Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-17 Meeting PacketAgenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING This meeting will be held electronically using Webex software. The meeting will be streamed live on the City's YouTube channel, YouTube.com/EdinaTV or you can listen to the meeting via telephone by calling 1-415-655-0001 with Access Code 2468 264 6930. Thursday, February 17, 2022 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 January 20, 2022 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Micromobility Education, Part 1 VI.Reports/Recommendations A.Tra(c Safety Report of January 25, 2022 B.2022 Work Plan Updates C.Annual Elections VII.Chair And Member Comments VIII.Sta/ 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 ampli3cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: February 17, 2022 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of January 20, 2022 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 January 20, 2022. INTRODUCTION: See attached draft minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Minutes: Jan. 20, 2022 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Webex January 20, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call: Commissioners Ahler, Brown, Lewis, McCarthy, Plumb-Smith, Richman, Clark, Johnson Absent: Commissioners Kane, Kitui, Kanti Mahanty Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to approve the December 16, 2021 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Reports/Recommendations A. Organized Trash Collection Follow-Up The Commission discussed outcomes from the December 21, 2021 presentation to City Council on the organized trash collection initiative. Commissioner Clark left at 6:45. B. Traffic Safety Report of January 4, 2022 The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety Report of January 4, 2022.  Item A5: Request for Crosswalk at W 60th Street and Beard Avenue Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Brown to recommend installation of a crosswalk with roadside signs, as well as consideration for advanced signage, greater police enforcement on W 60th Street, and further study of whether the existing all-way stop at Chowen Avenue should be relocated to Beard Avenue. All voted aye. Motion carried. C. 2022 Work Plan Updates  #1 Tree Boulevard Policy – Looking for committee members to assist in developing the policy, reviewing other agencies’ policies.  #2 Public Transit Checklist – Reached out to members of Planning Commission and Met Council for updates on transit operations in the city in 2022. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date:  #3 PACS Fund Policy – Would like to meet with staff to understand expenditures and buying power of the fund. Admin and Engineering are preparing a report on fund to bring to Commission for review and comment.  #4 SRTS Demonstration Projects – No update.  #5 TIS Process Review – No update.  #6 Transit Connectivity – Committee will meet to discuss first steps. Commissioner Lewis left at 7:33. VI. Chair and Member Comments – Received. Motion was made by Commissioner Plumb-Smith and seconded by Commissioner Richman to approve an advisory communication to City Council on the topic of organized trash collection. All voted aye. Motion carried. VII. Staff Comments – Received. VIII. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner Richman and seconded by Commissioner Ahler to adjourn the January 20, 2022 meeting at 7:56 p.m. All voted aye. Motion carried. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J J A S O N D # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings 1 1 NAME Ahler, Mindy 1 1 100% Brown, Chris 1 1 100% Johnson, Kirk 1 1 100% Kane, Bocar 0 0% Kitui, Janet 0 0% Lewis, Andy 1 1 100% McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 100% Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 100% Richman, Lori 1 1 100% Clark, Anna (s) 1 1 100% Kanti Mahanty, Stephen (s) 0 0% Date: February 17, 2022 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Micromobility Education, Part 1 Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None; information only. INTRODUCTION: As part of the Commission's 2022 work plan development, they requested to learn more about micromobility and its impact on the transportation system. Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni will provide a brief presentation of the City's experience with micromobility services between 2018 and 2020. See attached staff reports and supporting materials. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: Dockless Bike Sharing Pilot Program, Apr. 7, 2018 Staff Report: Dockless Bike/Scooter Sharing Pilot Program, Mar. 19, 2019 2018 Lime Usage Report Staff Report: Dockless Bike/Scooter Sharing Pilot Program Update, Jan. 7, 2020 2019 Lime Usage Report April 17, 2018 Mayor and City Council Mark Nolan, AICP, Transportation Planner Edina Dockless Bike Sharing Pilot Program Information / Background: For the past several years Edina residents, the development community and City Council have discussed with staff the possibility of Edina participating in a bike sharing program. However, the operating model of the sole provider of such services in the Twin Cities – NiceRide Minnesota – does not offer services beyond the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Additionally, the infrastructure costs associated with docking stations can be significant. At its April 3 meeting, City Council received a presentation about the recent Speak Up, Edina! conversation regarding bike sharing in Edina. Based on the interest expressed by the community, staff and City officials, staff would like to continue discussing this topic with Council and ask for their verbal support to proceed with the preparation of a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Neutron Holdings, Inc. (LimeBike) for a trial or “pilot” dockless bike sharing program in 2018. Staff recommends that this trial service runs from early June to the end of the year. Based on the experiences with LimeBike during the pilot program, staff will make recommendations regarding future bike sharing arrangements. Nearby suburban cities (including Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, New Hope and others) are also considering agreements with LimeBike; Edina staff has met with staff from these communities (and the City of Minneapolis) to discuss mutual concerns as well as issues that may arise when bicycles are left in neighboring communities. This group plans to meet on a monthly basis, should they implement dockless bike share systems (the City of Minneapolis will be transitioning to a dockless bike share system starting this year and continuing through 2021 with a different vendor). Buck Humphrey, representing LimeBike, will give a presentation on how LimeBike’s system works, some of the lessons learned in other communities, and how they propose to operate a pilot program in Edina. Mr. Humphrey and City staff will answer questions posed by Council regarding the same. STAFF REPORT Page 2 For your information, attached is the draft MOU regarding bike sharing services that the City of Golden Valley is currently considering. The Edina City Attorney has reviewed this MOU and has no issues with it. Staff anticipates that an Edina/LimeBike MOU might look similar to this and could be considered by the Council as soon as May 1 with verbal support tonight. Common Questions About Dockless Bike Sharing and LimeBike 1. Does it cost the agency anything to have them operate in our community?  No. There is no cost to the City for this service. City staff time will be utilized to monitor the program as well as to engage with both other jurisdictions and LimeBike, but there is no financial cost to the City. 2. How does it work?  Bikes are checked out and unlocked using a cell phone app. Fees are based on the type of bike and how long it is used. 3. How is dockless (LimeBike) different from dock-based (Nice Ride)?  Dockless bikes do not require docks. They can be located using either GPS (via a smartphone app) or by simply finding one on the street. Users ride to their destination and then lock the bike, leaving it in an appropriate place anywhere that serves their needs.  Since people can take dockless bikes where they want to go, versus where someone has decided to place stations, LimeBike can more easily serve diverse neighborhoods and the needs of all citizens.  Due to the relatively low cost of building and maintaining a dockless bike sharing operation, LimeBike is able to keep usage costs low - $1/30 minute ride for their standard pedal bikes. They also offer discounts for low income populations. Dockless bike sharing can provide more social equity than dock-based systems.  LimeBike is innovating quickly. In addition to dock free pedal bikes, they now offer dock free electric-assist pedal bikes as well as fully electric scooters. 4. Where will the bikes be left?  LimeBike works with cities to identify best practices; in nearly all cities, bikes are typically left within the right-of-way in designated areas. 5. Do bikes end up in other locations?  Yes. LimeBike has staff that service the area to bring bikes back to appropriate locations or users may be given free uses to return bikes that are outside the designated area. To provide a service that complements privately owned automobiles, LimeBike gives people the ability to cross jurisdictional boundaries to get where they want to go. 6. How many bikes will be implemented with the pilot?  