Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015/08/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study Session
AGENDA AUGUST 10, 2015 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Community Room Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 17 and August 24, 2015 2. 6:35 p.m. Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers 3. 7:05 p.m. Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion 4. 8:05 p.m. Unimproved Alleys 5. 8:35 p.m. Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange Modifications 8:50 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) 8:55 p.m. Adjourn Written Reports 6. Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update 7. SWLRT Update Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 17 and August 24, 2015 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session on August 17, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on August 24, 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agendas as proposed? SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for a Special Study Session on August 17, 2015 and the regularly scheduled Study Session on August 24, 2015. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Future Study Session Agenda Planning - August 17 & 24, 2015 Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – August 17 and August 24, 2015 Special Study Session, August 17, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Item 1. Oppidan/Bally’s Project – Community Development (45 minutes) Discuss the revised development plan (and possible TIF request) for Oppidan’s proposed 4900 Excelsior redevelopment project of the former Bally Total Fitness site. End of Meeting: 7:15 p.m. Study Session, August 24, 2015 – 6:30 p.m. Tentative Discussion Items 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. City Council Compensation and iPads – Administrative Services (20 minutes) Council will be asked to review their current compensation and determine if they want to take any action on changes, including ownership of iPads. 3. City Council Budget Discussion – Administrative Services (90 minutes) Continued discussion of 2016 budget, overview of programs, funds and discussion on next steps. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session agenda for the purposes of information sharing. Reports 4. Cable TV & Franchise Fees 5. July 2015 Monthly Financial Report 6. Semi-Annual Housing Activity Report 7. West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust (Homes Within Reach) Amendment 8. Comp Plan Amend for Future LRT Joint Dev 9. Shoreham PUD Amendment 10. SWLRT Update End of Meeting: 8:30 p.m. Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Discussion Item: 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council a summary of the Polystyrene Experts/Stakeholder Panel discussion on July 27 , 2015. POLICY CONSIDERATION: What is Council’s goal related to polystyrene food and beverage containers? Does Council wish to pursue an ordinance similar to the City of Minneapolis or would Council like to take another direction? Does Council agree with next steps listed below? SUMMARY: At the July 27, 2015 Study Session, Council heard from a number of experts/stakeholders on a variety of issues as they consider policy decisions on polystyrene food and beverage containers (polystyrene containers). In the July 27 study session report, staff provided a number of written statements and information received from the stakeholders who participated in the expert’s panel discussion. This report includes summaries of the main topics presented by the panel, follow-up information requested by Council during panel discussion, reasons or possible goals for banning polystyrene, policy options to be considered and a draft communications plan. If Council wants to follow a process similar to plastic bags, staff has recommended a timeline for next steps outlined below. Recommended Next Steps for Polystyrene Containers: 1. Study Session discussion – Polystyrene Check-in – August 10, 2015 2. Public Information process to inform stakeholders – August through September 2015 3. Listening Session – Council receives public comment– late September 2015 4. Study Session discussion – Proposed policy recommendations – late October 2015 5. Public Hearing on Council’s draft policy position – November 2015 6. Study Session discussion – Finalize policy – December 2015 7. Council Meeting - Policy approval – TBD FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion NYC PS Determination (Attachment 1), HERC Emissions (Attachment 2), HERC Ash (Attachment 3), HERC Info (Attachment 4), MPCA Emissions (Attachment 5), Draft Communications Plan (Attachment 6) Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the July 27, 2015 Study Session, Council heard from experts/stakeholders with a variety of viewpoints for Council consideration as it contemplates policy relating to limiting or banning polystyrene food & beverage containers (PS containers). The panel discussion focused on important concerns that stakeholders would like Council to consider. This report provides: stakeholder summaries; additional information Council requested at the July 27 Study Session; as well as discussion on possible goals, policy options, and next steps. Polystyrene Expert/Stakeholder Panel Summary A summary of the main topics provided by each presenter is provided below. 1. City with Current Packaging Ordinance Daniel Huff – The City of Minneapolis • Provided an overview of their Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance that became effective as of April 22, 2015. • Explained partnership with Hennepin County to educate businesses and recycling grants available through the County. • Workgroup included different stakeholder groups and had specific product discussions regarding exemptions, etc. • Stressed the unique requirement of restaurants providing collection and the need to work with building managers/property owners and haulers to ensure restaurants could comply. • Noted the hospital/nursing home exemption. In-room service in hospitals is under the jurisdiction of Department of Health Services, while the cafeteria is licensed by the city, but is exempted by the ban. However, private vendors (such as Caribou) at hospitals are regulated by and have to comply with the ordinance. 2. Governmental Agencies Madalyn Cioci – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • MPCA does not have a position on polystyrene bans. They support policies that conserve resources, lower total environmental impacts, and push materials up the waste hierarchy (reduce, reuse, recycling, before disposal). • Clarity of policy goal(s), by the City Council, on why polystyrene as a target is important. • Reuse considerations were discussed and the example of to-go box program in the City of Portland was cited as an example. • MPCA noted their goals of 6% reduction in total waste generated by 2030 and then a 60% recycling goal. • Polystyrene is approximately 1% of the disposed waste in Minnesota, not readily recyclable, does show leachability of styrene into food especially hot, fatty foods. Paul Kroening – Hennepin County • Hennepin County does not have a position on polystyrene bans. County Board has not asked staff to prepare polystyrene policy for their consideration. • Information on impacts from those that are currently banning polystyrene is not available to support policies and motivate them to move forward. • County’s priority is to increase recycling and availability of organics collection. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers • Market for polystyrene recycling is nonexistent in Hennepin County, particularly food service polystyrene packaging. • Polystyrene is approximately 1.5 – 2% of disposed waste in Hennepin County. • The Minneapolis ordinance has helped to promote waste-reduction and county recycling grants with much of the success with property managers of larger buildings wishing to help their tenants come into compliance with the food packaging ordinance. 3. Packaging Industry Mike Levy – Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group • Noted approximately 750 tons of polystyrene has been recycled nationwide since 1990 and its percentage of the waste stream, by weight, is very small. • Supports the use of polystyrene because it is the best product to keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold. • Supports recycling rather than banning, mentioned two mid-west cities (Denver, CO and Cedar Falls, IA) recycling polystyrene though most recycling is being done by west coast cities. • Industry is willing to help implement recycling of polystyrene in metro area Material Recycling Facilities (MRFs). • Polystyrene food service containers are tested and approved by the FDA for health safety. • States have not banned Polystyrene due to impact on jobs and the small percentage of material in the waste stream. Simon Hefty – Litin Eco • Discussed the types of packaging that are made from polystyrene, both rigid and foam products including foam clamshells/plates/cups/bowls, rigid/clear hinged containers, and to go hot cup lids. • Many alternatives are available to polystyrene packaging that includes compostable products made from a number of plant based materials. • Indicated the compostable products industry continues to develop products to meet the needs of alternative packaging. 4. Business Trade Associations Deb McMillan – TwinWest Chamber of Commerce • Encouraged the City to consider establishing goals in a way that can be measured and will not negatively impact business development in the city. • Concerned about mandates for businesses and residents, increased cost that will be passed on to consumers, difficult to compete with neighboring cities’ businesses due to SLP’s “comfortably close” location. • Concerned over the policy becoming regressive. Supports incentives-based solutions which include stakeholders in the process, and take business and consumer interests into consideration. Dan McElroy – Minnesota Restaurant Association • Noted costs of alternatives are, in some cases, dramatically more expensive. • Concerned over the performance of some alternatives to hot cups and hot cup lids. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers • Availability of being able to apply for exceptions/exemptions particularly for PE lined cups and PS lids is important to members of the Restaurant Association. • Stressed an adequate implementation period is necessary for restaurants to come into compliance before enforcement starts. • Litter is an issue that his members continue to work to reduce. Tim Wilkin – Minnesota Beverage Association • No economical alternative to a PS lid, which is the standard in the industry for cold beverages and an exemption for these lids, was provided for by the City of Minneapolis. 5. Environmental Organizations Lynn Hoffman & Kate Davenport – Eureka Recycling • Polystyrene is made from a non-renewable source. • Impact of microplastic in Great Lakes includes higher concentrations than samples collected in ocean and these toxins are ingested and concentrated up the food chain. • Stressed that cost considerations shouldn’t be restricted to just product costs in the industry, but also environmental impacts/costs. • No consistent, reliable markets for recycling polystyrene. Collection of polystyrene often contaminates other recyclable materials because it breaks apart during collection and sorting. This creates negative impacts for the other materials that can truly be recycled. • Eighty-seven communities have implemented PS container bans across the United States. • SLP joining with Minneapolis would create economies of scale for businesses using alternatives to polystyrene packaging. • Incineration of polystyrene at HERC is not an environmental solution to addressing polystyrene. Additional Information in Response to Panel Discussion Microplastics – Preliminary research of online resources show that some research is currently underway on microplastics pollution in the Great Lakes, and other freshwater habitats. This research does not single out polystyrene, but explains that a variety of sources for microplastics exist, including fragmented plastics from larger plastic products, industrial resin pellets, microbeads from personal care products, and microplastic fibers from synthetic textiles. Two sources available online are listed below: • Plastic Microbeads in Minnesota – This report was compiled by the MPCA for the Legislature in December 2014 and focuses on microbeads but includes information about other microplastics as well. o http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=22038 • Microplastic is an Abundant and Distinct Microbial Habitat in an Urban River - This research published in 2014 suggests that urban rivers are a potentially significant part of microplastics transport to freshwater lakes and ocean habitats, but that more research is needed to confirm this. Wastewater treatment plant effluent is determined to be an important point-source of microplastic pollution. o http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265791280_Microplastic_is_an_Abunda nt_and_Distinct_Microbial_Habitat_in_an_Urban_River Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Recyclability Determination by NYC Sanitation – New York City’s Department of Sanitation was required to make a determination on the recyclability of expanded polystyrene and determined that it cannot be recycled due to no existing economic markets. The memorandum dated January 1, 2015 also listed other concerns which ultimately lead to the determination (see Attachment 1). State of MN Waste Characterization Study – The 2013 Statewide Waste Characterization provides a snapshot of waste generated in Minnesota. As was mentioned by MPCA, polystyrene is about 1% of disposed waste. For comparison, all plastics make up 17.9% of disposed waste, paper and compostable paper makes up 24.5%, organics is 31%, electronics is 1.2%, textiles and leather is 4.7%, appliances & furniture is 3%. These figures and others can be found on pages 1–3 of the report http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=20102. Hennepin Energy Recovery Center HERC) Emissions and Ash – Staff requested the emissions and ash testing information from Hennepin County and the MPCA. Council suggested a meeting with Hennepin County regarding the Hennepin Energy Recovery Facility as part of the conversation around potentially banning polystyrene, or a broader conversation about solid waste management. County staff is willing to attend a future meeting to answer questions about HERC and has also offered to provide a tour of HERC to interested individuals. In regard to emissions and ash testing, Hennepin County provided the following: Most recent emissions testing Air emissions are cleaned and treated using state-of-the-art pollution control equipment so that emissions are consistently below the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permitted levels. Air emissions are monitored on a continuous basis for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. An annual stack test is also conducted for hydrogen chloride, dioxins/furans, hydrocarbons, lead, particulate matter, cadmium and mercury. Attached are the air emissions monitoring results from 2014 and a summary chart that shows the emissions as a percent of the permitted levels (see Attachment 2). You can also watch a 5 minute video at www.hennepin.us/HERC that illustrates how the pollution control equipment works. Ash The combustion process reduces the volume of waste by 90 percent. Also provided is a report on the characterization of ash residue from HERC (see Attachment 3). The analysis is conducted quarterly by an independent lab, consistent with EPA procedures and MPCA requirements. The results consistently show that the ash is not hazardous and that it should be managed as a nonhazardous solid waste. HERC is environmentally preferable to landfills About 45 percent of the waste generated in the county is recycled or composted. The remaining trash, nearly 800,000 tons a year, can either be buried in the ground or burned for energy. HERC has fewer environmental impacts than landfills. Attached is a factsheet about HERC that provides more information about how HERC works and information about how HERC compares to landfill (see Attachment 4). Getting to zero waste Many times when the conversation shifts to HERC, we lose focus on the programs and efforts to reduce waste and recycle more. Please take a look at our Recycling Progress Report to learn more about what the county is doing. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers The MPCA collects emissions data from HERC and other MN facilities. Data was provided by MPCA on two categories of pollutants – Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and dioxins/furans – the types of emissions expected from combusting expanded polystyrene, and also includes air emissions from some other MN facilities, for comparison sake (see Attachment 5). The emissions reported are from all wastes that go to HERC and are combusted in the incinerator, not just polystyrene. There is no way to determine how much of these emissions would be coming from polystyrene, vs. paper, vs. other plastics or wastes. Pricing Comparisons – Staff will determine if additional pricing information is available from local vendors for alternative products to polystyrene. Establishment of Goal(s) Determining or clarifying Council’s goals for banning polystyrene in St. Louis Park is essential in both determining the best policy options and future communications to the public. Some of the possible goals shared in initial conversations with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in November 2014 were: 1) increasing recycling/composting and/or reducing trash; 2) minimizing litter; 3) addressing health or toxicity concerns; and 4) reducing greenhouse gasses. The City of Minneapolis Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance states a goal of: “The council therefore finds that the minimization of nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments and at events providing food and/or beverages within the city of Minneapolis is necessary and desirable in order to minimize the city's waste stream, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by-products of incineration, and to make our city and neighboring communities more environmentally sound places to live.” Potential Policy Options The potential policy options listed below could be considered by Council and direction will depend upon Council’s goal(s) for polystyrene container use in St. Louis Park. Additional options may also be considered. The options discussed by stakeholders include: • Business as usual – allow retailers and consumers to carry on with business as usual. • Increase recyclability of PS – Work with industry representatives, state, county, and MRF operators to support recyclability of expanded polystyrene in the metro area. • Ban or regulate – Ban polystyrene or adopt an ordinance similar to Minneapolis’ Environmentally Acceptable Packaging Ordinance which requires environmentally friendly packaging and collection of recyclables and organic materials by food service establishments. Draft Communications Plan Staff has created a draft communications plan for both polystyrene and plastic bag outreach efforts. This was provided during the July 13, 2015 Study Session. The communications plan will be used to inform residents and businesses of Council’s reasons for considering policy to reduce or eliminate polystyrene and plastic bags, the policy options being considered, and their opportunity to provide feedback during listening sessions. Please see attached draft communications plan for methods of outreach planned (Attachment 6). Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Recommended Next Steps for Polystyrene Containers Staff has updated the next steps for polystyrene to reflect the same process that was discussed by Council during a previous Study Session meeting on July 13. Council directed staff to hold two listening sessions for plastic bags, one prior to proposed policy recommendations and a public hearing afterwards, prior to finalizing a policy for implementation. The timeline for polystyrene shown below reflects this change as well: 1. Study Session discussion – Polystyrene Check-in – August 10, 2015 2. Public Information process to inform stakeholders – August through September 2015 3. Listening Session – Receive public comment– late September 2015 4. Study Session discussion – Proposed policy recommendations – late October 2015 5. Public Hearing on Council’s draft policy position – November 2015 6. Study Session discussion – Finalize policy – December 2015 7. Council Meeting - Policy implementation follows Study Session discussion – TBD Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 8 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 9 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 10 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 11 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 12 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 13 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 14 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 15 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 16 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 17 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%54.5%7.5%7.3%0.9%12.4%19.3%2.1%2.4%64.1%7.8%12.2%Percent Of MPCA Permit LimitParameters 2014 HERC Emissions Percent of Current Permit Limits Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 18 Page 2 Parameter 2014 Average MPCA Limit 2014 % of Limit Hydrogen Chloride Stack - ppm@7%O2 15.80 29 54.5% Dioxins Furans ng/dscm@7%O2 2.25 30 7.5% Hydrocarbons #/hr 0.22 3 7.3% Lead ug/dscm@7%O2 3.60 400 0.9% Particulate (Total) grains/dscf@7%O2 0.0025 0.02 12.4% Particulate (Front)grains/dscf@7%O2 0.0023 0.012 19.3% Cadmium ug/dscm@7%O2 0.73 35 2.1% Mercury ug/dscm@7%O2 1.19 50 2.4% NOx tons per year 525.8 820.2 64.1% SO2 tons per year 7.8 100 7.8% CO tons per year 29.7 243.6 12.2% ng = nanograms (1 nanogram = .000000001 grams) ug = micrograms (1 ug = .000001grams) 1 grain = .06479 grams dscm = dry standard cubic meter dscf= dry standard cubic foot Parameter 2014 U1 Hydrogen Chloride Stack - ppm@7%O2 19.5 Dioxins/Furans ng/dscm@7%O2 4.2 Hydrocarbons #/hr 0.24 Lead ug/dscm@7%O2 5.05 Particulate (Total) grains/dscf@7%O2 0.00209 Particulate (Total) mg/dscm@7%O2 4.78 Particulate (Front)grains/dscf@7%O2 0.00200 Particulate (Front)mg/dscm@7%O2 4.58 Cadmium ug/dscm@7%O2 0.94 Mercury ug/dscm@7%O2 1.43 Parameter 2014 U2 Hydrogen Chloride Stack - ppm@7%O2 12.1 Dioxins/Furans ng/dscm@7%O2 0.294 Hydrocarbons #/hr 0.2 Lead ug/dscm@7%O2 2.14 Particulate (Total) grains/dscf@7%O2 0.00286 Particulate (Total) mg/dscm@7%O2 10.30 Particulate (Front)grains/dscf@7%O2 0.00264 Particulate (Front)mg/dscm@7%O2 6.04 Cadmium ug/dscm@7%O2 0.530 Mercury ug/dscm@7%O2 0.947 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 19 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 COVANTA ENERGY GROUP, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL TEST REPORT FOR COVANTA HENNEPIN ENERGY RESOURCE COMPANY, LP CEG REPORT NO.: 3944 REPORT DATE: September 23, 2014 PREPARED FOR: Hennepin County Environmental Services PURPOSE: Characterization of Ash Residue SAMPLE PERIOD: July 29 through August 7, 2014 PREPARED BY: Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 20 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 21 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 ASH RESIDUE CHARACTERIZATION REPORT FOR COVANTA HENNEPIN ENERGY RESOURCE COMPANY, LP TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION SUBJECT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 FIELD ASH SAMPLING PROCEDURES 3 LABORATORY INFORMATION 4 ASH SUBSAMPLE PREPARATION 5 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 6 CONCLUSIONS TABLES 1 Field Ash Sample Schedule and Bulk Characteristics 2 Analytical Test Procedures 3 Laboratory Results and Statistics 4 Comparison of SW-846 Statistical Results and Regulatory Thresholds for Metal Analytes APPENDICES A Laboratory and QA/QC Results B Bulk Sample Characteristics Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 22 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 1.0 INTRODUCTION An ash residue characterization program (Program) was implemented at the Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Company, LP (CHERC) located in Minneapolis, MN in response to the requirements set forth by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in their July 19, 1994 letter. The Program was designed to incorporate the sampling and analytical procedures in EPA's May 24, 1994 draft guidance document "Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Refuse Incinerator Ash" (1) and its supporting document "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste (SW-846).(2) The Program is consistent with the EPA's final guidance on ash sampling.(3) Combined ash was sampled in the ash building after the ferrous recovery system. This location has been determined to be representative of the point of generation and is consistent with the April 25, 1995 EPA decision regarding appropriate ash testing locations for determining toxicity characteristics. Ash sampling at the Facility was performed by representatives of the Facility between July 29 and August 7, 2014. Ten (10) 12-hour shifts are represented by this sample period with each shift being represented by one shift composite subsample, totaling 10 composite subsamples. The shift composite subsamples were delivered to a laboratory for analysis in accordance with the U.S. EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), Method 1311, as described in 40 CFR 261, Appendix II. One (1) aliquot from each of the ten composite subsamples was analyzed, totaling 10 analyses. 