMetro Blvd66th St W 62nd St W Valley Ln Brookside Ave?úA@ ?ÞA@ )y 74th St W Valley View Rd Engineering Dept.January 2020 / O:\Users\engineering\Projects\Bicycle_Facilities_Asbuilts.mxd Upgrade to Buffered Bike Lane Proposed Bicycle Facilities Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Neighborhood Slow Street Standard Bike Lane New Buffered Bike Lane New Shared Use Path Upgrade to Shared Use Path Twin Loops Facility Canadian Pacific Rail Regional TrailDRAFT APPENDIX D Sewer Blocks and Watermain Breaks DRAFT APPENDIX E Street Lights and Signs DRAFT 1238 !"$bcdpf bcdpf 89:{± ±² 89:z bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$!"$!"$!"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$!"$ÅÆÇ!"$!"$ bcdpf GFH`!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$!"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"$bcdpf !"$ !"$!"$!"$ÅÆÇ !"$ bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf bcdpf !"!" 89:m 89:m 89:m 89:m1238 !"$bcdpf1238 !"$!"$ !"$ !"$bcdpf bcdpf!"$ bcdpf bcdpf 89:l bcdpf bcdpf 4 4 1840124112 4211 4208 4236 41404100 42004356 421543084232 4166 4405 43044306 4248 44094239 4412 44104194 3936 4220 4234 4218 4219 4238 4234 42144212 4218 4208 4216 4240 4235 4216 4238 4213 4231 4243 4209 4239 40104 0 0 0412241764213 4209 4233 4 0 0 4418 842064 0 0 2 4417416442114018 4210 40084307 4226 4419 43114401411743054244 4225 4235 4238 422542304406 41054003430143034401 4120 4221 41604201 4236 401440164226 4220 4109 3 4220 4003 4216 4324 4215 42054206 4116 4005 4211 41504232 4117 4105 4231 4208 4121 4114 4217 4 0 0 6 4215 4100 4224 4121 4232 4113 4116392 4222 412641124108 4501 4222 4407 4412 4410 4205 4010420743244103 4234 4230 4203 4224 4104 4212 4113 4200 41204213 4219 4212 440842164404 4410 440543154109 4234 4246 4121 4242 4406 4 0 5 2 400644044231 44004238 4226 41084235 43174370 4239 4233 4 0 1 39304227 4230 4238 4234 4212 440544064221 400441034235 4247 4244 4240 44144205441341114214 4402421242424243 4217 4237 4229 4222 4242 410941154230 42104226 4248 4246 41124237 4223 4312 4413 4239 4242 4229 4243 4227 4208 4223 4400 4228 4219 4236 42134232 4248 41074411 4200 4240 4310 43084215 4232 4223 4240 40224206 440341254124 4245 4212 4237432142254225 4221 4409 422343084213 43154306 441 64311412843104242 431342184215 4217 411343174108 43044240 4219 430542004227 4228 4102 4 0 0 9431143164228 42244502 4 0 0 7 4224 4228 4204 43144231 43074232 42414504 4302421245004227 42024231 43094208 440543124212 4220 44074 4 0 7422443004224 4216 4244 4015 4223 40214403 4236 4216 4211 4233 4220 4227 4 4249 4215 43164219 4241 422944084301 440744094365 4 0 1 1 4120 43304112 4116 440143004 0 1 4 4305 430943094361 440643064313401142064312 4209 40014368 430740204200 43053915420142174304417143034244 414143084307 4205 4315 4204 4247 41554313 41014215 41073947 4313 4005 4 0 0 8 4224 4202 4360 4246 4245 4 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 4309 4001 4 4400 4 3 2 4 430243 01413041014201 42494310 4338 421042074350 4364 4202420842124 4330 40044300 42144334 4245 41324 3 1 8 421341094342 4247 4211411141134311 4248 401342004243 4307 4303 4344 4301 42474246 44164411420042094315 4352 4 0 4 84221 4315 4246 4353 4420 43134204420841104201 4348 40174411 430344154417 4115 4201 4405 4201 4401 42284232 4236 4240 4244 4245PROJECT LIMITSLYNN AVEGRIMES AVECROCKER AVESIDELL TRLMORNINGSIDE RD W 4 4 T H S T B R A N S O N S T LITTEL STOAKDALE AVEW 42ND ST KIPLING AVELYNN AVEMONTEREY AVEOAKDALE AVECITY OF ST. LOUIS PARKCITY OF EDINA/ Engineering Dept October 2021 2022 Project Area Morningside D and E Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionCITYOFEDINAMI N NESOTAINCORPORAT E D 1888 , e DRAFT APPENDIX F Living Streets Plan DRAFT Living Streets Plan 2015 Safety Health Choice EconomyDRAFT 8 2. Living Streets Policy INTRODUCTION The Living Streets Policy was developed to provide the framework for a Living Streets Plan. The policy initially stood alone and included sections to guide the creation of the Living Street Plan. This revised policy is now an integral part of the Living Streets Plan. The Living Streets Policy ties directly to key community goals outlined in the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Those goals include safe walking, bicycling and driving; reduced storm water runoff, reduced energy consumption, and promoting health. The Living Streets Policy also compliments voluntary City initiatives such the “do.town” effort related to community health, Tree City USA and the Green Step Cities programs related to sustainability. In other cases, the Living Streets Policy will assist the City in meeting mandatory requirements set by other agencies. The Living Streets Policy is broken up into three parts: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The Policy is followed by a description of core services provided by the City of Edina that are related to or implemented in part through Living Streets. POLICY Living Streets balance the needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders in ways that promote safety and convenience, enhance community identity, create economic vitality, improve environmental sustainability, and provide meaningful opportunities for active living and better health. The Living Streets Policy defines Edina’s vision for Living Streets, the principles Living Streets will embody, and the plan that will guide implementation of their construction. LIVING STREETS VISION Edina is a place where ... • Transportation utilizing all modes is equally safe and accessible; • Residents and families regularly choose to walk or bike; • Streets enhance neighborhood character and community identity; • Streets are safe, inviting places that encourage human interaction and physical activity; • Public policy strives to promote sustainability through balanced infrastructure investments; • Environmental stewardship and reduced energy consumption are pursued in public and private sectors alike; and • Streets support vibrant commerce and add to the value of adjacent land uses. Mini Fact Expect cyclists on the road. Watch for cyclists on the road. Treat them as you would any slow-moving vehicle. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 9 LIVING STREETS PRINCIPLES Fifteen principles guide implementation of the Living Streets Policy in the areas of all users and all modes, connectivity, context sensitivity and sustainability. The City will incorporate these principles when planning for and designing the local transportation network and when making public and private land use decisions. All Users and All Modes Principle 1: Living Streets are high-quality transportation facilities that meet the needs of the most vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists, children, seniors and the disabled; and Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity Principle 3: The City designs, operates and maintains a transportation system that provides a highly connected network of streets that accommodate all modes of travel; Principle 4: The City seeks opportunities to overcome barriers to active transportation by preserving and repurposing existing rights-of-way and adding new rights- of-way to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit; Principle 5: The City prioritizes improvements to non-motorized connections to key destinations such as public facilities, public transit, the regional transportation network and commercial areas; Principle 6: The City will require new developments to provide interconnected street and sidewalk networks that connect to existing or planned streets or sidewalks on the perimeter of the development; and Principle 7: Projects will include consideration of the logical termini by mode. For example, the logical termini for a bike lane or sidewalk may extend beyond the traditional limits of a street construction or reconstruction project, in order to ensure multimodal connectivity and continuity. Context Sensitivity Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place; Principle 9: Living Streets preserve and protect natural features such as waterways, urban forest, sensitive slopes and soils; Principle 10: Living Streets are designed and built with coordination between business and property owners along commercial corridors to develop vibrant commercial districts; Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 10 Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional authorities; and Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level. Sustainability Principle 13: Living Streets will improve the current and future quality of life of the public, Principle 14: Living Streets will reduce environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of roadways; and Principle 15: The City will increase the life span and resilience of its infrastructure and will build infrastructure with consideration for lifecycle costs and ease of maintenance. LIVING STREETS IMPLEMENTATION The City of Edina will develop Living Streets in the regular course of business of maintaining, expanding or redeveloping the road network and will be guided by the Vision and Principles established above. Implementation will happen predominantly through the neighborhood street reconstruction program, but also though specific stand-alone stormwater utility, pedestrian, bicycle or safety projects. Project prioritization is not specifically part of the Living Streets Plan. Prioritization of projects takes place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and Budget and is determined by the City Council with guidance from the Living Streets Vision and Principles. The City will actively promote and apply the Living Streets Policy and Plan by: •Applying the Living Streets Policy and Plan to all street projects, including those involving operations, maintenance, new construction, reconstruction, retrofits, repaving, rehabilitation or changes in the allocation of pavement space on an existing roadway. This also includes privately built roads, sidewalks, paths and trails. •Drawing on all sources of transportation funding and actively pursuing grants, cost-sharing opportunities and other new or special funding sources as applicable. •Through all City departments supporting the vision and principles outlined in this Plan in their work. •By acting as an advocate for Living Streets principles when a local transportation or land use decision is under the jurisdiction of another agency. Projects that implement Living Streets will be guided by pedestrian and cyclist network plans and roadway classifications and will consider the physical, social, ecologic, regulatory and economic context in a given project area. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 11 The project delivery system used to build Living Streets will: • Systematically engage Edina residents and project stakeholders to better inform project-level recommendations. • Keep Edina residents and project stakeholders informed about Living Streets and the range of services they help provide. • Follow minimum Living Streets design requirements and standards. • Manage construction impacts to residents and users of streets. Network The creation of a Living Streets network of road, pedestrian and bicycle facilities provides mobility, accessibility and access to people, places and spaces. The resulting interconnection of neighborhoods links people to goods and services and to one another, and increases quality of life for those who live in, work in, or visit the city. Existing and planned transportation networks are identified in the City of Edina Comprehensive Plan and other approved/adopted plans. Network plans include: • Roadway Network (Functional Classification, Jurisdictional Classification) • Sidewalk Facilities • Bicycle Facilities (Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan) • Active Routes to School Comprehensive Plan • Transit Service Network plans are approved by the City Council. In most cases, modification requires an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion, creation and improvement of pedestrian and bicycle networks will be well planned and prioritized: • Expansion of existing networks and providing connections to key traffic generators or destinations provide immediate benefit to all network users and is a top priority. • Network connections serving vulnerable users such as children, seniors and the disabled are a top priority. • Network connections serving high-volume uses such as schools, retail destinations or regional public transit are a top priority. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 12 Context Contextual variety can either constrain or create opportunity in roadway and other infrastructure projects. The following are contexts that will be considered and will influence the planning, design and implementation of Living Streets. Exceptions Living Streets principles will be included in all street construction, reconstruction, repaving and rehabilitation projects, except under one or more of the conditions listed below. City staff will document proposed exceptions as part of a project proposal. • A project involves only ordinary maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition, such as mowing, cleaning, sweeping, spot repair, concrete joint repair or pothole filling, or when interim measures are implemented on a temporary detour. Such maintenance activities, however, shall consider and meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. CONTEXTS OF LIVING STREETS Ecological Water resource, ponds, wetlands, lakes, streams Natural resouces, trees, and urban forest Air quality Climate Sun and shade Materials, waste, energy, sustainability Regulatory State Aid roadway Watershed rules Operational Maintenance operations Traffic control or functional constraints Project Type Public Neighborhood street reconstruction Neighborhood street reconstruction with major associated utility work State Aid street reconstruction Stand-alone sidewalk, bicycle or utility project Public partner lead State County Transit agency Parks district Private development Will remain private Future public Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 13 •The City exempts a project due to an excessively disproportionate cost of establishing a bikeway, walkway or transit enhancement as part of a project. •The City determines that the construction is not practically feasible or cost effective because of significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, flood plains, remnants or native vegetation, wetlands or other critical areas. •Available budget is constrained or project timing allows more efficient construction at a later date. Engagement Members of the public have an interest in understanding and providing input for public projects. Project recommendations will be developed with a transparent and defined level of public engagement. The public will have access to the decision-making process and decision makers via public meetings and other correspondence and will be provided the opportunity to give input throughout the process. Project reports will discuss how their input helped to influence recommendations and decisions. The City of Edina’s Living Streets will continue to engage and solicit public input as a vital component of the project implementation process. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion regarding the purpose of and opportunities for public engagement. Design The guidelines contained in the Living Streets Plan will be used to direct the planning, funding, design, construction, operation and maintenance of new and modified streets, sidewalks, paths and trails. The guidelines allow for context-sensitive designs. The Design Guidelines (see Chapter 6): •Keep street pavement widths to the minimum necessary. •Provide well-designed pedestrian accommodation in the form of sidewalks or shared-use pathways on all arterial, collector and local connector streets. Sidewalks shall also be required where streets abut a public school, public building, community playfield or neighborhood park. Termini will be determined by context. •Provide frequent, convenient and safe street crossings. These may be at intersections designed to be pedestrian friendly, or at mid-block locations where needed and appropriate. •Provide bicycle accommodation on all primary bike routes. •Allocate right-of-way for boulevards. •Allocate right-of-way for parking only when necessary and not in conflict with Living Streets principles. •Consider streets as part of our natural ecosystem and incorporate landscaping, trees, rain gardens and other features to improve air and water quality. The Design Guidelines in this Plan will be incorporated into other City plans, manuals, rules, regulations and programs as appropriate. As new and better practices evolve, the City will update this Living Streets Plan. Minimum standards will guide how vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle networks interact and share public right of way. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 14 Benchmarks and Performance Measures The ability to measure the performance of a plan, as well as knowing that it is functioning as it is intended, is vitally important to overall success and the ability to sustain it. With this in mind, the City will monitor and measure its performance relative to the Living Streets Policy. Benchmarks that will demonstrate success include: Every street and neighborhood is a comfortable place for walking and bicycling. This does not mean that every street in the city will have walking and biking facilities. It means that each neighborhood will provide a network of these facilities such that walking and biking to and through neighborhoods is a comfortable experience. Every child can walk or bike to school or a park safely. It is essential that alternatives to driving to school or parks be provided to children and their caregivers. These alternatives – walking or bicycling – will be both safe and convenient modes of transportation. See the Edina Active Routes to School Plan for more information. Seniors, children, and disabled people can cross all streets safely and comfortably. Opportunities to cross all streets in Edina, including local, collectors and arterial streets, will be provided. These crossings will be safe and comfortable for all users, regardless of age or ability. An active way of life is available to all. Opportunities for active living should be made available to all members of the Edina community by connecting centers of activity via active, multimodal transportation. Each resident of and visitor to Edina will have the ability to lead an active way of life. There are zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Perhaps the ultimate safety benchmark is zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries. Modeled from the Vision Zero Initiative (www.visionzeroinitiative.com), an aspirational yet primary goal of Living Streets is to achieve this high level of safety on the City’s roadways. Reduce untreated street water flows into local waterways and reduce storm water volume. Cost-effective stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are strategically selected to go above and beyond regulatory requirements to provide for flood protection and clean water services through the use of infrastructure that retains, settles, filters, infiltrates, diverts or reduces the volume of stormwater that flows to local surface waters. Retail streets stay or become popular regional destinations. Part of Edina’s Living Streets vision is that “streets support vibrant commerce.” While most of the city’s streets are residential, Edina’s business districts are a vital part of the community. The benefits of Living Streets extend to retail streets as well, making them more attractive to businesses and consumers alike. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT 15 The City will draw on the following data to measure performance: • Number of crashes or transportation-related injuries reported to the Police Department. • Number and type of traffic safety complaints or requests. • Resident responses to transportation related questions in resident surveys. • Resident responses to post-project surveys. • The number of trips by walking, bicycling and transit (if applicable) as measured before and after the project. • Envision ratings from the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure. • Additional performance measures may be identified as this Policy is implemented. Mini Fact Motorists must stop behind all crosswalks. Living Streets Plan – 2. Living Streets PolicyDRAFT APPENDIX G Edina Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes DRAFT APPENDIX H Resident Questionnaires DRAFT Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT 30 January 2019 - 15 August 2021 PROJECT NAME: Morningside D & E Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction DRAFT SURVEY QUESTIONS Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 1 of 44 DRAFT Q1 How concerned are you with the speed of traffic in your neighborhood or on your street? 29 (45.3%) 29 (45.3%) 23 (35.9%) 23 (35.9%) 12 (18.8%) 12 (18.8%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (64 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 2 of 44 DRAFT Q2 How concerned are you with the volume of traffic or number of vehicles in your neighborhood or on your street? 29 (44.6%) 29 (44.6%) 23 (35.4%) 23 (35.4%) 13 (20.0%) 13 (20.0%) Not Concerned Concerned Very Concerned Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 3 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM See above regarding traffic on 42nd street. Edina could generate more $ policing this intersection than on 100/62. It's a goldmine for traffic citations. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM 44th/Grimes. More and more drivers are using 44th street as well as bikes. As I mentioned above, not only is traffic increasing but people are rolling through stop signs. It is getting busier every year and has increased since the work on Sunnyside to slow and divert traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM Please see above. Thank You Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Crocker Avenue tends to become congested as the street is quite narrow. Not everyone observes the no parking signs on the west side of the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 05:32 PM Grimes Ave is used as an alternative to France Ave and gets lots of traffic from trucks, buses, and vehicles using it to get to homes in the neighborhood as well as to Weber Park and Golden Years. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Grimes is becoming more of a cut through as neighborhood density increases Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM Along 42nd Ave -- used by many outside the neighborhood as shortcut to avoid excelsior and France ave. These people are usually going at excessive speeds. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM Lots of vehicles due to construction, but not permanent Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM 42nd, between France and Quentin. Noise. Q3 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 4 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM The amount of construction trucks is RIDICULOUS. There should be no more than one new build allowed on a street at a given time in Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM Concern regarding construction vehicles on the "L" consisting of Oakdale Ave S and Branson Street. Very often construction vehicles are blocking the street and during the school year there are issues with buses getting through. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM The traffic at the 4-way stop on Morning side and Grimes is busy, and Grimes carries a lot of traffic on school days. The street is fairly narrow, and there is a lot of construction parking on the street which makes for a lot of congestion. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM There are a lot of young kids (under the age of 10) in this area of Morningside and the construction recently has been excessive, with large trucks and heavy machinery on a daily basis. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 04:56 AM Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 08:40 AM So many contractors and construction work takes a toll on our roads, large potholes Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM 42nd and grimes due to school and cut through from country club and to countryclub Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM Lots of traffic on 44th and Morningside; can get very tight with parking on both sides of the street Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM west 42nd street and Monterey ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Too many vehicles (mostly construction) parking on the hill from Morningside Rd to Oakdale Ave. Terrible visibility; an accident waiting to happen. Construction vehicles blocking street, Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 5 of 44 DRAFT driveways; parking in No Parking zones. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Grimes is not a through street, it is residential. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 03:54 PM see above. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM On west 42nd Street as a through street coming west off of France Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 12:03 PM France and 42nd, very difficult to cross at France. Would really like a crosswalk with flashing lights so pedestrians can cross Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 08:02 AM My main concern is the large volume of construction vehicles for all the teardowns in my neighborhood. One side of Branson St. is commonly lined with construction vehicles, adding congestion for the residents. Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 12:32 PM When multiple properties within a block or two are under construction at the same time, it can cause traffic flow and congestion problems. This increases in the spring-fall construction season, which also coincides with increased summer automobile traffic as well as pedestrian and bike traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM Too many large trucks for construction Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside Rd serves as a through street Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Grimes ave at 42 and Morningside. Drivers do not stop at the sign. Sometimes 2 cars go through the intersection at one time. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Branson St- Road curves, cars park on one side of the street, lots of kids. Potential for kids to run out and be hit by fast moving cars Screen Name Redacted See previous comment ... lots of traffic to and from that school Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 6 of 44 DRAFT 7/10/2021 03:57 PM Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM Oakdale Ave (Morningside neighborhood) - the construction parking and trucks have been overwhelming for the last two years. Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W42nd Street and Monterey. St. Louis Park doesn't allow left turns off northbound France Avenue during rush hour traffic. Edina absorbs all of the traffic trying to get to Hwy 100. W42nd Street is the last turn allowed before Excelsior Blvd. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM There is a lot of traffic on Grimes between 42nd and Morningside because the only other North-south through streets are France and Wooddale, and the two schools adjacent to Weber fields generate a lot of traffic from busses and parents. When cars are parked on one side of the street, there is only room for one vehicle at a time to pass through the pinch points. Screen Name Redacted 8/13/2021 08:15 AM It seems to be a throughfare for traffic Optional question (35 response(s), 30 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 7 of 44 DRAFT Q4 How concerned are you with motorist behavior in your neighborhood? (Examples of poor motorist behavior include speeding, rolling through stop signs, failing to yield, and driving aggressively.) 20 (30.8%) 20 (30.8%) 28 (43.1%) 28 (43.1%) 17 (26.2%) 17 (26.2%) Concerned Not Concerned Very Concerned Question options Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 8 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Most drivers don't even tap the brakes here. I have successfully pegged several cars with baseballs, softballs, etc. and will continue to do so until my arm requires Tommy John surgery. And then with successful rehab, I might be able to crank it up to 80MPH again. There are over 20 kids living within 100 ft of this intersection. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM See above. Same. Speeding, rolling through stop signs, increased traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Grimes at any of the 4 stop signs from 42nd thru Sunnyside. Generally female in suburbans or similar, or any Audi & BMW generally male or puff blonde. Stopsigns are advisory for this crew have had many near misses with being rea ended Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:10 PM Same as question 1...Speed on some roads Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM Don't need new rules, enforce aggressively the rules in place Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM 42nd and Monterey/42nd and Monterey- numerous friendly reminders and conversations by myself and neighbors to motorists to to stop if you see kids, pedestrians. We have come to expect minimal stops and basically a yield sign at other times. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Stop signs in the neighborhood tend to be regarded more as yield signs or in some cases, not observed at all. In particular, the four way stop at Morningside and Grimes. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Speed, rolling stop signs Screen Name Redacted At the corner of 44th and Grimes, the traffic on 44th regularly does Q5 If concerned or very concerned, please enter the location(s) of concern and why you feel that way. Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 9 of 44 DRAFT 6/15/2021 05:19 AM not stop at the stop sign. It is unsafe for the other vehicles, but I am mostly concerned for children crossing the street there. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM 42nd, between France and Quentin. A "straight-away" in a residential neighborhood lends itself to speeding and going through stop signs. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM See #4 remarks. A vast number of construction vehicles don't observe speed limits. They are rude, obstruct driveways, park in no parking zones and tell neighbors to F off and use profanities regularly. City Homes hires the worst offenders. Low class subs all around. I have been called a F' Bit' for asking politely to gain access to my own property. It's a real problem. Morningside isn't anti build; it's pro-respect. We would like contractors to observe Edina's ordinances and speed limits when visiting our city and recognize they may have a job to do but we live here and pay property taxes and abide by laws. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM rolling through stop signs at intersection of morningside and grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM As noted above - vehicles not noticing the dead end sign and lack of stop sign at intersection of Oakdale/Branson. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM The traffic at the 4-way stop on Morning side and Grimes is busy, and Grimes carries a lot of traffic on school days. The street is fairly narrow, and there is a lot of construction parking on the street which makes for a lot of congestion. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM The roads are too torn up to drive fast and the only Stop Sign in the area is at Morningside and Oakdale, which is much needed and paid attention to given the blind hill coming up Morningside from the West. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM 44th and Morningside Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM w42nd street and Monterey. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 10 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM There is are several areas of low visibility due to hedges and cars just plow around those corners at full speed. For example Oakdale and Littel, 42nd Street near Grimes and Kiping Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM All of the reasons listed above, plus the ubiquitous construction vehicles who flout parking restrictions at will (and are rude if you ask them to move: You and what army?) Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Nobody stops at stop signs on 44th and Grimes or Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM There’s no enforcement of traffic laws against locals so no one follows the law, especially teens. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM There should be a stop sign on Branson where it meets Oakdale Ave S. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM On West 42nd Street and Lynn Avenue; On West 42nd Street and France Avenue. With recent social unrest, traffic can access West 42nd Street from France and use a through street. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 08:41 AM Speeding, as stated Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM speeding mostly. the cyclists run the stop signs. Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM Rolling through stop signs on busier intersections, such as Grimes + 44th Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 07:56 AM See speed comments above. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Close and fast passing of cyclists is very common, making it a worry to let kids cycle alone. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 11 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM 42nd /Morningside Lynn - cars fly down hill. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM I have witnessed a child on a bike being struck by a driver at Grimes and Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Morningside Rd/Grimes, 44th/Grimes, Grimes/42nd, Grimes northbound to 42nd there is a hill and you can't see traffic coming up hill till it's too late and they travel too fast---Rolling through stop signs and high speeds Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM 44th and France, Grimes and 44th intersection, Grimes and Woodale intersection, 42nd and grimes intersection, Grimes and Morningside intersection Frequent near misses during walks, most cars roll through intersections especially on 44th when they are released in waves from 44th and France signal intersection. Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM lots of people driving to and from the school Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W 42nd Street and Monterey. Same as above Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM All locations, but particularly Oakdale Avenue and Morningside Road. We walk, drive and bike the neighborhood daily and the safety of us, our dogs and children of others is threatened by fast and inattentive driving. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Many drivers on Grimes avenue are distracted. Motorists tend to develop a lot of speed on the long block heading north, and if heading south they often "gun their engines" heading up the hill as if developing momentum will help their car make it to the top. There is a lot of speeding traffic in front of my house. Optional question (37 response(s), 28 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 12 of 44 DRAFT Q6 In general, these behaviors impact you most when you are: 17 (26.2%) 17 (26.2%) 11 (16.9%) 11 (16.9%) 37 (56.9%) 37 (56.9%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 13 of 44 DRAFT Q7 Do you feel any intersection in your neighborhood is unsafe? 38 (58.5%) 38 (58.5%) 27 (41.5%) 27 (41.5%) Yes No Question options Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 14 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM You know which one. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM I am not sure it is quite up to "unsafe" but it can be. 44/grimes. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Kiopling and Morningside the hedges on the Northeast need to be trimmed way back Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:10 PM The cross walk on 44th at Kojetin Park is a little dangerous. Many cars do not stop for pedestrians and drive very fast. It can get scary when with our young kids. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM 44th and Grimes. very bad sight lines due to bushes on NW corner. Oakdale and Litel - unable to see around corner due to bushes at NE corner - drivers cut the corner with no visual ability Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM 42nd and Monterey, 42nd and Oakdale stop signs Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 05:32 PM The corner of Morningside and France is very blind when trying to turn onto France Ave from Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:19 AM 44th/Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM France Ave. and 43rd street Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM The Morningside / Oakdale Ave intersection hill. There are blind spots for traffic due to incline/decline. If you are walking across Morningside and a car is approaching (usually speeding) they have to screech on the brakes. I have seen too many kids and dog Q8 Which intersection do you feel is unsafe? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 15 of 44 DRAFT walkers nearly missed. It would be a wise decision for the city to add a marked/painted pedestrian crosswalk at Sidell Trl/Morningside or Oakdale / Morningside with pedestrian crossing indicator lights (similar to what was installed at the Vernon Ave & City Hall crosswalk. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM 44th street and grimes avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM Crossing France can be difficult Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM Oakdale Ave S/Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM Grimes and 42nd; Grimes and morning side Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 04:56 AM Wooddale and Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM morningside road and wooddale - a stop sign should be added onto Wooddale so it is a 4 way stop Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Sunnyside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM W42nd and Monterey Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 05:50 AM 42nd and France Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM Oakdale and Littel due to vegetation blocking visibility Monterey/42nd/Oakdale has stop signs, but the street alignment is strange, and it is hard to tell how to handle moving to or from Oakdale and Monterey unless you are making a R turn. When turning L from 42nd to Oakdale drivers stopped at the stop sign and heading east often start going before you can complete your turn. The intersections at 44th, France and Sunnyside are a mess. The parking on street should be removed and L turn lanes should Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 16 of 44 DRAFT be installed. With the increased businesses and apartments, one person turning left can snarl traffic on France for a few light cycles. Parking should be replaced, spilling over to our neighbors is not a kind option. Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Morningside Rd and Oakdale Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM 44th and Grimes, Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM Grimes and 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 03:54 PM Morningside & Wooddale might be better if it were a 4-way stop, especially now that Wooddale is a bike route. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM Where Branson meets Oakdale Ave S. Need to have a stop sign on Branson. Also where Oakdale meets Morningside - there should be a cross walk across Morningside with some flasher lights when people are crossing. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM West 42nd Street and France Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 12:03 PM France and 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM 42 st and France ave Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM 44th and Grimes. Most traffic is safe and respectful of pedestrians, but I have witnessed many cars rolling through the stop sign or even one car speeding around stopped traffic and running the sign. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside and Grimes Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Morningside and Grimes 44th and Grimes 42nd and France Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 17 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Any with cars, in winter time intersections with standing water due to drains being placed such that they do not clear and you have to climb the snowbank and walk in the street to get around the pool of water. Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM when on morningside road heading east to France Av, there's a very slight downhill slope. In winter this stretch gets icy and since it's just very slightly graded downward toward France there can be a big sheet of ice ... and since it's at France with a stop sign it's dangerous. This can be icy when most other streets aren't based on how the water drains/flows and then can re-freeze Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM Morningside Road and Oakdale Ave. Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W 42nd Street and Monterey Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Morningside Road and Oakdale Avenue. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM 42nd & Grimes vehicles often do not stop, signal, or actually look both ways. It's difficult for me to back out of my driveway. 42nd & France is also difficult to cross as a pedestrian and turn onto as a vehicle. Optional question (38 response(s), 27 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 18 of 44 DRAFT Q9 Which, if any, of the following factors contribute to your feeling that the intersection is unsafe? (select all that apply) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 22 (51.2%) 22 (51.2%) 10 (23.3%) 10 (23.3%) 7 (16.3%) 7 (16.3%) 3 (7.0%) 3 (7.0%) 14 (32.6%) 14 (32.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Lack of traffic control (traffic signal, stop sign, yield sign)Issues with sight lines or clear view Drivers failing to stop at stop sign Drivers failing to yield Drivers turning corner too fast Street(s) too wide Other (please specify)Insufficient lighting Question options 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Optional question (43 response(s), 22 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 19 of 44 DRAFT Q10 In general, the intersection feels most unsafe when you are: 17 (37.8%) 17 (37.8%) 4 (8.9%) 4 (8.9%) 24 (53.3%) 24 (53.3%) Driving Bicycling Walking, jogging, or running Question options Optional question (45 response(s), 20 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 20 of 44 DRAFT Q11 How frequently do you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood? 50 (78.1%) 50 (78.1%) 10 (15.6%) 10 (15.6%)4 (6.3%) 4 (6.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (64 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 21 of 44 DRAFT Q12 If you walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 63 (96.9%) 63 (96.9%) 27 (41.5%) 27 (41.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 10 (15.4%) 10 (15.4%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Access transit Other (please specify) Question options 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 22 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Would love a major cross walk at 42nd and France (similar to the one on 47th and Xerxes) Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM People trimming their bushes free from the sidewalk. Many sidewalks are overgrown from adjacent bushes! Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM Plans to increase tree canopies. With all the teardown loads of trees have been removed. And few if any are replaced. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:00 AM Sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM Less hills. (kidding) Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Get rid of construction traffic. Quit authorizing teardowns. Morningside used to have affordable housing and character. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM adding cross walk lights on W.42nd. More stop signs on w42nd and morningside rd. SLP has stop signs every block to keep car speed down and to help prevent side streets from becoming over used by cars that are trying to use side streets as shortcuts. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM sidewalks are appreciated, please finish connectors- W side of Grimes heading to 42nd street, Lynn from 40th to 42nd street, Monterey where it curves coming up the hill Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Additional sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM Crosswalk at West 42nd Street and France Avenue would be fabulous! Q13 If you don't walk, jog, or run in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your walking, jogging, or running? Please list all that you can think of. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 23 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Clear priority at 4 ways for pedestrians to cross. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Speed bumps or other traffic calming improvements. Slower traffic speeds as less traffic is unrealistic Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Hard barriers extending into the roadway to minimize the crossing distance. Paint and flex posts are near worthless as deterents. Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM sidewalks are good for Morningside Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Crosswalks at heavily walked uncontrolled intersections. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Please add a marked crosswalk at the top of the grimes hill where the sidewalk ends. Pedestrians crossing there have a clear view of the street in both directions and are easily seen by drivers against the background. In addition, the no parking near the crosswalk will eliminate a critical pinch-point. Optional question (16 response(s), 49 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 24 of 44 DRAFT Q14 How frequently do you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood? 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 17 (26.2%) 17 (26.2%) 24 (36.9%) 24 (36.9%) 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 6 (9.2%) 6 (9.2%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 25 of 44 DRAFT Q15 If you ride a bicycle in your neighborhood, what are your primary reasons for doing so? (select all that apply) 51 (91.1%) 51 (91.1%) 29 (51.8%) 29 (51.8%) 4 (7.1%) 4 (7.1%)6 (10.7%) 6 (10.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Health/exercise Travel to/from destination (such as store, coffee shop)Commute to/from work Other (please specify)Access transit Question options 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Optional question (56 response(s), 9 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 26 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:45 AM 44th street is a heavily used bike route, and even though it is a wide roadway, there are no painted bike lanes. This could improve bicyclist safety. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Crossing 42nd and France with family is challenging. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:20 PM Fewer hills, haha Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM Smoother roads -- less cars parked along the roadway. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM Connecting bike lane or trail to lake Harriet Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM More bike trails would be ideal, but bike lanes on streets linking the parks would be helpful. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM Do not add bike lanes they create a greater confusion then help for young drivers and old drivers - leave it alone Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM More stop signs to keep car traffic speed down and prevent them from using side streets as highways Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM better sight lines at intersections Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Bicyclists who do not obey traffic laws, blowing through stop signs and lights, hogging the road in packs, are a danger to everyone. Bike lanes not effective on busy/narrow roads, especially when the center line (yellow) for cars is eliminated. Not enough room for either. Q16 If you don't ride a bicycle in your neighborhood as often as you would like, what reconstruction improvement might increase your bicycle riding frequency? Please list all that you can think of. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 27 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Speed of traffic, failure to yield at intersections Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM Crosswalk at West 42nd Street and France Avenue. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Fixing the numerous dangerous potholes on every block. Reduce on-street parking that narrow the road and obscures cyclists from motorists. Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM Biking is for TRAILS and the bike lanes are Hazardous to bikers and drivers. CARS are for roads. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Traffic calming and speed and traffic enforcement Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Safer roads and sidewalks Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Separated, protected (curb) bike lanes Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM fewer cars, especially with cars and constuction vehicles on both sides of Morningside road, and speed limit should be reduced like in S. Mpls Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Only allowing parking on one side of the road. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Just a sign to remind drivers to look for bicycles. Optional question (20 response(s), 45 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 28 of 44 DRAFT Q17 How frequently do you or a member of your household park on the street? 8 (12.3%) 8 (12.3%) 10 (15.4%) 10 (15.4%) 13 (20.0%) 13 (20.0%) 26 (40.0%) 26 (40.0%) 8 (12.3%) 8 (12.3%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 29 of 44 DRAFT Q18 How frequently do visitors to your household park on the street? 3 (4.6%) 3 (4.6%) 23 (35.4%) 23 (35.4%) 28 (43.1%) 28 (43.1%) 9 (13.8%) 9 (13.8%) 2 (3.1%) 2 (3.1%) Very frequently (daily or near daily)Frequently (2-3 times per week)Occasionally (1-4 times per month) Rarely (less than once per month)Never Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 30 of 44 DRAFT Q19 How satisfied are you with the availability of on-street parking in your neighborhood? 21 (32.3%) 21 (32.3%) 21 (32.3%) 21 (32.3%) 12 (18.5%) 12 (18.5%) 10 (15.4%) 10 (15.4%)1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Question options Optional question (65 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 31 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM NA. No concerns. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Due to the narrowness of Crocker Avenue, there is no parking allowed on the west side of the street. This is necessary, but it does create a lack of available parking space on the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:20 PM Older homes on street all had single, car-width driveways leading to detached garages behind the house. Newer homes are being built with double wide driveways and garages in front. Since parking is only allowed on the north side of our street, when a double driveway takes the place of a single driveway on that side, all the houses near it lose a street parking spot. Ironically, the new homeowners don't even park in front of their own house, they park in front of the older homes because we have room for 2 cars. Developers should not be able to do this. It affects everyone on both sides of the street and on either side of the new house, and it's an impact nobody thinks about. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM with construction, people working on the new houses park in front of fire hydrants, and on the wrong side of the street, and block the passage of other cars. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM It's the construction parking creating the parking stress in Morningside. Reduce the tear down permits to no more than one per street in Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM Construction adversely impacts street parking Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM we can only park on one side of the street where we live, which is fine. The issue is neighbors have "claimed" certain spots on the street and they park across the street at the bottom of our driveway, which makes it annoying backing out of our driveway Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM I like that there is parking only on one side of the street (branson) Q20 Any additional comments about parking? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 32 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM The continued construction on Branson street means that construction people often take all the parking spots on our narrow street. It is really aggravating Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:37 AM Construction traffic is a nightmare and often takes all or most of the available on-street parking Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM Parking enforcement could be improved, especially when several homes are under construction in the neighborhood. Several times over the past few weeks, contractors have blocked the road (double parked), blocked driveways for neighbors, or parked haphazardly which has created situations that are tough to navigate. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 08:40 AM Like that parking is allowed only on one side to maintain flow of traffic, but this obviously reduces available parking Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM leave parking restricted on blocks so 1 side you can park on that side and you can't on the other side Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM Streets can be tight with parking on both sides Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM We have a single car garage with a short driveway (one car is in garage the other car is in the driveway or parked in the street. Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM keep business parking off nearby neighboring streets Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM No Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM Our street is extremely busy with construction parking. Sometimes it is not very controlled, making it challenging to get through the street and/or challenging to get out of the driveway. I worry about emergency vehicles being able to get through at times, if needed. Screen Name Redacted On street parking frequently makes roads like Morningside road a Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 33 of 44 DRAFT 6/27/2021 05:03 PM slalom course of vehicles weaving in and out. making it unpleasant to cycle or even drive on. Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM I would like to park in the street past November IF there is no snow. It would be nice to start the policy on the first snow and not on a specific date. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Please enforce the 30 foot set back from corners. Especially at Morningside and Grimes. Sight lines are diminished and cars cannot make turns when something activity is happening at the church or drop off or pick up. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Neighbor across the street park their cars on the street and only place to park is our side of the street. There are always cars parked outside our house and never space when we need it. Widen road and allow pkg on both sides of the street? Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Too much of it. Would prefer paid street parking but at our density I know is not feasible. Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM the amount of construction vehicles is crazy Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM There are so many construction trucks in the neighborhood and in front of my house most days that it's almost impossible to park on the street. Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Glad that parking is now limited to only one side of the street on Oakdale Avenue. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM I believe it is unsafe for people to park vehicles near the crest of the hill on Grimes. Optional question (27 response(s), 38 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Q21 Please tell us anything else you would like us to know about existing traffic or street Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 34 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:45 AM Street condition is worsening throughout the Morningside area, largely as a result of the residential construction activity. Heavy trucks are harder on the roads and continual cutting, patching, and repairing for utility hookups is damaging to the roadways. It would be nice if this activity, which is resulting in more damage to the roadways, bears a higher share of the cost of roadway repair. This could be done by fees/taxes associated with residential construction permit process. I do not know if this is part of the project scope but residential construction activity and recent tree trimming by utilities resulted in a number of lost trees on our boulevards. Replacing boulevard trees along Morningside Rd should be made a priority. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM Truck volume due to the number of teardowns is directly responsible for the fast deterioration of our streets. It's ridiculous that residents should have to pay for these excessive repairs. Tax the remodelers. Or have trucks pay to access the job site. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Morningside is generally off the grid so we are not a thruway. The North South connector of Woodale has been choked down to unreasonable levels from Excelsior thru to 50th. This was the main North South connector ands still should be. Narrowing the street thru Country Club impedes my ability to safely navigate to our doctors at Southdale. Given the mess which 100 and France have become Wooddale is the only safe alternative - Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM 20 MPH on side streets would be fine. Bigger issue is speeding and complete stops at intersections. This is a walking/running/biking neighborhood. People need to treat it as such. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM Need repair/ replacement as planned- Thank You!!!! Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Grimes is poorly maintained and as a through street should not be sssessed to Morningside residence, but cover by taxes/public works budgets instead of wasting money on 100 year flood management fit lots in a flood plane that Edina developed and collects taxes for. It would have been more cost effective to by up high risk flood lots and turn them into park than pursue the flood conditions in your neighborhood. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 35 of 44 DRAFT management initiatives - poor city planning Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM The everyother street stop sign on 38th and 39th st. drives traffic down 42nd st. There's a high flow of vehicles that were East Bound on Excelsior, that instead turn SE on 39th st. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM Surfaces of streets are poor, which creates safety issue for bicyclists. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM the street itself is a mess - pot holes, uneven. no issues with traffic,but very difficult to drive or bike down our street (branson) Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM Could there some way be a limit of the number of construction workers who can park on the street for each home being built. On Branson there are 3 with another tear down expected this month. Plus one on Oakdale. Could some of the workers be required to park further away and double up to get here. We only have parking on one side. It's really difficult. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM Branson and Oakdale streets are in terrible shape!! There is more pothole patch than original asphalt and the potholes keep coming back because of the Construction and Truck traffic. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:21 AM 4219 Oakdale Ave. S. Edina, MN Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM I would finish so sidewalks are on all streets ie Kipling - upper Oakdale not sure where else - I would even consider putting a sidewalk on the south side of 42nd Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Road is such that entire street drains down our driveway. Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM We have a difficult time backing out of our driveway because of traffic on w42nd street. If we need to park on the street the cars go speeding very close preventing getting in or out of our vehicle. Screen Name Redacted street lights can affect sleep and should use appropriate light Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 36 of 44 DRAFT 6/17/2021 04:07 PM wavelengths Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Moves to fast for the density of the neighborhood. A lot of children Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM Please future proof the streets by including conduit through which fiber optic cable could be run. Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM The street is in pretty terrible shape. I'm not going to lie, it feels pretty ridiculous that street repairs are not included in our existing taxes which are some of the highest in the area. Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 08:41 AM My primary concern regarding speeding isn’t listed, and that is that I have 2 kids and we have many kids in our neighborhood that are outside playing every day. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM 4350 Morningside Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55416, USA 4350 Morningside Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55416, USA Screen Name Redacted 6/29/2021 05:49 AM Traffic is fine except when construction crews fill streets with driving, parking, or temporarily blocking traffic while unloading, etc. Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM Our roads look like 3rd world and I have spent a lot of time in the 3rd world. They are unacceptable and in horrible condition. Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Enforce the speed limits on Grimes. Please Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM City Homes has built a lot of homes in the Morningside neighborhood and they have increased the damage to roads and problematic parking. Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Nothing else. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Thank you for the sidewalk on 42nd!!!!!!! it's always busy and makes a huge difference. I believe a crosswalk is required at the top of the hill where the sidewalk ends. See 14 above. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 37 of 44 DRAFT Optional question (27 response(s), 38 skipped) Question type: Essay Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 38 of 44 DRAFT Q22 Do you favor improving streetlights in your neighborhood? (residential streetlights are funded by special assessment) 16 (25.4%) 16 (25.4%) 40 (63.5%) 40 (63.5%) 7 (11.1%) 7 (11.1%) Yes No Other (please specify) Question options Optional question (63 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 39 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 09:45 AM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 12:53 PM W. 42nd Street. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 01:59 PM 44th Street Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 02:54 PM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:10 PM Branson St. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 03:34 PM Lynn between Morningside and 42st Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:09 PM 42nd street Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 04:12 PM Crocker Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 05:32 PM Grimes Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:09 PM Grimes Ave. S. Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:20 PM Branson Street Screen Name Redacted 6/14/2021 07:28 PM 42nd St. Screen Name Redacted Grimes Ave Q23 What is your street name? Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 40 of 44 DRAFT 6/15/2021 05:19 AM Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:50 AM Branson St. Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:12 AM 42nd Street Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:28 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 06:47 AM Branson Street Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:15 AM Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:51 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 08:52 AM Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 09:34 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 10:00 AM Crocker Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:24 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 11:37 AM Oakdale Avenue S Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 12:11 PM Branson St. Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 41 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/15/2021 05:37 PM lynn ave Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 04:56 AM Crocker Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 08:40 AM lynn Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:21 AM 4219 Oakdale Ave. S. Edina, MN Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:42 AM Crocker Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 11:17 AM Morningside Road Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 02:12 PM Branson Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 03:12 PM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/16/2021 09:02 PM West 42nd street Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 05:50 AM Crocker Screen Name Redacted 6/17/2021 04:07 PM Oakdale Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 09:13 AM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/18/2021 12:26 PM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 6/19/2021 07:27 PM Crocker Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 42 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 03:54 PM Sidell Trail Screen Name Redacted 6/20/2021 06:32 PM Oakdale Ave S Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 05:06 AM West 42nd Street Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 08:41 AM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/21/2021 12:03 PM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 08:02 AM Oakdale Ave. Screen Name Redacted 6/22/2021 12:32 PM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 6/24/2021 12:55 PM 42 st w Screen Name Redacted 6/25/2021 03:03 PM Branson St. Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 07:56 AM Branson St (NW Corner of Branson St & Grimes Ave S) Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 02:25 PM Morningside Rd Screen Name Redacted 6/27/2021 05:03 PM Lynn Screen Name Redacted 6/29/2021 05:49 AM Lynn Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 43 of 44 DRAFT Screen Name Redacted 6/30/2021 05:52 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 7/02/2021 09:04 AM Lynn Avenue Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 10:55 AM Grimes Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 01:32 PM Branson Screen Name Redacted 7/06/2021 09:29 PM Branson Screen Name Redacted 7/10/2021 03:57 PM Grimes Av. S Screen Name Redacted 7/14/2021 06:33 PM Oakdale Ave Screen Name Redacted 8/06/2021 08:04 AM W42nd Street Screen Name Redacted 8/08/2021 08:45 AM Oakdale Avenue Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 12:15 PM Grimes Avenue between 42nd and Morningside. Screen Name Redacted 8/09/2021 01:11 PM Lynn Ave Screen Name Redacted 8/13/2021 08:15 AM Grimes Mandatory Question (65 response(s)) Question type: Single Line Question Neighborhood Reconstruction Survey : Survey Report for 30 January 2019 to 15 August 2021 Page 44 of 44 DRAFT APPENDIX I Neighborhood Informational Meeting Materials DRAFT The CITYofEDINA2022 Neighborhood Roadway ReconstructionInformational MeetingDRAFT The CITYofEDINAAgenda•Introductions•Why Reconstruct•Project Scopes•What You Can Expect•Funding Sources•Timeline•Communication•How to Prepare•Questionswww.EdinaMN.gov2-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov3-AEngineering - Design & Construction DivisionChad MillnerDirector of EngineeringAaron DitzlerAssistant City EngineerEvan AcostaGraduate EngineerEdinah MachaniEngineering TechnicianLiz MooreEngineering CoordinatorCharlie GerkProject EngineerTom HaatajaSr. Engineering TechnicianJon MooreSr. Engineering TechnicianDRAFT The CITYofEDINAwww.EdinaMN.gov4-C2022 Projects Areas•Morningside D/E •-254 Properties•Blake Road (MSA) •- 62 propertiesDRAFT The CITYofEDINA•Streets grouped into neighborhoods•- Maximizes economics of scale•- Extends pavement life•Proactive Pavement Management Program•Prioritized based on;•- Pavement condition•- Underground utility issues5-Cwww.EdinaMN.govWhy My Street?DRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhy Reconstruct?•Previously reconstructed in the 1970s-1990s *•Utility issues to address beneath roadway•More cost-effective than other maintenance strategies (mill & overlay, seal coat)www.EdinaMN.gov6-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Roadways•Pavement reaching end of useful life•Some streets have curb and gutter, some do not•Some properties already have concrete driveway aprons, some do notwww.EdinaMN.gov7-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAExisting Conditions - Utilities•Watermain- Loss in pipe wall thickness- Main and service breaks- Undersized mainswww.EdinaMN.gov8-C•Sanitary Sewer- Cracks, breaks, sags, etc.- Inflow and infiltration•Storm Sewer- Structure deficiencies- Undersized pipes- Curb and gutter failingDRAFT The CITYofEDINA•Mailboxes•Irrigation systems and pet fences•Landscaping•Outwalks/stepsExisting Conditions – Right-of-Waywww.EdinaMN.gov9-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat / Where is the ROW?•Surface and space above and below public roadways used for travel purposes and utilities•Typically, 60’ width•(MSA Streets 66’)•Property corners located during surveywww.EdinaMN.gov10-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Roadways•Replacement of curb & gutter (all or sections)•Subgrade corrections as needed•New roadbed and pavement surfacewww.EdinaMN.gov11-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINALiving Streets Plan•Approved by City Council in 2015•Balances needs of motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders•Incorporates;•- Minimum roadway design elements•- Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Planwww.EdinaMN.gov12-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Driveways•Aprons will be replaced / installed to comply with City standards•Special driveway materials•Reimbursement Policywww.EdinaMN.gov13-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements - Utilities•May include localized watermain and service replacements•New fire hydrants and gate valves•May include localized sanitary sewer repairs and rehabilitation•Storm sewer upgradeswww.EdinaMN.gov14-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements – Sump Drain•Installed when feasible and warranted•Homeowners encouraged to connect to City Sump Drain•Notification will be given when connecting is available•Sump connection permit available thru City websitewww.EdinaMN.gov15-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINA•Recommend inspecting private services prior to construction•Repairs/upgrades can be coordinated with street work•Associated costs can be added to special assessmentUtility Ownershipwww.EdinaMN.gov16-AResident Owned UtilitiesB –Water ServiceC & D – Sanitary ServiceDRAFT The CITYofEDINAProposed Improvements –Ped / Bike•Based on Pedestrian and Bicyclist Master Plan•Final design evaluated based on network consistency and construction conflictswww.EdinaMN.gov17-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAPrivate Utilities•Gas, Electric, Telephone, Cable may upgrade or repair their utilities before construction begins•Potential City-required relocations•Goal: streamline projects and minimize neighborhood disturbance•Streetlight upgrades typically not included with projectwww.EdinaMN.gov18-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Dust, mud, noise, and vibrations•Localized flooding during rainfall•Occasional delays due to inclement weather•Residents will be asked to limit water use occasionally•Homes may be connected to temporary watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov19-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Construction materials stored temporarily in ROW•5-10 feet of disturbance behind back of curb•Construction equipment stored on streets•Tree removals as necessary (property owners notified)www.EdinaMN.gov20-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Driveways and roads will be periodically inaccessible•Driveways will be inaccessible for 7 days to allow driveways to curewww.EdinaMN.gov21-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•Items within the City’s right-of-way may be damaged•-You can remove plants and other landscape features before the project•- Irrigation and pet fences will repaired•Disturbed areas will be seededwww.EdinaMN.gov22-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAWhat You Can Expect•We will;•- Provide opportunities for input•- Keep you informed•- Do our best to minimize inconveniences•Our contractor will accommodate residents with special access needswww.EdinaMN.gov23-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINACity Utility Funds•Collection of utility service charges paid to the City•Covers 100% of:•- Storm sewer •(curb and gutter, •driveway aprons, •sump drain pipe) •- Sanitary sewer•-Watermainwww.EdinaMN.gov24-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAPedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund•Revenue from Xcel and CenterPoint Energy franchise fees•Promotes non-motorized transportation throughout the City•Covers 100% of:•-Sidewalks /shared-use paths•- Bike lanes•-Associated signage and pavement markingswww.EdinaMN.gov25-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINADo Taxes Cover Street Projects?•~22% of property taxes go to the City for expenses including Police, Fire, Parks, and Public Works•- Snowplowing•- Pothole repairs•- Other street maintenance (sealcoating, overlays, patch repairs)•Beginning in 2022, taxes will pay for a portion of street reconstructionwww.EdinaMN.gov26-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINASpecial Assessments•Assigned to benefitting properties of public improvements•Covers portion of roadway costs•- Roadway and driveway removals•-Asphalt pavement•- Restoration•- Indirect Costs – engineering, finance, soil investigations, mailingswww.EdinaMN.gov27-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAResidential Equivalent Units•Assessments distributed based on REUs•- Factor used to compare properties to a single-family residence•Additional factors for commercial, industrial, and public-use propertieswww.EdinaMN.gov28-CScenarioLand Use ClassREU FactorASingle-Family Residential1.0BMulti-Family Residential – Duplex0.8C Multi-Family Residential – Apartment/Condos 0.5IInstitutional – Places of Worship0.2*DRAFT The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Blake Road A, B and C•62 properties (36.13 REUs)•0.42 miles of road•Partial watermain, water services replacement•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Roundabout at Interlachen Blvd•Two 6’ on street concrete bike lanes •5’ concrete walk south of Interlachen Blvd•8’-10’ asphalt path north of Interlachen Blvdwww.EdinaMN.gov29-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProject Details – Morningside D & E•254 properties (248.04 REUs)•1.98 miles of road•Full replacement/installation of curb & gutter•Spot sidewalk repair•Localized watermain improvements•Watermain services•Substantial storm sewer improvementswww.EdinaMN.gov30-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAMorningside Flood Infrastructure Project•Improvements in 2022 and 2023•Separate but coordinated project with roadway reconstruction•https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningsidewww.EdinaMN.gov31-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - Local www.EdinaMN.gov32-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of Local Roadway Costs Assessed $10,000 $15,000 $20,0002020100%$10,000 $15,000 $20,000202178.90%$7,890 $11,835 $15,780202273.64%$7,364 $11,046 $14,728202368.38%$6,838 $10,257 $13,6762024-203563.12%-5.26%$6,312-$526 $9,468-$789 $12,624-$1,05220360%$0$0$0DRAFT The CITYofEDINARevised Roadway Cost Assessment - MSAwww.EdinaMN.gov33-ASample Assessment During TransitionConstruction Year% of MSA Roadway Costs Assessed $5,000 $7,500 $10,000202020%$5,000 $7,500 $10,000202115.78%$3,945 $5,918 $7,890202214.73%$3,682 $5,523 $7,364202313.68%$3,419 $5,129 $6,8382024-203512.62%-1.05%$3,156-$263 $4,734-$395 $6,312-$52620360%$0$0$0DRAFT The CITYofEDINAPreliminary Assessments*Residential equivalent unit (1 single-family home = 1 REU)www.EdinaMN.gov34-ANeighborhood% of Roadway Costs Assessed Estimated Assessment Range per REU*#of REUsSquareYards of PavingSquare Yards of Paving per REUMorningside D, E 73.64% $6,900 - $10,200 248.04 27,928 112.6Blake Road A, B, C14.73% $10,300 - $15,200 34.63 11,602 335.0DRAFT The CITYofEDINATypical Project Timelinewww.EdinaMN.gov35-AJuly –September2021 Engineering studies/estimates providedDecember 2021 Public hearingsJanuary – March 2022 Plan preparation and biddingApril – May 2022 Construction beginsOctober – November 2022 Construction concludesSpring 2023 Warranty workFall 2023Final assessment hearingDRAFT The CITYofEDINAAssessment Timingwww.EdinaMN.gov36-CInitial Public HearingsDecember 2021Project ConstructedSummer 2022Final Assessment HearingOctober 2023Assessment Filed with County November 2023Assessment on Tax Statement January 2024DRAFT The CITYofEDINAPayment Options•Pay entire amount upon receiving bill to avoid interest charges•Pay min. 25% ; balance rolls to property taxes over 15 years •Roll entire amount to property taxes over 15 years•Defer payment if 65 years of age or older and meet specific income requirements•- Finance charges are 1% over City’s borrowing interest rate•- 2020 interest rate was 3.53%•-Assessing Department – 952-826-0365www.EdinaMN.gov37-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINACommunicationwww.EdinaMN.gov38-A•Regular Mail-All meetings, public hearings, and questionnaires- Final assessment notices (one year after construction)•Door hangers and flyers -Time-sensitive information (water shut-offs, concrete, temporary inaccessibility)•Better Together Edina – City Website Project PageDRAFT The CITYofEDINABetter Together Edina•Best way to stay informed•www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake-rd-abc•www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside-d-e•Free, access to periodic updates on project progress and scheduleswww.EdinaMN.gov39-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAProviding Input•Questionnaires mailed to your home, weigh in on;•-Traffic/pedestrian issues•- Street drainage issues•- Streetlight upgrades•Public hearing in December 2021•- Opportunity for residents to voice comments and concernswww.EdinaMN.gov40-CDRAFT The CITYofEDINAQuestionnaire Resultswww.EdinaMN.gov41-CNeighborhoodResponses Received to DateMorningside D & E26% (65 / 254)Blake Road A, B & C19% (9 / 48)DRAFT The CITYofEDINAHow To Prepare•Complete project questionnaire•Begin financial planning•Coordinate home and yard improvement projects around street reconstruction schedule•Review Better Together Edina updates•Ask questions, stay informedwww.EdinaMN.gov42-ADRAFT The CITYofEDINAEngineering Department7450 Metro BoulevardHours: 7:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.952-826-0371Contact Uswww.EdinaMN.gov43-ALiz MooreEngineering Coordinator952-826-0449LMoore@edinamn.govAaron DitzlerAssistant City Engineer952-826-0443ADitzler@edinamn.govDRAFT The CITYofEDINAQuestions?www.EdinaMN.gov44-A•Ask questions on Better Together Edina Q&A page•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/blake‐rd‐abc•‐www.bettertogetheredina.org/morningside‐d‐e•Call or email DRAFT The CITYofEDINAThank you for your time!www.EdinaMN.gov45-ADRAFT APPENDIX J Correspondence from Residents DRAFT APPENDIX L Preliminary Assessment Roll DRAFT Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:East Grandview Transportation Study Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on the East Grandview Transportation Study. INTRODUCTION: See attached report. ATTACHMENTS: Description East Grandview Transportation Study Grandview East Area Transportation Study EDINA 161189 Edina, MN | September 22, 2021 SEH is a registered trademark of Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. EDINA 161189 i Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................ 1 2 Existing Conditions ..................................................... 3 2.1 Crash History .......................................................................................... 6 2.2 Vehicle Volumes ..................................................................................... 7 3 Future Conditions ........................................................ 8 3.1 Traffic Forecasts ..................................................................................... 8 3.2 Planned Developments .......................................................................... 8 3.3 Planned Roadway Improvements ........................................................... 8 4 Alternative Development ........................................... 11 4.1 Traffic Control Warrants ....................................................................... 11 4.2 Alternative Safety Considerations ......................................................... 12 4.3 Alternative Scenarios ............................................................................ 15 5 Design Concepts and Traffic Operations .................. 16 5.1 Eden Avenue Alternatives .................................................................... 17 5.2 W. 50th Street Alternatives .................................................................... 25 5.3 TH 100 Interchange Alternatives .......................................................... 34 5.4 Grange Road Alternatives .................................................................... 44 5.5 TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge .................................................................... 48 6 Other Public Improvements ...................................... 50 7 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Funding ................... 51 8 Conclusion ................................................................ 52 Contents (continued) EDINA 161189 ii List of Tables Table 1 – Crash History 2015-2019 ........................................................................... 6 Table 2 – Existing Warrant Analysis Results ............................................................ 12 Table 3 – Level of Service Thresholds ..................................................................... 16 Table 4 – 2024 Eden Avenue Operations Comparison ............................................ 23 Table 5 – 2040 Eden Avenue Operations Comparison ............................................ 24 Table 6 – 2024 50th Street Operations Comparison ................................................. 30 Table 7 – 2040 50th Street Operations Comparison ................................................. 31 Table 8 – 50th Street Build Alternatives Comparison ................................................ 32 Table 9 – 50th Street at Eden Avenue Intersection Comparison ............................... 33 Table 10 – 2040 Interchange Operations – No Build ............................................... 41 Table 11 – 2040 Interchange Operations – Offset Split SPUI .................................. 41 Table 12 – 2040 Interchange Operations – Split Diamond ....................................... 42 Table 13 – 2040 Interchange Operations – DDI (HCS Analysis) .............................. 42 Table 14 – TH 100 Interchange Comparison ........................................................... 43 Table 15 – Grange Road Alternatives Comparison .................................................. 48 List of Figures Project Location ........................................................................................ 2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 5 Vernon Avenue Reconstruction (2024) ..................................................... 9 Eden Avenue Reconstruction (2022) ...................................................... 10 Safety – Conflict Point Diagrams ............................................................. 14 Eden Avenue – No Build Conditions ....................................................... 18 Eden Avenue – Build Two Mini Roundabouts ......................................... 19 Eden Avenue – Build “Dog Bone” Mini Roundabout ............................... 20 Eden Avenue – Corridor Improvements .................................................. 22 W. 50th Street – No Build Conditions ..................................................... 25 W. 50th Street – Safety Improvement Alternative .................................. 27 W. 50th Street – Buffered Bike Lanes Alternative .................................. 28 W. 50th Street – 2016 Grandview Study Section ................................... 29 TH 100 Interchange – No Build ............................................................. 34 TH 100 – Split Offset SPUI .................................................................... 36 TH 100 – Split Diamond ........................................................................ 38 TH 100 – Diverging Diamond ................................................................ 40 50th Street – Grange Road No Build Conditions .................................... 44 50th Street – Grange Road Realignment ............................................... 45 Contents (continued) EDINA 161189 iii 50th Street – Grange Road Realignment ............................................... 46 TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge – Short Span ............................................... 49 List of Appendices Appendix A Intersection and Volume Figures Appendix B Traffic Operational Results Appendix C Design Layouts EDINA 161189 Page 1 Grandview East Area Transportation Study Prepared for the City of Edina. 1 Introduction The interchange area of Trunk Highway (TH) 100 at Vernon Avenue and West 50th Street includes a complex roadway network with a non-traditional interchange type and many local road connections. With redevelopment occurring within and adjacent to the study area, there is desire from the City to improve safety for all modes, traffic operations, access and reduce the complexity of the existing roadway network within the Grandview District area. The study area includes Vernon Avenue to the north and west, and Eden Avenue to the south and east; however, the focus area is just west of TH 100 to Eden Avenue, including the freeway ramp connections. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds are being considered for near term transportation improvements adjacent to upcoming redevelopment opportunities within the project area. Figure 1 represents the entire project area and the focus area in Grandview District. 1.1 Background The project area has been studied several times in recent years. Some of the analysis was conducted to develop Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) for specific redevelopment parcels, while other studies included local roadway and intersection improvements and high-level planning concepts. At the time of this study, the following studies and information was used by either incorporating the data or using the study as a reference. Eden Avenue Traffic Study (2020) Grandview Green Transportation Study (2018) Grandview District Transportation Study (2016) Grandview District Development Framework (2012) Traffic Impact Studies (various locations) Traffic and Parking Study for 4917 Eden Avenue (2021) Our Lady of Grace Expansion TIS (2019) Planned development at 5100 Eden Avenue (no current TIS) Planned development at 5146 Eden Avenue (no current TIS) More details about these studies will be provided in a later section of this report. EDINA 161189 Page 2 Project Location EDINA 161189 Page 3 2 Existing Conditions The following is a description of each of the major roadways and intersections within the project area. Highway 100 TH 100 is a north-south freeway facility that extends over 15-miles through the western side of the metro area. Through the interchange, TH 100 has 3-travel lanes in each direction, with a posted speed limit of 60 miles per hour (MPH) and carries approximately 124,000 vehicles per day. Northbound TH 100 has a single low speed (20 MPH) exit ramp that connects to Grange Road. There are two entrance ramps from W. 50th Street to northbound TH 100 with an eastbound loop ramp and a westbound right turn. Southbound TH 100 has a single lane exit to access Vernon Avenue to the west and 50th Street to the east, a connection to a collector-distributer (CD) roadway system also allows access to Arcadia Avenue. There is a single entrance ramp connection to southbound TH 100 that is part of the CD roadway with access from both Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue. Vernon Avenue S Vernon Avenue S is a west-east A-Minor Arterial roadway designated as a County State Aid Highway 158 (CSAH 158) for Hennepin County. It is a 4-lane divided roadway that serves as a primary regional corridor, connecting drivers to TH 62, TH 100, residential areas, and commercial areas such as the Grandview District. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Sidewalk facilities exist primarily on the north side of Vernon Avenue S within the focus area. Vernon Avenue S transitions into W 50th Street on the east side of TH 100. Access to both directions of TH 100 is provided from Vernon Avenue. In the study area, the corridor carries between 12,400 to 19,000 vehicles per day based on the most recent daily traffic numbers. W 50th Street W 50th Street and Vernon Avenue S are a common roadway, with Vernon Avenue S designated to the west of TH 100 and W 50th Street designated to the east of TH 100. Like Vernon Avenue S, W 50th Street is also a west-east A-Minor Arterial roadway within the study area. It is a 4-lane roadway that also serves as a regional corridor in the City. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH. Near the TH 100 overpass, sidewalk facilities exist only on the north side of the roadway. Sidewalk facilities are provided on both sides of the roadway east of Grange Road. In the study area, the corridor carries between 19,000 to 27,000 vehicles per day based on the most recent daily traffic numbers. Eden Avenue Eden Avenue is a west-east Minor Collector roadway designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route for the City of Edina. It is a 3-lane undivided roadway that connects between Vernon Avenue to the west and W 50th Street to the east with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (MPH). Sidewalk facilities exist on both sides of the roadway except a short segment with sidewalk only on the south side between Brookside Avenue and Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd; this missing segment will be constructed with a planned 2021 project. Access to southbound TH EDINA 161189 Page 4 100 is provided from Eden Avenue. In the study area, the corridor carries between 3,600 to 5,200 vehicles per day based on the most recent daily traffic numbers. Arcadia Avenue and Normandale Road Arcadia Avenue and Normandale Road are two local minor collector roadways included in the study area; both facilities are 2-lane undivided roadways with speed limits of 30 MPH. Arcadia Avenue connects between Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue, while Normandale Road extends to the south as a western freeway frontage road. Due to the proximity to the Our Lady of Grace Catholic School (OLG), Normandale Road is also within a 20 MPH school speed zone. Arcadia Avenue carries approximately 1,100 vehicles per day and Normandale Road carries approximately 2,100 vehicles per day based on the most recent daily traffic numbers. Grange Road and Willson Road Grange Road and Willson Road are two local minor collector roadways included in the study area; both facilities are 2-lane undivided roadways with speed limits of 30 MPH. Grange Road connects between W 50th Street and Eden Avenue, while Willson Road extends to the south as an eastern freeway frontage road. Willson Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid (MSA) Route for the City of Edina and carries approximately 4,400 vehicles per day. Grange Road carries between 6,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day based on the most recent daily traffic numbers. The following is a comprehensive list of all seventeen (17) intersections included in the analysis; the main study intersections are also noted. Vernon Avenue at Eden Avenue (Traffic Signal) Vernon Avenue at Gus Young Lane/Retail (Minor Stop Control) Vernon Avenue at Interlachen Boulevard (Traffic Signal) Vernon Avenue at Arcadia Avenue (eastbound RI/RO(2)) Vernon Avenue at TH 100 SB Ramp (1) (Traffic Signal) Vernon Avenue at TH 100 NB Ramp (1) (free right turn movements) W 50th Street at Grange Road (1) (Traffic Signal) W 50th Street at Dale Drive/City Hall Access (1) (Minor Stop Control) W 50th Street at Eden Avenue (1) (Minor Stop Control) W 50th Street at Sunnyslope Road (1) (Minor Stop Control) Eden Avenue at School/Church Access (Minor Stop Control) Eden Avenue at Arcadia Avenue/Normandale Road (All Way Stop Control) Eden Avenue at TH 100 SB Ramp (No Control) Eden Avenue at Grange Road/Willson Road (1) (All Way Stop Control) Eden Avenue at City Hall Access (1) (Minor Stop Control) Arcadia Avenue at TH 100 SB Ramp connection (Minor Stop Control) Grange Road at TH 100 NB Ramp (1) (Minor Stop Control) Notes: (1) Main Study Intersections. (2) Right-In/Right-Out Intersection EDINA 161189 Page 5 Figure 2 summarizes the existing and planned 2024 traffic control at the entire study area intersections. Additional intersection figures can be found in Appendix A. The 2024 planned traffic control and access changes will be further discussed in Section 3.3 of this report. The Vernon Avenue Bridge Reconstruction project will remove the high speed right turn movement from southbound TH 100 exit ramp and reconfigure the approach to a standard right turn movement. The Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue intersection project will construct a roundabout at the intersection and remove the entrance to southbound TH 100 from Eden Avenue. Existing Conditions EDINA 161189 Page 6 2.1 Crash History Crash data from January 1st, 2015 through December 31st, 2019 was provided from the MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2). The type and severity of the crashes were reviewed, and crash rates and critical rates were calculated for the study intersection. The crash rate at each intersection is expressed as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). The critical crash rate is a statistical value that is unique to each intersection and is based on vehicular exposure and the statewide average crash rate for similar intersections. An intersection with a crash rate higher than the critical rate can indicate a safety concern at the intersection and the site should be reviewed. Crash severity is separated into five categories based on injuries sustained during the crash. Fatal – Crash that results in a death Severity A – Crash that results in an incapacitating injury or serious injury Severity B – Crash that results in a non-incapacitating injury or minor injury Severity C – Crash that results in possible injury Property Damage – Crash that results in property damage only, with no injuries The crash information is summarized in Table 1. There was a total of 36 crashes that occurred in the 5-year timeframe at the 17 study intersections; none of the study intersection are approaching the critical crash rate. Not exceeding the critical rate indicates there has been no existing major safety problems, though it doesn’t alleviate all safety concerns. The southbound TH 100 ramp has the highest intersection crash frequency with 9 crashes in the 5-years, 6 of the crashes involved at least one a southbound ramp vehicle. Seven of the study intersections had no crashes during the analysis period; the table only includes the 10 intersections that had a crash occur at the intersection. Table 1 – Crash History 2015-2019 Intersection: Crash Severity Crash Rates Fatal Sev A Sev B Sev C Property Damage Total Int. Rate Critical Vernon Ave at Eden Ave** 0 0 1 0 1 2 0.08 0.91 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd** 0 0 0 1 5 6 0.25 0.91 Vernon Ave at Arcadia Ave 0 0 0 0 2 2 0.06 0.38 Vernon Ave at TH 100 SB Ramps** 0 0 0 1 8 9 0.19 1.02 W 50th St at Grange Rd** 0 0 0 1 4 5 0.10 1.01 W 50th St at Dale Dr 0 0 0 1 2 3 0.07 0.37 W 50th St at Eden Ave 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.02 0.36 Grange Rd at TH 100 NB Ramps 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.04 0.42 Eden Ave at Grange Rd 0 0 1 1 1 3 0.13 0.43 Eden Ave at Arcadia Ave 0 0 1 1 2 4 0.23 0.48 TOTAL 0 0 3 6 27 36 Notes: **Signalized Intersection EDINA 161189 Page 7 2.2 Vehicle Volumes To perform the operational analyses, the City provided vehicle turning movement data from recently completed studies within the study area in addition to MnDOT count data and MnDOT ramp detector volume data. No new traffic data or observations were performed as part of this study. The Eden Avenue Traffic Analysis project’s existing volume data was utilized for most study intersections. However, additional count data from 2021 was incorporated to include some additional turning movement data at some intersections east of TH 100. Additional MnDOT detector data from the fall of 2019 was incorporated into the volumes from the previous studies. Overall, the most recently collected turning movement data (2019) was used, when possible, as well as the ramp detector data at the study intersections. This ensured that recent development traffic, such as the Avidor apartment complex, is included as much as possible in the analysis. Earlier turning movement count data was used, when necessary, for balancing purposes. With the study area having been thoroughly reviewed in recent years, an existing conditions analysis was not conducted. The existing volumes were forecasted to a year of opening 2024, which will be discussed in the next section. EDINA 161189 Page 8 3 Future Conditions Based on input from City staff and planned construction within the project area in the coming years, a 2024 year of opening analysis and a design year 2040 were developed. Intersection volume figures can be found in Appendix A. 3.1 Traffic Forecasts Future traffic forecasts were developed based on the City of Edina’s Comprehensive Plan and previous studies in the project area. Most roadways within the project area have a growth rate of between 0.2% and 0.5%. Based on the low growth rate and previous projects, including the Eden Avenue Traffic Study, a growth rate of 0.3% per year was applied to all intersections in the study area. 3.2 Planned Developments While some development has occurred in recent years, there are additional development areas within the project area that were incorporated into this study. The existing parcel at 4917 Eden Avenue is expected to be redeveloped into an apartment complex with 208 dwelling units and includes a small restaurant. A recent TIS was completed for the redevelopment and the traffic information from the study was incorporated into the volumes for this study. The existing parcels at 5100 Eden Avenue (Eden 100 Building) and 5146 Eden Avenue (old City Public Works site) have the potential to be redeveloped into residential properties; however, neither of these locations have a current TIS completed. The 5100 Eden Avenue could occupy 100 apartment units per acre; with 1.38 acres, the density would be 138 residential apartments. The 5146 Eden Avenue could occupy 50 apartment units per acre; with 3.30 acres, the density would be 165 residential apartments. Trip generation traffic was added to the forecasted background traffic volumes for both the 2024 and 2040 forecast years. 3.3 Planned Roadway Improvements Prior to the 2024 forecast year, two construction projects are planned to be completed and are incorporated into the analysis. The following is a brief description of each project. 3.3.1 Vernon Avenue Bridge Reconstruction Hennepin County is currently in the design phase to reconstruct the Vernon Avenue (CSAH 158) bridge over the Canadian Pacific Railroad. The project includes intersection improvements and modifications to the three adjacent intersections of Interlachen Boulevard, Arcadia Avenue, and the TH 100 Southbound ramp terminal. The project is anticipated to begin construction in 2023 and be completed in 2024. More information can be found on the County’s website (https://www.hennepin.us/vernon-avenue). EDINA 161189 Page 9 The following improvements are included in the project area: Pedestrian Improvements throughout the project area, including: Widening sidewalks on railroad bridge. ADA pedestrian ramps at all crossings and new sidewalk connections. Improved crossings at both Arcadia Avenue and the TH 100 SB Ramp. Interlachen Boulevard Intersection: Adding a westbound left turn lane and signal phase. Currently this movement is not allowed, however many people disregard the signage and create a queue in the through lane. TH 100 SB Ramp Terminal Intersection: Remove southbound free right turn movement and realign to the traffic signal. Figure 3 is from the Hennepin County website and shows the reconstruction area. Vernon Avenue Reconstruction (2024) EDINA 161189 Page 10 3.3.2 Eden Avenue at Arcadia Avenue Intersection Improvements The Eden Avenue Traffic Study, completed in 2020 for the City, included the recommendations for improvements along Eden Avenue at both Arcadia Avenue and the TH 100 Southbound ramp terminal intersections. The analysis showed the current Eden Avenue entrance ramp to southbound TH 100 could be removed without significant impacts to the roadway network. Rerouted traffic to the Vernon Avenue ramp intersection added delays but did not create a considerable impact. The ramp removal reduces the volumes along Eden Avenue and reduces access. The current intersection of Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue is under all-way stop sign control. While the intersection operates acceptably, the large size of the intersection can create driver confusion at the all-way stop approaches with knowing who has the right of way. The study recommended changing the intersection control to a mini roundabout to improve safety and operations. The construction of the roundabout is anticipated in 2022. The southbound TH 100 entrance ramp was initially planned to be removed with this project. However, the Vernon Avenue bridge reconstruction will utilize the southbound TH 100 entrance ramp as part of the detour route during construction. The southbound TH 100 entrance ramp will be permanently removed in 2024. Figure 4 shows the planned intersection improvements. Eden Avenue Reconstruction (2022) EDINA 161189 Page 11 4 Alternative Development For this study, various control types and roadway network reconfigurations are being explored. The main objectives of the analysis are to improve intersection safety, traffic operations, simplify the roadway network, and, if possible, create more developable land area. 4.1 Traffic Control Warrants To change an intersection traffic control, volume warrants are typically used to determine if a traffic signal, all-way stop, or roundabout control are justified at an intersection. The Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD) provides guidance on when it may be appropriate to use all-way stop or signal control at an intersection. This guidance is provided in the form of “warrants”, or criteria, and engineering analysis of the intersection’s design factors to determine when all-way stop or signal control may be justified. All-way stop or signal control should not be installed at an intersection unless a MnMUTCD warrant is met. Meeting a warrant at an intersection does not in itself require the installation of a particular control type. The specific control type also requires an engineering analysis of the intersection’s design for it to be justified. Roundabouts are considered to be warranted if traffic volumes meet the criteria for either all-way stop or traffic signal control. This study did not evaluate all intersections for potential traffic control changes; however, a few of the study intersections were reviewed with the volume data available. The four existing traffic signals in the study area are all expected to remain warranted and were therefore not evaluated. Many of the existing intersections have minor street volumes that are not close to any warrant threshold. Not including the four existing traffic signals, only four of the study intersections were evaluated for traffic control warrants; the four evaluated intersections are as follows: W 50th Street at Eden Avenue Evaluated High minor street volumes Eden Avenue at Arcadia Ave/Normandale Rd Evaluated High minor street volumes Eden Avenue at Grange Rd/Willson Rd Evaluated High minor street volumes Grange Road at TH 100 NB Ramp Evaluated High minor street volumes The following is a list of intersection that were not evaluated for traffic control warrants: Vernon Avenue at Gus Young/Retail Not Evaluated Low minor street volume Vernon Avenue at Arcadia Avenue Not Evaluated Limited Access Vernon Avenue at TH 100 NB Ramp Not Evaluated No Minor Street approaches W 50th Street at Dale Dr/City Hall Access Not Evaluated Low minor street volume W 50th Street at Sunnyslope Road Not Evaluated Low minor street volume Eden Avenue at School/Church Access Not Evaluated Low minor street volume Eden Avenue at TH 100 SB Ramp Not Evaluated Intersection Removed Eden Avenue at City Hall Access Not Evaluated Low minor street volume Arcadia Avenue at TH 100 SB Ramp Not Evaluated Low minor street volume The following Table 2 shows the results of the 2040 forecast traffic control warrant analysis. Each warrant has different hour requirements to meet the thresholds; however, it should be noted that an intersection may have additional hours above the minimum criteria. For example, an EDINA 161189 Page 12 intersection may meet the all way stop warrant for 12 separate hours even though only 8-hours are required to meet the warrant. Table 2 – Existing Warrant Analysis Results Year Scenario All-way Stop Warrant (8-Hour) Traffic Signal Warrants Warrant 1 (8 Hour) Warrant 2 (4 Hour) Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) 2019 Eden Ave at Grange/Willson Rd Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 12 of 8 hours 3 of 8 hours 0 of 4 hours 0 of 1 hour 2019 W. 50th St at Eden Avenue (1) Not Met Not Met Met Met 1 of 8 hours 5 of 8 hours 4 of 4 hours 3 of 1 hour 2019 Eden Ave at Arcadia/Normandale Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 13 of 8 hours 3 of 8 hours 1 of 4 hours 0 of 1 hour 2019 Grange Road at NB TH 100 Ramp Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 0 of 8 hours 0 of 8 hours 0 of 4 hours 0 of 1 hour Notes: (1) Eden Avenue minor is a right turn only movement at W. 50th Street; however, volume exceeds capacity for the right turn movement and therefore only a 50% right turn reduction was taken. Alternatively, the westbound left turn also meets warrants 2 & 3 if it is treated as the minor approach. All-way stop control warrants are met at both Eden Avenue at Grange Road and Eden Avenue at Arcadia Avenue. Meeting this warrant would indicate that roundabout control is also justified at both intersections. The intersection of W. 50th Street at Eden Avenue does not meet the All-Way nor Warrant 1 for traffic signal control; however, it does meet both traffic signal Warrant 2 and Warrant 3. Typically, control Warrant 1 is desired for installation of a traffic signal as it considers 8-hours of the day. Warrants 2 and 3 have less hours throughout the day to meet, and thus a traffic signal isn’t necessarily needed throughout the remainder of the day. Installing a traffic signal solely based on Warrants 2 and 3 could add unnecessary delays to the major street traffic throughout the remainder of the 24-hour day; therefore, an engineering study should be considered for installation of signal control. The existing intersection of Grange Road and the northbound TH 100 ramp does not meet either control warrant. 4.2 Alternative Safety Considerations To improve safety within the study area, changes to intersection control and intersection access can have a significant impact and were considered in the build alternative development. The following information provides insight into the various intersection control average crash rates as well as the potential reduction in vehicle conflict points with a variety of intersection designs and access reduction. EDINA 161189 Page 13 4.2.1 Intersection Control Average Crash Rates While no future vehicular crash predictive estimates were included in this analysis, a review of the MnDOT Statewide average crash rates for various intersection control is provided for reverence information. The following list shows the most recent MnDOT 5-year average crash rates based on control type. Signalized intersections with less than 15,000 Average Daily Traffic for the highest volume leg of the intersection and a speed limit below 45 mph experience 0.52 crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV). Signalized intersections with more than 15,000 Average Daily Traffic for the highest volume leg of the intersection and a speed limit below 45 mph experience 0.70 crashes per MEV. Urban minor street stop-controlled intersections experience 0.18 crashes per MEV. All-way stop controlled intersections experience 0.35 crashes per MEV. Single lane roundabouts have an average crash rate of 0.32 crashes per MEV. Hybrid roundabouts (2 x 1 lanes) have an average crash rate of 0.76 crashes per MEV. The MnDOT statewide average crash rate for “other” controlled intersections includes both right-in/right-out (RI/RO) and ¾ access intersections, the crash rate is 0.16 crashes per MEV. 4.2.2 Conflict Point Analysis Another predictor of safety at an intersection is the number of conflict points. A conflict point is any point where vehicles cross, merge, or diverge at an intersection and are the points at which a crash is most likely to occur. Reducing the number of conflict points at an intersection by reducing access can drastically improve vehicle and non-motorized safety. A typical 4-leg intersection has a total of 32 conflict points. Reducing conflict points can be accomplished by changing an intersection to roundabout control (8 conflict points), developing two separate T-intersections, or reducing the movements at an intersection. Figure 5 shows various conflict point diagrams for a 4-leg intersection, T-intersection, ¾ access T-intersection, and roundabout options. EDINA 161189 Page 14 Safety – Conflict Point Diagrams EDINA 161189 Page 15 4.3 Alternative Scenarios Due to the planning level nature of this analysis, the time frame of improvements in the study area varies significantly. Portions of the analysis may be implemented in near term projects, while others are being analyzed as long-term solutions with no actual construction timeline. In the near term, the intersection of Eden Avenue at Grange Road and Willson Road may be programmed for improvements related to redevelopment in the area and possible TIF funds. The existing all-way stop controlled intersection is skewed and has a large footprint that adds to driver confusion. To address the intersection skew, improve safety, and improve operations, the intersection was evaluated for a change to roundabout control. Two preliminary concepts were developed: Two mini roundabouts – includes two separate T-intersections along Eden Avenue with Grange Road and Willson Road. Mini “dog bone” roundabout – includes a single mini roundabout with an elongated shape. Additional analysis considered medium or long-term potential improvements that include the following: W. 50th Street Corridor safety improvements at various intersections. Provide on-street, buffered bike lanes. Previous Grandview Study typical section (off-street, separated bike lanes). Grange Road W. 50th Street Intersection improvements. Add Trail to existing corridor. Realign Grange Road between Willson Road and Dale Drive. The existing parking lot drive lanes would be converted to Grange Road and a new signal would be installed at the Grange/Dale intersection. The parking lot would be relocated to west of the realigned Grange Road with a potential bridge over Grange Road to provide pedestrian access to City Hall. TH 100 Interchange Modifications: Reconfigure to Split Offset Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI), includes single two-way frontage roads on the west side of TH 100, using a concept from Grandview Transportation Study. Reconfigure to Split Diamond interchange, includes one-way frontage roads and an option for two-way frontage roads. Reconfigure to Diverging Diamond Interchange at Vernon Ave. These design concepts and the operational analysis will be discussed and reviewed further in the following section. EDINA 161189 Page 16 5 Design Concepts and Traffic Operations This section will cover the initial design concept alternatives, cost estimates, traffic operations analysis results, and provide a comparison of the various scenarios. Preliminary designs of the various alternatives were created, and high-level cost estimates were developed. The preliminary designs represent the alternatives’ impacts to the surrounding land uses due to potential widening or relocation of roadways. The estimated costs are high level ranges but provide for comparison of alternative options. Cost estimates were completed using ASTM E2516 Cost Estimate Classification System and assumed to be at the Class 4 (concept study or feasibility) level. Traffic operations analyses were conducted to determine the level of service (LOS), delay, and queueing information for the AM and PM peak hour conditions for the various scenarios. LOS is a qualitative rating system used to describe the efficiency of traffic operations at an intersection. Six LOS are defined, designated by letters A through F. LOS A represents the best operating conditions (no congestion), and LOS F represents the worst operating conditions (severe congestion). For the study intersection it was assumed that a LOS D or better, for all approaches and the overall intersection, represents acceptable operating conditions. LOS for intersections is determined by the average control delay per vehicle. The range of control delay for each LOS is different for signalized and unsignalized intersections. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and will experience greater delays than an unsignalized intersection; driver tolerance for delay is greater at a signal than at a stop sign. Therefore, the LOS thresholds for each LOS category are lower for unsignalized intersections than for signalized intersections Table 3 shows the LOS thresholds for signalized and unsignalized intersections. Table 3 – Level of Service Thresholds Level of Service Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection (Stop Control/Roundabout) A 0 to 10 0 to 10 B > 10 and ≤ 20 > 10 and ≤ 15 C > 20 and ≤ 35 > 15 and ≤ 25 D > 35 and ≤ 55 > 25 and ≤ 35 E > 55 and ≤ 80 > 35 and ≤ 50 F > 80 > 50 Operational analysis was conducted using Synchro/SimTraffic software (version 11) for stop controlled and signal-controlled intersections. The average of ten simulation runs were performed to determine the necessary measure of effectiveness (MOE’s). Roundabout analysis and some interchange analyses were also performed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS7), which implements the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) calculations; operational results of the roundabouts were similar to SimTraffic results and therefore HCS was not reported. EDINA 161189 Page 17 Currently, there is not a standard traffic operations analysis tool to evaluate a mini roundabout; there are only guidelines for the expected operational capacity of the intersection. It should be noted that a mini roundabout would have slightly less capacity than any single-lane roundabout examined in this section. FHWA guidance suggests a total entering demand for a mini roundabout to be less than 1,600 vehicles per hour on all approaches, this threshold will be reviewed for each potential roundabout solution. As previously mentioned, the entire study area will not be discussed in the following sections. With planned improvements on the west side along Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue, the operations analysis in this section will focus on the directly impacted intersections within each alternative. 5.1 Eden Avenue Alternatives This portion of the focus area may be planned for improvements in the short term with adjacent redevelopment and possible TIF funds being available. The analysis will look at intersection improvements along Eden Avenue mainly at the existing Grange Road/Willson Road intersection, including the existing all-way stop control and two roundabout control options. Some of the alternatives for Eden Avenue will directly impact the City Hall facility, and the various impacts will be discussed within each of the alternatives. 5.1.1 No Build Conditions Due to the intersection skew, the existing intersection of Eden Avenue and Grange Road/Willson Road includes a channelized southbound right turn movement and large right turn radius at the other three corners. The current design results in a large intersection footprint that leads to driver confusion at the all-way stop and long pedestrian crossing distances. While southbound has a channelized right turn, the northbound approach has a significant flare design that operates like a channelized right; the single approach lanes operate as a shared left- through lane at the stop sign. Westbound has a single shared left-through-right lane, and eastbound has two lanes of approach with a separate left turn lane and a shared through-right lane. Along Eden Avenue, sidewalks are provided on both the north and south sides of the roadway, but there is currently no boulevard space or bike facilities along the corridor. As part of the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, bike lanes along Edin Avenue are part of the long-term vision. There is on-street parking along Eden Avenue between Willson Road and W. 50th Street. On the south side of the roadway vehicles park along the curb, this space could accommodate between 25 to 30 vehicles. On the north side of the road, pull off spaces are provided which could accommodate between 10 to 12 vehicles. Figure 6 shows the existing intersection configuration. The subsequent Tables 4 and 5 in Section 5.1.4 represent the 2024 and 2040 traffic operations analyses. This intersection will operate with all approaches at a LOS B or better through 2040. EDINA 161189 Page 18 Eden Avenue – No Build Conditions 5.1.2 Intersection Improvements (Build Short Term) With the all-way stop control warrants met, roundabout control is justified at the intersection. However, the skewed geometrics of the intersection preclude consideration of a traditional roundabout design. Instead, two alternatives were considered to improve safety and minimize construction impacts: two mini roundabouts and an elongated “dog bone” mini roundabout. In 2040, with the Eden Avenue to southbound TH 100 ramp closed, the intersection is expected to have approximately 1,250 vehicles approaching the intersection in both peak hours. This is below the mini roundabout expected capacity of 1,600 vehicles per FHWA guidance. With a ramp connection to southbound TH 100 in place, the volumes would increase but be less than 1,400 vehicles in either peak hour. The mini roundabouts will improve the safety of each intersection by reducing vehicles speeds and reducing the vehicle conflict points over the existing intersection design. A total of 41 conflict points exist between the existing intersection and City Hall access. This would be reduced to 14 or less with the two mini roundabout alternatives. 5.1.2.1 Two Mini Roundabouts The first mini roundabout design includes providing two mini roundabouts closely spaced together. Figure 7 represents the preliminary design alternative. Appendix C provides the full layout. The subsequent Tables 4 and 5 represent the 2024 and 2040 traffic operations analysis. This intersection will operate with all approaches at a LOS A through 2040. EDINA 161189 Page 19 The design would realign Willson Road to connect directly across from the southern City Hall parking lot access. Grange Road would be constructed as a separate T-intersection. The following list summarizes some of the highlights of this design being considered: This design will improve the overall safety of the intersection by reducing speeds and reducing the overall intersection conflict points with only 6 at the Grange Road roundabout and 8 at the Willson Road roundabout. Expected to operate very well, LOS A, though 2040. Pedestrian crossings are improved with shorter distances and crossing a single direction of traffic at a time, with lower vehicles speeds. The two separate mini roundabouts allow all intersection movements to occur at each mini roundabout intersection. The design is estimated to cost between $900,000 and $1,300,000. This includes costs to reconstruct Eden Ave from TH 100 to the City Hall driveway east of Willson Road. The design does impact the parking spaces at City Hall and would remove approximately 4 parking stalls. The access to City Hall would remain open. To reduce potential through traffic from Willson Road to W. 50th Street directly in front of City Hall, a reduced access intersection along W. 50th Street could be considered at the northern City Hall parking lot access. This configuration will be discussed later for the W. 50th Street considerations. Eden Avenue – Build Two Mini Roundabouts 5.1.2.2 Single Mini Roundabout Another concept was an elongated roundabout, designed to create a single intersection. This “dog bone” mini roundabout design would operate as a single 5-leg roundabout intersection. EDINA 161189 Page 20 Figure 8 represents the preliminary design alternative, see Appendix C for the full layout. This intersection was not explicitly analyzed as it is anticipated to have similar operations as the two mini roundabout design concept. The following list summarizes this design being considered: This design will improve the overall safety of the intersection by reducing speeds and reducing the intersection conflict points with only 10 at the combined 5-leg roundabout. The benefit of this design reduces any potential queueing between the two intersections as it operates as a single roundabout. Expected to operate very well, LOS A, though 2040. Pedestrian crossings are improved with shorter distances and crossing a single direction of traffic at a time, with lower vehicles speeds. The design increases some turning movement distance to traverse through the intersection; the eastbound and westbound left turning traffic are most impacted. 5-leg roundabouts can be more overwhelming for drivers to know their exit. The design is estimated to cost between $900,000 and $1,300,000. This includes costs to reconstruct Eden Ave from TH 100 to the City Hall driveway east of Willson Road. This design has more right-of-way impacts in the southeast quadrant. The design does impact the parking spaces at City Hall and would remove approximately 4 parking stalls. The access to City Hall would remain open. To reduce potential through traffic from Willson Road to W. 50th Street directly in front of City Hall, a reduced access intersection along W. 50th Street could be considered at the northern City Hall parking lot access. This configuration will be discussed later for the W. 50th Street considerations. Eden Avenue – Build “Dog Bone” Mini Roundabout EDINA 161189 Page 21 5.1.2.3 Comparison of Mini Roundabout Designs Converting any intersection to a mini roundabout provides numerous benefits with few disadvantages. The advantages are essentially the same between the two designs being considered. Some of the advantages of mini roundabout control include the following: Reduced vehicle speeds. Reduced vehicle and pedestrian conflict points. Reduced severity and frequency of most crash types. Improved pedestrian facility: Shorter crossing distances. Median refuge island. Crossing only one direction at a time. Typically, less delay than traffic signals or all-way-stop intersections. Lower construction costs and impacts compared to a full-size roundabout. Disadvantages of roundabout control are limited, but additional right-of-way may be needed, additional design considerations, and may operate poorly adjacent to a signalized intersection (queuing concerns). 5.1.3 Eden Avenue Corridor Improvements and Long-Term Considerations (Build Long Term) In addition to the intersection improvements, corridor improvements along Eden Avenue between the TH 100 bridge and W. 50th Street were reviewed. Two long term considerations were assessed as part of the Eden Avenue analysis. The first scenario involves realigning Grange Road and the second scenario involves reconfiguring the TH 100 interchange. 5.1.3.1 Corridor Improvements On-street bike lanes and sidewalks were included based on the long-term City plans to include these facilities along Eden Avenue. As these changes to the corridor have negligible impacts on the traffic operations, no operations analysis was conducted for this option. Figure 9 represents the preliminary design of the Eden Avenue corridor improvements with the two mini roundabouts shown. See Appendix C for the full layout. Most of the preliminary design can fit within the existing right-of-way; however, some locations would require small right-of-way acquisitions and possible construction easements. The concept would require the existing on-street parking to be removed on the south side of Eden Avenue, east of Willson Road. This would remove approximately 25 on-street parking spots; however, the north side pull off bay can be extended to allow a few more parking spots. The corridor changes from the City Hall driveway to W 50th St could occur at the same time as the intersection improvements, or as a separate project. The cost of the corridor changes, not including the mini roundabout costs, is estimated to be between $500,000 and $700,000. EDINA 161189 Page 22 Eden Avenue – Corridor Improvements 5.1.3.2 Grange Road Realignment Realignment of Grange Road was evaluated as part of the long-term considerations; the realignment would generally follow the alignment of the existing parking lot drive lanes directly in front of City Hall. This connection would essentially remove Grange Road and connect Willson Road to Dale Drive. The intersection would be controlled by a traffic signal at W. 50th Street with the removal of the signalized intersection at Grange Road. Full discussion of this alternative can be found later in this document in Section 5.4 of this report, including a figure of the realignment design and cost estimate. The subsequent Tables 4 and 5 include the 2024 and 2040 traffic operations analysis for the two mini roundabout design evaluated for this scenario with Grange Road realigned. This intersection will operate with all approaches at a LOS B in 2024. By 2040, the eastbound approach will operate at a LOS D due to the increased demands from the TH 100 connections. Therefore, both mini roundabout concept designs would operate acceptably through 2040 if Grange Road was realigned and connected Willson Road to Dale Drive. 5.1.3.3 TH 100 Interchange The second long term consideration for Eden Avenue was the potential reconfiguration of the TH 100 interchange. Modifications at the interchange can impact ramp connections, roadway configurations, as well as the volumes along Eden Avenue. In later sections of this report, further discussion of the interchange alternatives will be reviewed. In general, all potential interchange reconfigurations will result in lower traffic volumes entering the existing intersections along Eden Avenue, east of TH 100. Therefore, both of the mini roundabout concept designs would operation acceptably through 2040. EDINA 161189 Page 23 5.1.4 Eden Avenue Traffic Operation Results Table 4 represents the 2024 operational results of the 3 intersection alternatives, Table 5 represents the 2040 operational results. Appendix B includes the operational results for all the study intersections. In the 2024 forecast scenario, the main Eden Avenue intersections will all operate at a LOS A for scenarios including the No Build, short-term build, and long-term build. It should be noted that east-west volumes along Eden Avenue will be lower than previous years due to the closure of the ramp to southbound TH 100; west of Grange Road the AM and PM peak hours will have between 25% and 30% less traffic along Eden Avenue. Table 4 – 2024 Eden Avenue Operations Comparison Scenario Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) No Build Eden Ave at Grange Rd/Willson Rd (All-way Stop) EB 7.3 / A 7.4 / A 8.7 / A 8.1 / A WB 7.4 / A 7.6 / A NB 8.1 / A 9.2 / A SB 7.2 / A 6.4 / A Eden Ave at City Hall Access (Minor Stop) EB 1.7 / A 1.7 / A 1.7 / A 2.1 / A WB 1.8 / A 2.3 / A SB 1.4 / A 4.9 / A Build Short Term Eden Ave at Grange Rd (Roundabout) EB 4.4 / A 3.4 / A 5.1 / A 3.4 / A WB 2.6 / A 2.2 / A SB 3.2 / A 2.7 / A Eden Ave at Willson Rd/City Hall Access (Roundabout) EB 1.4 / A 2.3 / A 1.8 / A 2.9 / A WB 3.8 / A 3.8 / A NB 2.9 / A 3.9 / A SB 0.8 / A 3.5 / A Build Long Term Eden Ave at TH 100 NB Ramp (Roundabout) EB 5.6 / A 5.1 / A 13.8 / B 8.4 / A WB 1.9 / A 2.2 / A SB 6.3 / A 6.7 / A Eden Ave at Willson Rd/ Grange Rd (Roundabout) EB 3.3 / A 4.1 / A 6.2 / A 5.9 / A WB 5.8 / A 5.5 / A NB 6.1 / A 6.1 / A SB 2.8 / A 3.6 / A In 2040, both the No Build scenario and the Build 1 scenario will operate with the main intersections at a LOS A or better. With Grange Road realigned, the increased TH 100 ramp volumes along Eden Avenue will increase delays at the roundabouts and the west mini roundabout intersection will operate at a LOS C. EDINA 161189 Page 24 Table 5 – 2040 Eden Avenue Operations Comparison Scenario Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) No Build Eden Ave at Grange Rd/Willson Rd (All-way Stop) EB 7.8 / A 7.5 / A 11.0 / B 9.2 / A WB 7.8 / A 8.1 / A NB 8.6 / A 9.6 / A SB 6.5 / A 7.3 / A Eden Ave at City Hall Access (Minor Stop) EB 1.8 / A 1.8 / A 2.0 / A 2.3 / A WB 1.9 / A 2.3 / A SB 1.3 / A 5.3 / A Build Short Term Eden Ave at Grange Rd (Roundabout) EB 4.7 / A 3.7 / A 5.8 / A 3.6 / A WB 2.9 / A 2.1 / A SB 3.6 / A 2.9 / A Eden Ave at Willson Rd/City Hall Access (Roundabout) EB 1.5 / A 2.4 / A 1.9 / A 2.9 / A WB 3.9 / A 3.9 / A NB 3.2 / A 3.9 / A SB 0.8 / A 3.2 / A Build Long Term Eden Ave at TH 100 NB Ramp (Roundabout) EB 7.1 / A 6.3 / A 29.0 / D 15.3 / C WB 2.0 / A 2.2 / A SB 7.7 / A 9.2 / A Eden Ave at Willson Rd/ Grange Rd (Roundabout) EB 3.8 / A 4.6 / A 7.8 / A 6.9 / A WB 6.0 / A 5.8 / A NB 6.8 / A 6.4 / A SB 2.8 / A 3.6 / A EDINA 161189 Page 25 5.2 W. 50th Street Alternatives This portion of the project area is currently not planned for reconstruction. The analysis will look at some intersection improvements, as well as the impacts of roadway widening, the realignment of Grange Road, and the TH 100 interchange reconfiguration. 