To be determined in collaboration with LimeBike’s City partners. LimeBike is working toward a summer launch of the western suburbs, and LimeBike’s early data suggests a pilot of approximately 750-1000 bikes spread across the geography could be appropriate. March 19, 2019 Mayor and City Council Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Edina Dockless Bike/Scooter Sharing Pilot Program Information / Background: Last year, the City approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Neutron Holdings, Inc. (Lime) to implement a dockless bike sharing pilot program in Edina. Recall the pilot started in August 2018, which was later than originally anticipated. In order to truly understand how this type of micro-mobility system would work in Edina, both parties would like to continue the pilot for 2019. A full season of operation will provide more data to determine if Edina should continue this type of service long-term. Attached is a 2018 usage report detailing numbers of trips, riders, vehicles, duration and length. Recall scooters were introduced in October after the initial deployment of bikes in August. In just a short deployment, scooters exceeded bikes in many of the metrics. We would expect a similar mix of bikes and scooters deployed in 2019. Common Questions About Dockless Bike Sharing and Lime 1. Does it cost the agency anything to have them operate in our community? • No. There is no cost to the City for this service. City staff time will be utilized to monitor the program as well as to engage with both other jurisdictions and Lime, but there is no financial cost to the City. 2. How does it work? • Bikes/scooters are checked out and unlocked using mobile phone applications. Fees are based on the type of vehicle and how long it is used. 3. How is dockless (Lime) different from dock-based (Nice Ride)? • As the name implies, dockless bikes do not require docks or designated storage racks. Every vehicle is GPS-enabled and can be located via a smartphone application. Users ride to their destination and then lock the vehicle using the app, leaving it in an appropriate place anywhere that serves their needs. STAFF REPORT Page 2 • Since people can take dockless vehicles where they want to go (not just to designated dock locations), Lime can more easily serve the needs of all users. • Due to the relatively low cost of building and maintaining a dockless bike sharing operation, Lime is able to keep usage costs low - $1 per 30-minute ride for their standard pedal bikes. They also offer discounts for low income populations. Dockless bike sharing can provide more social equity than dock-based systems. • Lime is innovating quickly. In addition to dockless pedal bikes, they now offer dockless electric-assist pedal bikes and fully-electric scooters. 4. Where will the bikes be left? • Lime works with cities to identify best practices; in nearly all cities, bikes are typically left within the right-of-way in designated areas. 5. Do bikes end up in other locations? • Yes. Lime has staff that service the area to bring bikes back to appropriate locations or users may be given free uses to return bikes that are outside the designated area. To provide a service that complements privately owned automobiles, Lime gives people the ability to cross jurisdictional boundaries to get where they want to go.   2018 Edina / Lime Usage & Stats Report By the Numbers: Bikes By the Numbers: Scooters **Note:​ “unique active vehicles” is the number of vehicles deployed to the area during the entire duration of the pilot. 1   Accidents / Collisions We are unaware of any serious (reported) accidents or collisions involving our bikes or scooters in Edina. Repair / Service Reporting Lime is implementing an updated service tracking system to better track vehicle repairs. This system will be implemented before the 2019 season with data available subsequently. Currently we see two main types of repair needed: vandalism and non-vandalism-related. Vandalism will be covered in the next section. Non-vandalism related repair for our Edina Fleet fell almost entirely under general maintenance: tightening brakes, realigning gear shifts, adjusting handlebars, replacing phone holders, repairing bent fenders, tightening kickstands, and otherwise generally keeping our bikes & scooters in good repair. This type of (non-vandalism related) repair represented approximately 95% of our service work in Edina. Loss / Vandalism Vandalism accounted for approximately 5% of our repair efforts. Vandalism has spanned a range of types of problems, including bent or broken wheel rims, spray painted bikes, damaged spokes, broken phone holders, and more. For Edina specifically, we saw damage that required only minor/simple repairs. We were pleased with the low rate of vandalism in this area. Complaints We had approximately 49 complaints related to our service in Edina which we see as an acceptably low number. Of the complaints, approximately 70% were complaints related to parking, of which approximately half were “founded” complaints. ​Unfounded ​complaints include complaints such as seeing a bike/scooter and thinking it didn’t belong, alone, in the public domain; seeing a bike/scooter and perceiving it to have been stolen and abandoned; seeing a bike/scooter and simply not liking that it was left unattended. ​Founded​ complaints include concerns such as bikes/scooters left on private property or blocking something. Approximately 10% of our complaints were related to broken or damaged bikes or scooters. These included a mix of the vandalism and repairs-needed items listed above as well as dead batteries on the part of the scooters. Finally, approximately 20% of our complaints could be filed into “other.” The most common complaints in the “other” category related to being unable to find a scooter (typically; there were fewer complaints regarding being unable to find a bicycle) or wanting more scooters (again, scooters dominated) in a given area/neighborhood. 