2.0 FIELD ASH SAMPLING PROCEDURES Field sampling occurred during the ten-day period between July 29 and August 7, 2014. Field sampling consisted of two phases: 1) acquisition of grab samples, and 2) generation of hourly composite sample and shift composite subsamples. The grab samples occurred at a 1-hour frequency. Samples were obtained at a location in the ash building after the ferrous recovery system, which system was in operation during the entire sample program. Combined ash enters the ash building on an inclined conveyor. At a point near the center of the ash building, the post- ferrous combined ash drops onto a pile on the floor. Before the start of each daily sampling period, the loader operator clears away the ash pile. During the next test hour a new conical pile of ash enlarges. At the end of that hour, the front-end loader moves the ash pile to a nearby staging area. Using the loader bucket, the operator picks up portions of the pile, sprinkles it to create a newly mixed pile nearby, then flattens the pile and remixes it. Using a shovel, random grab samples are taken from the newly mixed pile and placed into a plastic bucket and covered. This represents Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 23 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 the hourly composite. This procedure is repeated for each hour of sampling. The location and method provided random and representative samples. Each shift is comprised of twelve hourly composite samples. One shift composite subsample was created by mixing the twelve hourly composite samples in a mortar mixer. The shift composite material was reduced in quantity to create 8-9 lbs. composite subsamples. The shift composite subsamples were prepared on site. Table 1 presents a summary of the field sample program scope, schedule and bulk characteristics. The laboratory information used to develop Table 1 is presented in Appendices A and B. The material listed as being noncrushable was subjected to the EPA size reduction procedures.(3) 3.0 LABORATORY INFORMATION 3.1 Metals Three (3) 110 gram aliquots were delivered to Life Science Laboratories, Inc. (LSL), in East Syracuse, New York for each of the 10 composite subsamples. One of these aliquots from each composite subsample was analyzed for TCLP metals. The second aliquot was processed for fluid determination, sample pH and % moisture. The third aliquot was retained as a spare. 4.0 ASH SUBSAMPLE PREPARATION Each composite subsample was prepared in accordance with the following steps: 1. The entire composite subsample was passed over a two-inch screen. Material passing the 2-inch screen was set aside. Material larger than two inches was struck to determine if it was crushable. If the material did not break, it was weighed and discarded. If it did break and could pass through the two-inch screen, it was recombined with the material naturally less than two inches. 2. The material less than two inches was passed over a 3/8-inch screen. Material passing through the 3/8-inch screen was weighed, recorded and set aside. Material larger than 3/8 inch was weighed, recorded and then passed through a crusher device to reduce the material to be less than 3/8 inch. If material could not be crushed by the machine, this material was subjected to the hammer procedure described above. If the material was made to pass the 3/8-inch screen, it was combined with the material that went through the crushing machine. If the material was not reduced to pass through a 3/8-inch screen after the machine and manual Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 24 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 crushing step, it was recombined with the material larger than two inches that could not be crushed. The material naturally less than 3/8 inch and the material which was crushed to be less than 3/8 inch were kept separate from each other and separately weighed and recorded. 3. Aliquots for TCLP extraction were prepared by mixing proportional amounts of the material naturally less than 3/8 inch and material which had to be processed to be less than 3/8 inch. Each aliquot weighed a minimum of 100 grams. 5.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES The Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was performed in accordance with Method 1311 as detailed in the Environmental Protection Agency Manual SW- 846 - Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - Physical/Chemical Methods. Table 2 presents an overview of the analytical test procedures used in analyzing the TCLP extract from each aliquot. Quality control and assurance procedures used a sample spike, duplicate and blank on every set of nine (9) samples. 6.0 DATA ANALYSIS 6.1 Overview The laboratory analytical data presented as Appendix A have been evaluated in accordance with the procedures in SW-846, Chapter 9. The quality assurance and quality control results are submitted with the results in Appendix A. The statistical procedures set forth in Section 9.1.1.2 and Table 9-1 of SW-846 are based on the set of individual concentrations being treated as a normal distribution. 6.2 Analytical Results The laboratory analytical results are presented in Table 3 and Appendix A of this report. Laboratory results below the detection limit are reported in Table 3 as the value of the detection limit. An evaluation of the analytical results indicates that there were no statistical outliers based upon a relative comparison with other data and an evaluation by Chauvenet’s Criterion as recommended by the EPA. (4) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 25 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 6.3 Statistical Results Table 4 presents a comparison of the Regulatory Threshold for each metal analyte and the relevant SW-846 statistical value for determining whether a waste material exhibits a toxic characteristic. Laboratory results below the detection limit are reported as the detection limit. 6.4 Conclusion The analytical data was evaluated in complete compliance with the procedures set forth and required by SW-846. The statistical evaluation has determined that the waste does not exhibit a hazardous characteristic and that it should be managed as a nonhazardous solid waste. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 26 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 7.0 REFERENCES (1) Environmental Protection Agency, "Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Refuse Incinerator Ash," (Draft Guidance Document) May, 1994. (2) Environmental Protection Agency, "Manual SW-846 - Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste - Physical/Chemical Methods," March, 1992. (3) Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidance for the Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustion Ash for the Toxicity Characteristic," June, 1995. (4) Environmental Protection Agency, "Introduction to Environmental Statistics" Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 27 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 Table 1 FIELD ASH SAMPLE SCHEDULE AND BULK CHARACTERISTICS Composite Subsample Bulk Characteristics (lbs) Day Date Shifts Greater than 3/8 Inches or Non- crushable Metals Less than 3/8 Inches Total Moisture (as Wt.%) 1 7/29/2014 1 0.15 9.85 10.00 14.6 2 7/30/2014 1 0.00 10.15 10.15 17.7 3 7/31/2014 1 0.05 9.90 9.95 16.7 4 8/1/2014 1 0.10 10.25 10.35 14.6 5 8/2/2014 1 0.05 9.75 9.80 13.2 6 8/3/2014 1 0.00 9.60 9.60 19.4 7 8/4/2014 1 0.15 11.00 11.15 15.5 8 8/5/2014 1 0.00 9.65 9.65 18.7 9 8/6/2014 1 0.00 11.05 11.05 13.1 10 8/7/2014 1 0.00 10.35 10.35 12.2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 28 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 Table 2 ANALYTICAL TEST PROCEDURES PARAMETER ANALYTICAL METHOD (b) 1.0 TCLP (a) 1.1 TCLP Metals Arsenic 6010 (ICP) Barium 6010 (ICP) Cadmium 6010 (ICP) Chromium 6010 (ICP) Lead 6010 (ICP) Mercury 7470 (CVAA) Selenium 6010 (ICP) Silver 6010 (ICP) 2.0 Moisture 2540-G 3.0 pH 9045C (a) EPA Method 1311, Toxic Characterization Leaching Procedure. (b) ICP : Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy CVAA : Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 29 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 TABLE 3 LABORATORY RESULTS FOR THE HENNEPIN RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY 3.1 SAMPLE SPECIFIC RESULTS SAMPLE ID As Ba Cd Cr Pb Hg Se Ag NUMBER (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.07.29 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.100 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.07.30 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.100 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.07.31 < 0.500 < 0.500 0.180 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.01 < 0.500 < 0.500 0.690 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.02 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.100 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.03 < 0.500 < 0.500 0.690 < 0.500 < 0.500 0.00064 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.04 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.100 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.05 < 0.500 1.000 < 0.100 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.06 < 0.500 < 0.500 0.410 < 0.500 0.790 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 CHERC\TCLP\CA 14.08.07 < 0.500 < 0.500 0.120 < 0.500 < 0.500 < 0.00040 < 0.100 < 0.500 3.2 STATISTICAL RESULTS NUMBER OF SAMPLES 1010101010101010 DEGREES OF FREEDOM 99999999 SAMPLE MEAN (XBAR) 0.50 0.55 0.26 0.50 0.53 0.00 0.10 0.50 SAMPLE VARIANCE (S^2)0.0E+00 2.5E‐02 6.1E‐02 0.0E+00 8.4E‐03 5.8E‐09 2.1E‐34 0.0E+00 STANDARD DEVIATION (S)0.0E+00 1.6E‐01 2.5E‐01 0.0E+00 9.2E‐02 7.6E‐05 1.5E‐17 0.0E+00 STD ERROR (S XBAR)0.0E+00 5.0E‐02 7.8E‐02 0.0E+00 2.9E‐02 2.4E‐05 4.6E‐18 0.0E+00 80% CI Up per Limit (actual)0.500 0.619 0.367 0.500 0.569 0.0005 0.100 0.500 80% CI Upper Limit (exp. of lognormal) MAXIMUM 0.500 1.000 0.690 0.500 0.790 0.0006 0.100 0.500 MINIMUM 0.500 0.500 0.100 0.500 0.500 0.0004 0.100 0.500 3.3 REGULATORY THRESHOLD 5.0100.01.05.05.00.21.05.0 (a) Less than symbol (<) indicates laboratory result below the detection limit. The value used in this table is the detection limit provided by the laboratory. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 30 HENNEPIN REPORT #3944 Table 4 COMPARISON OF SW-846 STATISTICAL RESULTS AND REGULATORY THRESHOLDS FOR METAL ANALYTES Analyte 90% Upper Confidence Interval per SW-846 (b) Regulatory Threshold (a) Metals Arsenic 0.500 5.0 Barium 0.619 100.0 Cadmium 0.367 1.0 Chromium 0.500 5.0 Lead 0.569 5.0 Mercury 0.00050 0.2 Selenium 0.100 1.0 Silver 0.500 5.0 (a) 40 CFR Part 261. All units are expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). (b) 90% Upper Confidence Interval as a single-tailed distribution is equivalent to an 80% Upper Confidence Interval as a two-tailed distribution. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 31 APPENDIX A Laboratory and QA/QC Results Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 32 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 33 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 34 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 35 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 36 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 37 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 38 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 39 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 40 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 41 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 42 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 43 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 44 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 45 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 46 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 47 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 48 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 49 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 50 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 51 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 52 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 53 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 54 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 55 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 56 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 57 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 58 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 59 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 60 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 61 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 62 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 63 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 64 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 65 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 66 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 67 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2014 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage ContainersPage 68 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 69 APPENDIX B Bulk Sample Characteristics Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 70 3rd Quarter 2014 Combined Ash Characterization Testing Field Data Summary and Sampling Preparation Total Sample < 3/8" (lbs) Sample Preparation <3/8" (grams) Sample Preparation <3/8" After Crushing (grams) Sample Preparation <3/8" (grams) Sample Preparation <3/8" After Crushing (grams) Sample Preparatio n <3/8" (grams) p Preparatio n <3/8" After Crushing (grams) 14.07.29 10.00 0.30 9.70 0.15 0.15 9.85 108.32 1.68 98.48 1.52 492.4 7.6 14.07.30 10.15 0.05 10.10 0.00 0.05 10.15 109.46 0.54 99.51 0.49 497.5 2.5 14.07.31 9.95 0.15 9.80 0.05 0.10 9.90 108.89 1.11 98.99 1.01 494.9 5.1 14.08.01 10.35 0.15 10.20 0.10 0.05 10.25 109.46 0.54 99.51 0.49 497.6 2.4 14.08.02 9.80 0.15 9.65 0.05 0.10 9.75 108.87 1.13 98.97 1.03 494.9 5.1 14.08.03 9.60 0.05 9.55 0.00 0.05 9.60 109.43 0.57 99.48 0.52 497.4 2.6 14.08.04 11.15 0.20 10.95 0.15 0.05 11.00 109.50 0.50 99.55 0.45 497.7 2.3 14.08.05 9.65 0.10 9.55 0.00 0.10 9.65 108.86 1.14 98.96 1.04 494.8 5.2 14.08.06 11.05 0.05 11.00 0.00 0.05 11.05 109.50 0.50 99.55 0.45 497.7 2.3 14.08.07 10.35 0.10 10.25 0.00 0.10 10.35 108.94 1.06 99.03 0.97 495.2 4.8 Notes: 1. Hourly grab samples were collected during a 12-hour period per day. All sixteen grab samples were combined to form one composite sample per day. 2. Calculation: A-B=C; 500*(C/(C+(B-D)); Calculator-- A-B=C [to store 1] C+(B-D)/recall 1 Invert*500 then - 500 In House pH Sample Number A Total Quantity Processed (lbs) B First Pass Quantity >3/8" (lbs) C First Pass Quantity <3/8" (lbs) 500 Gram Aliquot100 Gram AliquotD After Crushing Quantity >3/8" (lbs) After Crushing Quantity <3/8" (lbs) 110 Gram Aliquot Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 71 How is waste converted to energy at HERC? Garbage trucks deliver waste from Minneapolis and surrounding communities to HERC. The waste is pushed into the waste pit with a loader. A crane picks the waste up from the pit and feeds it to the boilers. Operators look for and pull out hazardous and problematic wastes, such as appliances, televisions and bulky items, so they can be disposed of properly. The waste is burned in boilers lined with water-filled tubes. The heat of combustion converts the water in the tubes to steam that turns a turbine to generate electricity. HERC produces enough electricity to power 25,000 homes. The electricity is sold to Xcel Energy. A portion of the steam produced is extracted after going through the second stage of the turbine and sent to the steam line. This steam provides heating and cooling to the downtown Minneapolis district energy system and Target Field. The steam is then condensed back to water and circulated to the boiler, completing a closed-loop system. Air emissions are cleaned and treated so that emissions are consistently below the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permitted levels. The combustion process reduces the volume of waste by 90 percent. The material remaining after combustion is non-hazardous ash. The ash is screened to recycle metals and then sent to a landfill. HERC recovers more than 11,000 tons of scrap metal each year, which is more than double the amount of metal collected in curbside recycling programs in the county. Located in downtown Minneapolis, Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) uses waste to create energy. HERC uses the latest technologies to reduce environmental and taxpayer costs How we manage our waste Hennepin County residents and businesses generate more than one million tons of waste each year. Add up all this waste and its enough to fill Target Field more than 11 times. Processing waste for energy at HERC is just one part of the county’s integrated waste management system that emphasizes waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting. Hennepin County Energy Recovery Center 1 Trash Burned to produce steam Air pollution control equipment Cooling towerTurbine generates electricity (continued) Landfill Organics recycling Organics recycling Recycling RecyclingWaste-to- energy Waste-to- energy Landfill Today 2030 Goal Where does the waste processed at HERC come from? 25% – Suburban 75% – Minneapolis Residents and businesses Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 72 HERC is environmentally preferable to landfills About 45 percent of the waste generated in the county is recycled or composted. The remaining trash can either be buried in the ground or burned for energy. HERC is better for the environment than landfills. Hennepin County Environmental Services 612-348-3777 www.hennepin.us/HERC 34-801-05-14 HERC Landfills Fewer environmental impacts Greater environmental impacts Air pollution control system to capture pollutants. This equipment is monitored 24/7. Waste is processed close to where it is produced, minimizing transportation of waste and associated truck emissions. The pollution control measures are buried - it could take years to detect and find a leak in a liner. Waste continues to decompose, producing methane and organic compounds. This makes landfills an environmental and health risk for decades. Hauling waste to far-away landfills generates more truck emissions. A ton of waste processed at HERC creates electricity to run a house for 21 days, plus steam to heat Target Field and downtown Minneapolis. A ton of waste buried in a landfill creates electricity to run a house for 3 days. Fewer greenhouse gas emissions. More greenhouse gas emissions from methane. 11,000 tons of scrap metal recycled. No scrap metal recycled. 45 high-wage jobs to operate HERC. 18 lower-wage jobs to operate landfill. Waste management performance compared to others Hennepin County is similar to U.S. leaders in waste generation and recycling, but lags behind global leaders in Europe. Getting to zero waste We all have a responsibility - individuals, businesses and government - to prevent waste and recycle everything we can. We are making progress towards the goal of zero waste as waste generation per capita is decreasing and recycling rates are increasing. The county is committed to making recycling as convenient as possible and expanding opportunities to compost. We offer grants, educational materials and professional staff assistance to improve recycling at businesses, schools, apartment buildings, events and public spaces. Sources: European Environment Agency, Hennepin Cty, Oregon DEQ, Washington DOE, Covanta Energy 0 500 Waste generation, per capita 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 RecyclingWaste-to-energyLandll Washington Oregon Hennepin San Francisco Germany Sweden Healthy competition among regional leaders Uphill climb against world leaders 16% – Paper Cardboard, newsprint, mail, paper packaging, etc. 32% – Organics Food scraps and non-recyclable papers (napkins, paper plates, pizza boxes 15% – Plastic Bottles, containers, film, wrap, Styrofoam, etc. 30% – Bulky Items Wood, carpet, furniture, textiles, diapers, kitty litter, rocks, sand, etc. 5% – Metals 2% – Glass By weight Sources: Hennepin County Waste Composition Studies at Hennepin Energy Recovery Center and Brooklyn Park Transfer Station. What is in the trash? Additional resources Take a virtual tour of HERC by watching a five minute video on how HERC generates energy from garbage, available online at www.hennepin.us/HERC. Learn about resources to improve recycling at home, businesses, schools, apartment buildings and events at www.hennepin.us/recycling. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 73 Attachment 5 Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co LP Volatile Organic Compound and Dioxin/Furan Test results Annual Testing 2010 – 2014 Compared to Other Facilities Below is a table of the performance testing results for the annual testing at Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co LP (HERC) from 2010-2014. Below the HERC test data are test results from other facilities for Volatile Organic Compound and Dioxin/Furans. Dioxin/Furan is rarely tested for at facilities other than waste combustors and facilities that utilize landfill gas for power generation; the dioxin results shown in the last five rows of the table are taken from test reports for those types of facilities. HERC’s VOC results averaged 0.21 pounds/hour (#’/hr) over this period while their Dixon/Furan results averaged 2.71 Nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm). Facility & Volatile Organic Dioxin/Furan Unit Timing of Test Compounds (ng/dscm) HERC EU001 May & June 2010 0.29 #'s /hr 2.03 HERC EU002 May & June 2010 0.29 #'s /hr 0.94 HERC EU001 September 1, 2011 0.57 #'s/hr 3.49 HERC EU002 September 1, 2011 < 0.12 #'s/hr 2.01 HERC EU001 May 4, 2012 0.32 #'s/hr 2.65 HERC EU002 May 4, 2012 0.19 #'s/hr 1.37 HERC EU001 August 15, 2013 < 0.0018 #'s/hr 7.09 HERC EU002 August 15, 2013 < 0.0018 #'s/hr 2.99 HERC EU001 May 7, 2014 0.24 #'s/hr 4.20 HERC EU002 May 7, 2014 0.20 #'s/hr 0.294 3M Hutch CE021 January 22, 2015 6.24 #'s/hr NA 3M Hutch CE021 May 7, 2014 4.55 #'s/hr NA Interplastic - Mpls September 30, 2015 < 0.245 #'s/hr NA Interplastic - Mpls October 13, 2010 0.251 #'s/hr NA Owens Corning - Mpls July 11, 2014 0.65 #'s/hr NA Xcel Energy Black Dog August 30, 2012 0.28 #'s/hr NA Xcel Enrgy - Wilmarth July 17, 2014 NA 2.25 Xcel Enrgy - Wilmarth July 19, 2013 NA 1.67 Xcel Enrgy - Red Wing July 11, 2014 NA 5.31 Xcel Enrgy - Red Wing April 12, 2012 NA 6.1 Waste Mgt Spruce Rdg May 31, 2008 NA 1.71E-08 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 74 Attachment 6 Plastic Bag/Polystyrene Communications Plan Strategies Park Perspective • July 2015: Article on council consideration of ban on plastic bags/polystyrene • October 2015: Recap of expert panels, public hearings and next steps (policy recommendation in October/November) Social Media • Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor posts prior to July 27 polystyrene experts panel • Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor posts prior to listening sessions/public hearings o Plastic bags: September o Polystyrene: October • Gather any comments via Archive Social to be entered into public record for policy discussions in October/November Neighborhood Newsletters • Information about listening sessions/public hearings • Breanna Freedman: send her item to push out to neighborhoods (public hearings) Events • National Night Out: postcards in bags (Erin Nordrum) Mailings • City-wide postcard (businesses and homes) Website • Webpage with background and timeline • Slider on homepage with information on listening sessions Media • May 2015 Star Tribune article about potential plastic bag ban • Information to Star Tribune, Sun Sailor regarding expert panel, public hearings ParkTV • Life in the Park o Recap of plastic bag experts panel (June 25) o Recap of polystyrene experts panel; public hearing notice (July 30) o Public hearing info (August-September) o Recap of public hearings; next steps (September-October) o Overview of new policies (November-December) • Channel 17 o Plastic bag experts panel rebroadcast (2x per day) o Polystyrene experts panel rebroadcast (2x per day after July 27) o TV Billboard Announcements Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 75 Post Process • POS decals/stickers/signs for retailers to communicate new policy (per input from Corvallis, Oregon, regarding retail clerks taking the brunt of questions/concerns about new policy) • News release to media with details of new policy • Talking points for city spokespeople (council, staff) Items in bold: completed Communication tools to be used in plan Communication Tool Description Deadlines Park Perspective City of St. Louis Park quarterly newsletter Arrives in homes Feb. 15, May 15, July 15, Oct. 15 (Content deadline one month prior) Facebook www.facebook.com/stlouispark Allow 24 hours’ notice to post; You’re encouraged to write posts ahead of time; can be scheduled. Twitter www.twitter.com/stlouispark Please allow 24 hours’ notice to post; Tweets must be 140 characters or less. Nextdoor (www.nextdoor.com) Private social network for neighborhoods Allow 24 hours’ notice for posts. Neighborhood Newsletters Many neighborhoods publish several newsletters, Breanna’s e-newsletter Deadlines vary; Breanna Freedman is the contact. Mailings Examples include: postcards, letters, newsletters, brochures. Work w/ Dan on mailing list, Misty for postcard. Allow at least 5 business days to be printed & mailed. City Website www.stlouispark.org Varies, allow 24-hours’ notice to post an article to the website(s); If you need assistance writing the article, please allow 72 hours. Media Star Tribune, Sun Sailor Deadlines vary; Sun Sailor has a 5 p.m. deadline on Wednesdays for publication the following week TV Billboard Announcements Informal screens that run on the Cable TV system between programming on the city’s five Cable TV channels Varies, please allow up to one week for creation and scheduling. Life in the Park Weekly city TV news now airing on cable channels 14, 15/96, 16, 17 and YouTube (www.youtube.com/slpcable) Information for script due Fridays at noon. Contact Scott Smith. St. Louis Park Communications Contact Jacqueline Larson | Communications & Marketing Manager Office (952) 924-2632 jlarson@stlouispark.org Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 2) Title: Polystyrene Food & Beverage Containers Page 76 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Discussion Item: 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff desires feedback on the information provided in this report and at the Study Session POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Excelsior Boulevard is a 4 lane urban arterial that is an integral component of the regional road system providing direct connections to major north-south freeways including Highway 169 and Highway 100. In addition to its regional transportation significance, Excelsior Boulevard is home to thriving businesses/commercial uses and is how many of our residents get to and from their homes. Several reports and documents relating to the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor have been produced over the last 30 years. These studies have shaped the City’s Comprehensive Plan and guided redevelopment. Every 10 years the City does a major review and update of its policies and evaluates its long-range infrastructure needs and goals. Population, employment, development and traffic projections are analyzed by these agencies and metro cities based on demographic trends and policy plans. The most recent update was completed in 2009 and over the next 2-3 years the City will be updating the Comprehensive Plan out to the year 2040. In 2001, the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic study was completed. This significant report took a comprehensive look at anticipated redevelopment along Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and France Avenue and the surrounding neighborhoods. The development scenarios included existing Year 2000, Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 conditions. The study forecasted traffic and provided recommendations to mitigate neighborhood traffic impacts should certain levels of traffic be realized as a result of the redevelopment in the corridor. Over the last year, the City has received applications for two proposed redevelopments in the corridor. In the interest of providing context for these redevelopments and corridor traffic staff has performed an audit of what uses have been built over the last 15 years and the subsequent traffic generation. Information regarding this review is in this report and will be presented to the City Council at the Study session. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study (2001) Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guidance Map Redevelopment Map - Projected vs. Actual Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2 Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The recent proposal for redevelopment of the Bally’s block and Bridgewater Bank block along Excelsior Boulevard has raised questions about the long term plans for land use and transportation in the Excelsior Boulevard corridor and the adequacy of traffic infrastructure to serve the current proposed developments and future growth. Similar questions were raised in 2000 as a part of the Park Commons/Excelsior and Grand initiatives. In response, the City of St. Louis Park embarked on a comprehensive study of historical, existing and future conditions within the Excelsior Boulevard corridor as part of the city's short, mid and long term plans to consider redeveloping the Park Commons East (Excelsior and Grand), Al's Bar and Park Commons West sites. The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study was conducted in two phases. Phase I of the study consisted of reviewing historical traffic trends and previous studies conducted throughout the Corridor. This investigation is included as Appendix A. Phase II entailed addressing the concerns of the neighborhood with respect to the three development build scenarios. The goals of Phase II were to document the existing conditions and to examine the potential future traffic impacts to Excelsior Boulevard and its adjacent neighborhoods with respect to three development or "Build" scenarios. The scenarios included existing Year 2000, Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 conditions. The key considerations in the analysis included: • Existing traffic operations at key intersections and documentation of cut-through traffic in Corridor neighborhoods. • Development of mitigation and roadway improvement measures to improve traffic flow in the corridor and reduce the potential for neighborhood cut-through traffic. • Traffic generation of each proposed "Build" scenario and the corresponding distribution of traffic throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study along with the City’s Comprehensive Plan have served as the broad guide for development and infrastructure for this area ever since. To evaluate the adequacy of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study to continue to guide the City, SRF and Staff audited the scenarios that were analyzed in the 2001 report to determine if the predicted redevelopment in the corridor had been realized. What was determined by this review is that while we have seen significant changes in the corridor land uses, the level of redevelopment anticipated by year 2015 has not occurred. Attached is a map showing a comparison of the predicted and actual redevelopment land uses. The study forecasted 2015 ADT (average daily traffic) volumes along Excelsior Boulevard ranged from approximately 27,000 to 36,000 vehicles per day (vpd) within the study area. In comparison, the actual ADT volumes are closer to the 20,000 to 22,000 vpd range. In general, the study’s 2015 forecasts are approximately 25 to 40 percent higher than current volumes. Potential reasons for the difference include: 1) Forecast land use redevelopment has not occurred (as noted earlier) 2) Area transportation improvements have occurred (i.e. TH 100 and TH 7) 3) Improved area transit service 4) Mode-choice shifts (i.e. more biking/walking) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 3 Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion What follows is a table summarizing the ADT on the major roads in the corridor from 2001 to 2013. The traffic volumes have either gone down or remained the same. Please keep in mind that these reflect ADTs, last collected in 2013 and are not skewed by additional traffic that is travelling on Excelsior Boulevard as a result of the current TH100 construction project. Street Segment Average Annual Daily Traffic by year 2001 2005 2009 2013 Monterey Drive 9500 8900 9400 9000 38th Street 4500 2750 2900 3050 Excelsior Boulevard (east of Monterey) 18500 20100 19200 19900 Excelsior Boulevard (west of Monterey) 19900 20000 19900 18600 Quentin Ave (south of Excelsior) 2650 1900 1850 1950 Quentin Ave (north of Excelsior) 2250 2250 2100 2100 France Ave (north of 38th) NA 10000 9400 9700 France Ave (south of 38th) NA 10600 10100 10700 In general, the traffic in the Excelsior Boulevard corridor has not increased at the rate anticipated in the report. While there are some localized intersection traffic delays, overall, there is capacity in the corridor for redevelopment. While the analysis and direction provided by the Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study and Comprehensive Plan is still valid for the immediate future, it is timely to begin updating the analysis and infrastructure plan in preparation for the routine update of the City’s Comp Plan due in 2020. Additional information will be provided at the Study Session. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 4 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ ES-1 1 .0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... l 1.1 STUDY PUR.POSE ............................................................................................................................................ l 1.2 CONTENTS OF STIJDY .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 D ESCRIPHON OF STUDY AREA ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.1 Corridor R oadway Network ................................................................................................................ 3 1.3.2 Corrido r Neighborhoods .................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 FlJIURE LAND U SE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS ............................................................................................. 4 2.0 CORRIDOR ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS AND REVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES .............. 8 2 .1 ROADWAY FuNCTIONAL CLASSIFI CATION ..................................................................................................... 8 2 .2 H ISTORJ CAL TRAFFI C TRENDS ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 PrimaryRoadways ............................................................................................................................... 9 2 .3 REVTEW OF TRAFFIC S11JDIES CONDUCTED IN 1HE CORRIDOR ..................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Park Com mons West Feasibility -1999 ........................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Park Commons East Traffic Impact Analysis -1 999 ........................................................................ 14 3.0 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ISSUES AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................... 16 3.1 NEIGHBORHOOD CUT-1HROUGH TRAFFI C .................................................................................................... l6 3.2 POTEN'DAL TRAFFIC CALMIN G MEASURES .................................................................................................. 2 1 3.2.1 MSA -Designated R outes ................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Non -MSA D esignated R outes ............................................................................................................ 25 4.0 MOBll..ITY I CONGESTION ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 28 4.1 TRANSPORTATION MODELS ......................................................................................................................... 28 4.2 'TRAFFI C IMPACT ANALYSIS P ROCEDURE ..................................................................................................... 30 4.2 .1 Background Traffic Growth .............................................................................................................. 30 4.2.2 Trip Genera tion ................................................................................................................................ 31 4.2.3 Trip Dis tribution .................................. , ............................................................................................ 31 4.2.4 Trip Assignment I F orecast Volum es ................................................................................................. 32 4.3 MOBILITY I CONGESTION ............................................................................................................................ 32 4.3 .1 Traffic Operations Analy sis .............................................................................................................. 32 4.3.2 Analysis To ol .................................................................................................................................... 33 4 .3.3 Level of Service Summary ................................................................................................................. 33 4.3.4 Q ueue Summary ................................................................................................................................ 34 4.3.5 D efin ing Jmp acts ............................................................................................................................... 34 5.0 MOBll..ITY/CONGESTION ANALYSIS-BASELINE CONDITIONS (2000) ..................................... 36 5.1 DATACOLLECDON ...................................................................................................................................... 36 5 .1.1 K ey l ntersection s ............................................................................................................................... 36 5.1.2 Intersection Geometry and Traffi c Corz trol.. ..................................................................................... 36 5.1.3 Traffi c Volum es ................................................................................................................................. 39 5.1.4 Signal Timing .................................................................................................................................... 43 Sig nal System Operation .......................................................................................................................................... 43 Signal Timin g Param eters ........................................................................ : ................................................................ 43 5.2 TRAFFI C 0PERA110NS ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................... .43 5.2.1 PM Peak Hour .................................................................................................................................. 44 5 .2.2 AM Peak Ho ur .................................................................................................................................. 44 6 .0 YEAR 2005 SCENARIO ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 47 6 .1 FORECAST YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 47 R:'1!60J8\Re port July 2001\Exce lsior.)'ioai_Report_TOC.doc URSIBRW In c . -i Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 5 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 6.2 YEAR 2005 T'IW=FIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 54 6.2.1 PMPeakHour .................................................................................................................................. 54 6.2.2 AM Pea k Hour .................................................................................................................................. 55 6 .3 IDENTIFI CATION OFYEAR2005 TRAFFIC FLOW MmGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 58 6.3.1 Neighborhood and Corridor Impa ct ................................................................................................. 61 7.0 YEAR 2010 SCENARIO ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 63 7.1 CllY OF ST. LOUIS PARK IMPROVEM ENT PROJECTS ..................................................................................... 63 7 .2 FORECASTYEAR2010 T'IW=AC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 65 7 .3 YEAR 2010 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 70 7.3 .1 PM PeakHour .................................................................................................................................. 70 7.3.2 AM PeakHour .................................................................................................................................. 71 7.4 lDEN'flFJCATION OF YEAR 2010 1'IW=F!C FLOW MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 7 5 Contributing Factors ................................................................................................................................................ 75 Neighborhood and C orridor Impact. ......................................................................................................................... 76 8.0 YEAR 2015 SCENARIO ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 79 8.1 FORECAST YEAR 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................................................................................. 79 8.2 YEAR 20151'!W=FIC OPERATIONS ANALYS IS .................................. : ........................................................... 84 8.2 .1 PM PeakHour .................................................................................................................................. 84 8.2 .2 AM PeakHour .................................................................................................................................. 85 8. 3 lDEN'flFICA TION OF YEAR 2015 1'IW=F!C FLOW MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 90 8.3 .1 Alternative 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 92 Neighborhood and Corridor Impact. ......................................................................................................................... 94 8.3.2 Alternative 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 98 Neighborho od and C orrid or Impact. ........................................................................................................................ 101 9.0 RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION PLAN ................................................................................... 105 9.1 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC ISSUES .............................................................................................................. 105 9.2 MOBILilY I CONGESTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 07 9.2.1 Yea r 2 005 ........................................................................................................................................ 107 9.2 .2 Yea r 2 010 ........................................................................................................................................ 109 9 .2.3 Year 2015 ........................................................................................................................................ 109 Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 0 Alternati ve 2 ........................................................................................................................................................... 111 Year 2015 Complications ........................................................................................................................................ 113 Other Reco mmendatio ns ......................................................................................................................................... 113 9.2 .4 Projec ted Mobility I Congestion ...................................................................................................... 114 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Phase I-Review of Previous Studies Appendix B: Year 2000-Traffic Operations Analysis Appendix C: Year 2005-Traffi c Operations Ana lysis Appendix D : Year 2010-Traffic Operations Ana lysis Appendix E: Year 2015 -Traffic Op erations Analysis R:\46018\Rep0!1 July 2001\Exoelsior..)'inai_Rcp0!1_TOC.doc URS/BRW Inc. -ii Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 6 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota LIST OF FIGURES Fi gure 1-1. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor St ud y Area ................................................................................................ 2 Figure I -2. Primary R oadways within tbe Corridor ................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1-3. St. Louis Park Neigh borhoods ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 1-4. 2005 Scenario Land Use Development Locations .................................................................................... 5 Figure 1-5 .2010 Scenario Land Use Development L oca ti ons .................................................................................... 6 Figure 1-6. 2015 Scenari o Land Use Development L oca ti ons .................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-1. Historical Traffi c Volumes on TH I 00 .................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2-2. H is torical Traffic Volumes on Excelsior Boulevard .............................................................................. 10 Figure 2-3. Hi storical Traffic Volumes on France A ve nu e ....................................................................................... 11 Figure 2 -4 . Hi s tmical Traffic Volumes on Monterey Drive, Wooddale Avenue, ..................................................... 12 Figure 2 -5. Recommended Transportation Improvements-Park Commons Wes t ................................................... 13 Figure 3-1. License Plate Trace Station Locations .................................................................................................... 17 F ig ure 3-2. Orig in -Destination Stations 5 and 2 ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 3-3. Address Distribution of W. 38'h Street Through-traffic ........................................................................... 18 Figure 3 -4. Origin -Destinatio n Stations 1, 5 and 6 .................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3 -5. Origin -Destination Stations 3 and 4 ........................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3-6. Origin-Destinati o n Stati ons 6 and 7 ........................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3-7. Origin-Destination Stati ons 8, 9 and 10 .................................................................................................. 21 Figure 4-1. Traffic Simul ation and Analysis Framework .......................................................................................... 29 Figure 4 -2. Level of Service Criteri a ......................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 5 -1. Existing Conditi ons Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ....................................................................... 38 Figure 5-2. Data ColJ ec tion L ocati ons ............. : ........................................................................................................ 39 Fi g ure 5 -3. Existi ng Turning Movements P .M. Pe ak Hour ....................................................................................... 40 Figure 5 -4. Existing Turning M ovements A.M. Peak Hour.. .................................................................................... .41 Figure 5-5. Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................ 42 Figure 5 -6. Existing Conditi ons Level of Service P.M. Peak Hour ........................................................................... 45 Figure 5-7. Existing Condi ti ons Level of Service A.M . Peak Hour .......................................................................... .46 Figure 6-1. Park Commons East & AJ 's Bar Site R egional Trip Distribution .......................................................... 51 Figure 6-2. Year 2005 Forecast. Turning Movements P.M. Peak Hour. .................................................................... 52 F igu re 6-3. Year 2005 Forecast Turning Movements A.M. Peak Hour ..................................................................... 53 Figure 6-4 . Year 2005 Level of Serv ice P.M . Peak Hour .......................................................................................... 56 Figure 6-5. Year 2005 Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour ......................................................................................... 51 Figure 6-6. Year 2005 Sugges ted Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ..................................................................... 59 Figure 6-7 . Year 2005 Level of Service with Mitigation Measures P.M. Peak Hour ................................................. 62 F igure 7-1. City of St. L oui s Park Improvement Projec ts Prior to Year 2010 ........................................................... 64 Figure 7-2. Park Commons West Reg ional Trip Dis tribution ................................................................................... 67 Figure 7 -3. Year 2010 Forecast Turning Movements P.M. Peak H our ...................................................................... 68 Figure 7 -4. Year 2010 Forecast Turning Movements A.M. Peak Hour ..................................................................... 69 Figure 7-5. Year 2010 Base L ane Geometry and Traffic Control ............................................................................. 72 Figure 7-6. Year 2010 Level of Service P .M. Peak Hour.. ........................................................................................ 73 Figure 7-7. Year 2010 Level of Service A.M. Peak Hour ......................................................................................... 74 Figure 7 -8. Year 20 I 0 Suggested Lane Geometry and Traffic Control ..................................................................... 77 Figure 7 -9. Year 2010 Level of Serv ice with Mitigation Measures P .M. Peak Hour. ................................................ 78 Fi gure 8-1. Year 2015 Forecast Turning Movements P .M . Peak Hour ...................................................................... 82 Fig ure 8 -2. Year 2015 Forecas t Turning Movements A.M . Peak Hour ..................................................................... 83 Figure 8-3. Year 2015 Base L ane Geometry and Traffic Control ............................................................................. 87 Fi gure 8-4. Year 2015 Level of Service P .M . Peak Hour.: ........................................................................................ 