5.2.1 No Build Conditions The three intersections in this analysis area include W. 50th Street at Grange Road, Dale Drive/City Hall, and at Eden Avenue. Grange Road is currently controlled by a traffic signal at the T-intersection. There are no turn lanes provided along W. 50th Street, which adds delay to the through traffic as they wait behind yielding left turning or slow right turning traffic. Dale Drive and the northern City Hall access operate under minor street stop control; the two minor approaches are offset. Dale Drive provides access to a residential area with limited access; approximately 70 homes are in this area. Along W. 50th Street, there is an eastbound right turn lane with a transit stop and left turn lanes are not provided. Eden Avenue operates under minor street stop control with an existing westbound left turn lane provided at the T-intersection. The westbound left turn movement has historically experienced significant demand from vehicles traveling to southbound TH 100. The ramp closure will reduce the volume making this maneuver by approximately 45%. The Eden Avenue approach consists of almost 100% of the traffic making a right turn onto W. 50th Street. This intersection does meet Warrants 2 and 3 for a traffic signal (Section 4.1). Figure 10 shows the existing intersection configurations along W. 50th Street. The subsequent Tables 6 and 7 represent the 2024 and 2040 traffic operations analysis for existing conditions, Appendix B includes the operational results for all the study intersections. The overall intersection operations will perform at a LOS B or better through 2040 at all of the intersections with the minor approaches at Dale Drive and at Eden Avenue will operate at a LOS E. Currently, W. 50th Street has limited boulevard space and provides narrow sidewalks on both sides of W. 50th Street. As part of the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, bike lanes along W. 50th Street are part of the long-term vision. W. 50th Street – No Build Conditions EDINA 161189 Page 26 5.2.2 Safety Improvement Mitigations To improve the overall safety and efficiency of the corridor at these three intersections, some intersection improvements and mitigations could be implemented. At the Grange Road intersection, adding a westbound left turn lane on W. 50th Street would improve the intersection efficiency. A westbound left turn lane would separate the yielding left turning traffic from the through movements and improve both the safety and efficiency of the intersection. While this movement is relatively low under the existing volumes, restricting access at adjacent intersections may increase the demands. At the Dale Drive and northern City Hall access, the minor street approaches can have a hard time finding gaps in the high volume of through traffic along W. 50th Street. This results in LOS E for the minor approaches; however, the left turn movements operate at a LOS F and the right turn movements are LOS C or better. Reducing the intersection to a ¾ access would improve the safety and efficiency of the intersection. Left turn lanes would be added along W. 50th Street to separate out the movement. The minor approaches would only be allowed to turn right onto W. 50th Street. This movement is anticipated to still operate at LOS C or better; however, outbound left turning and crossing traffic would need to reroute. At Eden Avenue, the intersection effectively operates as a ¾ access intersection under existing conditions. Adding medians to reconfigure the intersection to a true ¾ access would provide a reduction in conflict points and provide a wide pedestrian median refuge island. Though the intersection does meet a traffic signal warrant, a traffic signal would increase delay for all users and crashes at the intersection would be expected to increase as well. The reduction to a ¾ access intersection at the Dale Drive and City Hall access will divert some of the low volume movements from the minor approaches. The change will improve the safety of the intersection by reducing the vehicle conflict points from 32 down to 10. Vehicles from City Hall destined to the west can use one of the alternative parking lot driveways to head west, either to Grange Road or to Eden Avenue. Dale Drive traffic destined to the east also have a few options such as diverting to E Sunnyslope Road, completing a westbound U-turn maneuver at Grange Road, or complete a westbound left turn at Grange Road and loop around Eden Avenue to W. 50th Street. Figure 11 represents the preliminary design for these intersection improvements, see Appendix C for the full layout. This alternative was not explicitly analyzed for traffic operations as it is anticipated to have improved operations over the No Build alternative. The added turn lanes and reduced access will provide a safer and more efficient corridor for all users. It should be noted that while the figure shows the entire segment being reconstructed, the area could be split into two phases, with the changes at Grange Road and Dale Drive as the first phase and the changes to Eden Avenue as a second phase. EDINA 161189 Page 27 W. 50th Street – Safety Improvement Alternative The design includes sidewalk boulevards on both sides of the roadway and additional medians through the segment. Both features add additional roadway width which has right-of-way impacts. The design includes 11-foot traffic lanes with a 1-foot buffer against the curbs. A 6-foot boulevard and a 10-foot multi-use trail are provided on both sides of the roadway. The south side of the roadway was held at its current location to avoid significant impacts to the City Hall driveway and parking lot. The additional width would require up to approximately 20-feet of additional right-of- way on the north side of the roadway. Exact ROW needs would be identified during final design and widths may be less than the estimate provided above. Other impacts such as retaining walls. landscaping, and fencing would be determined during final design. This alternative would improve the overall safety of the W. 50th Street corridor with the addition of turn lanes, reduced access, and medians that act as a traffic calming measure. The estimated cost for the west portion or the Grange Road and Dale Drive improvements along 50th Street is estimated to be between $1,200,000 and $1,800,000; the estimated cost for the east portion or the Eden Avenue intersection improvements along 50th Street is between $900,000 and $1,300,000. These estimated costs do not include ROW acquisition or easement costs. Depending on available funding, this work could be completed in separate projects or in a single project. 5.2.3 Buffered Bike Lanes As part of the Edina Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, buffered bike lanes along W. 50th Street are part of the long-term vision. The existing right-of-way width is limited to approximately 80 feet through this segment. Traffic volumes range from approximately 20,000 vehicles per day near the TH 100 interchange, to upwards of approximately 27,000 vehicles per day east of Eden Avenue. These high daily volumes limit the ability to reduce the number of through lanes on this segment of W. 50th Street. Figure 12 represents the preliminary design for the inclusion of bike lanes as well as the intersection safety improvements discussed previously. Appendix C provides the full layout. This EDINA 161189 Page 28 alternative was not analyzed for traffic operations as the bike lanes would have negligible impacts on the intersection operations. W. 50th Street – Buffered Bike Lanes Alternative The design includes sidewalk boulevards and buffered bike lanes on both sides of the roadway and additional center medians through the segment. These features require additional roadway width which has considerable right-of-way impacts. Specifically, the design includes 11-foot traffic lanes with a 1-foot buffer against the curbs. Both sides of the roadway include a 6-foot bicycle lane with 2-foot buffer, a 6-foot boulevard, and a 10- foot multi-use trail. The south side of the roadway was held at its current location to avoid significant impacts to the City Hall driveway and parking lot. The additional width would require up to approximately 30-feet of additional right-of-way on the north side of the roadway and would likely require the purchase of both parcels on the north side of W 50th St at Dale Dr due to proposed improvements being located so close to the homes. Other impacts such as retaining walls. landscaping, and fencing would be determined during final design. The estimated cost of this alternative to include the additional bike lanes through this segment is between $1,700,000 and $2,500,000. This cost does not include ROW acquisition, easement, or resident relocation costs. 5.2.4 2016 Grandview Study Section As part of the 2016 Grandview Transportation Study, Figure 3.20 from the study represented a typical section that would fit into the existing 80-foot right-of-way. This design does not meet State Aid standard widths for various components. Figure 13 represents the typical section of the Grandview Transportation Study Figure 3.20, designed to meet State Aid standard. See Appendix C for the full layout. This alternative was not analyzed for traffic operations. EDINA 161189 Page 29 W. 50th Street – 2016 Grandview Study Section The design includes bike lanes on both sides of the roadway and medians or turn lanes through the segment; however, sidewalk boulevards were not included in this section. This section would require a 95-ft ROW. The design includes 11-foot traffic lanes with a 1-foot buffer against the curbs with separated, off- street 5-foot bike lanes and 8-foot sidewalk on both sides of the roadway. The south side of the roadway was held at its current location to avoid significant impacts to the City Hall driveway and parking lot. The additional width would require up to approximately 15-feet of additional right-of- way on the north side of the roadway. The segment near Eden Avenue would require a retaining wall on the north side of W. 50th Street. As this option had major ROW impacts, no cost estimate was developed. 5.2.5 W. 50th Street Long Term Considerations Two long term considerations were reviewed as part of the W. 50th Street analysis; the first involves realigning Grange Road, the second involves reconfiguring the TH 100 interchange. 5.2.5.1 Grange Road Realignment Consideration of relocating Grange Road was evaluated as part of the long-term considerations. The realignment would use the existing parking lot drive lanes directly in front of City Hall. This connection would essentially remove Grange Road and connect Willson Road to Dale Drive, the intersection would be controlled by a traffic signal at W. 50th Street with the removal of the signalized intersection at Grange Road. Full discussion of this alternative can be found in Section 5.4 of this report, including a figure of the realignment design and cost estimate. The subsequent Tables 6 and 7 represent the 2024 and 2040 traffic operations analysis; the new Grange Road intersections will operate with all intersections at a LOS B or better through 2040. Appendix B includes the operational results for all of the study intersections. EDINA 161189 Page 30 5.2.5.2 TH 100 Interchange The second long term consideration was reconfiguring of the TH 100 interchange. In the proceeding sections of this report further discussion of the interchange alternatives will be reviewed. In general, all of the interchange reconfigurations result in similar traffic volumes along W. 50th Street through these intersections. The realignment of Grange Road would likely improve the intersection spacing between the reconfigured interchange intersections; however, the reconfiguration may not require the Grange Road realignment. 5.2.6 W. 50th Street Traffic Operation Results Traffic operations were only evaluated for the No Build conditions and Grange Road realignment scenario. The reduced access improvements were not operationally evaluated as they are a safety improvement with operations similar to the No Build conditions; the rerouted traffic is very minor and would have minimal impact on intersection delays. Table 6 represents the 2024 operational results of the 2 alternatives evaluated for traffic operations, and Table 7 represents the 2040 results, Appendix B includes the operational results for all the study intersections. In the 2024 forecast scenario, the intersections will all operate at a LOS B or better with no major congestion for the No Build and Build scenario. The minor street left turn volumes from Dale Drive and the northern City Hall access will operate at a LOS F in both peak hours, and the northbound right turn from Eden Avenue will operate at a LOS E in the PM peak hour, see Appendix B for detail turn move LOS. Table 6 – 2024 50th Street Operations Comparison Scenario Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) No Build 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 1.5 / A 8.2 / A 4.4 / A 11.3 / B WB 6.0 / A 7.6 / A NB 34.5 / C 35.2 / D 50th St at Dale Dr (Minor Stop) EB 1.3 / A 1.4 / A 1.5 / A 1.9 / A WB 1.0 / A 0.7 / A NB 11.6 / B 30.6 / D SB 17.6 / C 8.2 / A 50th St at Eden Avenue (Minor Stop) EB 0.6 / A 1.7 / A 0.9 / A 4.8 / A WB 1.5 / A 2.6 / A NB 7.1 / A 35.0 / E Build 2 50th St at Dale Dr/Grange Rd (Signal) EB 2.2 / A 9.7 / A 2.7 / A 9.7 / A WB 9.4 / A 7.9 / A NB 19.1 / B 26.5 / C SB 22.0 / C 15.6 / B 50th St at Eden Avenue (Minor Stop) EB 0.7 / A 1.9 / A 1.1 / A 4.7 / A WB 1.7 / A 2.9 / A NB 7.3 / A 31.8 / D EDINA 161189 Page 31 By 2040, the operations on the minor street approaches under stop control will have increased delays as the traffic along W. 50th Street increases and the available gaps decrease. As delays increase at minor stop-controlled approaches, vehicles may make riskier maneuvers by accepting a gap in traffic they normally would not take. This may lead to an increase in crashes. The existing traffic signal at Grange Road will operate at LOS B or better though the 2040 forecast year. The minor stop control at Dale Drive and the northern City Hall driveway will see significant delays for the left turn movements onto W. 50th Street; the AM peak hours had the highest delays with between 1 to 2 minutes. During the PM peak hour, the northbound Eden Avenue right turn onto W. 50th Street will operate at a LOS F with just over a minute of delay. The PM peak hour has the highest eastbound through and northbound right turn volume, the volumes are much less throughout the remainder of the day when the approach operates with acceptable delays. The realignment of Grange Road would provide LOS B or better at the new signal location. With the signal closer to the Eden Avenue intersection, the northbound approach is operating slightly better as more gaps become available when the signal changes the phasing. Table 7 – 2040 50th Street Operations Comparison Scenario Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) No Build 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 1.5 / A 9.8 / A 3.9 / A 11.5 / B WB 8.0 / A 8.5 / A NB 36.1 / D 35.8 / D 50th St at Dale Dr (Minor Stop) EB 1.3 / A 2.3 / A 1.5 / A 2.0 / A WB 1.9 / A 0.6 / A NB 19.8 / C 40.3 / E SB 42.1 / E 11.2 / B 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 0.6 / A 1.9 / A 1.0 / A 7.5 / A WB 1.7 / A 3.0 / A NB 7.7 / A 65.1 / F Build 2 50th St at Dale Dr/Grange Rd (Signal) EB 2.5 / A 10.4 / B 2.6 / A 9.8 / A WB 10.0 / B 8.3 / A NB 20.0 / C 26.8 / C SB 28.8 / C 15.1 / B 50th St at Eden Avenue (Minor Stop) EB 0.7 / A 2.0 / A 1.1 / A 6.1 / A WB 1.9 / A 3.3 / A NB 7.3 / A 46.3 / E EDINA 161189 Page 32 5.2.7 Comparison of Alternatives While delays are high for minor street left turning traffic at the intersection of 50th Street at Dale Road under the existing minor street stop control, the vehicle volumes are relatively low (<20 in the peak hours) and there are no existing crash issues. Therefore, all the alternatives are viable options. Table 8 is a comparison of the alternatives for 50th Street. Table 9 is a comparison of the Eden Avenue intersection options. It should be noted that left turn lanes would provide a safety benefit if added on 50th Street whether the Dale Road intersection remains full access or has reduced access. Table 8 – 50th Street Build Alternatives Comparison Scenario Advantages Disadvantages W. 50th Street No Build - No cost - High delays for minor street left turn in peak hours - Potential for safety issues if left turn delays increase and drivers attempt to use smaller gaps - Poor pedestrian facilities Safety Improvements - Reduced conflict points - Medians provide traffic calming effect - Left turns provide safe storage - Reduced movements have options - Reduced minor delay with right only - 10-ft trails provide bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements - Need for rerouting of some left turns; <20 in the peak hours - Construction costs - Right-of-way impacts Buffered Bike Lanes (1) - Constructs on-street bike lanes per City Master Plan - Improves pedestrian facilities - Construction Costs - Right-of-way impacts / potential property buy-out 2016 Study Section Width (1) - Constructs on-street bike lanes per City Master Plan - Improves pedestrian facilities - Construction costs - Right-of-way impacts - Reduced boulevard space - State Aid standards require wider section than original section width Note: (1) Assumes Safety Improvement option built in conjunction. EDINA 161189 Page 33 Table 9 – 50th Street at Eden Avenue Intersection Comparison Scenario Advantages Disadvantages Eden Avenue Leave Full Access - Maintains full access for all vehicles - No costs - No improved safety ¾ Access - Reduced vehicle conflict points - Shorter pedestrian crossing distances - Pedestrian refuge island - Construction costs Traffic Signal - Provides signal phase for northbound right turns and westbound left turns - Provides protected pedestrian crossing phase - Construction costs - Increased delay for all users - Increased crashes EDINA 161189 Page 34 5.3 TH 100 Interchange Alternatives The reconfiguration of the TH 100 interchange is currently not planned for reconstruction. Previous transportation studies have conducted high level analysis of various options to reconfigure the interchange to a more standard design to improve driver navigation as well as potential create more developable land within the current interchange area. Based on the previous Grandview Green Transportation Study (2018) and City staff input, a split diamond and a split single point interchange were evaluated alongside the No Build conditions. After reviewing the traffic volumes and design, an additional interchange alterative with a diverging diamond interchange was developed. Only a 2040 operations analysis was conducted for the interchange alternatives. 5.3.1 No Build Conditions The current interchange design is a non- standard design with various elements from traditional interchange combined. Southbound has a single exit ramp with a partial collector-distributer (CD) road system, an exit to Arcadia Avenue is provided from the CD roadway. Vehicles can enter southbound TH 100 from either Vernon Avenue or Eden Avenue. Northbound TH 100 exits to a buttonhook design connecting to Grange Road, entering TH 100 can be done from the eastbound Vernon Avenue loop ramp or the westbound Vernon Avenue free right turn movement. Access from Grange Road to the northbound TH 100 loop is also provided. Two changes will be made to the interchange prior to 2024. The Eden Avenue ramp to southbound TH 100 will be closed and all traffic must enter southbound from Vernon Avenue. The southbound exit ramp to westbound Vernon Avenue will be reconfigured so the right turn is at the intersection. Figure 14 represents the existing interchange configuration. Under the current design, all intersections operate at a LOS C or better in 2040, see Table 11. TH 100 Interchange – No Build EDINA 161189 Page 35 5.3.2 Split Offset Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) This interchange reconfiguration was developed as part of the Grandview Green Transportation Study (2018) as a potential preferred alternative. The configuration is similar to an offset SPUI design. The single intersection is split between Eden Avenue and Vernon Avenue; a two-way frontage road on the west side of TH 100 would provide the connectivity between the interchange ramp intersections. Offset SPUI designs can be found around the Twin Cities metro area at TH 36 and Rice Street and at I-694 and Rice Street. Figure 15 shows the interchange design. The figure shows the planned mini roundabout at Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue, as well as the two mini roundabout design option on the east side of TH 100. See Appendix C for the full layout. The subsequent Table 12 represent the 2040 traffic operations analysis; Appendix B includes the operational results for all the study intersections. These intersections will operate with all intersections at a LOS C or better. Based on the analysis, the Eden Avenue intersection with TH 100 could operate as a traffic signal or a single lane roundabout, a mini roundabout would not provide enough capacity. The intersection volumes at this intersection are approaching 1,900 vehicles in the peak hours due to the combined ramp locations. This is above the FHWA recommended capacity threshold of a mini roundabout. With a traffic signal or a full-sized single lane roundabout, queuing for the eastbound approach could likely encroach into the Arcadia Avenue roundabout intersection and create a potential safety concern. The westbound to northbound TH 100 movement will occur at the new ramp terminal signal, removing the existing high speed free movement. If the movement occurred at the existing location, the merging of the two northbound ramp movements would require an extended entrance merge on mainline TH 100 that would impact the Minnehaha Creek Bridge. The design of this interchange would require replacing the two existing bridge structures on both Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue over TH 100, it would also include construction of two new bridge structures for the northbound ramp movements. Retaining walls would be needed adjacent to the flyover ramp bridges to accommodate the grade changes, the two-way frontage road may also require additional retaining walls to construct the roadway adjacent to TH 100. Previous concepts of this alternative showed the two-way frontage directly adjacent and parallel to TH 100; these concepts did not include detailed design. To provide for the intersection turn radius at both the ramp terminals, and due to the roadway skews, the frontage road cannot be directly adjacent to TH 100 without significantly wider bridges or roadway realignments. The placement of the ramp intersections on the west side of TH 100 provides good intersection spacing to the existing Grange Road signal; therefore, this design does not anticipate the need to relocate Grange Road. The construction cost of this alternative is estimated to be approximately between $19 million and $25.5 million. EDINA 161189 Page 36 TH 100 – Split Offset SPUI EDINA 161189 Page 37 5.3.3 Split Diamond Interchange This interchange reconfiguration was developed as part of the Grandview Transportation Study (2016), as well as it’s consideration in the recent 4917 Eden Avenue Traffic Impact Study. The configuration is similar to a standard diamond interchange; however, the ramps are split between Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue. A pair of one-way frontage roads on both sides of TH 100 would provide the connectivity between the interchange ramp intersections. In this alternative, both Arcadia Avenue and Grange Road function to support the local network. Split diamond interchanges can be found around the Twin Cities metro area at I-35W and 35th/36th Street, I-35W at University Avenue/4th Street, and at I-94 and 49th/53rd Avenue. Figure 16 shows the interchange design; the figure shows the planned mini roundabout at Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue, as well as the two mini roundabout option on the east side of TH 100, see Appendix C for the full layout. The subsequent Table 13 represent the 2040 traffic operations analysis, Appendix B includes the operational results for all the study intersections. These intersections will operate with all intersections at a LOS C or better. The operations analysis included traffic signals at the two Vernon Avenue intersection and mini roundabout control at the two Eden Avenue ramp intersections. The two ramp terminal intersections on Eden Avenue have less than 1,600 vehicles in the 2040 peak hours. In the 2040 AM peak hour, the southbound TH 100 ramp intersection is expected to have approximately 1,590 vehicles; however, the eastbound right turn bypass reduces the demand down to less than 1,400 and it operates well. The design of this interchange would require replacing the existing bridge structures on both Vernon Avenue and Eden Avenue over TH 100. The pair of one-way frontage roads will require retaining walls to construct the roadways adjacent to TH 100. Previous concepts of this alternative showed the one-way frontage roads directly adjacent and parallel to TH 100; these concepts did not include detailed design. To provide for the intersection turn radius at all ramp terminals, and due to the roadway skews, the frontage road cannot be directly adjacent to TH 100 without significantly wider bridges or roadway realignments. The placement of the ramp intersections on both sides of TH 100 does create close intersection spacing to the existing Grange Road signal; therefore, this design should be considered with the potential Grange Road realignment. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be between $18.7 million and $25.3 million. 5.3.3.1 Split Diamond with Two-Way Frontage Recommended as part of the Grandview Transportation Study (2016), this configuration was not designed as part of this study. The design would have minimal changes when compared to the one-way frontages, with slightly wider frontage road widths. The two-way frontage roads provide a redundant roadway network with Arcadia Avenue and Grange Road. Understanding the shifting of traffic to these redundant movements was not considered feasible. Due to the expected low volumes, the operations are expected to be similar to Table 13 results. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be between $19.7 million and $26.8 million. EDINA 161189 Page 38 TH 100 – Split Diamond EDINA 161189 Page 39 5.3.4 Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) This interchange reconfiguration was incorporated based on review of the existing traffic volumes and design considerations as part of this study. The configuration is similar to a standard diamond interchange; however, the interchange intersections crossovers are incorporated to shift the arterial traffic on the opposite side of the roadway. This design works extremely well for high turning movement interchanges as the left turn movements operates similar to a free right turn movement. At the interchange, only between 35% and 50% (AM and PM peaks) of the traffic on Vernon Avenue or W. 50th Street approaching the interchange continues along the arterial roadway past TH 100. Most of the traffic volumes at the interchange intersections is turning onto or from the TH 100 ramps. Based on the volumes reconfigured for the DDI design, approximately 70% to 85% of the total entering volumes at the interchange make a left or right turn at a ramp intersection; this high turning traffic is ideal for the DDI configuration. The existing interchange design has only approximately 65% of the total entering volumes at the interchange turn to or from the ramps, the lower percentage is due to the ramp connections on other roadways. Diverging diamond interchanges can be found around the Twin Cities metro area at I-35W at CSAH 96, Highway 169 at Highway 41, and at I-494 at 34th Avenue. Figure 17 shows the preliminary interchange design. The figure shows the planned mini roundabout at Eden Avenue and Arcadia Avenue, as well as the two mini roundabout design option on the east side of TH 100. See Appendix C for the full layout. The subsequent Table 14 represent the 2040 traffic operations analysis, Appendix B includes the operational results for all the study intersections. Using the HCS analysis for the DDI, these intersections will operate with all intersections at a LOS C or better. The operations analysis included traffic signals at the two Vernon Avenue intersections with all interchange traffic on this roadway. Eden Avenue would no longer carry any interchange traffic. The design of this interchange would not require replacing the existing bridge structures on either Vernon Avenue or Eden Avenue over TH 100. Due to the free left turn movements, turn lanes are not required at the ramp intersections along Vernon Avenue and the existing bridge can remain. Pedestrian facilities are located at the center of the bridge, with crossings at all the ramp crossovers. The combination of a center sidewalk and median allows for a more efficient use of the existing bridge deck, providing 11-foot lanes and a 12-foot center multi-use trail. The placement of the ramp intersections on both sides of TH 100 does create close intersection spacing to the existing Grange Road signal. While this design should be considered with the potential Grange Road realignment, due to the simple signal phasing of the DDI signals and the T-intersection phasing at Grange Road, coordination of the intersections should not be problematic; note Grange Road will have significantly less volume without TH 100 traffic. The DDI interchange provides a reduction in vehicle conflict points compared to a standard diamond, with the DDI only having 14 conflict points compared to 26 at a standard diamond. The existing interchange requires multiple intersections to be included and would have more conflicts than a standard diamond interchange. Crash modification data from FHWA suggests up to a 44% reduction in crashes converting a standard diamond to a diverging diamond interchange. EDINA 161189 Page 40 The construction cost of the DDI is estimated to be approximately $4,000,000 to $6,000,000. TH 100 – Diverging Diamond EDINA 161189 Page 41 5.3.5 Interchange Traffic Operation Results As previously noted, due to the long-term planning of any type of interchange reconfiguration, only the 2040 forecasts volumes were analyzed. Table 11 represent the No Build conditions at the four main interchange intersections. All intersections operate at a LOS C or better in both the AM and PM peak hours and all approaches operate at a LOS D or better. Table 10 – 2040 Interchange Operations – No Build Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Vernon Ave at SB TH 100 Ramps (Signal) EB 21.1 / C 26.7 / C 17.4 / B 28.4 / C WB 30.7 / C 32.1 / C SB 30.0 / C 39.7 / D Vernon Ave at NB TH 100 Ramps EB 2.7 / A 3.8 / A 2.6 / A 2.6 / A WB 4.6 / A 2.7 / A 50th St at Grange Rd (Signal) EB 1.5 / A 9.8 / A 3.9 / A 11.5 / B WB 8.0 / A 8.5 / A NB 36.1 / D 35.8 / D Grange Road at NB TH 100 Ramps (Minor Stop) EB 7.2 / A 4.9 / A 12.8 / B 8.0 / A WB 3.1 / A 7.1 / A NB 2.5 / A 3.0 / A SB 0.5 / A 0.5 / A Table 12 represent the Offset SPUI design at the two main interchange intersections. Both intersections operate at a LOS C or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. Table 11 – 2040 Interchange Operations – Offset Split SPUI Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Vernon Ave at TH 100 Ramps (Signal) EB 11.3 / B 21.7 / C 15.1 / B 22.7 / C WB 21.3 / C 26.9 / C NB 26.4 / C 31.8 / C SB 34.0 / C 25.4 / C Eden Ave at TH 100 Ramps (Signal) EB 20.1 / C 21.7 / C 22.7 / C 20.8 / C WB 28.9 / C 36.5 / D NB 22.2 / C 13.2 / B SB 16.9 / B 15.8 / B EDINA 161189 Page 42 Table 13 represent the Split Diamond interchange design at the four main interchange intersections. All intersections operate at a LOS C or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. As previously mentioned, providing two-way frontage roads with this scenario is expected to have negligible impacts to the intersection operations. Table 12 – 2040 Interchange Operations – Split Diamond Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Vernon Ave at SB TH 100 Ramps (Signal) EB 6.2 / A 13.5 / B 14.4 / B 20.0 / C WB 10.9 / B 14.1 / B SB 26.9 / C 29.5 / C Vernon Ave at NB TH 100 Ramps (Signal) EB 9.1 / A 11.3 / B 5.7 / A 9.4 / A WB 8.6 / A 6.7 / A NB 27.0 / C 30.2 / C Eden Ave at SB TH 100 Ramps (Roundabout) EB 5.9 / A 7.3 / A 6.9 / A 5.9 / A WB 8.1 / A 3.4 / A SB 7.7 / A 7.2 / A Eden Ave at NB TH 100 Ramps (Roundabout) EB 2.8 / A 11.9 / B 2.5 / A 9.4 / A WB 9.4 / A 7.5 / A NB 21.3 / C 16.0 / C Table 14 represent the Diverging Diamond interchange design at the two main interchange intersections. Both intersections operate at a LOS C or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. This analysis was conducted using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and was only evaluated at the two ramp terminal intersections; HCS results are in Appendix B. Table 13 – 2040 Interchange Operations – DDI (HCS Analysis) Intersection Approach AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Approach (Delay / LOS) Intersection (Delay / LOS) Vernon Ave at SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 7.3 / A 14.0 / B 15.6 / B 19.0 / B WB 18.4 / B 21.8 / C SB 15.6 / B 15.7 / B Vernon Ave at NB TH 100 (Signal) EB 20.7 / C 16.5 / B 40.1 / D 26.6 / C WB 11.0 / B 12.0 / B NB 15.8 / B 15.7 / B EDINA 161189 Page 43 5.3.6 TH 100 Interchange Alternative Comparison The following is a comparison of the various TH 100 interchange design alternatives. All concepts provide acceptable operations and would provide a safe interchange design, even the No Build alternative. Table 14 – TH 100 Interchange Comparison Scenario Advantages Disadvantages No Build TH 100 Interchange - No costs - Acceptable safety and operations - Confusing and unconventional design - Limited development area - Freeway traffic impacts up to 6 separate intersections Offset SPUI Design - Freeway traffic limited to one side of TH 100 and at two main intersections - East side of TH 100 fully open for redevelopment opportunities - Reduces WB to NB TH 100 vehicle speeds and moves away from NE quadrant - High cost with 4 new structures and retaining walls; cost up to $25 million - Concentration of freeway traffic occurs at two main intersections with overall highest delays - Close spacing of new Arcadia Ave roundabout intersection - Close spacing to new Vernon Ave rail bridge limits left turn storage Split Diamond One-Way Frontage Design - Freeway traffic focused to four main intersections with limited movements - East side of TH 100 open for redevelopment between frontage and Grange Ave. - Vernon Ave Signals operate well as do the mini roundabouts on Eden Ave - High cost with 2 new structures and extensive retaining walls; cost up to $25 million - Close spacing of new Arcadia Ave roundabout intersection - Close spacing with existing Grange Ave signal; operations should be acceptable Split Diamond Two-Way Frontage Design - Freeway traffic focused to four main intersections with limited movements - East side of TH 100 fully open for redevelopment with Grange removed - Vernon Ave Signals operate well as do the mini roundabouts on Eden Ave - High cost with 2 new structures and extensive retaining walls cost up to $27 million - Two-way frontage are redundant roadways; assume Grange is removed - Close spacing of new Arcadia Ave roundabout intersection Diverging Diamond Design - Freeway focus to two main intersections on Vernon Avenue only; Eden Ave carries no freeway traffic - Redevelopment opportunities. - DDI design performs very well with high turning traffic and is a safer interchange design - Low cost with no bridge structure replacement; costs $4 - 6,000,000. - Unconventional design, though more are being designed and constructed due to advantages. - Signal coordination can be challenging if in a long corridor EDINA 161189 Page 44 5.4 Grange Road Alternatives As part of this study, while improvements to Grange Road are being considered, improvements are not planned for reconstruction. Improvements to the corridor range from adding pedestrian facilities to complete realignment of the corridor, as previously mentioned. 5.4.1 No Build Conditions The existing Grange Road corridor extends for approximately 500-feet between Eden Avenue and W. 50th Street; it does provide a connection from Willson Road to W. 50th Street. There are currently no pedestrian facilities provided on either side of the roadway. Due to the existing access and wide intersection, this short segment has 3 to 4-lanes currently. As previously discussed, the W. 50th Street intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and the Eden Avenue intersection is controlled by an all-way stop. Between the two main intersections is the northbound TH 100 ramp intersection, currently controlled with stop signs on the TH 100 approach. The TH 100 ramp connections on Grange Road are currently an unconventional intersection: The northbound TH 100 exit ramp approaches a channelized island to separate the left and right traffic The west City Hall parking access is directly across from the TH 100 exit ramp; however, this approach is a reduced access right-in/right-out (RI/RO) The northbound entrance ramp is approximately 70-feet north of the exit, effectively spreading the intersection into two separate locations. Previous analysis discussions along Eden Avenue and W. 50th Street show the existing traffic operations are acceptable. Figure 18 represents the existing Grange Road Corridor. 50th Street – Grange Road No Build Conditions EDINA 161189 Page 45 5.4.2 Grange Improvements Previous analysis has shown improvements that can be made at the intersections of Grange Road at both Eden Avenue and W. 50th Street. To improve pedestrian connectivity, a multi-use trail was explored on the west side of the roadway. If the existing TH 100 interchange ramps remain for some time, the current intersection could see a safety and operational benefit from an intersection redesign to tighten up the intersection to a standard design. Trail crossings with the current ramp design would require a two-stage crossing of approximately 140 feet to cross only 3-lanes. If the west leg was reconfigured to a standard intersection design, the trail crossing distance would be reduced significantly to approximately 40-feet or less. The west parking lot access could also be removed to reduce the total number of conflicts at the intersection; the parking lot has two other access driveways. To reconfigure the intersection and provide a trail on the west side of Grange Road, the cost is estimated to be approximately $300,000. 5.4.2.1 TH 100 Interchange Reconfiguration The reconfiguration of the TH 100 interchange, in any of the proposed alternatives, would remove the existing ramp connections to Grange Road. This would remove the access between Eden Avenue and W. 50th Street and provide the space for a trail that does not require crossings. The west parking lot access could remain as a RI/RO or be modified with more access as the volumes along Grange Road will be significantly reduce with the removal of the interchange traffic. Figure 19 represents the existing Grange Road corridor with the removal of the northbound TH 100 ramp connections assumed. A parallel trail could be added along the west side of Grange Road to provide a connection between W. 50th Street and Eden Avenue. This drawing shows a potential mid-block crossing with a connection to a proposed TH 100 pedestrian bridge. The cost estimate is strictly for the trail and Grange Road improvements and does not include a cost estimate for the pedestrian bridge. The construction cost of this alternative is estimated to be approximately $300,000 and does not include the removal of the TH 100 ramp connections. 50th Street – Grange Road Realignment EDINA 161189 Page 46 5.4.3 Grange Realignment To improve intersection spacing along W. 50th Street and improve access at Dale Drive, a realignment of Grange Road from its current location to the east was evaluated. This modification was mentioned in previous sections of this report for impacts to Eden Avenue and W. 50th Street. The realigned Grange Road would connect to Eden Avenue at the current City Hall Access, across from Willson Road, and would connect to 50th Street across from Dale Road. With Grange Road moved, the current signal at the intersection of 50th Street at Grange Road would relocate east to the new Grange Road/Dale Road intersection. This realignment consideration has many design issues such as grade challenges, providing pedestrian crossings from City Hall to the parking facility, and adding left turn lanes on W. 50th Street. The benefits of this design would include a simplified roadway network with reduced access and easier navigation. The traffic signal would provide improved access in the residential area north of W. 50th Street and better intersection spacing to the TH 100 ramp intersections. The transportation need to realign Grange Road is dependent on the configuration of the TH 100 interchange. The realignment would improve the existing interchange configuration with better signal spacing along W. 50th Street. As will be further discussed, the interchange reconfiguration will remove any need and reduce the overall benefit of the realignment of Grange Road. Figure 20 shows the Grange Road realignment configurations along W. 50th Street. See Appendix C for the full layout. Due to the many challenges and reduction of pedestrian convenience and safety, staff does not recommend any additional analysis of this option. 50th Street – Grange Road Realignment EDINA 161189 Page 47 5.4.3.1 Existing TH 100 Interchange With the existing TH 100 interchange in place, the Grange Road realignment would require all northbound traffic exiting TH 100 to go to Eden Avenue at the current intersection or the western mini roundabout if constructed. With no interchange reconfiguration, the northbound TH 100 exit ramp would need to be reconfigured to loop down to Eden Avenue and become the north leg at the western mini roundabout or the “dog bone” roundabout. This change would increase the northbound left turn on the new Grange Road alignment, requiring the traffic signal to have dual left turn lanes and a right turn lane. As discussed in the previous alternatives analysis sections, realigning Grange Road would continue to provide acceptable traffic operations at all intersections along Grange Road, Eden Avenue, and 50th Street. The construction cost of this alternative, including optional pedestrian bridge over the realigned Grange Road, is estimated to be approximately $4,000,000 to $5,800,000. Without the bridge, pedestrians would be forced to cross the realigned Grange Road at the either W 50th Street or Eden Ave. The cost of this alternative is estimated to be between $1,800,000 and $3,600,000. 