2 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 January 7, 2020 Mayor and City Council Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Dockless Bicycle- and Scooter-Sharing Pilot Program Update Approve staff’s recommendation to discontinue authorization of dockless bicycle- and scooter-sharing services. Information / Background: Given the recent emergence of bicycle- and scooter-sharing (also known as micro-mobility) services within the Twin Cities, Edina conducted a two-year pilot program with the goal of understanding how such services would function within the City. This program was implemented through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with service provider Lime that allowed use of the public right-of-way for distribution and operation of micro-mobility devices (a combination of standard pedal-assist bicycles and electric foot scooters). At the time this program was launched, the City understood that micro-mobility services have the potential to significantly contribute to the City’s long-term transportation goals, by; - Improving multi-modal mobility for residents, visitors and businesses, - Minimizing the environmental impacts of transportation by promoting modes that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, - Reducing overall dependence on and use of single-occupancy motor vehicles, and - Supporting connections to transit services. The initial MOU was effective from June to December of 2018, though initial deployment of mobility devices did not occur until August. Due to this limited window of observation, staff recommended continuing the pilot program for another year by entering into a second MOU with Lime (effective March 2019 through March 2020). Below is a brief summary of staff’s observations and experiences during this pilot program. Industry Change When this subject was original presented to City Council in April 2018, the focus was solely on bicycle- sharing programs, as this industry comprised the majority of the micro-mobility market at the time. By the end of 2018, the popularity of e-scooters had grown dramatically. Following this national trend, Lime introduced e-scooters into Edina in late September of 2018 to compliment their fleet of standard bicycles. REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 The resulting data paralleled the national trend; 1,300 bicycle trips were taken over a 16-week deployment while 1,900 e-scooter trips were taken over an 8-week deployment. By early 2019, Lime and many other service providers had publicly announced a shift in their business models away from bicycle-sharing and towards increased deployment of e-scooters. At the time Edina entered into the second MOU, the City had permitted Lime to deploy a mix of bicycles and e-scooters. Lime subsequently expressed their intention to only deploy e-scooters within the City. Regulatory Difficulties In the initial year of the pilot, regulating the use of micro-mobility devices was relatively simple because the majority were standard bicycles and subject to the same local and state regulations as privately-owned bicycles. Bicycles are generally permitted on roadways, bike lanes, trails and sidewalks with a few minor exceptions (e.g., users must yield to pedestrians present on sidewalks). State legislation, however, puts more strict regulations on users of e-scooters (referred to as “motorized foot scooters” in statute language). E- scooters are generally given all of the same rights applicable to bicycles with a key exception that they cannot be operated on sidewalks. Additionally, users must be at least 12 years of age and must wear protective headgear if under 18 years of age. While the MOU requires Lime to “encourage appropriate user behavior by providing customer education materials that, at a minimum, require users to acknowledge applicable Minnesota Law,” staff received complaints reflecting inappropriate user behavior. The City is unable to completely ensure compliance with state regulations at the current staffing level. Insufficient Infrastructure Since e-scooters are not permitted on sidewalks, the require an adequate network of bicycle facilities. While the City has made great strides in the last decade to improve its bicycle network, it still lags behind micro- mobility epicenters like Minneapolis and St. Paul (which boast 244 and 189 miles, respectively, compared to Edina’s 50). Between this lack of infrastructure and the desire to separate from motor vehicles, users typically resort to illegally riding on sidewalks because this is where they feel the most comfortable. Common Concerns It is difficult for staff to accurately state the number of complaints received regarding Lime bicycles and e- scooters because they were received through multiple channels (direct correspondence with the Engineering, Public Works, Parks or Police Departments, indirect correspondence