88 Figure 8-5. Year 2015 Level of Service A.M . Peak Hour ......................................................................................... 89 Figure 8-6. Year 2015 Alternative Ac cess to Sou thbo und TH 100 ........................................................................... 9 1 F igure 8-7. Year 2015 Alternative 1 S uggested Lane Geometry and Traffic Control... ............................................. 96 F igure 8-8. Year 2015 Alternati ve I Level of Serv ice P.M . Peak Hour .................................................................... 97 Figure 8-9. Trave l Demand Under Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................... 98 F igure 8-10. Re-dis tributed T urning Movement Volumes for Imp ac ted Intersections P.M. Peak Hour .................... 99 Figure 8-11. Year 20 15 Alternative 2 Suggested Lane Geometry an d Traffic Control... ......................................... I 03 R :\46018\Repart July 2001\EJ<tel•ior..}'ioa i_Report_ TOC.doc URSIBRW I nc. -iii Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 7 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Figure 8-12. Year 2015 Alternative 2 Level of Service P.M . Peak Hour ................................................................ 104 Figure 9-1. Comparison of Intersection Level of Service ........................................................................................ 114 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. 2005 Scenario De velopment Land Use ..................................................................................................... 5 Table 1-2 . 20 10 Scenario De ve lopment Land Use ..................................................................................................... 6 Table 1-3. 2015 Scenario Deve lopment Land Use ...................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-1. Classification of Roadways within the Corridor ....................................................................................... 9 Table 3-1. Potenti al M itigatio n Measures for Local/Collector R oadways ................................................................ 23 Tabl e 3-2. Traffic Characte ris ti cs for MSA Designated Routes ................................................................................ 24 Tabl e 3-3. Potential Traffic Calming Measures and Impl ementati on Guidelines for MSA Routes ............................ 25 Table 3-4 . Traffic C haracteri sti cs for Non-MSA Designated R outes ........................................................................ 26 Table 3-5 . Potential Traffic Cal ming Measu re s and Implementation Guidelines for Non-MSA R outes ................... 27 Table 6 -1 Year 2005 Park Conunons East Trip Generation ...................................................................................... 47 Table 6-2. Year 2005 AJ 's Bar Si te Trip Generati o n ................................................................................................ 48 Table 7 -1 . Year 20 1 0 Park Commons West Trip Generation .................................................................................... 65 Table 8-1. Year 2015 Park Commons West Trip Generati on .................................................................................... 79 R;\4 6018\Repon July 200 I 'ExoebiorJ'iDOI_Repot1_ TOC.doc URSIBRW Inc. -iv Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 8 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Executive Summary The City of St. Louis Park embarked on a comprehensive s tudy of hi storical, exi sting and future conditions within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor as part of the City's short, mid and long term plans to consider redeveloping th e Park Commons East, AJ's Bar and Park Commons West sites. URS I BRW, Inc. was selected to conduct a n eighborhood level transportation s tudy and review the impacts to the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor roadway netw ork. The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffi c Study was conducted in two phases. Phase I of the study was initiated in May of 2000 with the initial task of reviewing hi stori cal traffic trends and previous s tudies conducted throu ghout the Corridor. Culminating from thi s effort was a 38-page techni cal review of the history of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. The Phase I : Review of Previous Studies report can be viewed in its entirety in Appendix A. Phase II of the study initiated in September of 2000 entailed address ing the concerns of the neighborhood with respect to the three development build scenarios. Neighborhood Concerns The stud y process involved loca l neighborhood resid ents and business owners input on issues and needs. Concern has been rai sed by some residents with the impact that the proposed developments may have on th e character of th e neighborhood. Concerns were expressed on the proposed density and the amount of park or open space contained in some of the d evel opment proposals as well as on the possible negative impact of the new businesses on the existing businesses. A primary concern of th e residents is the issue of traffic. Whi le the review of th e previous studies condu cted, as Phase I of this stud y, revealed that Excelsior Boulevard would operate adequately near the western portion of the Corridor, the eastern portion of the Corridor has not been recently evalu ated to identify traffic issues, both exis tin g and projected. VRSIBRW Inc.-ES -1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 9 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Concluding Phase 1 of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study in August of 2000, an open house was held to finalize the important issues to address during Phase IT. The residents agreed upon the following four concerns: • Mobility and Congestion • Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic • Speeding • Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety The two specific issues that were addressed in this report include; determining the travel demand between France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard via a neighborhood cut-through analysis and determining levels of m obil ity I cong estion relating to th e proposed developments scenarios. The speeding and pedestrian I bicycle safety issues are being addressed through separate initiatives. Proposed Development Scenarios The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor li es within the defin ed boundaries of three future St. Louis Park development areas including Park Commons East, AJ's Bar, and Park Commons West. The following lists the existing and proposed land uses within the Excelsior Boulevard Conidor for th e future Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 development scenarios . R:\11601 1\Repcwt July 200 1\EJ.ulslor_Finai_Rcpor1_ES.doc Development S<en~rios Ill Pha5 e 1-2005 : P.11k Commons E;an \-+--++-..--' ~AI'> Bar Site (i) Pha.e 11-2010: Pari< Commons W•st 0 Ph.uelll·201 5: Park Commons West URSIBRW Inc. -ES-2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 10 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study Future Ye ar 2005 Development Scenario· Phase I Existing Ute Description 1. P81k Commons Easl 2 . At's Bar Silo EXI&IIng Land Uae 15.2k SF Aolall 18.8k SF Aoslauranl 12.9k SF Ollico 16k SF Hoal!h Club 1.8k SF Cry cteaners 2.2k SF Biii and Grill Future Year 2010 Development Scenario-Phase II Phase 1: Park Commons Easl (2005) and Al's Bar Site (2005) Plus The following: Existin g Use Oescrlp11on I. Previous Norwesl Bank sile 2. Waysldo Hou5a 3. PaJklng Ramp 4. Cll llens Bank 5. SW Quad ol OuonliniEx. Bd. Existing Land Ute 20kSFOIIieo 41 Bod Treatmanl FacUlty 948 space parking structure 60k SFOIIico 280 space surface parking 28k SF or MedtcaJ OlfiCO 5.51< SF ol Bank Future Year 2015 Development Scenario-Phase Ill Phase 1: Park Commons East (2005) and Al's Bar Site (2005) plus Phase II: Park Commons West (2010) plus The following: Exltllns Use DHcripUon t. NW auad ol auenlitV'Ex. Bd. 2. Targel 3 . South si de of AAA (redev.) 4. 3900 ·Park Nicollet Campus 5 . 3600-Piiik Nlcollol campus SoUJce: City of Sl l ot.ris Parte and SRF Consullants. Exis ting Land Uaa 36.2k SF Medical Olfico 123 surface palking 7Bk SF AolaU 500 surface parkJng Surface parl<lng 60k SF Modica! Office 434 space surface pcrndng 260k SF Modica! Oll~o 307 space surtace parking St. Louis Park, Minnesota ProJected Land Un 80. 7k SF Aolall 28k SF Quality Restaurant 114.2 k SFOIIico 625 Apar1menl Dwelling urnts 35 Townhomes 25k SF Hoallh Club IOk SF Oa Case 20k SF Aolall 22k SFOII!co 60 ApaJ1ment Dwelling Units 9 Townhomes ProJected Land Use 300 Senior Unit AesidentiaJ sok SFavlc JOk SF Ollico 1422 space parking structure 58k SF Aolall 174k SF Medical Ollieo 33.5k SF Modica! Ollico 6.5k SF ol Bank ProJected Land Use 23.6k SF Aolall 70.Bk SF Modica! Ollico 12B.5k SF Aolall lOOk SF Ollico !BkSF Rolall 120 Room Holel 167 .2k SF Modica! Ollico 347 .6)1. SF Medical OIIK:o The purpose for Phase II of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study examined the Corridor roadways existing traffic patterns and future traffic with respect to three development or re-development build scenarios and to determine the need for future roadway improvements within the Corridor to accommodate increased levels of traffic. In order to accomplish that task, an understanding of the historical traffic trends and Corridor background information is necessary. Historical Traffic Trends Historical traffic volumes were available for many of the primary roadways within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. In the review of this data it was determined that traffic on Excelsior Boulevard within the Corridor has been decreasing since 1992. In 1992, traffic on Excelsior Boulevard west of Monterey Drive was approximately 28,000. In 1998 the volume of traffic had dropped to approximately 20,400. Likewise, on Excelsior Boulevard east of Monterey Drive, traffic has dropped from approximately 22,000 in 1992 to less than 17,500 in 1998. Since 1998 traffic has increased on all three segments of Excelsior Boulevard. R:\46018\Rc:port J~ly 2001\Excels lor_Finai_Report_ES.doc URSIBRW In c. -ES -3 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 11 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Historical Traffic Volumes on Excelsior Bouleva rd 31,000 - --- ------ - - ---------- --- - -- - -- -- 20,000 2 7,000 ~ 25,000 :;; :: 0 23,000 i 21,000 z 19.000 17.000 ··A·, --#~~--~,---~~~~ l lt..MCI UI::>Mift1 ',. --·--------~--------_,.,!__ott.• .... __ -' ' ... .. . ""'n····· ', .... - - - - - --- - -------- - - ----...... -~ ; ... ----- 1 5.000 -l----~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~~ 19PO 100 1 1092 1~3 HI!M 11195 1096 1W7 lOPS 1999 2000 Yo a, -+ ·Ex~siOfOtvd .. ofTH 100 -Exc.obiOtB\od .. oiM~niM Or. • b •Exc.tsklr Btvd .. of Mone ec. Or. Othe r primary roadways within the Corridor, specifically W . 38th Street and Quentin Ave nue south of Excelsior Boulevard have relativ ely unchanged traffic volumes from 1980. In 1980, traffic on W. 38th Street wa s appro ximately 4 ,000 per day. Traffic peaked in 1993 with a volume of 5 ,800, but by 2000, the volume had dec reased back to approximately 4 ,500 vehicles per day or an increase of 500 compared to 1980. Traffic on Quentin Avenue during this same time perio d actually decreased to 2,000 in 2000 from its le vel of 2,400 in 1980. Wooddale has increased between 1980 and 2000. France Avenue regis tered an inc rease of 2,400 going from 8,400 in 1990 to 10,800 in 2000. Historical Traffic Volumes on Neighborhood Roadways 8 ~ :: '5 I z j j 0 J ~ z R:\46018\Rcpor1 July 200 1\Excclslor_Fim.I_Rcpo11 _ES .doc 11 ,000 10,000 g_ooo 8 ,000 1.000 8,000 5 ,000 <.000 -------------------~-~-----------_.-.¢--__ 'tto!,!i~l•~v.!nu_.:._...~ __________ 1\ __________ _ ..-........ .. ..... .. -=-:~~.::=·=·= ~ ·=·~ ~ -~~ ~· =·~ = = = = =·~~~= = = = =~ ···--· 3,000 ---------------------------------x-. -Outr.lhAnnu • X 2.ooo f---:. ~-·-...., L-----x~~~.: ~--::. "'=' ..... ~ x.-.---~x ··~---~---.---~---.---~---.----------~--J 1Sit.O IQ32 Hl44 I V88 19M 1Q90 1992 1094 1904 1008 2000 -MonlereyDffle(N,oiEx 84.) -o •Wood~le AVGI\U8, (S. ot E•. Bd. Year • • •W. 331h Slre~t. (S. ot Ell Bd,) -x •oven11n Avtnu•. (S. ol Ex.. Bd..) Historical Traffic Volumes on France Av enue 11 ,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 !1,000 ---------------------------------- 5,000 -~-----~~~~-~-~-~-~-~-~~ t 990 1V91 1992 1093 1G94 1995 1Ue HIIJ7 19S11J 19t9 2000 Ye ar !~Fr1 nc• Avt nue (S.or Exef lllorSI'Vd.!l URSIBR W Inc. -ES -4 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 12 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Documenting th e hi stori cal traffic volumes for th e primary roadways throu ghout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridorprovides a foundation of the service eac h roadway lends in the regional system. This information gives useful insight into hi s tori cal bac kground traffic grow th , provides g uid elines for forecasting future traffi c levels, and is al so a major com p o nent in classifying the function of a roadway. Roadway Functional Classification The roadway functional cla ssifi cation was defined for eac h of the primary roadways wi thin the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. A summary of these roadways is provided below. Directional Functional Jurisdictional Roadway Orientation Classification Classification TH 100 North-South Principal Arterial MN/DOT Excelsio r Boulevard (CSAH 3} East-West Minor Arteri al "A" Augmenter Hennep in Cou nty France Avenue (CSAH 17} North-South Minor Arte ri al "A" Reliever Hennepin Cou nty Monterey Drive North-South Minor Arteria l "B" City of St. Louis Park Wooddale Avenue North-South Collector (Major) City of St. Louis Park Park Center Boulevard North-South Co ll ector (Majo r) City of St. Lou is Park W. 36111 Street East-West Collector (Major} City of St. Louis Park W. 38 111 Street East-West Collector (Minor) City of St. Louis Park ~!=~~~~._.;,t'l!~~~g;~~'"-~~~&'-'"'£>SS~~~ So urce: City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000·2020 An understanding of the functional cJassification of the roadways within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor provides insight into the level of traffic they were design e d fo r and were expected to carry. Equally important, the roadway functi onal classification se ts guidelines , and set limits to th e types of ro adway improveme nt or mitigation measu res that ca n be imple mented. The nex t section discusses previous studies that were conducted within th e Excel sior Boulevard Corridor and Co rridor r oa dway improvement measures tha t were recommended. Previous Traffic Studies Over the past 15 to 20 years several r eports and traffic studies h ave been conducted for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor, ranging from environmental studies to signa l studies. The geographical focus of th e studies have been on the area of land generally lo cated north of Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and Monterey Drive, g ene rally referred to as th e Park Commons area. This area has been the focus of different development proposals including, St. Louis Center, Tower Place, the Park Commons East and Park Commons West proj ects. Each of th ese projects differs from one another in s pecific c haracteristics and magnitude, however a common theme is to develop the area into a multi-u se d evelopment including retail , office and residential land us e. As time has progressed smaller scale d evelopment has occurred within the Corridor, however, the area has not yet developed to the magnitude proposed in several developments including, Park Commons East and Park Commons W est. In consistency in Traffic Analyses Of the studies that were re viewed , mos t were technically sound in th eir analysis. One report contained calculation errors which directly impacte d the analysis, and h ence the conclusions. In the Park Commons Phase I Study conducte d in 1998 by the Parson's Transportation Group, th e calculation of trips gen erated by the proposed development was incorrect. This error r es ulted in underestimating the amount of trip s generated by the development, which in tum resulte d in a flawed analysis of th e roa dway system . This was later correc te d in their 1999 analysis. URSIBRW Inc.-ES-5 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 13 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Recent Traffic Analyses Of primary interest, as they have implications, are th e Park Commons West Feasibility Study and Park Commons East Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by SRF Consulting Group and Parsons Transportation Group, respectively. These studies are the most recent and provide useful information regarding the circulation of traffic throughout the proposed Park Commons Wes t development and necessary roadway improvement measures needed to accommodate the intensity of these developments. The recommendations adopted by the City of St. Louis Park and included in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study include:1 • Construction of a "north-south" collector roadway linking W. 361h Street at Park Center Boulevard with Excelsior Boulevard at Quentin A venue. • Construction of new "east-west" local st reet connection that would extend from Quentin A venue at W. 38 1h-39 111 Street to Park Center Boulevard. This impro ves and assists in internal vehicle circulation among the dev elopment parcels, without access to Excelsior Bouleva rd. • Improve access to TH 100 from Excelsior Boulevard by the conversion of Park Center Boulevard to a one-way n orthbound roadway. Park Center Boulevard s tarts as a northbound one-way at Excelsior Boulevard and becomes a two-way street at W. 38 111 -39lh Street. Implementation of these roadway improvement measures assumed in this study is sc heduled between the Year 2005 and 2010 horizons. The two studies reviewed in thi s section were chosen for inclusion into the report as they represent the most comprehensive, up to date traffic analyses within the Corridor area. However, the level of detail contained in the reports is not sufficient to determine th e impact on the surrounding n e ighborhoods. This study, the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic study, goes beyond these studies by analyzing the impact using more sophisticated techniques such as the determination of "op e rational level of service," and by identifying traffic on the s urrounding area, not just adjacent intersections and roadways. Provided in the n ext section is an assessment of traffic within the nei g hborho od s comprising the Corridor. In this assessment, existing traffic issues are addressed through the identification of neighborhood level mitigation measures. Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic In order to address the neighborhood residents concerns regarding c ut-through traffic a license plate trace survey was completed. The license plate trace was used to detennine the travel demand between France Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard and quantify th e amount of vehicles cutting through. Ten recording stations located within the Minikahda Vista and Browndale neighborhood s were set-up, and vehicle license plates were recorded. Shown in the table below, is a summary of the results found during the license plate trace survey, conducted in th e fall of 2000. 1 Park Commons \Vest Feasibility Sllldy, Prepared by SRF Consulting Group in 1999 for the C ity of St. Louis Park. R :\46018\R.q::ut July 200J'E.lcelsior_Fi.n li_Rcport_ES.doc URS/BRW In c. -ES-6 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 14 Travel Ro ute Oabt Collection loc atio n 1 W. 38~ Street Excelsior Boulevard QuenHn Ave nue Excelsior Boulovatd Oat. Collection location 2 Fra noa Av enue N o~h of W . 44~ Slreol Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study Travel Oirution No. Cut- through Vehic1es St. Louis Park, Minnesota Total Ve hicles Counted • Percent of Total Approx. Travel Oi$lanee (Blocks ) Northbound 0 32 0 .0% 7 Southbound t 19 0 .8% 7 1 Total veh&cl • courted during the p.1n. puh hour orign 4 dtsl/nal;on ~urve·y, conducted betN~n 5:00 and e :oo p.m. The re sults found that W . 38th Street had the greatest amount of cut-through vehicles during the p .m . peak hour. The other roadways within the neighborhoods, i.e. Quentin Avenue, Natchez Avenue, Kipling Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, e tc. were found serving primarily neighborhood and immediate local traffic. To e xpound on this finding, th e s tudy distance for both the roadwa ys of Kipling Avenue and Natchez Avenue, for example, was only two-blocks. It is initially expected th a t all vehicles recorded would be considered cut-through traffic, but the results found less than 33 percent of the total traffic volume on Kipling A venue and less than 20 percent of the total traffic volume on Natchez A venue traveled more than a two block distance. Further analysis found the interaction between Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive -W . 38th Street and Kipling Avenue to the south of W . 38th Street, to verify Kipling A venue a s serving a local road function. Kipling A venue is one of five roadways inters ecting W . 38 1 h Street between Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue, and as expected, it attracted about one -fifth of the vehicl e s found to not cut-through along W . 38 1h Street. These are vehicles filtering through the lo cal roadways, to homes within the Minikahda Vi s ta and Browndale neighborhoods. Each of the parallel local roadways including Joppa Avenue and Inglewood Ave nue, serve the same function as they all were found carrying less than 600 vehicles per day, a very typical daily traffic volume for a local neighborhood roadway. Potential Traffic Calming Measures Recognizing that the current levels of traffic and the neighborhoods perception of future levels related to the development of the Park Commons East and Park Commons West sites are still of concern, alternative traffic calming measures were discussed that may help in alleviating or redirecting the potential cut-through vehicles . The measures include: 1. Chokers 2. Traffic circ1es 3 . Raised tables 4 . Partial roadway clos ure An additional m easure discus sed, spec ifically for W. 38th Street, included the provision of parking on one side of the street. However, in order to maintain the roadways MSA route designation, the existing roadway cross-section would have to be widened by two fee t to meet MN/DOT requirements. For each of the primary roadways throughout the Minikahda Vi sta and Browndale neighborhoods , Avera ge Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume thresholds were defined that suggests when an increased change in traffic from the normal may be perceived. When this threshold is reached, each of the R:\4601 Mcport J\Liy 2001\fucdsiOf_fi.n ai .... Rqxnt_ES .doc URSIBRW In c.-ES-7 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 15 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota measures would be analyzed in detail to determine effectiveness, corridor implications of implementing, if and how beneficial and whether the increased traffic is actually regional cut-through traffic or neighborhood related traffic. It is important to note that the AADT volume thresholds are defined under normal traffic conditions and shouldn 't be applicable for temporary increases in traffic due to roadway constmction projects , as these conditions are temporary and typically change traffic patterns. It is beneficial for the City of St. Louis Park to have a set of guidelines to follow in addres sing potential future growth in neighborhood traffic levels and to have a toolbox of possible mitigation measures that may help calm traffic. The next section discusses the primary concern of the impact the proposed development scenarios may have on the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor roadway network. Mobility and Congestion A neighborhood level traffic impact analysis was completed for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor, which defined the traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as to thirteen key intersections throughout the Corridor. The traffic impact analysis consisted of: • Data Collection • Generating vehicle trips based on land use • Assigning forecasted traffic volumes • Performing a traf1ic operations analysis • Developing and analyzing mitigation measures for any defined deficiency in the roadway network. Intersections Studied Key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor included in this study were selected based on the potential level of future project related impacts. With consideration taken to previous studies conducted, resident input, and meetings between the City of St. Louis Park and URS I BRW, Inc. the following thirteen intersections were selected for analysis: • Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 East Ramp-Park Center Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive-W. 38th Street • Monterey Drive I W. 38th-391h Street • Monterey Drive I Rec. Center Entrance -W. 36 V2 Street • Excelsior Boulevard I Inglewood A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Huntington A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Glenhurst A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue • France Avenue I W. 38th Street Data Collection At each of the key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor existing condition information was collected. This included the intersection lane geometries, traffic ·cont rol, and intersection tum movement traffic volume counts taken during the a.m . and p.m. peak periods. In addition , daily traffic volumes were collected for each of the primary roadways with the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. URSIBRW Inc. -ES-8 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 16 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Current signal timing, operations and phasing information was obtained from the Hennepin County Highway Department for each of the signalized intersections within the study a rea. Trip Generation Future trips generated by the proposed land use scenarios were estimated u sing the Trip Generation Manual, 6'" Edition , published by the In stitute of Transportation Engineers . The following is a summary of the total new trips being added to the surrounding Excelsior Boulevard Corridor roadway network. Trip Assignment Total New Trips by Development Phase 1 Phase 1: (Year 2005) Park Commons East and Al 's Bar Site Time Period Entering AM Peak Hour 209 PM Peak Hour 373 Daily 3,862 Exiting 246 393 3,862 Total New Vehicle Trips 2 455 766 7,724 Phase II : (Year 2010) Park Commons West -Partial Bui ld-Out Time Period Entering AM Peak Hour 376 PM Peak Hour 284 Daily 4,852 Exiting 134 587 4,852 Total New Vehicle Trips 3 511 871 9,704 Phase Ill : (Year 2015) Park Commons West-Full Build-Out Time Period Entering Exiting Total New Vehicle Trips 3 AM Peak Hour 689 198 887 PM Peak Hour 453 979 1,433 Daily 7,506 7,506 15,011 1 7,724 re Pfesents the total naw daUy tt.palof Phasela~ne , 9,704 repJe sents lhe total new da1ly llipslor Phase II alone, and 15,011 represonls the total new dairy trips lor Phase Ill aJona. Thereloro, lhe lolaJ amount of new trips Is 32,439. 