Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-15 Meeting PacketAgenda Transportation Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall - Community Room Thursday, June 15, 2023 6:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Draft Minutes: May 18, 2023 V.Special Recognitions And Presentations A.Metro Transit E Line BRT Project Update VI.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. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.Draft Cahill District Area Plan B.Tra.c Safety Report of May 30, 2023 C.2023 Work Plan Updates D.Mid-Year Work Pan Modi3cation E.2024 Work Plan Development VIII.Chair And Member Comments IX.Sta7 Comments A.Commission Work Plan Progress Portal X.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli3cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Minutes From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Draft Minutes: May 18, 2023 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the minutes of May 18, 2023 regular meeting. INTRODUCTION: See attached draft minutes. ATTACHMENTS: Description Draft Minutes: May 18, 2023 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission City Hall Community Room May 18, 2023 I. Call To Order Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. Roll Call Answering roll call: Commissioners Bildsten, Brown, Lewis, McCarthy, Rubenstein, Wright, Sweeney Absent: Commissioner Johnson, Kitui, Plumb-Smith, Kanti Mahanty Staff present: Transportation Planner Andrew Scipioni, Community Engagement Manager MJ Lamon, Police Officer Mike Sussman III. Approval of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Brown to approve the agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried. IV. Approval of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by Commissioner Bildsten and seconded by McCarthy to approve the April 20, 2023 meeting minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Special Presentations/Recognitions A. Board & Commission Member Review Community Engagement Coordinator MJ Lamon presented on Board & Commission roles and responsibilities. B. Police Department Q&A Session Officer Mike Sussman answered Commission questions about the City’s current traffic enforcement procedures and priorities. C. Traffic Management 101 Liaison Scipioni presented on the City’s policies and practices related to traffic management. VI. Community Comment None. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Traffic Safety Report of April 25, 2023 The Commission reviewed and commented on the Traffic Safety Report of April 25, 2023. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: B. 2023 Work Plan Updates • #1 Pedestrian Crossing Policy Review – Meeting with staff next week to discuss next steps. • #2 Bicycle Network Planning for Bikes and Transportation – Subcommittee is making progress on a map of recommendations based on information provided by City and County. • #3 France Avenue Corridor Review – Subcommittee is meeting with City of Richfield’s Public Works Director this month to learn about the W 66th St reconstruction project. • #4 Boulevard Tree Planting – Subcommittee met with City Forester again. City has almost reached its goal of 1,000 new trees this year and the spring tree sale was a big success. • #5 Cahill Small Area Plan – Draft plan is now available on Better Together Edina website for public comment through June 22. Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for June 28. Commission will review and comment at their next meeting. • #6 Parking – Subcommittee reached out to Planning to determine where this initiative lies in their priorities. C. CloverRide Service Contract Renewal Liaison Scipioni presented the draft CloverRide service contract for review and comment. Comments from Commissioners included: • Commissioners asked if the City had any demographic information on riders; staff replied that the City does not collect this data. • Commissioners suggested that the City consider a second permanent or seasonal northern route. • Commissioners expressed a concern about the environmental impact of a bus operating continually for five hours compared to multiple single-occupancy vehicles operating for short durations. Motion was made by Commissioner Bildsten and seconded by Rubenstein to recommend renewal of the CloverRide service contract. All voted aye. Motion carried. VIII. Chair and Member Comments – Received. A. Expectations for Community Comment and Correspondence The Commission discussed how to better respond to and set expectations for community comments and correspondence. IX. Staff Comments – Received. X. Adjournment Motion was made by Commissioner McCarthy and seconded by Commissioner Rubenstein to adjourn the May 18, 2023 regular meeting at 8:48 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 5 SEAT NAME 1 Wright, Grant 1 1 1 3 100% 2 Rubenstein, Tricia 1 1 1 1 1 5 100% 3 Bildsten, Roger 1 1 1 3 100% 4 Lewis, Andy 1 1 1 1 1 5 100% 5 Johnson, Kirk 1 1 1 1 4 80% 6 Brown, Chris 1 1 1 1 1 5 100% 7 Kitui, Janet 1 1 20% 8 McCarthy, Bruce 1 1 1 1 4 80% 9 Plumb-Smith, Jill 1 1 1 1 4 80% 10 Kanti Mahanty, Stephen (s) 1 1 1 3 60% 11 Sweeney, Isaiah (s) 1 1 1 1 4 80% Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Metro Transit E Line BRT Project Update Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Evan Owens-Ambrogio from Metro Transit will provide an update on the E Line Bus Rapid Transit project and the opportunities for public feedback on the preliminary station platform designs. See attached supporting material. ATTACHMENTS: Description E Line Preliminary Station Designs - Edina E Line Final Corridor Plan 3813 44th St W4405 France Ave S4400 France Ave S4388 France Ave S4351 France Ave SFrance Ave SFrance AveSunnyside Ave44th St WRailingEntrance to BusinessEntrance to BusinessHennepin CountyFrance Avenue HSIP ProjectEntrance to BusinessSCALE IN FEET200NFrance & 44th StreetDAT, 2023MAY 2023Entrance to BusinessTypical Station FeaturesLegendPavement ImprovementParcel LinesProposedPlatform AreaRoadwayRight-of-WayNew Grass PlantingBicycle RacksTrash and recycling receptaclesAccessible boarding areaPylonmarkersShelter with heat, light, and security camerasTicket machines and fare card readersTreeTreeGrateLight 4419 France Ave S4405 France Ave S4400 France Ave S4402 France Ave S3813 44th St W4400 France Ave S3901 Sunnyside Rd4412 France Ave SFrance AveSunnyside Rd44th St WEntrance to BusinessEntrance to BusinessEntrance to BusinessEntrance to BusinessHennepin CountyFrance Avenue HSIP ProjectSCALE IN FEET200NFrance & 44th StreetDAT, 2023MAY 2023Typical Station FeaturesLegendPavement ImprovementParcel LinesProposedPlatform AreaRoadwayRight-of-WayNew Grass PlantingBus Stop(to be Removed)Bicycle RacksTrash and recycling receptaclesAccessible boarding areaPylonmarkersShelter with heat, light, and security camerasTicket machines and fare card readersTreeTreeGrateLight Enhanced pedestrian crossing with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 4701 France Ave S 4707 France Ave S 4653 France Ave S 3900 47th St W 4701 Meadow Rd 4703 Meadow Rd 4649 France Ave S 4646 France Ave S 4645 France Ave S 4640 France Ave S France Ave S47th St WExisting Connection to Residence to Remain in Place Existing Connection to Residence to Remain in Place Existing Connection to Residence to Remain in Place Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project 4709 France Ave S SCALE IN FEET 200 N MAY 2023 MAR, 2023 Typical Station Features Legend Pavement Improvement Parcel Lines Proposed Platform Area Roadway Right-of-Way New Grass Planting Bus Stop (to be Removed) Bicycle Racks Trash and recycling receptacles Accessible boarding area Pylon markers Shelter with heat, light, and security cameras Ticket machines and fare card readers Tree Tree Grate Light France & 47th Street 4999 France Ave S 4948 France Ave S 4936 France Ave S 3902 50th St W 5000 France Ave S 4930 France Ave S France Ave S50th St WHennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project Pavers to Match Existing Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project Existing Tree to Remain Entrance to BusinessEntrance to Business Entrance to Business Existing Entrances to Businesses SCALE IN FEET 200 N DAT, 2023MAY 2023 Typical Station Features ay France & 50th Street Typical Station Features Legend Pavement Improvement Parcel Lines Proposed Platform Area Roadway Right-of-Way Bicycle Racks Trash and recycling receptacles Accessible boarding area Pylon markers Shelter with heat, light, and security cameras Ticket machines and fare card readers Tree Tree Grate Light Entrance to Business Entrance to Business Entrance to BusinessEntrance to Business 3825 50th St W 5005 France Ave S 5011 France Ave S 5015 France Ave S 5000 France Ave S 5050 France Ave S France Ave S 50th St WHennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project Salvaged & Reinstalled Street Light Pavers to Match Existing Pavers to Match Existing Existing Tree to Remain Existing Tree to Remain SCALE IN FEET 200 N MAY 2023 MAR, 2023 Typical Station Features Legend Pavement Improvement Parcel Lines Proposed Platform Area Roadway Right-of-Way New Grass Planting Bus Stop (to be Removed) Bicycle Racks Trash and recycling receptacles Accessible boarding area Pylon markers Shelter with heat, light, and security cameras Ticket machines and fare card readers Tree Tree Grate Light France & 50th Street 5354 France Ave S5400 France Ave S5353 France Ave S5401 France Ave S5349 France Ave S5345 France Ave S5337 France Ave S5354 France Ave S5330 France Ave SFrance Ave54th St WHennepin County France Avenue HSIP ProjectHennepin CountyFrance Avenue HSIP ProjectSCALE IN FEET200NFrance & 54th StreetDAT, 2023MAY 2023Typical Station FeaturesLegendPavement ImprovementParcel LinesProposedPlatform AreaRoadwayRight-of-WayBicycle RacksTrash and recycling receptaclesAccessible boarding areaPylonmarkersShelter with heat, light, and security camerasTicket machines and fare card readersTreeTreeGrateLight 5354 France Ave S 5400 France Ave S 5412 France Ave S 5401 France Ave S St. Peter’s Lutheran Church 5453 France Ave S France Ave Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project SCALE IN FEET 200 N France & 54th Street DAT, 2023MAY 2023 Fare Card Reader Fare Card Reader 58th St W3901 France Ave S 5740 France Ave S 5732 France Ave S 5733 France Ave S 5801 France Ave S 5729 France Ave S France Ave S SCALE IN FEET 200 N DAT, 2023 France & 58th Street MAY 2023 Typical Station Features ay MAR, 2023 Typical Station Features Legend Pavement Improvement Parcel Lines Proposed Platform Area Roadway Right-of-Way New Grass Planting Bus Stop (to be Removed) Bicycle Racks Trash and recycling receptacles Accessible boarding area Pylon markers Shelter with heat, light, and security cameras Ticket machines and fare card readers Tree Tree Grate Light Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project Hennepin County France Avenue HSIP Project62nd St WRetaining Wall Close Existing DrivewayRetaining Wall 6200 France Ave S 6124 France Ave S 6120 France Ave S 6201 France Ave S 6129 France Ave S 6125 France Ave S 6204 France Ave S France Ave S Existing Connection to Residence to Remain in Place Railing SCALE IN FEET 200 N France & 62nd Street DAT, 2023 Typical Station Features Legend Pavement Improvement Parcel Lines Proposed Platform Area Roadway Right-of-Way New Grass Planting Bicycle Racks Trash and recycling receptacles Accessible boarding area Pylon markers Shelter with heat, light, and security cameras Ticket machines and fare card readers Tree Tree Grate Light MAY 2023 Typical Station Features ay Fairview Southdale Hospital Southdale Medical Center 65th St W SCALE IN FEET 200 N Fairview Southdale Hospital DAT, 2023MAY 2023 Typical Station Features ay MAR, 2023 Typical Station Features Legend Pavement Improvement Parcel Lines Proposed Platform Area Roadway Right-of-Way New Grass Planting Bus Stop (to be Removed) Bicycle Racks Trash and recycling receptacles Accessible boarding area Pylon markers Shelter with heat, light, and security cameras Ticket machines and fare card readers Tree Tree Grate Light METRO E Line to install platform amenities at existing Southdale Transit CenterSouthdale Mall Parking StructureSouthdale Mall Parking LotSouthdale Transit Center Park & Ride LotOverhead Realtime SignFare Card ReaderTicket MachinesSCALE IN FEET200NSouthdale Transit CenterDAT, 2023MAY 2023Typical Station FeaturesLegendPavement ImprovementParcel LinesProposedPlatform AreaRoadwayRight-of-WayBicycle RacksTrash and recycling receptaclesAccessible boarding areaPylonmarkersShelter with heat, light, and security camerasTicket machines and fare card readersTreeTreeGrateLight Final Corridor Plan Metro Transit is planning improvements to the Route 6 corridor with the METRO E Line, an arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) service. The E Line will substantially replace Route 6 in Minneapolis and Edina, connecting Southdale Transit Center with downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota and running primarily on France Avenue, Hennepin Avenue, 4th Street, and University Avenue. Arterial BRT brings better amenities, faster service, and a more comfortable ride. The E Line project is currently in the planning phase. The E Line is scheduled for construction beginning in 2024. This document identifies E Line station locations for approval by the Metropolitan Council. It is the final revision of the E Line Corridor Plan previously published for public comment in draft form on September 20, 2021 and recommended form on March 9, 2022. To stay in touch, sign up for the E Line project updates at the project website: metrotransit.org/e-line-project. E Line Final Corridor Plan | i Executive Summary Corridor Overview The METRO E Line is a planned arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) line that will upgrade and substantially replace Route 6, one of Metro Transit’s highest ridership routes. The 13.3-mile E Line is proposed to operate primarily along France Avenue, Hennepin Avenue, 4th Street, and University Avenue from Southdale Transit Center in Edina to the METRO Green Line Westgate Station in Minneapolis. Stations The E Line will stop at 34 locations along the route, with stops placed about 0.4 miles apart on average (two to three stops per mile) to balance speed and access. E Line stations will be designed to provide faster and more efficient service, along with amenities that foster an improved customer experience. This plan has been developed with baseline data from years prior to 2020. Therefore, changes in transit service, ridership, or overall traffic patterns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have not been used as a baseline for recommendations in this draft plan. Metro Transit research in 2020-2021 shows that Route 6 continues to provide important service throughout the pandemic, remaining one of the highest ridership bus routes in the region. Additionally, ridership on bus rapid transit lines within the Metro Transit system has declined less than all other transit service types as a percentage of pre-COVID-19 ridership, indicating the resiliency of this type of service within the system. E Line Final Corridor Plan | ii Figure 1: E Line Corridor Overview E Line Final Corridor Plan | iii After this plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, this document will guide the detailed design of stations by confirming station intersections and platform locations at those intersections. Other characteristics will be finalized through detailed engineering. Service E Line service is planned to run every 10 minutes, seven days a week during the day and most of the evening. Local Route 6 service is currently planned to remain running every 20 minutes from Minnesota Drive and France Avenue to downtown Minneapolis via Southdale Transit Center and Xerxes. Route 6 is not planned to run on 39th Street, France Avenue, or Wooddale Avenue following the start of E Line service. Bus Priority Treatments In order to help meet project goals for faster transit service, bus priority treatments are being evaluated along the E Line corridor. These treatments include modifications to traffic signal timing and implementation of transit signal priority (TSP) and bus queue jumps so that people on buses spend less time stopped at signals or in traffic. Metro Transit intends to work with its partners to implement TSP as part of the E Line project. Signals along the corridor will be evaluated and considered during the design phase of the project for implementation. The recommended corridor plan also includes analysis and priorities for bus-only lanes on key segments of the corridor. Some of these improvements are being considered in coordination with other street projects, and others may potentially be implemented through Metro Transit’s Speed & Reliability program, independent of planned E Line construction in 2024-2025. Plan process and engagement summary Metro Transit released a draft version of the E Line Corridor Plan on September 20, 2021, and recommended version of the E Line Corridor Plan on March 9, 2022. Plan release was communicated via print and digital communications including postcards, flyers at bus stops and on buses, limited in-person conversations, partnerships and meetings with community organizations and neighborhood groups, shared promotion by partner agencies, emails to subscribers and Rider Alerts, and targeted social media posts. On the draft corridor plan, Metro Transit received 561 individual survey responses and emails providing feedback, as well as letters of opposition from neighboring business owners and residents at two station locations. On the recommended corridor plan, an additional 359 individual survey responses and emails were received, along with letters of opposition at two additional station locations and a letter of support for bus only lanes along 4th Street and University Avenue. A summary of feedback received is available in Appendix A. Final E Line Corridor Plan Approval Following the close of the recommended corridor plan comment period, text revisions were made to finalize the plan for Metropolitan Council approval as the Final E Line Corridor Plan. No changes to station or platform locations are proposed between the recommended and final versions of the E Line corridor plan. Appendix A summarizes the comments submitted during the E Line Corridor Plan comment periods. This appendix includes responses to overall themes and feedback received on specific station locations. E Line Final Corridor Plan | iv The Final E Line Corridor Plan is anticipated to go before the Metropolitan Council in May/June 2022. The approved Final E Line Corridor Plan finalized station and platform locations ahead of E Line detailed design beginning summer 2022. Revisions included in the draft corridor plan and retained in this Final Corridor Plan are summarized below. Revisions in the recommended corridor plan (retained in the final plan) The recommended E Line Corridor Plan included several revisions based on feedback received on the draft plan. These revisions are retained in this final corridor plan. Changes to three station locations: • University & Berry: The northbound (terminal) platform was shifted from on University Avenue west of Emerald Street to on Berry Street north of University Avenue following the left turn off University Avenue. No change was made to the southbound platform. • Upton & 43rd Street: The southbound platform was shifted from the farside (southwest corner) of the intersection of Upton Avenue and 43rd Street to the nearside (northwest) of the intersection. No change was made to the southbound platform • 44th Street & Zenith: The station location was moved from the intersection of 44th Street and Zenith Avenue to 44th Street and Abbott Avenue. The northbound and southbound platforms were both recommended to be located on the nearside (northeast and southwest corners) of the intersection. Additional analysis at several other stations Additional alternatives were analyzed at the following station locations, but no changes were recommended: • Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE • Sheridan & 39th Street • France & 47th Street • France & 50th Street Expanded discussion of bus-only lane priorities The recommended plan added expanded information on bus lane priorities, including segments that should be considered for evaluation and implementation of bus-only lanes and other bus priority treatments along the E Line alignment. E Line Final Corridor Plan | v Table of Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Corridor Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need for Improved Transit in the Corridor ........................................................ 2 E Line Project Goals ..................................................................................................................... 3 What is Arterial BRT? .................................................................................................................... 4 Project Implementation & Timeline ......................................................................................... 10 II. E Line Planning Process................................................................................................................ 12 Past E Line Planning .................................................................................................................. 12 Technical Advisory Committee ................................................................................................ 13 Planning Process ....................................................................................................................... 13 IV. Service ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 17 Proposed E Line Service ........................................................................................................... 17 Proposed Local Service in the Corridor .................................................................................. 17 V. Stations .......................................................................................................................................... 19 What was considered at each location? ................................................................................. 19 Stations by Location .................................................................................................................. 25 University & Berry ...................................................................................................................... 32 University & Malcolm ................................................................................................................ 35 University & 27th Avenue ......................................................................................................... 38 University & 23rd Avenue ......................................................................................................... 41 University/4th Street & U of M Rec. Center/Ridder Arena .................................................... 44 University/4th Street & 15th Avenue ....................................................................................... 45 University/4th Street & 10th/11th Avenue .............................................................................. 46 University/4th Street & 6th Avenue ......................................................................................... 47 University/4th Street & Central ................................................................................................ 48 Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE .................................................................................. 49 Hennepin & Gateway ................................................................................................................ 53 Hennepin Avenue Downtown Stations ................................................................................... 54 Hennepin & Spruce/Laurel ....................................................................................................... 55 Hennepin & Groveland ............................................................................................................. 56 Hennepin & Franklin ................................................................................................................. 59 Hennepin & 25th Street ............................................................................................................ 60 Uptown Transit Station .............................................................................................................. 61 E Line Final Corridor Plan | vi Hennepin & 33rd Street ............................................................................................................ 62 Hennepin & 36th Street ............................................................................................................ 63 Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska South .................................................................................... 64 Sheridan & 39th Street .............................................................................................................. 67 Upton & 43rd Street .................................................................................................................. 70 44th Street & Abbott ................................................................................................................. 80 France & 44th Street ................................................................................................................. 83 France & 47th Street ................................................................................................................. 86 France & 50th Street ................................................................................................................. 93 France & 54th Street ............................................................................................................... 101 France & 58th Street ............................................................................................................... 104 France & 62nd Street .............................................................................................................. 107 65th Street & Fairview Southdale Hospital ........................................................................... 110 Southdale Transit Center ........................................................................................................ 113 VI. Bus Priority Treatments ............................................................................................................. 114 How can the E Line move people faster? ............................................................................. 114 Appendix A: Corridor Plan Comment Summary ............................................................................ A1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... A1 Key Themes ................................................................................................................................ A7 Appendix B: Agency Comments..................................................................................................... B1 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 1 I. Introduction Corridor Overview The METRO E Line is a planned arterial bus rapid transit (BRT) line that will upgrade and substantially replace Route 6, one of Metro Transit’s highest ridership routes. From north to south, the E Line is proposed to operate along a 13.3-mile-long corridor from the METRO Green Line Westgate Station in Minneapolis to Southdale Transit Center in Edina primarily via 4th Street, University Avenue, Hennepin Avenue, and France Avenue (Figure 2). The E Line corridor connects to many important community destinations and other major transit routes, including multiple existing and planned METRO light rail and BRT lines. Figure 2: E Line Corridor Overview E Line Final Corridor Plan | 2 Purpose and Need for Improved Transit in the Corridor In 2019, customers took more than 8,000 rides on Route 6 each weekday, making it one of the busiest bus routes in the region. In some places along the corridor, buses carry approximately 49 percent of people traveling northbound and 45 percent of people travelling southbound by vehicle on parts of Hennepin Avenue but make up just 2 to 3 percent of vehicle traffic (Figure 3). But Hennepin Avenue is also one of the slowest transit corridors in the region. During peak periods, buses regularly slow to average speeds of 8 miles per hour. Frequent stops, lines of customers waiting to board, and red lights mean that buses are moving less than half the time. These delays are greatest during time periods when transit ridership is highest and when volumes of auto traffic are highest, highlighting a need to reduce the amount of time that buses are stopped while customers enter and exit the vehicle along with a need to reduce the amount of time that buses are stopped due to general traffic. Figure 3: Transit users and buses as a percentage of total corridor users and vehicles This plan has been developed with baseline data from years prior to 2020. Therefore, changes in transit service, ridership, or overall traffic patterns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have not been used as a baseline for recommendations in this draft plan. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 3 Route 6 continues to provide important service throughout the pandemic, remaining one of the highest ridership bus routes in the region in 2020-2021. Across the Metro Transit system, and in a trend mirrored across the country, frequent, all-day service supporting a variety of trip purposes has retained relatively high levels of ridership during the pandemic. The characteristics that make the Route 6 corridor a good candidate for BRT investment have also made the corridor a continued strong performer across the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of the E Line is to provide faster, more reliable, and more attractive bus service along a north-south corridor between St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Edina. The need for the project can be summarized by two key challenges: (1) slow and unreliable transit service and (2) passenger facilities inadequate for the high volume of people using them (Figure 4). Figure 4: Existing Route 6 passenger facilities E Line Project Goals The goals of the E Line project are to: • provide faster, more reliable transit trip times in the Route 6 corridor • improve transit experience at stops and on vehicles • expand equitable access to destinations • provide efficient connections to the existing and planned transit network E Line Final Corridor Plan | 4 What is Arterial BRT? Arterial BRT is a package of transit enhancements that produces a faster trip and an improved experience for customers in the Twin Cities’ busiest corridors. It runs on urban corridors in mixed traffic. The E Line will be the fifth operational line within the Twin Cities region’s arterial BRT system. • The A Line on Snelling Avenue and Ford Parkway began service in June of 2016 • The C Line on Penn Avenue began service in June of 2019 • The D Line on Chicago and Fremont avenues is scheduled to open in late 2022 • The B Line is planned for construction to start in 2023 • Construction on the E Line is scheduled to begin in 2024 Every planned arterial BRT corridor is unique in street design and surrounding land use. As a result, each line balances flexibility with implementation strategies with core arterial BRT characteristics. High-Quality Stations Every Half Mile Arterial BRT provides faster and more efficient service, and station and bus amenities that foster an improved customer experience. See Figure 5 for the design and features of arterial BRT stations in the Twin Cities. Section IV also provides more information on important station characteristics. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 5 Figure 5: Arterial BRT station features E Line Final Corridor Plan | 6 • Curb bump outs / curb extensions » Where arterial BRT runs in general traffic, stations are typically built with bump outs (also called curb extensions or bus bulbs) where feasible (Figure 6). Today, many existing local bus stops are located out of a thru-lane of traffic in right-turn lanes or in a curbside parking lane, causing delay for buses merging back into traffic. Curb bump outs at station platforms eliminate delay-inducing merging movements. They also provide extra space for station amenities and pedestrians on existing sidewalks. Additionally, to facilitate near-level boarding, curb heights will be increased to nine inches from the standard six where possible. Figure 6: Curb bumpout • Off-board fare payment » Like on other METRO lines, customers will pay fares prior to boarding the bus. Ticket vending machines and fare card validators will be located at each station (Figure 7). Off-board fare payment expedites the boarding process and significantly decreases dwell time at stations, allowing buses to stop briefly in the travel lane rather than pull over. Fare payment will be enforced through random on-board inspections by Metro Transit police. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 7 Figure 7: Off-board ticket vending machines and fare card validators • Shelters » Shelters provide weather protection while customers wait for the bus (Figure 8). Standard arterial BRT shelters feature on-demand heaters, seating, and integrated lighting. Shelters range from 12 to 36 feet long, depending on site conditions and ridership. A concrete foundation increases protection from the elements and establishes more permanence compared to standard shelters. Figure 8: Arterial BRT shelter E Line Final Corridor Plan | 8 • Information » Detailed transit information is provided in a variety of formats to offer clear direction and increase customer confidence in trip status. Each station includes a pylon marker with a real-time NexTrip sign and a printed panel with timetable, maps, and connection information (Figure 9). Figure 9: Pylon marker with real-time NexTrip information • • Furnishings and other improvements » Several station components will enhance customer safety and comfort, including security cameras and emergency telephones and adequate clear zone for boarding and alighting through any bus door. Benches, trash and recycling containers, and bike parking will be available for customer use (Figure 10). Figure 10: Example station enhancements E Line Final Corridor Plan | 9 Frequent and Faster Service • Limited stops and increased frequency » Arterial BRT stations are spaced approximately every half mile, focusing on places where the greatest numbers of customers board buses today. Buses can travel significantly faster with more distance between stations, while also allowing for most customers to conveniently walk or roll to stations. » High frequency service increases the convenience of arterial BRT. The E Line will become the primary service in the corridor, running every ten minutes throughout the day and most of the evening, with increased service on nights and weekends compared to the existing Route 6. » Local service on Route 6 is currently planned to run every 20 minutes from Minnesota Drive and France Avenue to downtown Minneapolis via Southdale Transit Center and Xerxes. Route 6 is not planned to run on 39th Street, France Avenue, or Wooddale Avenue following the start of E Line service. • BRT vehicles » BRT vehicles have distinctive branding to differentiate them from standard buses (Figure 11). E Line buses will be 60-foot articulated vehicles to serve large numbers of riders, with three wide doors to allow customers to enter and exit through all doors of the vehicle. BRT buses have low floors to help facilitate comfortable boarding and alighting for all customers, and seating layouts arranged for more interior circulation space. Buses have accessible ramps for customers using a mobility device. • Bus priority treatments » Bus priority treatments will be used at key locations to help keep buses moving. These include transit signal priority (TSP), in which buses will be linked to traffic signals to provide more green lights for buses when conditions allow. TSP helps reduce time spent stopped at red lights, a substantial source of bus delay. Bus priority treatments like bus-only lanes can also reduce time that buses spend stopped in traffic. Bus lanes may be implemented in the E Line corridor through other projects. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 10 Figure 11: BRT bus Project Implementation & Timeline Anticipated Project Schedule Planning Phase (2018-2021) E Line planning has been underway since 2018, with the initiation of the E Line Corridor Study to determine the E Line alignment and concept station locations. The planning phase will conclude with the adoption and approval of the final E Line Corridor Plan by the Metropolitan Council, anticipated in winter 2021/22. The approved E Line Corridor Plan will finalize station locations, and key station components to inform the design phase. Design Phase (2022-2023) Following Metropolitan Council approval of the final E Line Corridor Plan, engineering and design will begin in 2022 and continue into fall 2023. Construction Phase (2024-2025) The E Line is targeted to begin construction in 2024. Construction of some E Line stations will be coordinated with construction activities for other projects and may be built sooner. In other places, the E Line will use existing station facilities. Coordinated Implementation Several stations on the E Line will be developed in coordination with planned projects throughout the corridor, as summarized below. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 11 University Avenue and 4th Street SE Roadway Improvements Project The University Avenue and 4th Street SE Roadway Improvements Project is led by Hennepin County and planned to begin construction in 2023. This project is considering design options for improving bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. Proposed E Line station plans are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepin.us/universityandfourth The following stations are within this project segment: • University/4th & U of M Rec. Center/Ridder Arena • University/4th & 15th Avenue • University/4th & 10th/11th Avenue Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue Roadway Improvements Project The Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue Roadway Improvements Project is led by Hennepin County and planned to begin construction in 2023 or 2024. This project is considering design options for improving bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. Proposed E Line station plans are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepin.us/hennepin-and-first The following station is within this project segment: • Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street SE Hennepin Avenue Downtown Reconstruction Project The Hennepin Avenue Downtown Reconstruction Project is led by the City of Minneapolis and is currently under construction. This project is implementing a protected bikeway, improved pedestrian facilities and BRT-ready enhanced transit stops. These locations will be upgraded to BRT stations for E Line service. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepindowntown.com/project-info/ The following stations are within this project segment: • Hennepin & 3rd/4th Street • Hennepin & 5th Street • Hennepin & 7th/8th Street • Hennepin & 10th/11th Street Hennepin Avenue South Reconstruction Project The Hennepin Avenue South Reconstruction Project is led by the City of Minneapolis and planned to begin construction in 2024. This project is considering designs to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improve access to transit, and expand existing bus-only lanes. Additional project details are available at: www.minneapolismn.gov/government/projects/hennepin-ave-s/ The following stations are within this project segment: • Hennepin & Franklin Avenue • Hennepin & 25th Street • Uptown Transit Station E Line Final Corridor Plan | 12 II. E Line Planning Process Past E Line Planning 2012: Arterial Transitway Corridors Study In 2012, Metro Transit completed the Arterial Transitway Corridors Study (ATCS), which developed the arterial BRT concept and identified 11 urban corridors with high-ridership bus routes for implementation of arterial BRT. The ATCS presented the basic components of how arterial BRT would operate in the Twin Cities and offered initial concept-level station locations, ridership estimates, and costs for the eleven lines, including a Hennepin Avenue corridor. As shown in Figure 12, the Hennepin Avenue corridor identified in the ATCS ran along Hennepin Avenue and Lake Street from downtown Minneapolis to the future METRO Green Line West Lake Street Station. The study determined that the Hennepin Avenue corridor performed well on the technical evaluation criteria, but that additional planning was needed to better develop the arterial BRT and connecting bus service concept in the corridor. Figure 12: ATCS Hennepin Avenue Corridor E Line Final Corridor Plan | 13 2016: METRO E Line Identification In 2016, Metro Transit prepared an updated corridor readiness screening to determine the next corridors for arterial BRT implementation and begin securing federal funds for these lines. From this effort, the B Line (Lake Street/Marshall Avenue) and E Line were selected as the next two corridors for arterial BRT implementation. 2016-2018: Early Project Coordination E Line planning has included coordination with other planned infrastructure projects throughout the corridor led by the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and MnDOT. In some cases, coordination between projects was initiated several years ago to ensure compatibility and reduce potential construction impacts. 2018-2019: E Line Corridor Study The E Line Corridor Study was completed to better develop the arterial BRT and connecting bus service concept identified for the corridor in 2012. The study evaluated corridor alignment and terminal alternatives resulting in the selection of the final E Line alignment. The Corridor Study also identified concept station locations and connecting local bus service plans for when the E Line begins operation. In January 2020, the Metropolitan Council adopted the recommended E Line alignment. Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consists of interagency partners advising the project on planning issues throughout the corridor. The TAC was convened beginning in 2018 with the E Line Corridor Study and has been meeting regularly since then. The TAC provided input and support on the development of the E Line alignment and concept station locations in the study. The proposed station and platform locations included this Draft Corridor Plan were made in coordination with the TAC. Participating TAC agencies include: • Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) • Hennepin County • Ramsey County • City of Minneapolis • City of Saint Paul • City of Edina • Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board • University of Minnesota Planning Process E Line Corridor Study: Alignment and Concept Station Locations The E Line planning phase began in 2018 with the E Line Corridor Study. The study evaluated corridor alignment and terminal location alternatives and selected the final E Line alignment, adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2020. This process consisted of a variety of outreach and engagement activities. Feedback received during these engagements helped inform the concept station location and alignment recommendations. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 14 Open Houses Open houses were scheduled at key milestones throughout the E Line planning process to share information about the project and engage stakeholders on key planning issues. Project staff were available to answer questions and discuss site-specific concerns along the corridor. Open houses were held at three points in the planning process so far: 1. December 2018: Two open houses were held to kick-off the E Line Corridor study and get public feedback on the E Line alignment alternatives under consideration. 2. May 2019: Three open houses were held to share and receive feedback on a narrowed-down set of E Line alignment options and concept station locations. 3. November 2019: Two open houses were held to share the recommended E Line alignment, concept station locations, and connecting local bus service. Engagement with Community Groups Throughout the E Line planning process, E Line staff attended or hosted community events, participated in bus ride-alongs and stop pop-ups, and connected with community members and riders to help inform the planning process and preliminary recommendations for the E Line. Community Advisory Committee Throughout 2018 and 2019, 15 community members participated in the committee and advised the project management team on the recommendation of the E Line alignment, concept station locations, and concept connecting local bus service plans. Members were selected to ensure representation from each part of the study area, that the committee reflects the demographic makeup of the corridor, and include residents, students, businesses and Route 6 riders. Surveys As part of the engagement around preliminary project recommendations, a survey and interactive map, available in both digital and paper form, were presented to the community through a variety of engagement methods. This survey work addressed key questions around routing, concept station locations, and underlying service with strong support for the proposed routing, stations and service. Communications and Publications Metro Transit distributed project information through a variety of media. An email newsletter was created to deliver project news to interested stakeholders. Targeted social media posts promoted E Line developments and opportunities for comment to specific geographic locations. E Line Corridor Plan: Station and Platform Locations Following the completion of that study, planning work began to refine and review of early station location recommendations and identify specific planning issues. The contents of this plan were developed by Metro Transit staff throughout 2020 and 2021 with inputs and feedback received from a Technical Advisory Committee and through community outreach and engagement activities. Plan process and engagement summary Metro Transit released a draft version of the E Line Corridor Plan on September 20, 2021, and recommended version of the E Line Corridor Plan on March 9, 2022. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 15 Plan release was communicated via print and digital communications including postcards, flyers at bus stops and on buses, limited in-person conversations, partnerships and meetings with community organizations and neighborhood groups, shared promotion by partner agencies, emails to subscribers and Rider Alerts, and targeted social media posts. On the draft corridor plan, Metro Transit received 561 individual survey responses and emails providing feedback, as well as letters of opposition from neighboring business owners and residents at two station locations. On the recommended corridor plan, an additional 359 individual survey responses and emails were received, along with letters of opposition at two additional station locations and a letter of support for bus only lanes along 4th Street and University Avenue. A summary of feedback received is available in Appendix A. Final E Line Corridor Plan Approval Following the close of the recommended corridor plan comment period, text revisions were made to finalize the plan for Metropolitan Council approval as the Final E Line Corridor Plan. No changes to station or platform locations are proposed between the recommended and final versions of the E Line corridor plan. Appendix A summarizes the comments submitted during the E Line Corridor Plan comment periods. This appendix includes responses to overall themes and feedback received on specific station locations. The Final E Line Corridor Plan is anticipated to go before the Metropolitan Council in May/June 2022. The approved Final E Line Corridor Plan finalized station and platform locations ahead of E Line detailed design beginning summer 2022. Revisions included in the draft corridor plan and retained in this Final Corridor Plan are summarized below. Revisions in the recommended corridor plan (retained in the final plan) The recommended E Line Corridor Plan included several revisions based on feedback received on the draft plan. These revisions are retained in this final corridor plan. Changes to three station locations: • University & Berry: The northbound (terminal) platform was shifted from on University Avenue west of Emerald Street to on Berry Street north of University Avenue following the left turn off University Avenue. No change was made to the southbound platform. • Upton & 43rd Street: The southbound platform was shifted from the farside (southwest corner) of the intersection of Upton Avenue and 43rd Street to the nearside (northwest) of the intersection. No change was made to the southbound platform. • 44th Street & Zenith: The station location was moved from the intersection of 44th Street and Zenith Avenue to 44th Street and Abbott Avenue. The northbound and southbound platforms were both recommended to be located on the nearside (northeast and southwest corners) of the intersection. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 16 Additional analysis at several other stations Additional alternatives were analyzed at the following station locations, but no changes were recommended: • Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE • Sheridan & 39th Street • France & 47th Street • France & 50th Street Expanded discussion of bus-only lane priorities The recommended plan added expanded information on bus lane priorities, including segments that should be considered for evaluation and implementation of bus-only lanes and other bus priority treatments along the E Line alignment. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 17 IV. Service Considerations A key goal of the E Line is to provide faster and more reliable transit service than existing Route 6 service. Balancing speed and access through wider stop spacing and alignment changes can result in localized changes in access as stops may be moved or consolidated. Other services that operate within the corridor also require evaluation as part of an overall assessment of how arterial BRT implementation will change transit service. As recommendations for alignment and station locations have taken shape, Metro Transit has also evaluated the overall mix of bus service within the corridor. Key factors considered in this analysis included ridership and trip patterns along existing bus routes and branches, pedestrian access, demographics (riders with more mobility challenges or fewer transportation options), and operational cost and efficiency. Proposed E Line Service The E Line is planned to run every 10 minutes, seven days a week during the day and most of the evening, substantially replacing Route 6 as the primary service in the corridor. On average, E Line stops would be placed about 0.4 miles apart (two to three stops per mile) to balance speed and access. 82 percent of existing Route 6 riders would be able to catch the E Line within 1/8 mile of their current bus stop. The exact E Line schedule, including hours of service and transitions from 10-minute service during the core of the day into later evening service, will be developed closer to E Line opening day. Proposed Local Service in the Corridor Local Route 6 service is proposed to remain running every 20 minutes from Minnesota Drive and France Avenue to downtown Minneapolis via Southdale Transit Center and Xerxes. Route 6 is not planned to run on 39th Street, France Avenue, or Wooddale Avenue following the start of E Line service. See Figure 13 for a map of the E Line with proposed Route 6. Route 12 is proposed to be replaced by the E Line along Hennepin Avenue from Uptown Transit Station to downtown Minneapolis. Other local routes also serve parts of the E Line corridor, including routes 2, 4, 17, and 23. Limited-stop Routes 113 and 114, which provide service to the University of Minnesota, also serve portions of the corridor. No changes are currently planned to those routes in connection with the E Line. Final service plans, including frequency and termini for local bus service along the E Line corridor, will be developed later in project development as the E Line nears implementation and as recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic continues. Key considerations will include public feedback, operating budget/staffing constraints, ridership patterns, redevelopment/ land use patterns, and anticipated transit travel times based on bus priority treatments. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 18 Figure 13: E Line and proposed Route 6 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 19 V. Stations This section contains recommended locations for each station on the E Line corridor. After corridor plan approval, this document will guide the detailed design of stations by confirming station intersections and platform locations at those intersections. Other characteristics will be finalized through detailed engineering. What was considered at each location? Station Location Considerations A key objective of arterial BRT is to offer faster trips for more people along the corridor. Faster trips depend in part upon the strategic placement of stations spaced more widely than existing Route 6 bus stops. The existing Route 6 stops approximately every 1/8 of a mile. On average, E Line stops would be placed about 0.4 miles apart (two to three stops per mile) to balance speed and access. This increase in station spacing distance is anticipated to help E Line service operate about 20 percent faster than the existing Route 6, when combined with other improvements. Serving today’s customers well and maximizing future ridership along the corridor depends upon station locations serving substantial numbers of passengers without significantly affecting pedestrian access. With the stations included in this plan, 82 percent of existing Route 6 riders would be able to catch the E Line within 1/8 mile of their current bus stop. Figure 14: Arterial BRT and local service stop spacing after E Line implementation Today: Route 6 Future: E Line Station location inputs include, but are not limited to: • Targeted half-mile station spacing, on average • Existing transit ridership at current bus stops • Connections to other transit lines • Community input and feedback • Existing land uses • Street design (e.g., roadway cross-section, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, driveways, medians, etc.) • Available right-of-way E Line Final Corridor Plan | 20 Platform Location Considerations Each BRT station is made up of two platforms—one for each direction the bus travels. Platforms can usually either be placed nearside or farside of an intersection. A nearside station platform is located just before a roadway intersection. A farside platform is located just after a roadway intersection (Figure 15). Farside platforms are usually preferred because they help support faster bus service. As a result, E Line platforms will be placed farside whenever possible. Figure 15: Farside platform example Farside platforms are beneficial because they reduce conflicts between right-turning vehicles and stopped transit vehicles common at nearside stop locations. Farside stations also maximize transit signal priority effectiveness by allowing a bus to activate its priority call to the signal, progress through the intersection, and stop at the farside platform. This reduces delay in scenarios more common to nearside locations when a bus is required to stop twice before moving through an intersection: once to unload and load passengers at the platform itself and again for a red traffic signal after leaving the platform. The preferred E Line platform location is on the farside of intersections. However, not all platforms are sited farside. Site-specific conditions that may limit farside platforms include: • Existing roadway access points or driveways • Right-of-way constraints • Surrounding land uses Additionally, nearside platforms may be preferred in limited cases based on signal timing or certain bus priority treatments, or at four-way stop-controlled intersections. Other Considerations Shelter Size Preliminary shelter sizes are shown for each planned station to illustrate at a conceptual level how the shelter will fit into each location. Except in limited cases near the end of the line, all arterial BRT stations are equipped with shelters, as described in Section I. A key variable at each station is shelter size: small, medium, or large shelter structures. Basic shelter dimensions are: Small shelter: 12 feet long by 5 feet wide by 9 feet high Medium shelter: 24 feet long by 5 feet wide by 9-12 feet high Large shelter: 36 feet long by 5 feet wide by 9-12 feet high Platform Platform E Line Final Corridor Plan | 21 The primary consideration in determining shelter sizes at each platform is projected ridership across the day and at peak times (specifically, the number of waiting customers at a single stop) for all routes serving the station. Specific site conditions may also influence the size of the shelter planned for each location. Shelter size will ultimately be determined through detailed site engineering in the design phase. See Figures 16-18 for example images of small, medium, and large arterial BRT shelters. Figure 16: Small shelter on the A Line, Snelling & Dayton station Figure 17: Medium shelter on the A Line, Snelling & County Road B station E Line Final Corridor Plan | 22 Figure 18: Large shelter on the A Line, Snelling & University station Curb Extensions / Bumpouts For each station in this plan, a conceptual design is included to illustrate how the station platforms will fit into the street. In many cases, curb extensions are illustrated. These are preliminary ideas for how the stations will fit into the surrounding environment that will be refined and finalized through detailed engineering. Many existing local bus stops are located in curbside parking lanes or right-turn lanes, causing delay for buses merging back into traffic. Platform bumpouts are considered at locations where the area against the curb is currently used for on-street parking or in some cases, turn lanes, to eliminate delay-inducing merging movements. They also provide extra space for station amenities without crowding sidewalks. This is illustrated in Figure 19. Bicycle facilities can also influence whether a bumpout is proposed. Bumpouts improve overall bus operations by: • Eliminating the need for buses to merge in and out of traffic to access stations • Providing space for clear and accessible all-door boarding, shelters, and station amenities • Minimizing conflicts between waiting bus passengers and pedestrians using the sidewalk Bumpouts can also potentially reduce overall bus stop zone length, which may allow on- street parking spaces to be added in space previously used for bus movements. At locations where bumpout platforms are not considered due to lane configurations or absence of on-street parking, the platforms will be adjacent to the existing curbside travel lane without moving the curb. Under both bumpout and non-bumpout/curbside platform conditions, buses will generally stop in the travel lane to eliminate the need to merge into traffic when leaving stations. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 23 Figure 19: Typical current bus stop versus bumpout / curb extension Platform Length, Width, and Height Typical dimensions for E Line platforms are shown in Figure 20. Generally, E Line platforms will be designed for a standard length of 60 feet. A 60-foot platform length can fully accommodate all doors of a 60-foot articulated bus planned for the E Line. Certain constrained conditions, like existing access points and driveways, might prevent a full 60- foot-long platform from being constructed; however, these situations are avoided wherever possible. In some places, stations may be designed at a longer length to accommodate more than one stopped bus. Platform lengths will be finalized during design. E Line platforms will generally be designed for a standard width of 11.5 feet. This width can accommodate a 6-foot-wide clear zone behind the curb and 5.5-foot-wide furnishing zone to accommodate BRT station elements including the shelter, pylon marker, and other amenities. The clear zone is generally provided independent from a through zone behind the platform. However, certain constrained conditions, like narrow distances between the curb and a building face might prevent a full 11.5-foot-wide platform from being constructed in addition to an independent through zone. In these cases, the through zone and clear zone may be combined. Platform widths will be finalized during design. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 24 Figure 20: Typical E Line Platform Dimensions Platforms will be designed with a standard of nine-inch curb height to facilitate “near-level boarding.” Near-level boarding substantially reduces the distance between the curb and the floor of the bus, easing vehicle access for passengers with low mobility and enabling faster boarding and alighting of all passengers. Near-level boarding does not eliminate the need for ramps to be deployed to assist passengers using mobility devices. Curb heights of nine inches or lower are compatible with all bus models. Curb heights for specific E Line platforms will be finalized during design. Near-level boarding is not “level boarding,” where platforms are located at the same level and height as the floor of the bus, at approximately 14 inches. Light rail platforms within the Twin Cities are an example of level-boarding platforms. Level-boarding platforms are not being considered for the E Line due to engineering considerations and the space constraints of the corridor; ramping up to a 14-inch curb from a 6-inch sidewalk requires a prohibitively large area. Level boarding also requires that buses slow down considerably upon approaching stations, which can significantly negate the travel time savings benefit that arterial BRT may provide. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 25 Stations by Location The following section contains individual station plans for each of the E Line stations. The plans communicate two core station components: the station intersection and the location of platforms within that intersection. Other preliminary design details are provided for additional context but are conceptual and will be finalized during the design phase. The individual station plans are organized north to south beginning at the METRO Green Line Westgate Station and continuing to Southdale Transit Center. Note that this list includes stations with finalized locations based on planning, design, and/or construction of other projects. These stations do not include station plan illustrations, but descriptions are provided for information. The plan identifies 34 stations over the 13.3-mile corridor. Figures 21-26 summarize the proposed station locations at the corridor-wide level, illustrating existing Route 6 ridership, planned station spacing, and connecting bus service. University & Berry University & Malcolm University & 27th Avenue University & 23rd Avenue University/4th Street & U of M Rec Center/Ridder Arena* University/4th Street & 15th Avenue* University/4th Street & 10th/11th Avenue* University/4th Street & 6th Avenue* University/4th Street & Central* Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE* Hennepin & Gateway* Hennepin & 3rd/4th Street* Hennepin & 5th Street* Hennepin & 7th/8th Street* Hennepin &10th/11th Street* Hennepin & Spruce/Laurel Hennepin & Groveland Hennepin & Franklin* Hennepin & 25th Street* Uptown Transit Station* Hennepin & 33rd Street* Hennepin & 36th Street* Richfield Rd & Bde Maka Ska South Sheridan & 39th Street Upton & 43rd Street 44th Street & Abbott France & 44th Street France & 47th Street France & 50th Street France & 54th Street France & 58th Street France & 62nd Street 65th Street & Fairview Southdale Hospital Southdale Transit Center * Denotes a station area that has been or will be developed in coordination with other projects led by partner agencies. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 26 Figure 21: Planned E Line stations and 2019 Route 6 ridership, northern section E Line Final Corridor Plan | 27 Figure 22: Planned E Line stations and 2019 Route 6 ridership, southern section E Line Final Corridor Plan | 28 Figure 23: Planned E Line stations and station spacing, northern section E Line Final Corridor Plan | 29 Figure 24: Planned E Line stations and station spacing, southern section E Line Final Corridor Plan | 30 Figure 25:Planned E Line stations and connecting bus routes, northern section E Line Final Corridor Plan | 31 Figure 26: Planned E Line stations and connecting bus routes, southern section E Line Final Corridor Plan | 32 University & Berry This station is the northern terminal for the E Line, and offers connections to Route 30, Route 33, Route 63, and the METRO Green Line. Proposed Station Location Changes based on draft plan feedback In the draft corridor plan, the northbound terminal platform at University & Berry was shown on University Avenue west of Emerald Street. The recommended platform location is now shown on Berry Street north of University Avenue. Minimal improvements will be made at this platform location, as it is the last northbound platform and will serve only people getting off the bus. This change will enable more convenient connections between the E Line and the METRO Green Line at Westgate Station and Route 30. Route 33 and Route 63 and support safer pedestrian access to the platform. This change aligns with public feedback and comments provided by agency partners. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 33 Existing University & Berry Station Area 0 100 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 34 Proposed University & Berry Station Plan 0 100 Scale (feet) 50 Northbound drop- off location Southbound boarding location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 35 University & Malcolm Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: University & 29th Avenue A single station at University & 29th Avenue was considered instead of the University & Malcolm and University & 27th Avenue stations. While a 29th Avenue would facilitate connections at the METRO Green Line Prospect Park Station, the next stop to the south would have been about 0.8 mile away, greater than the typical guidelines of about a half mile between stations. The E Line will make Green Line connections at Westgate and Stadium Village stations. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 36 Existing University & Malcolm Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 37 Proposed University & Malcolm Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 38 University & 27th Avenue Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: University & 29th A single station at University & 29th was considered instead of the University & Malcolm and University & 27th Avenue stations. While a 29th Avenue would facilitate connections at the METRO Green Line Prospect Park Station, the next stop to the south would have been about 0.8 mile away, greater than the typical guidelines of about a half mile between stations. The E Line will make Green Line connections at Westgate and Stadium Village stations. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 39 Existing University & 27th Avenue Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 40 Proposed University & 27th Avenue Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 41 University & 23rd Avenue This station offers connections to the METRO Green Line. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 42 Existing University & 23rd Avenue Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 43 Proposed University & 23rd Avenue Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 44 University/4th Street & U of M Rec. Center/Ridder Arena This station offers connections to Route 2, Route 121, Route 122, and Route 123. This is one of several stations being planned and designed in coordination with the University Avenue and 4th Street SE Roadway Improvements project led by Hennepin County, planned to begin construction in 2023. This project is considering design options for improving bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. The details of proposed station plans are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepin.us/universityandfourth Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 45 University/4th Street & 15th Avenue This station offers connections to Route 2, Route 3, Route 121, Route 122, and Route 123. This is one of several stations being planned and designed in coordination with the University Avenue and 4th Street SE Roadway Improvements project led by Hennepin County, planned to begin construction in 2023. This project is considering design options for improving bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. The details of proposed station plans are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepin.us/universityandfourth Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 46 University/4th Street & 10th/11th Avenue This station offers connections to Route 2, Route 122, and Route 123. This is one of several stations being planned and designed in coordination with the University Avenue and 4th Street SE Roadway Improvements project led by Hennepin County, planned to begin construction in 2023. This project is considering design options for improving bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. The details of proposed station plans are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepin.us/universityandfourth Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 47 University/4th Street & 6th Avenue This station offers connections to multiple commuter and express routes. This segment of University & 4th has been identified by the City of Minneapolis and MnDOT for the implementation of a protected bikeway. No project is currently identified for this segment; however, an E Line station is not intended to preclude the development of a future protected bikeway. Additional project coordination with the City and MnDOT during E Line engineering is needed to develop details for the proposed station plan at this location. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 48 University/4th Street & Central This station offers connections to Route 10, Route 17, Route 25, and multiple commuter and express routes. This station will also offer a connection to the future METRO F Line on Central Avenue. This segment of University & 4th has been identified by the City of Minneapolis and MnDOT for the implementation of a protected bikeway. No project is currently identified for this segment; however, an E Line station is not intended to preclude the development of a future protected bikeway. Additional project coordination with the City and MnDOT during E Line engineering is needed to develop details for the proposed station plan at this location. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 49 Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE This station offers connections to Route 4, Route 11, Route 61, Route 141, and Route 824. This station is being planned and designed in coordination with the Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue Roadway Improvements project led by Hennepin County, planned to begin construction in 2023 or 2024. This project is considering design options for improving bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. The details of proposed station plans are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepin.us/hennepin-and-first Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: Nicollet Island An alternative station location was considered at Nicollet Island. Based on surrounding land uses, population and employment density, and existing and potential ridership, the location at 2nd Street NE is recommended. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 50 Additional analysis based on draft plan feedback Based on public feedback received on the draft corridor plan, citing concerns about sidewalk width, traffic and bus operations, and parking and loading zone loss, additional locations for the southbound platform were analyzed at the following locations: • Baseline Location: 1st Ave NE and 2nd St NE farside • Alternative A: 1st Ave NE and 2nd St NE nearside • Alternative B: 1st Ave NE and University Ave farside • Alternative C: 1st Ave NE and University Ave nearside Figure 27: 1st Ave & 2nd Street NE southbound alternatives Alternative C on 1st Ave SE and University Ave nearside was not carried forward because the platform would conflict with the right turn lane northbound onto University Avenue. This is a high volume right turn lane that will remain in place with the Hennepin and 1st Roadway Improvement Project. Alternatives A and B were compared with the baseline platform location on additional factors shown in Table 1. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 51 Table 1: Additional analysis of 1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE southbound platform alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Orange = Undesirable Factor Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Safe pedestrian crossings Encourages crossing at intersection Encourages crossing at intersection Encourages crossing at intersection Access to destinations Balances access to commercial center with access to De La Salle High School Closer access to commercial center with longer distance from De La Salle High School Closer access to commercial center with longer distance from De La Salle High School Meets guidelines for station spacing Station between 1/4- 1/2 mile to previous station Station between 1/4- 1/2 mile to previous station Station closer than 1/4 mile to previous station Available effective right-of-way/ pedestrian space Space available to meet needed widths BRT platform, bicycle facility, and pedestrian space. Space not available to meet needed widths for BRT platform, bicycle facility, and pedestrian space. Space not available to meet needed widths for BRT platform, bicycle facility, and pedestrian space. Speed and reliability Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red light Nearside platform location at signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red light Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red light Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking and loading 0 parking spaces removed due to platform; existing loading zone may be accommodated on 2nd Street NE 0 spaces removed 0 spaces removed Storefront or residential visibility Limited potential effect on residential visibility Some potential effect on residential visibility Some potential effect on residential visibility Trees and other public amenities 2 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement No trees potentially disturbed, potential disruption to private landscaping No trees potentially disturbed, potential disruption to private landscaping Interference with right turn only lane onto Main Street No conflict. Right turn lane is removed in Hennepin/1st roadway plans No conflict. Right turn lane is removed in Hennepin/1st roadway plans No conflict. Right turn lane is removed in Hennepin/1st roadway plans Recommendation Retain platform in recommended plan Do not advance Do not advance The baseline location at 1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE provides the most balanced access to people and destinations in this part of the E Line corridor. Effective right-of-way and pedestrian space are limited on the block between 2nd Street NE and University Avenue. Siting the station on that block would result in substandard platform, bikeway, and pedestrian space behind the platform. Additionally, Alternatives A and B would result in greater E Line Final Corridor Plan | 52 potential visibility effects than the baseline, as the shelter and pylon would be placed closer to street- and garden-level residential entryways and frontage. Based on these considerations, no change is recommended to the platform location at this station. Additional feedback received on the recommended corridor plan 55 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this location, with 38 opposing and 17 supporting the proposed platform location at 1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE. In addition to the comments received via survey and email, letters of opposition were received from residents of the Village Lofts and Village Brownstones condominiums and the Nicollet Island East Bank Neighborhood Association. Metro Transit, City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County staff have met with residents of the Village Lofts and Village Brownstones condos to answer questions and discuss concerns with the proposed platform location throughout the corridor plan development process. Concerns raised at this location included pedestrian and bicycle safety, access for residents of the condos entering and existing the driveway, traffic operations and loading, and access to fire doors and fire water hookups. Metro Transit staff, along with staff from the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County have reviewed and responded to these concerns in detail. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 53 Hennepin & Gateway This station offers connections to Route 4, Route 6, Route 11, Route 61, and multiple commuter and express routes. This segment of Hennepin Avenue has been identified by the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County as a targeted corridor for the implementation of a protected bikeway. No project is currently identified for this segment; however, an E Line station is not intended to preclude the development of a future protected bikeway. Additional project coordination with the City and Hennepin County during E Line engineering is needed to develop details for the proposed station plan at this location. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 54 Hennepin Avenue Downtown Stations These stations offer connections to all downtown local and commuter and express routes. Planning and design of these stations has been coordinated with the Hennepin Avenue Downtown Reconstruction project led by the City of Minneapolis, currently under construction. This project is implementing a protected bikeway, improved pedestrian facilities, and BRT-ready enhanced transit stops. These locations will be upgraded to BRT stations with signage and station equipment when E Line service begins. Additional project details are available at: www.hennepindowntown.com/project-info/ E Line Final Corridor Plan | 55 Hennepin & Spruce/Laurel This station offers connections to Route 4, Route 6, and Route 141. The City of Minneapolis is leading two projects in this area: a pedestrian improvement project planned for 2022 construction and an upgraded Hennepin/Dunwoody Bikeway, planned for construction in 2024. The details of proposed E Line station platforms are being developed in coordination with these projects. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 56 Hennepin & Groveland This station offers connections to Route 4 and Route 25. Future design should consider options for minimizing conflicts between transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists at this location. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 57 Existing Hennepin & Groveland Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 58 Proposed Hennepin & Groveland Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 59 Hennepin & Franklin This station offers connections to Route 2. This is one of several stations within the Hennepin Avenue South Reconstruction project area. This project is being led by the City of Minneapolis and is planned to begin construction in 2024. This project is considering designs to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improve access to transit, and expand existing bus-only lanes. The details of proposed E Line station platforms are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.minneapolismn.gov/government/projects/hennepin-ave-s/ Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 60 Hennepin & 25th Street This station offers connections to Route 17. This is one of several stations within the Hennepin Avenue South Reconstruction project area. This project is being led by the City of Minneapolis and is planned to begin construction in 2024. This project is considering designs to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improve access to transit, and expand existing bus-only lanes. The details of proposed E Line station platforms are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.minneapolismn.gov/government/projects/hennepin-ave-s/ Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 61 Uptown Transit Station This station offers connections to Route 17, Route 21, Route 23, Route 612, and the planned METRO B Line. This is one of several stations within the Hennepin Avenue South Reconstruction project area. This project is being led by the City of Minneapolis and is planned to begin construction in 2024. This project is considering designs to improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improve access to transit, and expand existing bus-only lanes. The details of proposed E Line station platforms are being developed in coordination with this project. Additional project details are available at: www.minneapolismn.gov/government/projects/hennepin-ave-s/ Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 62 Hennepin & 33rd Street This station offers connections to Route 23. In 2018, Hennepin Avenue was rebuilt between Lake Street and 36th Street. Metro Transit worked with the City of Minneapolis to design bus stops at 33rd Street and 36th Street that would be large enough to accommodate future BRT platforms on the E Line. Adding a BRT station at Hennepin & 33rd Street will still require underground and surface-level construction, but the final layout of the street is not anticipated to significantly change from existing conditions. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 63 Hennepin & 36th Street This station offers connections to Route 23. In 2018, Hennepin Avenue was rebuilt between Lake Street and 36th Street. Metro Transit worked with the City of Minneapolis to design bus stops at 33rd Street and 36th Street that would be large enough to accommodate future BRT platforms on the E Line. Adding a BRT station at Hennepin & 36th Street will still require underground and surface-level construction, but the final layout of the street is not anticipated to significantly change from existing conditions. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 64 Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska South The City of Minneapolis plans to install sidewalks on Richfield Road in 2025, improving pedestrian safety and access to the station. Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: Richfield Road & Trolley Stop An alternative station location was considered at Richfield Road & Trolley Stop, at the location of the existing Route 6 bus stop. Due to the high potential for possible impacts to historical and archaeological resources in this area, this location is no longer under consideration. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 65 Existing Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska South Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 66 Proposed Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska South Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 Street design subject to change based on other planned projects including installation of sidewalk and improved pedestrian crossings. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 67 Sheridan & 39th Street Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: Richfield Rd & Bde Maka Ska Parkway An alternative station location was considered at Richfield Rd & Bde Maka Ska Parkway. However, this station location would provide significantly less neighborhood access to the E Line and serve fewer people and jobs. Additional analysis based on draft plan feedback In response to feedback, an additional location was analyzed for the northbound platform location on 39th Street east of Sheridan Avenue, around the corner from the recommended northbound platform. This site is narrow and widening the sidewalk with a bumpout is not feasible given that all street space is occupied by bike lanes and vehicle lanes. Siting the station on 39th would result in substandard platform width and constrained pedestrian space. For this reason, no change is recommended at this station location. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 68 Existing Sheridan & 39th Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 69 Proposed Sheridan & 39th Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 70 Upton & 43rd Street Proposed Station Location Changes based on draft plan feedback In the draft corridor plan, the southbound platform at Upton & 43rd Street was shown on the farside (southwest corner) of the intersection. The recommended southbound platform location is now shown on the nearside (northwest corner) of this intersection. No change is recommended to the northbound platform location. In conjunction with the E Line, the City of Minneapolis is considering implementing safety improvements at this intersection, including additional bumpouts. Metro Transit received 197 comments on this station location, 46% of the total station-specific comments on the draft corridor plan and significantly more than any other proposed station location. Of the comments received on this location, 87 (44%) opposed or requested changes to the proposed station, 94 (48%) supported the proposed station as shown, and 16 were neutral. Key themes in support included improved transit service and convenient access to the Linden Hills commercial district, improved customer waiting facilities, and improved speed and reliability of service. Key themes in opposition included concern about loss of on-street E Line Final Corridor Plan | 71 parking spaces, concern about the number of trees potentially disturbed, overall impacts on the character of the neighborhood, and bus and traffic operations. The change to the recommended southbound platform location will reduce the overall reduction in on-street parking at this location from 7-8 spaces to 3 spaces, reduce the number of trees potentially disturbed from 7-8 to 4, and reduce potential effects on storefront visibility while maintaining convenient access to the commercial center. There are approximately 260 on-street parking spaces within a 2-3-minute walk of Upton & 43rd Street. The three parking spaces affected by the E Line project as recommended in this plan is equal to about 1% of nearby on-street parking. There are also significant off-street parking resources in the Linden Hills area today. More information is included below on additional platform alternatives analyzed. Northbound platform • Baseline Location: Upton Ave and 43rd Street farside • Alternative A: 44th St and Upton Ave nearside • Alternative B: Upton Ave and 44th St farside • Alternative C: Upton Ave and 43rd St nearside • Alternative D: Sheridan Ave and 43rd/42nd St midblock Figure 28: Upton & 43rd Street northbound alternatives Northbound Alternatives A and B were not carried forward because platform construction is not feasible at these locations. The existing sidewalk and boulevard are too narrow to accommodate a platform within the existing curb line and expanding the platform with a bumpout is not feasible due to intersection constraints. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 72 Northbound Alternative D was not carried forward because of the steep uphill grade at this platform location. The remaining northbound Alternative C was compared with the baseline platform location on additional factors shown in Table 2. Table 2: Additional analysis of Upton & 43rd Avenue northbound platform alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Orange = Undesirable Factor Baseline Alternative C Safe pedestrian crossings Encourages crossing at intersection Encourages crossing at intersection Access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Meets guidelines for station spacing Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Available right-of- way Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space. Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space. Speed and reliability Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red light Nearside platform location at signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red light Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking 3 total on-street parking spaces removed including parking added at existing bus stop location to be closed 1-2 total on-street parking spaces removed Storefront or residential visibility No or limited potential effect on storefront visibility Some potential effect on storefront visibility (existing shelter location) Trees and other public amenities 4 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement Existing benches potentially removed; design will consider replacement 2-3 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement Recommendation Retain platform in recommended plan Do not advance Compared to the Baseline Location, Alternative C would likely have a greater effect on storefront visibility and would slightly worsen E Line speed and reliability. The Baseline Location and Alternative C are comparable on other concerns identified by station neighbors. Alternative C would likely remove one fewer parking space and disturb or remove one fewer existing tree. Potential sightline impacts on the driveway will be addressed during the design phase of the project. Based on these considerations, no change is recommended to the northbound platform location. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 73 Figure 29 and Figure 30 below a provide comparison between the existing condition and a rendering of the proposed BRT platform at the recommended location. Figure 29: Upton & 43rd Street recommended northbound platform location - existing Figure 30: Upton & 43rd Street recommended northbound platform location – proposed Concept rendering. Details are subject to change during design phase E Line Final Corridor Plan | 74 Southbound platform • Baseline Location: Upton Ave and 43rd St farside • Alternative A: Sheridan Ave and 43rd/42nd St midblock • Alternative B: Upton Ave and 43rd St nearside • Alternative C: Upton Ave and 44th St nearside Figure 31: Upton & 43rd Street southbound alternatives Southbound Alternative C was not carried forward because platform construction is not feasible at this location. The existing sidewalk and boulevard are too narrow to accommodate a platform within the existing curb line and expanding the sidewalk with a bumpout is not feasible due to intersection constraints. Additionally, there is a steep uphill grade at this platform location. The remaining southbound alternatives were compared with the baseline platform location on additional factors shown in Table 3. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 75 Table 3: Additional analysis of Upton & 43rd Street southbound platform alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Orange = Undesirable Factor Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Safe pedestrian crossings Encourages crossing at intersection Encourages mid-block crossing Encourages crossing at intersection Access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Station is offset from commercial center with less convenient access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Station spacing Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Available right-of-way Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform Would require significant regrading of boulevard space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Speed and reliability Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red light Midblock platform location preceding signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red light Nearside platform location at signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red light Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking 3-4 total parking spaces removed 0 total parking spaces removed 0 total parking spaces removed Storefront or residential visibility Some potential effect on storefront visibility No or limited potential effect on storefront visibility No or limited potential effect on storefront visibility Trees and other public amenities 3-4 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement 0 trees potentially disturbed 0 trees potentially disturbed Recommendation Acceptable location Do not advance Advance platform in recommended plan Alternatives A and B respond similarly on the concerns identified by station neighbors, having the same impact on on-street parking, storefront visibility, and trees and public amenities. Alternative A would encourage mid-block pedestrian crossings, require significant regrading and a new retaining wall to account for steep grades away from the roadway, and E Line Final Corridor Plan | 76 offer less convenient transit access to the Linden Hills commercial area. Each alternative would slightly worsen E Line speed and reliability compared to the baseline. While the Baseline Location remains an acceptable platform location, due to the better performance on concerns identified by station neighbors, Alternative B is recommended as the platform location to advance in the recommended corridor plan. Additional feedback received on the recommended corridor plan 53 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this location, with 17 opposing, 23 preferring the draft plan (southbound platform located on the farside of the intersection), and 9 supporting the platform location as shown. Key concerns raised at this location include concern about the removal of on street parking, loss of boulevard trees, traffic operations, and overall neighborhood character. Metro Transit staff have reviewed these concerns in detail and met with neighboring business owners and residents throughout the planning process to discuss these concerns and responses. The key concern for those preferring the draft plan location is to maintain the overall speed and reliability benefit of farside platforms for transit riders. The proposed platform locations balance the concerns raised at this location and reduces the overall impact on parking and boulevard trees, while maintaining overall E Line and transit network project goals. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 77 Figure 32 and Figure 33 below a provide comparison between the existing condition and a rendering of the proposed BRT platform at the recommended location. Figure 32: Upton & 43rd Street recommended southbound platform location - existing Figure 33: Upton & 43rd Street recommended northbound platform location - proposed Concept rendering. Details are subject to change during design phase E Line Final Corridor Plan | 78 Existing Upton & 43rd Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 79 Proposed Upton & 43rd Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 80 44th Street & Abbott Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: 44th St & Beard Ave Alternative station locations were considered at Beard Avenue. However, this location would be spaced too close to the planned station at France & 44th Street, making it less effective at providing neighborhood access to the E Line. Changes based on draft plan feedback In the draft corridor plan, the station on this segment was located at 44th Street and Zenith Avenue. The recommended station location is now at Abbott Avenue. Both northbound and southbound platforms at this location are located on the nearside of the intersection (on the northeast and southwest corners of the intersection). This change was identified as a formal request by the City of Minneapolis. It will provide more convenient transit access to the commercial area centered around Beard Avenue, while also providing better access to a new planned residential development on the southwest corner of 44th Street and Abbott. This plan revision locates the station nearer to increased residential density and is locally supported by the City of Minneapolis. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 81 Existing 44th Street & Abbott Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 82 Proposed 44th Street & Abbott Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 83 France & 44th Street France Avenue from 49th Street to Excelsior Blvd is planned to be restriped in 2023 by Hennepin County. On-street bike lanes are under consideration as part of this project and could affect the design of the northbound platform at this station location. Proposed Station Location Other station locations considered: France Ave & Sunnyside An alternative station location was considered at France Ave & Sunnyside. However, this location would be sited too close to the planned station at France Avenue & 47th and provide limited opportunity for siting E Line platform locations that meet minimum space requirements for shelter and boarding areas. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 84 Existing France & 44th Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 85 Proposed France & 44th Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 86 France & 47th Street This station is located at France & 47th Street primarily to provide safe and convenient service to students and staff of Southwest High School. This intersection has been identified as a suitable location for pedestrian safety improvements by Hennepin County, currently planned to be implemented in 2024 with the E Line Project. France Avenue from 49th Street to Excelsior Blvd is planned to be repaved in 2023 by Hennepin County. As part of the pavement work, Hennepin County is exploring potential changes to the existing configuration along France Avenue, including the introduction of dedicated facilities for people biking. At this time, the county's upcoming repaving project is not anticipated to negatively impact the design of platforms at this station location. Proposed Station Location Additional analysis based on draft plan feedback Based on public feedback received on the draft corridor plan, citing concerns about the potential effects on residential visibility, bus and traffic operations, and loss of on street parking, additional alternatives for the northbound and southbound platform were analyzed. More information is included below. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 87 Northbound platform: Additional alternatives for the northbound platform location were analyzed at the following locations: • Baseline Location: France Avenue and 47th Street nearside • Alternative A: France Avenue and 46th Street nearside • Alternative B: France Avenue and 46th Street farside Figure 34: France & 47th Street northbound alternatives These alternatives were compared with the baseline platform location on the factors shown in Table 4. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 88 Table 4: Additional analysis of France & 47th Street northbound platform alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Orange = Undesirable Factor Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Safe pedestrian crossings Platform is coordinated with upcoming 47th Street Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project Encourages crossing at uncontrolled intersection Encourages crossing at uncontrolled intersection Traffic operations Potential impact to 47th street sightlines Traffic analysis shows no added delays or queueing due to BRT Potential impact to 46th street sightlines No impact to cross street sightlines Access to destinations Station serves primary stop location for Southwest High School students Station is not at primary stop location for Southwest High School students Station is not at primary stop location for Southwest High School students Station spacing Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station closer than 1/4 mile to previous station Station closer than 1/4 mile to previous station Available right-of-way Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Speed and reliability Platform location at future pedestrian activated intersection, no impact on speed and reliability Platform location at uncontrolled intersection, no impact on speed and reliability Platform location at uncontrolled intersection, no impact on speed and reliability Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking 0 total parking spaces removed 0 total parking spaces removed 1-2 total parking spaces removed including parking added at existing bus stop location to be closed Residential visibility Some potential effect on residential visibility Some potential effect on residential visibility Some potential effect on residential visibility Recommendation Retain platform in recommended plan Do not advance Do not advance Compared to the Baseline Location, Alternatives A and B will encourage pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled intersection, provide less convenient access for Southwest High School students, and be too close to the France & 44th Street station. Each location has some potential effect on visibility in front of residential or store frontage. Alternative B would remove 1-2 total on-street parking spaces. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 89 47th Street will have an improved pedestrian crossing following the completion of the 47th Street Pedestrian Improvement Project planned in coordination with Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of Edina. Shifting the platform location away from the Baseline Location would preclude the possibility of coordinating station and safety improvements together with the 47th Street Pedestrian Improvement Project. Based on these considerations, no change is recommended at this location. Southbound platform: An additional alternative for the southbound platform location was analyzed at the following location: • Baseline Location: France Avenue and 47th Street farside • Alternative A: France Avenue and 46th Street farside (T intersection) Figure 35: France & 47th Street southbound alternatives This alternative was compared with the baseline platform locations on the factors shown in Table 5. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 90 Table 5: Additional analysis of France & 47th Street southbound platform alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Factor Baseline Alternative A Safe pedestrian crossings Platform is coordinated with upcoming 47th Street Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project Encourages crossing at uncontrolled intersection Traffic operations Traffic analysis shows no added delays or queueing due to BRT No change anticipated from baseline Access to destinations Station serves primary stop location for Southwest High School students Station is not at primary stop location for Southwest High School students Station spacing Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station closer than 1/4 mile to previous station Available right-of-way Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Speed and reliability Platform location at future pedestrian activated intersection, no impact on speed and reliability Platform location at uncontrolled intersection, no impact on speed and reliability Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking 0 total parking spaces removed; no parking allowed at location 0 total parking spaces removed; no parking allowed at location Residential visibility No or limited potential effect on residential visibility No or limited potential effect on residential visibility Recommendation Retain platform in recommended plan Do not advance Compared to the Baseline Location, Alternative A will encourage pedestrian crossing at an uncontrolled intersection provide less convenient access for Southwest High School students, and be too close to the France & 44th Street station. Each location has no reduction in on- street parking and a similar effect on visibility in front of residential or store frontage. 47th Street will have an improved pedestrian crossing following the completion of the 47th Street Pedestrian Improvement Project done in coordination with Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of Edina. Shifting the platform location away from the Baseline Location would preclude the possibility of coordinating with the 47th Street Pedestrian Improvement Project. Based on these considerations, no change is recommended at this location. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 91 Existing France & 47th Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 92 Proposed France & 47th Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 93 France & 50th Street Proposed Station Location Additional analysis based on draft plan feedback Based on public feedback received on the draft corridor plan, citing concerns about the potential loss of parking, bus and traffic operations, potential effects on storefront or residential visibility and potential loss of boulevard trees, additional alternatives for the northbound and southbound platform were analyzed. Following review, no changes are made to the recommended platform locations. More information is included below. Northbound platform: Additional alternatives for the northbound platform location were analyzed at the following locations: • Baseline Alternative: France Avenue and 50th Street farside • Alternative A: France Avenue and 51st Street nearside • Alternative B: France Avenue and 51st Street farside • Alternative C: France Avenue and 50th Street nearside E Line Final Corridor Plan | 94 Figure 36: France & 50th Street northbound platform alternatives These alternatives were compared with the baseline platform location on the factors shown in Table 6. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 95 Table 6: Additional analysis of France & 50th Street northbound platform alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Orange = Undesirable Factor Baseline Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Safe pedestrian crossings Encourages crossing at controlled intersection Encourages crossing at controlled intersection Encourages crossing at controlled intersection Encourages crossing at controlled intersection Traffic operations Traffic analysis shows no added delays or queues due to BRT No anticipated change from baseline No anticipated change from baseline Bus and platform would block right turning traffic Access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Station is offset from commercial center with less convenient access to destinations Station is offset from commercial center with less convenient access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Station spacing Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Available right-of-way Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Speed and reliability Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red Nearside platform location at signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red Nearside platform location at signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking 1-2 total on-street parking spaces removed including parking added at existing bus stop location to be closed 0 total parking spaces removed 1 total on-street parking space removed including parking added at existing bus stop location to be closed 0 total parking spaces removed Storefront or residential visibility No or limited potential effect on storefront visibility Some potential effect on storefront visibility Some potential effect on storefront visibility Some potential effect on storefront visibility Trees and other public amenities 2 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement 2 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement 2 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement 3 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement Recommendation Retain platform in recommended plan Do not advance Do not advance Do not advance E Line Final Corridor Plan | 96 Compared to the Baseline Location, the additional alternatives analyzed provide less convenient access to destinations across the 50th & France district and reduced speed and reliability improvements. Each alternative has similar potential to disturb existing boulevard trees and the Baseline Location has the least potential impact on storefront visibility. The potential reduction in parking is similar across all alternatives, with the Baseline Location limited to 1-2 parking spaces removed. Based on these considerations, no change is recommended to the northbound platform location. Southbound platform: • Baseline Alternative: France Avenue and 50th Street farside • Alternative A: France Avenue and 50th Street nearside • Alternative B: France Avenue and 51st Street nearside Figure 37: France & 50th Street southbound alternatives Southbound Alternative A on France Avenue and 50th Street nearside was not carried forward because platform construction is not feasible without reducing the intersection to a single southbound lane and eliminating the left-turn lane onto eastbound 50th Street. The remaining alternatives were compared with the baseline platform location on the additional factors shown in Table 7. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 97 Table 7: Additional analysis of France & 50th Street southbound alternatives Key to symbols Green = Preferred Yellow = Not Preferred Orange = Undesirable Factor Baseline Alternative B Safe pedestrian crossings Encourages crossing at controlled intersection Encourages crossing at controlled intersection Traffic operations Traffic analysis shows no added delays or queues due to BRT No change anticipated from baseline Access to destinations Station serves commercial center directly with convenient access to destinations Station is offset from commercial center with less convenient access to destinations Station spacing Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Station between 1/4-1/2 mile to neighboring stations Available right-of-way Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Right-of-way available for standard BRT platform and pedestrian space Speed and reliability Farside platform location at signalized intersection reduces likelihood of stopping at red Nearside platform location at signalized intersection increases likelihood of stopping at red Concerns identified by station neighbors On-street parking 0-2 total on-street parking spaces removed 0 total parking spaces removed Storefront or residential visibility No or limited potential effect on storefront visibility No or limited potential effect on storefront visibility Trees and other public amenities 3 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement 3 trees potentially disturbed; design will consider preservation and/or replacement Recommendation Retain platform in recommended plan Do not advance Compared with the Baseline Location, Alternative B has a similar potential effect on trees and other potential amenities and storefront visibility. While Alternative B will remove 0 total parking spaces, the Baseline Location is limited to 0-2 spaces, with the final count to be determined in the design phase of the project. There are about 260 on-street parking spaces within 1/8 mile (a 2–3-minute walk or roll) of France and 50th; the E Line will affect between 1-2% of these. Additionally, there is significant off-street parking available in the business district, with over 1,000 free stalls available in ramps and surface lots, in addition to other significant off-street parking resources. The E Line will significantly enhance transit access to the 50th & France district without impacting parking supply. Alternative B provides less convenient access to destinations across the 50th & France district and reduced speed and reliability improvements. Based on these considerations, no change is recommended to the northbound platform location. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 98 Additional feedback on the recommended corridor plan 18 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this station location. 16 comments were received opposing the proposed location, and 2 were received supporting the plan as shown. In addition to comments received, Metro Transit received letters opposing the recommended plan location from the 50th & France Business Association and the France Avenue Condo Association. Metro Transit staff have met with the 50th & France Business Association throughout the planning process to discuss and respond to the concerns raised at this location. Key concerns raised at this location include the visual impact of platform locations near retail windows and storefronts and the potential impact of the E Line on traffic operations. Stakeholders at this location have requested that the station be moved to 51st Street. The City of Edina has submitted a formal letter to Metro Transit supporting the E Line Corridor Plan except for this location. Based on the concerns raised by stakeholders at this location, the City requests the station be moved to 51st Street. The City of Minneapolis has submitted an overall letter of support for the E Line project, which includes the recommendation at France & 50th Street. The E Line project has completed traffic analysis at this location showing no significant impact to traffic operations due to the E Line. E Line platforms at this location will use curb bumpouts to ensure space for BRT shelters and amenities while preserving pedestrian space behind the shelter, ensuring convenient and clear visibility and access to retail storefronts and display windows. E Line shelters at this location will be the smallest BRT-style shelter, approximately the size as the current shelter at the northbound local bus stop in this intersection. Additionally, retaining the station location at 50th Street ensures convenient access to the entire commercial district and maintains adequate transfer connections to Route 46, operating on 50th Street. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 99 Existing France & 50th Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 100 Proposed France & 50th Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 101 France & 54th Street Proposed Station Location Feedback received on the recommended corridor plan 36 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this location, with 33 opposing the plan and 2 supporting the plan as shown. The key concern raised at this location was the potential impact of the E Line on traffic operations at this intersection. Feedback requested that the platforms be moved to the farside quadrants of the intersection to avoid impacting right turn movements. The E Line project has completed traffic analysis at this location showing no significant impact to traffic operations due to the E Line. Additionally, site constraints prevent locating platforms on the farside of the intersection in both directions, which is the typically preferred platform configuration. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 102 Existing France & 54th Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 103 Proposed France & 54th Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 104 France & 58th Street Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 105 Existing France & 58th Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 106 Proposed France & 58th Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 107 France & 62nd Street Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 108 Existing France & 62nd Street Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 109 Proposed France & 62nd Street Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 110 65th Street & Fairview Southdale Hospital Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 111 Existing 65th Street & Fairview Southdale Hospital Station Area 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 112 Proposed 65th Street & Fairview Southdale Hospital Station Plan 0 Scale (feet) 50 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 113 Southdale Transit Center This station is the southern terminal for the E Line and offers connections to many local and express bus routes. Proposed Station Location E Line Final Corridor Plan | 114 VI. Bus Priority Treatments How can the E Line move people faster? Providing faster, more reliable transit service is a key goal for the E Line project. Under existing conditions, Route 6 buses regularly slow to average speeds below 9 miles per hour during rush hour. Frequent stops, lines of customers waiting to board, and red lights mean that buses are moving less than half the time. Inconsistent travel times and schedule variability means that customers have a hard time planning on the bus and are stuck waiting for late buses. Through a number of planned improvements across the corridor, the E Line is intended to operate about 20 percent faster or better than the existing Route 6. Standard Arterial BRT Features The E Line will include a core set of features that will help buses run faster and arrive on time. Limited stops Arterial BRT stations are spaced approximately every half mile, focusing on places where the greatest numbers of customers board buses today. Buses can travel significantly faster with more distance between stations, while also allowing for most customers to conveniently walk or roll to stations. Platform placement Platforms located on the farside of signalized intersections where feasible allow the bus to move through the intersection before stopping to pick up and drop off passengers, reducing the likelihood of stopping at a red light. Curb bumpouts Today, many existing local bus stops are located out of a thru-lane of traffic in right-turn lanes or in a curbside parking lane, causing delay for buses merging back into traffic. Curb bumpouts at station platforms where feasible eliminate delay-inducing merging movements by allowing the bus to stop in the through lane. Off-board fare payment and all-door boarding Off-board fare payment speeds up the boarding process and significantly decreases dwell time at stations while customers get on the bus. Because fares are paid at the platform, customers can board any of three doors rather than standing in line to pay their fare at the front door. Transit signal priority Transit signal priority (TSP) helps buses more consistently move through intersections by reducing the frequency and time spent stopping at red lights, a substantial source of delay. Buses alert the traffic signal as they approach to extend green time, allowing the bus to get through the intersection. Updating timing of traffic signals to provide more time with a green light for all vehicles is also a tool that can speed transit operations. TSP is a standard arterial BRT improvement and is assumed to be included at most signalized intersections along the E Line corridor. Metro Transit intends to work with its partners to implement TSP as part of the E Line project. Signals along the corridor will be evaluated and considered during the design phase of the project for implementation. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 115 Queue jump signals Queue jump signals allow the bus to bypass stopped vehicles at signalized intersections by providing the bus a dedicated green light ahead of the green for general traffic. The bus is able to get ahead of traffic by moving from a dedicated lane or shared right-turn and transit lane. Queue jump signals should be considered for implementation at intersections with existing space on the right side of the roadway available for the bus to approach the intersection, either from a dedicated transit lane or a shared right-turn lane, and move back into general purpose traffic from the intersection. Metro Transit intends to work with its partners to explore queue jumps as part of the E Line project. As E Line design details are developed, intersections along the corridor will be evaluated for queue jump implementation. Bus-Only Lanes Bus only lanes provide dedicated space for buses to operate out of general-purpose traffic, either all day or part of the day. Bus-only lanes can provide a significant improvement to the speed and reliability of service, as getting stuck in traffic is one of the primary sources for delay for buses. Bus-only lanes implemented on Hennepin Avenue (see Figure 38) have been proven to improve bus speeds and significantly reduce variability. These improvements can make sure that transit customers can count on the bus to arrive when they expect it to and to get them to their destination on time. The following section outlines Metro Transit priorities for implementation of bus-only lanes along the E Line corridor. Some of these improvements are being considered in coordination with other street projects, and others may potentially be implemented through Metro Transit’s Speed & Reliability program, independent of planned E Line construction in 2024- 2025. Figure 38: Bus-only lane on Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis E Line Final Corridor Plan | 116 Segments analyzed for bus-only lanes Metro Transit has analyzed multiple segments along the E Line corridor to better understand where delays to buses and passengers are occurring and identify candidates for implementation of bus-only lanes to reduce delays and improve service. In addition to the E Line, each segment considered would benefit several other local bus routes and delays to those routes are included in this analysis. The roadway segments are listed below and shown in Figure 39. These segments were considered because they represent the core portion of the E Line where speed and reliability challenges and passenger delays are greatest. • University Avenue and 4th Street SE from Oak Street to 1st Avenue NE • Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue NE from Main Street to 8th Street SE • Hennepin Avenue Bridge from Main Street to 1st Street N • Hennepin Avenue downtown from Washington Avenue to 12th Street • Hennepin/Lyndale Avenues from 12th Street to Douglas Avenue • Hennepin Avenue from Douglas Avenue to Franklin Avenue • Hennepin Avenue from Franklin to Lake Street Figure 39: Segments analyzed for bus-only lanes E Line Final Corridor Plan | 117 Analysis results These segments were analyzed based on vehicle and passenger delays occurring in the segments. The analysis considered the following factors: • Passenger delay: The total amount of time in hours on average per day passengers spent stopped or moving slower than free-flow speed. • Passenger delay per mile: Passenger delay shown on a per mile basis to compare across segments of different length. • Delay variability: A comparison of the average deviation of delay to the average of total daily delay. Higher deviation relative to the average total daily delay means unpredictable service for riders. • Passenger throughput: The average number of passengers per day riding through or getting on or off within the segment. E Line Final Corridor Plan | 118 University Avenue and 4th Street SE from Oak Street to 1st Avenue NE Passenger delay on the segments of University Avenue and 4th Street SE from Oak Street to 1st Avenue NE is evenly distributed across the length of each segment, with some concentration of delays occurring on each segment near the access ramps to I-35W and around the University of Minnesota (See Figure 40 and Figure 41). Some delay is concentrated on 4th Street SE near Central Avenue. Overall, passenger and vehicle delays on these segments are moderate, due in part to more lower passenger throughput than other segments considered. While these segments have moderate average delay, delay on these segments is highly variable, meaning it is difficult to predict the travel time and arrival time of buses through these segments. There are two planned roadway improvement projects led by partner agencies along these segments. • The University Avenue and 4th Street SE roadway improvement project includes the segments from Oak Street to I-35W and is led by Hennepin County. Construction is planned in 2023 and will include improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. Bus-only lanes were not included for detailed consideration as part of this project. • The segment of University Avenue and 4th Street SE from I-35W to Central Avenue has been identified by the City of Minneapolis and MnDOT for the implementation of a protected bikeway. No project is currently underway for this segment; however, additional coordination with the City and MnDOT will continue as a project is established. Figure 40: Delay analysis - 4th Street SE from Oak to 1st Avenue NE Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 163 Passenger Delay per mile 93.3 Delay Variability (%) 16 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 2,400 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 119 Figure 41: Delay analysis - University Avenue from 1st Avenue NE to Oak Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 120 Passenger Delay per mile 70.4 Delay Variability (%) 16 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 2,800 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 120 Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue NE from Main Street to 8th Street SE Vehicle and passenger delay on Hennepin and 1st Avenues from Main Street to 8th Street SE are moderate to high (see Figure 42). Delays are evenly distributed across the segment, with highest concentrations of delay on Hennepin between Main Street and 4th Street SE. Passenger volumes in this segment are high, about 4,500 riders per day, due to multiple high-ridership routes. Variability of delay is also high in this segment, leading to inconsistent travel times and unreliable service. Hennepin County is leading the Hennepin and 1st Avenue NE Roadway improvement project in this segment from Main Street to 8th Street SE. Construction is planned for 2024 and will include improvements to bike and pedestrian facilities and access to transit. Bus-only lanes are under consideration for this segment in coordination with that project. Figure 42: Delay analysis - Hennepin and 1st Avenue from Main St to 8th St Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 219 Passenger Delay per mile 190.9 Delay Variability (%) 13 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 4,500 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 121 Hennepin Avenue Bridge from Main Street to 1st Street N The segment along the Hennepin Avenue Bridge from Main Street to 1st Street N in downtown has moderate passenger and vehicle delay throughout the segment, with no significant points of concentration (see Figure 43). Passenger delay on a per mile basis is moderately high. Passenger throughput on this segment is moderately high, with about 3,800 riders per day on average. Figure 43: Delay analysis - Hennepin Avenue Bridge from Main St to 1st St N Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 160 Passenger Delay per mile 119.3 Delay Variability (%) 11 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 3,800 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 122 Hennepin Avenue downtown from Washington Avenue to 12th Street Delays on the segment of Hennepin Avenue downtown from Washington Avenue to 12th Street are very high (see Figure 44) Delay is distributed evenly across the segment, with relatively high delays throughout. Delays in this segment occur in both directions. Delay variability on this segment is low, meaning delays are consistently occurring. As a major destination and transit corridor, many high-ridership routes operate on this segment of Hennepin Avenue, leading to a very high passenger throughput. About 11,500 riders per day move through this segment. The City of Minneapolis is leading the Hennepin Avenue Downtown Reconstruction project on this segment, from 12th Street to Washington Avenue. This project includes improvements to pedestrian facilities and protected bikeways, as well as enhanced transit stops that will be used by the E Line. Construction is planned to be complete in 2022. The recent redesign of this street did not include bus-only lanes. The City of Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan includes a goal to evaluate bus-only lanes in this segment. Figure 44: Delay analysis - Hennepin downtown from Washington to 12th St Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 548 Passenger Delay per mile 727.0 Delay Variability (%) 8 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 11,500 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 123 Hennepin/Lyndale Avenues from 12th Street to Douglas Avenue The segment of Hennepin/Lyndale Avenues from 12th Street to Douglas Avenue experiences significant passenger and vehicle delays (See Figure 45). About 448 hours of passenger delay per day occur on this segment, with about 7,000 riders per day moving through. Passenger delay on this segment is high throughout but is concentrated between 12th Street and Maple Street and along Hennepin Avenue from Maple Street to Vineland Place. Delay is distributed evenly in both directions. Metro Transit and the City of Minneapolis plan to evaluate the potential for a bus-only lane and/or other transit advantages on Hennepin Avenue between Franklin Avenue and 12th Street South in 2022–2023. Figure 45: Delay analysis - Hennepin/Lyndale from 12th St to Douglas Ave Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 448 Passenger Delay per mile 364.2 Delay Variability (%) 9 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 7,000 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 124 Hennepin Avenue from Douglas Avenue to Franklin Avenue Passenger and vehicle delay in the segment of Hennepin Avenue from Douglas Avenue to Franklin Avenue is moderate (see Figure 46). Delay in this segment is highly variable, making it difficult to predict travel times and plan trips around bus service. Delay is evenly distributed in both directions, rather than concentrated in a single direction. Passenger throughput on this segment is high, with about 4,100 riders per day moving through this segment on transit. The southbound portion of this segment on Hennepin Avenue from Douglas Avenue to Franklin Avenue is included in the Hennepin South Reconstruction Project, led by the City of Minneapolis. That project is planned to include improvements to pedestrian and bike facilities and enhanced transit stops which will be used by the E Line. Bus-only lanes are included as a core component of that project. Metro Transit and the City of Minneapolis plan to evaluate the potential for a bus-only lane and/or other transit advantages on Hennepin Avenue between Franklin Avenue and 12th Street South in 2022–2023, including the northbound portion of this segment. Figure 46: Delay analysis - Hennepin from Douglas Ave to Franklin Ave Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 125 Passenger Delay per mile 196.0 Delay Variability (%) 13 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 4,100 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 125 Hennepin Avenue from Franklin to Lake Street Passenger and vehicle delay on the segment of Hennepin Avenue from Franklin Avenue to Lake Street is very high (see Figure 47). About 540 hours of passenger delay on average occur on this corridor per day. High delays are evenly distributed throughout the corridor, with a concentration on northbound Hennepin Avenue following 22nd Street. Delay is moderately variable in the segment, leading to inconsistent travel times and bus arrival times. Delay is occurring evenly in both northbound and southbound directions. This segment is included in the Hennepin South Reconstruction Project, led by the City of Minneapolis. That project is planned to include improvements to pedestrian and bike facilities and enhanced transit stops which will be used by the E Line. Bus-only lanes are included as a core component of that project for the majority of this segment. Figure 47: Delay analysis - Hennepin from Franklin Ave to Lake St Factor Value Passenger Delay (Hrs.) 540 Passenger Delay per mile 505.6 Delay Variability (%) 12 Passenger Throughput (Rides) 7,200 E Line Final Corridor Plan | 126 Priority segments for bus-only lanes Based on the results of the analysis, segments are grouped into two categories: Segments to implement in the near term and segments to consider for future implementation in the longer-term. See Figure 48 for a map of the priority segments. Near-term priorities Near-term priorities include segments that are recommended to be implemented or considered for implementation independent of the E Line project, through Metro Transit’s Speed & Reliability program or in conjunction with a coordinated roadway project led by partner agencies. Priorities for bus-only lanes already under consideration through other projects: • Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue NE from Main Street to 8th Street SE (under consideration for 2023-2024 implementation in Hennepin/1st NE Roadway Improvements Project) • Hennepin Avenue from Franklin to Lake Street (under consideration for 2024-2025 implementation in Hennepin South reconstruction) Priorities for bus-only lane implementation independent of E Line construction through Metro Transit’s Speed & Reliability program: • Hennepin Avenue Bridge from Main Street to 1st Street N • Hennepin/Lyndale Avenues from 12th Street to Douglas Avenue • Hennepin Avenue from Douglas Avenue to Franklin Avenue These segments tend to have high passenger and vehicle delays and passenger throughput, meaning implementing bus-only lanes on these segments would maximize the speed and reliability improvement in areas where the most people would benefit. Implementing bus- only lanes on these segments would result in a significant improvement to the efficiency and overall mobility in these segments. Reducing delays experienced on this corridor will result in travel time savings, improved speed and reliability of service, and potential ridership growth and mode shift as transit becomes an even more convenient and reliable travel option on this corridor. Consider for future implementation Segments to consider for future implementation in the longer-term are segments that tend to have lower passenger delays throughout the corridor and/or lower person throughput or are on streets that have been recently redesigned without bus lanes. They are corridors that should be considered for future study in partnership with roadway authorities, but may not be immediate priorities for implementation with the E Line project. Segments identified to consider for future implementation include: • Hennepin Avenue downtown from Washington Avenue to 12th Street • University Avenue from 1st Avenue NE to Oak Street • 4th Street SE from Oak Street to 1st Avenue NE As noted above, bus-only lanes are not ruled out in these segments, and they remain good candidates for bus-only lanes. Metro Transit will continue working closely with project E Line Final Corridor Plan | 127 partners and roadway authorities to coordinate, evaluate, and plan the implementation of bus priority treatments within the E Line corridor. Figure 48: Priority segments for bus only lanes E Line Final Corridor Plan | A1 Appendix A: Corridor Plan Comment Summary Metro Transit staff engaged riders and community members around the E Line Corridor Plan for public feedback in two phases. • Feedback was collected on the draft corridor plan in fall 2021, with a public comment period held September 20—October 31, 2021. • Feedback was collected on the recommended corridor plan in spring 2022, with a public comment period held March 9—April 8, 2022. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, most engagement was conducted virtually. Individual station plans were available to view online, and an online comment survey form and project email address were available for the public to submit comments. Plan release was communicated via print and digital communications including postcards, flyers at bus stops and on buses, limited in-person conversations, partnerships and meetings with community organizations and neighborhood groups, shared promotion by partner agencies, emails to subscribers and Rider Alerts, and targeted social media posts. The survey included two primary questions, intended to solicit feedback on individual station locations and the overall corridor plan. These questions are listed below: • What are your comments about the proposed station plan at this location (for example: location of station or platform placement at the intersection)? [Select stations from dropdown menu] • What are your general comments about the E Line corridor plan? On the draft corridor plan, Metro Transit received 567 individual survey responses and emails providing feedback, as well as letters of opposition from neighboring business owners and residents at two station locations. On the recommended corridor plan, an additional 359 individual survey responses and emails were received, along with letters of opposition at two additional station locations and a letter of support for bus only lanes along 4th Street and University Avenue. Comment Summary Recommended Corridor Plan Metro Transit received 359 individual survey responses and emails providing feedback on the recommended corridor plan. Individual survey responses and emails often included comments on the plan in general and comments specific to a single station. The distribution of comments based on sentiment is shown in the graph below. E Line Final Corridor Plan | A2 Figure 49: Recommended corridor plan comment sentiment Most comments received on the recommended corridor plan in overall were in support of the plan as shown. 189 out of 284 (67%) comments received on the overall plan were in support of the plan as shown and 55 (19%) comments received requested changes or opposed the plan altogether. Comments on specific station locations might identify specific features of a proposed station location for support or opposition, suggest alternative locations, or raise specific concerns about a particular platform location. 93 out of 302 (31%) comments received on specific station locations were in support of the plan as shown and 149 (49%) comments requested changes or opposed the plan. An additional 23 comments (8%) preferred the draft plan. These comments were all in reference to the Upton & 43rd Street station and will be discussed in more detail below. The distribution of comments varies by individual station location. Stations receiving 10 or more comments are shown on the graph below. 93 189 37 40 149 55 23 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Station-specific comments Comments on the overall plan Preferred draft plan Oppose or request changes Neutral Support as shown E Line Final Corridor Plan | A3 Figure 50: Recommended corridor plan comment sentiment; stations receiving 10 or more comments In addition to survey and email responses, Metro Transit received letters opposing platform locations at two stations: • 1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE: Letters opposing the recommended platform location were received from residents of the Village Lofts and Village Brownstones condominiums and the Nicollet Island East Bank Neighborhood Association. • France Avenue & 50th Street: Letters opposing the station location at this intersection were received from the 50th & France Business Association and residents of the France Avenue Condo Association. Detailed discussion of high-interest station locations is included below. Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE 55 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this location, with 38 opposing and 17 supporting the proposed platform location at 1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE. In addition to the comments received via survey and email, letters of opposition were 8 5 16 33 17 38 23 4 4 1 4 1 6 2 2 9 17 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 France & 58th Street France & 44th Street France & 50th Street France & 54th Street Upton & 43rd Street Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE Oppose or request changes Preferred draft plan Neutral Support as shown E Line Final Corridor Plan | A4 received from residents of the Village Lofts and Village Brownstones condominiums and the Nicollet Island East Bank Neighborhood Association. Metro Transit, City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County staff have met with residents of the Village Lofts and Village Brownstones condos to answer questions and discuss concerns with the proposed platform location throughout the corridor plan development process. Concerns raised at this location included pedestrian and bicycle safety, access for residents of the condos entering and existing the driveway, traffic operations and loading, and access to fire doors and fire water hookups. Metro Transit staff, along with staff from the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County have reviewed and responded to these concerns in detail. Upton & 43rd Street 53 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this location, with 17 opposing, 23 preferring the draft plan (southbound platform located on the farside of the intersection), and 9 supporting the platform location as shown. Key concerns raised at this location include concern about the removal of on street parking, loss of boulevard trees, traffic operations, and overall neighborhood character. Metro Transit staff have reviewed these concerns in detail and met with neighboring business owners and residents throughout the planning process to discuss these concerns and responses. The key concern for those preferring the draft plan location is to maintain the overall speed and reliability benefit of farside platforms for transit riders. The proposed platform locations balance the concerns raised at this location and reduces the overall impact on parking and boulevard trees, while maintaining overall E Line and transit network project goals. France & 54th Street 36 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this location, with 33 opposing the plan and 2 supporting the plan as shown. The key concern raised at this location was the potential impact of the E Line on traffic operations at this intersection. Feedback requested that the platforms be moved to the farside quadrants of the intersection to avoid impacting right turn movements. The E Line project has completed traffic analysis at this location showing no significant impact to traffic operations due to the E Line. Additionally, site constraints prevent locating platforms on the farside of the intersection in both directions, which is the typically preferred platform configuration. France & 50th Street 18 total comments were received on the recommended plan at this station location. 16 comments were received opposing the proposed location, and 2 were received supporting the plan as shown. In addition to comments received, Metro Transit received letters opposing the recommended plan location from the 50th & France Business Association and the France Avenue Condo Association. Metro Transit staff have met with the 50th & France Business Association throughout the planning process to discuss and respond to the concerns raised at this location. E Line Final Corridor Plan | A5 Key concerns raised at this location include the visual impact of platform locations near retail windows and storefronts and the potential impact of the E Line on traffic operations. Stakeholders at this location have requested that the station be moved to 51st Street. The City of Edina has submitted a formal letter to Metro Transit supporting the E Line Corridor Plan except for this location. Based on the concerns raised by stakeholders at this location, the City requests the station be moved to 51st Street. The City of Minneapolis has submitted an overall letter of support for the E Line project, which includes the recommendation at France & 50th Street. The E Line project has completed traffic analysis at this location showing no significant impact to traffic operations due to the E Line. E Line platforms at this location will use curb bumpouts to ensure space for BRT shelters and amenities while preserving pedestrian space behind the shelter, ensuring convenient and clear visibility and access to retail storefronts and display windows. E Line shelters at this location will be the smallest BRT-style shelter, approximately the size as the current shelter at the northbound local bus stop in this intersection. Additionally, retaining the station location at 50th Street ensures convenient access to the entire commercial district and maintains adequate transfer connections to Route 46, operating on 50th Street. Draft Corridor Plan Metro Transit received 567 individual survey responses and emails providing feedback on the draft corridor plan. Individual survey responses and emails often included comments on the plan in general and comments specific to a single station. The distribution of comments based on sentiment is shown in the graph below. Figure 51: Draft corridor plan comment sentiment 248 295 50 51 194 90 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Station-specific comments Comments on the overall plan Oppose or request changes Neutral Support as shown E Line Final Corridor Plan | A6 Most comments received on the Draft Corridor Plan in general were in support of the plan as shown. Comments on the overall plan typically refer to the alignment, corridor-wide features like bus-only lanes, or general support or opposition. 295 out of 436 (68%) comments received on the overall plan were in support of the plan as shown and 90 (21%) comments received requested changes or opposed the plan altogether. Comments on specific station locations might identify specific features of a proposed station location for support or opposition, suggest alternative locations, or raise specific concerns about a particular platform location. 239 out of 454 (53%) comments received on specific station locations were in support of the plan as shown and 165 (36%) comments requested changes or opposed the plan. This distribution varies by individual station location. Stations receiving 10 or more comments are shown on the graph below. Figure 52: Draft corridor plan comment sentiment; stations receiving 10 or more comments 1 3 7 2 2 5 10 30 87 3 4 2 2 4 5 1 2 16 6 4 5 11 10 9 8 19 94 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 France & 44th Street France & 47th Street Hennepin/1st Street & 2nd Street NE University & Berry Hennepin & 25th Street Sheridan & 39th Street 44th Street & Zenith France & 50th Street Upton & 43rd Street Oppose or request changes Neutral Support as shown E Line Final Corridor Plan | A7 Two station locations received a significant share of the total station-specific comments: Upton & 43rd Street with 197 comments (46% of station-specific comments) and France & 50th Street with 51 comments (12% of station-specific comments). In addition to survey responses and emails referring to specific station locations, Metro Transit received a letter signed by residents near the proposed France & 47th Street Station and a letter signed by business and property owners within the Linden Hills C-1 District near the proposed Upton & 43rd Street Station voicing opposition to the proposed stations in each location. Based on station-specific feedback received on the Draft Corridor Plan, revisions to the following station locations are included in the Recommended Corridor Plan: • University & Berry: The northbound (terminal) platform is recommended to shift from on University Avenue nearside of Emerald Street to on Berry Street farside of University Avenue following the left turn off University Avenue. No change is recommended to the southbound platform. • Upton & 43rd Street: The southbound platform is recommended to shift from farside of the intersection of Upton Avenue and 43rd Street to nearside of the intersection. No change is recommended to the southbound platform • 44th Street & Zenith: The station location is recommended to move from the intersection of 44th Street and Zenith Avenue to 44th Street and Abbott Avenue. The northbound and southbound platforms would both be located on the nearside of the intersection. Additional alternatives were analyzed at the following station locations but no changes to these locations are recommended: • Hennepin/1st Avenue & 2nd Street NE • Sheridan & 39th Street • France & 47th Street • France & 50th Street Detailed discussion of additional analysis and recommended changes to specific station locations can be found in Section V (Stations). Key Corridor Plan Themes Many comments addressed similar topics and were grouped together to identify key themes in the public feedback on both the draft and recommended corridor plan. Many comments addressed multiple topics and were included in each relevant topic count. Key themes are identified below, comment counts include comments received on both the draft and recommended plans. Access to destinations 192 total comments received expressed support for station locations based on providing improved transit access to key destinations including commercial and retail destinations, schools, and new areas not currently served by Route 6. New transit connections between the Prospect Park neighborhood and the University of Minnesota and Dinkytown area, and E Line Final Corridor Plan | A8 connections to commercial areas in south Minneapolis and Edina, including Linden Hills and 50th & France, were frequently referenced. Comment response: To ensure that the E Line will best serve transit riders and the community, Metro Transit tries to place BRT stations in locations that will provide the most benefit to people. These locations include existing high ridership bus stops, opportunities to connect to other transit routes, places with high population and job density, commercial and retail areas, and other key destinations including medical services and schools. The E Line alignment and station locations were identified with these factors in mind. Station spacing 28 comments regarding station spacing requested additional stations spaced closer together. Specific segments requested included Hennepin Avenue between 36th Street and Lake Street, Hennepin Avenue between Lake Street and Franklin, and the Dinkytown area near the University of Minnesota. 19 comments regarding station spacing requested fewer stations with stations spaced farther apart. Specific segments identified include France & 47th Street and downtown Minneapolis. Comment response: The Recommended E Line corridor plan does not add any new stations or remove any stations that were included in the Draft Corridor Plan. A key objective of arterial BRT is to offer faster trips for more people along the corridor. Faster trips depend in part upon the strategic placement of stations spaced farther apart than existing Route 6 bus stops. The existing Route 6 stops approximately every 1/8 of a mile. On average, E Line stops would be placed about 0.4 miles apart (two to three stops per mile) to balance speed and access, consistent with BRT station spacing guidelines. With the stations included in this plan, 91% of current Route 6 riders along the E Line alignment will be able to board the E Line at or within one block of their current bus stop. Bus-only lanes 195 comments were submitted in support of implementing dedicated bus-only lanes on segments of the E Line corridor. The segments of Hennepin Avenue north of Lake Street and in downtown, and on University and 4th Street were specifically identified frequently in comments. The Marcy Holmes Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support requesting prioritization of bus only lanes on University and 4th Street. Key reasons for support included challenges with existing traffic congestion, slow service, and frequent delays. Improving existing transit performance was identified as a key support for implementation of bus only lanes. Comment response: Bus-only lanes are currently being considered in several parts of the E Line corridor through other street projects, and others may potentially be implemented through Metro Transit’s Speed & Reliability program, independent of planned E Line construction in 2024-2025. The recommended corridor plan includes an expanded analysis of segments that should be considered for bus-only lanes along the E Line. Priorities for bus-only lanes already under consideration through other projects: • Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue NE from Main Street to 8th Street SE (under E Line Final Corridor Plan | A9 consideration for 2023-2024 implementation in Hennepin/1st NE Roadway Improvements Project) • Hennepin Avenue from Franklin to Lake Street (under consideration for 2024-2025 implementation in Hennepin South reconstruction) Priorities for bus-only lane implementation independent of E Line construction through Metro Transit’s Speed & Reliability program: • Hennepin Avenue Bridge from Main Street to 1st Street N • Hennepin/Lyndale Avenues from 12th Street to Douglas Avenue • Hennepin Avenue from Douglas Avenue to Franklin Avenue Segments identified to consider for future implementation include: • Hennepin Avenue downtown from Washington Avenue to 12th Street • University Avenue from Oak Street to 1st Avenue NE • 4th Street SE from Oak Street to 1st Avenue NE Metro Transit continues to work with corridor cities and counties to develop strategic bus priority treatments that will help achieve project goals while addressing other City and County goals. Improved speed and reliability 101 comments were received that expressed support for planned improvements to speed and reliability that did not reference dedicated bus-only lanes. These comments were primarily in support of locating platforms on the far side of signalized intersections and using transit signal priority. Comment response: Metro Transit is working with agency partners to implement transit signal priority at signalized intersections along the E Line alignment. Metro Transit intends to work with its partners to implement TSP and explore queue jumps at signals as part of the E Line project. Signals along the corridor will be evaluated and considered during the design phase of the project for implementation. Farside platforms at signalized intersections are preferred for BRT operations to improve speed and reliability of service, particularly when paired with transit signal priority to extend the green light for buses. They can reduce certain conflicts between right-turning vehicles and stopped transit vehicles. At uncontrolled or stop sign-controlled intersections, nearside platform placement is typically preferred to minimize the number of times the bus stops. However, the preferred platform placement is not always feasible or advisable due to site- specific conditions such as existing roadway access points or driveways and right-of- way/waiting space constraints. Where possible, E Line platforms have been located at the preferred platform location to maximize the speed and reliability improvement over existing service, but in some instances this has not been feasible. Neighborhood character and/or scale of BRT station 138 total comments received were related to concerns about the scale of BRT stations and shelters and a disruption to the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. Comments often referenced concern about the potential for visual disruption and the design E Line Final Corridor Plan | A10 of shelters and pylons looking out of place with the existing architecture. Concerns were also raised about shelters potentially blocking the visibility of nearby businesses, disrupting sidewalk seating areas and patios, and being sited in proximity to single-family houses. Comment response: The majority of E Line stations are planned to be approximately the same size as standard local bus shelters installed on the corridor today. BRT shelters and pylons are designed for consistency, both for customers and for ease of timely maintenance across the growing system. Consistent station design is important to providing predictable and recognizable BRT service. Determining the appropriate shelter size at station locations is based both on existing and potential ridership at the location as well as site-specific conditions and constraints. During the design phase, Metro Transit will identify specific placement of BRT shelters and other amenities. Design will consider adjacent land uses and, where applicable, station features will also be configured to minimize effects on uses in the public realm, including existing outdoor seating areas. At many locations, in-lane stops with curb bumpouts will ensure that there is enough space for the station amenities while maintaining enough sidewalk space behind the shelter for comfortable pedestrian movement and access and visibility to storefronts. Additionally, E Line shelters will use clear glass, making it easier to see storefronts behind the shelter. Where space allows, additional BRT station amenities will be included along the platforms, including pedestrian-scale lighting, benches, bicycle parking, and trees (either retained existing trees or new replacement trees). Removal of parking 64 comments opposed the potential removal of on-street parking spaces due to the implementation of BRT stations. These comments were concentrated at station locations near business districts including Upton & 43rd Street and France & 50th Street. Concerns noted that the removal of on-street parking spaces directly in front of business could make it more inconvenient and less likely for customers to visit these locations. Comment response: Removing a small number of parking spaces in places with significant on- and off-street parking resources for a transit stop enables safe and convenient public transit access to destinations. By providing better access to places by people using transit, the E Line will expand overall access by all modes with a minor impact on access by car. Implementation of E Line stations will result in a very small reduction of available on-street parking spaces at platform locations, amounting to 1-2% of on-street parking in the business districts at Upton & 43rd Street and France & 50th Street. Metro Transit is able to limit the total reduction of on-street parking spaces in most locations with the use of curb bumpout platforms. In locations where the BRT platform will be located at a different location than the existing bus stop, Metro Transit will work with agency partners on establishing new parking spaces at the former bus stop location. Metro Transit will also continue to work with agency partners on broader parking management strategies at key locations as appropriate. Final changes to on-street parking will be determined in the engineering process beginning later in 2022. E Line Final Corridor Plan | A11 Removal of trees 44 comments expressed concern or opposed station locations based on the potential removal of existing mature boulevard trees. Concerns commonly cited both the environmental and aesthetic impact of tree loss. Comment response: Trees provide many benefits, including providing shade for riders waiting at stops. Metro Transit seeks to minimize impacts to existing trees in designing and building BRT stations. Metro Transit will complete a Tree Impact Survey and document all the trees that will be impacted by E Line construction activities during the project design phase. A Tree Impact memo will be created and communicated that will quantify the appropriate tree impact minimization and mitigation measures. Where possible, platform design will incorporate existing mature trees to avoid removing or damaging trees. Areas identified as a concern for root damage due to soil compaction will be protected prior to construction commencing. Where direct impacts on existing trees cannot be avoided in platform design, Metro Transit will coordinate with the City of Minneapolis, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, and other appropriate parties regarding potential relocation and on-site tree replacement options. Traffic operations 153 comments referenced concern about the impact of the E Line on traffic operations. Common concerns related to traffic included the length of the E Line buses and navigation through the roadways on the alignment, buses stopping in the lane of traffic, additional bus trips on specific roadway segments, and station locations interfering with cars at intersections. Comment response: The E Line will use 60-foot articulated buses with wider aisles, more seating capacity, and additional doors so more people can get on and off easily. 60-foot buses have been successfully used on the existing Route 6 on occasion and are regularly used on routes running on similar streets throughout Minneapolis and the region. Transit and traffic operations were a key consideration in making platform placement recommendations. As part of project planning, Metro Transit has completed traffic modeling on key segments of the alignment, working with City and County traffic staff. Modeling shows that adding the recommended E Line stations would not have a significant effect on traffic delays compared to future conditions without the project. Pedestrian safety 45 comments referenced concern for pedestrian safety near station locations or along the E Line alignment. Topics cited in these comments included ensuring safe pedestrian crossings at stations, particularly at France & 47th Street. Comments also cited a general concern about the E Line alignment travelling through areas with high pedestrian traffic, particularly at Upton & 43rd Street and along 44th Street. Comment response: Pedestrian safety is a key consideration for recommended platform locations. Most platform locations will include curb bumpouts that will reduce the crossing distance for people walking and rolling. The France & 47th Street station will be designed in coordination with a pedestrian safety improvement project that will further improve the crossing at this location led by City and County project partners. Other pedestrian crossing improvements will be E Line Final Corridor Plan | A12 considered during the design phase of the project. Platform locations are located near intersections rather than at midblock locations to encourage the safe crossing of streets at intersections. Bicycle lane integration and safety 60 total comments received were in support of designing stations to accommodate future protected bicycle lanes or to integrate bicycle lanes behind the platform. Comments referenced safety and maneuvering challenges between buses and bicycles at conflict points in front of bus stops. Comment response: Metro Transit is coordinating with partner agencies along the corridor to design transit facilities in a way that would not preclude the implementation of bikeways in adopted plans and policies, including the Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan. Several E Line stations are located within coordinated roadway projects that include protected bikeways led by other agencies, including the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County. These stations are being designed to include separated bikeways behind the BRT platform. This plan establishes two core station components: the station intersection and the location of platforms within the intersection. The preliminary design concepts in the plan are provided for additional context but are conceptual and will be finalized throughout detailed design. This includes consideration of potential ways to minimize conflicts between buses and bicyclists, where buses would be stopping within a bike lane (as currently occurs in many instances along the corridor). Metro Transit will work with agency partners to explore design solutions that support safe operations for all roadway users. BRT reduces bus dwell (stop) time due to off-board fare payment and all-door boarding. Therefore, the amount of time in which E Line buses would be stopped in the bike lane would be expected to be shorter than is the case under existing conditions. E Line alignment 18 total comments requested a change to the E Line alignment to shift from a particular street segment. These comments focused primarily on Sheridan Avenue, Upton Avenue, and 44th Street. 17 comments requested an extension to the E Line alignment, either farther east along University Avenue on the north end of the alignment, or south of Southdale Transit Center along France Avenue on the south end of the alignment. Comment response: The E Line alignment was finalized and adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2020, following a corridor study process in 2018-2019. This study evaluated several routing alternatives for the E Line, ultimately recommending the adopted alignment in part to improve transit service to the important commercial nodes along France Avenue, 44th Street, and Upton & 43rd Street. The study was completed with the close participation of local partners, including the Cities of Minneapolis and Edina, and Hennepin County, and included public engagement throughout the process, including a Community Advisory Committee comprised of community members along the Route 6. There are no plans at this time to study an extension of the E Line at either end of the alignment. Metro Transit recently completed a 2040 plan for arterial BRT expansion, identifying the next lines for implementation. This forward-looking BRT vision would be E Line Final Corridor Plan | A13 updated every five years to respond to changes in land use, ridership, and other factors. The next update would be scheduled to kick off in 2025. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B1 Appendix B: Agency Comments Metro Transit received formal comments on the Recommended Corridor Plan from the City of Minneapolis and the City of Edina. Letters of the Draft E Line Corridor Plan were received from MnDOT, Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis, the City of Edina, and the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. These letters are included in this appendix. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B2 City of Minneapolis Comments on E Line BRT Recommended Corridor Plan The City of Minneapolis appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the E Line Recommended Corridor Plan. The E Line is proposed to operate along several streets in Minneapolis, including France, Hennepin, 1st, University, and 4th Avenues. This north-south route covers most of the current Metro Transit Route 6 and connects 12 neighborhoods across five wards, while also traveling into St. Paul and Edina. While the Recommended Corridor Plan supports various goals outlined in the City of Minneapolis’ 10-Year Transportation Action Plan (TAP), additional opportunities exist to modify the E Line Recommended Corridor Plan to better meet the goals of safety, equity and climate. City staff look forward to working with Metro Transit staff to advance the Final Corridor Plan. The City of Minneapolis supports the E Line project and the direction identified in the E Line Recommended Corridor Plan. We appreciate the additional analysis Metro Transit has engaged in for select station locations as a result of the feedback received on the Draft Corridor Plan, and the efforts communicating the results back to residents and business owners along the corridor. In particular, we appreciate the following: • Station Location on 1st Avenue NE: As the Hennepin/1st Protected Bikeway project has moved through development, community members have raised concerns about the station location on 1st Avenue NE. In response, Metro Transit has provided analysis of several station locations along 1st Avenue NE. We remain committed to working with the community and Metro Transit to finalize a recommended station along 1st Avenue NE. • 43rd & Upton: In response to neighborhood feedback Metro Transit conducted additional analysis and determined that the westbound platform location could move slightly and still meet operational objectives. The City concurs with Metro Transit and the result of their analysis. • 44th & Zenith: Minneapolis appreciates Metro Transit relocating this station to Abbott, one block to the west. The new platform location is closer to commercial activity and can capitalize on upcoming developments The following areas will require additional coordination and further conversation as the project moves into design and construction: • Minneapolis requests that Metro Transit develop their ABRT projects with a scope and matching budget that acknowledges the full range of infrastructure and operational investment necessary to make the transit project complete and successful. By so doing, these projects will reach their full potential as transformational projects that support regional and city VMT reduction goals, greenhouse gas reduction goals, and improve the safety and comfort of people taking transit while contributing to a more equitable transportation system. Scope elements along the E Line that Public Works 350 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Tel 612.673.3000 www.minneapolismn.gov E Line Final Corridor Plan | B3 are critical for the transit project include installing ADA-compliant curb ramps at all corners of intersections where a station is located, rebuilding aging signals at intersections with stations in order to provide for Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) and accommodate transit operations, and transit-supportive elements such as methyl methacrylate (MMA) red paint to install bus lanes to reach speed and reliability goals where applicable. • The City of Minneapolis is collaborating with regional partners to evaluate potential transit advantages at various locations along the corridor. Bus only lanes contribute to stated speed and reliability goals. The City remains committed to partnering with Metro Transit and Hennepin County to evaluate the potential to implement bus-only lanes to support the speed and reliability of the E Line. The Recommended Corridor Plan includes updated information about near term priorities and future implementation areas that are very helpful; the inclusion of this type of analysis should be replicated for other similar BRT projects moving forward. The City’s Transportation Action Plan TAP (see Transit action 2.3) indicates that bus only lanes and/or other transit advantages should be considered on the following segments along the E Line: • Hennepin Avenue between Washington Ave South and 12th Street South • Hennepin Avenue between Franklin Ave and 12th Street South • University Avenue/4th St SE from Hennepin/1st Ave NE to eastern city boundary City of Minneapolis comments on the Draft Corridor Plan that remain pertinent to ongoing E Line development include comments on: • Design treatments, including vertical elements or ‘hardened centerlines’ at select locations; • Addressing safety concerns along High Injury Streets; • Specific design treatments at select stations, including: o University/23rd (Stadium Village LRT): Improving transit service without substantially changing signal operation needs. o Hennepin & Gateway: Further analysis is underway with cooperation from Hennepin County. o Hennepin & Groveland: Modifications to the street will be needed to incorporate bus station designs. o Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska: Pedestrian facilities will be developed further in the design process. The City of Minneapolis is committed to partnering with Metro Transit on the E Line BRT, as evidenced by its participation on the Technical Advisory Committee and through its coordinated effort with the several other projects in development along this critical corridor in Minneapolis. The City will collaborate with Metro Transit on refinements in the plan as a result of ongoing public comment, which to date has included comments related to the localized importance of parking, tree loss and replacement, changes to underlying bus service, neighborhood design, station location, and improving the speed and reliability of transit. The City looks forward to further coordination and support through final design of the E Line BRT through 2023, and improved bus service on these important corridors in Minneapolis. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 May 4, 2022 Mayor and City Council Scott Neal, City Manager METRO E Line BRT Recommended Corridor Plan Adopt Resolution 2022-42, supporting the Recommended Corridor Plan for the METRO E Line Bus Rapid Transit Project with exception. Executive Summary The City of Edina is supportive of Metro Transit’s proposed E Line bus rapid transit project to the extent that it supports community goals related to improved mobility, accessibility and sustainable growth. While the City recognizes that Metro Transit’s analysis predicts no significant impact to traffic operations on France Avenue due to the E Line, the City also recognizes that the 50th & France Business Association has expressed concerns about traffic impacts and visual obstruction of storefronts caused by the proposed shelters and furnishings. In order to balance these concerns with the desire to provide high-quality transit service to the district, the City supports the relocation of the proposed station platforms at the intersection of West 50th Street/France Avenue to the intersection of West 51st Street/France Avenue. The City supports the remainder of the station platforms as they are currently recommended. Metro Transit will present the Recommended Corridor Plan to the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Committee May 23 before seeking approval from the entire Council in June. Given this timeline, it is necessary for City Council to adopt Resolution 2022-42 at the May 4 regular meeting in order to be included with other agency comments on the Plan. Background The METRO E Line is a planned bus rapid transit (BRT) service that will provide faster and more reliable service in the Route 6 corridor along University Avenue/4th Street, Hennepin Avenue and France Avenue from the University of Minnesota to Southdale. This service aligns with the City’s comprehensive goals of encouraging and supporting high-performance transit service and connections; reducing dependence on single-occupancy vehicles; and improving mobility for residents, visitors, and businesses through a multimodal transportation system. Additionally, the Small Area Plans for 44th & France, 50th & France, and the Greater Southdale District acknowledge the importance of enhanced transit service. The City has previously expressed support for this project through the adoption of Resolution 2019-113, and is represented on the project’s Technical Advisory Committee. What is Bus Rapid Transit? Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a high-frequency, limited-stop service which offers an improved customer experience over traditional bus service. Upgrades to buses, stations and travel routes provide improved speed, frequency and passenger experience without the higher costs, construction impacts and right-of-way REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 requirements of light rail transit (LRT). Metro Transit currently operates four BRT services in the Twin Cities, including the A Line which connects Roseville, St. Paul and Minneapolis via Snelling Avenue and 46th Street, and the C Line which connects Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis via Penn Avenue. Recommended Station Locations The E Line is proposed to include eight stations within Edina, spaced approximately ½ mile apart:  West 44th Street/France Avenue  West 47th Street/France Avenue  West 50th Street/France Avenue  West 54th Street/France Avenue  West 58th Street/France Avenue  West 62nd Street/France Avenue  West 65th Street (Fairview Southdale Hospital)  Southdale Transit Center Each location would feature two station platforms, one for each direction of travel. Each platform will include a curb extension, enhanced shelter, ticketing machine, pylon marker with real-time departure information, security cameras, emergency phones, and other context-sensitive furnishings. Recommended Corridor Plan/Station Platform Locations The Recommended Corridor Plan is the result of four years of planning, study, analysis and stakeholder engagement. Public input was solicited through open houses, paper and digital surveys, the Technical Advisory and Community Advisory Committees and direct engagement with community groups. In September/October 2021, the draft Corridor Plan was available for public comment. The proposed station at West 50th Street/France Avenue received 12% of the station-specific comments, with the majority of feedback opposed to the proposal or requesting changes. In addition, Metro Transit received letters signed by adjacent residents and the 50th & France Business Association voicing opposition to the proposed platform locations at West 47th and 50th Streets. In response to this feedback, alternative platform locations were evaluated:  At West 47th Street/France Avenue, the alternative locations were determined to provide less convenient access for Southwest High School students; would be too close to the 44th & France station, reducing the efficiency of the service; and would have similar impact to on-street parking and residential visibility as the recommended locations.  