received through reception and complaints made directly to Lime). Lime’s usage reports from 2018 and 2019 showed 98 total complaints received, primarily related to parking of devices and reports of damaged/broken devices. Complaints received by the City generally fell into one of three categories; Safety, Usage and Aesthetics. Safety – Concerns were raised for both e-scooter operators and for the general traveling public. In the case of e-scooter operators, many residents shared anecdotes of observing users failing to utilize protective headgear, failing to yield to pedestrians, or disregarding applicable traffic laws. Some residents also reported suspected underage users, but the City is unable to verify such claims. Inappropriate parking of devices was also a common complaint, whether that meant devices were obstructing pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic or that devices were parked on private property. All complaints which violated the terms of REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3 the MOU were advanced to Lime’s local representative for corrective action. The Edina Police Department has not received any accident reports or issued any citations involving e-scooters. Usage – Some concerns related to the general usage of e-scooters. Though micro-mobility devices are mainly intended to replace single-occupancy trips or provide last-mile connections to and from transit facilities, much of the usage in Edina is recreational in nature. This is demonstrated by the prevalence of usage in areas including the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, Centennial Lakes Park and the Promenade. To address safety concerns, staff directed Lime to discontinue deployment of devices to Centennial Lakes Park and the Promenade per the terms of the MOU. Additionally, staff directed Lime to install a geofence around these areas to prohibit users from parking devices within the parks. Aesthetics – Throughout the course of the two-year pilot, residents also expressed general dissatisfaction with seeing e-scooters and bikes parked in residential areas. Even when devices were parked in accordance with the requirements of the MOU, some residents still requested them to be relocated away from their properties or their neighborhoods. Approximately 35% of the complaints reported to Lime were of this type, referred to as “unfounded” parking complaints. Staff Recommendations At this time, for the reasons listed above, there does not seem to be sufficient resident support to continue authorizing micro-mobility service, nor does staff believe such services provide significant benefit to the city. It is recommended to allow the current MOU with Lime to expire in March 2020 and not to renew for another year. Staff does not believe that the current demand in Edina is sufficient to attract other service providers in the near future. It is important for the City to acknowledge that though micro-mobility service may not be appropriate for Edina at present, such services are expected to continue to be provided in neighboring communities and across the country. Because a time may come when micro-mobility service is more suitable for the City, staff will take the following actions: 1. Continue to engage with adjacent municipalities to keep informed of administrative and regulatory practices for micro-mobility providers; 2. Continue to monitor regional and national trends in micro-mobility; and 3. Continue to implement bicycle infrastructure as recommended by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, as these facilities can also be utilized by e-scooters. Transportation Commission Comments Staff presented this report to the Transportation Commission at their December 21 regular meeting and the Commission was supportive of staff’s recommendations. When discussing where e-scooters are used, Commissioners noted that while pedestrians likely prefer scooters to operate on the roadways, drivers likely prefer scooters to operate on the sidewalks. Commissioners also noted that a heat map of e-scooter use within Edina could help the City prioritize infrastructure improvements and inquired if other cities have data showing the degree to which micro-mobility devices replace single-occupancy vehicle trips.   2019 Edina / Lime Usage & Stats Report By the Numbers: Scooters Total Downloads: 4202 Total Unique Users: 3446 Total Repeat Users: 1300 Max Scooters in City: 63 (Aug. 26) Total Trips: 7,446 Start & End in Edina - 6,318 Start in Edina (end elsewhere) - 1,128 End in Edina (start elsewhere) - 444 Average Trip Duration (min): 21.29 Average Trip Length: 1.85mi Co2 Saved: 556 metric Tons Accidents / Collisions We are unaware of any serious (reported) accidents or collisions involving our bikes or scooters in Edina. Repair / Service Reporting Lime is implementing an updated service tracking system to better track vehicle repairs. This system will be implemented before the 2019 season with data available subsequently. Currently we see two main types of repair needed: vandalism and non-vandalism-related. Vandalism will