2 The lol aJ wtrlcle trips shown were recl.lcad 1o acoount lor existing IBJld uses and captured trips. 3 The lolaJ vehicle trips shown ware retlJc ed lo acoount Jor exi sting land uses A directional orientation and regional trip distribution was derived using the Henn e pin County Travel Demand Model. The percentages obtained from this model were fine-tuned with respect to historical traffic trends and results obtained from the origin-destination survey. The total new vehicle trips shown above were assigned to the key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard C orridor roadway network, based upon the derived directional di s tribution for each of the three development scenarios. Adding the distributed vehicle trips generated by the developments to the existing background traffic , resulted in forecast Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 volumes. Traffi c Operations Analysis To determine the mobility and congestion throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor a traffic operations analysis was conducted. The Corridor was modeled using the simulatio n software package SimTraffic. SimTraffic is a microsco pic analysis program that produces very de tailed results relating to vehicle delay and system operation. Furthermore, SimTraffic m odels vehicle driver behavior and detailed interaction of closely spaced signalized intersections within a sys tem. The following is a R:\.16011\Rc:port July '2001\EJ.eclsior_Fin:aLRc:pon_ES.doe URSIBRW In c . -ES-9 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 17 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota snapshot from the SimTraffic model, showing the geographical extents of the Corridor and the respective locations of the proposed developments analyzed in this study. Geographic Extent of SimTraffic Network and Approximate Development Scenario Locations ,l/'s Bar Site: 2005 I ~~I The existing conditions were modeled to create a baseline for comparing the future developments. An analysis was performed for each development land use scenario and deficiencies within the Corridor were defined. From these deficiencies, mitigation measures were analyzed to accommodate the increased level of traffic . Year 2005-Phase I Traffi c Operations Analysis The Year 2005 or Phase I analysis includes the Park Commons East and Al's Bar sites. The base model used the existing Year 2000 lane geometry, traffic control and signal timing parameters with the forecast Year 2005 volumes. It is important to note that the City of St. Louis Park is currently preparing plans to widen the Excelsior Boulevard Bridge crossing TH 100, however, the lane geometric improvements this would provide are not considered in this analysis. The following summarizes the deficiencies and proposed mitigation measures for Year 2005. Only the p.m. peak hour is summarized as this encompasses all the measures necessary for the transportation network. R:\46018\Rcport July 2001\Execlslor_Fin3l_Report_ES.doc URSIBRW In c.-ES -10 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 18 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study Year 2005: Phase I Developments location 1. Excelalor Boulevard I Notchez Avenue lnte rse cllon 2. Excelsior Boule vard 1 Monterey D1lve Intersection 3, Monterey Drive north ot I he W. 38th/391h Street and Monterey Drive Intersection. 4. Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 West Ramp- Xanwood Avenue through Monte rOy Drive • W. 38th Street Deficiency Dllllcuny In accessing developmen t (vehicles) and crossing Excelsior Boulevard (pedestrians and bicycles) Vehicles queue lengths will extend beyond theW. 38th/39th Street lntersedlon a!lecttng access, mob! lily, and safety. Also, the current operallon of lhls lnteJSectkm Is lnefllclent at processing lell-lurnlng vehicles !rom Monterey Drive onlo eastbound Excelsior Boulevard. This may contribute lo lhe level ol through-lraJtlc on W. 3Bih Street as travelers choose to alter their path to •make I he Ughl." Need conllnully wnh Excelsior Bdl Monterey Dflve lnleJSecllon lane geomelry. Also. there Is poor slght·dlstance for vehicles exiling from thts lnlersedlon. Poor progression of vehicles eastbound and and westbound through the Corr1dor. St. Louis Park, Minnesota Mitigation/Correction Measures 1. Slgnallzelnlersecllon and add an exdustva lell·lum lane With 100 feet of stomge en the north approach. The signal phasing for Natchez Ave would be pennltled. 2. Establish cross-wall< Modify lane geometry on nor1h approach to provide duallell·lurn Janes, 1 through-lane. and 1 right-tum lane. This allows lor sulllclent slacking distance wllhoullmpacllng !heW. 381h -391h Slreeland Monterey Drive Intersection located to lhe north. The fell most lefHum lane wou ld be approximately a 150 loot storage bay,the olher leiHum lane and th e through lane would extend lhe lull length ol roadway and !he right- turn lane would by approximately 160 teal. Remove on·slreel parking from W. 361/2 Street to to Excelsior Bouleva rd. The section bel ween W. 36 112 Slreeland 3Bih -391h Slreel would be converted to a four-lane cross-section. Add Excelsior Boulevard at Natchez Avenue and Monterey Drive -w. 381h Slreel to lhe coordlnaled sysrem . Implement and develop actuated-coordinated signal llmlng plans. The liming plans should be optimized allowing leading and lagging tell-turn operation. france Avenue should be Sell uncoordinated, as n Is not bene11clal to coordinate lhls fnlersec1Jon. Implementing the mitigation measures shown for the Year 2005 would provide for an efficient transportation network, meeting the needs of the neighborhood residents, the proposed developments and the City of St. Louis Park. Year 2010 -Phase II Traffic Operations Analysis The Year 2010 or Phase II analysis includes a partial re-development or expansion of the Park Commons West site and also includes the Phase I developme nts. The base model used the lane geometry and traffic control suggested to mitigate the Year 2005 scenario and the improved lane geometries provided by the widened Excelsior Boulevard Bridge crossing TH 100. The signal timing operations were optimized with the forecast Year 2010 volumes. The following summarizes the deficiencies and proposed mitigation measures for Year 2010. Only the p.m. peak hour is summarized as this encompasses all the measures necessary for the transportation network. Year 2010 : Phase II Developments location 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Franc e Avenue Deficiency Poor operaUon altha soul h approach \ell-turn and easl apptoach leiHurn creating long queue lengths. The overall eftlclency of the Intersection ls groalty decreased rrom exlsllng cond~lons. Mitigation/Correction Measures Add an addlllonallelt·tum lane to the sou th approach. The soulh app roach would conslst ol 1 exclusive lelt·tum lane, 1 shared lhrough /lell-lurn lane and t exclusive rlghl-lum lane. Thls decreases I he amount ol green lime needed to seJVfce the south approach. thu s provkflng more lor I he Excel sJor Boulevard movements. Implementing the mitigation measure shown for the Year 2010 would provide for adequate operations of the Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue intersection that may provide additional benefit to the Minikahda Vista neighborhood by deterring potential future neighborhood cut-through vehicles. Right- of-way acquisition would be required on the southwest comer to implement this improvement. It should be noted that the improvement required at this intersection is not completely driven by the developments. Historical traffic growth along Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue suggests that this intersection would likel y be congested by th e Year 2010 whether the proposed developments are built or not. Year 2015-Phase III Traffic Operations Analysis The Year 2015 or Phase ill analysis includes a complete build-out of the Park Commons We st site and also includes the Phase II and Phase I developments. T he base model used the lane geometry and traffic control suggested to mitigate the Year 2010 scenario. The signal timing operation s were optimized with the forecast Year 2015 volumes . The following su mm arizes the deficiencies and proposed mitigation R:"-60lK:\R epor1 J~ty WOI \E.xcd slor_Flnal_Rc ~rt-ES .doc URSIBRW In c.-ES-11 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 19 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota meas ures f or Year 2015 . Onl y the p.m. peak hour is summa ri zed as thi s encompasses all the m easures necessary for the transportation ne twork. Year 2015: Phase Ill Developments Location 1. Excelsior Boul evard Corridor Deficiency Transpo rtaUon networ k Is unabloto handle the e><Pecled levels oltralllc. Issues conce rn lacllftatln g I he e><Pecled high volume ol outbound lralllc lhal lhe Park Commons Wesl development generates coopted wlh the already high volume ollnbound associa ted tralllc and background l ratllc. Miti gation/Correction Measure s Allarna11 va 1: Ad d a clovel1e al exll rarJl> and a westbound Exce lsior Boulevard en trance ramp on lhe north side ol Excelsku Bou levard. Tho tralllc signal would be removed. Alternative ~: construct a new TH t oo brldge crossing that would connect 391h Stroot with Wooddala on lhe west skJo of TH 100. A ctoverteal exit ramp would be conslruded to access ~~==~======~~~.--~~~== 2. Exce telor Boulevard I Pa rk Ce nter Bouleva rd West approach through movemenl e)q)erlences a long ~nd TH100 . AJ terna tlve 1: delay. Tho queue lengths lor I his movomonl oldonds Into lha Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 West Ramp. Xenwood Avenue lntersecllon. The Impact of the queue to the Wes t Ramp Int ersection creales a long west approach th rough movemen l dolay all hat lnterSecllon . 1. Remove bicycle lana and construct a thltd lana on the west approach . Thls apptoach would contain 2leh·turn lanes and 3 through lanes. 2. Recons truct the east approach to accom modalo 3 through lanes and 1 rlghl ·lurn lane. The right most rtghl·lum lane W()Uid be e>r1anded by 200 teet. The Inner rlghHu rn lane currently e>r1ends 10 wHhln 50 teet ol Pillk Nicollet Blvd, this lane would be e>r1ended the lull length ol roadWay and converted to a through lane. 3. Tho soulh approach would be programmed to operate as a groan r1ghHum arrow slmullaneously wllh I he west approa ch lell·lum and would operate as a green ball whh 1he sou th approach through and leh·tum movements. Allornallvo 2 : 1. Same as under Allernatfve 1 ~xcel a locr:Bo~u~le=v=a~rd~/~W~o=o=d~d~a?le~A~v=•=nu=e====~=====E M~I -app==ro=a=c~h~lh~ro=u=g~h =m=o~vo=m=e=n~l sKe=~=e~rl~en=c~e-a~v=e=~~~~~AI~te~r;n;al;lv;o~1~:~~&~~~--~==~w==a~•*f~~~~~~~ 4. Excelsior Boul evard I Pari< Nicoll et Boulevard s. Excelsior Boulevard I Que nUn Avenue high delay. Vehicles are not being cleared throughou t 1. Convert the south approach to a rtghHn and rtghl·eul only th e p.m. peak perlod creallng a con ll nually building access. The center med ian would connec ted lo prohib it fe i1·1Um queue that extends to lha France Avenue lntersadkm moveme nts. wn h Exce lsior Boulovaid, In additlon,1ha south approach 2. Tho east approach would be conslslon1 w•h tho oMt approach lelt·lurn movement operates at a very poor l OS F duo at Excelsior Boulevard and Park Cen1er Boule vard. to tho minimal amount olllmo avaUable tor this approach. 3. Tho west approach W()Uid consist ol 2 through lanes and 1 shared through I rlghl·turn lane. East approach through movements experklnce a vary high delay. Vehicles are no1 baing doared throughout lha p.m. peak period creating a con ti nually buQdlng queue lhal extends to I he France Avenue lnlersecllon wit h Excelsior Boulevard. In addhk>n , lhe south and nor1h approach tum movements oparate,poorty. East approach th rough movements experience a very high d elay. Ve hicles are not baing cleared throughout the p.m. peak pertod creallng a continually building queue that extends to the france Avenue lntersec:tlon wfth Excelsior Boulevard. In addklon, the south and nonh appro ach tum movements operate poor1y. The nort h approach queues axte nd beyond I he 36t h ·39th Stree t lnlorsedlon. Al lernallva 2: 1. Same as under Allernallolo 1 ;; c All ern alive 1: 1. The nol1h approach woukl be reconst ructed lor 2 rlghHurn lanes, 1 through lane and 1 oxcluslveleii·IUrn lana. = 2. Tho signal phasing on Pari< Nicollet Boulevard would be changad oxclustve/permnted phasing. l e11·tu rns opcmta under a green arrow for a designated lime I hen are allowed to operate under a green ball. 3. The east approach would be constructed lo consist of 1 exdustvelell·lum lane, 2 through lanes and 1 shared through I rtghi·IUrn lana. 4. Tho west approach would remain Wit h 2 oxcluslolelell·lurn lane, 2 through Ionas and 1 shared through I rlghHum lana. AllOrna llve 2: 1. Same as under Allernallole 1, wnh only exception being lha north approach geome1~. Tho lana use would be ro ·asslgned for 1 excfUslve righl·turn lane, 1 through lane and 1 exclusive lell·tum lana. Al ;:;;.all va 1: = W 1. The north approach would be reconslruded lor I rlgh1·tum lane, 1 1hrough lana and 1 exr:luslola leiH um lane. Tha lell·lum and through lane would extend lheluft length ol roadWay. The rtghHurn lane would hava 160 leel ol storage. 2. Tha signa l phasing on Quentin Avenue would ba changed to exdustvo I permllled phasing. l efl-turns operate under a greon arrow for a des~a1ed li me then are allowed 10 operata under a green baN. 3. The west approach W()Uid be reoonstruclod to accommodate 21elt ·lum lanes, 21hrough lanes and 1 exclusive r~hl·lurn lane. Tho rtghl·lurn lane would oxtand the lull length ol roadway esls existing. Allornallva 2: 1. Same as under Allernallva 1 = The d e fi ciencies fo und under th e Phase ill d evelopment required maj o r mitiga ti on measure a lternati ves. F or th e Exc el sior Boule va rd Corrid or Traffic S tudy , only two general alternati ves were an alyzed. These included : 1. A clo verleaf on th e north s ide of E xcelsior Bo ul evard a t E xcelsi or Bou levard I TH 100 West Ramp . 2. Constru c ti on of a new TH 100 bri dge c r ossing that would co nn ec t W . 39th Street w ith W oo ddale A venue o n the w est side of TH 10 0. R:\46018\R.cpon July1001\6sc.clslocFinJII_Rcpon _ES .doc· URSIB R W I nc.-ES-1 2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 20 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Other mitigation measures including geometric improvements and signal phasing changes were still needed under each of the two alternatives. Implementing either one of these mitigation measures will provide for an efficient transportation roadway network. However, the feasibility and the cost associated with mitigation measures of this magnitude, primarily the significant right-of-way acquisition needed and other complications will no doubt go under further review. Recommended Transportation Plan The main intent of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study was to address the present concerns of the neighborhood residents with consideration to the entire geographical extent of the Corridor. Open houses and public meetings were held during the course of the study to collect input, hear issues, and answer questions voiced by the residents; and to allow the City of St. Louis Park and URS I BRW to reciprocate with preliminary findings . The following sections present general guidelines and recommendations for the City of St. Louis Park that are intended to be sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood residents and are intended to provide an efficient transportation network into the future . Neighborhood Traffic Issues Within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor there are several roadway segments that have been identified by residents as being too heavily traveled. The following four traffic calming measures are recommended as potential solutions to alter or redirect potential neighborhood cut-through vehicles, which include: 1. Chokers 2. Speed Table 3. Traffic Circle 4 . Half-Closure Complicating any mitigation of these roadways through physical changes is the fact that some are Municipal State Aid (MSA) routes and th erefore must adhere to strict design guidelines. Another potential measure would be the provision of parking on one side of the s treet, specifically for W. 381h Street. However, this would require reconstruction of the roadway to accommodate a two-foot wider cross-section, in order to maintain the MSA route designation. Design considerations for Non-MSA roadways are not as stringent and therefore more traffic calming options are available. The following table suggests traffic levels when the City of St. Louis Park should consider a potential mitigation measure for MSA designated routes. R:\1 6018\Rcpcn1 July2001\Excdsior_Final_Rcport_ES .doc URSIBRW In c.-ES-13 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 21 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota MSA Designated Routes Implementation Guidelines MSA De signate d RoUie s 1. Wooddalo Avenue (between 42nd 1/2 Daily Traffi c (2000) Traffic Capacity' lfTraffi c Exeeeds:2 Pote ntial Measure: II Traffic Exceed s:2 Potential Measure: S~oet and W. 44"' S ~eel) 4,500 10,000. 30,000 5,500 1. Choker 7,500 Measures 2·3 3 evw s; & e •·a ?i~6 SWi¥ true§C5BSU?'i£i'K ""ddfM5JIM·S?S'5·::Jr.a:2&MU5.M&tit!VW ,.. ... *WS"RfMUOi"!¥%·-?-XSert:.*eN.:m·•S m .... l·"i+fi'illi!':'&&S· p e 'W'a&.ua&. ,. .... ?.y:s ...... 2 . W. 38"' Sbool (between Excelsior ~Jey~J!~J~~e;.r.;;zu,;;jel,"'""'*'"'""' """"""'"'""""""""""'""""""'k-,~·5i.!00:&.., ..... ..,"""..,;;8...y:,;;;·500o;,,._,.::,·.,.1,..0;;;,000;,;;;.,..,."""'""""".,;5o;;;fX'JO;,.;m,.' =··"'' -=; .. ,..,. .. w;.;1,.;DC:;oho;;,;k;;:•;.,r ... .,.,"..,.""""",J.;,;·,~~m,.-"'·"'m=zi!"':D~;;;;a;;;suii;iriiiesioi2Z,·4-. . ..,' = 3. Ouenlin Avonuo (between Excelsior rso Boulevar~~Y!WJel_..,46ciiMmra~-r ·M¥fl'\!;500 ·)212L.,...,.,. .. .,,1m<>2L.r .•""*'*""~""""""""t~_.,.'*"""'':1:;~s!';,~ 1 Transportation Research Board (TAB), 1994 Highway Capacily Manua l, Cily o l St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan, 1g99. 2 This is th e approximate minimum traffic volume that a c hange fro m the cunenlle vel may be perceived. " Roadway would lose ils MSA designation and associaled S la le lunding wilh lhe implementation ollhese mea sures . • II may be advantageous lor lhe Cily ol St. Louis Park and allecled residenls lo initiale dialogue regardinglraffic on W. J61h S treel prior lo reaching this llvesh old. Source: URS /BRW Inc. The following table suggests traffic levels when th e City of St. Louis P ark s hould consider a potential mitigati on measure for Non-MSA des ignated ro utes. Non-MSA Designated Routes Implementation Guidelines Non-MSA Oeslgl'la1t d Routes 1. N1tchtl Avenut (be!ween Excebior Dally Trntflc (2000) Treltlc Capacity' ttTmllc Exneds:' PoContl a l Mus ore: lf TraHic bc:eeds! P ot~nlla l Moesure: 2. Speed Table I H Trafti c Exc:oods:' Po1onlia1 Measure: BoulevaJd and W. 4d" Str~) 1,200 < 5,000 3,000 r.eiiOI.5SIWWi:~:aLmmr~iSJJ.F.1Ji3Git3Uma&J&ItaiLL:lJlaZJCb 2. W. 40th Street (txltween QugnHn 1. Ch~:. .. &i!imiub~~3. Traffic Cilcle mwiiii?£20Wh~~~'1aa 2. Speed Table/ JVtnueandJ=~ .... mm~• <51'2l~ h1 ~~~m:ams~~==:-~T.i 3. Kipling AvenUe(bQtwliX'!fl Excelsior 2. Spood Tabla I Boolevatd andW. 391" Slreet) -400 < 5,000 1,000 1. ctde• 2,500 3. Traffic CUcle 5,000 4. H aii-Ciosute Di!SU:wJIODWm 'Y&mr:-;"A;Df-...s---~arsa::iltb.mw::ti&ic:wurmrms •~a"' e ~~tii"""*'lP' :r n:a.mrm.: • .._o:x: 4. Joppa Avon ut (between Excelsior Boo!evardand W .~ t.OOO 1. Choker 2. Speed Table/ 2. Speed Table / 4 5,000 4. Han-Closure u:::mmx;m rm~j 6. Woodda l• Av•nue (bo1ween Excelsior 2. Speed Table, I a ~evardand42J:U~~~-~~....,JO.OOO 1. Choke. a:u:ov~~G!Si3,j~~.rmmmriWJ1LJZIQ"W2Wnn 1 Trtw1spot1alion Aosoorch Boald (TAB), 1994 Highway Capacily Manual, City o4 St. Louis Park Ccmprehenslve Plan, 19911. ' This is lhe appoximale mmimum ttafic votume thai a change 11om the cuuent kwel may be perceived. , Roadway wouSd tose ts MSA designation and associated Stale funding With the implemQntation ol theu measUJes. Source: Cilyo4 Sl. Louis Park Ccmprehensive Plan, 1099 and UAS/BRW Inc. The traffic volume thresholds shown in the above MSA and Non-MSA route t ables serve onl y as a guideline for the City of St. Louis Park to follow when addressing the concern of increasing neighborhood traffic. As the thresholds are met, prior to implementi ng any of th e traffic calming measures discussed above, with exception to a choker, the following is recommended: • Conducting another origin-destination study should be considered to determine the actual level of cut-through traffic being experienced at that time. This is important as implementing a traffic ca lming measure like a traffic circle or half-closure for l ow levels of cut-through traffic would only relocate the problem to other streets within the neighborhood. The problem is not being so lved. • • A detailed analysis sh ould be c onducted to determine the most be neficial measure . Neighborhood input should be received prior to implementing any possible traffic calming measures. As with many traffic calming measures, the implementation could have ripple effects that negatively impact nearby n eighbors. Furthermore, the AADT threshold levels noted in the above tables should only apply for MSA and Non- MSA designated routes under normal transportation conditions . For instance, roadway construction R:\46011\Rcport July 2001\Excelslor_Flnl.l~tporU3S.doc. URS/BRW In c.-ES-14 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 22 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota along Excelsior Boulevard or other major roadway closures (i.e., TH 62 reconstruction) that typically alter traffic patterns should not apply, as these conditions are usually temporary and it may be expected that traffic would divert onto other roadways. A s an example, W. 38th Street increased from an ADT of 4,500 to an ADT of 6,000 during 1993. At that time, Inters tate 394 was unde r re-construction and the volumes throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor temporarily increased and then returned to normal upon completion of the project. To summarize, the identified traffic-calming measures to mitigate traffic increases on "Non-MSA" and "MSA" roadways with in the Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Corridor were chosen based on their potential to address the issues heard from residents within the Corridor. It will be beneficial to the City of St. Louis Park to have implementation guidelines to identify at what point efforts s hould be made to calm the level of traffic. Mobility I Congestion A primary concern raised by the neighborhood residents was the issue of mobility and congestion throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. Many residents felt traffic l evels would worsen to the point of making it so congested, vehicles wouldn't want to travel along Excelsior Boulevard, encouraging motorists to use local roads and cut-through the neighborhoods. By maintaining, or improving travel along Excelsior Boulevard, the level of cut-through traffic should diminish. The following sections discuss the roadway mitigation measures recommended to accommodate the development scenarios of Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 . Year 2005 The following are the recommended mitigation measures the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County should implement to accommodate the expected levels of traffic the Year 2005 developments will generate. 