Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#04 Street Width and ParkingSTAFF REPORT DATE: June 11, 2019 DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEM: Street Widths and Parking SUBMITTED BY: Kristina Handt, City Administrator BACKGROUND: At the April work session, council began reviewing street width and parking standards. Some examples from other cities were provided. Council asked for more examples and asked that other departments (public safety, engineering, planning, and public works) weigh in. 2018 Engineering Design Standards for Lake Elmo Geometric Design, Local Residential Street ‐Minimum Street Width (B‐B), parking both sides…………………………………...….…28‐feet ‐Minimum Street Width (B‐B), parking one side (when allowed by City)…..……….….…24‐feet ‐Minimum Street Width (B‐B), no parking (when allowed by City)……….………………22‐feet ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL: Does the Council have any further questions regarding street widths and parking requirements? Should the Engineering Design Standards for Lake Elmo be updated or do they remain appropriate? PROPOSAL DETAILS/ANALYSIS/OPTIONS: Engineering staff has gathered the following examples: City of Woodbury. Residential: 28 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. All other roads. In accordance with Roadway Design Principals Report (per detailed Task Force Study). City Engineer Griffin did speak directly with Woodbury for verification since their Code/Road Design Principals on the website are somewhat confusing. Woodbury does use 28 feet wide roads with parking on both sides. They measure the width from face of curb to face of curb (Lake Elmo uses back of curb to back of curb) so their road is technically 1-foot wider than Lake Elmo. They do not change this standard for medium or higher density land uses. Their Fire Chief supports this width and was part of the task force when they established their standards back in 2010. They believe that this street width is ideal to balance emergency access and controlling speeds on residential streets. They said they receive about 5-6 requests per year from residents to restrict parking along one side, usually around park areas, townhome areas, etc. and that in the last six years they have denied all requests. They rely on the Winter Parking Regulations to allow crews to clear the streets City of Eagan. Low Density Residential: 28 feet F-F, 50-foot R/W (no sidewalks). Parking allowed on both sides. Medium Density Residential: 32 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. High Density Residential: 36 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. City of Inver Grove Heights. Urban Local Streets: 28 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on one side only. Urban Local Streets: 36 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. City of Eden Prairie. Residential: 28 feet B-B, 50-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. Collector: 32 feet B-B, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. Industrial: 37-52 feet B-B, 70-100 foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. Commercial: 52 feet B-B, 100-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. City of Oakdale. Street width and pavement section = function of traffic volume and parking demand (Table in Design Stds manual) Local Residential (0-2,000 ADT): 28 feet F-F, 50-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. Local Residential (0-2,000 ADT): 24 feet F-F, 44-foot R/W. No Parking. Local Residential (2,000-3,000 ADT): 32 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. Local Residential (2,000-3,000 ADT): 28 feet F-F, 50-foot R/W. No Parking. City of Cottage Grove. Local Residential Std: 22 feet F-F, 50-60 foot R/W. No Parking. Local Residential Std: 28 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on one sides. Local Residential Std: 32 feet F-F, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. City of Victoria. Residential: 28 feet B-B, 60-foot R/W. Parking allowed on both sides. City of Maplewood. Adopted a "Living Streets" Policy that addresses many specific conditions/options (see attached Local Street options PDF). 1. Parking should be provided along one side of the street. Studies have shown that for a typical residential street, making provisions for parking along both sides is excessive, and the parking capacity is underutilized. 2. Sidewalks should be considered along one side of each local street. However the need would be determined based on a context sensitive application. City Code requirements shall be followed where they are more prescriptive than the Living Streets Policy (i.e. requirements for sidewalks on both sides of the street in the Mixed-Use Zoning District). 3. If a sidewalk is not provided, the street pavement width should be wider to accommodate a shared purpose of bikes/pedestrians along the street edge. 4. For streets where a sidewalk is deemed applicable, options could be provided to install sidewalk along one or both sides of the street. 5. Sidewalks would be required if the street abuts or is in the vicinity of a school or park, is identified with a sidewalk in the Comprehensive Plan, or is part of a larger network of pedestrian routes. Local Residential Option 1: 26 feet F-F, 60 foot R/W. Sidewalk on one-side. Parking allowed on one side. 24 feet F-F may be considered in appropriate context. Local Residential Option 2: 26 feet F-F, 60 foot R/W. Sidewalk on both sides. Parking allowed on one side. Local Residential Option 3: 28-30 feet F-F, 60 foot R/W. Additional pavement width for bike lane. Parking allowed on one side. Local Connector Street. 28 feet F-F, 60 foot R/W. Sidewalk on one or both sides. Parking allowed on one side. Local Residential: Code language = The roadway width design shall take into account but not be limited to the design speed; desired level of service; average annual daily traffic; heavy commercial average daily traffic; peak hour traffic volume; access requirements; intersection frequency; and design, parking, topography, and available right-of-way. Local streets shall be 32 feet F-F. The city council may approve 28 feet F-F in special cases when requested. Cities with 32 feet street widths for local residential. Stillwater, Maplewood, Savage, Hopkins, Bloomington, Savage. Note. • B-B = as measured from back of curb to back of curb. This would be 1-foot narrower than as measured from F-F. • F-F = as measured from face of curb to face of curb. Chief Malmquist provided information on fire apparatus access roads which is an optional appendix to the state fire code. City Code Section 151.041 was amended in 2016 to include the adoption of Appendix D: Fire Apparatus Access Roads. § 151.041 FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION. (A) State fire code adopted. The Minnesota State Fire Code, as adopted by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry pursuant to M.S. Ch. 299F.011, including all of the amendments, rules and regulations established, and appendix chapters as outlined below, adopted and published from time to time by the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety, through its fire marshal division is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated in this section as completely as if set out in full. A person desiring a permit as required by the Minnesota State Fire Code shall submit an application to the Fire Code Official along with any fee required by the city fee schedule. 2017 S-10 (B) Appendix chapters adopted. The following appendix chapters as identified in the Minnesota State Fire Code are hereby adopted and incorporated: (1) Appendix C: Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution; (2) Appendix D: Fire Apparatus Access Roads; (3) Appendix H: Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP) and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS) Instructions; (4) Appendix I: Fire Protection Systems—Noncompliant Conditions; (5) Appendix K: Fires or Barbeques on Balconies or Patios; and (6) Appendix L: Emergency Responder Radio Coverage. (C) Use of the terms of the Fire Code. Wherever the word “jurisdiction” is used in the Minnesota State Fire Code, it shall mean the City of Lake Elmo. Where the term “fire code official” is used in the Minnesota State Fire Code, it shall mean the city’s Building Official. (D) Duties and responsibilities of the Fire Code Official. The Fire Code Official or his or her authorized representative shall have the following duties and responsibilities: (1) Enforcement of the provisions of this section; (2) May order the establishment of fire lanes on public or private property as may be necessary in order to ensure that the travel of fire equipment is not be impeded or interfered with, and that access to fire hydrants and buildings is not blocked off. When a fire lane has been ordered to be established, it shall be marked by a sign bearing the words “No Parking - Fire Lane” or a similar message. If the sign is in private property, it shall be erected and maintained by the property owner at the property owner’s expense. Such sign must be installed within 30 days after notification by the Fire Code Official that a fire lane must be established. Thereafter, no person shall park a vehicle or otherwise occupy or obstruct the fire lane; and (3) Keeping on file with the city all statutes and regulations applicable to this section. 