5.4.3.2 TH 100 Interchange Reconfiguration With the four TH 100 interchange reconfigurations, the realignment of Grange Road becomes unnecessary, and not recommended, as the northbound TH 100 exit ramp would be realigned to other roadways. Under the existing conditions the northbound exit ramp carries approximately 7,000 vehicles per day and the access to northbound TH 100 entrance ramp carries approximately 1,500 vehicles per day that will be removed from Grange Road. Offset Split SPUI – with this interchange design all freeway traffic is located on the west side of TH 100. The volumes on Grange Road will be significantly reduced. Intersection spacing is not a concern as the TH 100 ramp is west of TH 100. Split Diamond One-Way Frontage – with this interchange design all freeway traffic is located at TH 100 and the volumes on Grange Road will be significantly reduced. Intersection spacing is not a major concern as closely spaced signals operate as T- intersections. Split Diamond Two-Way Frontage – with this interchange design all freeway traffic is located at TH 100 and the volumes on Grange Road will be significantly reduced. The two-way frontage road makes Grange Road a redundant connection and the roadway could actually be removed. Diverging Diamond - with this interchange design all freeway traffic is located on Vernon Avenue at TH 100. The volumes on Grange Road will be significantly reduced. Intersection spacing is not a major concern as closely spaced signals operate as T- intersections. EDINA 161189 Page 48 5.4.4 Grange Road Alternative Comparison The following is a comparison of the various Grange Road options. Some of the options rely on other infrastructure improvements occurring. Table 15 – Grange Road Alternatives Comparison Scenario Advantages Disadvantages Existing Grange Road Alignment No Build - No cost - Retains all access - Confusing intersection access is a safety concern - Trail option not feasible Reconstruct Existing Ramp Intersection - Low costs - Retains majority of access - Trail Crossing is feasible - Improved safety - Grange Road carries interchange traffic TH 100 Reconfiguration - Grange Road volumes significantly decrease - Trail feasible with no crossings on Grange Road - Potential tie down for TH 100 pedestrian structure - High cost (for interchange reconfiguration) Realigned Grange Road Existing TH 100 Interchange - Signal at new Grange Rd/Dale Dr intersection improves delay for Dale Road southbound left turns - Better signal spacing along 50th Street for the interchange alternatives - Roadway would be constructed partially through the existing City Hall parking lot - Pedestrian access to City Hall is challenging; may require pedestrian bridge over the new Grange Road - High cost - Higher volumes on Grange Road from existing Interchange needs dual left turns TH 100 Reconfiguration - Signal at new Grange Rd/Dale Dr intersection improves delay for Dale Road southbound left turns - Better signal spacing along 50th Street for the interchange alternatives - Lower volumes on Grange Road from existing Interchange - Roadway would be constructed partially through the existing City Hall parking lot - Pedestrian access to City Hall is challenging; may require pedestrian bridge over the new Grange Road - High cost 5.5 TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge The previous Grandview area studies have considered providing a pedestrian connection over TH 100 to provide connectivity for non-motorized users. In the summer of 2021, construction is expected to begin on a pedestrian bridge on the west side of TH 100 which connects the existing Grandview Parking ramp facility to Arcadia Avenue, over the existing railroad tracks. This connection will improve the walkablity of the Grandview area. EDINA 161189 Page 49 Providing a grade separated crossing over TH 100 would further improve the walkability of the area by providing a multi-modal alternative routes to Eden or Vernon Avenues. The interchange alternative designs at TH 100 play an integral role in the pedestrian structure length and the touchdown locations. With additional frontage road connections in some designs, the pedestrian bridge must span over those roadways and tie down to the existing grade. The DDI interchange design provides the shortest bridge span opportunity for the structure with a structure length of approximatley 475 feet. The two ramps will be lower than any of the frontage road connectsion as they connect to TH 100 closer to the bridge. With the DDI, the southbound slip ramp to Arcadia Avenue and the northbound connections to Grange Road would all be removed and provide space to reach grade sooner than other options. This alternative could be at-grade west of Grange Road and tie into an at-grade crossing of the roadway; without freeway traffic on Grange Road the volumes are expected to be much lower than existing. The construction cost of the shortest pedestrian bridge structure is estimated to be approximately $2,400,000 to $3,500,000. The Split Diamond interchange design provides the longest bridge span for the structure; the structure length is approximately 800 feet. The two frontage roads, either one-way or two-way, will be higher than TH 100 and thus the pedestrian bridge must span both frontage roads and TH 100. To tie down west of Grange Road, the facility may require additional space to tie down while meeting ADA standards. While no layout was developed for this option, it is expected the construction cost of the longest pedestrian bridge structure is estimated to be approximately $3,900,000 to $5,600,000. Figure 20 shows the shortest potential pedestrian bridge connection over TH 100. See Appendix C for the full layout. This design assumes that the DDI interchange would be constructed at TH 100. TH 100 Pedestrian Bridge – Short Span EDINA 161189 Page 50 6 Other Public Improvements Many of the City’s utility systems are also in need of improvements. The sanitary sewer and water systems within the Grandview District were studied as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The studies have identified needs for both the sanitary sewer and water systems. These needs are recommended with and without development in the area although there would be a greater and more urgent need with specific development densities and locations. The needs on the water system have been identified at the following locations Item No. Location Linear Feet 1 Vernon Ave and 50th Street from Arcadia Ave to Wooddale Ave 3500-ft 2 Arcadia Ave from Vernon Ave to Eden Ave 1000-ft 3 Future West Frontage Road from Vernon Ave to Eden Ave 1000-ft 4 Eden Ave from Highway 100 to 50th Street 900-ft The needs on the sanitary sewer system have been identified at the following locations Item No. Location Linear Feet 1 Vernon Ave and 50th Street from Arcadia Ave to Wooddale Ave 3500-ft 2 Arcadia Ave from Vernon Ave to Eden Ave 1000-ft 3 Future West Frontage Road from Vernon Ave to Eden Ave 500-ft 4 Grange Rd from Eden Avenue to 50th Street 550-ft Estimated project costs for the utility system improvements listed above have not been developed. If projects and funding become available, more detailed project scoping and cost estimating would be required to determine the required elements. EDINA 161189 Page 51 7 Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Funding A development project at 4917 Eden Avenue has preliminary approval from the City Council. A public hearing is scheduled for both the City Council and HRA to discuss establishing a TIF district near this development. City staff are working with financial consultants to determine the potential amount of TIF financing available and locations that are eligible for TIF financing. Initial reviews of where TIF financing would be eligible for public improvements are listed below. Item No. Location Linear Feet 1 Transportation: Eden Avenue from Highway 100 to the police department garage driveway 650-ft 2 Transportation: Grange Rd / Willson Rd from 4917 Eden Ave to 50th Street 850-ft 3 Transportation: 50th Street from Grange Rd to halfway between Dale Dr and Eden Ave 650-ft 4 Utility: Water and Sanitary on 50th Street from Grange Rd to halfway between Dale Dr and Eden Ave 970-ft 5 Utility: Water and Sanitary on Grange Rd from 50th Street to Eden Ave 600-ft 6 Utility: Water on Eden Ave from Highway 100 to the police department garage driveway 650-ft Initial TIF financing calculations show there may be enough TIF to fund the six public improvements listed above. Please review the final term sheet on tax increment financing related to the 4917 Eden Avenue redevelopment project to determine eligible projects and available financing. At this time, the TIF term sheet is not available. It will be part of packet materials for a future City Council or HRA meeting. EDINA 161189 Page 52 8 Conclusion This study was intended to provide both short-term analysis and long-term potential solutions for the east side of the Grandview area. Eden Avenue Improvements With potential TIF funds being available in the immediate area, the intersection of Eden Avenue at Grange Road/Willson Road is a short-term improvement design option. The existing all-way stop intersection is skewed and has a large footprint that creates some driver confusion as to who has the right-of-way. Both mini roundabout options evaluated provide a safer and more efficient intersection. Based on the overall intersection safety, operations, and construction costs, the two mini roundabout alternative is recommended. While the mini roundabout options are very similar, the two mini roundabouts provide for better flexibility with any future roadway changes. W. 50th Street Improvements The existing corridor includes a traffic signal at Grange Road and minor street stop control at Dale Drive and Eden Avenue. While the Grange Road signal operates well, the Dale Drive intersection does have poor levels of service during the peak hours for traffic trying to enter W. 50th Street. Three build mitigations were reviewed for this corridor. To improve the safety and operations of the corridor, a reduced access scenario with turn lanes is recommended. Dale Drive and Eden Avenue were converted to ¾ intersection. While the change at Eden Avenue would have little impact to existing vehicles, at Dale Drive the minor street lefts would have to use adjacent roadways to continue to their destination. The addition of left turn lanes and reduced access would considerably improve the safety of the corridor; however, the additional width for turn lanes and medians would require approximately 20-feet of right of way on the north side of Eden Avenue. Grange Road relocation The existing Grange Road corridor is a short segment between Eden Avenue and W. 50th Street that includes the northbound TH 100 ramp intersection. The existing TH 100 intersection has wide medians and non-standard design elements that add to some driver confusion. To improve the existing corridor, the TH 100 intersection could be reconfigured to a standard intersection design with a potential trail or sidewalk connection on the west side of Grange Road. The reconfiguration would create a normal intersection with easier driver navigation and the trail would provide a connection between W. 50th Street and Eden Avenue. TH 100 Interchange Reconfiguration The existing interchange is a non-standard design with multiple ramp connections to different arterials. This study reviewed three proposed interchange designs that would all improve the area from a safety, operational, and driver navigation standpoint. Previous studies proposed a split offset single point urban interchange (SPUI) design. The design would create a 2-way frontage road on the west side of TH 100 with flyover bridges for the two northbound ramp connections to TH 100. This design would provide a safe and efficient options; however, the design requires extensive retaining walls and bridge structures. The construction costs are estimated between $20 million and $27 million. Another option previously proposed is a split diamond interchange configuration. This would create frontage roads on both sides of TH 100 to connect between Eden Avenue and W. 50th EDINA 161189 Page 53 Street; the frontage roads could be either one-way or two-way configurations. A typical split diamond only requires one-way frontage roads to provide the supporting arterial network for this interchange design; one-way frontages also offer the ability to tighten the design. Providing two- way frontages provides redundant connections and increase the design with for the roadways and intersections to allow for all movements. The base construction costs are estimated to be between $19 million and $25 million; the two-way frontages would increase the costs by approximately $1 million to $1.5 million. The last interchange concept developed is the recommended option based on the existing and future traffic demands and the existing bridge structure. A diverging diamond interchange (DDI) was evaluated as this design works very well for high turning volumes and within limited bridge structure. This interchange could be constructed without the need to replace the existing bridge over TH 100, significantly reducing the construction cost. The design also removes all interchange traffic from Eden Avenue which will improve the safety and operations of the corridor. The construction costs are estimated to be between $4 million and $6 million for this reconfiguration. Pedestrian Bridge A pedestrian connection over TH 100 has been considered in previous studies and is considered vital to the vibrancy of the area. The structure is very dependent on the TH 100 interchange design as the bridge length is tied to the existing and future ramp connections. The diverging diamond would provide the shortest bridge structure length and ultimately the least expensive options; the approximate 475-foot structure is estimated to be between $2.4 million and $3.5 million. The existing, SPUI, and offset diamond would have a significantly longer structure, an approximate 800-foot bridge would be required to span the ramps and frontage roads. This option is estimated to be between $3.9 million and $5.6 million Appendix A Intersection and Volume Figures !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInt e r l a c h e n B l v d Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Norma n d a l e R dBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 12 2 3 4 6 17 16 11 7 8 9 10 1 13 14 15 18 5 Intersection Lane Geometrics Figure 1Grandview East Transportation Study City of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ljohnsonProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 7/27/2021 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave12 ³>=³>P>PP>³Arcadia AveèéVernon Ave Grange Rd6 >= ³OW 50th St ³P!"$W 50th St City Hall7 OPPO>=Dale DrO³=!"$Eden Ave8 > W 50th St ³P³>³ =!"$E Sunnyslope Rd9 =W 50th St ³³PO>Eden Ave Brookside Ave13 !"$=>P³>Eden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access14 !"$OP=>OP=>Eden Ave Normandale Rd15 >P>PArcadia Ave!",$OPOP Eden Ave Ramp Closed16 Eden Ave Willson Rd17 O=>P>PGrange Rd!",$!"$City Hall18 =Eden Ave ³PO=!"$Grange Rd11 PO>==W 50th St ³³èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln2 Interlachen Blvd>PP>>P>³P>³Vernon Ave 3 !"$= ³³³PP èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps4 >=O³³=³OGus Young Ln Vernon Ave1 ³>=³P>³O=O=!"$ !"$S TH 100 Ramp Arcadia Ave10 ³³>=W 50th St TH 100 East Ramps5 ³³=³³=Intersection ID Intersection GeometricsOP X !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInt e r l a c h e n B l v d Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Norma n d a l e R dBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 12 2 3 4 6 17 16 11 7 8 9 10 1 13 14 15 18 5 2024 No Build Volumes Figure 2Grandview East Transportation Study City of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ljohnsonProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 7/28/2021 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave12 190 / (164)2 / (4)205 / (224)2 / (2)619 / (915)262 / (283)6 / (2)5 / (10)4 / (5)11 / (7)383 / (493)117 / (107)Arcadia AveèéVernon Ave Grange Rd6 >= 1371 / (897)8 / (8) 614 / (1162)75 / (85) W 50th St 165 / (281)132 / (198)!"$W 50th St City Hall7 3 / (1)1357 / (860) 12 / (6) 19 / (23)687 / (1319)40 / (18)20 / (23)1 / (0)5 / (3)2 / (22)3 / (22)Dale Dr!"$Eden Ave8 > 1372 / (867)184 / (128) 691 / (1336)4 / (8) W 50th St 0 / (0)199 / (243)=!"$E Sunnyslope Rd9 =5 / (8)1551 / (992) 1 / (2)889 / (1577) W 50th St 5 / (3)0 / (8)>!"$S TH 100 Ramp Arcadia Ave10 ³16 / (25)56 / (32)117 / (228)³251 / (224)>=Eden Ave Brookside Ave13 !"$=>³>3 / (4)377 / (359) 4 / (2)362 / (379)3 / (13)0 / (15)Eden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access14 !"$=> 1 / (0)327 / (351)152 / (17)53 / (10)151 / (18)2 / (1)251 / (378)109 / (15)0 / (2)1 / (4)=>Eden Ave Normandale Rd15 Arcadia Ave!",$ 102 / (102)293 / (173)44 / (49)64 / (81)71 / (89)15 / (9)51 / (59)306 / (291)46 / (50)123 / (114)48 / (111)26 / (32)Eden Ave Ramp Closed16 439 / (324) 347 / (332) Eden Ave Willson Rd17 Grange Rd!",$ 3 / (10)143 / (91)42 / (52)98 / (95)95 / (158)44 / (73)174 / (142)125 / (142)102 / (101)239 / (168)111 / (125)35 / (33)!"$City Hall18 =5 / (5)183 / (131) 10 / (10)194 / (238) Eden Ave 5 / (22)5 / (5)!"$Grange Rd11 171 / (246)307 / (238)5 / (5)78 / (88)148 / (115)122 / (193)2 / (2)>=4 / (40)=W 50th St ³³èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln2 Interlachen Blvd308 / (376)379 / (420)81 / (73)19 / (29)67 / (116)13 / (24)178 / (292)560 / (769)64 / (37)162 / (99)84 / (80)373 / (426)Vernon Ave 3 !"$= 768 / (869)192 / (185)914 / (1180)32 / (39)³=Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave1 !"$ 61 / (65)4 / (12)52 / (73)13 / (9)720 / (1008)76 / (59)12 / (12)4 / (12)12 / (12)29 / (27)467 / (456)57 / (55)³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³ èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps4 545 / (514)406 / (329) 723 / (914)383 / (450)223 / (355)71 / (76)364 / (655)³>=³>³=W 50th St TH 100 East Ramps5 585 / (335)951 / (843) 689 / (1247)398 / (322) ³=³=³>³=³>=³>=³>=>=³=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=>³=³>³>³=³=³>Arcadia AveIntersection ID Turning MovementsOP X XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour Volume !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(Vernon Ave SGus Young Ln Arcadia AveInt e r l a c h e n B l v d Eden Ave Grange RdW 50th St Norma n d a l e R dBrookside Ave?úA@ ?úA@ 12 2 3 4 6 17 16 11 7 8 9 10 1 13 14 15 18 5 2040 No Build Volumes Figure 3Grandview East Transportation Study City of Edina Project: EDINA 156818 User Name: ljohnsonProjection: Hennepin County Coords.Source: ESRI Online Print Date: 7/28/2021 èéEden Ave Vernon Ave12 195 / (170)2 / (4)214 / (234)2 / (2)649 / (958)275 / (297)6 / (2)5 / (11)4 / (5)12 / (7)402 / (517)122 / (113)Arcadia AveèéVernon Ave Grange Rd6 >= 1435 / (940)8 / (8) 643 / (1218)78 / (88) W 50th St 172 / (293)137 / (208)!"$W 50th St City Hall7 3 / (1)1420 / (901) 13 / (6) 20 / (24)718 / (1383)42 / (19)21 / (24)1 / (0)5 / (3)2 / (23)3 / (23)Dale Dr!"$Eden Ave8 > 1436 / (908)193 / (133) 722 / (1401)4 / (8) W 50th St 0 / (0)207 / (254)=!"$E Sunnyslope Rd9 =5 / (8)1624 / (1038) 1 / (2)928 / (1653) W 50th St 5 / (3)0 / (8)>Eden Ave Brookside Ave13 !"$=>³>3 / (4)390 / (373) 4 / (2)381 / (398)3 / (14)0 / (16)Eden Ave Our Lady Of Grace School Access14 !"$=> 1 / (0)377 / (364)160 / (18)56 / (11)159 / (19)2 / (1)265 / (397)114 / (16)0 / (2)1 / (4)=>Eden Ave Normandale Rd15 Arcadia Ave!",$ 106 / (104)303 / (178)47 / (52)67 / (85)75 / (93)15 / (9)54 / (61)322 / (306)49 / (53)128 / (119)51 / (116)26 / (33)Eden Ave Ramp Closed16 456 / (334) 363 / (348) Eden Ave Willson Rd17 Grange Rd!",$ 3 / (11)149 / (93)45 / (55)100 / (98)99 / (165)46 / (76)181 / (147)130 / (149)106 / (105)248 / (173)117 / (130)37 / (35)!"$City Hall18 =5 / (5)192 / (136) 11 / (11)202 / (249) Eden Ave 5 / (23)5 / (5)!"$Grange Rd11 179 / (258)321 / (247)5 / (5)81 / (91)155 / (120)126 / (201)2 / (2)>=4 / (42)=W 50th St ³³èéVernon Ave Gus Young Ln2 Interlachen Blvd322 / (394)397 / (441)85 / (76)20 / (31)70 / (122)14 / (25)186 / (305)588 / (806)67 / (39)170 / (104)88 / (84)391 / (446)Vernon Ave 3 !"$= 804 / (911)199 / (191)959 / (1236)34 / (41)³=Gus Young Ln Vernon Ave1 !"$ 63 / (68)4 / (13)55 / (76)14 / (10)755 / (1057)79 / (61)13 / (13)4 / (13)13 / (13)31 / (29)489 / (478)59 / (58)³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³ èéVernon Ave TH 100 West Ramps4 570 / (539)424 / (343) 755 / (956)401 / (471)234 / (372)73 / (79)381 / (685)³>=³>³=W 50th St TH 100 East Ramps5 613 / (351)994 / (882) 721 / (1306)415 / (335) ³=³=³>³=³>=³>=³>=>=³=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=³>=>³=³>³>³=³=³>Arcadia Ave!"$S TH 100 Ramp Arcadia Ave10 ³17 / (26)59 / (32)122 / (239)³262 / (232)>=Intersection ID Turning MovementOP X XX / (XX)AM Peak Hour VolumePM Peak Hour Volume !"$ Signalized Intersectionèé Minor Street Stop Control !",$All Way Stop Control Appendix B Traffic Operational Results Table B1 Eden Avenue 2024 No Build Conditions AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 19.6 B 22.6 C 4.7 A 17.0 B 50 20 35 0 0 356 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 WB 206 2 187 395 18.8 B 19.5 B 8.7 A 14.1 B 20.8 C 100 80 148 0 1 % 635 67 218 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 619 263 884 54.4 D 31.4 C 5.9 A 24.0 C 100 20 27 0 21 % 379 179 343 3 %0 250 62 244 SB 117 383 11 511 28.4 C 19.0 B 13.9 B 20.8 C 145 59 154 0 1 % 792 97 182 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 24.1 C 17.7 C 4.6 A 14.9 B 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 41 1 %0 50 20 33 WB 52 4 61 117 21.2 C 21.1 C 10.3 B 15.4 C 4.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 33 83 6 % 2 % 50 28 79 NB 13 720 76 809 5.9 A 3.6 A 3.8 A 3.7 A 100 20 26 0 0 792 20 60 1 %0 140 20 35 SB 57 467 29 553 10.9 B 1.4 A 1.3 A 2.4 A 100 22 70 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 178 560 64 802 35.6 D 19.0 B 17.0 B 22.5 C 150 101 216 0 1 % 382 177 364 1 %0 0 0 0 WB 81 379 308 768 24.1 C 13.7 B 11.9 B 14.0 B 22.4 C 200 44 113 0 0 390 111 235 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 67 13 99 47.4 D 42.4 D 22.5 C 40.3 D 50 20 71 0 22 % 438 62 142 0 0 0 0 0 SB 373 84 162 619 36.2 D 28.9 C 15.4 B 29.7 C 590 180 333 1 % 1 %0 115 273 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 914 32 946 0.0 0 8.9 A 6.0 A 8.8 A 0 0 0 0 5 % 390 113 379 17 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 768 0 768 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 9.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 192 192 0.0 0 4.1 A 48.6 E 36.4 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 120 348 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 723 383 1,106 0.0 0 24.5 C 9.6 A 19.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 168 211 0 0 75 78 176 WB 406 545 0 951 30.4 C 12.5 B 0.0 0 20.0 C 21.7 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 242 435 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 364 71 223 658 37.3 D 37.1 D 9.7 A 28.0 C 500 119 238 0 0 1106 173 273 0 0 300 54 124 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 689 398 1,087 0.0 0 1.6 A 4.5 A 2.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 951 585 1,536 0.0 0 1.7 A 4.3 A 2.7 A 2.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 47 0 2 % 25 24 60 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 614 75 689 0.0 0 1.6 A 0.9 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 72 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 1371 0 1,379 13.4 B 6.0 A 0.0 0 6.0 A 8.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 131 267 0 0 0 0 0 NB 165 0 131 296 35.7 D 1.5 A 36.6 D 34.5 C 180 95 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 78 173 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 19 686 40 745 16.2 C 0.9 A 0.5 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 72 0 0 70 0 20 WB 12 1357 3 1,372 6.6 A 1.0 A 0.3 A 1.0 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 91 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 0 3 5 84.3 F 0.2 A 4.7 A 11.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 27 0 0 100 20 25 SB 5 1 20 26 30.1 D 53.6 F 13.8 B 17.6 C 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 39 0 1 % 50 20 57 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 690 4 694 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.3 A 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 184 1372 0 1,556 7.5 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 1.5 A 1.7 A 120 49 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 199 199 0.0 0 0.0 A 7.1 A 7.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 46 108 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 888 0 889 0.0 A 0.4 A 0.0 0 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1551 5 1,556 0.0 0 1.5 A 1.2 A 1.5 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 847 20 113 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.3 B 10.3 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 363 0 367 4.3 A 0.9 A 0.0 0 0.9 A 100 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 374 3 377 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.5 A 0.7 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.5 A 3.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 252 109 363 0.0 0 1.4 A 0.6 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 55 0 0 0 0 0 WB 152 324 1 477 6.7 A 2.6 A 0.0 0 3.9 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 64 136 0 0 0 0 0 NB 53 0 151 204 29.6 D 0.0 0 5.8 A 11.8 B 320 29 115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 32 112 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 51 306 46 403 2.1 A 3.0 A 2.1 A 2.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 27 76 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 291 102 437 3.0 A 3.9 A 3.2 A 3.7 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 47 121 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 64 71 15 150 3.8 A 5.5 A 4.3 A 4.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 28 80 0 0 0 0 0 SB 26 48 123 197 4.2 A 5.3 A 4.8 A 4.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 37 113 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 56 0 16 72 6.3 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 5.2 A 1.2 A 340 28 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 251 0 251 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 117 0 117 0.0 0 0.1 A 0.0 0 0.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 174 124 102 400 7.6 A 9.0 A 4.7 A 7.3 A 100 43 92 0 0 767 44 94 0 0 0 0 0 WB 42 142 3 187 6.1 A 7.9 A 3.7 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 34 59 0 0 0 0 0 NB 98 94 44 236 8.4 A 9.5 A 4.6 A 8.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 42 102 4 %0 50 20 53 SB 35 111 238 384 7.9 A 8.2 A 6.5 A 7.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 50 142 1 %0 75 20 109 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 194 0 204 2.6 A 1.7 A 0.0 0 1.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 183 5 188 0.0 0 1.9 A 0.2 A 1.8 A 1.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 329 20 72 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 5 10 5.6 A 0.3 A 7.4 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 171 0 307 478 11.2 B 0.0 0 5.5 A 7.4 A 320 56 151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 36 153 WB 0 0 4 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.6 A 3.6 A 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 125 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 148 122 2 272 2.6 A 1.8 A 1.0 A 2.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 20 35 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 78 5 83 0.0 0 3.3 A 0.3 A 3.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 182 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s)AM Peak Hour Eden Avenue 2024 No Build Conditions AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 10 5 17 16.8 B 24.2 C 6.5 A 17.1 B 50 20 23 0 1 % 356 20 47 0 0 0 0 0 WB 221 4 162 387 22.8 C 18.6 B 10.3 B 17.4 B 17.1 B 100 89 149 0 1 % 635 70 230 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 915 295 1,212 53.8 D 22.2 C 5.8 A 18.2 B 100 20 70 0 27 % 379 190 346 1 %0 250 62 178 SB 107 493 7 607 24.6 C 12.8 B 11.2 B 14.9 B 145 55 130 0 1 % 792 90 193 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 20.2 C 28.6 D 5.5 A 18.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 66 2 %0 50 20 31 WB 73 12 65 150 28.8 D 25.5 D 14.5 B 21.8 C 5.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 47 139 13 % 5 % 50 38 89 NB 9 1008 59 1,076 7.9 A 3.6 A 3.5 A 3.6 A 100 20 25 0 0 792 20 20 0 0 140 0 20 SB 55 456 27 538 13.7 B 1.7 A 1.7 A 2.8 A 100 23 73 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 292 768 37 1,097 41.9 D 17.8 B 14.6 B 24.0 C 150 167 229 0 4 % 382 180 369 4 %0 0 0 0 WB 73 421 376 870 31.0 C 19.8 B 18.9 B 20.3 C 28.7 C 200 47 105 0 0 390 160 336 0 0 0 0 0 NB 29 116 24 169 54.0 D 47.4 D 33.6 C 46.5 D 50 29 100 0 38 % 438 96 236 0 0 0 0 0 SB 426 80 99 605 51.6 D 38.0 D 22.9 C 45.0 D 590 236 492 2 % 1 %0 121 266 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1180 39 1,219 0.0 0 5.4 A 3.7 A 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 2 % 390 79 285 8 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 870 0 870 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 185 185 0.0 0 0.8 A 21.4 C 15.9 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 81 192 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 914 450 1,364 0.0 0 20.2 C 8.5 A 16.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 164 213 0 0 75 78 174 WB 329 515 0 844 41.5 D 16.6 B 0.0 0 26.1 C 25.5 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 240 441 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 655 76 355 1,086 46.1 D 53.7 D 14.6 B 36.4 D 500 235 435 0 0 1106 280 486 6 %0 300 106 368 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1247 322 1,569 0.0 0 2.0 A 4.5 A 2.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 843 335 1,178 0.0 0 1.3 A 2.3 A 1.6 A 2.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 37 0 0 25 20 37 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 1162 85 1,247 0.0 0 4.4 A 3.9 A 4.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 92 180 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 897 0 905 21.1 C 7.5 A 0.0 0 7.6 A 11.3 B 0 0 0 0 0 279 111 231 0 0 0 0 0 NB 281 0 199 480 38.3 D 6.2 A 35.3 D 35.2 D 180 154 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 114 207 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 23 1320 18 1,361 6.1 A 1.4 A 1.2 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 75 0 0 70 0 20 WB 6 860 1 867 12.3 B 0.6 A 0.0 A 0.7 A 1.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 72 0 0 0 0 0 NB 22 0 22 44 51.6 F 0.0 0 11.4 B 30.6 D 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 74 0 0 100 20 38 SB 3 0 23 26 28.5 D 0.0 0 6.4 A 8.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 27 0 0 50 20 37 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1337 8 1,345 0.0 0 0.9 A 0.9 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 128 867 0 995 16.8 C 0.4 A 0.0 0 2.6 A 4.8 A 120 57 145 0 0 327 20 46 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 243 243 0.0 0 0.0 0 35.0 E 35.0 E 0 0 0 0 0 242 113 267 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1578 0 1,580 7.7 A 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 48 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 992 8 1,000 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.5 A 0.8 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 34.8 D 0.0 0 3.8 A 25.9 D 430 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 20 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 379 0 381 2.3 A 0.8 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 100 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 355 4 359 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 12 27 8.7 A 0.0 0 3.7 A 6.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 379 15 395 0.0 0 1.0 A 0.1 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 70 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 345 0 362 3.7 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 20 64 0 0 0 0 0 NB 12 0 18 30 11.1 B 0.0 0 6.4 A 8.0 A 320 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 31 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 59 291 50 400 2.9 A 3.8 A 2.8 A 3.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 36 84 0 0 0 0 0 WB 49 172 102 323 2.6 A 3.1 A 2.7 A 2.9 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 28 76 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 80 89 9 178 4.4 A 5.2 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 30 80 0 0 0 0 0 SB 32 111 112 255 3.9 A 4.0 A 3.8 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 28 89 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 32 0 25 57 6.3 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 4.1 A 0.7 A 340 20 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 224 0 224 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 226 0 226 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 142 142 100 384 8.7 A 10.4 B 6.2 A 8.7 A 100 42 104 0 1 % 767 54 127 0 0 0 0 0 WB 52 91 10 153 8.1 A 7.8 A 4.1 A 7.6 A 8.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 32 62 0 0 0 0 0 NB 95 158 73 326 10.3 B 10.4 B 5.3 A 9.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 54 133 8 % 1 % 50 30 94 SB 33 125 167 325 8.1 A 8.3 A 4.5 A 6.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 45 106 2 %0 75 20 71 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 238 0 248 2.4 A 1.7 A 0.0 0 1.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 131 5 136 0.0 0 2.4 A 0.4 A 2.3 A 2.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 329 20 81 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 22 27 5.7 A 0.0 0 4.8 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 246 0 238 484 20.6 C 0.0 0 3.7 A 12.2 B 320 88 253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 26 169 WB 0 0 40 40 0.0 0 0.0 0 6.2 A 6.2 A 7.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 125 20 47 0 0 0 0 0 NB 115 193 2 310 3.4 A 3.0 A 0.9 A 3.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 20 66 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 88 5 93 0.0 0 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 182 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B2 Eden Avenue 2024 Build 1 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 25.2 C 24.0 C 2.5 A 19.5 B 50 20 41 0 0 356 20 36 0 0 0 0 0 WB 206 2 187 395 20.0 C 20.1 C 8.2 A 14.3 B 20.8 C 100 84 147 0 1 % 635 64 200 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 619 263 884 80.1 F 31.1 C 6.1 A 23.8 C 100 20 30 0 22 % 379 181 332 2 %0 250 62 222 SB 116 384 11 511 29.7 C 18.3 B 13.9 B 20.7 C 145 68 144 0 1 % 792 93 178 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 19.4 C 24.2 C 5.7 A 13.8 B 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 38 0 0 50 20 35 WB 52 4 60 116 23.8 C 23.9 C 9.1 A 15.6 C 4.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 33 100 6 % 2 % 50 31 83 NB 13 719 75 807 6.3 A 3.3 A 3.7 A 3.4 A 100 20 26 0 0 792 0 20 0 0 140 0 20 SB 56 467 29 552 8.8 A 1.3 A 1.3 A 2.0 A 100 20 64 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 178 559 63 800 35.8 D 18.0 B 14.9 B 21.7 C 150 106 215 0 2 % 382 174 358 2 %0 0 0 0 WB 80 380 308 768 28.3 C 12.8 B 11.5 B 13.8 B 22.2 C 200 46 123 0 0 390 107 241 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 66 13 98 43.5 D 42.1 D 27.5 C 40.2 D 50 20 78 0 23 % 438 60 124 0 0 0 0 0 SB 373 85 161 619 35.4 D 31.1 C 18.5 B 30.3 C 590 177 359 0 2 %0 126 274 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 914 31 945 0.0 0 7.6 A 5.4 A 7.5 A 0 0 0 0 4 % 390 93 390 14 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 768 0 768 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 6.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 192 192 0.0 0 3.1 A 29.2 D 21.9 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 88 264 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 724 383 1,107 0.0 0 23.9 C 10.1 B 19.1 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 165 211 0 0 75 82 175 WB 405 544 0 949 33.8 C 12.9 B 0.0 0 21.8 C 22.4 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 269 444 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 365 71 223 659 38.4 D 40.5 D 10.2 B 28.9 C 500 120 230 0 0 1106 172 264 0 0 300 55 141 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 688 398 1,086 0.0 0 1.6 A 4.5 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 951 585 1,536 0.0 0 2.0 A 4.4 A 2.9 A 2.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 88 0 2 % 25 26 58 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 614 75 689 0.0 0 1.5 A 0.8 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 80 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 1370 0 1,378 10.0 B 6.4 A 0.0 0 6.4 A 8.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 138 273 0 0 0 0 0 NB 164 0 131 295 37.3 D 1.8 A 36.8 D 35.6 D 180 97 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 85 190 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 19 686 40 745 16.6 C 0.9 A 0.5 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 74 0 0 0 0 0 WB 12 1357 3 1,372 6.0 A 1.0 A 0.5 A 1.0 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 93 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 0 3 5 98.6 F 0.2 A 5.8 A 19.7 C 0 0 0 0 0 349 20 30 0 0 100 20 26 SB 5 1 20 26 40.4 E 40.2 E 14.6 B 21.8 C 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 37 0 0 50 20 44 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 690 4 694 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.3 A 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 184 1372 0 1,556 7.1 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 1.4 A 1.7 A 120 46 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 200 200 0.0 0 0.5 A 7.5 A 7.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 48 126 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 888 0 889 54.1 F 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 43 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1551 5 1,556 0.0 0 1.6 A 2.1 A 1.6 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.2 B 10.2 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 32 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 362 0 366 3.4 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.0 A 100 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 374 3 377 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.5 A 0.7 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.9 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 253 108 363 0.0 0 1.5 A 0.5 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 43 0 0 0 0 0 WB 151 324 1 476 6.9 A 2.8 A 0.0 0 4.0 A 4.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 60 132 0 0 0 0 0 NB 53 0 150 203 32.5 D 0.0 0 6.3 A 12.5 B 320 29 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 32 102 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 51 306 46 403 2.1 A 3.0 A 2.1 A 2.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 28 80 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 291 102 437 3.1 A 3.9 A 2.9 A 3.6 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 46 115 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 63 71 16 150 3.8 A 5.3 A 3.8 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 28 72 0 0 0 0 0 SB 26 48 122 196 4.1 A 5.6 A 4.8 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 36 93 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 56 0 16 72 6.2 A 0.0 0 1.4 A 5.1 A 1.2 A 340 27 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 20 NB 0 251 0 251 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 117 0 117 0.0 0 0.1 A 0.0 0 0.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 174 227 0 401 3.6 A 5.0 A 0.0 0 4.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 700 33 112 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 241 97 338 0.0 0 2.4 A 3.4 A 2.6 A 3.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 38 111 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 146 0 238 384 3.3 A 2.1 A 3.2 A 3.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 37 114 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 150 213 373 1.2 A 1.6 A 1.2 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 20 64 0 0 0 0 0 WB 43 140 5 188 2.6 A 4.1 A 3.5 A 3.8 A 2.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 23 71 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 193 0 43 236 2.9 A 0.0 0 3.1 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 23 74 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 5 10 2.5 A 0.3 A 2.7 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 349 20 23 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 171 0 307 478 12.2 B 0.0 0 2.5 A 6.0 A 320 58 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 20 85 WB 0 0 4 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.1 A 4.1 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 159 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 NB 149 122 2 273 1.9 A 1.0 A 1.3 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 21 84 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 78 5 83 0.0 0 0.4 A 0.6 A 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 20 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue 2024 Build 1 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 10 5 17 33.2 C 24.6 C 10.2 B 22.1 C 50 20 23 0 1 % 356 20 58 0 0 0 0 0 WB 221 4 162 387 21.8 C 13.5 B 9.4 A 16.6 B 16.9 B 100 89 147 0 1 % 635 60 225 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 916 294 1,212 44.3 D 21.7 C 5.9 A 18.0 B 100 20 48 0 25 % 379 186 318 1 %0 250 60 176 SB 107 493 7 607 24.5 C 12.7 B 6.5 A 14.6 B 145 55 132 0 0 792 87 176 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 31.7 D 29.8 D 5.5 A 21.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 57 3 %0 50 20 31 WB 72 12 64 148 28.9 D 31.6 D 13.7 B 22.8 C 5.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 50 130 17 % 3 % 50 35 94 NB 9 1008 58 1,075 6.8 A 3.5 A 3.4 A 3.5 A 100 20 20 0 0 792 0 20 0 0 140 0 20 SB 55 456 27 538 12.9 B 1.7 A 1.5 A 2.8 A 100 25 76 0 0 382 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 293 769 37 1,099 44.5 D 18.2 B 16.5 B 25.1 C 150 172 229 0 3 % 382 190 364 3 %0 0 0 0 WB 72 421 376 869 32.7 C 19.5 B 17.7 B 19.8 B 29.7 C 200 48 107 0 0 390 160 300 0 0 0 0 0 NB 29 115 24 168 55.0 E 52.6 D 38.3 D 51.0 D 50 28 100 0 41 % 438 102 240 0 0 0 0 0 SB 427 81 98 606 52.1 D 40.5 D 25.6 C 46.3 D 590 249 554 2 % 1 %0 125 275 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1180 38 1,218 0.0 0 5.6 A 4.3 A 5.6 A 0 0 0 0 2 % 390 76 278 9 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 871 0 871 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 5.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 186 186 0.0 0 0.7 A 20.5 C 15.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 79 180 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 914 449 1,363 0.0 0 20.5 C 8.3 A 16.5 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 165 210 0 0 75 79 173 WB 328 515 0 843 40.0 D 16.5 B 0.0 0 25.7 C 25.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 238 432 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 655 76 356 1,087 45.5 D 54.8 D 14.1 B 36.0 D 500 229 386 0 0 1106 280 451 6 %0 300 111 367 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1246 322 1,568 0.0 0 2.0 A 4.6 A 2.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 378 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 843 336 1,179 0.0 0 1.3 A 2.5 A 1.6 A 2.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 20 0 0 25 20 42 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 1162 85 1,247 0.0 0 4.3 A 3.0 A 4.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 85 172 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 897 0 905 22.0 C 7.5 A 0.0 0 7.6 A 11.0 B 0 0 0 0 0 279 116 212 0 0 0 0 0 NB 281 0 198 479 37.7 D 4.2 A 34.2 C 34.3 C 180 152 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 107 190 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 23 1321 18 1,362 6.2 A 1.4 A 1.2 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 62 0 0 0 0 0 WB 6 861 1 868 12.3 B 0.6 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 1.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 92 0 0 0 0 0 NB 22 0 22 44 62.9 F 0.0 0 12.0 B 36.9 E 0 0 0 0 0 349 21 68 0 0 100 20 45 SB 3 0 23 26 22.1 C 0.0 0 7.6 A 8.