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue and vehicle progression through the Corridor • Install a traffic control signal at the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and Natchez Avenue. The eastbound and westbound left turns will operate exclusive only, right-of- way indicated by a left-tum green arrow. The northbound and southbound movements will operate permitted, meaning a simultaneous green ball for both directions, where left turning vehicles yiel.d the right-of-way. • Construct the Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue north approach to consist of two approach lanes, one exclu si ve left-tum bay with approximately 100 feet of storage and one shared through/right-tum lane. • Development and implementation of actuated-coordinated timing plans on Excelsior Boulevard that would extend from the coordinated system that currently begins at TH 100 West Ramp -Xenwood Avenue and ends at Quentin Avenue t o include the signals through the Monterey Drive-W. 38 111 Street intersection. The coordinated timing plans should be optimized us ing leading and lagging left-tum operation to improve progression through the Corridor. In the traffic operations analysis, it was found that extending the coordinated system to the Excelsior Boulevard at France A venue intersection would not prove beneficial, so it should remain uncoordinated. R:~l I IR<por1 July 2001\EA<:<blor_Fm.IJlepart_ES.doe URS/BRW In c.-ES-15 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 23 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2. Monterey Drive I W. 381h-391h Street • Reconstruct the Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive -W. 38th Street north approach to include two left-tum lanes, one through lane, and one right-tum lane with at least 160 feet of storage for the left most left-tum lane and the right-tum lane. The other left-tum lane and the through lane would extend the full length of roadway to the W. 38th -39th Street intersection with Monterey Drive. • The intersection of Monterey Drive I W. 38th -39th Street would include one through lane and one through/right-tum lane on the north approach, one through lane and one exclusive left-tum lane with 50 feet of storage on the south approach. • Eliminate on-street parking for the section of Monterey Drive between W. 36 Y2 Street- Recreation Center Entrance and W . 38th -39th Street to accommodate a 4-lane cross- section. The southbound direction should provide continuity with the north approach of Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive -W. 38u1 Street, such that the left travel lane would tum into a left-tum only lane and the right travel lane would tum into a through lane. The northbound direction could be reduced to one travel lane, if the existing roadway right-of-way doesn 't provide for enough room. The result of implementing these intersection lane geometries and traffic signal improvements will provide an efficient level of traffic operations throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. The benefits of providing a traffic signal at the Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue intersection include: 1. Safe protected pedestrian crossing for access to the Park Commons East development, Wolfe Park and the recreation center without having to go to Quentin Avenue or Monterey Drive -W. 38th Street. 2. Exclusive left-tum green arrows on the east and west approaches at this intersection may deter potential cut-through traffic from using Natchez Avenue to the south of Excelsior Boulevard, as a longe r delay is expected for this type of control versus an unsignalized intersection. 3. Improved delay for the Natchez A venue north approach left-tum onto Excelsior Boulevard. 4. Access to the transit system at the Park Commons East development, Town Green. Providing dual left-turn lanes and an exclu sive right-turn lane to the north approach at the Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive-W. 38th Street intersection makes this approach operate more efficiently. The benefit provides possible reduction in cut-through traffic , as the north approach left-tum movement is much more efficient. This would also reduce stacking distances, which may impact the operation of theW. 38th-39th Street intersection. Removing on-street parking along Monterey Drive provides improved site distance and improved access at the Monterey Drive I W . 38th-39th Street intersection. Year 2010 The following is the recom mended mitigation mea sure the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County should consider implementing to accommodate the Year 2010 forecasted levels of background traffic and development related traffic. R:\46018\R.cport July200t \fucebior_Fini1 _Report_ES.doc URSIB RW In c.-ES-16 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 24 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 1. Excelsior Boulevard I France Avenue • Add a left-tum lane to the south approach. This approach would be reconstructed to include one exclusive left-tum lane, one shared through I l eft-tum lane and one exclusive right-tum lane. Implementing this intersection lane geometric improvement will facilitate an efficient l evel of traffic operations throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor as well as providing other potential benefits. Provision of an additional left-turn lane on the south approach at Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue provides the following : 1. An efficient south approach left-tum movement onto westbound Excelsior Boulevard. 2. Potential reductions in cut-through traffic, as vehicles may be more apt to make this movement rather than u si ng local or neighborhood roads. Without this improveme nt, this intersection tum movement is expected to operate poorly in the future with or without the proposed developments. Implementing the additional left-tum lane proposed for the south approach at the Excelsior Boulevard I France Avenue intersection may require the following : 1. Multi-agency involvement including the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County. 2. Right-of-way acquisition from the existing gas station property on the southwest comer. 3. Minor redesign of the intersection geometries for the southwest comer. Year 2015 Land-use assumptions for the Year 2015 scenario were very aggressive, meaning a worst case traffic- generating scenario. The traffic operations analysis uncovere d numero us operational deficiencies along Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 West Ramp -Xenwood Avenue and Quentin A venue. Because mitigating the magnitude of the problems will be very costly; the traffic operations analysis was conducted considering two general alternatives. Alternative 1: Alternative 1 consists of constructing a cloverleaf access on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard at Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 West Ramp. The features of this measure include: • Access to TH 100 southbound is converted to a right-tum movement from the previous left-tum movement. • Vehicles destined for westbound Excelsior Boulevard would be brought up an exit ramp on the north side, rather than the south as current. • Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 Wes t Ramp traffic signal would b e rem oved. The additional recommended mitigation measures the City of St. Louis Park and H ennepin County should consider implementing, in addition to the above, includes the following: 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard • Remove the bicycle lane proposed to be constructed in Year 2010, to construct a third lane on the west approach. This approach would have dual left-tum lanes and three through lanes. R:>t60111Rq>0<1July2001\f<cdslor_F.,.t_R<J>Of!_ES .doe URSIBRW In c.-ES-17 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 25 Excelsior Boulevard Co rridor Traffic Study _ St. Louis Park, Minnesota • The eas t approach would be reconstructed to accommodate three throu gh l anes and one right-tum lan e. Currently, there are two right-tom lanes; the right mos t right-tum lane would be extended by 200 feet to allow a total of 400 fe e t of s torage. The inner right- tum currently ex tends back to within 50 feet of Park Nicollet Bouleva rd. This lane would be ex tended the full len gth of roadway to Park Nicollet B oulevard and converted to a through lane. • The south appro ach would remain as existing. The south approach right-tum would be programmed such that it would operate as a green right-tum arrow simultaneously with the west approach left-turn movement a nd would operate as a green ball with the south approach through movement. 2. Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale Avenue • Convert the south leg to a right-in and right-out only access. The center median would be connected to ensure left-tum movements do not oc cur. • The traffic signal would be removed and the south approach would be controlled by a stop sign. •-The west approach would include two through lanes and one s hared through I right-tum lane as existing. • The east approach would b e consistent with the east approach at Park Center Bo uleva rd. 3. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • The north approach would be reconstructed to accommodate dual right-turn lanes, one through lane, and one exclusive l eft -tum lane. Currently, th e re is one exclu sive l eft- tum lan e, one shared through I left-tum lane and one exclusive right-turn lane. • The traffic signal phasing on Park Nicollet Boulevard would be co nverted from permitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tu m phasing. • The east approach would be reconstructed to ad d a third through lane. The lan e geometry would include one exclusive left-tum la ne, two throu gh la nes and one shared through I right-tum lane. The shared through I right-tum l ane would extend th e full l ength of roadway to Quentin A ven ue. • The south approach would remain as exi s ting . • The west approach would be a s exis tin g with dual left-tum lanes , two throu gh l anes and one shared through I right-tum lane. 4. Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • The north approach would be reconstructed to include one exclus ive l eft-tum lane, one through lane and one exclusive right-tum lane. The left-lane and through lane would extend the full l ength of roadway to th e 38th -39°1 Street intersection. The right-tum lane would be constructed with 180 f eet of storage. • The east and south approaches would be unchanged. • The west approach would be reconstructed to include dual left-tum lanes, t wo through l an es and one exclusive right-tum la ne. The right-tum lane would extend th e full length of roadway as the means for termin ating the third through lane coming from the Park Nicollet Boulevard intersection. • The traffic sig nal phasing on Quentin Avenue would be converted from permitted only to exclusive I pennitted l eft-tum phasing. URS/BRW In c.-ES -18 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 26 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Alternative 2: Alternative 2 consists of constructing a new TH 100 bridge crossing that would connect W. 39'h Street with Wood dale A venue on the west side of TH 100. The features of this measure include: • Allows direct access to TH 100 southbound via a cloverleaf ramp tying into an existing entrance lane. Vehicles leaving Park Commons West and destined south on TH 100 wouldn't have to get on Excelsior Boulevard. The additional recommended mitigation measures the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County should consider implementing, in addition to the above, includes the following: 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard • Remove the bicycle lane proposed to be constructed in Year 2010, to construct a third lane on the west approach. This approach would have dual left-tum lanes and three through lanes. • The east .approach would be reconstructed to accommodate three through lanes and one right-tum lane. Currently, there are two right-tum lanes; the right most right-tum lane would be extended by 200 feet to allow a total of 400 feet of storage. The inner right- tum currently extends back to within 50 feet of Park NicoJlet Boulevard. This lane would be extended the full length of roadway to Park Nicollet Boulevard and converted to a through lane. • The south approach would remain as existing. The south approach right-tum would be programmed such that it would operate as a green right-tum arrow simultaneously with the west approach left-tum movement. This would operate as a green ball with the south approach through movement. 2. Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale A venue • Convert the south leg to a right-in and right-out only access. The center median would be connected to ensure left-tum movements do not occur. • The traffic signal would be removed and the south approach would be controlled by a stop sign. • The west approach would include two through lanes and one shared through I right-tum lane as existing. • The east approach would be consistent with the east approach at Park Center Boulevard. 3. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • The north approach lane geometry would be re-assigned to accommodate one exclusive right-tum lane, one through lane, and one exclusive left-tum lane. Currently, there is one exclusive left-tum lane, one shared through /left-tum lane and one exclusive right- tum lane. • The traffic signal phasing on Park Nicollet Boulevard would be converted from permitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tum phasing. • The east approach would be reconstructed to add a third through lane. The Jane geometry would include one exclusive left-tum lane, two through lanes and one shared through I right-tum lane. The shared through I right-tum lane would extend the full length of roadway to Quentin Avenue. • The south approach would remain unchanged. • The west approach would be as existing with dual left-tum lanes, two through lanes and · one shared through I right-tum lane. URSIBRW Inc. -ES-19 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 27 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 4 . Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • The north approac h would b e reconstructed to include one ex clu si ve left-tum lane, one throu gh lane and one exclus ive ri ght-tum l ane . The left-lan e and through l a ne would ex te nd th e full le n gth of roadway to the 381h -391h St intersec tion. The right-tum lane wo uld be constru cted with 180 fe e t of storage. • The east a nd south approaches would be un c hanged . • The west approach wou ld be reconstruct ed to include du al left-tum l anes, two through l anes and one exclusive ri ght-tum lan e. The right-tum lane would ex ten d th e full length of roadway as th e m ean s for terminati n g th e third through l a ne coming fro m th e Park Nicollet Boulevard intersection. • T he traffi c signal phasing on Quentin A venue would be conv e rted from pe rmitted only to exclu sive I pe rm i tted le ft -tum phasi ng. Year 2015 Complications As shown, the recomme nd ed intersection l ane geometries, traffic control, alte rnati ve-access alignments to TH 100 southb o und and signal improve ments necessary for an effici en t tran sportation network is compri sed of m any complica ti on s. 1. Significant ri ght-of-way acquisition which include: • The north and south side of Excels ior Boulevard b etween Pa rk Nicollet Boulevard a nd Qu entin Avenue, to acco mmodate the third lane of trave l and dual l eft-tum l anes on the wes t approach at the Excelsior B ouleva rd I Quentin A venu e intersection . • The entire south s id e of Excelsior Boulevard between Park Center Boulevard and P ark Nicolle t Bou levard , to m ainta in the third eastbound travel l ane. • Portions of the north s ide of Excelsior Boulevard between Park Center B oul evard and P a rk Nico llet Boulevard. Extension of the ex is ting ri ght most right-tum la ne by 200 feet and th e extension of the exi s tin g inner ri g ht-tum lane to extend back to Park N icollet Boulevard. • The north side of Excelsior Boulevard between X en w ood A venue and Park Center Boulevard, to construct tra nsition from three lanes of travel to two.2 • The north approach at Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin A venue to accommoda te an exclu sive right-tum lane. 2. Multi-agency invol vement including the Minnesota D epartment of T ransportation, Hennepin County and th e City of St. Louis P ark. 3 . Will likely require an E n vironm e ntal Impac t Sta teme nt (EIS) process. 4. Com plications involving th e Miracle Mile p a rking lot. 5. Complications with neighborhood res id ents on the west sid e of TH 100 over concern of increased traffic along Wooddale Avenue. 1 Currently lh e westbound direction of Excelsior Boul evard consis ts of two lanes of travel. With t11 e proposed developments for the Y ear 2015, it is necessary to maintain three travel lanes in both th e wes tbound and eas tb ound directions between Xenwood Avenue and Quentin Avenue. The right-of-way acquis ition would be required in order to meet th e geometric lane drop requirements of tcansitioning lh e third travel lane in th e westbo und direction back down to the ex is ting two tra vel lanes , traveling wes t o f 'Xen wood Avenue . This note only appli es if Alternati ve 2 is implemented, as Alternative 1 requires much mo re right-of-way to construct a cl overleaf exit ramp. URSIBRW Inc . -ES-20 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 28 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Other Recommendations Though implementation of either alternative will provide for adequate operations of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor, further investigation is recommended, including: 1. Identification of other potential alternatives. • In conjunction with either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 the City of St. Louis Park should work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to ensure that the W. 36°' Street interchange is redesigned to provide full direct access to TH 100. 2. Re-examination of the amount of re-development or expansion that could occur in the Park Commons West area into the Year 2015. Projected Mobility I Congestion As shown in this chapter, many mitigation measures were recommended to maintain an efficient level of traffic operations along Excelsior Boulevard into the Year 2015, providing the proposed developments are completed. In addressing the concerns of the neighborhood residents, the following charts show a comparison between the overall intersection level of service for existing conditions and each development build scenario. For each of the development build scenarios in the following charts; the level of service shown is with the recommended measures implemented. Signalized Intersections 00 ,----------------------, LO SF oor-------------------~~· 70 "' so LOSD 30 20 10 Exctlsiof8tfdl Ellctbior8~/ Exc.b~rS~d/ Exc.el$iorB~d/ Exc.ebiofBI.td/ Exc.tbiorBW/ ExeotiorBI<tdl PaJkConl118~d WooddaloAvo Pll1cNico&t Ou.othAvo Nak:IHI1Mt MontttoyOr Fran~Avo BW lnler.~.otlon I•Exis~ •vo,.2005 cvo .. 2010 D Year2015(AI. I) •vear201S(Al.. 2)1 RM6018\Rcpon July 2001\Excc lsior_Pln&LRcport_E.S.doc URSIBRW In c.-ES-21 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 29 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Loui s Park, Minnesota Unsignalized Intersections 60 ,---------------------------., LOSF •• oor----------------------+~LO~SE~ •• Mon11rey Dr/ Monter.y Otl Exc.llllor B~d I Exe.ltiot S~d I Ele~lsior Slid I franceA'tl / W 38th · 3~ St W. 36 Ill Sl lngllwrood Av. Hun.lington A.ve 0\entunt Av1 W. 31111\ Sl lnt.,noUon !•Existing •Vell2005 DYew 2010DVur2015 !Al. 1) •Y••r20t 6(Al.2)) As shown in the above charts, i mplementing the proper mitigation measures to accommodate the year 2005 , 2010 and 2015 proposed developments maintains an efficient inte rsection level of service th at is quite comparable to , and in a few cases better than, the existing operation of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. R:\160 1B\Rc:por1 July200l\J3lcclsior_Finll_Rcport_ES .doc UR SIBRW In c . -ES -22 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 30 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 1.0 Introduction The Excelsi or Boulevard Corridor Traffic study wa s initiated b y the City of St. Lou is Park to address ex isting neighborh ood traffic concerns and to develop a unified plan for transportation and ]and use in the Corrid or. The Corridor includes Excels io r Bouleva rd and adjac ent stre ets l oca ted between T H 100 and F ran ce A venue. Th e s tudy consisted of two ph ases. Phase I entai led th e collection and review of hi stori cal tra ffic data, studi es condu cted pre viou sly wi th in the Corridor, an d the involve ment of the res id ents an d property own ers to include th e ir input on issu es and n eeds f rom th eir perspective. Phase I of the Corri dor Study was completed in August of 2000 with an open-house neighborho od workshop th at identified four primary issu es and concerns of the residents for furth er study. These issues and concern s are as follows: I. Safety and Speed • Speedi ng in the neighb orhoods, and • Lack of obeying traffic s ig nals and regulatory signs 11. Pedestrian I Bicycle Access and Safety • The crossin g of Excel sior Boulevard • Neighborhood p edes tri an issues Ill. Cut-through Traffic • Traffic using nei ghborhood streets to travel between Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue. IV. Mobility I Congestion • Potential impact of development or red evelopment of the Park Commons East, P ark Commons West and Al 's Bar Site on the roadway network. P hase II of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor S tudy entailed initiative an d study of th ese fo ur primary issues through th e City of St. Louis Park invol vemen t wi th the n eighborhood assoc iations, the St. Louis Park Police Department and URS I BRW, Inc. The i ssues relating to "Safety and Speed" are curre ntl y being addressed through the City o f St. Louis Park Police Department. The Poli ce Department i s playing an ac ti ve role in th e neighborhood by being o n patrol, posting officers at intersections of concern, and responding to the residents n eeds. The concern of "Pedes trian Bicycle Access and Safety" is being addressed in the "Streetscape" program currently undertaken b y the City of St. Louis Park. The City is working with SRF Consulting Group to help enhance the landscape and pedestrian I bicycle facili ti es throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. As part of Phase II, and the purp ose for thi s document, URS I BRW, In c. was selecte d to conduct a neighborhood level transportation s tudy to help address th e i ss ues of "Cut-through Traffic" and "Mobility I Congestion" throughout the Corridor. 1.1 Study Purpose The goals of Phase II are to document the existing conditions, examine and address the potential future traffic impacts to Excelsior Boulevard and its adj acent neighborhoods w ith res pect to three development or "B uild" scenari os. The scenari os included existing Year 2000, Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 conditio ns. The key co nsiderations in the analys is i nclude: • Ex is ting traffic ope rations at k e y intersections and d ocumen ta ti o n of cut-through traffic in Corridor nei ghborhoods . • Development of mitigation and r oadway improvement measures to improve traffic flow and reduce neighborhood cut-through traffi c. • Traffic generation of each proposed "Build" scenario and the corresponding distribution of tr affic throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. R:\4601Mcpart J uly200J\E.tcelsior_Fitul_Repol1_cht.doc: URSIBRW Inc. -l Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 31 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Identification of potential future traffic impacts, issues, and deficiencies related to the "Build" scenarios. • Development and assessment of potential mitigation measures or solutions for mai ntaining efficient traffic operations throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. 1.2 Contents of Study Chapter 1 provides background information about th e purpose of the study, a description of the study area, and future land use scenarios used in the evaluation. Chapter 2 provides a review of the roadway system and of key traffic studies that have been completed in the Corridor. Chapter 3 s ummaries existing neighborhood traffic issues and presents potential mitigation measures. Chapter 4 describes the methodology followed in conducting the traffic impact analysis at the neighborhood level and chapters 5, through 8 present the results of the traffic analysis and identifies mitigation measures for each of the land u se scenarios. Chapter 9 summarizes the mitigation strategies and des c ribes the recommended implementation plan for the mitigation measures. 1.3 Descr iption of Study Area The portion of Excelsior Boulevard under study in the City of St. Louis Park extends from Highway 100 on the west to France A venue on the east in a southwest/northeast diagonal alignment. This four-lane urban arterial is an integral component of the regional road system providing access to major commercial nodes and direct connections to major north-south freeways including HighwaylOO and Highway 169. The extent of the study area also includes parallel and adjacent streets located several blocks on either side of Excelsior Boulevard. The Corridor, relative to its location within the City of St. Louis Park is shown in Figure 1-1. Fi ure 1-1. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Stud Area N_ PRINCIPAl. ARTERIAL ~ WlNOR ARTER I'.L NMNOR ARTE RI'.L AUGM ENTER ~t.'JNOR ARTERI'.L RELIEVER ~COLLECTOR 1:\1. t.'JNOR COLLECTOR N,CITYSTREE T 1'/CUyLimi\$ =CORRIDOR R:\4 60 11\R.c part July 2.00 1 \E~;ccl slot_Fin&I_Rcpor1_t.h l .doo URSIB RW In c. -2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 32 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 1.3 .1 Corridor Roadway Network Two regi onal hig hways, TH 10 0 a nd TH 7, whi ch accommodate th e m aj or n o rth-south and e a s t-w es t mo vem ent s, serve th e stud y a rea. Excel s ior B oulevard (CSAH 3) is th e m ajor r oadway within th e Corrid or th a t serves s ub -re gi onal travel need s. Othe r r oad wa ys with in th e corrid or includ e several collector s treets serving commercial n eeds including, France A venue (CS AH 17), M onterey Dri ve, W .3 61h Stree t, a nd oth er collec tor s treets with resi denti al c harac te r in cl udin~ W oo dd a le A ve nue, Quentin A ve nu e, and W . 