2017 S-10 (E) Fire inspections. In order to ensure the health, safety, and public welfare, the city will inspect existing facilities in accordance with established policy. A fire service fee will be charged in accordance with the city’s fee schedule for new construction, additions and alterations where a building permit is required. (F) Lock boxes. Lock boxes are required on all new commercial structures in the city. They shall meet the following requirements: (l) The lock box must be mounted in an easily accessible location near the main entrance of the structure or as otherwise approved in writing by the Fire Chief; (2) The lock box must contain all keys necessary to gain access to the commercial structure as well as access to interior areas of the structure; and (3) The Fire Chief must be contacted when access to a lock box is requested by the property owner in order to change keys for various building locks. (G) Hazardous material list. With respect to commercial properties, the property owner must provide the Fire Chief with the following information related to hazardous materials and chemicals on the property. This information must be updated annually and when shipments of new or seasonal hazardous materials or chemicals are received on the property. (1) A list of all hazardous materials and chemicals stored in the structure(s) and on the property; (2) A drawing to scale which provides the quantities of the materials and chemicals; and (3) A material data sheet for each hazardous material or chemical. (Ord. 97-118, passed 4-1-2003; Am. Ord. 08-147, passed 7-19-2016) Penalty, see § 10.99 FISCAL IMPACT: As noted previously, increasing residential street widths increases the cost of maintenance (seal coating, mill and overlay, reconstruction, etc.) and impact storm water runoff and collection which comes with increased costs. ATTACHMENTS: • Woodbury Road Design Principals • Maplewood Living Streets Policy • Fire Apparatus Access Roads REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS “First we shape our public spaces, and then our public spaces shape us.” - Winston Churchill City of Woodbury, Minnesota July 2009 Project No. 13949.000 ROADWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN PRINCIPLES TASK FORCE REPORT Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 Page i 13949.000 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The contributions of the following to the Task Force are acknowledged and appreciated: Woodbury Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Members Clint Gridley, City Administrator David Jessup, Public Works Director Klayton Eckles, Deputy Public Works Director Marc Briese, Transportation Engineer Jim Triebold, Streets Superintendent Bob Klatt, Director of Parks and Recreation Dwight Picha, Community Development Director Melissa Douglas, City Planner Janelle Schmitz, Economic Development Manager Steve Kernik, Environmental Planner Jennifer McLoughlin, Sustainability Coordinator Lee Vague, Public Safety Director Woodbury Transportation Plan Jack Forslund, WSB Tony Heppelmann, WSB David Richardson, MMM Group Mark Inglis, MMM Group Loren Polonsky, MMM Group Task Force Facilitator and Report Sherri Buss, TKDA Angela Torres, TKDA Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 Page ii 13949.000 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. Executive Summary.............................................................................................E-1 II. Introduction And Initiation of the Task Force........................................................ 1 III. Task Force Mission and Objectives........................................................................ 2 IV. Roadway Corridor Design Templates..................................................................... 6 V. Landscape Design Guidelines For Corridors........................................................ 10 VI. Corridor Design Process....................................................................................... 13 VII. Bouldevards and Medians..................................................................................... 15 VIII. Bicycle Lanes, Pedestrian Lanes, and Trails ........................................................ 16 IX. Comparison of Proposed Templates to the City’s Current Standards .................. 18 X. Appendices............................................................................................................ 21 LIST OF TABLES Page No. Table 1: Roadway Corridor Design Templates ...................................................................6 Table 2: Plant Schedule for Corridors ...............................................................................11 APPENDICES 1. Proposed and Current Roadway Corridor Design Templates: Design Templates A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, E4, STL-8 2. Table A-1: Decision Matrix for Selecting Corridor Designs with Dedicated Turn Lanes 3. Technical Memorandum 1: Definition of Speed Related to Roadways 4. Pros and Cons of Capping Corridors 5. City-wide Corridor Map 6. Corridor Design Guidelines Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 Page E- 1 13949.000 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report presents the work and recommendations of Woodbury’s Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force (DPTF). Many of the recommendations have been incorporated into the City’s 2030 Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Plan. In an effort to better align roadway corridor design and construction practices with the City’s values and emphasis on all users and stakeholders, an interdisciplinary task force of City staff from the Community Development, Public Works, Parks, and Public Safety Departments, as well as the City’s Administrator and Sustainability Coordinator was formed. The Roadway Corridor DPTF report was developed as a result of over two years of work by this group. The Task Force sought to balance four significant goals in roadway corridor design. Traditionally, roadway design has been based on the twin principles of safety and mobility. As Woodbury has continued to mature and seek a leadership role in areas of quality of life, those two principles alone are insufficient to capture all the aspects that today’s roadway design needs to encompass. After extensive discussions with the Design Principles Task Force, it became clear that two more principles besides safety and mobility need to be added - sustainability and livability. Therefore, the City’s more complete list of design principles is as follows: • Mobility • Safety • Sustainability • Livability The Task Force’s discussions utilized principles from the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approach that is increasingly utilized by transportation authorities. The CSS approach and guidelines are described in detail in the Transportation Chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Task Force developed twelve design templates for the City’s roadway corridors, and recommendations regarding the elements of the templates and how to use them in corridor design. The Task Force compared the proposed templates to the City’s existing roadway design standards, and found that the proposed templates provide a better balance among the four design principles. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 Page E- 2 13949.000 The approach used differed in significant ways from traditional approaches to roadway design, including the following: • The smallest size corridor necessary to meet functional requirements and to accommodate projected traffic will be the starting point for roadway design on City, County, and State projects; • As a design feature, four-lane undivided roadways have been replaced with a 3- lane design with center turn lane, which functions as well for mobility but reduces the pavement area. Three lane sections also typically have many fewer crashes when compared to four-lane undivided roadways. The City should study whether or not existing four-lane undivided sections could be converted to 3-lane sections; • Minimizing the crossing width for pedestrians to the degree possible; • Including flexibility in the designs to add transit or other alternatives in the future; and • Including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and landscape elements as integral components of each of the roadway templates, but not necessarily including on- street bicycle lanes. On-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes will be evaluated on a case by case basis on City roads as part of the preliminary engineering report. This Report presents the conclusions of the DPTF, the proposed roadway corridor templates, an updated plant schedule for corridors, and a variety of supporting materials that provide detail on the Task Force process and conclusions. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 1 II. INTRODUCTION AND INITIATION OF THE TASK FORCE The City of Woodbury updated its 2030 Transportation Plan in –2008, with formal approvals expected from the Metropolitan Council in late 2009. As a part of this effort, the City created an interdisciplinary Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force (DPTF) to work concurrently with the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) for the Transportation Plan update. The DPTF included staff from the City’s Engineering and Public Works Department, Community Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Public Safety Department, the City Administrator, and Sustainability Coordinator. The DPTF met numerous times during 2007 and 2008, and completed the following: • Reviewed engineering, environmental, aesthetic, and other roadway corridor design criteria, and determined that four criteria should be used to develop design templates for roadway corridors in Woodbury - mobility, safety, sustainability, and livability. • Completed design templates for roadway corridors within the City that would address the City’s goals and criteria. The templates include recommendations for roadway elements, bicycle and pedestrian elements, landscaping, and right-of- way requirements. • Completed additional recommendations for the design of new roadway corridors or redesign of existing corridors. The Task Force presented the templates and its recommendations to the City’s Sustainability Committee, the TAP for the Transportation Plan update, Comprehensive Plan Task Force, and the City Council. The final recommendations and templates are referenced in the City’s 2030 Transportation and Comprehensive Plan. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 2 III. TASK FORCE MISSION AND OBJECTIVES The mission of the Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force was to provide design guidance for the City’s roadway corridors - particularly collector and arterial corridors, “neighborhood collectors” and “commercial collectors”. The City recently completed an update of the design template for local streets. Based on early discussions, the Task Force determined that it would focus on the following: • The Task Force would develop “design templates” for each of the roadway corridor types expected within the community by 2030. Template elements that were considered included: - Medians - Shoulders - Driving lanes - Turn lanes - Trails and sidewalks - Transit lanes - Boulevards - Utility areas - Landscaping • The corridors would be multi-modal: accommodating travel by auto, bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. The corridors should be designed to maximize landscaping opportunities to soften and mitigate “hardscape” impacts of a roadway system. The corridors may need to accommodate future transportation technologies as well. The corridors would incorporate the City’s proposed Corridor Design Guidelines for landscaping. • The Task Force’s discussions utilized principles from the Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) approach that is increasingly utilized by transportation authorities. These principles include an interdisciplinary team approach to planning and design; attention to community values and qualities including environment, scenic, aesthetic, and natural resources as well as safety and mobility; and objective evaluation of a full range of alternatives. The CSS approach and guidelines are described in detail in the Transportation Chapter of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. • The Task Force would balance several factors in developing the design templates for the corridors: - Mobility - Safety - Sustainability - Livability Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 3 The Task Force developed informal definitions of each of these factors, which are summarized as follows: • Mobility: the ability to move traffic efficiently, easy route finding, good alternatives available; low congestion. • Safety: avoid crashes and injuries for all corridor users and consider the safety of motorists who inadvertently leave the roadway. • Sustainability: Woodbury’s City Council has identified sustainability as a critical success factor for the community. The City’s Comprehensive Plan states that “The degree that a transportation system is sustainable is determined by its ability to simultaneously accomplish the following objectives: - Optimize the transportation system to meet the current and future transportation needs of users of the system in a safe, effective, and economically efficient manner; - Provide and promote alternative modes of travel; - Minimize the consumption of natural resources; - Minimize environmental, economic, and social impacts; - Promote active and healthy lifestyles; and - Support socially cohesive neighborhoods and an economically vibrant community. • Livability: sensitivity to context; impacts to surrounding land uses; minimize noise; focus on aesthetics, quality design; roadway function as community gateway and experience; roadway function as a connector of neighborhoods for motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists alike; maximizes opportunities for landscape elements. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 4 The Task Force developed definitions and designs for two new types of roadway corridors within the community - “neighborhood collectors” and “commercial collectors.” • “Neighborhood collectors” are roadways that normally have a functional classification of “local”, but serve to collect and distribute other residential and road traffic to the collector and arterial system. • “Commercial collectors” are roadways that may have functional classification of “local” or “collector.” These roadways are in commercial districts and used exclusively to provide access to/from commercial businesses. The Task Force philosophy is very similar to the philosophy embraced by the National Complete Streets Coalition. More than 50 jurisdictions in the United States, including states to small towns, have adopted the Complete Streets policies. These policies emphasize that a complete street is a roadway designed for multiple users - drivers, bicyclists, transit, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. The concept focuses on changing the design and decision-making process so that all users are considered during the planning, design, building, and operation of all roadways. Mn/DOT is currently working on a feasibility report for Complete Streets in the State of Minnesota, with delivery expected to the legislature in late 2009. Marc Briese, the City’s Transportation Engineer, sits on the Technical Advisory Panel for the feasibility report. The Task Force also noted that some issues related to transportation corridors in Woodbury would be addressed by others working on the Transportation Plan. These issues were referred to others: • Transit - the DPTF included space within some of the templates for potential future transit facilities. Needs and options for transit and potential City roles in providing transit are considered in the Transportation Plan. • County and State-managed corridors - the DPTF determined that it will develop design templates that best meet the City’s vision for the future. The City will discuss the proposed templates with Washington County and Mn/DOT, and work toward a consensus on solutions for design and management of these corridors. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 5 • Parks and Trails System - the DPTF templates include trails on both sides of the road and bicycle lanes within many of the corridors; however, the City’s Parks and Trails Commission will recommend the overall trail system for the City. Consistent with the City’s Transportation Plan, it is a goal to provide pathways on both sides of all new major roadways. Paths on both sides should be considered as part of rehabilitation or reconstruction projects if adequate right of way is available and the trail would fit into the context of the existing neighborhood. On-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes will be evaluated on a case by case basis on City roads as part of the preliminary engineering report. Issues such as lighting of bicycle trails were also referred to the Parks and Trails Commission. Early DPTF discussions noted that current roadway designs seem to be based largely on maintaining optimum automobile speeds and mobility. The Task Force expressed a strong desire to balance sustainability and livability factors with mobility and safety, to consider the needs of all corridor users, and to accommodate and encourage a variety of transportation options, from bicycles to new and future technologies. Halstead Trail (east-west) and Rosemill Lane (north-south) Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 6 IV. ROADWAY CORRIDOR DESIGN TEMPLATES The Task Force developed twelve design templates for roadway corridors in Woodbury. The templates are listed on Table 1. A citywide map identify the corridors is included as Appendix 5. Table 1: Roadway Corridor Design Templates Template Description Right-of- way Number of Lanes Median Width (feet) Target Operating Speed (mph) A1 Highest traffic volume corridor adjacent to commercial areas near Interstates; dual left turn lanes where warranted. 