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 27 0 0 50 20 42 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1337 8 1,345 0.0 0 0.9 A 0.7 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 128 867 0 995 17.2 C 0.4 A 0.0 0 2.5 A 4.6 A 120 55 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 244 244 0.0 0 1.0 A 34.8 D 33.7 D 0 0 0 0 0 242 109 273 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1578 0 1,580 7.5 A 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 993 8 1,001 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.6 A 0.7 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 39.5 E 0.0 0 4.3 A 27.8 D 430 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 380 0 382 3.6 A 0.8 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 100 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 355 4 359 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 12 27 9.7 A 0.0 0 4.3 A 7.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 37 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 379 15 395 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.4 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 65 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 345 0 362 3.9 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.9 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 20 77 0 0 0 0 0 NB 12 0 18 30 10.0 B 0.0 0 9.1 A 9.4 A 320 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 37 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 59 291 50 400 3.0 A 4.0 A 3.1 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 37 87 0 0 0 0 0 WB 49 171 103 323 2.9 A 3.3 A 2.9 A 3.1 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 31 97 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 79 89 8 176 4.1 A 4.9 A 3.9 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 28 86 0 0 0 0 0 SB 33 112 112 257 3.9 A 4.3 A 3.8 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 32 89 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 32 0 25 57 6.9 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 4.4 A 0.8 A 340 20 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 224 0 224 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 226 0 226 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 141 241 0 382 5.0 A 5.2 A 0.0 0 5.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 700 36 136 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 186 168 354 0.0 0 2.2 A 2.2 A 2.2 A 3.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 29 99 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 159 0 167 326 3.0 A 1.5 A 2.7 A 2.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 26 94 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 164 226 400 1.9 A 2.0 A 1.6 A 1.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 20 70 0 0 0 0 0 WB 51 80 5 136 3.5 A 4.0 A 2.6 A 3.8 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 20 75 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 254 0 72 326 3.9 A 0.0 0 3.8 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 31 100 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 22 27 3.7 A 0.0 0 3.5 A 3.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 349 20 36 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 246 0 238 484 17.1 C 0.0 0 2.7 A 10.1 B 320 81 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 20 106 WB 0 0 40 40 0.0 0 0.0 0 6.0 A 6.0 A 6.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 159 20 50 0 0 0 0 0 NB 115 192 2 309 2.4 A 1.6 A 1.2 A 1.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 24 91 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 87 5 92 0.0 0 0.4 A 0.3 A 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B3 Eden Avenue 2024 Build 2 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Realigned Grange Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson, Signal at 50th/Dale/New Grange AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 35.7 D 17.6 B 5.8 A 19.4 B 50 20 32 0 0 356 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 WB 206 2 187 395 19.4 B 14.1 B 8.4 A 14.1 B 20.3 C 100 78 148 0 1 % 635 65 241 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 619 263 884 56.3 E 30.8 C 6.0 A 23.5 C 100 20 48 0 20 % 379 176 324 2 %0 250 60 163 SB 116 384 11 511 27.8 C 17.6 B 10.8 B 19.7 B 145 65 142 0 1 % 792 92 185 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 21.2 C 19.9 C 5.1 A 13.5 B 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 41 0 0 50 20 39 WB 52 4 60 116 20.9 C 19.8 C 9.9 A 15.0 C 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 32 80 6 % 3 % 50 30 82 NB 13 719 75 807 5.3 A 3.6 A 3.8 A 3.6 A 100 20 25 0 0 792 20 59 0 0 140 20 35 SB 56 467 29 552 9.4 A 1.4 A 1.4 A 2.2 A 100 22 60 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 178 559 63 800 34.7 C 18.5 B 16.4 B 22.1 C 150 104 222 0 1 % 382 174 376 1 %0 0 0 0 WB 80 380 308 768 28.8 C 13.3 B 11.6 B 14.1 B 22.4 C 200 46 133 0 0 390 109 244 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 66 13 98 45.4 D 42.9 D 21.4 C 40.2 D 50 20 62 0 22 % 438 58 132 0 0 0 0 0 SB 373 85 161 619 37.5 D 29.3 C 15.8 B 30.4 C 590 185 402 0 1 %0 116 274 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 914 31 945 0.0 0 8.8 A 6.3 A 8.7 A 0 0 0 0 4 % 390 112 377 16 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 768 0 768 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 7.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 192 192 0.0 0 1.3 A 27.5 D 20.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 87 248 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 724 383 1,107 0.0 0 24.3 C 10.2 B 19.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 167 220 0 0 75 77 168 WB 405 544 0 949 34.8 C 13.6 B 0.0 0 22.4 C 22.9 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 256 467 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 365 71 223 659 38.3 D 40.8 D 10.4 B 29.2 C 500 123 245 0 0 1106 180 289 0 0 300 55 156 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 688 398 1,086 0.0 0 1.5 A 4.3 A 2.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 20 WB 0 951 722 1,673 0.0 0 1.4 A 4.6 A 2.7 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 177 20 124 0 3 % 25 31 58 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 19 559 110 688 28.5 C 1.5 A 1.0 A 2.2 A 150 20 57 0 0 275 20 53 0 0 70 20 45 WB 20 1349 3 1,372 12.2 B 9.4 A 4.4 A 9.4 A 9.7 A 150 20 81 0 6 % 341 152 348 6 %0 0 0 0 NB 313 0 134 447 31.4 C 0.7 A 10.0 B 19.1 B 150 96 222 1 %0 344 62 304 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 1 20 26 40.3 D 44.4 D 17.4 B 22.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 311 20 39 0 0 100 20 63 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 690 4 694 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.5 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 341 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 184 1372 0 1,556 7.5 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.7 A 1.9 A 120 48 112 0 0 327 20 80 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 200 200 0.0 0 0.4 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 50 112 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 888 0 889 16.4 C 0.4 A 0.0 0 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 35 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1551 5 1,556 0.0 0 1.5 A 1.7 A 1.5 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 10.3 B 10.3 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 33 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 362 0 366 3.3 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.0 A 100 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 374 3 377 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.5 A 0.7 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.2 A 3.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 253 108 363 0.0 0 1.4 A 0.5 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 50 0 0 0 0 0 WB 151 324 1 476 6.5 A 2.6 A 0.0 0 3.9 A 5.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 62 132 0 0 0 0 0 NB 53 0 150 203 39.9 E 0.0 0 8.6 A 16.1 C 320 34 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100 35 124 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 51 306 46 403 2.2 A 3.1 A 2.1 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 28 84 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 291 102 437 3.1 A 4.0 A 3.1 A 3.7 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 42 114 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 63 71 16 150 4.2 A 5.7 A 4.7 A 5.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 29 94 0 0 0 0 0 SB 26 48 122 196 4.5 A 5.0 A 4.6 A 4.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 36 98 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 56 0 16 72 6.7 A 0.0 0 1.5 A 5.5 A 1.2 A 340 29 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 251 0 251 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 117 0 117 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 0 401 0 401 0.0 0 5.6 A 0.0 0 5.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 700 46 154 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 241 0 241 0.0 0 1.9 A 0.0 0 1.9 A 5.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 20 22 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 240 0 238 478 6.4 A 0.0 0 6.1 A 6.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 467 64 176 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 355 152 135 642 3.4 A 3.1 A 3.2 A 3.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 65 137 0 0 0 0 0 WB 43 137 8 188 5.0 A 6.2 A 3.4 A 5.8 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 39 99 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 99 94 43 236 5.9 A 6.6 A 5.5 A 6.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 44 115 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 78 5 88 2.7 A 2.8 A 2.5 A 2.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 344 20 54 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue 2024 Build 2 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Realigned Grange Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson, Signal at 50th/Dale/New Grange AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 10 5 17 32.5 C 24.5 C 5.8 A 17.9 B 50 20 23 0 0 356 20 37 0 0 0 0 0 WB 221 4 162 387 22.5 C 16.4 B 9.1 A 16.9 B 17.1 B 100 90 148 0 1 % 635 61 240 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 916 294 1,212 47.0 D 22.4 C 5.5 A 18.4 B 100 20 44 0 27 % 379 190 337 2 %0 250 57 175 SB 107 493 7 607 24.4 C 12.7 B 11.9 B 14.6 B 145 52 120 0 1 % 792 86 184 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 25.5 D 27.8 D 6.0 A 20.7 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 21 60 3 %0 50 20 33 WB 72 12 64 148 32.0 D 36.1 E 15.1 C 25.1 D 5.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 57 145 20 % 5 % 50 36 99 NB 9 1008 58 1,075 6.6 A 3.7 A 3.5 A 3.7 A 100 20 20 0 0 792 20 20 0 0 140 0 20 SB 55 456 27 538 14.0 B 1.9 A 1.7 A 3.1 A 100 24 76 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 293 769 37 1,099 39.6 D 19.2 B 15.7 B 24.4 C 150 153 229 0 3 % 382 204 370 3 %0 0 0 0 WB 72 421 376 869 31.2 C 24.2 C 22.3 C 23.9 C 31.5 C 200 52 158 0 2 % 390 228 401 2 %0 0 0 0 NB 29 115 24 168 71.8 E 55.3 E 47.1 D 57.0 E 50 33 100 0 46 % 438 115 265 0 0 0 0 0 SB 427 81 98 606 56.2 E 37.5 D 24.2 C 48.7 D 590 254 528 3 % 1 %0 129 275 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1180 38 1,218 0.0 0 5.3 A 3.9 A 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 2 % 390 64 245 7 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 871 0 871 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 5.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 186 186 0.0 0 0.8 A 23.5 C 17.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 83 195 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 914 449 1,363 0.0 0 20.0 C 8.3 A 16.2 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 161 203 0 0 75 77 159 WB 328 515 0 843 43.0 D 16.5 B 0.0 0 26.6 C 25.4 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 245 459 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 655 76 356 1,087 45.8 D 54.6 D 15.5 B 36.2 D 500 233 379 0 0 1106 283 474 6 %0 300 119 372 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1246 322 1,568 0.0 0 1.8 A 4.1 A 2.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 843 462 1,305 0.0 0 0.8 A 2.3 A 1.3 A 1.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 177 20 55 0 0 25 20 44 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 23 1125 98 1,246 13.9 B 2.6 A 1.4 A 2.7 A 150 20 53 0 0 275 33 117 1 %0 70 20 55 WB 14 852 1 867 27.7 C 7.6 A 4.5 A 7.9 A 9.7 A 150 20 47 0 1 % 341 108 215 1 %0 0 0 0 NB 396 0 220 616 34.0 C 0.0 0 13.8 B 26.5 C 150 128 214 0 0 344 78 230 0 0 0 0 0 SB 3 0 23 26 74.0 E 0.0 0 10.3 B 15.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 311 20 33 0 0 100 20 48 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1337 8 1,345 0.0 0 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 341 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 128 867 0 995 20.2 C 0.4 A 0.0 0 2.9 A 4.7 A 120 58 135 0 0 327 20 69 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 244 244 0.0 0 1.0 A 33.1 D 31.8 D 0 0 0 0 0 242 107 255 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1578 0 1,580 9.8 A 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 25 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 993 8 1,001 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.5 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 29.0 D 0.0 0 4.5 A 21.7 C 430 20 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 380 0 382 4.5 A 0.8 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 100 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 355 4 359 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 12 27 8.8 A 0.0 0 3.0 A 6.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 379 15 395 0.0 0 0.9 A 0.2 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 51 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 345 0 362 4.2 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.9 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 20 77 0 0 0 0 0 NB 12 0 18 30 12.9 B 0.0 0 4.6 A 7.8 A 320 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 31 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 59 291 50 400 2.9 A 3.7 A 2.9 A 3.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 35 80 0 0 0 0 0 WB 49 171 103 323 2.7 A 3.0 A 2.6 A 2.8 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 32 82 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 79 89 8 176 4.2 A 4.8 A 4.0 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 27 76 0 0 0 0 0 SB 33 112 112 257 3.8 A 4.3 A 3.8 A 4.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 32 86 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 32 0 25 57 6.8 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 4.2 A 0.8 A 340 20 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 224 0 224 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 226 0 226 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 0 382 0 382 0.0 0 13.8 B 0.0 0 13.8 B 0 0 0 0 0 700 71 299 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 188 0 188 0.0 0 2.2 A 0.0 0 2.2 A 8.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 317 0 167 484 7.0 A 0.0 0 6.0 A 6.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 467 61 222 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 397 167 139 703 6.5 A 6.0 A 5.8 A 6.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 79 139 0 0 0 0 0 WB 51 70 15 136 4.9 A 6.0 A 5.1 A 5.5 A 5.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 34 96 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 96 158 72 326 5.7 A 6.7 A 5.5 A 6.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 51 120 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 87 22 114 2.6 A 3.8 A 2.9 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 344 20 58 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B4 Eden Avenue 2040 No Build Conditions AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 27.1 C 22.8 C 3.8 A 19.2 B 50 20 34 0 0 356 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 WB 215 2 197 414 20.4 C 13.2 B 9.5 A 15.1 B 20.6 C 100 86 148 0 2 % 635 72 216 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 649 274 925 75.5 E 31.5 C 6.3 A 24.0 C 100 20 30 0 22 % 379 188 363 3 %0 250 66 256 SB 123 402 11 536 27.9 C 16.9 B 13.9 B 19.2 B 145 64 145 0 1 % 792 90 180 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 24.0 C 13.6 B 5.0 A 14.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 48 1 %0 50 20 38 WB 56 4 64 124 22.1 C 26.7 D 11.6 B 16.7 C 4.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 36 88 6 % 3 % 50 31 80 NB 13 756 79 848 5.6 A 3.4 A 3.7 A 3.5 A 100 20 23 0 0 792 20 46 0 0 140 20 20 SB 60 490 31 581 10.3 B 1.4 A 1.4 A 2.3 A 100 23 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 186 587 67 840 40.2 D 20.5 C 19.7 B 24.8 C 150 108 206 0 1 % 382 198 389 1 %0 0 0 0 WB 85 397 322 804 27.1 C 14.7 B 13.6 B 15.5 B 24.2 C 200 47 125 0 0 390 123 269 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 70 13 102 44.6 D 44.7 D 26.3 C 42.1 D 50 20 76 0 25 % 438 62 133 0 0 0 0 0 SB 391 89 170 650 38.1 D 29.7 C 17.9 B 31.5 C 590 191 396 1 % 1 %0 125 263 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 959 35 994 0.0 0 10.1 B 7.4 A 10.0 B 0 0 0 0 6 % 390 131 365 19 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 803 0 803 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 10.8 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 198 198 0.0 0 8.8 A 54.9 F 41.0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 134 349 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 755 401 1,156 0.0 0 25.4 C 12.7 B 21.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 152 171 213 0 0 75 94 184 WB 424 570 0 994 49.4 D 16.7 B 0.0 0 30.7 C 26.7 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 333 487 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 381 73 234 688 39.2 D 43.0 D 10.9 B 30.0 C 500 130 253 0 0 1106 179 290 0 0 300 58 139 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 722 415 1,137 0.0 0 1.7 A 4.6 A 2.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 993 612 1,605 0.0 0 4.2 A 5.2 A 4.6 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 27 175 1 % 2 % 25 27 57 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 644 79 723 0.0 0 1.6 A 1.0 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 69 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 1436 0 1,444 13.0 B 8.0 A 0.0 0 8.0 A 9.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 149 281 0 0 0 0 0 NB 171 0 137 308 38.6 D 1.9 A 35.9 D 36.1 D 180 105 192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 86 179 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 19 718 44 781 20.1 C 0.9 A 0.6 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 80 0 0 0 0 0 WB 12 1422 3 1,437 9.2 A 1.9 A 0.4 A 1.9 A 2.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 122 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 0 3 5 130.8 F 0.2 A 6.5 A 19.8 C 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 23 0 0 100 20 26 SB 5 1 20 26 63.9 F 104.3 F 35.0 E 42.1 E 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 57 2 % 4 % 50 20 59 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 722 4 726 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.5 A 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 192 1437 0 1,629 7.7 A 0.9 A 0.0 0 1.7 A 1.9 A 120 52 103 0 0 327 20 38 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 207 207 0.0 0 0.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 47 116 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 929 0 930 0.0 A 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1623 5 1,628 0.0 0 1.7 A 2.2 A 1.7 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 13.4 B 13.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 32 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 380 0 384 4.4 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.0 A 100 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 392 3 395 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.4 A 0.7 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.9 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 263 115 380 0.0 0 1.5 A 0.6 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 61 0 0 0 0 0 WB 160 338 1 499 7.1 A 3.1 A 0.0 0 4.4 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 65 132 0 0 0 0 0 NB 56 0 160 216 31.4 D 0.0 0 6.9 A 12.8 B 320 30 94 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100 35 116 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 54 320 49 423 2.2 A 3.2 A 2.2 A 3.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 34 80 0 0 0 0 0 WB 47 304 106 457 3.1 A 4.1 A 3.2 A 3.8 A 4.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 47 136 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 67 75 16 158 4.1 A 5.4 A 4.4 A 4.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 33 89 0 0 0 0 0 SB 26 51 129 206 5.4 A 6.7 A 5.4 A 5.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 42 129 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 59 0 16 75 6.8 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 5.5 A 1.9 A 340 30 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 263 0 263 0.0 0 1.6 A 0.0 0 1.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 20 52 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 123 0 123 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 182 130 106 418 8.1 A 9.6 A 5.2 A 7.8 A 100 46 84 0 0 767 49 112 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 150 3 197 6.7 A 8.2 A 3.9 A 7.8 A 7.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 36 56 0 0 0 0 0 NB 100 99 45 244 8.8 A 10.2 B 4.5 A 8.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 45 114 4 %0 50 21 54 SB 37 118 248 403 7.7 A 8.2 A 5.5 A 6.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 51 153 2 %0 75 20 115 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 203 0 213 2.8 A 1.7 A 0.0 0 1.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 191 5 196 0.0 0 1.9 A 0.6 A 1.9 A 1.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 329 20 59 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 5 10 7.0 A 0.3 A 6.1 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 28 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 179 0 321 500 13.4 B 0.0 0 3.6 A 7.2 A 320 60 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 30 109 WB 0 0 4 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.1 A 3.1 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 125 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 155 126 2 283 2.9 A 2.0 A 0.7 A 2.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 20 44 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 81 5 86 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.2 A 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 182 20 20 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue 2040 No Build Conditions AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 11 5 18 30.4 C 25.0 C 6.2 A 19.3 B 50 20 25 0 1 % 356 20 45 0 0 0 0 0 WB 231 4 170 405 23.7 C 21.5 C 11.8 B 18.6 B 17.8 B 100 95 149 0 1 % 635 83 256 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 957 308 1,267 52.8 D 22.9 C 6.1 A 18.9 B 100 20 83 0 29 % 379 202 358 3 %0 250 66 208 SB 112 517 7 636 26.8 C 12.6 B 10.8 B 15.1 B 145 62 154 0 1 % 792 92 185 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 28.9 D 32.1 D 5.0 A 21.7 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 49 1 %0 50 20 33 WB 76 12 68 156 39.2 E 36.8 E 17.9 C 29.6 D 6.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 60 162 22 % 6 % 50 41 98 NB 9 1056 62 1,127 6.9 A 3.9 A 3.6 A 3.9 A 100 20 22 0 0 792 20 152 0 0 140 0 20 SB 59 478 30 567 15.0 C 1.8 A 1.8 A 3.1 A 100 27 74 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 305 804 39 1,148 54.6 D 21.5 C 18.2 B 30.2 C 150 184 230 0 4 % 382 237 394 4 %0 0 0 0 WB 76 441 394 911 36.7 D 20.5 C 20.0 C 21.6 C 34.4 C 200 53 122 0 0 390 175 337 0 0 0 0 0 NB 30 122 24 176 59.2 E 50.6 D 41.0 D 50.7 D 50 32 100 0 45 % 438 109 245 0 0 0 0 0 SB 446 84 104 634 63.4 E 43.9 D 31.8 C 55.9 E 590 303 729 6 % 1 %0 137 275 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1236 41 1,277 0.0 0 7.2 A 5.1 A 7.1 A 0 0 0 0 3 % 390 104 335 13 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 910 0 910 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 6.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 190 190 0.0 0 0.7 A 25.6 D 18.3 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 85 190 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 957 471 1,428 0.0 0 21.2 C 9.8 A 17.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 168 206 0 0 75 91 169 WB 344 539 0 883 52.8 D 18.9 B 0.0 0 32.1 C 28.4 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 284 488 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 684 79 372 1,135 50.3 D 60.1 E 16.2 B 39.7 D 500 252 458 0 0 1106 300 525 10 %0 300 134 398 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1306 335 1,641 0.0 0 2.1 A 4.7 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 881 351 1,232 0.0 0 2.6 A 2.8 A 2.7 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 83 0 0 25 20 40 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 1218 88 1,306 0.0 0 4.0 A 3.1 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 83 183 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 940 0 948 25.0 C 8.3 A 0.0 0 8.5 A 11.5 B 0 0 0 0 0 279 123 223 0 0 0 0 0 NB 293 0 208 501 39.4 D 4.3 A 35.8 D 35.8 D 180 158 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 119 208 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 23 1382 18 1,423 6.5 A 1.4 A 1.3 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 76 0 0 70 0 20 WB 6 900 1 907 11.9 B 0.6 A 0.1 A 0.6 A 2.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 80 0 0 0 0 0 NB 22 0 22 44 70.7 F 0.0 0 12.5 B 40.3 E 0 0 0 0 0 370 23 70 1 %0 100 20 51 SB 3 0 23 26 35.6 E 0.0 0 6.6 A 11.2 B 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 36 0 0 50 20 41 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1400 8 1,408 0.0 0 1.0 A 0.8 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 134 907 0 1,041 19.9 C 0.4 A 0.0 0 3.0 A 7.5 A 120 61 137 0 0 327 20 69 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 254 254 0.0 0 0.0 0 65.1 F 65.1 F 0 0 0 0 0 242 156 331 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1653 0 1,655 12.3 B 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1037 8 1,045 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.9 A 0.8 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 32.1 D 0.0 0 6.1 A 23.4 C 430 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 26 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 395 0 397 4.8 A 0.8 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 100 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 371 4 375 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 12 27 11.6 B 0.0 0 4.1 A 8.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 46 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 395 15 411 0.0 0 1.0 A 0.2 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 50 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 361 0 378 3.8 A 0.8 A 0.0 0 0.9 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 20 86 0 0 0 0 0 NB 12 0 18 30 11.4 B 0.0 0 7.6 A 9.0 A 320 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 26 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 60 305 53 418 3.1 A 3.7 A 3.3 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 36 83 0 0 0 0 0 WB 52 180 104 336 2.9 A 3.3 A 2.9 A 3.1 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 33 96 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 85 94 8 187 4.4 A 4.9 A 4.1 A 4.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 29 85 0 0 0 0 0 SB 33 116 117 266 3.8 A 4.2 A 3.7 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 31 79 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 32 0 25 57 6.6 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 4.2 A 0.7 A 340 20 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 20 NB 0 232 0 232 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 237 0 237 0.0 0 0.1 A 0.0 0 0.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 146 148 104 398 9.9 A 13.7 B 8.8 A 11.0 B 100 46 126 0 4 % 767 64 178 0 0 0 0 0 WB 55 94 11 160 8.1 A 8.5 A 3.9 A 8.1 A 9.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 34 63 0 0 0 0 0 NB 98 166 76 340 10.2 B 11.1 B 5.9 A 9.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 54 115 8 % 1 % 50 30 89 SB 35 130 173 338 9.5 A 9.9 A 4.7 A 7.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 51 148 3 %0 75 20 112 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 248 0 258 2.7 A 2.0 A 0.0 0 2.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 42 20 45 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 136 5 141 0.0 0 2.4 A 0.3 A 2.3 A 2.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 329 20 81 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 22 27 6.7 A 0.0 0 4.9 A 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 370 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 258 0 247 505 21.3 C 0.0 0 4.2 A 12.8 B 320 95 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 31 163 WB 0 0 43 43 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.1 A 7.1 A 8.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 125 20 49 0 0 0 0 0 NB 121 202 2 325 3.5 A 2.8 A 1.3 A 3.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 91 20 49 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 91 5 96 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.3 A 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 182 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B5 Eden Avenue 2040 Build 1 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg.Queue (feet) 1 MaxQueue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 27.7 C 16.6 B 3.4 A 17.5 B 50 20 35 0 0 356 20 37 0 0 0 0 0 WB 215 2 197 414 20.4 C 17.0 B 8.8 A 14.8 B 21.4 C 100 86 148 0 1 % 635 72 230 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 649 274 925 69.8 E 32.8 C 6.4 A 24.8 C 100 20 24 0 25 % 379 191 326 3 %0 250 64 226 SB 123 402 11 536 30.6 C 17.9 B 17.3 B 20.7 C 145 69 160 0 1 % 792 94 188 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 26.1 D 24.4 C 4.7 A 15.9 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 46 0 0 50 20 33 WB 56 4 64 124 26.5 D 24.0 C 16.7 C 21.4 C 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 41 131 9 % 5 % 50 33 90 NB 13 756 79 848 7.1 A 3.8 A 3.7 A 3.8 A 100 20 28 0 0 792 20 76 0 0 140 0 20 SB 60 490 31 581 10.4 B 1.4 A 1.4 A 2.4 A 100 24 76 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 186 587 67 840 38.8 D 24.8 C 22.4 C 27.7 C 150 108 219 0 2 % 382 207 383 2 %0 0 0 0 WB 85 397 322 804 32.4 C 15.2 B 13.6 B 16.4 B 25.5 C 200 55 140 0 0 390 117 267 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 70 13 102 46.2 D 42.9 D 23.8 C 41.0 D 50 22 81 0 21 % 438 59 132 0 0 0 0 0 SB 391 89 170 650 37.8 D 29.4 C 18.9 B 31.6 C 590 198 425 0 2 %0 131 273 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 959 35 994 0.0 0 12.1 B 8.7 A 12.0 B 0 0 0 0 7 % 390 154 386 24 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 803 0 803 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 11.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 198 198 0.0 0 2.7 A 56.0 F 40.4 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 132 346 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 755 401 1,156 0.0 0 26.6 C 12.3 B 21.6 C 0 0 0 0 0 152 172 212 0 0 75 95 182 WB 424 570 0 994 40.3 D 14.8 B 0.0 0 25.6 C 25.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 304 488 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 381 73 234 688 38.8 D 44.2 D 11.3 B 30.1 C 500 130 273 0 0 1106 181 297 0 0 300 60 175 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 722 415 1,137 0.0 0 1.6 A 4.7 A 2.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 993 612 1,605 0.0 0 2.4 A 4.6 A 3.2 A 3.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 98 0 2 % 25 25 58 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 644 79 723 0.0 0 1.5 A 1.0 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 61 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 1436 0 1,444 12.0 B 6.7 A 0.0 0 6.7 A 9.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 136 284 0 0 0 0 0 NB 171 0 137 308 38.4 D 1.6 A 37.7 D 36.3 D 180 99 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 84 181 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 19 718 44 781 16.5 C 0.8 A 0.6 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 76 0 0 70 0 20 WB 12 1422 3 1,437 6.5 A 1.2 A 0.4 A 1.3 A 1.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 94 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 0 3 5 80.4 F 0.3 A 6.3 A 12.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 349 20 30 0 0 100 20 23 SB 5 1 20 26 54.3 F 91.0 F 20.3 C 28.3 D 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 37 1 % 2 % 50 20 53 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 722 4 726 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.4 A 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 192 1437 0 1,629 7.4 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 1.5 A 1.8 A 120 50 122 0 0 327 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 207 207 0.0 0 0.5 A 7.9 A 7.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 54 131 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 929 0 930 25.3 D 0.4 A 0.0 0 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1623 5 1,628 0.0 0 1.6 A 1.4 A 1.6 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 9.6 A 9.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 380 0 384 3.9 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.0 A 100 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 392 3 395 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.4 A 0.8 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.1 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 263 115 380 0.0 0 1.6 A 0.6 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 69 0 0 0 0 0 WB 160 338 1 499 8.2 A 3.5 A 0.0 0 5.0 A 5.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 70 137 0 0 0 0 0 NB 56 0 160 216 44.6 E 0.0 0 7.8 A 16.6 C 320 36 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100 37 123 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 54 320 49 423 2.1 A 3.1 A 2.2 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 31 85 0 0 0 0 0 WB 47 304 106 457 5.3 A 5.3 A 4.2 A 5.1 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 52 139 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 67 75 16 158 3.9 A 5.2 A 4.7 A 4.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 31 75 0 0 0 0 0 SB 26 51 129 206 6.2 A 7.1 A 6.5 A 6.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 42 137 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 59 0 16 75 6.4 A 0.0 0 1.4 A 5.2 A 1.2 A 340 28 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 263 0 263 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 123 0 123 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 182 236 0 418 3.8 A 5.4 A 0.0 0 4.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 700 39 129 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 250 102 352 0.0 0 2.6 A 3.7 A 2.9 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 44 114 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 155 0 248 403 3.7 A 1.7 A 3.7 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 44 124 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 157 224 391 1.1 A 1.7 A 1.3 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 20 80 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 147 5 196 2.9 A 4.3 A 2.7 A 3.9 A 2.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 22 75 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 199 0 45 244 3.2 A 0.0 0 3.2 A 3.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 27 82 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 5 10 3.1 A 0.3 A 2.8 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 349 20 33 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 179 0 321 500 12.5 B 0.0 0 2.7 A 6.1 A 320 58 128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 20 113 WB 0 0 4 4 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.5 A 3.5 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 159 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 NB 155 126 2 283 2.1 A 0.9 A 0.4 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 23 78 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 81 5 86 0.0 0 0.4 A 0.3 A 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 20 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue 2040 Build 1 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Delay(S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length(feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS By Approach LOS By Intersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 11 5 18 26.9 C 22.6 C 6.7 A 18.9 B 50 20 30 0 1 % 356 20 50 0 0 0 0 0 WB 231 4 170 405 23.5 C 20.5 C 10.1 B 17.6 B 17.8 B 100 93 149 0 1 % 635 73 267 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 957 308 1,267 48.9 D 23.1 C 6.2 A 19.0 B 100 20 41 0 29 % 379 199 352 2 %0 250 72 313 SB 112 517 7 636 24.9 C 13.5 B 10.9 B 15.5 B 145 59 125 0 1 % 792 92 192 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 25.8 D 37.6 E 5.2 A 22.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 21 63 2 %0 50 20 34 WB 76 12 68 156 35.6 E 38.9 E 15.6 C 26.3 D 5.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 54 159 20 % 6 % 50 41 97 NB 9 1056 62 1,127 7.4 A 3.7 A 3.8 A 3.7 A 100 20 23 0 0 792 20 41 0 0 140 0 20 SB 59 478 30 567 17.0 C 1.8 A 1.6 A 3.3 A 100 29 85 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 305 804 39 1,148 47.6 D 20.3 C 19.1 B 27.4 C 150 173 230 0 4 % 382 215 396 4 %0 0 0 0 WB 76 441 394 911 36.1 D 20.8 C 20.1 C 21.7 C 30.8 C 200 53 169 0 1 % 390 174 345 1 %0 0 0 0 NB 30 122 24 176 61.7 E 47.8 D 39.2 D 48.8 D 50 30 100 0 41 % 438 106 258 0 0 0 0 0 SB 446 84 104 634 53.4 D 35.7 D 21.3 C 45.6 D 590 252 567 2 %0 0 126 275 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1236 41 1,277 0.0 0 6.7 A 5.4 A 6.7 A 0 0 0 0 3 % 390 106 338 12 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 910 0 910 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 6.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 152 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 190 190 0.0 0 1.8 A 32.9 D 24.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 99 287 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 957 471 1,428 0.0 0 21.6 C 8.9 A 17.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 171 208 0 0 75 83 168 WB 344 539 0 883 44.6 D 17.4 B 0.0 0 27.7 C 26.9 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 261 462 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 684 79 372 1,135 48.0 D 58.9 E 16.7 B 38.6 D 500 246 424 0 0 1106 289 472 8 %0 300 126 390 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1306 335 1,641 0.0 0 2.1 A 4.7 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 881 351 1,232 0.0 0 1.4 A 2.5 A 1.7 A 2.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 20 20 0 0 25 20 40 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Grange Rd (Signal)EB 0 1218 88 1,306 0.0 0 4.5 A 3.7 A 4.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 171 91 183 0 0 0 0 0 WB 8 940 0 948 37.3 D 8.4 A 0.0 0 8.6 A 11.7 B 0 0 0 0 0 279 124 241 0 0 0 0 0 NB 293 0 208 501 38.1 D 4.0 A 37.2 D 35.8 D 180 153 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 122 205 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd EB 23 1382 18 1,423 6.4 A 1.5 A 1.2 A 1.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 279 20 76 0 0 0 0 0 WB 6 900 1 907 15.7 C 0.7 A 0.2 A 0.8 A 2.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 121 0 0 0 0 0 NB 22 0 22 44 66.3 F 0.0 0 12.3 B 37.4 E 0 0 0 0 0 349 21 77 1 %0 100 20 41 SB 3 0 23 26 55.9 F 0.0 0 6.8 A 12.7 B 0 0 0 0 0 320 20 30 1 %0 50 20 44 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1400 8 1,408 0.0 0 0.9 A 0.6 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 342 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 134 907 0 1,041 19.7 C 0.5 A 0.0 0 2.9 A 6.1 A 120 57 145 0 0 327 20 112 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 254 254 0.0 0 3.1 A 48.5 E 46.6 E 0 0 0 0 0 242 140 318 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1653 0 1,655 15.3 C 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 68 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1037 8 1,045 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.5 A 0.8 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 40.6 E 0.0 0 7.6 A 30.7 D 430 20 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 395 0 397 2.8 A 0.9 A 0.0 0 0.9 A 100 0 20 0 0 635 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 371 4 375 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 12 27 9.8 A 0.0 0 4.3 A 7.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 395 15 411 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.2 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 97 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 361 0 378 3.9 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 20 59 0 0 0 0 0 NB 12 0 18 30 10.1 B 0.0 0 6.8 A 8.2 A 320 20 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 30 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 60 305 53 418 3.0 A 3.8 A 3.1 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 36 84 0 0 0 0 0 WB 52 180 104 336 3.2 A 3.4 A 3.0 A 3.3 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 34 92 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 85 94 8 187 4.4 A 5.3 A 4.2 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 31 72 0 0 0 0 0 SB 33 116 117 266 4.4 A 4.3 A 3.8 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 31 89 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 32 0 25 57 6.8 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 4.4 A 0.8 A 340 20 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 20 NB 0 232 0 232 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 237 0 237 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 146 252 0 398 5.5 A 5.9 A 0.0 0 5.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 700 39 181 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 192 177 369 0.0 0 2.1 A 2.0 A 2.1 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 29 86 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 165 0 173 338 3.2 A 1.5 A 2.8 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 30 118 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 173 234 417 1.7 A 2.1 A 1.7 A 1.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 20 78 0 0 0 0 0 WB 55 82 5 142 3.4 A 4.3 A 3.3 A 3.9 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 20 83 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 264 0 76 340 3.9 A 0.0 0 3.8 A 3.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 29 77 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 0 22 27 3.3 A 0.0 0 3.2 A 3.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 349 20 31 0 0 0 0 0 Grange Rd & NB TH 100 EB 258 0 247 505 22.2 C 0.0 0 3.4 A 12.8 B 320 95 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 20 168 WB 0 0 43 43 0.0 0 0.0 0 6.3 A 6.3 A 7.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 159 21 59 0 0 0 0 0 NB 121 202 2 325 2.4 A 1.5 A 1.1 A 1.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 80 22 98 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 91 5 96 0.0 0 0.4 A 0.4 A 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 180 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B6 Eden Avenue 2040 Build 2 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Realigned Grange Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson, Signal at 50th/Dale/New Grange AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 24.8 C 21.0 C 4.6 A 16.0 B 50 20 35 0 0 356 20 37 0 0 0 0 0 WB 215 2 197 414 20.1 C 14.1 B 8.7 A 14.6 B 20.5 C 100 86 147 0 1 % 635 67 212 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 649 274 925 63.4 E 31.5 C 6.2 A 23.9 C 100 20 50 0 23 % 379 194 367 3 %0 250 75 284 SB 123 402 11 536 27.5 C 17.2 B 14.3 B 19.3 B 145 65 141 0 1 % 792 93 199 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 28.4 D 17.4 C 4.6 A 17.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 45 2 %0 50 20 34 WB 56 4 64 124 28.4 D 46.6 E 24.5 C 26.9 D 6.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 46 180 6 % 9 % 50 35 96 NB 13 756 79 848 6.7 A 5.6 A 4.8 A 5.5 A 100 20 28 0 0 792 20 198 2 %0 140 20 90 SB 60 490 31 581 10.6 B 1.4 A 1.3 A 2.3 A 100 22 69 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 186 587 67 840 40.4 D 28.2 C 28.7 C 30.9 C 150 114 227 0 2 % 382 220 396 2 %0 0 0 0 WB 85 397 322 804 28.8 C 14.6 B 12.9 B 15.3 B 26.8 C 200 49 129 0 0 390 119 278 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 70 13 102 47.4 D 43.9 D 29.5 C 42.5 D 50 20 85 0 28 % 438 65 142 0 0 0 0 0 SB 391 89 170 650 40.1 D 30.7 C 18.1 B 33.2 C 590 205 443 1 % 1 %0 124 263 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 959 35 994 0.0 0 14.3 B 11.1 B 14.2 B 0 0 0 0 8 % 390 183 404 28 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 803 0 803 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 14.3 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 198 198 0.0 0 6.7 A 72.3 F 52.6 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 154 343 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 755 401 1,156 0.0 0 27.4 C 13.1 B 22.5 C 0 0 0 0 0 152 180 222 0 0 75 94 192 WB 424 570 0 994 41.6 D 15.5 B 0.0 0 26.4 C 25.8 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 296 496 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 381 73 234 688 39.2 D 42.3 D 11.4 B 30.4 C 500 140 251 0 0 1106 189 294 0 0 300 59 142 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 722 415 1,137 0.0 0 1.6 A 4.5 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 993 757 1,750 0.0 0 2.1 A 5.1 A 3.3 A 3.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 177 20 137 0 4 % 25 32 61 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 19 585 118 722 35.8 D 1.7 A 1.2 A 2.5 A 150 20 56 0 0 275 20 59 1 %0 70 20 53 WB 20 1414 3 1,437 17.6 B 9.9 A 5.5 A 10.0 B 10.4 B 150 20 155 0 6 % 341 152 346 6 %0 0 0 0 NB 326 0 140 466 32.7 C 0.8 A 10.3 B 20.0 C 150 107 224 1 %0 344 82 365 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 1 20 26 46.8 D 41.5 D 22.1 C 28.8 C 0 0 0 0 0 311 20 48 0 0 100 20 60 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 722 4 726 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.4 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 341 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 192 1437 0 1,629 7.7 A 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.9 A 2.0 A 120 50 110 0 0 327 20 116 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 207 207 0.0 0 0.6 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 49 121 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 929 0 930 30.5 D 0.4 A 0.0 0 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1623 5 1,628 0.0 0 1.7 A 1.2 A 1.7 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 7.8 A 7.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 380 0 384 2.9 A 0.9 A 0.0 0 0.9 A 100 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 392 3 395 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.4 A 0.7 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.3 A 2.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 263 115 380 0.0 0 1.5 A 0.5 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 54 0 0 0 0 0 WB 160 338 1 499 8.2 A 3.3 A 0.0 0 4.8 A 5.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 65 132 0 0 0 0 0 NB 56 0 160 216 41.2 E 0.0 0 8.8 A 17.1 C 320 37 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100 35 106 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 54 320 49 423 2.2 A 3.2 A 2.1 A 2.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 32 79 0 0 0 0 0 WB 47 304 106 457 3.6 A 4.8 A 3.5 A 4.4 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 46 131 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 67 75 16 158 4.2 A 5.5 A 3.7 A 4.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 30 78 0 0 0 0 0 SB 26 51 129 206 5.6 A 7.8 A 8.1 A 7.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 43 136 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 59 0 16 75 6.6 A 0.0 0 1.4 A 5.5 A 1.3 A 340 28 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 263 0 263 0.0 0 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 123 0 123 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 0 418 0 418 0.0 0 7.1 A 0.0 0 7.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 700 56 204 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 249 0 249 0.0 0 2.0 A 0.0 0 2.0 A 6.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 252 0 248 500 8.3 A 0.0 0 7.1 A 7.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 467 74 202 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 371 157 143 671 3.8 A 3.7 A 3.7 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 68 136 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 144 8 196 5.1 A 6.3 A 4.7 A 6.0 A 4.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 40 97 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 100 99 45 244 6.2 A 7.8 A 5.9 A 6.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 51 123 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 81 5 91 3.0 A 2.8 A 2.4 A 2.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 344 20 52 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue 2040 Build 2 Conditions - Realigned Wilson Rd, Realigned Grange Rd, Mini-Roundabouts at Eden/Grange and Eden/Wilson, Signal at 50th/Dale/New Grange AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 11 5 18 36.1 D 25.8 C 4.4 A 19.8 B 50 20 22 0 1 % 356 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 WB 231 4 170 405 22.6 C 14.7 B 11.0 B 17.8 B 17.9 B 100 92 148 0 1 % 635 75 241 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 957 308 1,267 71.4 E 22.9 C 6.0 A 18.9 B 100 20 61 0 29 % 379 201 364 3 %0 250 68 282 SB 112 517 7 636 26.0 C 13.7 B 12.8 B 15.8 B 145 57 130 0 1 % 792 93 201 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 25.2 D 25.7 D 5.6 A 17.6 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 60 1 %0 50 20 34 WB 76 12 68 156 34.6 D 33.0 D 16.5 C 26.4 D 5.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 56 140 21 % 6 % 50 41 98 NB 9 1056 62 1,127 7.2 A 3.8 A 3.7 A 3.8 A 100 20 25 0 0 792 20 31 0 0 140 0 20 SB 59 478 30 567 16.7 C 2.0 A 1.9 A 3.5 A 100 29 98 0 0 382 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 305 804 39 1,148 38.9 D 20.6 C 20.6 C 25.3 C 150 159 229 0 4 % 382 217 380 4 %0 0 0 0 WB 76 441 394 911 33.9 C 24.8 C 23.0 C 24.8 C 33.4 C 200 55 144 0 1 % 390 230 385 1 %0 0 0 0 NB 30 122 24 176 62.2 E 53.1 D 44.6 D 53.3 D 50 30 100 0 46 % 438 111 258 0 0 0 0 0 SB 446 84 104 634 64.9 E 42.2 D 28.4 C 55.7 E 590 291 722 4 %0 0 140 275 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1236 41 1,277 0.0 0 6.7 A 5.1 A 6.6 A 0 0 0 0 3 % 390 89 328 12 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 910 0 910 0.0 0 1.2 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 6.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 190 190 0.0 0 1.0 A 31.7 D 23.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 96 230 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 957 471 1,428 0.0 0 21.4 C 9.8 A 17.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 152 170 212 0 0 75 89 181 WB 344 539 0 883 50.6 D 18.4 B 0.0 0 30.9 C 27.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 378 282 483 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 684 79 372 1,135 45.6 D 55.6 E 15.3 B 36.3 D 500 235 367 0 0 1106 282 432 6 %0 300 119 349 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1306 335 1,641 0.0 0 1.8 A 4.3 A 2.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 881 484 1,365 0.0 0 1.5 A 2.6 A 1.9 A 2.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 177 20 84 0 1 % 25 20 43 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 23 1182 101 1,306 14.9 B 2.5 A 1.3 A 2.6 A 150 20 52 0 0 275 32 86 1 %0 70 20 48 WB 14 892 1 907 31.9 C 7.9 A 4.2 A 8.3 A 9.8 A 150 20 67 0 1 % 341 110 231 1 %0 0 0 0 NB 414 0 230 644 33.6 C 0.0 0 14.5 B 26.8 C 150 132 216 1 % 1 % 344 80 256 0 0 0 0 0 SB 3 0 23 26 47.5 D 0.0 0 11.2 B 15.1 B 0 0 0 0 0 311 20 39 0 0 100 20 49 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1400 8 1,408 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.9 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 341 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 WB 134 907 0 1,041 22.8 C 0.5 A 0.0 0 3.3 A 6.1 A 120 63 145 0 0 327 20 59 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 254 254 0.0 0 3.8 A 48.3 E 46.3 E 0 0 0 0 0 242 130 296 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1653 0 1,655 6.7 A 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 41 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1037 8 1,045 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.8 A 0.8 A 0.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 847 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 34.3 D 0.0 0 5.5 A 26.4 D 430 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 395 0 397 6.7 A 0.8 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 100 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 371 4 375 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.1 A 0.2 A 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 12 27 9.9 A 0.0 0 4.3 A 7.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 395 15 411 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.1 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 78 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 361 0 378 4.2 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.8 A 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 20 83 0 0 0 0 0 NB 12 0 18 30 13.3 B 0.0 0 6.5 A 8.9 A 320 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 32 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 60 305 53 418 3.3 A 4.0 A 3.0 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 39 89 0 0 0 0 0 WB 52 180 104 336 2.9 A 3.2 A 2.7 A 3.0 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 82 32 96 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 85 94 8 187 4.5 A 5.1 A 3.8 A 4.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 642 30 76 0 0 0 0 0 SB 33 116 117 266 3.6 A 4.4 A 3.8 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 296 31 101 0 0 0 0 0 Arcadia Ave & SB TH 100 EB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 32 0 25 57 6.4 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 4.2 A 0.7 A 340 20 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 232 0 232 0.0 0 0.5 A 0.0 0 0.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 237 0 237 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 0 0.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Grange Rd EB 0 398 0 398 0.0 0 29.0 D 0.0 0 29.0 D 0 0 0 0 0 700 123 438 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 191 0 191 0.0 0 2.2 A 0.0 0 2.2 A 15.3 C 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 332 0 173 505 9.9 A 0.0 0 7.7 A 9.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 467 72 271 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 414 173 143 730 8.3 A 7.2 A 7.2 A 7.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 79 89 150 0 0 0 0 0 WB 55 71 16 142 5.7 A 5.9 A 5.7 A 5.8 A 6.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 37 98 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 98 166 76 340 5.9 A 6.9 A 6.0 A 6.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 52 124 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 91 22 118 3.5 A 3.7 A 3.0 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 344 20 59 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B7 Eden Avenue 2040 Build Interchange Conditions - Split Diamond Interchange AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 25.8 C 29.3 C 5.7 A 21.9 C 50 20 38 0 0 356 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 WB 214 2 177 393 20.9 C 5.1 A 7.6 A 14.9 B 20.6 C 100 88 149 0 1 % 635 70 259 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 614 310 926 52.9 D 31.6 C 6.5 A 23.2 C 100 20 27 0 32 % 379 186 333 1 %0 250 64 162 SB 132 402 11 545 28.4 C 18.4 B 15.2 B 20.5 C 145 68 144 0 1 % 792 95 204 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 18.8 C 21.0 C 4.5 A 13.6 B 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 51 1 %0 50 20 31 WB 56 4 64 124 22.0 C 17.4 C 7.9 A 14.3 B 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 35 98 7 % 2 % 50 28 80 NB 13 702 79 794 7.5 A 3.0 A 2.7 A 3.0 A 100 20 28 0 0 792 0 20 0 0 140 0 20 SB 60 498 31 589 9.3 A 1.2 A 1.2 A 2.0 A 100 23 75 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 186 526 67 779 35.0 D 13.0 B 8.4 A 17.8 B 150 104 220 0 2 % 382 100 295 2 %0 0 0 0 WB 85 397 322 804 18.7 B 10.1 B 9.2 A 10.7 B 19.1 B 200 42 113 0 0 390 84 207 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 70 13 102 47.0 D 44.8 D 22.6 C 42.7 D 50 20 78 0 23 % 438 61 150 0 0 0 0 0 SB 348 132 170 650 32.1 C 27.3 C 17.6 B 27.3 C 590 119 283 0 2 %0 127 235 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 852 35 887 0.0 0 2.0 A 1.6 A 2.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 390 20 87 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 804 0 804 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 1.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 155 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 104 104 0.0 0 0.5 A 8.9 A 5.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 42 92 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 730 226 956 0.0 0 7.2 A 2.6 A 6.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 155 84 167 0 0 80 26 83 WB 220 570 0 790 24.3 C 5.8 A 0.0 0 10.9 B 13.5 B 225 94 218 0 0 304 51 136 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 381 73 234 688 35.6 D 38.2 D 9.3 A 26.9 C 500 118 236 0 0 1096 176 274 0 0 300 54 136 50th St & NB TH 100 (Signal)EB 392 719 0 1,111 18.7 B 3.9 A 0.0 0 9.1 A 225 114 276 0 0 304 37 207 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 709 612 1,321 0.0 0 15.0 B 1.1 A 8.6 A 11.3 B 0 0 0 0 0 284 93 226 1 %0 150 20 30 NB 81 160 98 339 38.8 D 29.7 C 10.4 B 27.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 539 130 248 1 %0 200 34 105 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 19 680 118 817 18.0 B 2.0 A 1.5 A 2.3 A 150 20 49 0 0 292 33 130 2 %0 70 20 79 WB 20 1267 3 1,290 8.7 A 3.4 A 2.8 A 3.5 A 3.8 A 150 20 34 0 0 347 74 266 0 0 0 0 0 NB 34 0 42 76 34.0 C 0.3 A 7.4 A 13.6 B 150 23 86 0 0 343 20 59 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 1 20 26 46.4 D 79.4 E 12.0 B 21.2 C 100 20 38 0 0 310 20 50 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 718 4 722 0.0 0 1.0 A 1.0 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 347 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 338 1290 0 1,628 10.2 B 0.9 A 0.0 0 2.9 A 2.8 A 120 86 177 0 0 327 20 155 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 207 207 0.0 0 0.4 A 8.0 A 7.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 50 111 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 924 0 925 35.6 E 0.6 A 0.0 0 0.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 53 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1623 5 1,628 0.0 0 1.7 A 1.6 A 1.7 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 847 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 12.4 B 12.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 439 0 443 5.2 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.0 A 100 20 27 0 0 635 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 391 3 394 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.4 A 0.8 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.7 A 2.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 322 115 439 0.0 0 1.7 A 0.7 A 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 72 0 0 0 0 0 WB 160 338 1 499 8.7 A 3.7 A 0.0 0 5.3 A 8.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 102 73 151 0 0 0 0 0 NB 56 0 160 216 61.7 F 0.0 0 15.9 C 28.0 D 320 57 238 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 % 100 46 161 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 44 390 49 483 3.3 A 4.3 A 3.0 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 102 47 107 0 0 0 0 0 WB 47 303 106 456 6.3 A 6.9 A 5.5 A 6.5 A 5.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 259 45 168 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 67 31 60 158 4.8 A 5.9 A 4.6 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 663 35 79 0 0 0 0 0 SB 111 51 129 291 7.4 A 9.1 A 7.8 A 7.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 317 55 184 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & SB TH 100 Entrance EB 0 362 199 561 0.0 0 7.4 A 3.2 A 5.9 A 0 0 0 0 2 % 259 56 148 2 %0 100 20 72 WB 204 456 0 660 7.8 A 8.2 A 0.0 0 8.1 A 7.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 161 78 193 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 373 0 373 0.0 0 7.7 A 0.0 0 7.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 743 71 184 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & NB TH 100 EB 148 214 0 362 2.5 A 3.0 A 0.0 0 2.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 161 20 52 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 412 12 424 0.0 0 9.5 A 7.6 A 9.4 A 11.9 B 0 0 0 0 0 231 76 233 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 248 179 73 500 17.0 C 24.2 C 28.3 D 21.3 C 0 0 0 0 0 646 132 425 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 157 142 309 2.2 A 2.7 A 2.0 A 2.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 105 25 73 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 293 5 342 4.2 A 5.4 A 3.3 A 5.2 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 43 111 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 125 74 45 244 3.2 A 4.3 A 3.2 A 3.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 25 71 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 82 5 92 3.3 A 3.8 A 4.1 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 343 23 74 0 0 0 0 0AM Peak HourVehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Eden Avenue 2040 Build Interchange Conditions - Split Diamond Interchange AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 11 5 18 25.5 C 21.5 C 5.1 A 17.9 B 50 20 20 0 1 % 356 20 50 0 0 0 0 0 WB 234 4 149 387 24.9 C 10.6 B 9.5 A 18.6 B 18.2 B 100 96 149 0 1 % 635 72 235 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 916 339 1,257 47.2 D 24.1 C 6.5 A 19.3 B 100 20 20 0 37 % 379 240 376 1 %0 250 69 178 SB 124 517 7 648 27.9 C 12.9 B 9.8 A 15.7 B 145 66 150 0 1 % 792 93 191 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 35.3 E 31.4 D 5.9 A 25.3 D 0 0 0 0 0 204 21 66 3 %0 50 20 33 WB 76 12 68 156 33.6 D 35.4 E 13.6 B 25.1 D 5.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 55 158 20 % 3 % 50 37 99 NB 9 994 62 1,065 8.4 A 3.9 A 2.7 A 3.9 A 100 20 20 0 0 792 20 99 0 0 140 0 20 SB 59 488 30 577 14.1 B 1.7 A 1.7 A 2.9 A 100 26 76 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 305 733 39 1,077 40.1 D 16.3 B 10.9 B 23.0 C 150 164 230 0 6 % 382 166 383 6 %0 0 0 0 WB 76 441 394 911 23.7 C 19.9 B 17.8 B 19.3 B 26.8 C 200 41 100 0 0 390 166 331 0 0 0 0 0 NB 30 122 24 176 71.2 E 58.1 E 47.9 D 58.9 E 50 29 100 0 49 % 438 115 258 0 0 0 0 0 SB 394 135 104 633 40.7 D 32.7 C 20.6 C 35.7 D 590 152 327 1 % 1 %0 122 255 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1110 41 1,151 0.0 0 4.1 A 2.8 A 4.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 390 43 200 3 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 911 0 911 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 3.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 92 92 0.0 0 0.7 A 11.0 B 6.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 295 40 82 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & SB TH 100 (Signal) EB 0 938 264 1,202 0.0 0 17.2 B 3.7 A 14.4 B 0 0 0 0 0 155 142 191 0 0 80 36 99 WB 187 539 0 726 24.8 C 10.5 B 0.0 0 14.1 B 20.0 C 225 112 225 0 0 304 82 181 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 684 79 372 1,135 36.9 D 41.9 D 13.3 B 29.5 C 500 209 327 0 0 1096 255 374 3 %0 300 94 291 50th St & NB TH 100 (Signal)EB 319 1303 0 1,622 18.4 B 2.7 A 0.0 0 5.7 A 225 109 247 0 0 304 20 109 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 587 351 938 0.0 0 10.4 B 0.5 A 6.7 A 9.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 284 46 151 0 0 0 0 0 NB 139 126 119 384 35.9 D 31.8 C 20.6 C 30.2 C 0 0 0 0 0 539 146 275 3 %0 200 55 159 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 23 1298 101 1,422 6.6 A 1.7 A 1.1 A 1.7 A 150 20 48 0 0 292 35 100 1 %0 70 20 34 WB 14 789 1 804 25.5 C 3.8 A 0.0 A 4.2 A 5.0 A 150 20 48 0 0 347 62 148 0 0 0 0 0 NB 126 0 106 232 38.5 D 0.0 0 15.8 B 28.0 C 150 80 152 0 0 343 48 126 0 0 0 0 0 SB 3 0 23 26 62.3 E 0.0 0 7.4 A 12.0 B 100 20 23 0 0 310 20 47 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1399 8 1,407 0.0 0 1.1 A 1.0 A 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 347 20 23 0 0 0 0 0 WB 238 804 0 1,042 41.4 E 1.2 A 0.0 0 10.4 B 10.0 B 120 121 194 0 0 327 63 322 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 254 254 0.0 0 5.4 A 61.2 F 59.2 F 0 0 0 0 0 242 155 304 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1651 0 1,653 12.4 B 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 75 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1039 8 1,047 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.5 A 1.1 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 847 20 81 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 60.7 F 0.0 0 7.2 A 42.9 E 430 20 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 29 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 472 0 474 3.1 A 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 100 20 20 0 0 635 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 373 4 377 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.2 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 13 28 10.2 B 0.0 0 4.2 A 7.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 41 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 471 15 487 0.0 0 1.5 A 1.1 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 92 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 365 0 382 5.6 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.2 A 1.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 102 20 100 0 0 0 0 0 NB 10 0 18 28 13.7 B 0.0 0 15.7 C 15.0 C 320 20 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 45 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 51 389 53 493 4.4 A 5.4 A 4.4 A 5.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 102 51 111 0 0 0 0 0 WB 52 177 104 333 3.5 A 4.2 A 3.3 A 3.8 A 4.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 259 26 87 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 86 41 62 189 5.0 A 5.3 A 4.6 A 4.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 663 33 84 0 0 0 0 0 SB 121 116 119 356 5.3 A 5.5 A 5.1 A 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 317 45 132 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & SB TH 100 Entrance EB 0 348 224 572 0.0 0 9.2 A 3.2 A 6.9 A 0 0 0 0 3 % 259 58 192 3 %0 100 20 112 WB 156 333 0 489 2.5 A 3.8 A 0.0 0 3.4 A 5.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 161 22 90 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 372 0 372 0.0 0 7.2 A 0.0 0 7.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 743 66 158 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & NB TH 100 EB 115 233 0 348 1.9 A 2.7 A 0.0 0 2.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 161 20 58 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 316 11 327 0.0 0 7.5 A 6.4 A 7.5 A 9.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 231 61 155 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 173 258 74 505 13.8 B 16.3 C 19.9 C 16.0 C 0 0 0 0 0 646 118 378 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 173 144 327 2.1 A 2.5 A 2.2 A 2.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 105 20 75 0 0 0 0 0 WB 55 186 5 246 4.7 A 5.6 A 4.9 A 5.4 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 38 110 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 117 146 76 339 3.9 A 4.6 A 3.7 A 4.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 28 93 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 91 22 118 3.1 A 4.0 A 3.3 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 343 20 56 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour Table B8 Eden Avenue 2040 Build Interchange Conditions - Offset SPUI AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 6 5 4 15 20.7 C 18.3 B 5.1 A 15.2 B 50 20 31 0 0 356 20 36 0 0 0 0 0 WB 214 2 177 393 20.0 C 7.8 A 7.0 A 14.0 B 19.6 B 100 83 147 0 0 635 57 184 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 614 310 926 62.0 E 30.5 C 6.6 A 22.3 C 100 20 44 0 31 % 379 180 336 0 0 250 67 172 SB 132 402 11 545 26.4 C 17.5 B 12.4 B 19.3 B 145 66 132 0 1 % 792 91 200 1 %0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 4 12 28 20.4 C 21.1 C 4.6 A 13.1 B 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 43 1 %0 50 20 34 WB 56 4 64 124 23.1 C 26.1 D 7.9 A 15.1 C 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 35 88 7 % 2 % 50 29 84 NB 13 702 79 794 7.1 A 2.9 A 2.6 A 2.9 A 100 20 26 0 0 792 0 20 0 0 140 0 20 SB 60 498 31 589 9.7 A 1.2 A 1.3 A 2.1 A 100 23 78 0 0 382 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 186 526 67 779 33.3 C 12.8 B 11.1 B 17.5 B 150 101 218 0 2 % 382 99 243 2 %0 0 0 0 WB 85 397 322 804 18.7 B 10.3 B 8.4 A 10.4 B 18.8 B 200 40 120 0 0 390 84 196 0 0 0 0 0 NB 19 70 13 102 50.2 D 43.9 D 25.5 C 42.7 D 50 20 68 0 24 % 438 62 128 0 0 0 0 0 SB 348 132 170 650 31.0 C 28.7 C 18.5 B 27.3 C 590 113 268 0 2 %0 125 256 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 852 35 887 0.0 0 3.3 A 1.5 A 3.2 A 0 0 0 0 5 % 390 35 155 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 804 0 804 0.0 0 1.6 A 0.0 0 1.6 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 104 104 0.0 0 0.4 A 8.5 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 37 90 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & TH 100 (Signal) EB 392 338 226 956 18.2 B 8.6 A 3.4 A 11.3 B 145 127 181 0 0 147 52 119 0 0 75 36 93 WB 220 489 0 709 16.8 B 23.4 C 0.0 0 21.3 C 21.7 C 225 86 177 0 0 283 115 230 0 0 0 0 0 NB 81 160 98 339 30.4 C 36.1 D 8.3 A 26.4 C 200 46 120 0 0 749 82 174 0 0 200 29 71 SB 381 73 234 688 48.1 D 37.3 D 9.9 A 34.0 C 500 159 248 0 0 1099 47 136 0 0 300 54 125 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 817 0 817 0.0 0 1.1 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 709 612 1,321 0.0 0 0.6 A 0.8 A 0.7 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 20 26 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 19 680 118 817 16.2 B 1.6 A 1.2 A 1.9 A 150 20 51 0 0 292 26 100 1 %0 70 20 59 WB 20 1267 3 1,290 8.6 A 3.1 A 1.8 A 3.2 A 3.4 A 150 20 40 0 0 347 71 249 0 0 0 0 0 NB 34 0 42 76 36.6 D 0.3 A 7.3 A 13.2 B 150 22 86 0 0 343 20 62 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 1 20 26 51.1 D 73.0 E 14.6 B 20.6 C 100 20 33 0 0 310 20 62 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 718 4 722 0.0 0 0.9 A 0.7 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 347 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 338 1290 0 1,628 10.2 B 0.8 A 0.0 0 2.8 A 2.7 A 120 85 184 0 0 327 20 118 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 207 207 0.0 0 0.3 A 8.6 A 8.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 242 54 127 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 1 924 0 925 16.1 C 0.4 A 0.0 0 0.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1623 5 1,628 0.0 0 1.8 A 1.0 A 1.8 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 847 20 108 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 5 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 19.1 C 19.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 32 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 4 439 0 443 4.6 A 1.0 A 0.0 0 1.0 A 100 20 23 0 0 635 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 391 3 394 0.0 0 0.8 A 0.5 A 0.8 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 3 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 4.3 A 4.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 2 322 115 439 0.0 0 1.8 A 0.7 A 1.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 93 0 0 0 0 0 WB 160 338 1 499 8.3 A 3.6 A 0.0 0 5.1 A 6.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 104 74 153 0 0 0 0 0 NB 56 0 160 216 48.7 E 0.0 0 10.6 B 21.2 C 320 46 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % 100 44 131 SB 1 0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 44 390 49 483 3.9 A 4.7 A 3.2 A 4.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 104 49 115 0 0 0 0 0 WB 47 303 106 456 7.1 A 8.4 A 7.2 A 8.0 A 6.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 278 61 188 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 67 31 60 158 5.1 A 6.2 A 4.9 A 5.2 A 0 0 0 0 0 663 36 75 0 0 0 0 0 SB 111 51 129 291 6.6 A 7.2 A 6.2 A 6.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 317 53 156 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & TH 100 (Signal)EB 148 214 199 561 26.9 C 32.3 C 1.5 A 20.1 C 150 81 206 0 5 % 278 122 283 5 %0 150 20 197 WB 204 208 12 424 28.8 C 29.4 C 22.8 C 28.9 C 21.7 C 200 94 212 0 1 % 494 115 221 0 0 0 0 0 NB 248 179 73 500 34.7 C 11.7 B 5.1 A 22.2 C 200 128 250 0 0 647 63 220 0 0 200 20 59 SB 0 444 0 444 0.0 0 16.9 B 0.0 0 16.9 B 0 0 0 0 3 % 749 145 295 3 %0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 157 142 309 2.5 A 4.2 A 2.9 A 3.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 105 34 127 0 0 0 0 0 WB 44 293 5 342 3.7 A 5.1 A 3.1 A 4.9 A 4.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 40 113 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 125 74 45 244 3.3 A 4.6 A 3.3 A 3.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 26 78 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 82 5 92 3.5 A 3.6 A 3.6 A 3.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 343 24 64 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s)AM Peak Hour Eden Avenue 2040 Build Interchange Conditions - Offset SPUI AM & PM Peak Hours L T R Total L LOS T LOS R LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Delay (S/Veh)LOS Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Thru (2) ----> % Block Left (2) <---- Link Length (feet) Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 % Block Right (2) ----> % Block Thru (2) <---- Storage (feet) 3 Avg. Queue (feet) 1 Max Queue (feet) 1 Vehicle Queing Information (feet) Right Turn Lane Intersection Approach Demand Volumes Delay (s/veh)LOS ByApproach LOS ByIntersection Left Turn Lane Through Lane (s) Vernon Ave at Eden Ave (Signal)EB 2 11 5 18 25.3 C 23.3 C 4.5 A 17.3 B 50 20 27 0 0 356 20 44 0 0 0 0 0 WB 234 4 149 387 24.4 C 12.3 B 9.7 A 18.6 B 17.8 B 100 98 148 0 1 % 635 70 254 0 0 0 0 0 NB 2 916 339 1,257 38.5 D 23.9 C 6.5 A 19.2 B 100 20 38 0 37 % 379 239 384 1 %0 250 68 164 SB 124 517 7 648 27.1 C 12.0 B 5.7 A 14.7 B 145 61 139 0 0 792 89 180 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Gus Young Ln EB 12 12 12 36 25.3 D 32.1 D 6.3 A 20.1 C 0 0 0 0 0 204 20 58 2 %0 50 20 36 WB 76 12 68 156 33.5 D 32.6 D 13.3 B 24.7 C 5.5 A 0 0 0 0 0 418 60 174 21 % 4 % 50 36 91 NB 9 994 62 1,065 7.7 A 3.6 A 2.5 A 3.6 A 100 20 26 0 0 792 20 51 0 0 140 0 20 SB 59 488 30 577 13.4 B 1.7 A 1.6 A 2.8 A 100 24 83 0 0 382 20 23 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave at Interlachen Blvd (Signal) EB 305 733 39 1,077 39.4 D 15.4 B 12.0 B 22.2 C 150 164 230 0 5 % 382 145 373 5 %0 0 0 0 WB 76 441 394 911 25.6 C 19.8 B 16.9 B 19.1 B 26.3 C 200 43 110 0 0 390 167 316 0 0 0 0 0 NB 30 122 24 176 61.2 E 58.7 E 40.8 D 56.7 E 50 29 100 0 49 % 438 117 249 0 0 0 0 0 SB 394 135 104 633 39.8 D 32.9 C 21.2 C 35.1 D 590 147 295 1 % 3 %0 122 257 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 0 1110 41 1,151 0.0 0 3.4 A 1.9 A 3.3 A 0 0 0 0 5 % 390 42 143 1 %0 0 0 0 WB 0 911 0 911 0.0 0 1.3 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 2.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 92 92 0.0 0 0.6 A 10.2 B 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 290 38 84 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon Ave/50th & TH 100 (Signal) EB 319 619 264 1,202 22.8 C 15.7 B 4.1 A 15.1 B 145 137 177 0 0 147 109 174 0 0 75 43 88 WB 187 400 0 587 35.1 D 23.0 C 0.0 0 26.9 C 22.7 C 225 113 222 0 0 283 89 170 0 0 0 0 0 NB 139 126 119 384 27.4 C 51.6 D 15.9 B 31.8 C 200 73 175 0 0 749 85 174 0 0 200 41 96 SB 684 79 372 1,135 31.0 C 35.2 D 13.4 B 25.4 C 500 200 335 0 0 1099 44 111 0 0 300 86 193 50th St & NB TH 100 EB 0 1422 0 1,422 0.0 0 1.4 A 0.0 0 1.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 587 351 938 0.0 0 0.4 A 0.5 A 0.4 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Dale Rd (Signal)EB 23 1298 101 1,422 9.3 A 2.8 A 1.7 A 2.8 A 150 20 39 0 0 292 60 142 6 %0 70 20 79 WB 14 789 1 804 24.1 C 3.6 A 4.4 A 3.9 A 5.6 A 150 20 42 0 0 347 60 161 0 0 0 0 0 NB 126 0 111 237 40.0 D 0.0 0 12.7 B 27.3 C 150 84 140 0 0 343 42 108 0 0 0 0 0 SB 3 0 23 26 64.2 E 0.0 0 7.1 A 14.0 B 100 20 46 0 0 310 20 39 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Eden Ave EB 0 1399 8 1,407 0.0 0 1.3 A 1.0 A 1.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 347 20 32 0 0 0 0 0 WB 238 804 0 1,042 30.4 D 0.8 A 0.0 0 7.7 A 8.5 A 120 109 193 0 0 327 44 283 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 254 254 0.0 0 1.2 A 51.6 F 49.9 E 0 0 0 0 0 242 149 307 0 0 0 0 0 SB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50th St & Sunnyslope Rd EB 2 1651 0 1,653 7.0 A 0.7 A 0.0 0 0.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 327 20 42 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 1039 8 1,047 0.0 0 0.9 A 0.6 A 0.9 A 0.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 847 20 31 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 8 0 3 11 32.3 D 0.0 0 8.0 A 27.4 D 430 20 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 20 25 Eden Ave & Brookside Ave EB 2 472 0 474 3.9 A 1.3 A 0.0 0 1.3 A 100 20 20 0 0 635 20 66 0 0 0 0 0 WB 0 373 4 377 0.0 0 0.2 A 0.0 A 0.2 A 1.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB 15 0 13 28 11.0 B 0.0 0 3.9 A 7.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 345 20 44 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & OLG Entrance EB 1 471 15 487 0.0 0 1.9 A 0.7 A 1.9 A 0 0 0 0 0 142 20 113 0 0 0 0 0 WB 17 365 0 382 5.1 A 0.9 A 0.0 0 1.1 A 2.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 104 20 90 0 0 0 0 0 NB 10 0 18 28 11.4 B 0.0 0 16.7 C 14.9 B 320 20 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 20 41 SB 4 0 2 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Arcadia Ave EB 51 389 53 493 4.9 A 5.9 A 4.8 A 5.7 A 0 0 0 0 0 104 56 113 0 0 0 0 0 WB 52 177 104 333 6.2 A 6.2 A 5.5 A 6.0 A 5.6 A 0 0 0 0 0 278 40 145 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 86 41 62 189 5.2 A 5.8 A 5.2 A 5.3 A 0 0 0 0 0 663 34 86 0 0 0 0 0 SB 121 116 119 356 5.1 A 5.3 A 4.8 A 5.1 A 0 0 0 0 0 317 44 125 0 0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & TH 100 (Signal)EB 115 233 224 572 32.5 C 36.1 D 2.7 A 22.7 C 150 71 195 0 8 % 278 139 308 8 %0 150 25 197 WB 156 160 11 327 41.1 D 33.1 C 27.1 C 36.5 D 20.8 C 200 90 236 0 1 % 494 102 217 0 0 0 0 0 NB 173 258 74 505 19.5 B 11.4 B 4.6 A 13.2 B 200 67 142 0 0 647 76 194 0 0 200 20 70 SB 0 473 0 473 0.0 0 15.8 B 0.0 0 15.8 B 0 0 0 0 3 % 749 128 278 3 %0 0 0 0 Eden Ave & Willson Rd/City Hall EB 10 173 144 327 4.3 A 4.9 A 3.9 A 4.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 105 42 139 0 0 0 0 0 WB 55 186 5 246 3.9 A 5.1 A 4.2 A 4.8 A 4.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 314 32 100 0 0 0 0 0 MINI ROUNDABOUT NB 117 146 76 339 4.0 A 4.8 A 4.1 A 4.4 A 0 0 0 0 0 432 31 112 0 0 0 0 0 SB 5 91 22 118 3.7 A 3.9 A 3.3 A 3.8 A 0 0 0 0 0 343 20 55 0 0 0 0 0 NOTES 1. If the reported queue is greater than zero (0), but less than ft, a minimum of ft is reported. 2. Block Percentage is proportion of analysis time (1 hour) the storage lane or through lane is blocked or blocking. 3. Multiple storage lanes of different length are averaged together to show the "Effective Storage Length" per lane.PM Peak Hour HCS7 Interchanges Results Summary General Information Interchange Information Agency SEH Inc.Interchange Type Diverging Diamond Analyst GTJ Analysis Date Jul 12, 2021 Segment Distance, ft Jurisdiction City of Edina Duration, h 0.250 Freeway Direction Intersection East Ramp PHF 0.92 Arterial Direction East-West File Name 2040 Build DDI Analysis AM.xus Project Description Demand EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection One Demand ( v ), veh/h 540 719 1 709 624 0 171 0 329 Intersection Two Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 878 425 424 614 0 381 0 307 Signal One Information Green Yellow Red 33.5 33.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle, s 80.0 Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated No Force Mode Fixed Signal Two Information Green Yellow Red 33.5 33.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle, s 80.0 Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated No Force Mode Fixed Interchange Results O-D PHF-Adjusted Demand (veh/h) Movement Control Delay Components Total Control Delay (s/veh) Extra Distance (ft) EDTT (s/veh) ETT (s/veh) LOS A 334 NBL M3 + M5 26.6 100 1.9 28.5 B B 414 NBR M4 15.0 -100 -1.9 13.1 A C 358 SBR M8 17.2 -100 -1.9 15.3 B D 186 SBL M7 + M1 22.3 100 1.9 24.3 B E 1 EBL M6 19.7 100 1.9 21.6 B F 0 EBR N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A G 0 WBR N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A H 1 WBL M2 18.4 100 1.9 20.4 B I 780 EBT M6 + M1 27.2 40 0.8 28.0 B J 666 WBT M2 + M5 28.3 40 0.8 29.1 B M ---------------- N ---------------- Interchange ETT (s/veh) and LOS 24.2 B Signalized Intersection One Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Control Delay ( d ) , s/veh 22.0 19.7 6.4 9.9 12.2 0.0 14.8 0.0 17.2 Level of Service (LOS)C B A A B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.7 C 11.0 B 14.8 B 17.2 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.5 B Signalized Intersection Two Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Control Delay ( d ) , s/veh 4.9 7.5 7.0 18.5 18.4 0.0 15.0 0.0 16.7 Level of Service (LOS)A A A B B B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 7.3 A 18.4 B 15.0 B 16.7 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.0 B Interchange Graphic Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 7/13/2021 10:19:07 AM HCS7 Interchanges Results Summary General Information Interchange Information Agency SEH Inc.Interchange Type Diverging Diamond Analyst GTJ Analysis Date Jul 12, 2021 Segment Distance, ft Jurisdiction City of Edina Duration, h 0.250 Freeway Direction Intersection East Ramp PHF 0.92 Arterial Direction East-West File Name 2040 Build DDI Analysis PM.xus Project Description Demand EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Intersection One Demand ( v ), veh/h 434 1306 1 881 362 0 193 0 312 Intersection Two Demand ( v ), veh/h 1 1056 488 343 850 0 684 0 451 Signal One Information Green Yellow Red 38.5 38.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle, s 90.0 Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated No Force Mode Fixed Signal Two Information Green Yellow Red 38.5 38.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle, s 90.0 Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated No Force Mode Fixed Interchange Results O-D PHF-Adjusted Demand (veh/h) Movement Control Delay Components Total Control Delay (s/veh) Extra Distance (ft) EDTT (s/veh) ETT (s/veh) LOS A 490 NBL M3 + M5 36.1 100 1.9 38.1 C B 743 NBR M4 18.8 -100 -1.9 16.8 B C 339 SBR M8 18.3 -100 -1.9 16.3 B D 210 SBL M7 + M1 32.0 100 1.9 33.9 C E 1 EBL M6 46.7 100 1.9 48.6 C F 0 EBR N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A G 0 WBR N/A 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 A H 1 WBL M2 23.1 100 1.9 25.0 B I 1418 EBT M6 + M1 62.1 40 0.8 62.9 D J 923 WBT M2 + M5 36.1 40 0.8 36.9 C M ---------------- N ---------------- Interchange ETT (s/veh) and LOS 40.5 C Signalized Intersection One Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Control Delay ( d ) , s/veh 20.3 46.7 6.8 13.0 9.7 0.0 16.5 0.0 18.3 Level of Service (LOS)C D A B A B B Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 40.1 D 12.0 B 16.5 B 18.3 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 26.6 C Signalized Intersection Two Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Control Delay ( d ) , s/veh 9.7 15.5 15.7 18.6 23.1 0.0 18.8 0.0 23.1 Level of Service (LOS)A B B B C B C Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.6 B 21.8 C 18.8 B 23.1 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 19.0 B Interchange Graphic Copyright © 2021 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved.HCS™ Streets Version 7.9.5 Generated: 7/13/2021 10:15:09 AM Appendix C Design Layouts EDEN AVENUEOPTION 1EDEN AVENUEOPTION 2W 50TH STNB TH 100SB TH 100 EDEN AVE DALE D R GRANGE RDEDEN AVEWILLSONRD 050100EDEN AVENUERECOMMENDED CONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 W 50TH STNB TH 100SB TH 100 EDEN AVE DALE D R GRANGE RDEDEN AVEWILLSONRD 050100DOG BONE ROUNDABOUTCONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 50TH STREETOPTION 150TH STREETOPTION 2W 50TH STEDEN AVE GRANGE RD DALE D R 050100FILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021W 50TH STREETRECOMMENDED CONCEPT W 50TH STDALE D R 02040W 50TH STREETBUFFERED BIKE LANESCONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 W 50TH STEDEN AVE GRANGE RD DALE D R 050100W 50TH STREET2016 GRANDVIEW STUDYCONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 XC XC XC X C XC XC XC X C X C XC XCXC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGECHAIN LINK FENCEPOTENTIAL CONNECTION TOFUTURE TH100 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEW 50TH STEDEN AVE DALE D RGRANGE RD03060GRANGE ROADREALIGNMENT CONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 W 50TH STNB TH 100SB TH 100EDEN AVEWILLSON RDGRANGE RDEDEN AVEARCADIA AVEVERNON AVEDALE DR0100200SPLIT OFFSET SPUIINTERCHANGE CONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 W 50TH STNB TH 100SB TH 100EDEN AVEWILLSON RDGRANGE RDEDEN AVEARCADIA AVEVERNON AVEDALE DR0100200SPLIT DIAMONDINTERCHANGE CONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 W 50TH STNB TH 100SB TH 100EDEN AVEWILLSON RDGR ANG E R D EDEN AVEARCADIA AVEVERNON AVEOPTION 2KEEP EXISTING NB OFF RAMPW/O PROPOSED OFF RAMP060120DIVERGING DIAMONDINTERCHANGE CONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 FUTURE TH100PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEW 50TH STNB TH 100 SB TH 100 EDEN AVEGRANG E R D ARCADIAAVE 04080TH-100 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGECONCEPTFILE NO.DATE:9/9/2021 Sustainable buildings, sound infrastructure, safe transportation systems, clean water, renewable energy and a balanced environment. Building a Better World for All of Us communicates a company-wide commitment to act in the best interests of our clients and the world around us. We’re confident in our ability to balance these requirements. Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Organized Trash Collection Final Report Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the final report for the organized trash collection initiative. INTRODUCTION: See attached report. ATTACHMENTS: Description ETC Report: Organized Trash Collection City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Transportation Commission Date: October 28, 2021 To: Mayor and City Council Cc: Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner From: Transportation Commission Subject: Organized Trash Collection Initiative Investigate the impacts of organized trash collection while considering the travel demand management objectives, environmental goals, and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets. Recommendation The Transportation Commission recommends that City Council: 1. Establish organized trash collection by directing staff to initiate the process. 