be covered in the next section. Non-vandalism related repair for our Edina Fleet fell almost entirely under general maintenance: tightening brakes, realigning gear shifts, adjusting handlebars, replacing phone holders, repairing bent fenders, tightening kickstands, and otherwise generally keeping our bikes & scooters in good repair. This type of (non-vandalism related) repair represented approximately 95% of our service work in Edina. Loss / Vandalism Vandalism accounted for approximately 5% of our repair efforts. Vandalism has spanned a range of types of problems, including bent or broken wheel rims, spray painted bikes, damaged spokes, broken phone holders, and more. For Edina specifically, we saw damage that required only minor/simple repairs. We were pleased with the low rate of vandalism in this area. 1   Complaints We had approximately 49 complaints related to our service in Edina which we see as an acceptably low number. Of the complaints, approximately 70% were complaints related to parking, of which approximately half were “founded” complaints. ​Unfounded ​complaints include complaints such as seeing a bike/scooter and thinking it didn’t belong, alone, in the public domain; seeing a bike/scooter and perceiving it to have been stolen and abandoned; seeing a bike/scooter and simply not liking that it was left unattended. ​Founded​ complaints include concerns such as bikes/scooters left on private property or blocking something. Approximately 10% of our complaints were related to broken or damaged bikes or scooters. These included a mix of the vandalism and repairs-needed items listed above as well as dead batteries on the part of the scooters. Finally, approximately 20% of our complaints could be filed into “other.” The most common complaints in the “other” category related to being unable to find a scooter (typically; there were fewer complaints regarding being unable to find a bicycle) or wanting more scooters (again, scooters dominated) in a given area/neighborhood. 2 Date: February 17, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of January 25, 2022 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 January 25, 2022. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report. Comments received by the Commission will be included in the staff report provided to City Council at their March 1, 2022 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of January 25, 2022 February 17, 2022 Transportation Commission Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of January 25, 2022 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on January 25. The Traffic Safety Coordinator, Transportation Planner, Streets Public Service Worker, City Engineer, Public Works Director, Police Sergeant and Assistant City Planner was in attendance for this meeting. 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 March 1 regular meeting. Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action A1. Request to review crosswalk markings at W 58th St at Wooddale Ave  Wooddale AADT is 3,500-4,600; 58th AADT is 1,700.  Both streets are classified as Collectors.  58th St has a sidewalk on the north side east and west of the intersection, and on the south side east of the intersection.  Wooddale has a sidewalk on the east side north and south of the intersection and on-street bike facilities.  The intersection is all-way stop controlled.  Concord Elementary and Southview Middle Schools are ½ mile west; Pamela Park 1/3 mile east.  Marked crosswalks exist over Wooddale at 56th St, Woodland Rd, W 59th and W 60th Sts.  Total crosses over Wooddale: 161 with a peak hour of 49 at 4:15 pm.  Total crosses over W 58th: 136 with a peak hour of 36 at 4:45 pm. Map: W 58th St at Wooddale Ave STAFF REPORT Page 2 Staff recommends installing crosswalk markings over Wooddale Ave and will further study data and warrants for potential markings over W 58th St. Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action B1. Request to increase visibility of RRFBs at Eden Ave on W 50th St  Resident requesting advanced warning signs for rectangular rapid flashing beacons.  RRFBs were installed in 2020.  EB advanced warning sign is 350’ before crossing.  WB advanced warning sign is 250’ before crossing.  20 total crosses were observed in a recent 24-hour study.  One crash was reported on 50th in the last 10 years (rear-end collision of two eastbound vehicles). Staff recommends no changes. Staff will monitor vegetation overgrowth in summer months. B2. Request for crosswalk over Hazelton Rd at entrances of Target and Yorktown Center  Hazelton AADT is 7,900.  Hazelton is 50’ wide with four lanes.  Marked crossings are present 530’ west (at the Promenade) and 500’ east (at the York Ave traffic signal).  One crash was reported in the last 10 years.  