At West 50th Street/France Avenue, the alternative locations were determined to provide less convenient access to destinations within the district and transit service on 50th; would have similar or worse impact to traffic operations; and would have similar impact to storefront visibility and boulevard trees. For these reasons, Metro Transit is continuing to recommend the station platforms at these intersections as they were originally proposed. Staff believes that the reported concerns related to visual impacts, noise and light pollution at West 47th Street/France Avenue can be mitigated during final design of the platforms. However, at West 50th Street/France Avenue, staff believes the platforms can be relocated in a manner that addresses the concerns of the adjacent businesses without compromising traffic operations or the quality of the transit service. Therefore, the City supports the relocation of the proposed platforms at the intersection of West 50th Street/France Avenue to the intersection of West 51st Street/France Avenue. The City supports the remainder of the platforms as they are currently recommended. Encl: E Line Recommended Station Platform Locations BRT Shelter Graphics Letter from Residents Adjacent to 47th & France Letter from 50th & France Business Association RESOLUTION NO. 2022-42 SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR PLAN FOR THE METRO E LINE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT WITH EXCEPTION WHEREAS, The City of Edina recognizes Metro Transit is an operating division of the Metropolitan Council, providing an integrated transit network that serves the residents of the City and the region; and WHEREAS, Metro Transit intends to implement the E Line Bus Rapid Transit project to improve transit service and facilities in Edina and Minneapolis; and WHEREAS, The E Line project supports the City's transportation goals by providing reliable, high-performance transit service and improving mobility for residents, visitors and businesses; and WHEREAS, The City of Edina recognizes that Metro Transit has gathered significant stakeholder input in the development of the Recommended Corridor Plan, which will guide the detailed design of station platforms by confirming station intersections and platform locations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council supports the E Line Recommended Corridor Plan with the following exception: • The City of Edina supports relocation of the proposed station platforms at the intersection of West 50th Street/France Avenue to the intersection of West 5 I" Street/France Avenue. Adopted this 4th Day of May, 2022. Attest: Ito,,, q,,9 Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of May 4, 2022 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4 day of City Clerk ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 E Line Final Corridor Plan | B7 Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 October 26, 2021 Yumi Nagaoka, Outreach Coordinator Metro Transit 570 6th Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55411 SUBJECT: E Line BRT Corridor Concept MnDOT Review #STUDY21-002 34 station locations between Southdale and University Ave at Berry Ave Control Sections: 8285 Cities of Edina and Minneapolis, Hennepin County Dear Yumi Nagaoka, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the draft corridor plan for Metro Transit’s proposed E Line bus rapid transit (BRT) service dated September 2021and has the following comments. Right-of-Way The proposed BRT service would cross MnDOT right-of-way at four locations: 1) MN 62 (Crosstown Highway) at France Ave; 2) I-94 in the vicinity of Lyndale and Hennepin Aves over the Lowry Tunnel); 3) MN 47 (University Ave SE) and MN 65 (Central Ave) in Minneapolis; and 4) I-35W at University Ave SE. As the project design moves forward, information should continue to be provided so potential impacts to MnDOT property can be evaluated. Please contact Douglas Nelson, Right-of-Way at 651-234-7583 or Douglas.Nelson@state.mn.us with related questions. Traffic MnDOT owns and operates the traffic signals at the MN 62/France Ave intersection listed above. Transit Signal Priority (TSP) at these signals will require a network upgrade, as they are not currently in an admin/access layer. (Signals at the other intersections are owned and operated by City of Minneapolis.) Please contact Eric Lauer-Hunt at Eric.Lauer-Hunt@state.mn.us or 651-234-7875 with related questions. Coordination with Other MnDOT Projects MnDOT looks forward to coordination with Metro Transit on the E Line and future pavement and bikeway projects on University Ave and 4th St SE, which are now in the planning stages. Please be in E Line Final Corridor Plan | B8 touch with Jason Junge, Metro District Multimodal Planning, at Jason.Junge@state.mn.us or 651-234- 7878 with related questions. Please continue to participate in MnDOT’s Hwy 47 and Hwy 65 Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) Study Phase 2. The E Line corridor concept shows a potential station location near the intersection of University and Central Avenues in the southern portion of the PEL Study Area. The future F Line aBRT service will also operate in this area. Please be in touch with David Elvin at David.Elvin@state.mn.us or 651-234-7795 with related questions. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities MnDOT looks forward to working with Metro Transit on the portion of the project located within MnDOT right of way to ensure current and future pedestrian and bicycle facilities are thoughtfully integrated around station areas and the transit corridor. Please contact Jesse Thornsen, Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning, at 651-234-7788 or jesse.thornsen@state.mn.us with related questions. Permits Any temporary work within MnDOT right-of-way to construct stations, communications or power conduits, or other supporting items will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or Buck.Craig@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s web transfer client site at: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff using the same email above for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 You are welcome to contact me at (651) 234-7795 or David.Elvin@state.mn.us with questions. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B9 Sincerely, Digitally signed by David Elvin Date: 2021.10.26 07:52:52 -05'00' David Elvin, ACIP Principal Planner David Elvin E Line Final Corridor Plan | B10 Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Douglas Nelson, Right of Way Eric Lauer-Hunt, Traffic Jason Junge, Transit Aaron Tag, Area Engineer April Crockett, Area Manager Mackenzie Turner Barger, Ped/Bike Alex Hogan, Traffic Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike Lance Schowalter, Design David Kratz, Planning Cameron Muhic, Planning Tod Sherman, Planning Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council Kyle O’Donnell Burrows, Metro Transit An equal opportunity employer E Line Final Corridor Plan | B11 November 2, 2021 Katie Roth, Kyle Burrows Metro Transit E Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project Re: Hennepin County comments on the E Line BRT Recommended Corridor Plan Dear Katie Roth, Kyle Burrows: Hennepin County staff appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the E Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Recommended Corridor Plan. Since 2018, Hennepin County staff have been actively engaged in coordination of E Line planning with Metro Transit, City of Minneapolis, City of Edina, MnDOT, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board through the project’s Technical Advisory Committee. County staff have previously submitted technical comments on the DRAFT Corridor Plan and are generally supportive of the station locations. We look forward to working with our partners to promote accessibility, safety, and mobility through the project development process. Hennepin County is committed to serving our residents by supporting Metropolitan Council in their continued buildout of the planned arterial BRT system to provide shorter transit times, improved reliability, increased ridership, and expanded mobility for communities along the proposed lines. To demonstrate the county’s commitment to the success of the E and B Lines, Hennepin County applied for USDOT’s RAISE Program for local scope improvements to complement the BRT projects. Although Hennepin County has been contributing local funding to past projects to ensure station intersections are fully upgraded to meet current ADA standards and improve safety for all users, the county requests that Metro Transit develop their arterial BRT projects with a scope and matching budget that acknowledges the full range of infrastructure and operational investments necessary to make the transit project complete and successful. Hennepin County’s ability to continue to contribute local funding to these projects into the future is not guaranteed. In addition, scoping for future projects should involve county and city partners as early as possible to ensure project success. The E Line will travel along several county roadways including: University Avenue and 4th Street through the University of Minnesota campus, Hennepin Avenue and 1st Avenue through the St. Anthony Main area in Minneapolis, and France Avenue in Edina serving many regional destinations. County staff will continue to collaborate with our partners on upcoming county projects where space may be reallocated within the right-of-way to address safety and mobility needs of transit riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, along with the needs of motorists. One of these projects includes pavement preservation for France E Line Final Corridor Plan | B12 Avenue between Excelsior Boulevard and 50th Street, currently scheduled for 2023. It may be beneficial to incorporate this into the E Line scope to minimize disruption along the corridor. In addition, we request that E line designers fully review the safety and mobility needs of all users at non-signalized BRT station locations with priority given to pedestrian crossing safety enhancements. We look forward to on-going coordination. With our recently approved Climate Action Plan, we are committed to advocating for the buildout of planned transit routes and the development of new routes. We look forward to continued partnership to promote multi-modal transportation options throughout the county with the E Line and other BRT routes. Sincerely, Carla Stueve, P.E. Transportation Project Delivery Director and County Engineer E Line Final Corridor Plan | B13 City of Minneapolis Comments on E Line BRT Draft Corridor Plan The City of Minneapolis appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the E Line Draft Corridor Plan. The E Line is proposed to operate along several streets in Minneapolis, including France, Hennepin, 1st, University, and 4th Avenues. This north-south route covers most of Metro Transit Route 6 currently and connects 12 neighborhoods across five wards, while also traveling into St. Paul and Edina. While this draft Corridor Plan supports various goals outlined in the City of Minneapolis’ 10-Year Transportation Action Plan (TAP), additional opportunities exist to modify the E Line Draft Corridor Plan to better meet the goals of safety, equity and climate. City staff look forward to working with Metro Transit staff to advance the Final Corridor Plan. General comments: • The City of Minneapolis supports the E Line project and the direction identified in the E Line Draft Corridor Plan. • Vertical elements should be considered for inclusion at certain locations along the corridor in the engineering phase (specifically: Bde Maka Ska, 43rd/Upton, 44th/Zenith, 44th/France, 47th/France, and 50th/France). Sometimes called “hardened centerlines,” these tools have been incorporated along the D Line and other corridors as important traffic control devices, ensuring cars do not pass buses as they stop at station locations. • Addressing safety along the corridor is key and a primary goal for the City of Minneapolis. University, 4th, 1st, and Hennepin Avenues are identified as High Injury Streets in the Vision Zero Action Plan (2020-2022). Transit users walk or roll to stations and making improvements in coordination with the E Line will help achieve the greatest safety gains. • Minneapolis requests that Metro Transit develop their ABRT projects with a scope and matching budget that acknowledges the full range of infrastructure and operational investment necessary to make the transit project complete and successful. Minneapolis has been contributing local funding to past projects in order to ensure intersections are fully upgraded to meet ADA and improve safety for all users and to implement transit advantages. Minneapolis’ ability to continue to contribute local funding to these projects into the future is not guaranteed. Specific platform locations and station concepts: University/23rd (Stadium Village LRT station): This signalized intersection is one of the most complicated intersections in the city due to the confluence of the METRO Green Line train traffic and access to the Huron interchange with I-94. Improvements at this intersection will need careful work during the design stage to ensure safe operations for all users. Hennepin & Gateway: The design must not preclude a future bikeway along Hennepin Avenue; the City will work with Metro Transit and the County to ensure the designs support this future planned bikeway. Hennepin & Groveland: The City will work with Metro Transit to address a potential clear zone conflict between the signal and the northbound shelter. Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska: The design must not preclude a future sidewalk along Richfield Road; the City will work with Metro Transit to ensure the designs support this future planned sidewalk. 44th & Zenith: Minneapolis recommends relocating this station to Abbott, one block to the west. Some combination of near side and far side stops could be deployed. Staff will work with Metro Transit during the process leading up to the Public Works 350 South 5th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Tel 612.673.3000 www.minneapolismn.gov E Line Final Corridor Plan | B14 Recommended Corridor Plan to determine the preferred locations for the north bound and south bound platforms. As the project moves into the design phase, City will coordinate pedestrian and ADA infrastructure needs at each station intersection. Green Infrastructure: The City of Minneapolis is working with Metro Transit to integrate green infrastructure (GI) elements into the E Line project in order to combat climate change and create a more resilient city, support environmental and racial justice, address urban heat island impacts, improve water quality, and improve the public realm. Bus priority treatments: The City of Minneapolis is collaborating with regional partners to evaluate potential transit advantages at various locations along the corridor. For example, Minneapolis worked with Metro Transit to deploy bus only lanes on Hennepin Avenue between Franklin Avenue and Lake Street in south Minneapolis in 2019. The TAP (see Transit action 2.3) indicates that bus only lanes and/or other transit advantages should be considered on the following segments along the E Line: • Hennepin Avenue between Washington Ave South and 12th Street South - As noted below, the reconstruction of Hennepin Ave is nearly complete and will improve safety, access to transit, and the walking and bicycling experience. After the project is complete it will be evaluated before considering changes to its design and operation. • Hennepin Avenue between Franklin Ave and 12th Street South - Bus-only lanes and transit priority tools will continue to be evaluated in conjunction with E Line project development. • University Avenue/4th St SE from Hennepin/1st Ave NE to eastern city boundary - Similar to the Hennepin Downtown project, this project will build the BRT platform stations since the project will already be adjusting curb lines. This construction coordination minimizes disruption to the public by avoiding additional curb realignment when the BRT project is implemented. New signals capable of providing transit signal priority are also being provided through this work. Additional transit advantages, which are outside the scope of the University Ave/4th St SE project, will be evaluated as part of E Line development, and are not precluded by this project. The City remains committed to partnering with Metro Transit and Hennepin County to evaluate the potential to implement bus-only lanes to support the speed and reliability of the E Line. The City supports providing additional valuable transit advantages such as transit signal priority (TSP) and queue jumps at locations in addition to those listed above, where feasible. For example, the Hennepin/Lyndale commons near I-94 is seen as a bottleneck area and should be targeted for improvements in bus travel time. These priority treatments will be planned for when developing the E Line corridor plan. The Draft Corridor Plan outlines the suite of options available in a BRT project but currently does not specify where along the E Line these are targeted for deployment. Related projects: There are several projects advancing at different locations along the corridor. The Draft Corridor Plan does not go into detail about the conditions and station locations being implemented under those projects but it should do so as design plans progress. University and 4th Bikeway This project, being led by Hennepin County, will construct protected bicycle facilities on University and 4th Avenues between I-35W and Oak Street SE. The City supports the County project to construct a two-way curb-protected bikeway on University Avenue SE and a one-way curb-protected bikeway on 4th Street SE. The City will remain engaged as this project advances and will coordinate the timing of project development and construction to promote inclusion of transit priority treatments along these corridors. Hennepin and 1st Improvements E Line Final Corridor Plan | B15 This project, being led by Hennepin County, will provide accessibility and mobility improvements for people walking, biking, and rolling on Hennepin and 1st Avenues between Main Street and 8th Street. The City will continue to collaborate with the County on this project and potential impacts to the E Line. The City will remain engaged as this project advances and will coordinate the timing of project development and construction to promote inclusion of transit priority treatments along these corridors. Hennepin Downtown Reconstruction Hennepin Avenue through downtown Minneapolis is currently under construction with an anticipated completion of late 2022. E Line improvements have been incorporated into the design of this federally funded project. Hennepin South Reconstruction Hennepin Avenue from Lake Street to Douglas Avenue is a City-led reconstruction planned to begin in 2024. A recommended layout is anticipated in 2022. E Line stations and transit signal priority equipment are planned to be built at the same time as the street reconstruction project. Both design options under consideration include bus-only lanes as a critical design feature. Hennepin-Dunwoody Protected Bikeway This project, being led by the City of Minneapolis, will provide accessibility and mobility improvements for people walking, biking, and rolling on Hennepin Avenue and Dunwoody Boulevard between the Cedar Lake Trail and 12th Street. The City will continue to collaborate with Metro Transit on this project and potential impacts to the E Line. The City will remain engaged as this project advances and will coordinate the timing of project development and construction to promote inclusion of transit priority treatments along these corridors. Hennepin Ave HSIP This project, being led by the City of Minneapolis, will construct intersection safety improvements for people walking, biking, and rolling on Hennepin Avenue at 13th Street and Spruce Place. The City will continue to collaborate with Metro Transit on this project and potential impacts to the E Line. The City will remain engaged as this project advances and will coordinate the timing of project development and construction to promote inclusion of transit priority treatments along these corridors. Additional staff comments: The City of Minneapolis is committed to partnering with Metro Transit on the E Line BRT, as evidenced by its participation on the Technical Advisory Committee and through its coordinated effort with the several other projects in development along this critical corridor in Minneapolis. The City will collaborate with Metro Transit on refinements in the plan as a result of ongoing public comment, which to date has included comments related to the localized importance of parking, tree loss and replacement, changes to underlying bus service, neighborhood design, and improving the speed and reliability of transit. The City looks forward to further coordination and support through final design of the E Line BRT through 2023. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B16 August 31, 2021 Kyle Burrows, E Line BRT Project Team Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner E Line BRT Draft Corridor Plan Municipal Comments This memo outlines staff comments to the draft corridor plan for Metro Transit’s E Line bus rapid transit service project. Proposed Station Location Comments E Line Final Corridor Plan | B17 France Avenue/ West 44th Street The proposed northbound station would remove 5-6 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue between Sunnyside Avenue and West 44th Street (adjacent to dp Hue’s corporate office at 4405 France Avenue). The proposed southbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on West 44th Street east of France Avenue (adjacent to France 44 Wine and Spirits at 4315 France Avenue). Parking in this area is currently restricted to one-hour, 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Installing Accessibly Pedestrian Signals (APS) at France Avenue and West 44th Street. • Replacing the pedestrian curb ramps on the northeast and southeast corners to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. • Replacing current painted crosswalks with high-visibility thermoplastic crosswalks. • Implementing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at France Avenue and West 44th Street. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B2 France Avenue/ West 47th Street The proposed northbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue south of West 47th Street (adjacent to 4701, 4707 and 4709 France Avenue). The proposed southbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue south of West 47th Street (adjacent to 4703 and 4701 Meadow Road). Parking in this area is currently restricted to one-hour, 9 a.m. to 12 a.m. daily. The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Pedestrian improvements as supported by Hennepin County’s recent crossing study (including but not limited to ADA-compliant pedestrian curb ramps, curb extensions, refuge median, marked crosswalk, or rapid rectangular flashing beacons). • Consideration for treatments to reduce/restrict vehicles passing buses using the oncoming travel lane. France Avenue/ West 50th Street The proposed northbound station would remove 1-2 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue north of West 50th Street (adjacent to the Edina Realty building at 4999 France Avenue). Most of this area is currently restricted because of its proximity to the intersection and an adjacent fire hydrant; the northern-most portion is restricted to one-hour, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The proposed southbound station would remove one on-street parking stall on France Avenue south of West 50th Street (adjacent to Sur La Table at 5000 France Avenue). Most of this area is a transition zone for southbound on-street parking. The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Installing Accessibly Pedestrian Signals (APS) at France Avenue and West 50th Street. • Replacing the pedestrian curb ramps on the northeast and southeast corners to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. • Replacing current painted crosswalks with high-visibility thermoplastic crosswalks. • Implementing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at France Avenue and West 50th Street. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B3 France Avenue/ West 54th Street The proposed northbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue south of West 54th Street (adjacent to Speedway gas station at 5401 France Avenue). The proposed southbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue north of West 54th Street (adjacent to Edina Tire & Auto at 5354 France Avenue). The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Installing Accessibly Pedestrian Signals (APS) at France Avenue and West 54th Street. • Replacing the pedestrian curb ramps on the northeast corner to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. • Replacing current painted crosswalks with high-visibility thermoplastic crosswalks. • Implementing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at France Avenue and West 54th Street. • Consideration for treatments to reduce/restrict vehicles passing buses using the oncoming travel lane. France Avenue/ West 58th Street The proposed northbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue north of West 58th Street (adjacent to 5733 France Avenue). The proposed southbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue south of West 58th Street (adjacent to 3901 West 58th Street). The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Installing high-visibility thermoplastic crosswalks. • Implementing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at France Avenue and West 58th Street. • Consideration for treatments to reduce/restrict vehicles passing buses using the oncoming travel lane. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B4 France Avenue/ West 62nd Street The proposed northbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue north of West 62nd Street (adjacent to 6125 and 6129 France Avenue) and would require closing the south driveway access to 6125 France Avenue. The proposed southbound station would remove 4-5 on-street parking stalls on France Avenue south of West 62nd Street (adjacent to 6200 France Avenue). The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Pedestrian improvements including, but not limited to; ADA-compliant pedestrian curb ramps, curb extensions, refuge median, marked crosswalks, or rapid rectangular flashing beacons. • Consideration for treatments to reduce/restrict vehicles passing buses using the oncoming travel lane. West 65th Street/ M Health Fairview Southdale Hospital The proposed northbound and southbound stations would not impact on-street parking availability on West 65th Street as on-street parking is currently prohibited. The City supports implementing the following safety and accessibility features as part of station construction; • Pedestrian improvements including, but not limited to; curb extensions, marked crosswalk, or rapid rectangular flashing beacons. Southdale Transit Center The City supports enhanced amenities at this location (e.g., larger shelters, benches, trash and recycling containers, bike racks) given the high volume of transit riders who board here. E Line Final Corridor Plan | B5 October 29th, 2021 Kyle Burrows, Senior Planner Metro Transit, BRT Projects 560 Sixth Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55411 Dear Mr. Burrows, The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) extends a thanks to you and the project team for the ongoing coordination with the MPRB on the E Line project through our involvement on the TAC since 2019. MPRB has also joined additional meetings with Metro Transit and the city to discuss stops adjacent to parkland. In general, MPRB is supportive of regional transit systems and the improved connectivity across our region and to our park system. MPRB welcomes this opportunity to comment on the current plan. At this initial planning stage, we have some specific comments regarding the proposed Richfield Road & Bde Maka Ska South station, located between Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet. We see this stop as vital in connecting visitors to the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Regional Park to quick and regular service that Bus Rapid Transit can provide. MPRB has outlined some additional information, questions, and concerns that have arisen from internal conversations based on the limited information that has been shared about this location to date: - This area was master planned in the Bde Maka Ska-Harriet Master Plan as part of the “S Calhoun/Bde Maka Ska and William Berry Focus Area” in Chapter 8, pages 140-147 (Appendix i-viii). MPRB staff requests that Metro Transit use the guidance in the master plan to inform planning for the proposed transit stop and surrounding improvements. o The master plan identifies that the portion of parkland adjacent to the proposed station is “one of the quieter places around the two lakes”. How will the new station impact noise and pollution at this location? - On the north side of Richfield Road, there are several mature oak trees. Future sidewalk alignment must preserve these trees, including adequate protection of the root systems during construction. - Questions were raised by staff about the extent that the MPRB parking lot will be used as parking for folks taking BRT. - MPRB recognizes that many park visitors already park at the parking lot to the north of Richfield Road and cross at unmarked crossings to access park amenities to the south of Richfield Road. What new connections and crossings will be needed near the station to ensure park and transit users on foot or bike have safe and convenient access to amenities? E Line Final Corridor Plan | B6 o The MPRB master plan gives direction to add a marked crossing across Richfield Road at the parking lot, and MPRB staff recognize that the addition of a BRT station at this location may require additional changes to the proposed crossings within the master plan. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We welcome future conversations and documentation that may mitigate our concerns or questions. Again, thank you for your thoughtful work on this project and ongoing coordination with MPRB. We look forward to continuing to work with you as the project progresses. Sincerely, Emma Pachuta Senior Planner epachuta@minneapolisparks.org // 612-499-3711 Minneapolis Park and Recreation board Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Draft Cahill District Area Plan Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and comment on the draft Cahill District Area Plan. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report. The draft plan is available on Better Together Edina's website: https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/cahill-district-area-plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: Cahill District Area Plan June 15, 2023 Transportation Commission Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Draft Cahill Small Area Plan – Transportation Review Background The Cahill District is approximately 380 acres, bounded by West 70th Street to the north, Cahill Road to the west, the city limits to the south and Minnesota State Highway 100 to the east. The neighborhood features a wide range of land uses, including multi-family residential, offices, manufacturing, warehouses, restaurants and religious institutions. Multi-family and single-family residential uses are adjacent to the neighborhood to the west and north. In 2019, the City approved the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. A recommendation of that plan was to further study “how best to revitalize” the entire business/industrial park. The City has also received several redevelopment proposals within the district for multi-family residential uses on property that is guided for industrial or office uses. The purpose of this plan is to “chart a course for the continued evolution of the Cahill District.” This memo will review the findings of the draft plan and evaluate the ways in which it supports current City transportation plans and policies. Transportation Network Overview As noted in the draft plan, the district includes facilities that accommodate a variety of modes: Sidewalks – 2.8 miles of sidewalks are provided along the perimeter roadways and interior roadways such as West 72nd Street, Amundson Avenue, and West 74th Street. The sidewalks are generally 5’ wide and vary between edge-of-curb- and boulevard-style. Additional sidewalks connect to the district along Dewey Hill Road, Normandale Road and West 70th, 77th and 78th Streets. Bikeways – 2.7 miles of bikeways are provided within the district. These include on-street bike lanes on Cahill Road, West 70th Street, West 72nd Street and Ohms Lane, shared line lanes on West 70th Street and bikeable shoulders on Metro Boulevard and Edina Industrial Boulevard. Additional bike facilities connect to the district along West 70th Street and Normandale Road. STAFF REPORT Page 2 Shared-Use Paths – 1 mile of shared-use path is provided within the district. The majority is comprised of the Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (NMCRT), operated by Three Rivers Park District. The NMCRT provides a 15-mile connection between the Cities of Hopkins, Minnetonka, Edina, Richfield and Bloomington. The trail is publicly accessible via West 70th Street, Ohms Lane and West 72nd Street. Transit – Metro Transit operates two bus routes (Local Routes 6K and 540) that serve the middle and southern half of the district. Both routes provide frequent stops (20-30 minutes) middays on weekdays, with evening and weekend service less frequent. 18 bus stops are marked throughout the district; few are served by adjacent pedestrian or bicycle facilities. Roadways – The district includes 5.8 miles of local roadways. Many of these roadways carry over 5,000 vehicles on an average day and are classified regionally as minor arterial-relievers and major collectors. Locally, all of the perimeter roadways are designated at Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. Through this designation, the City receives funds through the State Highway User Tax Distribution Fund to aid in maintenance and construction of these streets. In exchange, the City has to maintain certain design standards related to capacity and safety. Several interior streets are classified as Local Connectors through the Living Streets Plan, a descriptor that signifies local roadways with over 1,000 vehicles per day that connect between neighborhoods, destinations and busier streets. Most roads are two-lane, undivided; exceptions include parts of West 78th Street, Bush Lake Road, Edina Industrial Boulevard, Metro Boulevard, and West 70th Street. The speed limits on these roadways vary from 25 to 30 miles per hour. The district is adjacent to four full-access interchanges with state and interstate highways: • East Bust Lake Road (Hennepin County Road 28) and Interstate 494 (I-494) • I-494 and Highway 100 • Edina Industrial Boulevard/West 77th Street and Highway 100 • West 70th Street and Highway 100 Rail - Approximately one mile of railroad tracks traverse the district between West 78th and 70th Streets. This track is owned by Canadian Pacific (CP) Railroad, who leases the track to the Twin Cities and Western (TC&W) Railroad; roughly two trains per day operate on these tracks. The tracks cross West 78th and 70th Streets below grade and Dewey Hill Road at grade; the latter intersection is equipped with crossing signals without gate arms. Bridges – There are nine bridges within or connecting to the district: • Two bridges traversing the CP Railroad (at West 78th and 70th Streets) • Four bridges traversing Nine Mile Creek (at West 70th and 72nd Streets, Metro Boulevard and southbound Highway 100 off-ramp to Edina Industrial Boulevard) • Three bridges traversing Highway 100 (at West 70th Street, Edina Industrial Boulevard/West 77th Street, and the 7200 block of Metro Boulevard). STAFF REPORT Page 3 Transportation Issues Roadway Capacity Deficiencies – As noted in the Transportation Chapter of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, two corridor are forecasted to be over capacity by 2040; West 70th Street between Cahill Road and Metro Boulevard (currently a two-lane section with turn lanes) and Bush Lake Road/Edina Industrial Boulevard between the city limits and Highway 100 (varies from a four-lane divided section to a two-lane undivided section to a two-lane undivided section with turn lanes). However, staff would not recommend the conventional solution of adding travel lanes. This practice prioritizes the movement of motor vehicles above other modes and can result in even more traffic due to induced demand. Additional travel lanes also restricts pedestrian and bicycle movement or makes such movements less safe and comfortable. Where feasible, capacity improvements should seek to address walking, biking, rolling and transit over automobiles. It should also be noted that the latest traffic data referenced in the report is from 2019 and does not reflect the traffic pattern changes and driver behavior changes experienced following the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional traffic data should be collected before consideration of any capacity improvement. Safety and Crashes – High crash rates are noted at four intersections within or around the district. Those with the highest crash rates include Metro Boulevard/Edina Industrial Boulevard and West 70th Street/Normandale Road/Highway 100. Speeding is also regularly reported and observed on West 70th Street and Cahill Road. Staff recommends further study of these high crash rate intersections (as well as adjacent MnDOT intersections) to determine if signal timing or geometric changes can be made to improve safety. Though it is difficult to deter speeding on roadways like West 70th Street and Cahill Road – long streets with relatively few access driveways and straight horizontal alignments – it is recommended that the City consider traffic calming features such as curb extensions, chicanes, raised medians or boulevard trees to slow vehicle speeds and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Driveway Accessibility – Edina Industrial Boulevard between Metro Boulevard and Highway 100 is noted for having a large number of access driveways (seven driveways in 470’), which contribute to the high rate of reported crashes along the corridor. Future redevelopment along this street should seek to share access driveways, where feasible, and invest in more comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities between parcels. Parking Issues – The high demand and utilization of on-street parking adjacent to Wooden Hill Brewing Company (7421 Bush Lake Road) is noted in the draft plan, along with the frequent concerns about impacted sight lines and transit stop access. Though the draft plan goes on to recommend on-street parking along Cahill Road, the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan recommends on-street parking be provided along “internal circulation streets.” Future redevelopment should seek to accommodate expected parking demands on-site and implement travel demand management (TDM) strategies to encourage alternative modes of transportation. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Transit – As transit service has been lost or reduced in the district since 2020, transit-oriented development should be encouraged to support existing routes. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be provided on both sides of roadways served by transit; shared-use facilities should be considered where right-of-way is limited. As noted in the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan, transit stops can be improved by ensuring adequate space for pedestrians, providing concrete bus pads, and ensuring locations are accessible. Bus shelters are provided and maintained by Metro Transit; installation is prioritized based on average ridership and available resources. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities – The West 78th Street bridge over CP Railroad is significant barrier for pedestrians (especially transit riders) and bicyclist traveling within the district. The City should seek opportunities to rehabilitate, replace or supplement the bridge to provide multi-modal facilities. New sidewalks, bikeways and shared-use paths (as recommended by the Living Streets Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan) should be implemented to support the various land uses, expand the reach of transit service, promote physical activity in everyday life and reduce reliance on automobiles for internal circulation. Multi-modal facilities should be designed to accommodate users of all ages and abilities. Public Realm Plan Enhanced Streetscape – The Cahill Connector concept is consistent with the Twin Loops facility recommended in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Although the draft plan states that this route would connect Three Rivers Park District’s planned CP Rail Regional Trail (CPRRT) and the NMCRT – these trails already connect near West 70th Street and Amundson Avenue – it is perhaps more accurate to stay that the Cahill Connector would improve access to both trails and provide a continuous multi-modal loop around the northern half of the district. Roadway Typologies – This approach is consistent with that of the Greater Southdale Area Plan and the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan goal to “define and construct a hierarchy of streets.” The goal to balance the needs of all users aligns with the Living Streets Plan. The “potential new connections” somewhat support the Small Area Plan goal to create a grid system of streets and regular block; Figure 1 shows what a more robust interpretation of this goal could look like. It should be noted that while the Small Area Plan specifically refers to streets, these new connections could be pedestrian and bicycle only, improving non-motorized circulation within the district and increasing access to housing, transit, employment, retail and other services. This concept also features a connection between Bush Lake Road and Amundson Avenue, such a crossing uniting the Neighborhood Node to the office-industrial park was recommended for further study in the Small Area Plan. Figure 1: Cahill District Grid Concept STAFF REPORT Page 5 CP Trail Alignment – The Canadian Pacific Rail Regional Trail (CPRRT) is a planned, 21-mile regional trail that will run through Bloomington, Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, New Hope and Crystal. The trail will fill a critical north-south gap in the regional trail system, connecting to six other regional trails in Hennepin County. Once constructed, this facility will be a key amenity within the district. Preserving adequate right-of-way along the proposed alignment should be a priority for roadway rehabilitation projects and private redevelopment. Dewey Hill Road/Cahill Road Intersection – Future study of improvements at this intersection (including conversion to a roundabout) should be a priority given the associated impact to transit service, the CPPRT, and the multi-modal connection with the neighborhood to the west of the district. Transit Stop Design and Access – As part of the City’s Travel Demand Management Policy, staff recommends transit stop improvements for redevelopment projects located immediately adjacent to a stop. When and where shelters are installed is determined by Metro Transit, as they are responsible for their maintenance. The City encourages consideration for shelters at transit stops with high ridership. Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.B. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From:Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of May 30, 2023 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 May 30, 2023. INTRODUCTION: See attached staff report and supporting material. Comments received by the Commission will be included in the staff report provided to City Council at their July 18 regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of May 30, 2023 June 15, 2023 Transportation Commission Nick Bauler, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of May 30, 2023 Information / Background: The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on May 30. The Traffic Safety Coordinator, City Engineer, Streets Public Service Worker, Transportation Planner, Public Works Director, Police Sergeant and Assistant City Planner were 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 July 18 regular meeting. Section A: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends action A1. Request to remove advanced stop warning sign in front of 4213 Morningside Road Staff recommends removing the advanced warning sign. Description Requests included restricting non-local traffic, improving signal timing and layouts along W 50th St and France Ave. ADT 1,318 (August 2020) 85% Speed 29.6 mph Crashes None reported in past 10 years Ped and Bike Crosses N/A Sight Lines Adequate Previous Requests N/A Policy Guideline MnMUTCD requires sign if not visible at distance of 180’ (if intermittent obstructions occur, engineering judgement should determine treatment) Unique Circumstances On-street parking and sidewalks are present on both sides of street. Morningside Road facing east STAFF REPORT Page 2 A2. Request for additional accessible parking stall in front of Morningside Church on Morningside Road Staff recommends adding a third accessible parking designation along Morningside Rd adjacent to Morningside Church. Section B: Items on which the Traffic Safety Committee recommends no action B1. Driver and pedestrian safety concerns along W 58th Street east of France Avenue. Staff recommends no action. Staff will evaluate this corridor for a dynamic display speed sign once a policy has been developed. Description An added third accessible stall is requested, adjacent to 4201 Morningside Rd ADT 1,318 (August 2020) 85% Speed 29.6 mph Crashes None reported in past 10 years Sight Lines Adequate Previous Requests 2014 two signs were installed with in-street markings and the curb painted blue, to prevent vehicles from parking too close to the stop sign at Grimes Avenue. Current Layout 75’ is available for parking extending west, while allowing adequate clear view space approaching Grimes- can accommodate three spaces. Unique Circumstances A “Keep Back 30 Feet” placard has been removed between 2019 and 2022 Policy Guideline N/A Description Residents concerned with drivers passing, requesting added stop controls and a crosswalk at Ewing Ave. ADT 2,223 (2023) 85% Speed 30.9 mph (2023) Crashes A southbound vehicle on Ewing turning left (east) on W 58th failed to yield to westbound vehicle on W 58th. (2018) Ped and Bike Crosses 46 peds, 17 bikes. Peak hour crossings: 17 (Chowen Avenue) Sight Lines Adequate Previous Requests Request for dynamic display speed signs and added speed limit signs on W 58th. Policy Guideline Crosswalk at Ewing does not meet warrants- location within 300’ of nearby controlled crossing (France) with sidewalks on both sides of W 58th. No cross street adjacent to W 58th has an ADT over 400- further all-way stop controls do not meet warrants. Unique Circumstances W 58th St was reconstructed in 2020 with narrowed driving lanes, added curb and gutter and on-street bike lanes were removed. W 58th Street all-way stop controls at Beard Avenue Two designated accessible parking spaces on Morningside Rd STAFF REPORT Page 3 B2. Request for traffic calming efforts on Schaefer Road. Staff recommends no action. Residents are encouraged to submit a petition for sidewalk construction or curb and gutter installation. Section D: Other traffic safety items handled D1. A resident had concerns of a garbage truck continuing to damage their fence when turning in the alley between Beard Avenue and Abbott Avenue, north of W 60th Street. The resident was advised to contact their garbage company to prevent further issues. D2. A resident was concerned with the level of safety when crossing York Avenue at Parklawn Avenue and requested additional traffic signals. The request was forwarded to Hennepin County as the intersection is under their jurisdiction. Description Issue is between View Lane and Stauder Circle (both all-way stop controlled intersections). ADT 1,772 (2023) 85% Speed 29.9 mph (2023) Crashes December 2015 – vehicle failed to stop and passed a stopped car at Shaeffer Rd and View Ln. Crashing into another vehicle. Sight Lines Adequate Street Width Approximately 27’ Previous Requests Perceived speed concerns on Schaefer, east of View Ln. Unique Circumstances Less than 600’ of roadway between all-way stop controls. Schaefer is classified as a local connector for the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. Roadway has no curb and gutter. Future Work A secondary sidewalk is proposed, no current timetable. Anticipated overlay in 2026. Schaefer Road Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.C. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2023 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 2023 Work P lan initiatives (unless an item is elsewhere on the current agenda). See attached work plan. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2023 Work Plan Progress Report Approved by City Council December 6, 2022 Commission: Transportation Commission 2023 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) Pedestrian Crossing Policy Review Review existing crossing policy and recommend changes with consideration for local amenities such as parks and schools. Deliverable Report and recommendations to City Council Leads Chris Brown Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-Committee Budget Required: None Staff Support Required: 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison, ~5 hours from other staff (Engineering, Parks & Recreation) Jan: No update. Feb: Starting to review policy, resources provided by staff and case studies from other communities. Mar: Started reviewing case studies from Seattle, Denver and Dakota County and will bring back findings and recommendations. Apr: Next step is to meet with staff. May: Meeting with staff next week to discuss next steps. Initiative #2 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Bicycle Network Planning for Bikes as Transportation Develop a priority list of high-traffic corridors and ideas for bike friendly improvements. Deliverable Report to City Council Leads Andy Lewis, Jill Plumb- Smith Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-committee Budget Required: None Staff Support Required: 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison Jan: Subcommittee will use 2018 Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan as blueprint to guide this initiative. Requested street reconstruction information and Hennepin County contacts from staff. Feb: Subcommittee will connect with Hennepin County staff on gaps in their system and timeline for improvements. Mar: Subcommittee met with Hennepin County staff, learned about County’s cost participation program. Hennepin County has also identified how inhospitable France Ave is for pedestrians and cyclists. Apr: Subcommittee will review information provided by staff, will focus efforts on what is within City’s control. May: Subcommittee is making progress on a map of recommendations based on information provided by City and County. Approved by City Council December 6, 2022 Initiative #3 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) France Avenue Corridor Review Review the safety, accessibility, and amenities along the existing France Avenue Transit Corridor for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders between Minnesota Drive and Highway 62 (Southdale District). Investigation will include site visits and review of similar case studies that promote non-automobile transportation modes along similar scale roadways and will include input from key stakeholders. Inquiry is in response to the Climate Action Plan and new parking ordinances. Deliverable Report to City Council Leads Tricia Rubenstein, Bruce McCarthy Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-committee Budget Required: None. Staff Support Required: 2-5 hours per month from Staff Liaison, ~10 hours from Communications for stakeholder engagement/website Jan: Requested Hennepin County contacts from staff. Feb: Subcommittee has started a base drawing, highlighting sidewalks, crosswalks, driveways, and signage. Requested Richfield contacts from staff to get more information on recent W 66th St reconstruction project. Mar: Subcommittee reviewed existing sidewalks gaps, amenities for cyclists. Hennepin County is adding sidewalk between Minnesota Dr and W 76th St. Staff provided a contact for the City of Richfield to learn about recent W 66th St project. Apr: Subcommittee reached out to Planning about redevelopment proposal at Macy’s and lack of bicycle facilities. A pedestrian underpass is also being discussed related to the redevelopment of Macy’s and 7200/7250 France. May: Subcommittee is meeting with the City of Richfield’s Public Works Director this month to learn about W 66th St reconstruction project. Approved by City Council December 6, 2022 Initiative #4 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☒ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Boulevard Tree Planting Review options for replacement and new boulevard tree planting program (Greenspace + Trees Strategy GS1). Deliverable Report to City Council Leads Tricia Rubenstein Target Completion Date Q4 Sub-Committee Budget Required: None Staff Support Required: 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison, ~5 hours from City Forester Jan: Already collected information on potential opportunities. Feb: Planning to meet with City Forester in spring. Mar: City Forester has new interactive map showing where new trees are being planted. Apr: Subcommittee reached out to City Forester to schedule another meeting. May: Subcommittee met with City Forester again. City has almost reached its goal of 1,000 new trees this year and the spring tree sale was a big success. Initiative #5 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Cahill Small Area Plan Appoint Commissioner to serve on the Cahill small area plan working group. Deliverable Commissioner will actively participate in the working group and provide regular updates to the Commission. Leads None Target Completion Date Q4 Working Group Budget Required: Funds available through Hennepin County Planning Grant Staff Support Required: 1 hour per month from Staff Liaison. Jan: Commissioner Kitui absent, no update provided. Next public workshop is Tuesday, February 21, 7-9 p.m. at Public Works. Feb: No update. Mar: No update. Apr: Add discussion item to May agenda. May: Draft plan is now available on Better Together Edina website for public comment through June 22. Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for June 28. Commission will review and comment at their next meeting. Approved by City Council December 6, 2022 Initiative #6 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☒ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☐ 4 (Review & Decide) Parking Consideration of future parking in Edina to identify parking initiatives to pursue in the next 10-15 years, in what order and what Commissions/resources should be assigned to each. Deliverable Recommendation to City Council (Review and Comment from ETC, EEC) Leads Kirk Johnson Target Completion Date Q4 Cross-Commission Committee (PC lead, EEC) Budget Required: None Staff Support Required: 2-5 hours per month from Staff Liaison, ~5 hours from other staff (Planning, Engineering) Jan: Planning Commission lead (Alkire) will set up a meeting in early March. EEC representative is Commissioner Schima. Planning expects to develop a roadmap for Council/Commissions on parking initiatives. ETC will inquire whether bike parking can be included. Feb: No update. Mar: Waiting to hear who new lead is from Planning Commission. Apr: No update. May: Subcommittee reached out to Planning to determine where this initiative lies in their priorities. 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.) Transit service advocacy, pedestrian safety education, speed limit adherence Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.D. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation, Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Mid-Year Work Pan Modification Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve proposed mid-year work plan modification. INTRODUCTION: See attached work plan modification. ATTACHMENTS: Description Proposed 2023 Work Plan Modification Transportation Commission Proposed Modification to 2023 Annual Work Plan Initiative #7 Initiative Type ☒ Project ☐ Ongoing / Annual ☐ Event Council Charge ☐ 1 (Study & Report) ☐ 2 (Review & Comment) ☐ 3 (Review & Recommend) ☒ 4 (Review & Decide) Enhancements to Commission Response to Community Comments Create more thorough and consistent communication to provide to community members who comment at Transportation Commission meetings or provide written commentary to the commission or city staff. Deliverable Proposed set of communications Leads Andy Lewis Grant Wright Roger Bildsten Target Completion Date Q3 Budget Required: Funds not needed. Staff Support Required: 1-2 hours from Community Engagement Manager, 1-2 hours from Communications. Liaison Comments: This initiative supports the City’s work towards improving communication, engagement and transparency. Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: VII.E. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:2024 Work Plan Development Discussion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: The Commission will begin to develop their 2024 Work Plan proposal. See attached staff report and supporting materials. ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report: 2024 Work Plan Development 2024 Work Plan Template Transportation Chapter, 2018 Comprehensive Plan ETC Work Plan History June 15, 2023 Transportation Commission Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner 2024 Work Plan Development Information / Background To aid in the development of the 2024 Work Plan proposal, staff would like to provide the Commission with the following guidance and recommendations: General 1. Commission work plans are developed by the Commission, not the staff liaison. 2. Commissioners are encouraged to review the goals from the Transportation Chapter of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan when considering work plan initiatives. 3. There should be at least one commissioner willing to lead each initiative for the Commission to propose it. 4. Work plan initiatives should not include City Department work plan initiatives. While there may be overlap, the role of the Commission should be made clear. 5. List proposed initiatives in order of priority (#1 is highest priority). 6. Commissions should be careful not to overload their work plan, but pursue an achievable number of initiatives. 7. The “Parking Lot” is reserved for initiatives the Commission considered but did not propose as part of the work plan. These items are not considered approved and would require a work plan amendment approved by Council to allow the Commission to begin work. Initiative & Outcome Fields When writing initiatives, make sure the following points are addressed: 1. What is the specific action/outcome? 2. Describe what the Commission will do. 3. Describe what the outcome(s) will look like. Examples: Study and report on other agencies’ processes for completing traffic impact studies Review and recommend change to the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund policy STAFF REPORT Page 2 The 2024 Work Plan development schedule will proceed as follows: June 15 July 20 August 17 Regular ETC meetings • 2024 Work Plan development September 21 Regular ETC meeting • Deadline to approve 2024 Work Plan proposal October 3 City Council work session • Chairs will present 2024 Work Plan proposals • Council will review, ask clarifying questions and give feedback to City staff on possible amendments to initiatives • Staff Liaisons will be available for questions November 8 City Council work session • City Manager will present 2024 Work Plan proposals with liaison and Manager comments • Council will review, ask clarifying questions and give feedback on initiatives • Staff Liaisons will be available for questions December 6 Regular City Council meeting • Council will approve 2024 Work Plans January 1, 2024 • Commissions begin work on 2024 Work Plans Page 1 of 2 Commission Name 2024 Proposed Work Plan 1 Initiative Type: Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event Target Completion Date: Quarter or month Lead(s): List at least one commissioner Initiative Title: Initiative Description: Deliverable: Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative? How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing? Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ. City Manager Comments: 2 Initiative Type: Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event Target Completion Date: Quarter or month Lead(s): List at least one commissioner Initiative Title: Initiative Description: Deliverable: Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative? How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing? Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ. City Manager Comments: = commission = staff Page 2 of 2 3 Initiative Type: Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event Target Completion Date: Quarter or month Lead(s): List at least one commissioner Initiative Title: Initiative Description: Deliverable: Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative? How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing? Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ. City Manager Comments: 4 Initiative Type: Project, Ongoing/Annual, Event Target Completion Date: Quarter or month Lead(s): List at least one commissioner Initiative Title: Initiative Description: Deliverable: Council Charge: ☐ 1: Study & Report ☐ 2: Review & Comment ☐ 3: Review & Recommend ☐ 4: Review & Decide Budget Required (completed by staff): Are there funds for this project? If there are not funds available, explain the impact of Council approving this initiative. Staff Support Required (completed by staff): Who in addition to the staff liaison will have to support this initiative? How many hours of support are needed? Communications/marketing? Liaison Comments: Liaison comments should be completed prior to submitting the proposed work plan to MJ. City Manager Comments: Parking Lot 5-1 5. Transportation Chapter Highlights This chapter of the Edina Comprehensive Plan discusses the transportation network; its existing and planned future design, function, and operational characteristics. Current and future conditions are considered against three aspects of movement: 1) to and from, 2) within, and 3) through the City. As presented in this chapter, movement is broadly discussed to take into account: • The municipal transportation system comprising local streets, pedestrian ways, bicycle facilities, and City-operated transit services; • The regional transportation system of State of Minnesota and Hennepin County highways • Transit services that are provided by the Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit, Southwest Metro Transit; and the City of Edina through a contractual arrangement with DARTS. • Non-motorized transportation modes supported by the City and Three Rivers Park District. The chapter defines the existing system, identifying the locational and physical characteristics of system components and assesses them against factors such as: • capacity, • safety, • efficiency, • environmental and social impacts, and • overall contribution to: a) the ability to conveniently move around and b) the physical design of the City. Edina’s Transportation Planning Mission: The mission for transportation planning in Edina is to provide access and facilitate the movement of people and goods efficiently, safely, cost effectively, and comfortably to any desired destination while, at the same time, seeking to improve community livability and the environment and minimize associated negative impacts. Transportation planning is not an end in and of itself. Instead, transportation planning is performed to proactively identify the most suitable travel modes and pathways to help achieve a desirable and livable community and accommodate safe and convenient travel to, within, and through the community’s nodes, parks, and City facilities. Toward this end, this chapter considers the roles of a range of transportation infrastructure (roadways, transitways, walkways, bikeways, railways and flyways), to support a variety of vehicles, each operating successfully and in a manner that minimizes conflicts with each other and surrounding land uses. Edina is a near fully developed community, and the existing roadway network is essentially complete. Today’s primary transportation planning focus is not on building new roads or new alignments but on: 1. Renewing, managing, and improving the existing transportation system (network); 2. Ensuring that the transportation system can accommodate travel demand imposed by new developments; 3. Improving the City’s non-motorized transportation system to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement and increase active transportation; 4. Supporting and encouraging transit use; 5. Increasing safety; 6. Implementing the City’s Living Streets Plan (2015) to ensure that the transportation needs of all users will be considered and all modes will be appropriately accommodated; and 7. Ensuring that the City will manage the existing and future transportation systems in an efficient and responsible manner to achieve livability, sustainability, and a high level of environmental quality. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-2 Fourteen goals developed for this chapter, which follow, focus on developing a multi-modal transportation system that is conveniently accessible to all users. The goals recognize and seek to reverse the advantage that automobile travel has had over transit and non-motorized modes; thus enabling residents and visitors to travel without increasing greenhouse gas emissions, personal costs, and costs to society. 1. Improve mobility for residents, visitors and businesses with a balanced system of transportation alternatives for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. 2. Implement a fully multi-modal transportation system that supports the land use vision and future land use plan for managing and shaping future growth. 3. Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and neighborhood quality of life and emphasize methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Reduce the overall dependence on and use of single-occupant vehicles by promoting land use patterns that allow for shorter vehicular trips and the use of alternative travel options. 5. Promote a travel demand management (TDM) program through a coordinated program of regulations, marketing, and provision of alternative workplace and travel options. 6. Encourage and support attractive and reliable high-performance transit service and connections. 7. Develop and manage parking provision to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride-sharing (car pools and van pools), and bicycle parking. 8. Invest in infrastructure to support the continued growth in low- to zero-emission technology and support regional and statewide efforts to educate and adopt electric vehicles. 9. Provide for efficient movement of goods within Edina, while minimizing the impacts of freight traffic on other trips and reducing negative impacts on land uses on freight corridors. 10. Engage, seek input from and educate all segments of the community regarding transportation- related issues and projects impacting the City. 11. Identify new and continuing sources for transportation infrastructure funding by seeking to partner where feasible with federal, state, county and adjacent community sources. 12. Design roadway facilities according to their intended service function and neighborhood context. 13. Provide and maintain adequate access to and from, and safety on, local and regional roadways. adjacent community redevelopment and other activity that potentially impacts the City of Edina. 14. Manage, maintain and operate roadways to maximize wherever possible the safety and mobility of all users and all modes. These goals are consistent with and support the City’s Living Streets Plan (2015), a policy plan that is divided into three elements: Vision, Principles and Implementation. The policy plan includes a description of core services provided by the City of Edina that are related to or implemented in part through Living Streets. (https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1199/Living-Streets-Plan-PDF?bidId=) Excerpts from the policy plan are provided below. 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. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-3 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. 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 Principles: • 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. • Principle 2: Living Streets provide access and mobility for all transportation modes while enhancing safety and convenience for all users. Connectivity Principles: • 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. • 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 Principles: • Principle 8: Living Streets are developed with input from stakeholders and designed to consider neighborhood character and promote a strong sense of place. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-4 • 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. • Principle 11: Living Streets coordinate with regional transit networks and regional authorities. • Principle 12: The City will consider the fiscal context of projects and potential financial impacts when implementing Living Streets at the project level. Sustainability Principles: • 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. • 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. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-5 Introduction Overview Effective transportation planning is critically important for a community such as Edina. Residents, institutions, and businesses must be provided with transportation facilities and services that meet mobility needs in an efficient, effective and safe manner. Transportation facilities, at the same time, need to be planned and constructed so as to limit negative social, environmental, and aesthetic impacts to the greatest degree feasible. In addition, residents who cannot or choose not to drive need to have transportation options to meet their daily needs. There is a fundamental link between transportation planning and land use planning. Successful land use planning cannot take place without taking transportation considerations into account. Conversely, transportation planning is driven by the need to support existing and future land uses. (Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan identifies existing and planned future land uses, which are base-level inputs in transportation planning.) Edina Transportation Commission In 2003, the City formed the Edina Transportation Commission (ETC). It comprises citizens appointed by the City Council. It advises the City Council on transportation issues facing the City, including traffic management, roadway improvement projects, non-motorized transportation, and traffic safety requests. This transportation chapter was prepared under the guidance of the ETC. Purpose There are three objectives of this Transportation chapter: 1. To provide a guidance document for City staff and elected officials regarding the planning and implementation of effective transportation facilities and systems over the planning horizon. 2. To give citizens and businesses background on transportation issues and allow them to be better informed regarding the City’s decision making on transportation issues. 3. To communicate to other government agencies Edina’s perspectives and intentions regarding transportation planning issues. The preparation of the document also has provided stakeholders with the opportunity to have input into the transportation planning process. Current Conditions Walking and Bicycling Walking and Bicycling Facilities The existing network of sidewalks, pathways and bicycle facilities serving the City of Edina is depicted on Figures 5.1 and 5.2. In 2018 the City prepared a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan; the Master Plan’s pedestrian and bicycle findings and recommendations are summarized in Section 7.3. The full Master Plan is attached as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan and can be accessed at https://www.edinamn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5433/Final-Master-Plan-Report-PDF Regional Bicycle Transportation Network The goal of the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) is to establish an integrated seamless network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails to improve conditions for bicycle transportation at the regional level and encourage planning and implementation of future bikeways. The network is divided into two tiers each for RBTN corridors and alignments. Figure 5.3 depicts the Tier 1 and Tier 2 RBTN Corridors and Alignments. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-6 Figure 5.1: Existing Sidewalk Facilities Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-7 Figure 5.2: Existing Bicycle Facilities Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-8 Figure 5.3: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Regional Bike Network Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-9 Tier 1 RBTN Corridors have been identified by the Metropolitan Council as the highest priority for regional transportation planning and investment. Tier 2 RBTN Corridors are the remaining corridors in the overall regional network and are assigned the second tier priority. As shown, there is one small Tier 1 RBTN corridors in Edina, which looks to make a connection between two RBTN alignments across the W 77th St bridge over TH 100. Additionally, there are three Tier 2 RBTN corridors in Edina. These corridors (which do not yet have defined alignments) are centered on: • Blake Road/Interlachen Boulevard • Vernon Avenue/West 50th Street • Canadian Pacific Railroad north of West 66th Street Tier 1 and Tier 2 RBTN Corridors are similar to RBTN Alignments. Unlike the Corridors, the Alignments have specific route alignments defined through discussions with City and County staff. These alignments either already exist or are defined in City planning documents. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, opened in 2018 by Three Rivers Park District, is the only Tier 1 RBTN Alignment in Edina, and West 66th Street is the City’s only Tier 2 RBTN Alignment. Transit Existing Transit Routes and Paratransit Services Scheduled transit service for Edina residents is currently provided by Metro Transit (a division of the Metropolitan Council) and by Southwest Transit. Most of the City of Edina is within Metro Transit’s Market Area III, with eastern portions (including Southdale and northeast Edina) in Market Area II. Transit Market Area II has high to moderately high population and employment densities and typically has a traditional street grid that is comparable to Market Area I. Much of Market Area II is also categorized as an Urban Center and can support many of the same types of fixed-route transit services as Market Area I, although usually at lower frequencies or shorter service plans. Transit Market Area III has moderate density but tends to have a less well developed traditional street grid that can limit the effectiveness of transit. It is typically Urban with large portions of Suburban and Suburban Edge communities. Transit service in this area is primarily commuter express bus service with some fixed-route local service providing basic coverage. General public dial-a-ride services are available where fixed-route service is not viable. The existing scheduled service to Edina residents is detailed in Table 5.1 on the next page and illustrated on Figure 5.4. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-10 Table 5.1: Scheduled Transit Service In Edina (2018) Route Number Service Route/Area Service Description 6 Edina (includes Southdale Transit Center), Uptown, downtown Minneapolis, University of Minnesota High frequency local service, all day/evening, all week; 5-15 minute headways 46 Minnetonka, Edina (includes 50th/France), south Minneapolis, St Paul Local service all day/evening, all week; 30-60 minute headways 146 Edina (Vernon Avenue), southwest Minneapolis, downtown Minneapolis Limited stop service (I-35W) service during a.m. and p.m. rush hours, weekdays 515 Edina (Includes Southdale Transit Center), Richfield, South Minneapolis, Bloomington (includes Mall of America), Veterans Medical Center Local service, all day, all week; 10-30 minute headways 537 Bloomington (includes Normandale College), Edina (includes Southdale Transit Center) Local service, all day/evening, weekdays; 60 minute headways 538 Edina (includes Southdale Transit Center), Richfield, Bloomington (includes Mall of America) Local service, all day/evening, all week; 30-60 minute headways 540 Edina, Richfield (includes Best Buy Headquarters), Bloomington (includes Mall of America) Local service, all day/evening, all week; 15-30 minute headways during a.m./p.m. rush hours, otherwise 60-90 minute headways 578 Edina (includes Southdale Transit Center), downtown Minneapolis Express service (TH 62 and I-35W) during a.m. and p.m. rush hours 579 University of Minnesota, south Minneapolis, Edina (includes Southdale Transit Center) Express service (I-35W and TH 62) during p.m. rush hour, weekdays 587 Edina, downtown Minneapolis Express service (TH 100 and I-394) during a.m. and p.m. rush hours, weekdays 600 (Southwest Transit) Eden Prairie (includes Southwest Station), Edina (includes Southdale Transit Center), downtown Minneapolis “Flex route” service during a.m. and p.m. rush hours, weekdays, 10-20 minute headways Note: All the routes listed in Table 5.1 are provided by Metro Transit with the exception of Route 600, which is provided by Southwest Metro Transit. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-11 Figure 5.4: Existing, Scheduled Transit Service Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-12 Metro Mobility Paratransit services are provided by Metro Transit’s Metro Mobility service. Door to door service is provided using a wheelchair lift-equipped van on a first come-first served basis. 2018 hours of operation are daily 4:15 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. CloverRide Circulator Service The City of Edina contracts with Dakota Area Resources and Transportation for Seniors (DARTS) to provide a circulator bus service in the Southdale area for Edina residents and visitors. This service, called CloverRide, operates from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Fridays. CloverRide is a reliable, continuous shuttle service that provides accessibility from senior housing locations in the Southdale area to retail and other popular destinations. The one-hour “loop” runs clockwise along France and York Avenues between W 65th Street and Minnesota Drive. While focused on serving senior citizens, the CloverRide circulator bus service is available to riders of any age. High-Frequency Transit Routes The only high-frequency transit route that currently serves Edina is the Route 6 (see Table 5.1 above). This route serves Edina’s industrial park area, the Southdale Transit Center, South Minneapolis (including the Uptown Transit Station), downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota. Transit Stations and Transit Centers Southdale Transit Center The key transit facility in Edina is the Southdale Transit Center, which is located in the eastern portion of Southdale Center shopping mall. It includes a covered shelter area where route and schedule information can be found. The Southdale Transit Center is one of the busiest transit centers in the Twin Cities, with seven transit lines that stop and link at this location, along with a park & ride (see below). Three lighted, covered waiting shelters are equipped with on-demand heat and real-time departure information. Park-and-Rides and Express Bus Corridors Southdale Park & Ride There are 70 surface park & ride spaces at the Southdale Transit Center (see above), with available overflow parking for additional vehicles. Express Bus Corridors TH 62, TH 100, I-35W and I-394 serve as express bus corridors for Metro Transit routes that connect Edina commuters to downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota. Express Routes 578 and 579 run along TH 62 and I-35W, while Route 587 runs along TH 100 and I-394. Transit Advantages and Transit Support Facilities Currently, Metro Transit operates on “bus-only shoulders” within Edina on northbound TH 100 (north of Benton Avenue) and both eastbound and westbound TH 62 (east of Gleason Road). There are currently no transit support facilities in Edina Roadways Located within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the City of Edina is served by the regional roadway network that is shown on Figure 5.5. As shown, Edina is a first-tier suburb within the I-494 beltway, and the important regional roadways that pass through or are adjacent to the City are: I-494, Trunk Highway (TH) 169, TH 100, and TH 62 (Crosstown). Cities that are adjacent to Edina are: Minneapolis, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Bloomington, and Richfield. Figure 5.6 shows existing daily traffic volumes, and Figure 5.7 shows the number of lanes on the regional roads that comprise the regional roadway network. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-13 Figure 5.5: Regional Roadway Network Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-14 Figure 5.6: Current (2016) Daily Traffic Volumes Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-15 Figure 5.7: Number of Lanes on Collectors and Arterials Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-16 Roadway Functional Classification The roadway functional classification system describes how streets and highways in a network collect and distribute traffic from neighborhood streets to collector roadways to arterials and ultimately to the Metropolitan Highway System. Roads are placed into categories based on the degree to which they provide access to adjacent land versus provide higher-speed mobility for “through” traffic. Functional classification is a cornerstone of transportation planning. Within this approach, roads are located and designed to perform their designated function. It should be noted that while functional classification is an important factor to determine the engineering/technical design parameters for roadways, aesthetic considerations in Edina will be directed by the Living Streets Plan and transportation-related community design guidelines discussed in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. The functional classification system used in the City of Edina, as described below and shown on Figures 5.8 and 5.9, conforms to the Metropolitan Council standards. The Metropolitan Council has published these criteria in the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan. This guide separates roadways into four (4) street classifications, including principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. The City of Edina has expanded the Metropolitan Council’s classification system to include local connectors, bringing the total to five classifications. These classifications address the function of state, county and city streets from a standpoint of the safe and efficient movement of traffic through the City while providing satisfactory access to residents and businesses located within the City. Under the following headings, information is provided for each of the respective functional classes, as well the roadways that fall under those classes in Edina. The descriptions of the characteristics of the functional classes provided below are based on Metropolitan Council information. It should be noted that an additional sub-classification called Local Connector streets is included as part of Edina’s local roadway network and is described below. It should also be noted that these descriptions represent “ideal conditions” and that not all roadways Key Features of a Functionally Classified Roadway System • Systems that include an appropriate balance of the five types of roadways provide the greatest degree of safety and efficiency. • It takes a combination of various types of roadways to meet the needs of the variety of land uses found in most urbanized areas. • Most agencies could not afford a system made up entirely of principal arterials, and a region only served by a system of local streets would likely be gridlocked. • Roadways that only serve one function are generally safer and tend to operate more efficiently. For example, freeways only serve the mobility function and, as a group, have the lowest crash rates and the highest levels of operational efficiency. • Functional classification can be used to prioritize roadway improvements. • The design features and levels of access for specific roadways can be matched to the intended function of individual roadways. • The appropriate balance point between competing functions should be determined for each roadway based on analyses of specific operational, safety, design, and land features. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-17 Figure 5.8: Regional Roadway Functional Classification Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-18 Figure 5.9: Local Roadway Functional Classification Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-19 within that functional class will fit the specific description due to unique local conditions, history of the roadway, or other factors. Principal Arterials Principal Arterials include all Interstate freeways. Interstate freeways connect the region with other areas in the state and other states. They also connect the metro centers to regional business concentrations. The emphasis of principal arterials is on moving large volumes of traffic over long distances rather than providing direct access to land. They connect only with other Interstate freeways, other principal arterials, and select minor arterials and collectors. Principal arterials are not intended to serve pedestrian and bicycle travel directly and they often act as barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel in the centers and neighborhoods through which they pass. The principal arterials through or adjacent to Edina are: • I-494 • TH 100 • TH 169 • TH 62 (Crosstown) Minor Arterials The primary function of Minor Arterials is mobility as opposed to access in the urban area; and only concentrations of commercial or industrial land uses should have direct access to them. Minor arterials should connect to principal arterials, other minor arterials, and collectors. Connection to some local streets is acceptable. Minor arterials are designed to carry higher volumes of general traffic than other local roads carry. Sometimes the design standards for high volume minor arterials create a barrier for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The Metropolitan Council has identified “A” minor arterials as streets that are of regional importance because they relieve, expand, or complement the principal arterial system. The “A” minor arterials in the Edina area are summarized in Table 5.2, below. Table 5.2 – “A” Minor Arterial Roadways Roadway From To Type France Avenue (CSAH 17) Southern City Limit Northern City Limit Reliever Arterial Valley View Road TH 62 West 66th Street Reliever Arterial West 66th Street Valley View Road Eastern City Limit Reliever Arterial Vernon Avenue (CSAH 158) Interlachen Boulevard TH 100 Augmenter Arterial Vernon Avenue/Gleason Road (CSAH 158) TH 62 Interlachen Boulevard Reliever West 50th St TH 100 France Avenue South (CSAH 17)** Augmenter Arterial TH 169 E Frontage Road/West 78th Street/Edina Industrial Boulevard/West 77th Street/West 76th Street Western City Limit Eastern City Limit Reliever Arterial ** County State Aid Highway (CSAH): A county road where funding support is provided to the county by the state, because the road functions to link metropolitan highways. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-20 Collector Roads Collectors provide connections between neighborhoods and from neighborhoods to minor business concentrations. It also provides supplementary interconnections of major traffic generators within the metro centers and regional business concentrations. Mobility and land access are equally important. Direct land access should predominately be to development concentrations. In order to preserve the amenities of neighborhoods while still providing direct access to business areas, these streets are usually spaced at one-half mile intervals in developed areas. Major collectors serve higher density residential areas, job and activity centers and freight terminals that are not on the arterial system, and they serve longer local trips, including local bus service. Major collectors are included in the Metropolitan Council’s regional network. Minor collectors serve shorter local trips and lower density land uses and play a key role in the City of Edina’s local roadway network. Major and minor collector roads can be good candidates for bicycle routes because they serve shorter trips that bicyclists make and generally have more compatible traffic speeds and volumes as compared to arterials. Major collector roadways in the Edina are summarized in Table 5.3, below. Table 5.3 Major Collector Roads Street From To Blake Rd./Interlachen Rd. Northern City Limit Vernon Avenue (CSAH 158) Blake Road Interlachen Boulevard Vernon Avenue (CSAH 158) Gleason Road TH 62 West 78th Street Valley View Road/Tracy Avenue Gleason Road Vernon Avenue (CSAH 158) Cahill Road West 78th Street Dewey Hill Road Brookside Avenue Interlachen Boulevard Northern City Limit Dewey Hill Road Gleason Road Cahill Road Antrim Road Valley View Road W 70th Street West 70th Street Antrim Road France Avenue South (CSAH 17) York Avenue S/Xerxes Avenue South (CSAH 31) Northern City Limit Southern City Limit West 69th Street York Avenue S (CSAH 31) Eastern City Limit Local Connector Streets Local Connectors are a subset of Local Roads (below) and are not part of the Metropolitan Council TPP standards. Local Connectors are those with a Local Road functional classification, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, that meet at least one of the following two criteria: • Average daily traffic (ADT) of at least 1,000 vehicles. • Serves as a connection between neighborhoods, destinations and higher-level roadways. Local Connectors provide continuous walking and bicycling routes, and some may accommodate transit routes as well. While they are essential to the flow of people between neighborhoods and destinations, the needs of Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-21 people passing through must be balanced with the needs of those who live and work along Local Connectors. Local connector streets in the City are depicted on Figure 5.9. Local Roads Local Roads provide the most access and the least mobility within the overall functional classification system. They allow access to individual homes, shops, and similar traffic destinations. Through traffic should be discouraged from using local roads by using appropriate geometric designs and traffic control devices. Local roads serve local travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. Local roads in the City are depicted on Figure 5.9. Jurisdictional Classification State, County, and Municipal Roadways Roadways are further classified on the basis of which level of government owns and has jurisdiction over the given facility. The three levels of government that have involvement are the State of Minnesota (MnDOT), Hennepin County, and the City of Edina. MnDOT owns/maintains the Principal Arterial and Trunk Highway (TH) systems, Hennepin County the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) and County Road (CR) system. The City owns/maintains the local (and local connector) streets, including Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. Figure 5.10 provides a graphic depicting the jurisdictional classification of the overall roadway network serving Edina and its residents, businesses, and institutions. Cities in Minnesota with populations greater than 5,000 are eligible to receive Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding from the state Highway User Tax Distribution Fund. The basic purpose of this program is to help local governments construct and maintain those collector and arterial roadways that have consistent design standards and are well integrated into the overall network of collector and arterial roadways. The State Aid office of MnDOT has established clearly defined design requirements for MSA streets. These requirements ensure that capacity, operational, and safety goals are met in a uniform manner from community to community and that street systems are well coordinated with each other. Based on State Statute, sections 169.80 and 169.87, MnDOT does not allow cities to restrict truck traffic on local or MSA streets. However, cities may restrict trucks over a certain weight depending on road conditions and time of year. Edina’s current (2018) MSA network is identified on Figure 5.11. These roadways are eligible to receive MSA funds for maintenance and/or improvement projects. The MSA network is reviewed every year and may be revised subject to MnDOT State Aid review and approval. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-22 Figure 5.10: Existing Jurisdictional Classification Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-23 Figure 5.11: Existing MSA Network Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-24 Aviation There currently are no airports within the City of Edina. The closest airport is the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP), which is approximately three and one half miles east of the City. Edina is within the influence area of MSP as determined by Metropolitan Council Guidance (Transportation Policy Plan, Appendix K). Aviation-Related Policies and Ordinances Any person or organization intending to sponsor the construction or alteration of a structure affecting navigable airspace as defined in Federal Regulation Title 14, Part 77 must inform the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) of the project. This notification is accomplished through the completion and submittal of Form 7460. In the case of Edina, this requirement applies to the following circumstances: • any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level • any construction or alteration of greater height than an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway (Runway 17/35 at MSP) Aviation-Related Facilities Edina has no permitted seaplane surface waters, tall towers, radio beacons or other air navigation aids located within the city. There is currently one heliport in the City of Edina, which is located at the Fairview Southdale Hospital. Heliports are regulated through City ordinance. Freight A safe, efficient, high-capacity freight transportation system is essential to the economic well-being of Edina, the region, and the state. However, freight movement (by truck and rail) is often regarded as incompatible with other land uses and other modes of transportation. The following is a summary of existing facilities, nodes and issues relating to freight movement in Edina. Figure 5.12 shows roads and railways that carry freight through Edina. Figure 5.13 depicts the current volumes of multi-axle (or heavy commercial traffic) on principle arterials in and adjacent to the City. Freight Facilities While Edina has no intermodal freight terminals, the Canadian Pacific Railway (CP Rail) railroad runs north- south over four miles through the entire city, just west of Highway 100. Currently, freight trains on this portion of the CP Rail line are operated by the Twin Cities and Western (TC&W) Railroad. Approximately two trains run through Edina on CP Rail per day – one in the morning and one the evening. The existing freight rail traffic in the corridor remains about the same as it did in 2001 (about 1-2 trains per day). Some freight improvements/track improvements have been made recently which may lead to increased freight traffic, though specific railroad plans are not known. Other Freight-Related Nodes The Cahill industrial area, located in south-central Edina, consists of two distinct areas. The northwestern corner of this area comprises some residential uses on the north side of West 70th Street and a concentration of commercial (office and retail) and light industrial uses on the south side of West 70th Street. This area is bordered by West 70th Street to the north, the Canadian Pacific Railroad to the east, generally the FilmTech industrial use to the south, and Cahill Road to the west. A small area plan for the northwest corner of this area was approved by the Planning Commission in December 2018 and adopted by Council in January 2019. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-25 The remaining area is bordered by West 70th Street to the north, TH 100 to the east, the southern city limits to the south, and the Canadian Pacific Railroad to the west. The land uses within these borders can best be described as light industrial and business park. With the Great Recession of 2008 and the economic downturn, retail uses and other non-business uses began to appear in this area. At this time it is known that existing land uses in the Cahill industrial area tend to generate multi-axle truck traffic, future plans are somewhat unknown as the City considers preparing a small area or district plan for the area. Another concentration of uses associated with truck traffic is the Southdale commercial district, in southeastern Edina. This area has a large number of commercial and retail land uses that must be served by trucks for deliveries, in addition to the general purpose traffic associated with the district. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-26 Figure 5.12: Freight System Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-27 Figure 5.13: Current Daily Volume of Heavy Commercial Traffic Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-28 Trends and Challenges The City of Edina recognizes the need to increase active transportation through the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, which will improve the livability and sense of community in Edina. When planning for the future it is important to lessen the negative impacts that transportation may have on the environment and neighborhoods and improve connectivity throughout the city. In order to prepare for the coming changes in transportation, including vehicle electrification, connected and automated vehicles, changes in parking demand, technology, funding availability, delivery of goods and the aging population, it is necessary to plan for a balanced transportation system. Walking and Bicycling The following is a summary of Edina’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, the findings and recommendations of which serve to identify the trends, challenges and opportunities of walking and bicycling in Edina. The full Master Plan is attached as an appendix. Proposed pedestrian and bicycle networks are illustrated on Figures 5.14 and 5.15 on the following two pages. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan is a document to guide Edina’s continuing evolution toward becoming a more walkable, bikeable community that offers its residents a full range of healthy, active and sustainable transportation options for moving in and around the city, and for connecting to its numerous recreational, commercial and entertainment opportunities. Walking and Biking Goals Goals for the plan are twofold: • To increase the number of Edina residents, workers and visitors who walk or bike for transportation, health, fitness, and recreation in the city, and, • To support city, resident and elected officials’ work and efforts to offer the highest quality of life and best experience of their city to Edina residents, businesses, workers and visitors. Community Guidance The plan was developed with the active participation of the Edina community and guidance and consultation with city staff. A vigorous engagement process - using both in-person and innovative online approaches - brought the Edina: A Community of Learning. Edina has a prized education system of high-quality public schools. The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the importance of extending the benefits of education to the entire community. Collaborating with the Arts and Culture, Heritage Preservation, and Parks and Recreation Commissions and Edina public schools, the Planning and Public Works Departments could incorporate continued learning into infrastructure improvement projects. New sidewalks, for example, might include cast-in alphabets to spur toddler interest in reading, poetry to stimulate us all, original art to tie it all together and certainly dates of construction to help us all understand the effects of time. And all of this could become visual clutter, but under the guidance of the Arts and Culture Commission, it has the possibility to become a pervasive and convincing presence of a commitment to education and learning that can delight the community and indicate that the community is committed to becoming an even better place to live. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-29 Figure 5.14: Proposed Sidewalk Facilities Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-30 Figure 5.15: Proposed Bicycle Facilities Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-31 voice and ideas of well over a thousand Edina residents into the shaping of the plan’s vision and recommendations. The guidance was clear: residents recognize, enjoy and appreciate the many walk/bike assets the City has developed over the last ten years - but there are also many opportunities for improving current conditions and innovating, once again, to develop and offer residents the best, most productive approaches for growing walking and biking in the city. An All Ages and Abilities Network Guidance from Edina residents was very clear: connecting to schools, parks and neighborhoods with safe and comfortable facilities is a key priority. The plan proposes an All Ages and Abilities walk/bike system that is built around a new “Twin Loops” framework connecting key assets in the city through a high-comfort, high-amenity network of walking and biking routes and supporting facilities. The Inner and Outer Loops, working together with the new Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail, provide high quality connections tying all four city quadrants and serving Edina schools, community destinations and parks, regional destinations, and adjoining communities. A Comprehensive Approach The plan recognizes the importance of a comprehensive approach for achieving success: a full suite of recommendations - from on-the-ground routes and facilities to a robust set of education, encouragement and other programming initiatives are part of the plan’s “6Es” approach. Bikeshare, educational campaigns, and recommendations for supporting development of new “mobility hubs” in the city are included. Taking Care of What We’ve Got But the plan is not only about making new investments – it is also about recognizing and taking care of the many walk/bike assets Edina has developed over the last few years. Recommendations for maintaining infrastructure and offering a year-round walking and biking network are also a key part of the plan. Implementation - Where We Make it Real Recommendations are great - but none of it counts if we do not build it. The plan includes robust guidance for implementation approaches - from a “test it first” and quick/tactical approach to developing facilities and infrastructure to recommendations for implementing programs. Most important of all, it includes a preliminary evaluation on how to implement the Edina Twin Loops - by looking at opportunities, constraints, and potential phasing for developing the individual segments that will make up this premier, signature walking and biking framework for the City’s transportation network. Several potential funding sources are also identified. Safe Routes to School In 2014 the City of Edina approved its Active Routes to School (ARTS) Plan. The purpose of the ARTS Plan is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. The City worked together with the Edina School District to prepare the plan, and the City has been successful in implementing most of the sidewalk recommendations indicated in the ARTS Plan. Future Transit Service The City of Edina, as an inner ring suburb, has good transit service relative to much of the overall metro region. The existing service and facilities are identified on Figure 5.4. The Southdale Transit Center is one of the busiest Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-32 transit facilities in the region, and there is generally good commuter service to downtown Minneapolis. However, transit service in western portions of the City is quite limited, and the need has been identified to evaluate additional park and ride capacity to improve the usability of commuter service for Edina residents. This will be discussed further under the facilities heading below. As discussed in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan, the population of Edina is aging to a greater degree than many communities in the region. This trend will likely increase the demand for transit services in coming years. The City should track this and other factors including increasing gasoline costs to assess on-going demand for enhanced scheduled transit service. The City should work with Metro Transit and Southwest Metro Transit to advance such service as demand is identified. Metro Transit provides the great majority of transit service options in Edina, and it would make the determination if service revisions or enhancements would be viable for its service areas. The ability to plan and provide additional transit service is subject to state and regional funding that Metro Transit receives. Facilities Metro Transit’s Central-South (Sector 5) Plan (revised 2004) identified a future 300-500 car park and ride facility at TH 100 and Vernon Avenue. However, the Metropolitan Council’s 2030 Park-and-Ride Plan (adopted 2010) does not include a future park-and-ride facility in Edina. The Plan identifies an existing 1-150 car “transitway facility” at TH 100 and Vernon Avenue, which consists of “hide-and-ride” transit users who park in and around the City-owned parking structure in this location. Given the current limited transit service in the western portion of the City, future evaluation of the need for a more formal park-and-ride facility at this location may be necessary. Future Service Local Circulator Service As discussed above, there is very limited Metro Transit Service in the western portions of Edina. In the past the City has had discussions with Metro Transit regarding additional service to the western areas, perhaps as circulator service. This would involve smaller vehicles that would seat between 12 and 18 riders. At the time Metro Transit determined that there is not enough demand in this area for it to viably provide such service, given its funding limitations. Metro Transit staff cited the relatively high income levels and high rates of car ownership as factors limiting the demand for additional transit service in these areas. The City has evaluated, on a preliminary basis, the option of providing its own circulator service. This would provide service to the western portions of the City and would give those who cannot drive or choose not to an alternative travel mode to use. In summary, the capital costs (in 2008 dollars) for the lowest level of service (“baseline”) evaluated would be approximately $150,000 (three vans), and the annual operating costs would be over $250,000. The more extensive operational scenario evaluated resulted in costs substantially higher. The evaluation summarized above is intended to stimulate preliminary but systematic consideration of circulator service which could increase transit coverage in western Edina. To move this issue forward, a more detailed study will be required to address the following issues: • Clarify the City’s understanding of potential ridership; who will use the service and at what times? • Preferred service type (fixed route vs. flex or “on-demand”) and frequency • If fixed route, identify the optimal routes and stops • If a hybrid fixed route/flex service, identify optimal operating parameters • Hours of operations • Fare structure Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-33 Greater Southdale Area Bus Circulator Service The 2008 Comprehensive Plan recommended that the City conduct a study to assess the viability of a Southdale District shuttle service. In 2018 the City initiated a pilot bus circulator service, called CloverRide and operated by DARTS, that provides service to residential and commercial areas in the greater Southdale area. This fixed- route service runs one day per week during the mid-day, and has a one-hour “loop” through the area, stopping at four (primarily senior) housing destinations and six commercial/retail destinations. While the service runs on a fixed schedule, riders are allowed to request “on demand” stops provided they are proximate to the regular route. City staff and the Edina Transportation Commission will evaluate this pilot program and make recommendations regarding its continued service. This could include changes to stop locations and times, as well as expanded service (e.g. more buses, more stops located in other areas of the city). Light Rail Transit In the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP), the Metropolitan Council has identified a series of transitway corridors for planning purposes. This network is included as Figure 5.16. The METRO Blue Line (Hiawatha LRT Corridor), connecting downtown Minneapolis, the MSP International Airport, and the Mall of America, was completed in 2004. The METRO Green Line (Central LRT Corridor), connecting Downtown Minneapolis and Downtown St. Paul, was completed in 2014. The METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest LRT Corridor) is currently being designed. This LRT corridor will operate on a route from downtown Minneapolis through St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie, passing in close proximity to Edina. The line will include 16 new stations and will be part of an integrated system of transitways, including connections to the METRO Blue Line, the Northstar Commuter Rail line, many bus routes, and proposed future transitways. Six planned Green Line stations will be within one mile of the Edina city border; however, the accessibility of each station from Edina varies considerably. The City should continue to work with neighboring cities to make pedestrian and bicycle connections to Green Line stations and cooperate with Metro Transit regarding feeder bus connections. between Edina’s neighborhoods and stations constructed along the Green Line Extension. Heavy construction of the Green Line Extension is scheduled to take place between 2018 and 2022, with passenger service as an extension of the METRO Green Line beginning in 2023. Passenger Rail MnDOT’s 2015 update to the Minnesota Comprehensive Statewide Rail Plan guides the future of both freight and intercity passenger rail systems and rail services in the state. While there is no specific mention of Edina, the plan generally provides strong support for increased investment in passenger rail as a response to growing congestion on highways serving the metropolitan area and exurban communities. The Rail Plan identifies an intercity passenger rail line that extends from the Twin Cities to Northfield that would pass through the City of Edina by way of the Canadian Pacific Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railway (CP MN&S) subdivision. This corridor is also known as the Dan Patch Corridor and is identified as a Phase 1 project in the plan. This identification indicates it is a desirable project within a 0- to 20-year (2015 - 2035) implementation horizon. A study conducted in 2002 examined the feasibility of establishing commuter rail service along the Dan Patch corridor. At that time, responding to opposition from residents, former State Representative Ron Erhardt introduced legislation that would prohibit state and regional agencies from spending any money to study, plan or design a commuter rail line in this corridor. This legislation, which was passed and has been referred to as the "gag order," applies to state agencies and affected Regional Railroad Authorities but not cities. Based on interest in commuter rail expressed by Edina residents, the City in 2017 conducted a study to gauge public support for passenger rail in the Dan Patch corridor through Edina. The majority of public feedback was not supportive of Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-34 Figure 5.16: Metropolitan Council Regional Transitways Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-35 passenger rail in the Dan Patch corridor through Edina. The majority of public feedback was not supportive of passenger rail in the corridor; particularly noted are comments coming from residents who live along the route. The study, which is documented in the Passenger Rail Community Engagement Report, concluded with a recommendation that the City should not pursue passenger rail in the Dan Patch corridor at that time. Looking forward, as commuting choices and patterns change and as Edina's transit mode share increases, the City may choose to reassess community acceptance of passenger rail service in the Dan Patch corridor. At this time, at least one other city along the corridor, Savage, has expressed interest in seeing a light rail crossing of the Minnesota River with a connection to Southwest Light Rail as a means to relieve congestion on the US Highway 169 bridge. If implemented, a light rail system between Saint Louis Park and Savage along the Dan Patch corridor would have a profound impact on transportation in Edina. Bus Rapid Transit Metro Transit is currently planning improvements to the Route 6 corridor with the E Line bus rapid transit (BRT) project. The E Line will substantially replace parts of Route 6 in the Hennepin Avenue corridor, serving uptown Minneapolis. Since this BRT line was identified in 2012, community members have expressed interest in a longer BRT corridor to serve more places along Route 6, including extending service along France and/or York Avenues in Edina. Metro Transit is studying the corridor in 2018-2019 to determine whether to extend the E Line south into Edina. Following this corridor study, E Line station planning will begin in 2019 with construction (pending full funding) beginning as soon as 2023. The City of Edina is represented on the study’s Technical Advisory Committee. Future Roadways 2040 Traffic Forecasts Year 2040 traffic forecasts were prepared using the Metropolitan Council travel demand model. The model was refined for application specifically for the City of Edina. The 2040 roadway network assumed for this analysis is the same as the current roadway network, as the City and County Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) do not include any projects that add significant capacity to the roadway network. While the travel demand model is a valuable tool for identifying future traffic based on the proposed land use impacts, it is not meant for use in detailed traffic operations studies. For a more accurate representation of the transportation impacts from specific developments, detailed traffic studies should be conducted to determine the operational impacts on adjacent roadways and intersections. A central concept of travel demand forecasting is the use of Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). Each forecast study area, in this case the City of Edina, is divided into a series of TAZs. Each TAZ has land use data which indicates trip generation and trip attraction including population, household, and employment data. Figure 5.17 displays Metropolitan Council TAZs within the City of Edina. Table 5.4 provides the initial population, household, and employment allocations by TAZ assumed in the Metropolitan Council model. Table 5.5 provides the population, household, and employment allocations by TAZ based on the City of Edina’s Land Use Plan adjustments as detailed in Chapter 3. Table 5.6 shows the change in TAZs between the base condition and the adjusted condition. Results of the City of Edina modeling process are summarized on Figure 5.18 showing the 2040 Traffic Forecast (Met Council Base) and Figure 5.19 showing the 2040 Traffic Forecast with Edina Land Use adjustments. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-36 Figure 5.17: Traffic Analysis Zones Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-37 Table 5.4: 2040 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Forecasts – Metropolitan Council Base TAZ 2020 2030 2040 Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment 1022 0 0 0 3 7 0 10 22 0 1395 569 1504 109 577 1472 108 563 1381 110 1396 699 1894 1024 768 1949 1059 804 1919 1091 1397 309 850 35 313 824 38 302 762 40 1398 23 61 1 22 57 1 20 49 0 1403 686 1453 40 698 1440 40 684 1380 40 1404 95 205 193 94 199 197 91 187 200 1408 351 871 6 352 869 8 342 836 10 1409 690 1713 375 701 1732 413 684 1675 450 1410 1288 2735 430 1301 2690 446 1267 2564 460 1411 1241 2498 8998 1263 2466 9092 1237 2375 9106 1412 663 1848 41 670 1860 41 654 1807 40 1413 34 79 570 39 83 577 40 81 580 1414 726 1446 361 734 1416 644 714 1352 951 1415 0 0 219 0 0 237 0 0 250 1416 0 0 868 0 0 930 0 0 1011 1417 61 89 10533 62 91 10884 60 89 11198 1418 757 1505 24 765 1471 48 744 1403 80 1419 356 964 34 361 971 36 352 942 40 1420 342 928 11 348 937 10 342 915 10 1421 452 1225 12 455 1223 11 442 1184 10 1422 158 412 295 162 417 348 161 408 400 1423 671 1604 177 680 1567 183 664 1485 190 1424 602 1640 48 609 1628 49 593 1553 50 1425 358 947 61 362 952 70 352 920 80 1426 322 853 345 328 864 393 322 843 440 1427 834 1911 1163 915 1955 1204 955 1919 1241 1428 353 926 761 358 904 787 352 859 811 1429 475 1248 926 490 1237 955 483 1179 981 1430 480 1261 41 484 1225 41 473 1156 40 1431 459 1236 102 464 1245 116 453 1210 130 1432 326 865 13 330 875 11 322 852 10 1435 708 1879 29 719 1907 29 704 1869 30 1436 123 295 21 142 324 20 151 327 20 1585 1290 2268 5044 1651 2936 5212 1911 3433 5364 1586 290 689 146 302 669 155 302 634 170 1587 531 1244 1593 554 1210 1687 553 1148 1841 Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-38 Table 5.4: 2040 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Forecasts – Metropolitan Council Base (Continued) TAZ 2020 2030 2040 Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment 1588 243 475 3818 333 667 3947 402 813 4063 1593 2182 3723 3266 2400 4229 3375 2504 4547 3472 1594 1981 4411 871 2422 5319 1229 2715 5889 1601 1595 507 1026 5667 591 1208 5724 644 1324 5754 1596 662 1116 2941 880 1508 2993 1036 1811 3032 1637 0 0 450 0 0 508 0 0 560 1640 0 0 140 0 0 140 0 0 140 Totals 22897 51897 51802 24702 54603 53996 25404 55102 56097 Table 5.5: 2040 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Forecasts – Adjusted TAZ 2020 2030 2040 Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment 1022 0 0 0 3 7 0 10 22 0 1395 569 1549 109 577 1496 108 583 1438 110 1396 699 1949 1024 858 2129 1059 950 2340 1091 1397 309 874 35 313 837 38 313 793 40 1398 23 63 1 22 58 1 22 51 0 1403 722 1510 40 734 1470 40 745 1452 40 1404 95 213 193 94 203 197 94 197 200 1408 351 899 6 352 884 8 354 871 10 1409 699 1768 375 701 1761 413 709 1745 450 1410 1288 2837 430 1301 2744 446 1312 2693 460 1411 1241 2596 8998 1263 2518 9092 1281 2499 9106 1412 663 1900 41 670 1888 41 677 1873 40 1413 34 82 570 39 84 577 40 84 580 1414 726 1503 361 734 1446 644 740 1425 951 1415 0 0 219 0 0 237 0 0 250 1416 0 0 868 0 0 930 0 0 1011 1417 120 178 10533 191 305 10884 190 312 11198 1418 757 1565 24 765 1503 48 772 1479 80 1419 356 992 34 361 986 36 365 978 40 1420 342 955 11 348 951 10 354 949 10 1421 452 1261 12 455 1242 11 458 1229 10 1422 158 425 295 162 424 348 167 424 400 1423 671 1657 177 680 1595 183 688 1552 190 1424 602 1688 48 609 1653 49 614 1613 50 Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-39 Table 5.5 –2040 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Forecasts – Adjusted (Continued) TAZ 2020 2030 2040 Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment Households Pop. Employment 1425 358 975 61 362 967 70 365 956 80 1426 328 879 345 334 878 393 340 876 440 1427 834 1977 1163 1001 2135 1204 1045 2283 1241 1428 353 954 761 358 919 787 364 894 811 1429 475 1286 926 490 1257 955 500 1227 981 1430 480 1299 41 484 1245 41 490 1204 40 1431 459 1272 102 464 1264 116 469 1256 130 1432 326 891 13 330 889 11 334 885 10 1435 708 1935 29 719 1937 29 730 1940 30 1436 123 305 21 142 329 20 151 339 20 1585 1290 2370 5044 1717 3114 5212 1996 3699 5364 1586 482 727 146 494 689 155 494 682 170 1587 531 1286 1593 554 1232 1687 572 1201 1841 1588 562 1021 3818 1112 2023 3947 1412 2656 4063 1593 2445 4114 3266 3444 5689 3375 3744 6375 3472 1594 1981 4568 871 2670 5683 1229 2947 6308 1601 1595 726 1509 5667 954 2030 5724 1425 2923 5754 1596 662 1168 2941 839 1536 2993 984 1877 3032 1637 0 0 450 0 0 508 0 0 560 1640 0 0 140 0 0 140 0 0 140 Totals 24000 55000 51802 27700 60000 53996 29800 63600 56097 Table 5.6: 2040 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Forecasts – TAZ Changes TAZ 2020 2030 2040 Households Population Households Population Households Population 1395 0 45 0 24 20 57 1396 0 55 90 180 146 421 1397 0 24 0 13 11 31 1398 0 2 0 1 2 2 1403 36 57 36 30 61 72 1404 0 8 0 4 3 10 1408 0 28 0 15 12 35 1409 9 55 0 29 25 70 1410 0 102 0 54 45 129 1411 0 98 0 52 44 124 1412 0 52 0 28 23 66 Table 5.6: 2040 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) Forecasts – TAZ Changes Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-40 (Continued) TAZ 2020 2030 2040 Households Population Households Population Households Population 1413 0 3 0 1 0 3 1414 0 57 0 30 26 73 1417 59 89 129 214 130 223 1418 0 60 0 32 28 76 1419 0 28 0 15 13 36 1420 0 27 0 14 12 34 1421 0 36 0 19 16 45 1422 0 13 0 7 6 16 1423 0 53 0 28 24 67 1424 0 48 0 25 21 60 1425 0 28 0 15 13 36 1426 6 26 6 14 18 33 1427 0 66 86 180 90 364 1428 0 28 0 15 12 35 1429 0 38 0 20 17 48 1430 0 38 0 20 17 48 1431 0 36 0 19 16 46 1432 0 26 0 14 12 33 1435 0 56 0 30 26 71 1436 0 10 0 5 0 12 1585 0 102 66 178 85 266 1586 192 38 192 20 192 48 1587 0 42 0 22 19 53 1588 319 546 779 1356 1010 1843 1593 263 391 1044 1460 1240 1828 1594 0 157 248 364 232 419 1595 219 483 363 822 781 1599 1596 0 52 -41 28 -52 66 Totals 1103 3103 2998 5397 4396 8498 Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-41 Figure 5.18: 2040 Base Forecast Daily Traffic Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-42 Figure 5.19: 2040 Revised (Adjusted) Base Forecast Daily Traffic Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-43 2040 Roadway Deficiency Analysis Congestion on the roadway system is judged to exist when the ratio of traffic volume (number of daily vehicles on a given roadway) to roadway capacity (maximum number of daily vehicles a given roadway can reasonably accommodate) approaches or exceeds 1.0. The ratio of volume to capacity (v/c ratio) provides a measure of congestion along a stretch of roadway and can help determine where roadway improvements, access management, transit services, or demand management strategies need to be implemented. It does not, however, provide a basis for determining the need for specific intersection improvements or other detailed mitigation. Table 5.7 presents high-level estimates of the average daily traffic (ADT) capacity ranges for various types of roadways. These ranges are based on guidance from the Highway Capacity Manual, discussions with the Metropolitan Council, and professional engineering judgment. A range is used since the actual capacity of any roadway design (v/c = 1) is a theoretical measure that can be affected by its functional classification, traffic peaking, traffic composition, access (e.g. intersection or driveway spacing), speed, and other roadway design features such as grade, pavement condition, presence or absence of bike lanes, number of bus stops, type of intersection control devices, traffic signal phasing and timing, pedestrian crosswalks, etc. In order to define a facility’s “daily capacity,” the top of each facility type’s volume range should be used. This allows for capacity improvements that can be achieved by roadway performance enhancements. Another useful capacity analysis index is the level of traffic that a facility can accommodate before it is defined as approaching its capacity limit. A segment of road is noted as “approaching capacity” when observed daily volume equals or exceeds 85 percent of daily capacity (v/c > 0.85). This level of traffic volume is also presented in Table 5.8 by facility type. Table 5.7: Planning-Level Roadway Capacities by Facility Type at Level of Service (LOS) D/E Facility Type Planning Level Daily Capacity Ranges (ADT) Approaching Capacity (85% of ADT) Two-lane urban 8,000-10,000 8,500 Two-lane rural 14,000-15,000 12,750 Two-lane urban with a left-turn lane 14,000-17,000 15,555 Four-lane urban 18,000-22,000 18,700 Four-lane urban with a left-turn lane 28,000-36,800 31,200 Note: The terms urban and rural describe typical section designs (e.g., curb and gutter for urban and ditch drainage for rural). They do not imply geographic areas. Using the methodology described above, capacity deficiencies were identified by comparing existing ADT volumes to the threshold capacities noted in Table 5.8. The existing number of lanes (Figure 5.7) were compared to the forecast daily traffic volumes (Figures 5.18 and 5.19) to develop the 2040 capacity deficiencies. Figure 5.20 shows the base 2040 forecast capacity deficiencies, which were based on the original Metropolitan Council land use projections. Figure 5.21 shows the revised (adjusted) 2040 forecast capacity deficiencies based on Edina’s land use projections. As noted on Figures 5.20 and 5.21, “congested” roadway segments are defined as those with a volume-to-capacity ratio at or above 1.0. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-44 Figure 5.20: 2040 Forecast Capacity Deficiencies (Met Council Base) Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-45 Figure 5.21: Revised 2040 Forecast Capacity Deficiencies Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-46 Based on the 2040 traffic some of the major roadways in the City are expected to operate at levels approaching capacity or over capacity. The following summarizes the road segments anticipated to exceed their design capacity or are expected to approach capacity by 2040: 2040 Met Council Base Forecast Deficiencies: Approaching Capacity: • Interlachen Parkway – Maloney Avenue to W 50th Street • Interlachen Road – TH 169 to Lincoln Drive • Vernon Avenue – Hansen Road to Eden Avenue • Tracy Avenue – Valley View Road to Valley Lane • West 70th Street – Cahill Road to Metro Boulevard • Edina Industrial Boulevard – Bush Lake Road to Metro Boulevard • West 50th Street – Halifax Avenue to France Avenue • France Avenue – North City Limit to West 58th Street • Xerxes Avenue – West 54th Street to West 60th Street • West 70th Street – France Avenue to Xerxes Avenue S • France Avenue – West 70th Street to South City Limit • York Avenue South – West 66th Street to 70th Street • York Avenue South – West 76th Street to South City Limit Over Capacity: • Vernon Avenue – Gleason Road to Hansen Road • Gleason Road – TH 62 to Vernon Avenue • France Avenue – West 58th Street to TH 62 • Xerxes Avenue South – West 60th Street to TH 62 • West 70th Street – TH 100 to France Avenue 2040 Revised Forecast Deficiencies with City Land Use Adjustment: Approaching Capacity: • Interlachen Parkway – Maloney Avenue to W 50th Street • Interlachen Road – TH 169 to Lincoln Drive • Vernon Avenue – Lincoln Drive to Gleason Road • Vernon Avenue – Hansen Road to Eden Avenue • Tracy Avenue – Valley View Road to Valley Lane • West 70th Street – Cahill Road to Metro Boulevard • Edina Industrial Boulevard – Bush Lake Road to Metro Boulevard • W 50th Street – Halifax Avenue to France Avenue • France Avenue – North City Limit to W 58th Street • Xerxes Avenue South – W 54th Street to W 60th Street • France Avenue – West 70th Street to South City Limit • York Avenue – West 66th Street to W 70th Street • York Avenue – West 76th Street to South City Limit Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-47 Over Capacity: • Vernon Avenue – Gleason Road to Hansen Road • Gleason Road – TH 62 to Vernon Avenue • France Avenue – West 58th Street to TH 62 • Xerxes Avenue South – West 60th Street to TH 62 • West 70th Street – TH 100 to York Avenue South Roadway Deficiencies and Improvement Needs The City of Edina is considered fully developed and therefore it is not expected to see substantial traffic increases over the planning horizon in many locations. However, with the anticipated redevelopment of land use in some locations (for example, areas covered by the Small Area Plans), combined with regional traffic trends and considerations, there will be some areas of significant traffic growth. Most (but not all) of the areas identified above as approaching or over capacity in 2040 are two-lane, state-aid roadways, which will require working with other agencies to improve or otherwise mitigate. Taking into account projected future traffic conditions, together with current issues, the following areas have been identified for recommended improvements and/or monitoring and further evaluation: • Gateway area redevelopment • France Avenue (West 70th Street to I-494) • France Avenue (north of TH 62, especially south of West 58th Street) • West 70th Street • Vernon Avenue/Gleason Road (north of TH 62) • Other trunk highway and interchange area These areas and others will be addressed under the following headings. The final heading will address a summary of implementation considerations and requirements. Within the context of this planning level information, individual projects will be identified to be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Programs over the next ten years (until the next Comprehensive Plan Update is required). Potential Problem Locations The primary current problem locations are identified below. Trunk Highway System Congestion Peak period congestion occurs on nearly all of the trunk highway segments passing through or adjacent to the City. This includes I-494, TH 169, TH 100, and TH 62 (Crosstown Highway). In addition to the mainline congestion, queuing from ramp meters provides a source of localized congestion on the City street system as discussed under the following headings. Additional lanes could possibly be constructed to address congestion along TH 62, between TH 169 and Penn Avenue, and along I-494, between TH 169 and the western abutment of the I-494 Bridge over the Minnesota River. Both of these lane addition projects are currently under study, and no decisions to implement them have been made at this time. Freeway Interchange Queues Peak period queuing occurs at most freeway ramps. In particular, the older freeway interchanges with TH 62 at Xerxes Avenue South and France Avenue (see above) have inadequate bridge width and storage capacity to accommodate vehicles waiting at the queue. Similar problems exist along TH 100 at West 70th Street and West 77th Street. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-48 Through Traffic on Local Streets Various residential areas experience, or perceive that they experience, large amounts of through traffic. France Avenue/West 50th Street Intersection This intersection, in the middle of a popular older commercial area, is affected by high pedestrian traffic levels as well as high vehicular traffic volumes. It is a destination for local as well as many non-local visitors. Refer to the 50th & France Small Area Plan for further details. France Avenue North of TH 62 The concentration of recent and future increased redevelopment in the greater Southdale area, along with the congested interchange at TH 62, has the potential to result in congestion on France Avenue north of TH 62. France Avenue transitions from a four-lane to a two-lane roadway at the interchange. Gateway Redevelopment Area Improvements An Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) was prepared by the City in 2007 (with updates in 2013 and 2018) for an area generally bounded by TH 100 to the west, Fred Richards Golf Course/76th Street to the north, France Avenue to the east, and Minnesota Drive to the south. The impetus for the AUAR was the purchase of a parcels within the Study Area by a developer and subsequent discussions with the City regarding their redevelopment. The City decided to review the potential for further redevelopment within the commercial and industrial area along West 77th Street adjacent to these recently acquired parcels. The AUAR reviewed five different scenarios: 1 – Comprehensive Plan (1998), 2 – Master Plan (proposed by developer), 3 – Maximum Commercial, 4 – Maximum Residential, and 4.1 – Modified Scenario 4. Each of these scenarios required its own set of roadway improvements to accommodate the development envisioned for the given scenario. Perhaps the most notable observation is that Scenario 3 (Maximum Commercial) would require reconstruction of the West 77th Street Bridge over TH 100 to provide additional through and turning lanes. Funding requirements may preclude the implementation of this scenario in the foreseeable future. The AUAR identifies improvements that will be required for various types and intensities of development outcomes. The specific improvements that will be required, and the schedule of those improvements, will be dictated by the development projects that are actually proposed and occur over time. It is recommended that the City clarify to developers early in the plan review procedures for this overall area that they must address transportation improvement needs in a proactive manner. The City will coordinate with developers regarding the planning and funding of the improvements, but developers will be required to perform their “fair share” such that needed improvements are identified and implemented in advance of the added traffic volumes. A conceptual east-west connector corridor north of I-494 has been identified for further evaluation and potential long-term implementation. This corridor is identified on Figure 5.22. As shown, it uses West 78th Street, West 77th Street, and West 76th Street with enhanced continuity. It will be further discussed under a separate heading, below. The improvements addressed in the Gateway Area AUAR are considered short to mid-range improvements, with the east-west connector corridor being a long-range concept. France Avenue (TH 62 to I-494) France Avenue between TH 62 and I-494 carries high volumes of traffic. The design of the roadway, 4-lane divided with turn lanes, has a high level of capacity, and roadway actually operates better than what perhaps is the common perception. For example, motorists must wait more than one signal cycle to proceed through an intersection only infrequently even at peak travel times. However, as traffic levels increase as projected on Figure 5.19, congestion on the main portion of this stretch of roadway will become more of a concern. Refer to the transportation section of the Southdale District Area Plan for additional information regarding France Avenue. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-49 TH 62 and Central Areas The primary issue at TH 62 is that there is currently not enough bridge width to provide storage for vehicles waiting in queues on France Avenue at the interchange. To address this issue, in 2019 MnDOT (in cooperation with Hennepin County) re-decked the France Avenue bridge over TH 62 to include a second northbound left- turn lane, with the intent to shorten queuing for vehicles waiting to head westbound on TH 62. Additionally, the sidewalks on both sides of the bridge were significantly widened to improve pedestrian comfort and safety. An additional means to improve this situation is through traffic management, attempting to spread the traffic more equally between the interchanges at Valley View Road, France Avenue, and Xerxes Avenue. Both the Valley View Road and Xerxes Avenue interchanges currently relieve the France Avenue interchange, but efforts can be made to increase this affect. Options that could be further explored include employee training for businesses in the area, to promote increased use of the alternate interchanges, and improved signage indicating the option of using alternate interchanges. However, it is not known how effective such measures could be, short of significant operational or infrastructure projects. There currently does not appear to be any physical/infrastructure projects that could readily be implemented and would have clear benefits in terms of redirecting traffic from France Avenue to York/Xerxes Avenue. Figure 5.22: Conceptual East/West Connector Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-50 However, as redevelopment continues to take place in the Greater Southdale area, the City should promote access and street design that helps make Xerxes/York Avenue a viable alternative to France Avenue. An important limitation of Xerxes/York Avenue in terms of serving as an alternate route for France Avenue is that it does not have an interchange at I-494. As will be discussed under a separate heading, the City should investigate an enhanced east-west connector corridor north of I-494. This would tie into Richfield’s West 76th/ 77th Street corridor. One of the benefits of such a connector route is that it could make the use of Xerxes/York Avenue as an alternate to France Avenue more viable. East-west traffic flow would be enhanced in the southern portion of the City with connections to both France Avenue and York Avenue. I-494 Area The primary operational difficulty on France Avenue at the south end at I-494 relates to the single southbound right turn lane to accommodate both motorists using the ramp to westbound I-494 and those using the loop to eastbound I-494. This causes excessive southbound queuing in the right lane. The proximities of Minnesota Drive and West 78th Street to the interchange exacerbate this problem. Hennepin County has identified a roadway re-striping plan which would help address this problem. This plan separates the traffic turning onto the westbound I-494 ramp from the traffic turning onto the eastbound loop. The City will work with the County and the City of Bloomington to ensure that this improvement takes place. West 70th Street The section of West 70th Street between TH 100 and France Avenue (reconstructed in 2011) is problematic because it experiences relatively high traffic levels for a roadway passing through a residential setting. The traffic levels are due in large part to the basic location and context of the segment. At one end of the segment is an interchange with major highway (TH 100), and at the other end is an important “A” minor arterial roadway (France Avenue) and a major commercial center (greater Southdale area). Traffic levels are currently at the high end of the capacity for a 2-lane roadway with turn lanes, and are forecasted to be over capacity by 2040. East-West Connector Corridor A significant transportation difficulty facing the City is that there is not a continuous east-west reliever roadway on the north side of I-494. Motorists making east-west trips north of the freeway must proceed through a series of roadway segments that are currently not well coordinated or tied into a larger roadway network. Coordinating with adjacent communities, a conceptual corridor has been identified that is depicted on Figure 5.22. This improvement area would align along existing West 78th Street west of E Bush Lake Road, West 77th Street between East Bush Lake Road and Parklawn Ave, and West 76th Street east of Parklawn Avenue. An alternative (and longer-term) alignment between East Bush Lake Road and Parklawn Avenue would involve a new bridge crossing of TH 100, which would relieve traffic levels on the W 77th Street/Edina Industrial Boulevard bridge over TH 100 (see the Long-Term “Alternative Alignment” on Figure 5.22). The rationale behind this concept is to provide a roadway that would serve a similar function to American Boulevard in Bloomington and the West 76th/77th Street corridor in Richfield. It would tie directly into the Richfield corridor. As stated above, it could ultimately relieve congestion through the TH 100/West 77th Street/Edina Industrial Boulevard interchange. It would generally allow more efficient east-west movements and tie into the larger Edina network more effectively. For example, it would make Xerxes/York Avenue easier and more logical to use as an alternative to France Avenue to relieve traffic levels on France. It would likely make this portion of Edina a more attractive location for business and office development because of improved mobility and access. The Gateway Redevelopment discussed under an earlier heading may provide the opportunity to begin roadway reconstruction efforts associated with implementation of the overall East-West Connector concept. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-51 Because this roadway would support and improve operations on trunk highways (TH 100 and I-494), MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) would be supportive of such a project. The City should explore the availability of state and federal funding to help advance this concept if it is deemed viable. It should be emphasized that this long-term corridor improvement plan is only conceptual at this point, and no major right-of-way acquisitions are anticipated. However, it is recommended that the City continue to explore the concept and discuss it with adjacent communities, MnDOT, and Hennepin County. The City can also coordinate roadway reconfiguration and reconstruction with the redevelopment of the Gateway area as appropriate. The potential benefits of such a corridor could be quite significant, just as American Boulevard has benefited Bloomington, and the West 76th/77th corridor has benefited Richfield. Summary of Key Implementation Considerations and Requirements Gateway Redevelopment Area Improvements The City should require, early in the plan review procedures for redevelopment projects proposed in this area, that transportation improvements be clearly identified and addressed. The City will expect developers to plan, coordinate and finance their fair share of the required improvements in a proactive manner. Any roadway reconfiguration associated with the Gateway redevelopment will need to be consistent with the long term vision of the East-West Connector roadway summarized below. East – West Connector Roadway The City should continue to coordinate with neighboring communities, Hennepin County, and MnDOT to advance the planning and evaluation of the general corridor identified on Figure 5.22. It is likely a long-term concept, but as redevelopment is proposed and implemented in the southern portion of Edina, consideration should be given to this potential corridor in terms of long term right-of-way issues and access design. Roadway Jurisdictional Issues In general, it is good policy that Hennepin County and MnDOT assume responsibility for and jurisdiction over the arterial network, and cities assume responsibility for the collector and local street systems. This is, to a large extent, the situation in Edina. The existing roadway jurisdictional classification system is depicted on Figure 5.10. At present, there are no roadways in the City under State (MnDOT) jurisdiction that are being considered for turnback to Hennepin County or the City of Edina. However, Hennepin County, in its Transportation System Plan, identifies two roadway segments that are candidates for turnback to the City of Edina (see Figure 5.23): • CSAH 31 (York/Xerxes Avenue) from 50th Street to south City limit (see Figure 5.23) • CSAH 158 (Vernon Avenue/Gleason Road) from TH 100 to TH 62 (see Figure 5.23) Regarding these segments, the City of Edina does not support either turnback option. These segments should remain under County jurisdiction for the following reasons: • CSAH 31 - This roadway serves an inter-community function, connecting Bloomington, Edina and Minneapolis. It also links with TH 62. It carries a significant percentage of traffic not originating or terminating in Edina. • CSAH 158 - This roadway is an arterial roadway serving an intercommunity function and is therefore appropriate for Hennepin County jurisdiction. It carries a substantial percentage of traffic not originating or terminating in Edina. • Both – At current Municipal State Aid funding levels, the City believes that there would not be enough resources for Edina to maintain these roadway segments in the future. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-52 Figure 5.23: Jurisdictional Turnbacks Proposed by Hennepin County Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-53 In the event the City is ultimately required to accept one or both of the transfers identified above, it should ensure that the roads are brought up to the appropriate design and maintenance standards prior to accepting transfer. Access Management Access management refers to balancing the need for access to local land uses with the need for mobility and safety on the roadway system. Arterials generally have limited access, collectors allow a greater degree of access given their combined mobility/access function, and local streets allow the most access of the roadway functional categories. Appropriate access control preserves the capacity on arterial streets and improves safety by reducing the need for traffic to divert to local streets. It separates local turning movements from higher speed “through” traffic, concentrating traffic linkages at intersections controlled with traffic signals, roundabouts, or other measures. MnDOT and County roadways serving Edina are identified on Figure 5.10. For MnDOT roadways, MnDOT’s access management guidelines apply. These guidelines are included in the Appendix. For County roadways, Hennepin County access management guidelines apply. These guidelines were established in the Hennepin County Transportation System Plan and are included in Appendix T-4. In instances of local site redevelopment, the City will continue to work with these guidelines in the site plan review and approval process. The City’s existing ordinance on curb cut placement limits the placement and number of accesses to local and collector roadways under City jurisdiction. General guidelines include the following: • No driveway on a local street is to be within 50 feet of a street intersection • When properties adjoin two streets, the access should be to the lower volume street Community/Aesthetic Design for Transportation Facilities Community design goals and treatments were discussed in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan, and in the Living Streets Plan. Roadways are an important component in community design because they represent a significant percentage of the overall land area of any community, they represent public space over which the City has jurisdiction (the municipal right-of-way area), and because they are obviously very visible to many travelers, local and non-local. Refer to chapter three of the Living Streets Plan for detailed descriptions of the type, function and location of Living Streets in Edina, and chapter six for roadway design guidelines. These design guidelines discuss the following design elements (both functional and aesthetic): • Vehicular Facilities (driving and parking lanes, pavement markings and signage) • Pedestrian Facilities (sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, street furniture and public art) • Bicycle Facilities (type and placement, signage and wayfinding and intersections • Traffic Calming (road design, curb extensions, boulevard trees, pavement color/texture) • Stormwater Management and Sustainable Infrastructure (impervious surface reduction; soil, turf and trees; rain gardens; filtration/infiltration; ponds and wetlands) Another important component of the Community Design Guidelines which pertains to transportation and roadways is the guideline for gateways. Gateways define areas with character and a sense of place, and can include such features as street or other lighting, signage, street furniture and public art, and other streetscape improvements. Many of these elements are in place in various districts throughout the City, but other locations could be identified and improved. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-54 Travel Demand Management The primary emphasis of Travel Demand Management (TDM) is to reduce the number of vehicular trips on congested roadways during peak travel times. Since the many or most of these trips are commuter (work) trips, TDM strategies primarily involve places of employment and associated travel behavior. The primary methods or strategies are identified below: • transit • car/van-pooling • telecommuting • flex-time • non-motorized commuting In general, the policies or incentives to promote TDM activities are provided through employers. For example, employers can provide monthly discounts or passes to employees to use transit. They can provide coordination services to match up individuals for car/van pooling activities. They can allow or promote telecommuting, particularly in various industries for which face-to-face contact is not important for task performance. Similarly, employers can allow or promote flex time, which enables employees to travel to/from work at non-peak travel times. Regarding non-motorized commuting, the provision of shower and changing facilities is often helpful to promote bicycle commuting. There is a number of reasons for employers to promote TDM activities. In some cases, vehicle parking is at a premium and anything they can do to reduce parking requirements is beneficial. Another example may be a large employer or group of employers accessed by congested road systems. If these employers can reduce rush hour trips into their facilities and associated congestion, it benefits their workers and makes their places of business more attractive places to work. Some employers wish to reduce vehicle trips to their facilities simply because it is “the right thing to do” for environmental reasons. Cities can increase TDM activities through promotional activities and by coordinating with key employers to identify and implement TDM plans. Cities may require TDM plans for new developments if they are large enough to have significant traffic impacts. Cities can also form or coordinate the formation of Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs). These organizations pool resources and strategies to get the biggest “bang for the buck” for reducing traffic levels in a given area. The City of Edina is an active member of the 494 Corridor Commission, which is a TMO striving to limit single occupancy vehicle trips on I- 494. It is difficult to project the quantitative benefits of Travel Demand Management activities with confidence. However, as fuel prices increase and congestion on major roadways in the metro region increase into the future, the demand for and potential of this approach will increase accordingly. The City of Edina currently requires developers proposing projects with the potential for significant traffic impacts to submit TDM plans as part of the plan review and approval process. The thresholds which are currently in place requiring these plans to be generated are projects that would: • generate 1,000 or more vehicle trips per day, or • generate 100 or more trips during any one-hour period, or • increase the traffic levels on an adjacent roadway by 50 percent or more The City’s requirements in terms of commitment to TDM activities and programs within the TDM plans are currently not rigorous. For example, these plans often simply identify existing transit service within the vicinity of the proposed project to suggest future TDM activities. It is recommended that the City evaluate the option of Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-55 adding “teeth” to TDM requirements for developers, perhaps using the City of Minneapolis and Bloomington programs as a guide. Aviation According to Appendix L of the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, Edina is not a “noise impacted community.” However, members of the community have expressed increased concern over the effects of aircraft noise on their property and quality of life. These issues can be shared with the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), which was established in 2002. The MAC Noise Program Office works closely with the NOC and is dedicated to collecting, analyzing and reporting aircraft operations data for the purpose of working with the communities surrounding the MAC's system of airports on aircraft noise issues. The MSP NOC membership is balanced with community and aviation industry representatives who work together to address aircraft noise issues associated with MSP. The City of Edina is represented through an “at-large” membership on the NOC. Freight Roadway and Bridge Restrictions The only weight-restricted bridge in the City of Edina is the West 50th Street bridge over Minnehaha Creek. Table 5.8 indicates bridges in Edina that have insufficient height clearances (less than 15’-6” clear): Table 5.8 –Bridges with Insufficient Height Clearances Bridge Number Location Height Clearance 7296 Pedestrian bridge over Interlachen Boulevard 14’-2” 27646 Canadian Pacific Rail bridge over Eden Avenue 15’-0” 90641 Canadian Pacific Rail bridge over West 44th Street 14’-3” 94176 Pedestrian bridge over Braemar Boulevard 15’-0” Goals and Policies 1. Improve mobility for residents, visitors and businesses (including those with transportation disadvantages) through the creation and maintenance of a balanced system of transportation alternatives for transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. 1.1. Increase protected and separate bike facilities between nodes, parks, schools and City facilities as indicated in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. 1.2. Connectivity between nodes shall be enhanced to include three modes of transportation where at least one is non-motorized. 1.3. Create safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between major traffic generators, with particular emphasis on continuity at roadway and other barrier crossings. 1.4. Connect to regional non-motorized transportation networks by reviewing and recommending pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout Edina cooperatively with the Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County. 1.5. Support recommendations of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan for implementation. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-56 2. Implement a fully multi-modal transportation system that supports the land use vision and future land use plan for managing and shaping future growth. 3. Minimize the impacts of the transportation system on Edina’s environment and neighborhood quality of life and emphasize methods to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 3.1. Strive for transportation infrastructure designs that have a neutral to positive impact on the natural environment. 3.2. Effectively balance access from and mobility on Edina’s roadways, prioritizing safe and efficient movement between the city’s primary nodes, parks, schools and community facilities. 4. Reduce the overall dependence on and use of single-occupant vehicles by promoting land use patterns that allow for shorter vehicular trips and the use of alternative travel options. 4.1. Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop. 5. Promote a travel demand management (TDM) program through a coordinated program of regulations, marketing, and provision of alternative workplace and travel options. 5.1. Partner with Commuter Services to encourage all forms of travel demand management in order to reduce single occupancy vehicle travel, overall vehicle miles of travel, reduce petroleum consumption, and improve air quality. 5.2. Review and recommend policies necessitating a TDM Plan and/or a transit component with all types of development and redevelopment. Review and implement substantive requirements associated with these TDM Plans, potentially including TDM escrow accounts, transit passes, preferential parking for car-poolers, and other measures. 5.3. Review all major new developments in light of the potential for ridesharing including bus accessibility, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, and mixed-use development. 5.4. Support preferential treatments for transit and high occupancy vehicles on streets and highways. 5.5. Include transit planning in the construction or upgrading of streets and highways. 6. Encourage and support attractive and reliable high-performance transit service and connections. 6.1. Increase transit options for Edina residents, focusing on connecting the underserved western segment of Edina with the eastern segment. 6.2. Provide transit service to connect nodes and commercial hubs. 7. Develop and manage parking provision to encourage joint and shared use of facilities, ride-sharing (car pools and van pools), and bicycle parking. 7.1. Encourage and develop preferred locations in surface and structured parking for electric vehicles (personal and shared) and car pool/van pool vehicles. 7.2. Provide or require covered and secure bicycle parking (including e-bicycles) in all parking structures. 7.3. Continuously evaluate the need for, and design of, parking facilities (e.g. effects of autonomous vehicles and future conversion of parking structures to inhabited buildings) and revise regulations as necessary. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-57 8. Invest in infrastructure to support the continued growth in low- to zero-emission technology and support regional and statewide efforts to educate and adopt electric vehicles. 8.1. Continue to install chargers at City facilities where use can benefit residents, City fleet, and partners. 8.2. Ensure that the methodology to determine electric vehicle charging locations considers both public and private facilities with an inclusive and equitable lens. 8.3. Provide residents and businesses the opportunity to learn the benefits of zero emission vehicles through outreach, education and events. 8.4. Advocate for electric vehicle charging programs and incentives with the state, utilities, and car manufacturers. 9. Provide for efficient movement of goods within Edina, while minimizing the impacts of freight traffic on other trips and reducing negative impacts on land uses on freight corridors. 9.1. Through the use of technology, minimize congestion on neighborhood streets and ensure the safety while balancing delivery service requirements. 9.2. Serve major truck users and intermodal facilities with good minor arterial access to the metropolitan highway system. 9.3. Investigate and implement solutions to minimize the impact of delivery of goods by drone in residential areas. 10. Engage, seek input from and educate all segments of the community regarding transportation-related issues and projects impacting the City. 10.1. Develop and implement methodology for consistent education of motorist, pedestrian and cyclist safety as indicated in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. 10.2. Seek inclusive, equitable and meaningful public participation throughout the community in all transportation studies and projects conducted by the City. 11. Identify new and continuing sources for transportation infrastructure funding by seeking to partner where feasible with federal, state, county and adjacent community sources. 11.1. Pursue and support regional or multi-community funding sources for improvements that provide regional or multi-community benefit. 11.2. Support research efforts into more efficient and cost-effective management, maintenance and replacement of street surfaces. 11.3. Support governmental jurisdiction over roadways that reflect the role of the roadway in the overall transportation system. 11.4. Encourage the legislature to continue a dedicated source for funding for efficient mass transit. 11.5. Encourage the legislature to provide stable, long-term roadway funding for capital, operating/traffic management, and maintenance. 11.6. Develop and support legislation permitting a transportation utility. 12. Design roadway facilities according to their intended service function and neighborhood context. 12.1. Upgrade existing roadways when warranted by demonstrated volume, safety or functional needs, taking into consideration environmental limitations. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-58 12.2. Design/enhance residential street systems to discourage through traffic and to be compatible with lower speed bicycling and walking. This includes consideration of traffic calming measures on local streets, local connectors and, in some cases, collector streets. 12.3. Use adequate transitions and buffers including, but not limited to, earth berms, walls, landscaping and distance to mitigate the undesirable impact of high volume roadways. 12.4. Consider the use of sound mitigating features for residential development adjacent to high volume roadways, and make property owners and land developers responsible for noise attenuation at new developments near high volume roadways. 12.5. Encourage beautification of local roadways, where appropriate, with amenities such as boulevard trees, decorative street lighting, and monuments. 12.6. Monitor and address transportation requirements associated with demographic trends, such as an aging population. 13. Provide and maintain adequate access to and from, and safety on, local and regional roadways. 13.1. Provide logical street networks to connect residential areas to the regional highway system and local activity centers. 13.2. Adequately control access points to the regional roadway system (including minor arterials) in terms of driveway openings and side street intersections. 13.3. Provide access to the local street system (including collector, local connector and local streets) in a manner that balances the need to safely and efficiently operate the street system with the need for access to land. 13.4. Separate, to the extent possible, conflicting uses on the roadway system in order to minimize safety problems. Give special attention to pedestrian and bicycle routes. 13.5. Review and update regional and local functional street classification and coordinate with adjacent cities and Hennepin County. Review and recommend traffic calming policies and consider traffic calming implementation where requested by residents using the Living Streets Plan as the primary guide. 13.6. Review and monitor citywide traffic volumes, congestion, existing traffic calming devices and measures, accident history, vehicle violation history, speed limits and enforcement. 13.7. Educate public on vehicle operations including public relations campaigns that focus on individual responsibilities to each other rather than individual rights only. 13.8. When requested by the Edina Transportation Commission and/or the Planning Commission, review land use that may impact traffic implementations. Continue to monitor adjacent community redevelopment and other activity that potentially impacts the City of Edina. 13.9. Evaluate and implement measures required for school safety. 14. Manage, maintain and operate roadways to maximize wherever possible the safety and mobility of all users and all modes. 14.1. Cooperate with other agencies having jurisdiction over streets and highways in Edina to assure implementation of Living Streets elements, good roadway conditions and operating efficiency. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-59 14.2. Continue the implementation of the I-494 frontage road system through ongoing coordination with MnDOT, Hennepin County, and the cities of Richfield and Bloomington. 14.3. Maintain roads by repairing weather-related and other damage. Continue current on-going pavement improvement plan. 14.4. Use economic and environmentally sound management techniques for snow and ice removal. 14.5. Replace substandard bridges and bridges that present safety or traffic problems. 14.6. Track developments regarding the most current transportation systems and technologies, evaluate and implement as warranted. 14.7. Support state legislation to decrease statutory urban speed limits from 30 to 25 miles per hour. Transportation Objectives Previous sections of this chapter have examined existing conditions, as well as future issues, needs, and recommendations. This section discusses the City’s transportation objectives. By adopting the overall Comprehensive Plan Update including the Transportation Chapter, the City Council will establish the guidelines by which decisions regarding transportation facilities and programs will be made in Edina. The City should periodically review the assumptions under which the plan was developed, including estimates of future development, changing financial resources, citizen and governmental input, and other factors which may arise, and update the plan as appropriate. Roadways • France Avenue – work with Hennepin County to ensure the overall operation and safety of this roadway, particularly at its interchanges with TH 62 and I-494. • Gateway redevelopment project area –with a developer to define roadway needs and ensure that the developer(s) participates appropriately in the funding of improvements. • East-west connector roadway – continue to coordinate with adjacent communities, MnDOT, and Hennepin County to discuss and advance this concept (identified on Figure 5.22) as appropriate. • Jurisdictional Classification – Hennepin County has identified two roadway segments as potential candidates to turn back to the City. The City opposes these reclassifications. The City should coordinate as needed with Hennepin County to demonstrate that turning back jurisdictional authority to the City is not appropriate for the following locations: o Vernon Avenue/Gleason Road (CSAH 158) between TH 62 and TH 100 o York/Xerxes Avenue (CSAH 31) between I-494 and 50th Street (CSAH 21) • Review and potentially implement the option of increasing TDM requirements for developers. Transit • Continue efforts to establish a park-and-ride facility at TH 100/50th Street. • Continue to evaluate the feasibility of circulator service focusing on the western portion of the City, and evaluate the existing CloverRide shuttle service in the Greater Southdale area. Bicycling and Walking • Use the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan to identify ongoing bicycle projects for feasibility review and implementation as warranted. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-60 • Working in conjunction with roadway or other infrastructure improvement projects, construct sidewalks on an on-going basis consistent with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Funding Funding for transportation improvements and programs can be obtained from a variety of sources, as summarized below: • General Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes – Transportation projects can be funded with the general pool of municipal revenues raised through property taxes. • State Aid – Cities with populations of greater than 5,000 are eligible for funding assistance from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund (funded with the state gas tax and vehicle taxes, as well as federal transportation funds through MnDOT). These funds are allocated to a network of Municipal State Aid (MSA) streets. Currently, the City of Edina receives an apportionment per year for improvements to its MSA streets, which are typically collector roadways higher in functional classification. • Federal Transportation Funds – The guidelines for direct federal funding for transportation projects are established under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. These funds are allocated by the Metropolitan Council which serves as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Roadway, transit, non-motorized, and other transportation-related projects are selected on a competitive basis based on evaluation, prioritization, and recommendation by the Metropolitan Council’s Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). The process of solicitation for project proposals and resulting allocation of federal funding to selected projects occurs every two years. The next round of solicitation for proposals will take place in 2019. • Cooperative Agreements with MnDOT and/or Hennepin County – Different levels of government can cooperate on planning, implementing, and financing transportation projects which provide benefits to all the concerned agencies. The financial terms and obligations are generally established at the front end of the projects. • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – This is a method of funding improvements that are needed immediately by using the additional tax revenue anticipated to be generated because of the given project’s benefits in future years. The difference between current tax revenues from the targeted district and the increased future tax revenues resulting from the improvements is dedicated to retiring the municipal bonds used to finance the initial improvement(s). • Developer Contributions/Impact Fees – Under this approach, the impact of the additional traffic from a proposed development on the local roadway system is projected, using standard traffic engineering procedures. Costs associated with improving the roadway system to handle the additional traffic at an acceptable level of service are assessed to the developer. This approach generally involves some level of negotiation between the local government and the developer to work out a cost-sharing agreement that allows the development to move forward. • Assessments – Properties that benefit from a roadway scheduled for improvement may be assessed for the cost of construction. In order to assess the owner, it must be demonstrated that the value of their property will increase by at least the amount of the assessment. Edina Comprehensive Plan 5. Transportation Chapter – Approved 08-18-20 5-61 • Utility Franchise Fees – The City’s Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund is one example of using franchise fees for public improvements. The PACS Fund is generated from franchise fees on customers of electric and gas utilities in Edina are dedicated to the construction and maintenance of non-motorized infrastructure. In addition to these methods, the City should always consider negotiating with business and medical centers to help fund transportation improvement projects, large or small, which would have direct benefits to those centers. Two potential sources of transportation funding have been proposed and discussed for a number of years but are not currently allowed under state law. They are: • Road Access Charge – All new developments would be charged based on the trip generation rates of the given development, without an estimation or documentation of specific traffic impacts or improvement requirements. It would be analogous to the Sewer Access Charge (SAC) for access to the Metropolitan Council’s sanitary sewer system. Revenues from this source could be used to build or improve collector and arterial roadways within the local jurisdiction collecting the tax. • Transportation Utility Billing – All properties within the local jurisdiction would be subject to a periodic fee, based on the number of vehicle trips generated by the type of property. The pool of funding generated in this manner would be used for community-wide transportation improvements such as preventive maintenance and road reconstruction. The periodic nature of the billing would be beneficial in terms of supporting on-going or routine roadway maintenance projects through the entire network. The City should continue to support and promote the passage of legislation at the state level which would allow these forms of dedicated local transportation revenue generation. Capital Improvement Program The City has a Capital Improvement Program that is used to guide transportation investments within the community. The process includes analyzing projects that contribute to the maintenance and improvement of the transportation network based on the policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned, the prioritization of projects takes place in the City’s Capital Improvement Program and is determined by the City Council with guidance from the Living Streets Vision, Principles, and Implementation elements. The City Council updates the Capital Improvement Program biannually to reflect the changing needs of our transportation network. Transportation Commission Work Plan Initiatives 2013-2023 Year Initiative Description Partners 1 Review existing crossing policy and recommend changes with consideration for local amenities such as parks and schools. 2 Develop a priority list of high-traffic corridors and ideas for bike friendly improvements. 3 Review the safety, accessibility, and amenities along the existing France Avenue Transit Corridor for pedestrians, bicylists and transit riders between Minnesota Drive and Highway 62 (Southdale District). Investigation will include site visits and review of similar case studies that promote non-automobile transportation modes along similar scale roadways and will include input from key stakeholders. Inquiry is in response to the Climate Action PLan and new parking ordinances. 4 Review options for replacement and new boulevard tree planting programs.5 Appoint Commissioner to serve on the Cahill small area plan working group. 6 Consideration for future parking in Edina to identify parking initiatives to pursue in the next 10-15 years, in what order and what Commissions/resources should be assigned to each.PC, EEC 1 Research, develop and recommend a citywide boulevard tree policy that addresses planting, protection, maintenance, removal and funding EEC 2 Develop a public transit checklist to review on proposed development projects.PC 3 Review and recommend changes to the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund policy. 4 Study the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and report on potential Safe Routes to School demonstration projects. 5 Study and report on other agencies' process for completing traffic safety studies related to development/redevelopment projects. 6 Review the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and recommend changes to proposed facilities to improve connectivity to public transit. 1 Investiage the impacts of organized trash collection while considering the travel demand management objectives, environmental goals and reducing wear-and-tear on City streets.EEC 2 Continue representation on 2020 Street Funding Task Force until task force is complete. 3 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. 4 Review and comment on monthly Traffic Safety Reports. 5 Review and comment on roadway reconstruction projects and projects funded by the Pedestrian and Cyclist (PACS) Fund. Commission will also review and comment on staff's application of the equity criteria. 6 Review and comment on traffic impact studies and Travel Demand Management plans associated with proposed developments. 7 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. 1 Review and evaluate performance of CloverRide circulator services (North and South) and make recommendations to Council for future service after contracts expire. 2 Review and comment on traffic impact studies associated with propsoed developments. 3 Review and comment on staff's recommendations for Travel Demand Management policy/ordinance. 4 Review and comment on staff's framework for the completion of traffic impact studies conducted for proposed development/redevelopment projects. 5 Develop and coordinate up to six educational activities to inform the community about transportation safety (which will include an annual community event). 6 Review and comment on monthly Traffic Safety Reports. 7 Review and comment on proposed Capital Improvement projects, including roadway reconstructions and projects funded by the Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund. 1 Chair/co-chair a cross-commission committee to review Travel Demand Management options and recommend a TDM policy or ordinance for Council consideration PC 2 Serve on a cross-commission committee to determine if a process is feasible for the Transportation Commission to provide input on transportation-related issues, including traffic study results associated with development/redevelopment PC 3 Annually, spring through fall, the commission with coordinate an educational campaign to inform community members about pedestrian, bicycle and motorist safety which will include an annual community event 4 Monitor and evaluate the CloverRide circulator service and make recommendations to Council for future service after twelve-month agreement expires 5 Review and comment on PACS Fund allocating process with a race and equity lens CHC, HRRC, PARC 6 Serve on a cross-commission committee to complete requirements for Edina to receive the AARP City Designation 7 Serve on a cross-commission committee to develop a draft plan on Edina Grand Rounds, including wayfinding PARC 1 Recommend pilot plan for Edina/Southdale Circulator including pilot routes and evaluation plan for the Edina/Southdale Bus Circulator Pilot Project 2 Invite neighboring transportation commission to have joint meeting with the Edina Transportation Commission 3 Review and comment on solutions for high school motor vehicle traffic and parking affecting neighborhoods adjacent to Edina High School 4 Assist as requested with the development of the City's new Comprehensive Guide Plan PL Define and implement equity criteria for PACS Fund projects, and integrate with the City's Race and Equity Task Force efforts 1 If City staff secures funds, support and guide the engagement process for, and potential study of, passengar rail in Edina 2 Assist as requested with the development of the City's new Comprehensive Guide Plan3Review transportation impact analysis process to better implement Living Streets PC 4 Review and comment on transportation projects in the Capital Improvement Plan, mill and overlay/seal coat projects, and monthly traffic safety reports 5 Review and comment on pedestrian and bicycle master plan 1 Study and report community circulator 2 Organize and host a transportation-themed event with speaker(s) 3 Prepare and comment on Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan for inclusion in 2018 Comprehensive Plan 4 Review Edina To Go app and provide recommendations to staff regarding organzation/sategoes for reporting concerns related to streets/transportation 5 Review data from City's QLS (2011, 2013, 2015) and conduct 2 public meetings to identify gaps around the City's transportation systems 6 Make recommendations to staff for evaluation of the Living Streets and Streets Smarts outreach campaigns 7 Provide input to staff on the creation of a walking map of the City indicating routes and areas of interest 1 Review and recommend modifications to roadway reconstruction project survey content and methodology 2 Review and recommend modifications to Traffic Safety Request process3Greater Southdale Area Transportation and Circulator Study implementation 4 Study access to and from Southwest LRT stations in St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie 1 Living Streets Plan 2 Meet with Police Department and Public Works annually to discuss shared interests such as traffic education and enforcement, street maintenance as it affects cyclists and pedestrians, etc. 3 Valley View Rd between Gleason Rd and Antrim Rd - work with school district and Active Routes to School working group to address traffic issues 4 Educational safety campaign 1 Living Streets Policy implementation 2 Review transportation projects in the proposed Capital Improvement Program 3 TLC Bike Boulevard project PL Grandview Area Transportation Plan implementation 2022 2023 2021 2020 2013 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Date: June 15, 2023 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To:Transportation Commission Item Type: Other From:Andrew Scipioni, Transportation Planner Item Activity: Subject:Commission Work Plan Progress Portal Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: This year, the City launched Progress Portal, an online public dashboard designed to improve communication, engagement and transparency (https://performance.envisio.com/dashboard/CommissionWorkPlans-Edina).