2. Develop a communication plan to educate the community about organized trash collection. Background In organized trash collection (OTC), waste hauling services are organized by local government to achieve benefits for residents. This does not mean a city has just one hauler. Typically, OTC includes a consortium of garbage haulers who may contract with a city; wherein each hauler is assigned a geographic area equal to their market share. In Minnesota, all haulers are legally allowed to negotiate and contract with a city under MN Statute 115A.94. This statute would require Edina to engage in contract negotiation with all current haulers leaving no option for one city-wide hauler. Benefits 1. OTC significantly reduces miles traveled by each hauler contributing to both environmental, quality of life, traffic safety, and economic benefits (meaning lower costs for the residents and the city). 2. For Edina specifically, OTC aligns with the broader sustainability goals within the Transportation Chapter of the Edina Comprehensive Plan (mainly goals 3, 9 and 14) along with the Climate Action Plan and Living Streets Plan. Current State The City of Edina has an open trash collection system in which residents choose from 6 city-licensed haulers for garbage collection. The summarized problem and opportunity are: 1. Problem: Open collection systems result in high truck traffic where Edina residents may experience a range of 6-9 garbage trucks traveling their street on a single day. Page 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 2. Opportunity: Reducing this type of traffic to just one garbage truck on a single day (once per week) would significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions, street maintenance costs, and improve neighborhood safety and livability. Rationale for Recommendation: Data for this report was largely cited from the 2021 Quality of Life Survey Report, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) 2009 report, Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements, and 2012 report, The Benefits of Organized Collection. Additional research support came from Minnetonka High School’s advanced professional studies program VANTAGE - an academic program led by students to help solve real-world business problems via hands-on learning and project-based assignments. Lastly, City Staff from Richfield and Bloomington provided input on their OTC transition process. Resident Support In the 2021 Quality of Life Survey Report, residents were asked to rate the overall quality of garbage collection in Edina as well as the subsets of recycling, and organic recycling. (Question 14): 87% of residents gave excellent or good ratings in the overall quality of garbage collection 83% of residents gave excellent or good ratings for recycling 78% of residents gave excellent or good ratings for organics recycling (City of Edina, 2021, p. 28) From this data, it is evident that Edina residents are comfortable with organized collection systems as both recycling and organics recycling services are organized collection systems run by the City of Edina. Each service has one city-contracted vendor. Both are exempt from Statute 115A.94 (Minnesota Legislature, 2021). When looking at the organics recycling ratings by year, it suggests that Edina residents prefer an organized system: In 2021, 78% of residents gave excellent or good ratings for organics recycling In 2019, 52% of residents gave excellent or good ratings for organics recycling (City of Edina, 2021, p. 53) In early 2020, Edina converted to a city-wide, organized organics collection system. (Wig, 2019) Residents were also asked, ‘to what extent do you support the City changing from the current system in which residents may choose from several different haulers to a system where The City chooses one hauler for the whole community?’ (Question 31): Please Note: This question states one hauler for the whole community and does not include the option for multiple vendors with a designated geography according to market share. The City choosing one hauler is not an option under MN Statute 115A.94. 53% of residents were strongly or somewhat supportive of changing to OTC, a slight increase from previous years. (City of Edina, 2021, p. 30) Page 3 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 When responses were analyzed by length of residency and age (City of Edina, 2021, p. 165): Length of Residency Age ≤ 5years 63% 18-34 58% 6-20 years 59% 35-54 62% ≥ 20 years 41% 55+ 45% Key interpretive factor: The results from Question 31 are without any public education on OTC prior to the survey distribution. The Transportation Commission suggests if Edina residents had been educated on the environmental and economic benefits of OTC, or if they knew their rates could be lower and have guaranteed fewer garbage trucks on their street, the results of this survey question would be significantly more in favor of OTC. Greater Community Support ETC and EEC commissioners connected with City Staff in both Richfield and Bloomington to get a better understanding of the transition and implementation process. Richfield’s OTC starts October 2021, and Bloomington’s started October 2016. Their experiences were dissimilar in that Bloomington was in a four- year court battle to bring OTC to the ballot. In November 2020, OTC went up for vote where 70% of residents voted to continue the organized collection system (Hanks, 2020). Richfield had some resistance with residents not wanting to switch providers but experienced nothing like Bloomington. Both projected that as OTC continues to grow in the metro, the process will become easier as haulers are used to it. This could be true for Edina as 4 of 6 haulers already participate in OTC in other cities. Suburban Waste Service is the only hauler that participates in Haulers for People’s Choice, an organization that opposes OTC. Other take-aways from these meetings include: Bloomington gets fewer complaints with OTC. o The City does the billing through Utilities and fewer mistakes are made. o Missed pick-ups are less frequent as haulers must stop at every house in their zone. o There’s an accountability process and centralization for complaints not found in open systems. o Haulers are bound by service standards in their city-contract. Suggestions from Bloomington and Richfield City Staff: o Keep the public informed with mailers, newsletters, create an e-subscribe system just for garbage and recycling. o Know what haulers are charging in the open system before contract negotiations. Full notes from these meetings can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B. Page 4 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Economic Benefits Savings for Residents: With OTC, customers pay a flat rate based on garbage volume - a pricing system that has widely shown to reduce costs for customers. In the table below, the MPCA report shows that Open MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) has significantly higher rates than Organized MSW (MPCA, 2012, p. 1). With open systems, haulers may have a range of rates for identical, base service plans. Richfield found hauler billing rates fluctuated between $200- $1000/year. They also discovered that many residents with the largest can size (95 gallons) were being charged less than residents with smaller can sizes; hence, why some residents saw their rate increase with OTC. On average, residents are now saving around 15% (see Appendix A). The table below shows the OTC pricing schedule for Richfield. Open rates in Bloomington averaged $26.72/month before OTC (see Appendix B). The table below shows the OTC pricing schedule for Bloomington. Savings for the City: Edina is responsible for maintaining 27 million square feet of pavement with maintenance costs estimated to be $5 to $9 per square foot over a 60-year life span (City of Edina, 2021, p. 2). Based on axel load data, MnDOT formulates that the impact from a single garbage truck equates to the impact of 1,000 cars. 86% of road wear in alleys and 8% of road wear in high traffic areas comes garbage trucks (MPCA, 2012, p. 1). As city streets last 5-10 years longer with an organized trash system (MPCA, 2009, p. 40), optimizing garbage routes would significantly reduce both the miles traveled and the quantity and frequency of trucks Page 5 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 on residential streets and alleys ultimately reducing the need for maintenance and maintenance costs. Within the rankings of Quality of City Services in the 2021 Survey, Street Repair was found to be of ‘lower quality’ compared to other city services with 57% believing the service was excellent or good (City of Edina, 2021, p. 27). Environmental Benefits Edina’s Climate Action Plan goals include reducing citywide greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050 (City of Edina, 2021). Garbage trucks average 3-5 miles per gallon and reducing the miles traveled reduces greenhouse gases. Open cities studied in the MPCA 2009 report and compiled in the MPCA 2012 report (pg. 2) show the percentage of additional fuel used per year than if these cities were in an organized system. Eagan 216% Duluth 294% Rochester 250% Woodbury 355% St. Paul 437% Converting fuel usage to carbon emissions, the City of St. Paul, alone, could have saved an estimated total annual 2,470,664 pounds of CO2 if they were in an OTC system (MPCA, 2009, p. 144). In relatable terms, this amounts to: 2,816,476 miles traveled by an average passenger vehicle, or 45,813 propane cylinders used for home barbeques (Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). St. Paul officially started OTC in October 2018, but the decision to do so without a vote was brought to court where it was ruled that OTC should be brought to ballot. In November 2019, 63% of residents voted to keep OTC. (Walsh, 2019). Key fact: Both St. Paul and Bloomington had an established OTC before it went to ballot. After residents in these cities experienced the benefits of OTC, the majority voted to keep it. Additionally, Hennepin County requires garbage trucks to deliver trash to the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) for cities with OTC. This means that garbage refuse will go to a waste to energy facility where garbage metrics can be easily tracked. In an open system, the hauler can choose any landfill. According to Hennepin County: “Every ton of trash burned at HERC produces fewer tons of greenhouse gas emissions than if it were disposed of in a landfill because decomposing garbage in landfills produces methane. Methane is over 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over 100 years” (Hennepin County, 2021). Page 6 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Traffic Safety In May of 2021, the City installed a camera at the intersection of West Shore Dr and Dunberry Ln to collect traffic data on garbage pick-up day. This is the corner of two minor residential streets, which do not have pass-through traffic, i.e., garbage trucks at this corner are serving the residences in the neighborhood. Staff calculated the percentage of vehicles observed: garbage trucks, school buses, other large vehicles, and regular passenger vehicles. 50 garbage trucks were recorded at this intersection on one pick-up day: Depending on the structure of the organized collection system, the number of trash trucks could be reduced to 3; 94% of the garbage truck traffic is potentially unnecessary. Other Considerations: Due to the size and frequent stops of garbage trucks, reducing the quantity of trucks on any given street fosters safer travel for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorized vehicles alike. When one hauler services every house on a street, truck speeds are reduced, and stops are more predictable. Page 7 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 References Bloomington. (2021, October 4). Garbage and recycling. Retrieved from Bloomington MN: https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/ub/garbage-and- recycling City of Edina. (2021, October 4). 2021 Quality of Life Survey. Retrieved from City of Edina: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11232/2021-Quality-of-Life-Survey-PDF City of Edina. (2021, October 4). Climate Action Plan. Retrieved from Better Together Edina: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/climate-action-plan City of Edina. (2021, October 4). 5. Transportation. Retrieved from Edina Comprehensive Plan: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8111/05-Transportation-Chapter-PDF City of Edina. (2021, October 4). Living Streets Plan 2015. Retrieved from City of Edina: https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1199/Living-Streets-Plan-PDF?bidId= Dunbar, E. (2019, June 5). When Minnesota cities take over trash collection, they take heat. But sometimes it pays off. Retrieved from MPR News: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/06/05/minnesota-cities- organized-trash-pickup-see-lower-costs-controversy Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, October 4). Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas- equivalencies-calculator Hanks, M. (2020, November 18). Bloomington's ballot questions feature wild outcomes. Retrieved from Sun Current: https://www.hometownsource.com/sun_current/free/bloomingtons-ballot-questions- feature-wild-outcomes/article_b05e6342-1e4f-11eb-bd2f-37b673ab28ed.html Hennepin County. (2021, October 4). Hennepin Energy Recovery Center. Retrieved from Hennepin County Minnesota: https://www.hennepin.us/your-government/facilities/hennepin-energy-recovery-center Minnesota Legislature. (2021, October 4). Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Retrieved from Minnesota Legislature: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/115A.94 MPCA. (2009). Analysis of Waste System Collection Service Arrangements. Retrieved from Pollution Control Agency: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw1-06.pdf MPCA. (2012). The Benefits of Organized Collection. Retrieved from Pollution Control Agency: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/leg-12sy1-06.pdf Richfield. (2021, October 4). Organized Collection. Retrieved from Richfield: https://www.richfieldmn.gov/residents/sustainability_recycling/organized_collection.php Walsh, J. (2019, November 6). St. Paul voters say yes to city's trash collection system. Retrieved from Star Tribune: https://www.startribune.com/st-paul-trash-vote-in-hands-of-voters/564537512/ Page 8 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Wig, A. (2019, April 4). Organics Recycling Coming to Edina Next Year. Retrieved from Sun Current: https://www.hometownsource.com/sun_current/community/organics- recycling-coming-to-edina-next-year/article_ec2307b2-5573-11e9-b2e6- 2f28030f5c37.html Page 9 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 APPENDIX A: Meeting with City of Richfield, 8/27/21 Rachel Lindholm, Richfield Sustainability Coordinator Commissioners present: Jill Plumb-Smith, ETC; John Haugen, EEC Current Haulers: Aspen, Republic, Waste Management Primary motivations to switch to OTC - Equity, Sustainability, Quality of Service o Equity: Residents were paying different rates for the same service. Through an invoice request via Richfield’s Facebook page, it was found that yearly rates differed from $200- $1000 for the same service. ~100 invoices were received. In many cases, residents with 95-gallon containers were paying less than residents with smaller containers. o Sustainability: Richfield launched an organics drop-off program that became so popular residents requested curbside pick-up. Also, residents were dumping bags of household trash and household items around town. The problem needed to be systemically addressed. o Quality of Service: The City was receiving complaints regarding missed pick-ups, incorrect billing, and poor customer service. With an open system, the complaint is filed to the license where it may or may not be addressed by the hauler. In an OTC system, there is a better accountability for complaints. Hauler and Resident Feedback o Most of the hauler feedback was positive or neutral. They were used to it. Republic, Aspen and Waste Management had done it for other cities. There was some push-back during price negotiations, however. o A contingency of Hands-Off Our Cans and Haulers for Choice expressed that government regulation wasn’t necessary and infringed on residents right to choose. Both groups were much less vocal than they were with Bloomington’s OTC conversion. o Resident feedback was largely positive. Some were reluctant to the change as they had the same hauler for years and didn’t want to switch. There was also a perception that the pricing would go up and level of service would go down. Establishing OTC o Followed the requirements of State Statute 115A.94 where city must work with all haulers who want to participate o Get market share data from haulers – 6 months prior data o Negotiated terms of 7-year contracts o Took about 6 months to negotiate contracts Outcomes o OTC begins October 4th, 2021 o Prices lowered for all trash container sizes: 95 gal, 65 gal, 35 gal o 70-80% of residents will be paying less Page 10 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 APPENDIX B: Meeting with City of Bloomington, 9/15/21 Laura Horner, Bloomington Project Coordinator Andrew Scipioni, Edina Transportation Planner Commissioners present: Jill Plumb-Smith, ETC; Kirk Johnson, ETC Current Haulers: Aspen, Republic, Vierkant, Waste Management, Netti, Randy’s (since acquired by Republic) Motivation for moving to OTC o A group of Master Recyclers wrote a Citizens Request Letter to the City and laid out the benefits of OTC. Based on the letter, the City took formal action. o Hired Foth Consulting to create a more sustainable solid waste management plan. Recommendation was to move to OTC. Resident Feedback History o On October 2014, the process to move to OTC had begun. o A loud and vocal minority created a group call Hands Off Our Cans. The group started a petition and gathered the required number of signatures for OTC to go to ballot. o City Attorney believed a vote was not the right avenue to take and rejected the petition o The group filed a lawsuit against The City where it remained in the courts for 4 years. The State Supreme Court made the final ruling and determined that OTC should go to ballot. o A sustainability commission put together a public education website to talk about the advantages of OTC, in addition to going door to door and posting signs to educate residents. o In the November 2020 election, 70% voted to keep OTC. The program had been successfully running for 4 years. Establishing OTC o The City sent a survey requesting residents to mail in invoices with current rates. ~300 invoices were received. The overall average biweekly rate was $26.72. Under OTC and a contracted rate its $18.50. o Following Statute 115A.94, all haulers were allowed to bid and follow the negotiation process. Each hauler retained their same market share. o Negotiations required significant City Attorney time. Many committees were formed on a city level: A Solid Waste Working Group comprised of council members, the city manager and public works director plus public program coordinators. Others included a communication committee, a cart roll-out, committee, a legal and contract committee and an outreach community. o Bloomington does all the billing so Utility Billing software needed to be upgraded. This was considered a benefit for the haulers as The City handles the billing process. It’s more accurate and they get fewer complaints. o Total time estimated to establish an OTC system – 2 years o Organized organics collection starts in March of 2022 Comments from Bloomington about Richfield’s conversion o Haulers were not as concerned about the process of moving to OTC. They had done it before. o Bloomington was a bigger system and had established a more-clear path for Richfield. Key suggestions for other cities moving forward with OTC o Go into it with eyes wide-open and message that to the residents. Page 11 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 o Keep the public informed with info mailers, newsletters, create an e- subscribe system just for garbage and recycling o Know what haulers are charging in the open system o Ask haulers where they are currently dumping o Hennepin County ordinance requires haulers in OTC systems to use HERC facilities. This means that all refuse goes from waste to energy where garbage metrics can be easily tracked. In an open system, the haulers can choose any dump or landfill which makes tracking waste metrics much harder. Page 12 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 APPENDIX C: Energy and Environment Commission meeting minutes regarding first draft of OTC report, 9/9/21 Commissioner Haugen introduced the draft organized trash collection report from the Transportation Commission for comment. EEC comments include: o The state statute regarding requirement to keep number of haulers should be researched to figure out parameters, and make sure there is a proper system in place for bids if hauler shares are to be kept? We want to reduce emissions, but also keep cost down for residents. o The final report should clarify and define meaning of organized trash collection. o What does transition period look like for customers in Edina who must change their hauler? o If they’re not getting choice for vendors, customer service cannot drop and residents need to save money. o Could city elect to have fewer licensed haulers than six? o How does price reduction work for residents? Costs should be kept down for residents. o Why can’t we have one vendor for trash like recycling and organics? o What can City do to ensure quality of service doesn’t diminish if residents are unhappy with new vendor? o Quality of Life survey respondents show majority support for this, higher level than before. EEC moved to support this report. All members in attendance voted in favor, with the Commission’s comments considered for the final report. Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.D. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021 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 September 28, 2021. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report. Comments received by the Commission will be included in the staff report provided to City Council at their November 16 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021 October 28, 2021 Transportation Commission Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of September 28, 2021 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on September 28. The Traffic Safety Coordinator, Transportation Planner, Streets Public Service Worker, Police Sergeant, Public Works Director and Assistant City Planner was in attendance for this meeting. The City Engineer 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, they can submit correspondence to the Transportation Commission and/or to City Council prior to the November 16 regular meeting. Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action A1. Request for crosswalk over Mirror Lakes Drive at Northwood Drive Mirror Lakes 2016 ADT ranges from 700 to 1,200. Mirror Lakes is uncontrolled, Northwood is stop controlled. Two separate hours have 27 and 28 pedestrian crosses (136 total single day crosses). Sight line impacts at both north corners of intersection. No reported crashes in last 10 years. Crosswalk warrants recommend installing marked crosswalk with roadside signs. Staff recommends installing a crosswalk over Mirror Lakes Drive at the south side of Northwood Drive. Mirror Lakes Dr at Northwood Dr STAFF REPORT Page 2 A2. Request to add signage with crosswalks over W 66th Street at Highway 100 Current crosswalks do not include signage. The crosswalk markings are difficult to see due to crest of bridge. Originally installed by MnDOT during Highway 100 improvement project (2016). Markings reinstalled following 2018 overlay. Crosswalk standards require signage and markings at a minimum at uncontrolled locations. One crash between two vehicles at eastern intersection in 2019. Northbound and southbound Normandale include new lane striping (2021). Total crosses at the east intersection: 30 crosses over W 66th peak of 14 crosses at 3 pm. Total crosses at west intersection: 35 crosses over W 66th peak of 13 crosses at 5:30 pm. Staff recommends installing crosswalk signs to meet City crosswalk warrants. Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action B1. Request for a speed limit sign on Wooddale Avenue in Country Club neighborhood Resident asking for added speed limit signs for traffic calming. Current speed limit is 30 mph, will be reduced to 25 mph this year. Classified as Local Connector. Parking is restricted on the east side. 2021 ADT and 85% speed is 1,578 and 29.2 MPH, respectively. Staff recommends not installing a speed limit sign for this portion of Wooddale Avenue as data shows speed concerns are perceived. B2. Request to further restrict parking at the intersection of W 48th Street and Maple Road Resident near intersection is concerned with contractor parking near intersection causing near-misses. Similar request made in 2018 led to restricted parking along inner (southeast) corner of intersection. A driveway enters the northwest corner of the intersection. On-street parking is currently allowed on both sides of Maple and W 48th. The width near this curve is 25’. A large tree is located near the curve at the southeast corner. Staff recommends no changes as one-sided parking promotes traffic calming at the curve. Wooddale Avenue in the Country Club Neighborhood Maple Rd and W 48th St W 66th St at Highway 100 STAFF REPORT Page 3 Section D: Other traffic safety items handled D1. A previous concern was submitted of signal timing needing update at the east intersection of W 77th Street at Highway 100. Traffic loop detectors were replaced by MnDOT in the summer 2021 and signal timing issues have been resolved. D2. A request was made to add a no right turn sign for eastbound traffic approaching the Highway 100 northbound exit ramp onto W 70th Street. Three Do Not Enter signs and two Wrong Way signs are present at this leg and no further turn restriction signage is warranted. D3. A request was made to add a turn signal for eastbound traffic on W 65th Street turning left onto northbound France Avenue. Hennepin County reviewed this request and found a turn signal was not warranted and will continue to monitor this intersection. D4. A submission was made regarding the timing of a traffic signal operating improperly at W 77th St between Computer Avenue and Normandale Rd. A pedestrian crossing system failed and was replaced. D5. A request was made for a Children at Play sign at the entrances of the alley between Grimes Avenue and Wooddale Avenue in the northeast corner of the Country Club neighborhood. These signs are found to provide no changes in driver behavior. The resident was informed of other safety options which include using personal warning signs at the end of their driveways when children are present. D6. Two submissions were made of downed tree limbs near the roadway following the storm the morning of September 17th. Locations include the 5900 block of Zenith Ave and 6000 block of Virginia Ave. Public Works was informed of these concerned and they were removed. D7. A resident was concerned with vehicles not stopping for pedestrians waiting to cross and requested improvements to the crosswalk at Interlachen Blvd and Vandervork Ave. This crosswalk meets City standards, and the resident was informed to submit a petition for added safety measures to the crossing. D8. A resident was concerned with construction cones being moved onto a neighbor’s property during a patching project on W 58th St near Halifax Ave. The cones were moved, and the project is complete. D9. A car was reported to pass other cars at a high rate of speed on Lincoln Dr. The EPD was contacted for speed enforcement in the area. D10. A submission reported a failing retaining wall along W 66th St, west of Highway 100. Public Works was able to fix the retaining wall. D11. Three residents requested traffic calming along both frontage roads of Normandale Rd between W 66th St and W 70th St as drivers speeds appear excessive. New layouts included a narrowed travel lane, buffered, bike and parking lane to improve safety. D12. A resident requested a solution for drivers not stopping for pedestrians at the intersection of Gleason Rd at Cherokee Tr/Creek Valley Rd. The Edina Police Department was contacted for added police presence. D13. Two residents were concerned with site lines for eastbound drivers on Grove St approaching Tracy Ave. Sight lines were found to be adequate when drivers inch forward into the gutter on the west side of Tracy. The residents were informed to do this movement for improved sight lines. STAFF REPORT Page 4 D14. Delivery and large vehicles were hitting crosswalk signs on Halifax Ave, north of W 50th. Due to its location near the Nolan Mains woonerf, the signs were removed. In road bollard sign remains in place at the crosswalk. D15. A resident was concerned of a road work sign needing to be removed following construction near West Shore Dr and W 66th St. The sign has been removed. D16. A resident was concerned with vehicle speeds on Schaefer Rd coming off Vernon Ave. Tube data showed 85% speed at 31.8 mph. The temporary speed trailer was placed at this location to raise driver awareness of speeds. D17. A resident stated westbound drivers turning right on W 70th St at Metro Blvd were not yielding properly for pedestrians crossing at the traffic signals and wanted signal timing updates. Signals were inspected and working adequately. As drivers may not be yielding properly, the EPD was informed of this concern for enforcement. D18. A resident was requesting police enforcement for vehicles speeding on Park Terrace. The EPD was notified of the request. D19. A resident was concerned with sight lines when traveling eastbound on W 56th St approaching Brookview Ave. W 56th traffic is stop controlled due to the available sight line. The City Forester and Clearview Officer reviewed the sight line and no trimming was requested upon City ordinances. Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.E. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2021 Work Plan Updates 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 2021 Work P lan initiatives (unless an item is elsewhere on the current agenda). See attached work plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2021 Work Plan Progress Report Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Commission: Transportation Commission 2021 Annual Work Plan Initiative #1 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Organized Trash Collection Investigate the impacts of organized trash collection while considering the travel demand management objectives, environmental goals and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets. Deliverable Report for City Council Lead(s) Jill Plumb-Smith Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison; periodic support from Recycling Coordinator and/or Organics Recycling Coordinator. Jan: VANTAGE project team prepared a charter; kick-off meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-February. Richfield is looking at switching to organized collection. Feb: Kick-off meeting with VANTAGE team is tentatively scheduled for the first week in March. Mar: Kick-off meeting was held March 4. Students had good questions and preliminary research; project team discussed deliverables, research methodology and potential case studies. Students are developing a survey to share with residents. Apr: Midpoint meeting with VANTAGE tomorrow. Commissioners have not gotten as much feedback as they would like. Team drafted a survey asking residents how they feel about trash collection; distribution could be next step for Commission. May: Midpoint meeting with VANTAGE April 16. The team has done more research on other cities, drafted a survey but the City has said not to distribute this year. The team is analyzing traffic data collected by staff. The final VANTAGE report is expected May 25. Jun: Final meeting with VANTAGE team held May 25. The next step is to compare data and verify sources in their final report. Jul: Subcommittee is meeting July 26 to discuss next steps. Staff shared contacts from Richfield and Bloomington. Aug: Subcommittee met July 26, created a draft report. Meeting with EEC rap and liaison Monday to discuss proposed 2022 work plan initiative. Sep: Subcommittee is incorporating revisions and additional information to the draft report. EEC review and provided comments at their September 9 meeting. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Initiative #2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Street Funding Task Force Continue representation on 2020 Street Funding Task Force until task force is complete. Deliverable One Commissioner will actively participate in the Task Force and provide regular updates to the rest of the Commission. Leads Matt Scherer Target Completion Date Q2 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: No staff support will be necessary beyond what has been previously committed to this initiative. Jan: No update. Feb: Task Force will present final report to City Council in March. Two options are recommended; replacing 50% or 100% of assessment costs with city taxes. The Task Force also recommends that subcut and retaining wall costs no longer be assessed. Mar: Completed. Jun: Staff discussed the Task Force funding options at June 1 City Council work session. Council expressed support for Option 1, which would transition from special assessments to 100% taxes over 16 years. Staff is preparing an update to the assessment policy and an outline of the transition period for Council consideration later this summer. Aug: City Council approved a revision to the assessment policy that will transition away from special assessments for street reconstruction over the next 16 years. More information is available on the BetterTogetherEdina webpage. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Initiative #3 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) CloverRide Review and comment on the CloverRide circulator bus service contract operations and marketing throughout the year as it is brought to them from the CloverRide advisory committee. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in regular meeting minutes and staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Mindy Ahler Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds are allocated in the Engineering Department’s operating budget to cover the service contract and related marketing. These funds are administered by staff. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Communications for marketing and promotional materials. Jan: Commissioners suggest reaching out to Yorktown Continental about resident outreach. The current service contract expires in June. Feb: No update. Mar: Advisory committee met March 10. Ridership is picking up and approaching pre-pandemic levels. Drivers are accommodating diverted stops. Recent surveying by DARTS shows riders are satisfied with the service and feel safe riding the bus. The City should consider providing bus passes for riders to share with friends. Apr: Staff will send a letter to residential properties along the route and distribute bus passes for riders to share with friends. May: Commission reviewed and commented on staff’s recommendation to renew the service for another year. Jun: Service was renewed through June 2022. Jul: No Southdale properties have responded to mailer sent last week. Next committee meeting is August 4. Aug: Subcommittee met August 4. Ridership is steady around 10 per week, but still below pre-COVID levels. Staff provided the Senior Center with more bus passes and is updating the rack card to have available at City facilities. Sep: DARTS proposed changes to the route to allow more time for deferred stops. Staff is working with Communications to update the route map and associated promotional materials. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Initiative #4 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Traffic Safety Reports Review and comment on monthly Traffic Safety Reports. Deliverable Commission recommendations will be included in staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Kirk Johnson (Chair) Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Staff will present the 2020 summary report at the next meeting. Feb: Commission commented on the 2020 summary report. Mar: No update. Apr: Commission reviewed the March 30, 2021 report. May: Commission reviewed the April 27, 2021 report. Jun: Commission reviewed the May 21, 2021 report; recommended further consideration of driveway access on Interlachen Blvd (B2). Jul: Commission reviewed the June, 29, 2021 report; recommended posting 25-mph speed limit signs and considering additional speed mitigation options on Antrim Road (Item B1); recommended constructing pedestrian curb ramp between Kellogg Avenue and Edina Flats (Item B4); recommended the City advocate for additional crossing enhancements at West 42nd Street and France Avenue (Item C1); recommended further study of a crosswalk request at Antrim Road and West 70th Street (item D4). Aug: Commission reviewed the July 27, 2021 report. Sep: No update. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Initiative #5 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Capital Improvement Projects Review and comment on roadway reconstruction projects and projects funded by the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. Commission will also review and comment on staff’s application of the equity criteria. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Jill Plumb-Smith (Vice Chair) Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-5 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Staff will present the 2020 annual report at the next meeting. Feb: Commission commented on the 2020 PACS Fund report. Mar: No update. Apr: Staff will ask City Council to approve Melody Lake reconstruction project April 20. Creek Knoll reconstruction project is out for bids. Other PACS Fund projects being designed include shared-use paths on Eden Ave, Highlands Park and McCauley Trail and sidewalks on France Ave. May: No update. Jun: No update. Jul: Melody Lake and Creek Knoll reconstruction projects are underway; sidewalks are part of later phases. Eden Ave reconstruction has been delayed to early August. Aug: Eden Ave between Sherwood Rd and Arcadia Ave is closed until the end of October. The new shared-use paths at Highlands Park are expected to be paved next week. Staff is discussing property impacts of proposed facilities on McCauley Trl and Olinger Blvd with adjacent property owners. Sep: Sidewalk construction hasn’t started yet on the reconstruction projects. The Highlands Park shared-use path is completed except for turf restoration. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☐ Project ☒ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Travel Impact Studies & Travel Demand Management Review and comment on traffic impact studies and Travel Demand Management plans associated with the proposed developments. Deliverable Commission comments will be included in staff reports to City Council. Lead(s) Bocar Kane, Lori Richman, Bruce McCarthy, Kirk Johnson Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. Jan: Council reviewed a sketch plan for 4917 Eden Ave, TIS is being prepared. Feb: Staff is awaiting studies for projects at 4917 Eden Ave, 4040 W 70th St and 4660 W 77th St. The project application for 6600 France Ave was withdrawn. Mar: Staff presented the draft TDM policy to the Planning Commission March 10 and will bring to the City Council for approval April 20. Staff is awaiting the traffic study for a proposed project at 4917 Eden Ave. Apr: Staff will present the TDM policy to City Council for approval April 20. Staff is reviewing traffic study for 4917 Eden Ave and awaiting studies for 5146 Eden Ave, 4040 W 70th St and 4404 Valley View Rd. May: City Council approved the TDM policy April 20. The Commission reviewed and commented on traffic studies for 4917 Eden Ave, 5146 Eden Ave and 4040 Valley View Rd. Staff received studies for projects at 4660 W 77th St and 4911 77th St. Jun: The proposed project at 4917 Eden Ave was approved by Council with the condition that the City conduct a traffic study of the Grandview District east of Highway 100. Staff is expecting an updated study for a project at 4911 W 77th St. Jul: Staff is reviewing a study for a project at 4911 W 77th St. Staff shared preliminary graphics from the East Grandview Transportation Study related to 4917 Eden Ave showing potential transportation improvements on Eden Ave, Grange Rd and W 50th St. Aug: Staff is expecting a study for a project at 7300 Bush Lake Rd. Sep: Staff is expecting studies for projects at 7300 Bush Lake Rd and 4660 W 77th St. Approved by Council December 1, 2020 [Do not modify fields except progress reports] Amended by Council May 4, 2021 Initiative #7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☒ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Metro Transit Connectivity Review the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and recommend changes to the proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks to improve connectivity to future Metro Transit LRT and BRT services. Deliverable Report for City Council Lead(s) Chris Brown Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison. May: Suggest using a 0.5-mile radius around the Green Line stations and a 1-mile radius around BRT services to review existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle connections. Jun: No update. Jul: Maps are almost done; staff will share GIS data. Aug: Staff provided GIS data of existing ped/bike facilities. Subcommittee will meet to discuss gaps and recommendations, expects to have documents to share at next meeting. Sep: Subcommittee met last week, ran some ideas by staff, will meet again to put together final recommendations. Parking Lot: (These items have been considered by the BC, but not proposed as part of this year’s work plan. If the BC decides they would like to work on them in the current year, it would need to be approved by Council.) Neighborhood electric vehicles, boulevard trees Date: October 28, 2021 Agenda Item #: VI.F. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Proposed 2022 Regular Meeting Dates Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the regular meeting dates for the 2022 calendar year. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: Proposed 2022 Regular Meeting Dates City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 October 28, 2021 Transportation Commission Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Proposed 2022 Regular Meeting Dates Approve the proposed regular meeting dates of the Transportation Commission for the 2022 calendar year. Information / Background: Historically, the Transportation Commission has held their regular meetings on the third Thursday of each month at Edina City Hall (4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN, 55424). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, regular meetings will be held at Edina Public Works (7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina, MN 55439) until further notice to accommodate social distancing. For the 2022 calendar year, the regular meeting dates are as follows; January 20 July 21 February 17 August 18 March 24* September 15 April 21 October 27** May 19 November 17 June 16 December 15 *The March regular meeting is proposed for the fourth Thursday of the month so as not to coincide with the religious holidays of Purim or Holi. **The October regular meeting is proposed for the fourth Thursday of the month so as not to coincide with the annual Minnesota Educators Academy (MEA) conference.