112 total crosses were observed at this location, with 14 crossings at the peak hour; crossing warrants not met. Staff recommends no changes. Staff will consider safety improvements as part of future construction projects. Section D: Other traffic safety items handled D1. A request was made for stop or yield controls at Arbour Ave and Sun Rd. The intersection does not meet stop or yield volume warrants and no crashes have been reported in the last 10 years. D2. A crosswalk was requested over Cahill Rd at Dewey Hill. A video study observed 17 total crosses with a peak hour of 7. With no crash history involving pedestrians, crosswalk warrants are not met. D3. Crosswalk markings were requested at the driveway apron of the Loden apartment complex on Lincoln Dr. The City does not typically install marked crosswalks at driveway aprons, and the markings would not be very visible on a concrete surface. D4. A resident was concerned with traffic flow during morning commutes to the Edina High School. EHS is aware of the importance of an efficient pickup and drop-off plan. The City will study roadway layouts for future street projects in the area. W 50th St at Eden Ave Hazelton Rd between France Ave and York Ave STAFF REPORT Page 3 D5. A resident had concerns with a neighbor’s retaining wall on Morningside Rd impacting their own sight lines upon leaving their driveway. The retaining wall is located within the home-owner’s property and follows all City ordinances. The resident may speak with their neighbor about the retaining wall. D6. Two submissions were made regarding signal timing and poor vehicle detection on France Avenue at W 65th and 76th Sts. These submissions were forwarded to Hennepin County staff as these signals are maintained by them. Date: February 17, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2022 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 2022 Work P lan initiatives (unless an item is elsewhere on the current agenda). See attached work plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2022 Work Plan Progress Report Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Commission: Transportation Commission 2022 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) Boulevard Tree Policy Research, develop and recommend a citywide boulevard tree policy that addresses planting, protection, maintenance, removal and funding. Deliverable Policy for consideration by City Council Lead Lori Richman Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison, periodic support from City Forester and/or Community Development Director. Jan: Looking for committee members to assist in developing the policy, reviewing other agencies’ policies. Initiative # 2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Public Transit Checklist Develop a transit checklist to review on the proposed development projects. Planning Commission will review and comment Deliverables Report to City Council Lead Andy Lewis Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month from Staff Liaison; periodic support from Community Development Director. Jan: Reached out to members of the Planning Commission and Met Council for updates on transit operations in the city in 2022. Initiative # 3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) PACS Fund Policy Review and recommend changes to the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund policy. Deliverable Report to City Council Lead Chris Brown Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-3 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Finance and/or Administration Jan: Would like to meet with staff to understand expenditures and buying power of the fund. Admin and Engineering are preparing a report on fund to bring to Commission for review and comment. Approved by City Council December 7, 2021 Initiative # 4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) SRTS Demonstration Projects Study Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and report on potential Safe Routes to School demonstration projects. Deliverable Report to staff Lead Bocar Kane Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison. Jan: No update. Initiative # 5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) TIS Process Review Study and report on other agencies' process for completed traffic impact studies related to development/redevelopment projects. Deliverable Report to City Council Lead Bocar Kane Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month by Staff Liaison; periodic support from Director of Engineering and Community Development Director. Jan: No update. Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Transit Connectivity Review the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and recommend changes to proposed facilities to improve connectivity to public transit. Deliverables Report to City Council Lead Andy Lewis Target Completion Date Q4 Budget Required: No funds available. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours per month from Staff Liaison. Jan: Committee will meet to discuss first steps. 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.) Organized trash collection Date: February 17, 2022 Agenda Item #: VI.C. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Annual Elections Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Appoint Commission Chair and Vice Chair effective March 1, 2022 through February 28, 2023. INTRODUCTION: