MINUTES OF GARDEN VIEW DRIVE TRAFFIC AD HOC COMMITTEE

June 19, 2000 - 7:00 p.m.

Apple Valley City Hall

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lloyd Lawrence, Neil Evers, Richard Berg, John Bergman, Mark Nelson, Jeff Loch, Mark Heieren, Gary Shade, Nathan Koering, Mary Hamann-Roland, Dave McKeag, Ruth Grendahl, Denise Louis, Arthur Zimmerman

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Peg Smith

OTHERS PRESENT: Integrated Process Management Facilitator, Marlene Libby, Dakota County Commissioner Willis Branning, Dakota County Engineer Don Theisen, SEH Traffic Engineering Consultant Glen Van Wormer, SEH Transportation Engineer Thomas Sohrweide, City Administrator Tom Lawell, Community Development Director Rick Kelley, Acting Public Works Director Neal Heuer, Police Department Captain Merle Lohse, Administrative Assistant to the City Administrator Andy Pederson, Ron Olsen, Diann Albers

 

Meeting Facilitator Marlene Libby called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Marlene Libby requested that the Committee Members review the June 12, 2000, Meeting minutes and asked if there were any changes the Committee felt were necessary. The Committee requested changes to the June 12 Meeting minutes on pages two, three, five, and seven. The requested additions are indicated in quotation marks and include:

Andy Pederson stated that the requested changes would be reflected in the official Meeting minutes. Mr. Pederson also indicated that the Meeting minutes would be posted to the City of Apple Valley's web site once the requested revisions have been made.

MOTION: of the Committee to approve the June 12, 2000 Meeting minutes. Motion passed unanimously.

 

TRAFFIC CALMING DISCUSSION

Marlene Libby introduced Tom Sohrweide, Senior Transportation Engineer for Short Elliot Hendrickson (SEH), Inc. Ms. Libby stated that Mr. Sohrweide is an expert in traffic calming.

Mr. Sohrweide stated that there is no one perfect measure for traffic calming and that there are various techniques for traffic calming. Mr. Sohrweide stated that there are three primary traffic claming techniques: (a) Enforcement, (b) Signing and Pavement Marking, and (c) Physical (Attachment 1).

Enforcement Traffic Calming Measures

Mr. Sohrweide discussed three enforcement traffic calming techniques: (a) Police, (b) Speed Watch, and (c) Variable Speed Display (Attachment 2).

Police

Mr. Sohrweide stated the primary traffic calming technique of the police is enforcement of the applicable laws.

Signing and Pavement Markings

Mr. Sohrweide discussed five signing and pavement marking traffic calming techniques including (a) Speed Limits, (b) Turn Restrictions, (c) Stop Signs, (d) Narrow Lanes, and (e) Converging Chevrons (Attachment 3).
        a. Speed Limits: Mr. Sohrweide stated that the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) sets all speed limits. Mr. Sohrweide also stated that people generally drive at the speeds they are most comfortable with and that the conditions of the road permit.

        b. Turn Restrictions: Mr. Sohrweide stated that turn restrictions prohibit certain traffic movements. Mr. Sohrweide provided the advantages and disadvantages of turn restrictions (Attachment 4), and they include:

Advantages

Disadvantages

  • Volume reduction

  • Speed reduction

  • Safety improvement

  • Low cost

  • Access Restriction

  • Violations

  • Mixed Community Acceptance

    •  

    c. Stop Signs: Mr. Sohrweide presented information on stop signs designed in a basket weave fashion, which are stop signs that alternate every other block. Mr. Sohrweide provided the advantages and disadvantages of basket weave stop signs (Attachment 5), and they include:

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    • Reduced speed at intersection

    • Increased safety

    • Community acceptance

  • Noise

  • Energy consumption

  • Air quality

  • Little or no volume reduction

  • Violations

    •  

    Mr. Sohrweide also presented information on one-way streets, and provided the advantages and disadvantages of both (Attachment 6), and they include:

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    • Increased safety

    • Volume reduction

    • Low cost

  • Access restriction

  • Mixed community acceptance

  • Shifts traffic to parallel street

          • d. Narrow Lanes: Mr. Sohrweide discussed using narrow lanes as a traffic calming technique. Mr. Sohrweide stated that narrow lanes impose smaller physical guides for vehicles and that they have been found to be particularly useful on streets with curved areas.

          e. Converging Chevrons: Mr. Sohrweide stated that converging chevrons are similar to "sergeant stripes" markings on the street pavement, and that they give the driver the visual feel of road restrictions. Mr. Sohrweide stated that the City of Eagan utilized this traffic calming technique in the City of Eagan on Deerwood Drive. Mr. Sohrweide provided two pictures illustrating converging chevrons (Attachments 7 and 8). Mr. Sohrweide presented the results of the Eagan experience stating that 85% of the cars before the converging chevrons were in place were travelling at 39 miles per hour (mph) eastbound and 42 mph westbound. Mr. Sohrweide continued by stating that six weeks after the converging chevrons were in place, speeds were reduced to 34 and 35 mph respectively; and seven months after the chevrons were in place, vehicles were travelling at 35 and 36 mph respectively (Attachment 9). Mr. Sohrweide informed the Committee that the current speeds on Deerwood Drive are similar to what they were before the chevrons were placed on the road. Mr. Sohrweide stated drivers become accustomed to the visual appeal of the converging chevrons and will then increase their speeds.

    Physical Traffic Calming Techniques

    Mr. Sohrweide stated that physical traffic calming techniques usually have the most influence, and he presented seven techniques, including (a) Traffic Circles, (b) Speed Humps, (c) Chokers/Neckdowns/Narrowing, (d) Medians, (e) Landscaping, (f) Curves, and (g) Chicanes (Attachment 10).
          a. Traffic Circles: Mr. Sohrweide stated that traffic circles are also referred to as rotaries and intersection islands, and stated that they are basically circles in the middle of an intersection (Attachments 11 and 12). Mr. Sohrweide stated that traffic circles can either be temporary or permanent. Mr. Sohrweide stated that the advantages to traffic circles are that they disrupt the line of sight; while the disadvantages are (a) the ways in which the circle is driven by vehicles and what is allowed, and (b) the need to allow school buses and snow plows to use the intersection and not restrict them in any way. The Committee discussed the potential hazards of a traffic circle intersection.

          Mr. Sohrweide cautioned the Committee about traffic circles at T-intersections, stating that they can be very dangerous depending on how drivers use the circle (Attachment 13). Mr. Sohrweide stated that the structure of the street could be modified to accommodate a traffic circle at a T-intersection (Attachment 14).

          Mr. Sohrweide discussed several examples of traffic circles, including pictures from Charlotte, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; San Jose, California; Eugene, Oregon; and Minneapolis, Minnesota (Attachments 15,16, 17, and 18).

          b. Speed Humps: Mr. Sohrweide discussed for the Committee both speed bumps and speed humps (Attachment 19). Mr. Sohrweide stated that speed humps are usually 12 feet in length and two to three inches high, and also stated that humps are generally longer than the wheel base of a car. Mr. Sohrweide also stated that speed humps are especially hard on city service vehicles including emergency vehicles and snow plows, and they are also hard on trucks because the length of the hump is shorter than the length of the truck. Mr. Sohrweide stated that the size of the hump could be increased to 22 feet in length, but when humps become that size, they ten to increase speeds. Mr. Sohrweide also presented the idea of split speed humps (Attachment 20). Mr. Sohrweide stated that generally two to three speed humps should be placed together in order to create an effective presence. Mr. Sohrweide presented examples of speed humps including a 14 foot hump from Portland Oregon; a 12 foot hump from West Palm Beach, Florida; a 12 foot hump from Palo Alto, California; and a 30 foot hump from Beaverton, Oregon (Attachment 21).

          Mr. Sohrweide also presented information on speed bumps. Mr. Sohrweide stated that speed bumps are usually four to six inches high, and two to three feet in length. Mr. Sohrweide stated that he has found based on his experience that the faster a car is travelling, the less impact a speed bump has on a vehicle. Mr. Sohrweide stated that the impact of speed bumps can be substantial and harmful; to the suspension of vehicles. Mr. Sohrweide indicated he was not aware of any city streets that use speed bumps.

          Mr. Sohrweide also discussed the concept of speed lumps (Attachment 22). Mr. Sohrweide stated that speed lumps provide a narrow pathway for emergency vehicles to use on the road so that they are not impacted by the elevation increase of the hump in the road. The Committee discussed how speed lumps might be problematic in Minnesota because of the snow and winter driving conditions.

          Mr. Sohrweide cautioned the Committee of using speed humps, bumps, and lumps because of cars attempting to avoid the elevation increase through gutter running. Mr. Sohrweide stated that gutter running is when cars drive near or on the curb to avoid the elevation increase. Mr. Sohrweide also stated that speed bumps, humps, and lumps sometimes also have to be tapered towards the curb to allow for proper road drainage.

          c. Chokers/Neckdowns/Narrowing: Mr. Sohrweide stated that chokers could also be referred to as pinch points, midblock yield points, and midblock narrowings (Attachment 23). Mr. Sohrweide stated that chokers are used to narrow the width of the road by creating more curb area.

          Neckdowns: Mr. Sohrweide stated that neckdowns are also referred to as knubs, bulbouts, knuckles, intersection narrowings, corner bulges, and safe crosses (Attachment 24). Mr. Sohrweide stated that neckdowns are used at the corners of intersections to narrow the lanes of traffic as they approach an intersection.

          Central Island Narrowing: Mr. Sohrweide stated that central island narrowings are also referred to as midblock medians, median slowpoints, and median chokers (Attachments 25). Mr. Sohrweide stated that central island narrowings create a physical narrowing of the street. Mr. Sohrweide presented examples of central island narrowings from Eugene, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; Brookline, Massachusetts; Sarasota, Florida; San Jose, California; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Sarasota, Florida (Attachment 26, 27 and 28).

          The Committee discussed the impacts of parking on streets. Mr. Sohrweide stated that generally as parking on a street decreases, traffic speeds increase except in school areas. Mr. Sohrweide stated that street parking and school areas and children do not mix because of the potential for children to run out in front of traffic.

          d. Medians, Landscaping, Curves:

          The Committee discussed the affects of calming and slowing traffic on roads and whether they deter, reduce, or alter traffic. Committee Member Nelson discussed a concern about bunches of traffic and the ability for those residents who abut Garden View Drive to back out of their driveways. Committee Member Hamann-Roland stated that it was important to maintain the character of the neighborhood through the road design. Mr. Sohrweide presented three examples of median alterations, and they include Eugene, Oregon; Tallahassee, Florida; and San Jose, California (Attachment 29).

          Committee Member Berg asked Mr. Sohrweide how many sets of speed humps create an effective presence. Mr. Sohrweide stated that it is dependent on many factors and the road would have to be analyzed, but he thought more than one set would be necessary.

          Committee Member Nelson requested a copy of Mr. Sohrweide's presentation.

          Mr. Sohrweide presented an example of the Burnsville Parkway narrowing project the City of Burnsville implemented. Mr. Sohrweide stated before the roadway was narrowed, speeds northbound on the parkway were 52 mph and southbound 55 mph. Mr. Sohrweide stated that after the parkway was narrowed, speeds were reduced to 49 and 45 mph respectively (Attachment 30).

          d. Chicanes:

    Mr. Sohrweide presented information on chicanes, which are also referred to as deviations, serpentines, and reversing curves (Attachment 31). Mr. Sohrweide stated that chicanes are basically curves in the road and cautioned the Committee on their usage because of the way drivers may drive the street as a result of the curves. Mr. Sohrweide presented examples from Seattle, Washington; Alachua, Florida; Tallahassee, Florida; and Cambridge, Massachusetts (Attachment 32).

    Partial Diverters: Mr. Sohrweide presented information on partial diverters, which are defined as the narrowing of a two-way street to eliminate traffic in one direction (Attachment 33).

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    • Safety improvement

    • Moderate volume reduction

    • Speed reduction

  • Access restriction

  • High cost- $8,000 (variable)

  • Loss of parking

  • Emergency access

    • Full Diverters: Mr. Sohrweide presented information on full diverters, which are defined as prohibiting through traffic and specific turning movements at an intersection (Attachment 34).

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    • Safety improvement

    • Moderate volume reduction

    • Speed reduction at intersection

  • Access restriction

  • High cost- $8,000 (variable)

  • Loss of parking

  • Emergency access

    • Road Closure: Mr. Sohrweide presented information road closure which is to restrict access to a street (Attachment 35).

    Advantages

    Disadvantages

    • Safety improvement

    • Volume reduction

  • Access restriction

  • High cost- ($10,000-$25,000)

  • Mixed community acceptance

  • Emergency access

  • Maintenance

    • Committee Member Lawrence asked Mr. Sohrweide whether he had information on pork chops. Mr. Sohrweide stated that pork chops have produced mixed results. Committee Member Louis provided example of a proposed pork chop at Garden View Drive and County Road 46 drawn by the City of Lakeville (Attachment 36). Mr. Sohrweide reviewed the pork chop design illustrated in attachment 36. The Committee requested more information on the usage and effectiveness of pork chops. Committee Member McKeag expressed his concern about restricting access to Garden View Drive at County Road 46 with regard to pedestrian traffic and children having to cross County Road 46 that would result from a pork chop.

    Mr. Sohrweide stated that more information on traffic calming measures could be obtained on the internet at http://www.ite.org, and he will also make a book on traffic calming available for the next meeting.

    Committee Member Heieren asked Mr. Sohrweide what is defined as long and short-term solutions. Mr. Sohrweide stated that short-term solutions usually last one to two years while long-term solutions last ten to fifteen years.

    The Committee also asked Mr. Sohrweide whether traffic calming measures lose their effectiveness over time. Mr. Sohrweide stated that the Deerwood Drive example in the City of Eagan lost its effectiveness over time. Mr. Sohrweide stated that the more physical the change, the more effective it will probably be. Mr. Sohrweide stated that while the physical measures tend to work more often, studies vary because what may work in one situation may not work in another situation. Mr. Sohrweide stated that using traffic claming measures incrementally to test their effectiveness may be useful.

    The Committee asked Mr. Sohrweide what the minimum size boulevard tree should be to produce effective calming results. Mr. Sohrweide stated he was not aware of a specific size and would have to look at a specific example to determine its effectiveness.

    Committee Member Louis asked that Dakota County Commissioner Willis Branning be introduced. Marlene Libby stated that the Committee should remain focused on the present presentation on traffic calming measures and look at the pro and con rationales for each of the alternatives in a objective manner. Ms. Libby stated that the Committee made the commitment at its first meeting to become educated on all of the alternatives available and to become educated as a whole so that when the time for solutions arises, the Committee will have similar levels of knowledge.

    The Committee discussed what affects signs would have on Garden View Drive. The Committee also discussed school speed zones. The Committee requested information on how to establish a school speed zone from MNDOT. The Committee also discussed the effects of blinking lights in school zones and its potential effects.

    Meeting break at 8:57 p.m. Committee reconvened at 9:08 .m.

     

    INTRODUCTION OF DAKOTA COUNTY COMMISSIONER

    Don Theisen introduced Dakota County Commissioner Willis Branning. Commissioner Branning stated that Mr. Theisen is a top notch engineer, and if Mr. Theisen makes a recommendation, at minimum four Commissioners will support Mr. Theisen's recommendation. Commissioner Branning stated that Dakota County is not the decision-maker for anything that happens on Garden View Drive outside of the County right-of-way. Commissioner Branning also stated that he has a great perspective on all roads in Apple Valley outside of those built in the last few years. Commissioner Branning re-emphasized Mr. Theisen's experience and qualifications, and that Mr. Theisen would represent Dakota County.

    Committee Member Berg asked Mr. Theisen whether the Harwell Avenue curb cut could be closed off at 160th Street. Mr. Theisen stated that when County Road 46 was built, agreements with the cities of Lakeville and Apple Valley were probably made and he would check into those agreements.

     

    PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED INFORMATION

    Municipal State Aid (MSA) Classification

    City Administrator Tom Lawell presented a memo (Attachment 37) from City Administrator Lawell and Administrative Assistant Andy Pederson discussing the Garden View Drive MSA classification and the potential classification removal impacts. City Administrator Lawell stated that communities are allowed to designate a maximum of 20% of it streets with the MSA status, and that the City of Apple Valley currently designates 20% of its roads and received $533,000 for its construction needs in he 2000 allotment. City Administrator Lawell stated that

    City Administrator Lawell stated Garden View Drive between County Street 42 and County Road 46 was designated as an MSA street by Resolution of the City Council in 1998 and the MSA status took affect in 1999, and that Garden View Drive north of County Road 42 to County Road 38 was designated in 1991. City Administrator Lawell stated that the MSA status for the portion of Garden View Drive north of County Road 42 will not be impacted due to the fact that both County Road 38 and County Road 42 connect it.

    City Administrator Lawell stated that no City or MSA funds have been expended on Garden View Drive between County Road 42 and County Road 46, and the City would therefore not have to refund any MSA funds to the State. City Administrator Lawell stated that the current street maintenance schedule indicates that MSA funds will be used to fund street overlay projects for: (a) Garden View Drive between County Road 46 and Hayes Trail in 2001, (b) Garden View Drive between County Road 42 and Whitney Drive in 2002, and (c) Garden View Drive between Whitney Drive and Hayes Trail in 2007.

    City Administrator Lawell presented the City's street overlay policy, which dictates overlays to a particular street 15 and 30 years after its construction, and is then scheduled to be rebuilt 50 years after its initial construction. City Administrator Lawell stated that the cost to maintain a street such as Garden View Drive from County Road 42 to County Road 46 is $1.8 million over 50 years, or $36,000 per year, and that any modification to the MSA status of Garden View Drive may have a similar financial impact on 157th Street, Whitney Drive, or both.

    City Administrator Lawell stated that if Garden View Drive were removed from the MSA program, it would take at minimum two years to have another road designated with the MSA status, and would result in a minimum cost to the taxpayers would be $72,000 based on the $36,000 a year calculation, and this figure does not take into account any MSA alteration to Whitney Drive or 157th Street.

    City Administrator Lawell also stated that the City is near its maximum on the streets that can be designated with the MSA status and without Garden View Drive designated as a MSA street, the City in the future may well be forced to finance projects on Garden View Drive that could otherwise be financed in part by MSA funds. Many of the streets in southern Apple Valley that have yet to be developed have already been designated with the MSA status and therefore, Apple Valley is in a position whereby few streets exist or will be built that fulfill the MSA criteria, and will be able to utilize such funds. City Administrator Lawell stated that any such reduction or elimination of streets would possibly adversely impact the taxpayers (See attachment 37).

    Emergency Ambulance Response Impacts

    City Administrator Lawell presented a memo from Kevin Raun, Ambulance Director for Apple Valley, Lakeville, and Farmington (ALF) Ambulance (Attachment 38). City Administrator Lawell described where ALF Ambulance houses each of their ambulances, and stated that Garden View Drive is considered a critical and expedient route for emergency response to certain areas within the City of Lakeville. The memo indicates that "Ambulances coming from the city of Lakeville very seldom, if ever, utilize Garden View Drive for emergency response to Apple Valley due to the fact that they would generally be coming from what is termed our 'midline location.' This location is Lakeville Fire Station No. 2, which is located on Dodd Boulevard 1 mile east of Cedar Avenue." City Administrator Lawell stated that as solutions are discussed, the Committee would want to present such solution to the emergency response agencies to determine what effect the solution may have emergency vehicle operations (See attachment 38).

    Letter from Dennis Miranowski to Gary and Susan Shade

    Committee Member Shade presented a letter (Attachment 39) from City of Apple Valley Public Works Director Dennis Miranowski dated September 29, 1999. Committee Member Berg asked if the school zone sign report had been completed. Glen Van Wormer stated the study is complete and could be presented as part of this process. Mr. Van Wormer stated the report would have to sent to both MNDOT and City Council for approval. The Committee requested the Garden View Drive school zone sign report be brought to the next meeting.

    Committee Member Hamann-Roland requested clarification of the bus stop and no parking references mentioned in Mr. Miranowski's letter. Community Development Director Rick Kelley stated that the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority does not put benches at bus stops, and that a private company operates the benches.

    MVTA Ridership Information

    Committee Member Grendahl stated that Apple Valley is a partner in the MVTA to provide more local control over routes and presented information on routes and ridership along routes that utilize Garden View Drive. Committee Member Koering stated that he was aware of 12 students at Grace Lutheran Church who use the bus between Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive and cautioned the Committee to keep in mind those individuals who do not have accessible transportation and rely on mass transportation.

    Committee Member Nelson asked whether MVTA could use shuttle buses in the Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive area. Commissioner Branning stated that Garden View Drive is part of a route and that in-route pick-ups in the Garden View Drive area is not feasible because of the cost associated with providing labor for such a shuttle operation. Commissioner Branning stated that the entire system, not just the piece of Garden View Drive must be analyzed from an operational standpoint. Commissioner Branning also stated that because the buses may appear empty in the Garden View Drive and Whitney Drive area does not mean the route is not being utilized efficiently.

     

    ACTION ITEMS

    Marlene Libby stated that the meeting time limit the Committee set had approached. Ms. Libby stated that at the next meeting, the Committee would begin to identify the challenges and concerns presented in the first meeting and place those challenges and concerns on a map of the Garden View Drive area.

    The Committee discussed when Mr. Van Wormer would present the information he was supposed to present at the meeting. Mr. Van Wormer indicated he was ready to present and would do so at the next meeting.

    In addition, the committee for the next meeting requested the following action items:

    Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.