180 6 6-30 45 A2 Highest traffic volume corridor adjacent to commercial areas near Interstates; capacity to expand to 6 lanes; dual left turn lanes where warranted 180 4 6-30 45 B1 High traffic volume corridor 150 4 8-20 40 B2 High traffic volume corridor; dual left turn lanes where warranted 150 4 6-30 40 C1 Medium traffic volume corridor with 3 lanes (with center two-way left turn lane) and exclusive right turn lanes at intersections - primary C corridor type 120 3 None 35-40 C2 Medium traffic volume corridor with 3 lanes (with center two-way left turn lane) and exclusive right turn lanes at intersections - secondary C corridor type 120 3 None 35-40 D1 Neighborhood collector 88 2 None 30-35 D2 Neighborhood collector with exclusive right turn lanes 88 2 None 30-35 E1 Commercial land use corridor - 3 lanes (with center two-way left turn lane) 112 3 None 30 E2 Commercial land use corridor - 3 lanes (with center two-way left turn lane) and dedicated right turn lanes at intersections 112 3 None 30 E3 Commercial land use corridor - 5 lanes (with center two-way left turn lane) and dedicated right turn lanes at intersections 136 5 None 30 E4 Commercial land use corridor - 5 lanes (with center two-way left turn lane) and dedicated right turn lanes at intersections 136 5 None 30 STL-8 28-foot wide residential road with sidewalk on one or two sides 60 2 None <30 Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 7 DPTF recommendations regarding selection of the templates include the following: • The smallest size corridor needed to meet functional requirements and projected traffic levels will be the starting point for roadway design. The DPTF recommended limiting the width of roadway corridors to those identified in the templates to minimize separation from and impacts to surrounding land uses, and minimize the pavement area that pedestrians need to cross. • Classification of roadways into various templates will be performed based on roadway functional classification and traffic volumes. Roadways designated “arterials” could be A or B templates. Roadways designated “collectors” could be designed with any of the template types except “A” types, depending on traffic volumes on the roadway itself, and the roadways that it intersects. The D templates are designed as “neighborhood collector” corridors. The E templates were developed for use in corridors dominated by commercial land uses with high driveway density. • The Task Force developed the design templates specifically for traditional signalized and stop-controlled intersections. However, roundabouts may be appropriate in certain locations and have become an acceptable tool in the engineering community. The City will evaluate appropriate roadway and intersection geometry based on current and projected traffic volumes and patterns, and based on adjacent land uses. Roundabouts have been shown to have many advantages over traditional signalized intersections when designed correctly and applied at appropriate locations. Some benefits include reduced vehicle delay and gas consumption, less pollution and noise impacts, reduced crash severity, and less pavement. In cases where roundabouts are determined to be the best form of intersection traffic control, right-of-way needs and impacts at intersections will need to be re-evaluated. The Series 500 reports from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) categorize roundabouts as a proven strategy, effective at reducing crashes. • The City should evaluate options to use roundabouts at intersections at an early stage in the planning and design process, to determine if a roundabout would result in equal or better intersection function and reduce right-of-way requirements. Part of this investigation needs to be consideration of adjacent intersections and how the roundabout(s) fit into the entire corridor. • Intersection characteristics will influence the need for turn lanes or specific elements of roundabout design. • The A1 corridor is an alternate form of the A2 corridor, where it may be needed in commercial areas, generally within one mile of Interstates. The additional lane included in template A1 could be utilized as a transit lane or additional driving lane. • The B2 corridor provides an option for dual left turn lanes where needed on high volume roadways. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 8 • The C1 and D1 corridors will be used most frequently within the Medium and Low Volume classifications, respectively. The C2 and D2 options will only be selected when turn lanes are required to maintain the function of roadways that intersect with these roadway corridors. Table A-1, included in the Appendix, presents the criteria that can be used to determine needs for selection of templates with multiple turn lane configurations for non-roundabout intersections. • The D corridor is designed to function as a “neighborhood collector”. The DPTF recommended increased use of “neighborhood collector” roadways in the future, to improve interconnectivity between the City’s neighborhoods, and to relieve pressure and congestion on the B and C corridor types. The roles of the D corridor are the following: - Serve as a connecting street within neighborhoods. - Serve as an inter-neighborhood connector, and an alternative to B or C corridors. - Provide inter- and intra-neighborhood connecting routes for bicycles. The D corridors could become a network of bicycle commuting routes within the City. - Provide a potential route for local transit services, such as shuttles. - The D corridors will likely be designated as State Aid roadways and would therefore be required to meet State Aid minimum design standards. • The “commercial corridor” E templates are designed to be used in corridors that are dominated by commercial and retail land uses. Important elements of these corridors are as follows: - E1 and E2 templates (3-lane sections) will be used for the majority of “commercial collectors”. E3 and E4 will be used where there is a high amount of retail adjacent to the corridor with high volumes of traffic, requiring an additional lane in each direction. E1 and E2 will be the standard, with analysis required to warrant the E3 or E4 design. - The use of the E1 or E2 design may impact the design of driveways - specifically the required width and turning radii, when compared to the majority of existing roadway sections in commercial corridors, which are 4-lane sections. Trucks turning right into a driveway would be doing so from a position closer to the curb with the 3-lane section. In a 4-lane section, trucks would make a right turn from the inside through lane, cutting across the outside through lane. Trucks turning right are likely to use the two-way left turn lane on the 3-lane sections as though it were a through lane, and therefore conflicts with opposing traffic are unlikely. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 9 • The ADT’s (Average Daily Traffic) for the proposed corridors are likely to be in the following ranges: - Highest Volume corridors (ADT >25,000) - High Volume corridors (ADT 15,000-25,000) - Medium Volume corridors (ADT between 5,000 and 15,000) - Low Volume corridors (ADT <5,000) • The DPTF affirmed that the width for new and replacement residential roadways will be 28 feet. Sidewalks, boulevards, and landscaping will be standard elements of all these roadway corridor designs. (“Replacement” applies to roadway reconstruction, and not to mill and overlay improvements.) A width of 26 feet is acceptable for roadways that terminate in a cul-de-sac. The 26-foot and 28-foot corridor widths are consistent with the policies of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 10 V. LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR CORRIDORS The City completed a set of Corridor Design Guidelines (Kimley-Horn Associates and HNTB) in 2007 that provide guidance for landscape design along its roadway corridors. Approval of the DPTF report is intended to include approval of the 2007 Corridor Design Guidelines as well. It includes design recommendations for the following: • Landscaping of medians, boulevards and city entrances • Median pavements and landscape containment systems • Retaining walls, special curbs, and median maintenance access methods • Traffic signals, street lighting, and special pedestrian area lighting The DPTF discussed the Corridor Design Guidelines in relation to the corridor templates it developed. The DPTF modified the Guidelines in the following ways: • Expanded the plant palette to include additional tree species for planting in the corridors • Removed ash species from the list of tree species, due to the threat of Emerald Ash Bore to this species • Modified the planting designs to fit the new corridor templates. The corridor templates A1-E4 included in this report modify the templates on pages 21, 23, 30, 31 and 34 of the Corridor Design Guidelines report. • Recognized that the issue of irrigating medians on the Primary City Entry Corridors is an area that requires continued discussion. The City will continue to explore the use of seed mixtures that require minimal or no irrigation. References to sod may also include the use of seed mixtures. The City will continue to discuss implementation and appropriate use of irrigation systems in medians. • Recommended that if discrepancies exist between the DPTF Templates and the Corridor Design Guidelines for street widths or other dimensions, the DPTF Templates will govern. • Determined that the modified Corridor Design Guidelines would be approved as a part of this Report. A copy is included as Appendix 6. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 11 The planting palette that the City will use as a starting point in the design of its roadway corridors is shown on Table 2 below. The planting designs are illustrated on the corridor templates. Table 2 replaces the Design Palette table on page 7 of the Corridor Design Guidelines report. • The DPTF discussed the location of landscaping in relation to the utility locations. The group indicated that the proximity of the landscaping to utilities may require landscaping removal for unplanned maintenance activities, such as a watermain break. The group recognized that this may occur, but determined that the benefit of including landscaping throughout the corridor outweighs potential negatives associated with necessary tree removal and replanting if required for utility maintenance. • It is necessary to place plantings to allow for sanitary sewer jetter trucks to access manholes located in the boulevard areas. Table 2: Plant Schedule for Corridors Common Name Botanical Name Size Root Spacing Notes Canopy Species Trees - Boulevard or Median Swamp White Oak Quercus bicolor 2” Cont or B- 25-55’ Single Stem Imperial Honeylocust Gleditsia riacanthos inermis 2” Cont or B- 25’ Single Stem Autumn Blaze Maple Acer x Fremanii ‘Jeffersred’ 2” Cont or B- 25’ Single Stem Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus 2” Cont or B- 25’ Single Stem White Oak Quercus alba 2” Cont or B- 25-55’ Single Stem Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 12 Common Name Botanical Name Size Root Spacing Notes Canopy Species Trees - Boulevard (limited Salt Tolerance Eastern Pin Oak* Quercus palustris 2” Cont or B- 25-55’ Single Stem Northern Pin Oak* Quercus ellipsoidalis 2” Cont or B- 25-55’ Single Stem Basswood Tilia Americana, T. ‘Frontyard’, or T. ‘Redmoond’ 2” Cont or B- 25-55’ Single Stem American Elm Ulmus Americana ‘Accolade’, ‘Cathedral’, Or ‘Discovery’ 2” Cont or B- 25-55’ Ornamental (Smaller) Trees Japanese Tree Lilac Syringa reticulata ‘Ivory Silk’ 2” Cont or B- 8’ o.c. Other materials Blue Oat Grass Helictotrichon sempervirens #1 Container 18” o.c. Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass Calamagrostis acutiflora ‘Karl Foerster’ #1 Container 24”o.c. Daylily Mix (50/50 Blend) Hemerocallis ‘Happy Returns’/’Pardon Me’ #1 Container 15”o.c. Viola Klose Salvia Salvia sp ‘Viola Klose’ #1 Container 15”o.c. Big Sky Sunrise Coneflower Echinacea ‘Big Sky Sunrise’ #1 Container 18”o.c. Kippenberg Aster Aster sp ‘Kippenberg’ #1 Container 24”o.c. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 13 VI. CORRIDOR DESIGN PROCESS The Task Force discussed a wide range of issues related to the design of the roadway corridor templates. A more complete description of these discussions is included in the Meeting Summaries of the Task Force meetings. A summary of the recommendations includes the following: A. Corridor Design Process • The roadway design templates will be used as the starting point for design of new roadways or redesign and reconstruction of existing roadways. While changes to the designs may be incorporated to meet individual site or project needs, these will be viewed as similar to requesting a “variance” from the City’s code, and will require a specific rationale for the change from the adopted templates. • The City views its templates as the preferred design for all roadway corridors in the community, including County and State as well as City corridors. The City will work with the County and State to discuss differences in design standards for roadway corridors. • The smallest size roadway needed to meet functional requirements and projected traffic volumes will be the starting point for roadway design to minimize separation between neighborhoods, minimize impacts to surrounding land uses, and minimize the pavement area that pedestrians need to cross. • The corridor (right-of-way) width will be selected based on the ultimate projected traffic volumes and full build-out of the corridor. The Task Force recommends limiting the width of corridors as discussed in this section. B. Reconstruction of Existing Roadway Corridors • The roadway design templates and guidelines will be the starting point for the design of major reconstruction projects in existing roadway corridors, including roadway width, landscaping requirements and other corridor design elements. • The City will identify the existing corridors that are priorities for bicycle lanes and bicycle routes, and work to incorporate these into priority corridors, and other corridors as right-of-way allows. • Design decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis when adequate right-of- way does not exist to design the corridor to meet the standards in the design templates. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 14 C. Capping the Corridor Size • The Task Force recommended capping corridor widths at the right-of-way sizes recommended in this Report. Members recognized this may affect mobility on some roadways in the future, and that historically the City has expanded roadways in response to the high value residents place on mobility and safety. However, Task Force members agreed that roadway widths and driver mobility need to be balanced with other community values and goals. Capping corridor widths may also encourage wider use of transit, bicycles, travel demand management strategies, and other alternative transportation modes that will help to maintain mobility and safety, and reduce demand for additional traffic lanes. The pros and cons that were considered by the DPTF for capping corridor widths are included in the Appendix. • Dual left turn lanes will be used only in exceptional circumstances when needed to assure adequate roadway function. D. City-wide Corridor Map A map is included as Appendix 5 that labels roadway corridors based on the A-E template classifications. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 15 VII. BOULDEVARDS AND MEDIANS • DPTF members agreed that green areas such as boulevards and medians are important components of corridor design. However, they noted that these areas do not provide high-quality green space as parks and other open spaces in the City do. The widths proposed for these green areas in the templates balance needs for aesthetics and function with the need to keep the total width of the corridor as narrow as possible. • DPTF members noted comments that the proposed boulevard widths near intersections provide limited space for snow storage. The DPTF recommended that boulevards have a minimum width of 13 feet to allow for snow storage. The total right-of-way near intersections on some corridors will need to be expanded in some areas to allow for the snow storage area. Trails will be located outside the snow storage area except near intersections, where the trails will be brought close to the intersection at crossings. • The majority of corridors will not be designed with irrigated boulevards or medians. These elements will be considered in high priority corridors, as defined in the Corridor Design Guidelines. • Utilities – the templates include 5’ easement areas for utilities. These are the proposed locations for private utilities. Adequate space is available to place the public utilities outside the roadway. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 16 VIII. BICYCLE LANES, PEDESTRIAN LANES, AND TRAILS • 7-foot wide “utilitarian” bicycle lanes are recommended on the roadway on some corridor templates. “Utilitarian” lanes are defined here as those used for purposeful trips such as commuting, shopping or serious exercise, to distinguish them from bicycle trails primarily used for recreation. This includes a 5’ bicycle area and 2’ curb. This designated bicycle lane will primarily function as a commuter or purposeful bicycle travel lane. While current commuter bicycling within Woodbury is limited, the DPTF included the lanes to encourage and accommodate future use. • On-street bicycle lanes and bicycle routes will be evaluated on a case by case basis on City roads as part of the preliminary engineering report. • The DPTF recommends that the shoulder area required by Washington County on County roadway corridors function as a bicycle lane. The City will work with the County on potential signage or markings for the bicycle lanes. • The DPTF discussed the pros and cons of adding the utilitarian bicycle lanes within the roadway area at length. Inclusion of bicycle lanes within the roadway does add some pavement area and creates a wider right-of-way. However, the lane will function to encourage trips by bicycle, and allows the City to set roadway speed limits on city-owned roadways (Minn. Statutes 160.263). The lane also provides safety benefits associated with shoulders (a break down area and safe pull-over area for police). • When bicycle lanes are included within the roadways, the trail widths are reduced to 8’ (templates A and B). When no lanes are included, the trail widths are 10’ (templates C and D). Bicyclists can also use the edge of the street on C and D corridors, where traffic speeds will be lower. • On new or existing roadways, the need for bicycle lanes on the roadway will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of preliminary engineering activities, considering the space available in the right-of-way and existing or proposed trails in the area. On-road bicycle lanes may be a higher priority near transit facilities. The City will complete a bicycle lane evaluation, (similar to the evaluation completed for roundabouts) using an interdisciplinary staff team, to determine the need for bicycle lanes on the roadway. • Signs identifying some roadways as “bicycle routes” may be used when space is not available to accommodate full-size bike lanes, but where bicycle trips are encouraged. An interdisciplinary staff group will map the “bicycle route” system for the City. The group will consider specific destinations to be included in the system, and current gaps in the City’s trail system. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 17 • DPTF members recommended that existing “neighborhood collector” streets be marked on both sides with pedestrian areas approximately 5’ wide, where sidewalks are not currently available. This could be done with a strong “edge” line at the edge of drive lanes, striping, or other markings. (Examples of these streets include Eagle Valley Drive and Bailey Ridge Drive.) The City’s Public Safety Department recommends prohibition of parking on the streets that receive white edgeline treatment. The City will determine the specific locations for striping. • Signage and or striping may also be included on designated bicycle corridors. The signs will alert drivers to “share the road” with bicycles. Eagle Valley Drive. Image from the Metropolitan Design Center Image Bank © Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used with permission. • Woodbury staff discussed the guidelines for bicycle lane design with Mn/DOT staff. Mn/DOT provides some general guidelines but no standards for bicycle lane design on State Aid roadways. The City will continue to work with Mn/DOT and others on this issue. • Break-down lane – the 7-foot bicycle lane included on some of the templates will also function as a “break down” lane for cars and a safe pull-over area for police. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 18 IX. COMPARISON OF PROPOSED TEMPLATES TO THE CITY’S CURRENT STANDARDS The Task Force compared the new recommended templates to the City’s existing design standards for roadway corridors. The City has existing standards for the B and C corridor types, but not for the A, D, and E types. Overall, using the new design templates will result in the following: • Reduced roadway corridor size. The C and D corridors will be the most frequently utilized corridor types in the City. These corridors have a narrower “footprint” than those currently used for roadways with the same function in the City. While corridor templates A or B have the same or larger “footprint”, they will be used less frequently within the City. • Some corridors have a reduced paved surface area over current corridor designs, others do not. The corridors that are likely to be most frequently used in the City are those with reduced surface area in comparison to current designs. • Inclusion of more transportation options - utilitarian bicycle lanes, trails, and an optional “transit” lane in the A corridor option. • Inclusion of an explicit area for utilities in the templates. Comparisons by corridor type include the following: Corridor A The City did not have a template that applies to these roads. These are largely county and state roads, and are designed and managed to meet county and state standards. Corridor B • Current design: 150’ right-of-way, no shoulder, 10’ paths both sides, two 13’ lanes, two 14’ lanes. Total paved surface = 74’. At intersections, four lanes of approach (left, thru, thru, right). Total paved surface = 98’ • Proposed: 150’ right-of-way, 7’ bicycle lane each side, 8’ paths each side, two 14’ lanes, two 12’ lanes. Total paved surface = 82’ (could be 80’ using 1’ reaction on inside lanes). At intersections four or five lanes of approach (depending on need for dual left). • Summary: proposed yields same right-of-way, 6’ or 8’ additional paved surface for proposed. At intersections, 3’ or 15’ additional paved surface, depending on need for dual left turn lane. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 19 Corridor C • Current design: - 4-lane undivided: 130’ right-of-way. Two 14’ lanes, two 12’ lanes, 10’ paths on both sides. Total pavement surface = 72’. At intersections, three lanes of approach (right, thru, thru/left), total paved surface = 84’ - 3-lane section with center two-way left turn lanes: 120’ right-of-way. Three 14’ lanes, 10’ paths on both sides. Total paved surface = 62’. At intersections three lanes of approach (left, thru, right), total paved surface = 74’ or 76’ • Proposed: 120’ right-of-way. Two 12’ lanes, one 14’ lane, two 7’ bicycle lanes, 8’ paths on each side. Total pavement surface = 68’. At intersections, total paved surface = 68’. When three lanes are required at intersections (left, thru, right), total paved surface = 75’ • Summary: right-of-way the same or 10’ less for proposed, depending on 3- or 4- lane current section. 6’ additional paved surface midblock for proposed. Essentially same paved surface at intersections. Corridor D • Current design: 106’ minimum right-of-way, plus 20’ drainage and utility easement. Two 14’ or 16’ lanes, 10’ paths on both sides. Total pavement surface = 48’ – 52’. At intersections, two lanes of approach (left and thru/right or left/thru and right), paved surface = 60’ - 62’. • Proposed: 88’ right-of-way. Two 13’ lanes, 10’ path on one side and 5’ sidewalk on opposite side. Total paved surface = 36’. • Summary: proposed requires 18’ less right-of-way, only one path on proposed, 5’9’ less paved surface. Corridor E • The “commercial corridor” E templates are designed to be used in corridors that are dominated by commercial and retail land uses. Important elements of these corridors are as follows: - E1 and E2 templates (3-lane sections) will be used for the majority of “commercial collectors”. E3 and E4 will be used where there is a high amount of retail adjacent to the corridor with high volumes of traffic, requiring an additional lane in each direction. E1 and E2 will be the standard, with analysis required to warrant the E3 or E4 design. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 20 - The use of the E1 or E2 design may impact the design of driveways - specifically the required width and turning radii, when compared to the majority of existing roadway sections in commercial corridors, which are 4- lane sections. Trucks turning right into a driveway would be doing so from a position closer to the curb with the 3-lane section. In a 4-lane section, trucks would make a right turn from the inside through lane, cutting across the outside through lane. Trucks turning right are likely to use the two-way left turn lane on the 3-lane sections as though it were a through lane, and therefore conflicts with opposing traffic are unlikely. The Task Force concluded that the proposed designs provide a better balance among mobility, safety, sustainability, and livability than the current design standards. Near Interlachen Parkway, near Promenade Lane. Image from the Metropolitan Design Center Image Bank. © Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used with permission. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Page 21 X. APPENDICES 1. Proposed and Current Roadway Corridor Design Templates: Design Templates A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, E4, STL-8 2. Table A-1: Decision Matrix for Selecting Corridor Designs with Dedicated Turn Lanes 3. Technical Memorandum 1: Definition of Speed Related to Roadways 4. Pros and Cons of Capping Corridors 5. City-wide Corridor Map 6. Corridor Design Guidelines Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 APPENDIX 1 Proposed and Current Roadway Corridor Design Templates: Design Templates A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2, E1, E2, E3, E4, STL-8 DESIGN C GRADE 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASE. 60' 3'3' UTILITY TRENCH 1' 6' 3.5' 7'14'14'7' 0.5' 6' 0.5' 1' 5' SW 3.5' SIGNS PEDESTALS & UTILITY BOXES ON HOUSE SIDE OF UTILITYTRENCH R/W C/L R/W L 0.024'/FT NOTES: 1. WHERE PATHWAYS ARE PROVIDED, INSTEAD OF SIDEWALKS, ADDITIONAL WIDTH MUST BE ADDED TO ACCOMODATE THE PATH AND ALLOW 5' TO THE ROW FOR SNOW STORAGE. 2. IF SIDEWALK IS TO BE ON BOTH SIDES, SIDEWALK SIDE X-SECTION WILL BE SYMETRICAL ABOUT C/L. 3. SEE STANDARD CITY DETAIL PLATE FOR STREET TYPICAL SECTIONS. 4. 2% BOULEVARD CROSS-SLOPE WITHOUT SIDEWALK 5% BOULEVARD CROSS-SLOPE WITH SIDEWALK. 5. SIGNS, HYDRANTS, AND STREET LIGHTS AT 6' BEHIND FACE OF CURB. 6. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF CURB. 10' DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASE. PLATE NO. LAST REVISION: RESIDENTIAL STREET PARKING BOTH SIDES SIDEWALK BOTH SIDES STL-8 Sept. 2004 Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 APPENDIX 2 Table A-1: Decision Matrix for Selecting Corridor Designs with Dedicated Turn Lanes Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 Table A-1: Decision Matrix for Selecting Corridor Designs with Dedicated Turn Lanes Intersecting with Corridor Type Corridor Type A B C D A A1 or A2 A1 or A2 B1 or B2 A1 or A2 C1 or C2 A1 or A2 D1, D2 or D3 B - B1 or B2 B1 or B2 C1 or C2 B1 D1, D2 or D3 C - - C1 or C2 C1 D1 or D2 D - - - D1 or D2 Notes: Where multiple designs are listed, traffic volumes will dictate choice. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 APPENDIX 3 Technical Memorandum 1: Definition of Speed Related to Roadways Page 1 of 4 K:\01696-06\Admin\Docs\Woodbury Tech Memo 1 Speeds 2007 0816.doc Technical Memorandum 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Phone 763-541-4800 Fax 763-541-1700 www.wsbeng.com To: Corridor Design Principals Task Force Copy: From: Brandi Popenhagen, PE Jack Forslund, AICP Date: August 16, 2007 File: WSB No. 1696-06 Subject: Technical Memorandum No. 1: 2030 Woodbury Transportation Plan – Definition of Speed as Related to Roadways The purpose of this memorandum is to provide clarification on the various definitions of the word “speed” as used by transportation professionals in our everyday work practices. Speed is used both as a design criterion to ensure safe design and as a measure to evaluate highway and street performance. When we refer to speed there are several different terms that are used and it is important to understand the definitions of the terms used and the relationship between them. Defined below are three key terms of speed that we use in the transportation profession. Speed Definitions: Posted Speed: The posted speed is the speed limit that is posted on signs adjacent to the roadway. In order to be legally enforceable it must comply with statutory requirements. Design Speed: The design speed is the speed that was selected to design the various geometric features (i.e., horizontal and vertical alignment) of the roadway. Operating Speed: The operating speed is the speed that drivers operate their vehicles during free-flow conditions. The 85th percentile speed (the measured speed that 85 percent of the drivers are traveling at or below) is frequently used as the measure of the operating speed associated with a particular location. General Driver Speed Considerations Ideally, the speed that people drive the road under free-flow conditions (operating speed) is consistent with the posted speed for the road and the speed that was used as the basis for design (design speed). Typically, five general conditions will affect the driver’s speed on a roadway or highway according to American Association of State Highway Tranportation Officials AASHTO’s) “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004”). These five conditions are identified and defined below: (1) Physical characteristics of the roadway (determined by design speed), ƒ curves ƒ roadway width ƒ profiles ƒ distance to obstructions and/or roadside elements Speed Technical Memorandum City of Woodbury, MN Page 2 Page 2 of 4 K:\01696-06\Admin\Docs\Woodbury Tech Memo 1 Speeds 2007 0816.doc (2) Amount of roadside interference, ƒ surrounding land use density ƒ access density ƒ pedestrian and/or bicycle activity (3) Weather conditions, (4) Presence of other vehicles, ƒ congested/not congested ƒ safety (5) Speed limitations. ƒ posted or unposted speed limits ƒ traffic control devices (signals, roundabouts, stop signs) Speed limits are set by Minnesota Statute. Cities do not have the authority to set speed limits other than on selected residential roadways. The following are the statutory speed limits. ƒ 10 mph on alleys ƒ 25 mph on residential roadways if adopted by the local road authority ƒ 30 mph on streets in urban districts or on town roads in a rural residential district ƒ 65 mph on expressways ƒ 65 mph on urban interstate highways ƒ 70 mph on rural interstate highways ƒ 55 mph on other roads An “urban district” is defined as the territory contiguous to, and including, any street which is built up with structures devoted to business, industry, or dwelling houses situated at intervals of less than 100 feet for a distance of a quarter of a mile or more. A “rural residential district” is defined as the territory contiguous to, and including, any town road within a subdivision or plat of land that is built up with dwelling houses at intervals of less than 300 feet for a distance of one-quarter mile or more. The Commissioner of Transportation has the authority to set regulatory speed limits if the values above are not appropriate for the highway based on an engineering study and traffic investigation. Many factors are considered in the study, which are defined under the General Driver Speed Considerations (previously described) below. Physical roadway characteristics (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 1) ƒ road type and condition ƒ sufficient length of roadway (1/4 mile minimum) ƒ sight distances (curve, hill, etc.) ƒ test drive results Amount of roadway interference (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 2) ƒ location and type of access points Speed Technical Memorandum City of Woodbury, MN Page 3 Page 3 of 4 K:\01696-06\Admin\Docs\Woodbury Tech Memo 1 Speeds 2007 0816.doc Presence of other vehicles (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 4) ƒ crash history ƒ traffic volume Speed limitations (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 5) ƒ existing traffic control devices While the above factors are important in setting regulatory speed limits, the most important factor is a speed study, which determines actual vehicle operating speed (defined earlier) on the roadway. Statutory Speed-limits in Other States (Wisconsin) The legal speed limits and the authority for setting speed limits are different in each state. For example, in Wisconsin the statutory speed limits are the following: ƒ 25 mph on any highway or service road within the corporate limits of a city or village, other than on highways in outlying districts. ƒ 55 mph on other roads ƒ 35 mph in any outlying district, or any highway in a semi-urban district outside the corporate limits of a city or village. ƒ 65 mph on freeways and expressways Also in Wisconsin, the authority for setting speed limits that are different than those defined in the statute rests with the local road jurisdiction rather than the state as in Minnesota. The statute still requires an engineering study be completed to determine the appropriate speed and also defines the amount the speed limit can vary from the statute. Design Speed Roadway geometric criteria (condition (1)) are based on the design speed. The design speed is chosen by the designer based on three general conditions mentioned before and provided below. The designer considers these factors in order to provide a roadway or street design that meets the driver’s expectations. In general, driver expectations are to travel at higher speeds on arterials than on collectors, and higher speeds on collectors compared to residential streets. The consideration of driver expectations ideally results in operating speeds that are consistent with the design speed. AASHTO also explains: “except for local streets where speed controls are frequently included intentionally, every effort should be made to use as high a design speed as practical to attain a desired degree of safety, mobility, and efficiency within the constraints of environmental quality, economics, aesthetics, and social or political impacts.” Therefore when selecting the design speed the designer considers the following: Amount of roadside interference (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 2), ƒ surrounding land use density ƒ proposed or existing access density ƒ pedestrian and/or bicycle activity Page 4 of 4 K:\01696-06\Admin\Docs\Woodbury Tech Memo 1 Speeds 2007 0816.doc Presence of other vehicles (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 4) ƒ existing and forecasted ADT ƒ existing and desired LOS ƒ functional classification (arterial vs. local road) ƒ safety – existing crashes and/or anticipated crash frequency Speed limitations (AASHTO General Driver Speed Consideration 5) ƒ posted speed (existing and /or future) ƒ existing and/or proposed traffic control devices (signals, roundabouts, stop signs) New Construction vs. Reconstruction When reconstructing existing roadways there are often significant limitations in the application of design restrictions to reduce travel speed. This is particularly true if the existing roadway is relatively flat and straight. Even if the roadway were redesigned for lower speeds (i.e., 30 mph), it still would be likely to operate at much higher travel speeds given the core alignment. With new roads in undeveloped areas, on the other hand, it is generally easier to incorporate design elements that could reduce travel speed. Federal Guidelines When a roadway project receives Federal funding for construction/reconstruction it must conform to State Aid Standards. It is not a requirement that the design speed is the same as the posted speed. Summary In summary, the purpose of this memo was to provide clarification on the various definitions of “speed” as used by transportation professionals. While the roadway designer selects the appropriate speed to use for design, which in turn determines the physical characteristics of the roadway, the design speed is chosen based on many factors that are outside the control of the designer. Examples may include the project setting and adjacent land use, as well as speed limits that are set by statute. The goal is to select a design speed that will be consistent with the future operating speeds on the roadway and the speed limit. Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 APPENDIX 4 Pros and Cons of Capping Corridors Pros and Cons on Capping Roadway Corridor Size Woodbury Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force October 5, 2007 The following is a compilation of comments pro and con received from Task Force members and identified at the Sept. 10 meeting: Pros for Capping the Size of Roadway Corridors Flexibility/Mobility issues (from the Pro’s viewpoint people and roadway designers provide the flexibility) • “If you build it, they will come. When we increase capacity, we draw traffic away from more congested routes. It then becomes a never-ending cycle of construction, congestion, construction, congestions, etc. Without a cap, there is no end to it--the roads just keep getting wider. • Limited roadway corridors can encourage people to drive less, combine trips, walk or bike more, utilize transit if available. Necessity is the mother of invention. • There are roadways all over the metro that carry more traffic than our roads, but aren’t as big as Woodbury’s. Development occurred around these corridors before the traffic demand got heavy. Yet they still function. Drivers adapt when they have to. • If the cap results in unacceptable congestion, then the City needs to build more, smaller roads that can serve as relievers at peak hours. Need some “in between” roads that serve as both neighborhood accesses and a collector function. • Limitation forces greater creativity Livability/Sustainability • We owe it to pedestrians and cyclists to make it 1) not difficult and 2) not dangerous. If we are serious about supporting sustainability there has be to be a cap on the roadway size so that the system retains a human scale that can support pedestrian use. • Limit concrete jungle effect, making Community more livable from a pedestrian perspective • Congestion can mean lower speeds, less noise, and a more pedestrian-friendly environment. • Assures that process to balance safety, mobility, livability and sustainability is implemented o There are additional capital and maintenance costs associated with maintaining wider roadway corridors and medians. These costs may be even less supportable if the increased width is only needed at peak hours. o There are additional environmental impacts from wider corridors (storm water impacts). o Places city desires and practices ahead of default traffic engineering standards • Narrower corridors are more context-sensitive (designed with surrounding area in mind). Should plan corridors in the context of the full city plan instead of localized traffic needs. Other • Assures current and future adjacent property owners on the extent of improvements Cons for Capping the Size of Roadway Corridors Flexibility/Mobility (from the Con’s view, the flexibility is in the corridor design) • Lose flexibility o Makes it more expensive and difficult to expand in the future (Super Target example) o Limits ability to adjust to changes in standards o Need to accommodate future population growth o Does not leave future designs and decisions to future decision-makers o May not correctly predict or accommodate future technologies (round- abouts, transit). More transportation alternatives require additional infrastructure and potentially more space o More difficult to respond to future zoning/land use changes in the surrounding area o Limits space for future utilities and landscaping Livability/Sustainability • When a property develops, it is the only time City has developers on the hook for costs of obtaining right of way • Ignoring or deciding now not to address potential future needs will ensure degraded level of services, delays, additional pollution. This will affect livability for those living adjacent to the roadways and wasted dollars in additional fuel • Reduction in safety due to congestion and speed differential • Increased noise due to more frequent starting and stopping • Negative impact to business due to congestion and disincentive for people to visit area • Loss of people’s time due to increased delay • Negative impact on local streets – increased traffic, noise, reduced safety – due to diverted traffic Other • Difficult to get buy in from Washington County and MnDOT. Many roads under consideration are under the jurisdiction of other agencies. • The individual motor vehicle is likely to remain a major form of transportation for a long time • Cost to retrofit, or purchase additional ROW in the future will be much more costly than planning for it now. • City residents expect the City to solve or prevent congestion problems • May not meet design criteria required by other regulatory agencies • May impact ability to receive outside funding from Washington County, Mn/DOT, Federal Highway Administration • Impact to adjacent properties after they have developed if additional right of way must be acquired in the future Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 APPENDIX 5 City-wide Corridor Map Dale Ro ad Lake Roa d Hudson Roa d Woodlan e Drive Woodb ury Driv e (CSAH 19) Glen Roa d Weir Drive Military Road (CSAH 20) Pion eer Driv e Valley Creek Ro ad Settlers Ridge Parkway Ta m a ra c k R o a d R adio Drive (CSAH 13 ) Bielen berg Driv e Ma nning Av enue (STH 95) Valley Creek Ro ad (CSAH 16 ) U p p er Afto n R o a d Bailey Roa d (CSAH 18) Futu re Pionee r Drive Wooddale Drive Cottage Grove Drive Futu re Eas tvi ew R oad E astvie w R o a d Century Aven ue (CSAH 25 ) F u t u r e C e n t u r y A v e n u e Court ly Ro ad Woodwinds Drive Hudson Roa d Lake Road Ta m ara ck R oad Radio Dr ive (CSAH 13 ) R a d i o D r i v e (C S A H 1 3 ) L a k e R o a d Woodlane Drive Century Aven ue (CSAH 25 ) Roadway Corr idor Design P rinciples Corridors A, B, and C A Corri dor B Corridor C Corridor Further Discussion Cit y B oundary 9494 494 Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force Report and Recommendations July 2009 13949.000 APPENDIX 6 Corridor Design Guidelines NOTE: Corridor Design Guidelines are not included in the printed or electronic version of the report for file and report size considerations. The Corridor Design Guidelines are saved in the electronic file as Appendix 6 at: J:\PROJECT\140 Admin - Studies (Traffic) 101 thru 107\107 - Roadway Corridor Design Principles Task Force\Report\Final City of Maplewood, MN Living Streets Policy Complete + Green = Living! Page 27 of 53 3.2 Local Street For the Living Streets Policy, the Local Street will be those with a Local Street functional classification. The Task Force reached consensus on the following aspects regarding Local Streets: Parking should be provided along one side of the street. Studies have shown that for a typical residential street, making provisions for parking along both sides is excessive, and the parking capacity is underutilized. Sidewalks should be considered along one side of each local street. However the need would be determined based on a context sensitive application. City Code requirements shall be followed where they are more prescriptive than the Living Streets Policy (i.e. requirements for sidewalks on both sides of the street in the Mixed-Use Zoning District). If a sidewalk is not provided, the street pavement width should be wider to accommodate a shared purpose of bikes/pedestrians along the street edge. For streets where a sidewalk is deemed applicable, options could be provided to install sidewalk along one or both sides of the street. Sidewalks would be required if the street abuts or is in the vicinity of a school or park, is identified with a sidewalk in the Comprehensive Plan, or is part of a larger network of pedestrian routes. Design templates showing options 1 through 3 are provided for Local Streets. Local Street Note: 24’ roadway width may be considered in appropriate context BOULEVARDBOULEVARD 60’ TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 26’ ROADWAY WIDTH 2.5’ 8’8’ 5’10.5’ WALK Concrete Curb and Gutter Boulevard Trees Bituminous Roadway Right-of-Way Rainwater Garden Sidewalk Right-of-Way Rainwater Gardens Local Street Note: 24’ roadway width may be considered in appropriate context BOULEVARDBOULEVARD 60’ TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 26’ ROADWAY WIDTH 8’8’ 5’5’4’4’ WALKWALK Concrete Curb and Gutter Boulevard Trees Bituminous Roadway Right-of-Way Rainwater Garden Sidewalk Right-of-Way Rainwater Gardens Sidewalk Local Street Note: Sidewalk required if street abuts or is in vacinity of a school or park 28’ - 30’ ROADWAY WIDTH 60’ TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY 8’8’ 7’7’ BOULEVARD BOULEVARD Concrete Curb and Gutter Boulevard Trees Bituminous Roadway Right-of-Way Rainwater Garden Right-of-Way Rainwater Gardens City of Maplewood, MN Living Streets Policy Complete + Green = Living! Page 31 of 53 3.3 Local Connector Street A Local Connector Street will be considered those with a Local Street functional classification, but that have a particular characteristic such as a higher than average volume of vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic, or that connect natural elements. For example, a residential street that funnels traffic between the interior of a neighborhood and the entrance/exit to the neighborhood, or to a nearby street with a Collector or Minor Arterial functional classification. Or a residential street that spans between two streets with sidewalks or trails along them, making it a natural link in the network. The Task Force reached consensus on the following aspects regarding Local Connector Streets: Parking should be provided along one side of the street, for the same reasons cited as the Local Street. Sidewalks need to be provided along this type of street, to provide neighborhood connections and to pedestrian facilities along Collectors and Minor Arterials. Options could be provided to install sidewalk along one or both sides of the street. Design templates showing options 1 and 2 are provided for Local Connector Streets. Local Connector Street Concrete Curb and Gutter Boulevard Trees Bituminous Roadway Right-of-Way Sidewalk Rainwater Garden Right-of-Way Rainwater Gardens 1.5’9.5’5’ 8’8’ WALK BOULEVARD 28’ ROADWAY WIDTH BOULEVARD 60’ TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Local Connector Street 3’5’ 8’ 5’3’ 8’ WALKWALK BOULEVARD 28’ ROADWAY WIDTH BOULEVARD 60’ TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Concrete Curb and Gutter Rainwater Gardens Boulevard Trees Bituminous Roadway Right-of-Way Rainwater Garden Sidewalk Right-of-Way Sidewalk