381 h S treet south of Excel si or B ouleva rd . W . 3 81 -3 9th Street, n orth of Ex cel sior Boulevard , i s a min or coll ector that serves b oth res id ential and comm e rcial needs. Th ese ro adways are identifie d on Fi gure 1-2. Figure 1-2 . Primary Roadways within the C orridor 1.3 .2 Corridor Neighborhoods The E xcel sior Boulevard Corrid or li e s within th e d efine d boun da ri es of fo u r St. Louis P ark neighborh oods. These neig hb o rh ood s, as d efined i n Co mp rehen sive P lan 2000 -2020,3 include Wol fe Park an d Minikahda O aks , whi ch are no rth o f Excelsior Bouleva rd , and Minikahda Vis ta a nd Browodale, whic h are south of Excel sior Bouleva rd. Pro vid ed in Appe ndix A , Phase I: Review of Pre vi ou s Stu d ies i s a c omprehe nsi ve d escriptio n of eac h n ei ghb o rh oo d within the Corrid or. These ne ighb orhoods are presented o n Fi gure 1-3, which also presents the d e fin ed City of St. Louis Park neig hb orh oods and th eir r es pecti ve b oundari es. 3 City of St. Lo uis Park Comp reh en sive Plan 2000 -2 020 pre pare d in 1999 b y the Corrununily De vel opment Departmen t. R:'A6018'1Rcport July 2001\El cch ior_Fln&l...RcpoLth..l .doc: URS/BRW I nc . -3 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 33 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Figure 1-3. St. Louis Park J'Jeighborhoods 5 (/) CITYOF _I_IJ ~IJ:O!l/5 1 . Shelard 2 . Kilmer 3. Crestview 4 . Westwood Hills 6 . North Side 7. Pennsylvania Park B. Eliot 9 . Blackstone 10. Cedarhurst 11 . Eliot View 12. Cobblecrest 13. Minnehaha 7 8 16 19 35 14. Amhurst 15. Aquila 16. Oak H ill 17. Texa Tonka 18 . Bronx Park 19. Lenox 20. Sorenson 21 . Birchwood 22. Lake Fores t 23. Fern Hill 24. Triangle 25. Wolfe Park Source: Comprehensive Plan 2000 -2020, City of St. Louis Park 1.4 Future Land Use Development Scenarios 26. Minikahda Oak! 27. Minikahda Vista 28. Browndale 29. Brookside 30. Brooklawns 31. Elmwood 32. Meadowbrook 33. South Oak Hill 34. Westdale 35. Creekside The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor also lies within the defined boundaries of three future St. Lo ui s Park development areas . The development areas include Park Commons East and Park Commons West, which are primarily loc ated north of Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and Monterey Drive and Al 's Bar site, located on th e northwest quadrant of the Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue intersection. These three areas are proposed for ei the r development or re-development. A neighborhood l evel traffic analysis was conducted for th e Corrido r for the three future land use development scenarios, including 2005, 2010, and 2015. The 2005 Development Scenario includes the redevelopment of the Park Commo ns East area and the Al' s Bar site located on th e northwest quadrant of Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue. Figure 1-4 shows the geographic locati on of these areas. Table 1-1 li sts the land u se developments in this scenario. URSIBRW In c. -4 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 34 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 7 7 ::; Developmen t Scenarios I • l'hMc 1-2005: l'.uk Commons EMI 1--f---';--;T'-----,-' & AI'' R•r Sllc Table 1-1. 2005 Scenario Development Land Use Exis ting Use Description 1. Park Com mons East 2. Al's Bar Site Existing Land Use 1 15.2k SF Retail 18.8k SF Restaurant 12.9k SF Office 16k SF Health Club 1 .8k SF Dry Cleaners 2 .2k SF Bar and Grill Project ed Land Use 80.7k SF Retail 28k SF Quality Restaurant 114.2 k SF Oflice 625 Ap artment Dwelling Units • 35 Townhomes 3 25k SF Health Club 10k SF Da Care 20k SF Retail 22kSF Oflice 60 Apartment Dwelling Units 9Townhomes 1 Prior lo 1999,lho silo had boon occupied by a vanoty of uses including 17 slnglo-famlly homos and numerous businesse s. Presented In lhls table are tho businesses on silo and still in operation altho limo altho tralllc data collection (Soplombor, 2000) '625 ropresentslhe actual number ol proposod units as ol March 2, 2001 . Tho traffic analysis was conduclo d assuming 649 apMmont unns. :~ 35 represents the aclua l number ol proposed uni1s as of March 2, 2001. The traffic analysls was conducted assuming 38toYttlhome unlls. Source : City ol St. louis Parle R;\.&6011\Rtpurt July '200 1\litulslor_FinaLRcpott_chl.doc URSIB RW Inc. -5 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 35 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The 2010 Development Scenario includes a parti al re-development of the Park Commons Wes t area. Figure 1-5 shows the geographic loca tion of the se areas. Table 1-2 li sts the land use developments in this scenario. Phas~ 1·2005: Park Commons Easr & Al's llar Sil~ 0 I'IMSC 11-20 10: !'ark Commons W~st Table 1-2. 2010 Scenario Development Land Use Phase 1: Park Commons East (2005) and A/'s Bar Site (2005) Plus The following: Existing Use Description 1. Previous Norwest Bank site 2. Wayside Hou se 3. Parking Ramp 4. CHizens Bank 5. SW Quad of Quentin/Ex. Bd. Source: City of Sl. Lo uis Park and SRF Consullanls. R:\46011\Rcport July 200l\EAeclsior_FirW_Rcpon_c.hl.doc Exi sting Land Use 20k SF Office 41 Bed Treatment Facility 948 space parking structure 50k SF Office 280 space surface parking 28k SF of Medical Office 5.5 k SF of Bank ProJ ected Land Use 300 Senio r Unit Residential 60k SF Civic 30k SF Offica 1422 space park ing structure 58k SF Retail 174k SF Med ical OHice 33.5k SF Medical Off ice 5.5k SF of Bank URS/BRW Inc. -6 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 36 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The 2015 Development Scenario includes the complete development build-out of the Park Commons West area. Figure 1-6 shows the geographic location of these areas. Table 1-3 lists the land use developments in this scenario. Ph<ts~ 1-2005: l';uk Cornmuns E~sl & Al's B.r Si te Ph•>e 11-2010: P•rk Commons WeSI Pho>Se 111-2015: Pork Commons WeSI Table 1-3. 2015 Scenario Development Land Use Phase 1: Park Commons East (2005) and A/'s Bar Site (2005) plus Phase II: Park Commons West (2010) plus The following: Existing Use Description 1. NW Quad of Quentin/Ex. Bd . 2. Target 3. South side of AM (redev.) 4. 3900-Par1< Nicollet Campus 5 . 3800 ·Pari< Nicollet Campus Source: City of SL Lo uis Park and SRF Consultants. Existing Land Use 36.2k SF Medical Office 123 surface par1<1ng 78k SF Retail 500 surface par1<1ng Surface par1<1ng 60k SF Medical Office 434 space surfac e par1<1ng 260k SF Medical Oflice 307 space surface parking Projected Land Use 23.6k SF Retail 70 .Bk SF Medical Office 128 .5k SF Retail 100k SF Office 18kSF Retail 120 Room Hotel 167.2k SF Medical Offi ce 347 .6k SF Medical Off ice URSIBRW Inc. -7 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 37 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2.0 Corridor Roadway Characteristics and Review of Previous Studies This section defines the roadway functional classification a nd presents historical traffic volumes for eac h of th e primary roadways within th e Excelsio r Bou l evard Corridor. Al so, in this secti on is a review of previous tr a ffi c impac t analyses that h a ve b een conducted within the Corridor. 2.1 Roadway Functional Classification Each of th e r oa d ways within the Excelsi or Boulevard Corri dor, as well a s all roads, can be d esc ribe d by th e ir function. Functional class ification is a process by which streets and highways a re grouped into c la sses according to th e type of service provided. A hierarchi cal stru c ture is u sed to describe th e opera ti on of a11 roa dways within a transportatio n system. This hi erarchy, in ascending order, i n cludes l ocal s treets, coll ector s treets, minor arterials , principal arterials, a nd freeways. The differenti ati on between street classifications is ba sed on through-traffic m oveme nt a nd access to a dj acent land . Lower functional classes, s uch as local and coll ect or streets, provide g reate r access to adjacent land or individual prop erties than hi gher fun c ti on a l class ifica ti ons, such as a rte rials or freew ays. Functional classifications in S t. Louis P ark confonn to th e M etropo litan Counci l s tandards as pubH shed in th e Transportation D evelopmen t Guide/Po licy Plan . This guide sep arates roadways into fi ve (5) street classificati on s including principal arterials, min or arterials,4 major collec tors, minor collec t o rs and l oca l s tree ts. These classifications address the func ti on of state, county and c ity streets fro m a standpo int of the saf e and effici ent m ovement of traffic throu gh the City while p roviding satisfactory access to residents and businesses lo ca ted within the City. Within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor T raffic Study area, as defin ed in the Comprehensive Plan 2000 -202 0,5 th e roadway class ifi cation s r epresente d include: • Minor Arterial ("A"): Reli ever: France Avenue (CSAH 17) from Excelsior B ou levard southward. • Minor Arte rial ("A"): Au gm ente r : Excelsior B ou l eva rd. • Minor Arte rial ("B"): M onte rey Drive. • Collector Street (Major): Woodd ale Avenue from Excelsi or Boulevard southward , P ark Center Boulevard, and W . 36'" Street. • Collector Street (Minor): W . 391h Street north of Excelsior Boulevard, W. 38lh Street no rth and south of Excelsior Boulevard, and Qu entin A venu e north and south of E xcelsior Boulevard. • Local Street: W . 391h Stree t south of Excelsior Boulevard. In a ddition to fu nc ti onal classifi cation , roadways are also class ifi e d o n th e basis of the level of governme nt th at h as jurisdiction over th e r oad. The three le vels of govern ment involvem en t are: the Minnesota D epartment of tran sportation (MN/DOT), He nnepin County, and the City of St. Louis P a rk. MN/DOT maintains th e Interst ate and State Trunk Hi g hway System. Hennepin County m a inta in s the County St a te Aid Highways (CS AH) and County Road (C R) systems. The re maining streets and r oadways l oca te d within th e C ity a re the respon sibility of th e C ity of St. Louis Park o r they are private 4 Within the Comprehensive Plan, Min or Arterial is s ubdivided into "A" Minor Arterials, and "B" Minor Arterials. "A" Minor Arterials i ncl udes: Relievers, Expanders, Connectors, and Augment ers. "B" Minor Arterials in cludes CoUector Su eets (Major and Minor) (s ee rhe Comprehensive Plan for more derail). ~Cit y of S t. Louis Park Comprehensive P lan 2000 -2020 prepared in 1999 by th e Communi ty D evelopment Department R :~60JI\Rcpor1 July 2001 \Eu:clllarJ=in.l.I_Rcport_c:hl.doe URSIB R W In c. -8 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 38 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota streets maintained by the property owners. Table 2-1 lists the primary roadways within the corridor according to their directional orientation and classifications. Table 2-1. Classification of Roadways within the Corridor Directional Functional Jurisdictional Roadway Orientation Classification Classification TH 100 North-South Principal Arterial MN/DOT Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) East-West Minor Arterial "A" Augmenter Hennepin County France Avenue (CSAH 17) North-South Minor Arteriai"A" Reliever Hennepin County Monterey Drive North-South Minor Arteriai"B " City of St. Louis Park Wooddale Avenue North-South Collector (Major) City of St. Louis Park Park Center Boulevard North-South Collector (Major) City of St. Louis Park W. 36lh Street East-West Collector (Major) City of St. Louis Park W. 38lh Street East-West Collector (Minor) City of St. Louis Park Quentin Avenue North-South Collector (Minor) City~ Louis Park Source: City of Sl. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 An understanding of the functional classification of the roadways within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor provides insight into the level of traffic they were designed for and were expected to carry. Equally important, the roadway functional classification sets guidelines and set limits to the types of roadway improvement or mitigation measures that can be implemented. 2.2 Historical Traffic Trends Historical traffic volumes were available for many of th e primary roadways within the Corridor. T h e City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation collects and tabulates Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on several roadways within the Corridor. ADT volumes consist of the total traffic carried on any particular road in a 24-hour period. Presented in this section are the historical traffic trends that were available for the primary roadways in the Corridor. 2.2.1 Primary Roadways Trunk Highway (TH) 100 is a north-south roadway, servi ng as the western boundary of the Corridor s tudy area. Access to TH 100 is provided via an interchange at Excelsior Boulevard. Currently, TH 100 averages over 105,000 vehicles per day, both north and south of Excelsior Boulevard . As indicated in Figure 2 -1, daily traffic has grown con siderably on TH 100 over the past 10 years. R:\460li\R.e port Ju ly lOO I\E J.telsior_Finai_Repon_chl.doe URSIBRW In c . -9 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 39 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Fi ure 2-1. Historical Traffic Volumes on TH 100 115,000 ------------------------------------------- 110,000 105,000 ~ 100,000 u :.c ~ 95,000 j 90,000 E ~ 85,000 80,000 75,000 ,;A> ------------------------------___ ,--______ _ ,..,.. ~~------------...... -----------------~~---------------------- " ~--------------------------- / --;----------------------------- " ~---_.... _ .... '" ;. -:..:.: (j' ~-- -- --,_ -- ---- ----- ------ ---- ---- 70,000 +---~--~---r---~-~--~---r----.---~ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 Year 1-<> •TH 100 (N . ol Excelsior Blvd) --TH 100 (5. ol Excelsior Blvd) I Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) is an east-west roadway within the study area extending from TH 100 to France Avenue. Currently, traffic on sections of Excelsior Boulevard within the Corridor ave rage between 16,000 and 19,000 per day. West of the Corridor (west of TH 100) daily traffic volumes exceed 25,000 vehicles per day. In general, traffic on Excels ior Boulevard within the Corridor has been decreasing over the past ten-years.6 As shown in Figure 2-2, traffic on the section of Excelsior Boulevard west of Monterey Drive was approximately 28,000 in 1992. From 1992, to 1998 the level of traffic on this segment decreased to approximately 20,400. Since 1998 traffic has increased on all three segments of Excelsior Boulevard. Figure 2-2. Historical Traffic Volumes on Excelsior Boulevard .. .. 31,000 29,000 27,000 u 25,000 ~ 0 23,000 .. .X ~ 21,000 z 19,000 17,000 15,000 +---.----..--~--.---.....--~--.---.....--.-----, 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year 6 Durin g th e early 1990's sections of I-39 4 near Ell:celsior Boulev ard we re und er co nstru cti on which could have had an impact on Ell:celsior Boulevard traffi c levels. R:\46018\R~polt /uly 2001\6n.e1sloc_Firu.l_RcporLch2.doe URS/BRW In c. -10 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 40 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota France Avenue (CSAH 17) is a north-south roadway that forms the eastern boundary of the study area and serves as th e border between St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. In 2000, France Avenue averaged approximately 10,800 vehicles per day. This represents an increase of approximately 4,400 vehicles since 1990. Figure 2-3 presents a graphic displaying the historical trend in traffic growth for France Avenue. Figure 2-3. Historical Traffic Volumes on France Avenue 11 ,000 10,000 .. .!! 9,000 " :c " > 0 8,000 ! E " z 7,000 6,000 5,000 +---~--r-----T--.-----.---~-~-~--~~ 1990 1991 1992 1993 199~ 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year I-Franco Avanuo (S . ol Excelsior Blvd.) J Monterey Drive is a north-south roadway that traverses the middl e portion of the Corridor. South of Excelsior Boulevard, Monterey Drive turns into W. 38111 Street, which continu es eastward. Currently, Monterey Drive averages approximately 10 ,000 vehicles per da y, up from approximatel y 8,000 vehicles pe r day in 1980. In recent years (1994 to 2000), traffic volumes on Monterey Drive have fluctuated between 8,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day (see Figure 2-4 below). Wooddale Avenue is a north-south roadway that crosses the western portion of the Corridor. Historical traffic counts reveal that traffic increased from approximately 5,000 vehicles per day in 1980 to approximately 8,300 vehicles per day in 2000 (see Figure 2-4 below). The daily traffic was recorded at a location between Excelsior Boulevard and W. 39th Street. As can be seen in Figure 5-5, the daily traffic volumes south of this location are significantly lower. W. 38111 Street within the Corridor is an east-west roadway that extends from Excelsior Boulevard on the west where it connects with Monterey Drive, to France Avenue on the east. Currently, West 38th Street averages approximately 4,800 vehicles per d ay. Historical traffic count information indicates that the level of traffic has remained relatively consistent since 1980 , with some peaks and valleys occurring in 1993 and 1997, respectively (see Figure 2-4 below). Quentin Avenue is a north-south roadway that connects W. 38 111/39th Street north of Excelsior Boulevard with the area south of Excelsior Boulevard. Traffic on Quentin A venue has been relatively constant since 1980 when daily traffic vo lumes were approximately 2,300 vehicles. In more recent years traffic has actually decreased , as it now is approximately 2,000 vehicles per day (s ee Figure 2-4 below). R:\.t6018\Rcpoc1 July 2001'13Accblor_Flnai_Rcport_chl.doc URSIBRW Inc. -11 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 41 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Figure 2-4. Historical Traffic Volumes on Monterey Drive, Wooddale Avenue, West 381h Street, and Quentin Avenue .. ~ u :E ., > 0 ~ .a E :I z 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 8,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 - - - --- --- -- -------- - - ----- - ---- - --- --- - - -- - X-. ~u~ni!!!_Avenue • .-x-.. ._ 2.ooo f--------·-~----~---x~-~~--------·--·1)(--.-.-.. -x 1 ,~ ---~----:---~----.----~----.----~----.----~---1 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 -Monterey Dr ive (N. o/ Ex . Bd.) -o •Wooddalo Avenue, (S. of Ex. Bd.) Yea r • 1M •W. 38th Street , (S. of Ex. Bd.) -X •Ouenlin Ave nue, (S. ot Ex. Bd.) Documenting the historical traffic volumes for the primary roadways throughout th e Excelsior Boulevard Corridor provides a foundation of the service each roadway lends in the regi onal system. This information gives useful in sight into hi storical bac kground traffic growth, provides guidelines for forecasting future traffic levels, and is also a major component in classifying th e functi on of a roadway. 2.3 Review of Traffic Studies Conducted in the Corridor Several reports and documents related to the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor stud y area have been produced over the past 15 to 20 years. Provided i n Appendix A , Phase 1: Revi ew of Previous Studies is a comprehensive li st of these doc uments, which provides the year it was produced, the general content or typ e of study, and th e preparer of each study or document. The doc uments were broken into four primary categories including Traffic Related Information, Sign al (Traffic) Related Information, Environmental Related Information, and Other Inform ation, which includes vario us pla n and d es ign s heets of vari ous Excelsior Boulevard projec ts. Appendix A also provides a detailed review for each of the studies, for the purpose of making observations regarding each s tudies content and ass umptio ns, and their app licabili ty to the Corridor. Of th e reviewed studies a nd documents, two are of particular importance to this study, as they also lo oked at the impact of si milar l and use development proposals. Brief synopses of these studies are provided in the following sec tion s. 2.3 .1 Park Commons West Feasibility-1999 This study was a continu ation o f work initiated by the Vision S t. Louis Pa rk s trateg ic planning process begun in 1994 that recommended c reation of a "town center" in the P a rk Commons area. As part of this plan, a consultant was hired to mak e reco mmendations regarding l ocation, feasibility and d esign of proposed roadway connections for the western p ortio n of the Park Commons concept area. The consult ant reviewed four roadway alternatives that were develop ed through the Park Commons West Task Force. Each of th ese alternatives add ressed the circul ation of tr affic fo r given d evelopment R:\160 11\Rcpott July 2001\B.\cclsloc_Finai_Repon_ch2.doe URSIB RW Inc. -12 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 42 Excelsior Bouleval'd Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota scenarios. These development scenarios can be seen in detail in Appendix A, Phase 1: Review of Previous Studies. The traffic study also included impacts of developing Park Commons East with 188,000 SF. of retail, 79,750 SF. of office and 548 housing units . From the results of the study, several tr affic circulation improvements were recommended. These included the construction of a north-south collector road on the western portion of the Corridor connecting W. 36th Street and Excelsior Boulevard. Several other roadway improvements were recommended to facilitate travel flow primarily on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and Monterey Drive. Traffic impacts and recommendations for the area south of Excelsior Boulevard were not addressed in this study. Figure 2-5 displays the transportation improvements recommended in this study. Observations a nd their relation ship to the Corridor are described below . • The study looked at a full 2020 build-out of the Park Commons land resulting in an additional 2,800 P.M. peak hour trips. • The study looked at several roadway improvement scenarios, ultimately recommending: )> Construction of a "north-south" collector roadway linking W . 361h Street with Excelsior Boulevard. )> Construction of new "east-west" local street connections to assist in internal vehicle circulation among the development parcels. )> Improve access to TH 100 from Excelsior Boulevard through intersection lane- geometry improvements and the conversion of Park Center Boulevard to a o ne- way northbound roadway (only to one-way until it becomes an east-west roadway) upon construction of the north-south collector. R:\46011\Report July 2001 \Excelslor_Fin&J _Report_ch2.doc URSIBRW Inc. -13 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 43 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • The stud y addressed concerns o f th e impac t of traffic on th e area compri sed by and adjacent to the proposed Park Common s Developme nt , h owever , th e impact of traffic on ar eas sou th of Excelsior Boulevard and to the east of M ontere y Dri ve were not an alyzed. • The Park Commons West traffi c study id e nt ified and anal yzed re asonable improvement measures to improve or maintain the c urre nt level of operati on on r oa dways wi thin th e study area vicin ity. The land u se a ssumpti o ns were aggress ive re presentin g a full build-o ut of mo st of the developable l and wi th i n th e Excelsior Bou levard Traffic Corrid o r. However , although the stud y was tec hnicall y th o rou g h i n address ing circulati on throughout the Park Co mmons Wes t a rea, it contai ned o nl y a planning level analysis (Critical M ovement M eth o d) for th e major inte rsec ti o n s along Excelsio r Boul eva rd. NOTE: Th e Critical M ovement M ethod of traffic analysis is often used in traffic analyses when de tailed infonnation including signal t iming and phasing plans are not avai la ble. A more co mprehensive and detailed approach for detennining traffic impa ct is referred to as an "operational analys is" which was used in th e URSIBRW evaluation of traffic impacts. A mo re thorough descripti on of this methodology is provided in Chap te r 4 of this report. 2.3.2 Park Commons East Traffic Impact Analysis -1999 This traffi c impact analysis s tudy wa s conduc ted in December, 1999 by the Parson s Trans p ortation Group for the Park Commons E as t (same gen eral area as that studied in the Pa rk Commons Phase I Study-1998 Traffic Impact Analysis). 7 This report re fl ects a c h ange in th e trip gen erati on rates u sed in the previous report, as well as a c hange in th e exi sting a n d proposed d evelopment c ha racteri stics.8 In the traffic anal ysis, trips gener ated by the existin g a nd proposed developm ent were dete rmin ed , whic h were then as signed to th e regional road n e twork which con sistin g of th e intersecti on s of Excelsior Boulevard with Quen tin A venue, Natchez A venu e, an d Monterey Dri ve-W . 381h Street. P ro vide d i n Appendix A, Phase 1: Rev iew of Previous Studies, is a table d etailing th e proposed lands use for the Park Commons E ast d evel opm ent. This table sh ows th at the proposed development would result in 1,150 new p .m. peak hour trips. Observati ons and their relationship to th e Corridor are described below. • T he study l ooked at a full build-out of the Park Commons Eas t land res ulting in 1,150 new p.m. peak hour trips. • The stud y was conducted for a project Environm e ntal Assessment Worksheet (EA W) a nd to update a previous study conducted in 1998 . In the 1998 s tud y, the numbe r of trips generated b y th e proposed d evelop m e nt (as presente d in the table) was incorrectly calculated. In th at study a seri es of improvement m eas ures were identifi e d even thou gh th e proj ected traffic increase was significantly less than the mo re r ec ent study (87 1 compared to 1,150 for the updated study). Several assumptions were s hared between the two studi es, including the ass umption that 2 0 percent of all existi ng a nd retail based trips wou ld be pass-by trips or trip s that would already be passing th e site along Excelsior Boulevard, bu t a re a ttracted to th e site wh e n pass ing through the ar ea . 1 (See Appendix A. Phase I: R eview of Previous Studies) 8 For example, 158 trips were included for th e ex is ting res taur ant for the 1998 analysis, whil e the 1999 ana lysis indi cates 373 trips. URS/BRW Inc. -14 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 44 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Th e stud y looked at limited improve me nt m eas ures in c ludi ng e ith e r installing a tr affic s ign al at Ottawa A venue I Natchez Avenue a nd Excelsior B oul eva rd o r red es igning the intersec tion so th a t it i s a round ab out. With eith er of th ese improvem e nts it was d etermined that even with th e increase in traffi c due to th e proposed developm e nt , all three of the analyzed intersec tions would con tinu e to o perate at an acceptabl e level. • The an alysis conducte d in 1998 looked at a larger geographic area including m ore intersections. Also, that s tudy used more d e tail ed and co mprehensi ve traffi c analysis techniques, including use of th e traffi c si mulati o n softw a re package CORSIM. • The s tud y addressed concerns of the impact of traffi c on th e area compri sed by and adjacent to th e proposed Park Eas t Commons Development, however , the impact of traffi c on areas south of Excelsior B o ul e vard and ea s t of Monterey Drive were n ot analyze d. Summary The two studies reviewed in this section were chosen f or inclusion into th e report as th ey represent th e m os t comprehens ive, up to date traffic analyses within th e Corrid or area. H owever, the level of detail con tained in the reports is not sufficient to determine th e impact o n th e su rrounding neighborhoods. This study, the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffi c s tudy, goes beyond these studies by analyzing th e impact u sing m o re sophisticated te c hniqu es s uch as th e de te rmination of "op e rational level of service," and by identifying traffic on th e surrounding a re a, not just adja cent intersec ti ons and roadways. Provide d in the next Chapter i s an asses sment of traffi c within the nei ghborh oods compri s ing the Corridor . ln thi s assessment, existi n g tr affi c i ssues a re addressed th rough th e identification of n eighborh ood level mitigation measures. R:\460J 8\Rt:port July 200 I \Cxcds ior_Fina.I_Rtporl._c:h2.doc VRSIBRW In c. -15 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 45 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 3.0 Neighborhood Traffic Issues and Mitigation Measures Up to this point a brief overview of background information for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor has been discussed, including th e roadway characteristics and previous traffic studies conducted . A key component to n eighborhood level traffic analyses is the determination of traffic and travel patterns in the neighborho ods within the Corridor. From meeting with ndghborhood residents and property owners , the issue of "cut-through" traffic was identified. To address this concern, existing conditions were analyzed to determine the level of through-traffic on the roadways and more importantly, how they can be mitigated. Provided in th e next section is a desc ription of the analysis procedure used to determine through-traffic, followed by a description of a plan to manage the level of through-traffic. 3.1 Neighborhood Cut-through Traffic The analysis procedure involves compiling, sorting and using data collected from designated locations to produce the actual cut-through traffic levels for each of the primary travel routes through the Minikahda Vista and Browndale neighborhoods. Cut-through traffic is the term used to define a vehicle making a non -s top trip through two data collection locations. The definition of what is classified as a cut-through trip may vary from person to person, depending upon perspective. The m ethod described in this section is conservative and in all likeliness is including neighborhood res idents as p a rt of the cut- through trip vehicles. The following paragraphs discuss the methodology and assumptions used in performing the analysis and the detail ed results obtained from the analysis. A license plate s urvey was organized to determine th e level of through trips on variou s local and collector roadways within the Corridor. This s urvey was also used to determine existing travel patterns throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. The license plate trace survey was conducted between 5 :00p.m. and 6:00p.m. on Thursday October 12, 2000 to record vehicles traveling between Excelsior Boulevard and France A ve nue. It is recognized that cut-through traffic occurs on a daily basis, as well as weekends. However, the time chosen represents the absolute peak hour for the entire week. As such, it is expected that this is when cut-through traffic is most likely going to be at its highest, since neighborhood cut-through traffic volume is a direct function of the major roadway volume. In conducting a license plate survey to determine travel demand within and through the Corridor, individuals were placed at locations along the selected roadways. These roadways were selected based upon comments recei ved from neighborhood re sidents during the various workshops and open houses conducted throughout the study. These individuals would then make note of every passing vehicles license plate and th e time at which they passed their station. The ten locations for which data was collected, shown on Figure 3-1, include: 1. W. 39th Street, west of France Avenue (eastbound and westbound directions) 2 . W. 381 h Street, west of France Avenue (eastbound and westbound directions) 3. Kipling Avenue, north ofW. 391h Street (northbound and southbound directions) 4. Kipling Avenue, just south of Excelsior Boulevard (northbound and southbound directions) 5. W. 381h Street, west of Kipling Avenue (eastbound and westbound directions) 6 . Natchez Avenue, just south of Excelsior Boulevard (northbound and southbound directions) 7. Natchez Avenue, north of W. 39 1h Street (northbound and southbound directions) 8 . Quentin Avenue, just south of Excelsior Boulevard (northbound and southbound directions) R:\4601 1\RtpOrt July 2001\Etc.clsior_Fin~_Rcport_chl.doe URSIBRW Inc. -16 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 46 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor T1·affic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 9. Wooddale Avenue, just south of Excelsior Boulevard (northbound and southbound directions) 10. Browndale Avenue, north ofW. 44th Street (northbound and southbound directions) License Plate Trace Station Locations OXF RD w. \ ') 36111 ST. / l::r: '0 !~ t \ . ..__ 38th uiuiuiuiuiui w. 39th ui ~ ui ~ ~40th W. 41st z 0 ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ l5 0 0 >-ex: J: CJl 0 u w. 1000 At each station the individual began recording license plates at 5:00p.m. Upon collection of the data, a computer license plate matching program was used to determine the amount of through-traffic on the various roadway segments. For example, a motorist traveling eastbound on W . 38th Street would pass Station 5 (at Monterey Drive) and the license plate would be recorded . If that same license plate was recorded at the France Avenue location (Station 2), that vehicle is considered a through-vehicle and part of the cut-through traffic. A license plate which was recorded at the eastbound W. 38th Street location (Station 5), but is not recorded at the eastbound France Avenue location (Station 2) has either ended their trip on W. 38th Street between the two stations or has turned onto a north/south road and is not considered as cut-through traffic. The analysis procedure was applied to the study area and results were found for each travel route between the license plate recording stations. The following figures show the number of vehicles that entered a recording station and the number, with the corresponding percentage, of vehicles that continued through the entire travel route and exited at another recording station for each of the most likely travel patterns. Figure 3-2 shows the number of trips that made it between station 5 and station 2 is 104. The remaining 151 vehicles did not show up at any other recording stations and are assumed to be trips originating or destined within the neighborhood. The number of vehicles that made it between station 2 and 5 is significantly lower with only 8 through trips. R:\460 18\R eport Ju ly 200 1 \E~c.e l sior_flna LRcpol1 _ch3.doc URSIBRW In c. -17 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 47 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota i'\O'IFS FORREAJ>Jl'(GGRAPliiC: TriJ"liOlreoonl<dasnukio&•llv'oua!>oip, l c,, bc:Cwtm Sutlon Sand Sblim 2. 'IIIYn: a.man:d to!t\\-ea.nc<f.Ol distribWooof cith« north or SOUlh. For u :&mplc,lhc picm &om Stu.ion S lo Station 2 ibo'llls th:lt 10-1 rmtchi.ng li=tnse pblt.rwt.ro rocortkd2t bol.h rubons. The re.nutruna trips (2S5- IC»=ISI) lh<rcfore,eilh<rended lbeir lrip m W. 38th Slreetsome•bcrobel\lem 1he two nations or they hnrd onto a.notbcr ttroet B:ucd oo infomlltion from cMhrr tra\'tl roule$, it C3l1 bcun.tnll!dtkat !.here trips are kx::aled within a wry short «fist~JJ:c ofW. 38thStrocL Rlr s~licity, il 14~u ~d lhatlhc split of vthicles eilkr nonh or soWl v.oo ld be e~l The locationoflhenonMOU1ham>~>areoubilr.uy. Theycoold be locaoed aJJ)"'obn"c betwecnlhe t\11'0$\ations. The results show that only W. 381h Street had more than 10 vehicles making a through trip . The remaining travel routes experienced very little through trips and serve mainly for local neighborhood traffic. Since W. 381h Street, primarily the eastbound direction, was shown to generate a high amount of through trips, an address distribution was created for the cut-through vehicles . The address of each vehicle was provided by the Department of Motor Ve hicles and is plotted in Figure 3-3. boyond 3 mHo radius: 52 Total vehicles: 104 Vehici8S In travelshed: 43 6. Vehicle ReglstraUon Address /\/Major Highway N West 38th Slreel NCitySireel o.-~ VRSIBRW,Irlc. R:\460! 1\Rc port July 200 1\Sxcc lsior_finaLRcport_c:hl.doc URS/BRW In c. -18 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 48 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The figure shows the plotted address for each vehicle that made a through trip from Excelsior Boulevard to France Avenue along W. 381h Street. Highlighted is the W. 38 1h Street "travel shed." The "travel shed" represents local vehicle trips, where W. 381h Street is the most logical travel route and are not likely to change their travel patterns. Approximately 43 of the 104 through trip vehicles were in this travel shed. As shown, it is likely that the other 61 vehicles may be prone to changing their travel route. Figure 3-4 shows that the level of through-traffic for these travel routes is low, with the majority of trips either originating or destined within the local neighborhood. (i.e., between Station 5 and Station 1 only 2 percent, or 6 vehicles , of the entering vehicles recorded at Station 5 reappear at Station 1). lf$Md: 0·0 p,t,t.S .\fii.JI-6 1 "\HriJ,r.rd\'rNde fl•2.11~ 1\oi(C'ft,'ll:C of~~~ [!] 5lltio:ro l~lt~l rlol Vts rownlfilfe Mfth or oCU1 Sl) f I ' Figure 3-5 shows that the level of through-traffic for these travel routes is very low, 2 vehicles northbound and 5 vehicles southbound. The remaining 18 northbound vehicles and 21 southbound vehicles were not recorded at any other station and are assumed to have originated or destined within the neighborhood. It should be noted that thi s covers only a distance of 2 blocks, meaning the only purpose this route serves is for local neighborhood traffic . In addition to the trip pattern shown in Figure 3-5, the travel interaction between Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive -W. 381h Street (station 5) and W. 39 1h Street at Kipling Avenue (station 3) was analyzed. The result of this analysis found that 28 of the 255 vehicles recorded at station 5 were recorded at station 3 and 8 of the 20 vehicles recorded at station 3 were recorded at station 5. Noting this is only a two-block segment, and one of five intersecting roadways with W . 381h Street between Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue, it is expected that each of these intersecting roadways serve a similar neighborhood function. Furthermore, the existing travel pattern or trip routes for other parallel local roadways including, Joppa Avenue and Inglewood Avenue, would have the same relationship. These local roadways , as just discussed, are very similar to Kipling Avenue in function and design, as they all carry less than 600 vehicles per day, a very typical daily traffic volume found on neighborhood streets. 9 9 To illustrate thi s relations hip, the amount of cut-through trips on W. 381h Street between station 5 and station 2 amounted to 104 or 40 .8 percent of vehicle trips recorded during the p.m. peak time period. The remaining 59.2 percent of traffic either terminated their trip on W . 38th Street or continued their travel path using one of the five inters ecting local roadways. In other words, Kipling Avenue accounted for II percent of these trips; the remaining 48.2 percent were distributed to the other neighborhood roadways . R:\.a60t8\Rcport July lOO l \Bxc.e1sior_Flnol_R cport _ch.3.doc. URSIBRW Inc. -19 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 49 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Fi ure 3-5. Ori in -Destination Stations 3 and 4 5 Hurrbu dVthKif' n•IU"-f'ttnn .ydlci.J1lj5) [!] St.Jti(n locancr~ ~il<owndale no<1h ol 411h St) - ' ~ ·.- ~ ' ~IIY llut Figure 3-6 sh ows that the level of through-traffic for these travel routes is very low, 9 northbound vehicles and 5 southbound vehicles . The remaining 19 northbound vehicles and 67 southbound vehicles were not recorded at any other station and are assumed to have originated or destined within the neighborh ood . It should be noted that this covers onl y a dist ance of 2 blocks , so the only purpose this route serve s is f or local neighborhood traffic . R:\460t &\Report July '2001\li xcclslocfinJLRc:poct_ch).doc l .g,Md: o.D P.Mrtt.-7 14 Nwub,.,..J\\fid,,· 1\• ,.7.)!" 1\.rm,\.""'ll~'~.!..iSI [!] Sutk.lll l~•l~ N A SOO' 1000' URS/BRW In c. -20 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 50 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Figure 3-7 shows that the level of through-traffic for these travel routes is very low. Only 1 vehicle of the 119 entering vehicles at station 8 made a through-trip to station 10 and vice versa. No vehicles made a through-trip from station 10 to 8 . This shows that Quentin Avenue receives traffic and se rves the local neighborhood only. Similarly, Wooddale Avenue operates as a local neighborhood street, with the majority vehicles either originating or destined to the local neighborhood or Miracle Mile Shopping Center. The through-vehicles were only 10 northbound vehicles and 5 southbound vehicles , both making up a very small percent of the total traffic. legtnd: O·D l'.lif 'J.fO~nd G-Iu 10 "''"'~•·noi\H•ic-l1• n•lT.-40:.. f\.,«J'f~oiTVI~IUUI [!] SUII..-t l OQtk)tu 500' 1000' It is beneficial for the City of St. Louis Park to have a set of guidelines to follow in addressing potential future growth in neighborhood traffic levels and to have a toolbox of possible mitigation measures that may help calm traffic. The next section discusses contributing factors in implementing traffic calming measures and makes suggestions for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. 3.2 Potential Traffic Calming Measures The purpose of this section is to identify potential traffic calming measures to address concerns regarding existing cut-through traffic and the potential for traffic increases within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. Traffic calming is physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, slow down traffic and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. Within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor there are several roadway segments that have been identified by residents as being too heavily traveled. Complicating any mitigation of these roadways through physical changes is the fact that they are Municipal State Aid (MSA) routes and therefore must adhere to strict design guidelines . In addition to these roadways, non-MSA roadways have also been the focus of attention for many neighborhood residents. For these roadways , design considerations are not as stringent and therefore more traffic calming options are available. There are four potential traffic-calming meas ures that can be considered to alter or redirect potential ne ighborhood cut-through vehicles , which include: R:\4 6018\Rcport July 2001\Sic:.clslor_Fin ai _Rcpo rt_chl.doc URS/BRW Inc. -21 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 51 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 1. Chokers --Chokers are curb extensions (painted) at mid -block or intersection comers that narrow a street. They are typically applied to local and collector streets. This traffic calming measure can typically be designed so that it meets MSA design requirements. 2. Speed Table --Speed tables are long raised speed humps with a flat sec tion in the middle and ramps on the ends . They are generally applied to local and co1Iector streets and are often used as a crosswalk. This traffic calming measure is generally unacceptable on MSA designated route s. 3. Traffic Circle --Traffic ci rcles are rai sed islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates. They are typically used at the intersections of loca l or collector streets . This measure i s generally un acceptab le on MSA designated routes. 4. Half-Closure --Half-closures are baniers that block travel in one direction for a short distance on otherwise two-way streets. Closures are generally applied only after other measures have failed or been determined to be inappropriate. This measure is generally unacceptable on MSA designated routes. Table 3-1 presents these m easures, identifying their potential applications, impacts and general design . R:\16018\R.epat Ju.ly '2001 \Exeds.Jor_f1nal..Report_ch3.doc URSIBRW Inc. -22 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 52 1. Choker ~.liJ-% A . I~ 2. Speed Table 3. Traffic Circle 4. Half-Closure ~t~ Sill = ---Q------o,--01[:!!) ~--n r J1ID ;9 Qgco MSA Classification Impact Measure may be allowed on MSA Collector. MSA Classification MSA Classification Impact Not allowed. General Description Curb extensions (painted) at midblock or intersection comers t~at narrow a street. Can leave the cross section with two narrow lanes. General Description Long raised speed humps with a flat section in the middle and ramps on the ends. General Description Raised islands, placed in intersections, around which traffic circulates. Motorists yield to motorists already in the intersection. Require drivers to slow to a speed that allows t~em to comfortably maneuver around them. Applications Local and collector streets. Pedestrian crossings. Work well with speed tables. Applications Local and collector s1reets. Work well in combination with Chokers. Can include a crosswalk. Applications Intersections of local or collector streets. One lane each direction entering intersection. General Description Applications Half closures are barriers that block travel in one direction for a short Closures are typically applied only after other measures have distance on otherwise tw<rway streets; they are sometimes called !ailed or been determined to be inappropriate partial closures, entrance barriers, or one-way closures (when two half·closures are placed across from one another at an intersection, the result is a semi-diverter) Often used in sets to make travel through neighborhoods more circuitous-typically staggered internally in a neighborhood, which leaves through movement possible but less attractive than alternative (exlemal) routes Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers liTE) and URSIBRW lric. ~ ~'llNAl..RE~T"(T&bltO-\_Tr:I!PeC~.)diJT""•3-t TA!IkCelllllng Table 3-1 Potential Mitigation Measures for Local/Collector Roadways Impacts Average speed reduction ol 4 percent for two-lane Chokers. Minor decrease in traffic for tw<rlane. Impacts No effeet on access. Traffic volumes have been reduced on average by 12 percent depending on alternative routes available. Collisions have been reduced on average by 45 percent on treated streets (not adjusted for traffic diversion) lne<eases pedestrian visibility and likelihood that driver yields to pedestrian. Impacts Only minimal diversion of traffic. Reductio~ in midblock speed of about 10 percent; area of influence tends to be a couple hundred feet upstream and downstream of intersection. No elfect on access Can result in bicycle/auto conflicts at intersections because of narrowed travel lane. Impacts May divert significant traffic volumes. Concern over effects on emergency response, street network connectivity and capacity, and parallel local streets that earlY, diverted traffic. No slgnlllcanl ef!ecl on vehicle speeds beyond the closed block. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 53 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 3.2.1 MSA-Designated Routes Within th is Corridor there are seve ral MSA classified ro utes including relatively high volume roadways functionall y classified as "Arteri als." These include TH 100, Excels ior B ou l evard , Monterey Drive, an d France A ve nue. In additi on to these higher traffi c volume roadways, MSA routes also include "Collector" roads , which ma y carry considerably les s traffi c, but still serve an important f un cti o n in the transportati on system. Within the Corridor, MSA Collector roadways include W. 381h Street, Quentin Avenue, an d the secti on of Wooddale Avenue between Quentin Avenue and W. 44~1 Street. Neighborhood residents have expressed concern over existing and projected traffic levels. The physical traffic capacity of thes e roadways, as defined in the City Comprehensive Pl an, is b etween 8,500 and 10,000 for a Minor Collector and between 10,000 and 30,000 fo r a Major Collector. T able 3-2 provides traffic characteristics for selected MSA routes within th e Corridor. Table 3-2. Traffic Characteristics for MSA Designated Routes Daily Functional Traffic Traffic MSA Designated Routes Classification (2000) Capacity' 1. Wooddale Avenue (b etwee n 42nd 1/2 Street and W. 441h Street) Major Collec tor 4,500 1 0,000 -30 ,000 2. W . 38 1h Street (between Excelsior Boulevard and Fran ce Avenue) Minor Collec t or 4,500 8,500-10,000 3. Quentin Avenue (between Exce lsior Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue) Minor Collector 1,950 8,500 -10,000 11 Transportation Research Boa rd (TAB), 1994 Highway Capa~ity Man ual , Ci ty of St . Louis Park Comprehensive Plan, 1999. Source: City of St. Loui s Park Compreh ensive Plan, 1999 and URS I BRW Inc. = The traffic calming measures that can be impleme nted on MSA routes is limited du e to the design guidelines established by MN/DOT. These guidelines are used to e nsure that the function of the roadway as a Collector or A rterial i s accommodated. Of the four listed traffic calming m easures identified; only the Choker could be implemented. The other three measures --Speed Table, Traffic Circle, and Half-Clos ure-are not acceptable based on MN/DOT's requirements. Therefore, the implementation o f the se me asures would require the removal of th at roadway from the MSA system, resultin g in a loss of funding from the State. An additional measure was raised regarding the p rovi si on of on street parking along W . 381h Street. Howe ver, providing even one parking l ane, and maintaining MSA route requirements, the existing r oadway c ross-section would need to be widened by two feet. Furthermore, providing tw o parking lanes would require widening the existing roadwa y cross-section by eight feet. Though the provis ion of on-street parking will help redu ce travel speeds a nd may even deter throug h vehicl es, the cost and implement ati on of thi s measure may in fact out weight the benefi ts . Therefore, it is recommended that this measure and the o ther three previously discussed are considered only after the Choker and oth er acceptable me as ures have been found to be uns uccessful. Table 3-3 lists the pote ntial traffic calming meas ures and implementation thresholds for t he selected MSA roadways within th e Corridor. R:\.1601K\Rcport J~tly 200 1\SJcc lslor_FinaLReport_chl.doc URS/BRW Inc. -24 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 54 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table 3-3. Potential Traffic Calming Measures and Implementation Guidelines for MSA Routes If Traffic Potential If Traffic Potential MSA Designated Routes Exceeds:1 Measure: Exceeds:1 Measure: 1. Wooddale Avenue (between 42nd 1/2 Street and W . 44 1h Street) 5,500 1. Choker 7,500 Measures 2-3 2 2. W. 38th Street (between Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue) 5,000 3 1. Choker 7,500 Measures 2-42 3. Quentin Avenue (between Excelsior Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue) 3,000 1. Choker 5,000 Measures 2-32 = 1 This i s the approximate minimum traffic volume that a change fr om the current level may be pe rceived. 2 R oadway would lose ~s MSA designation and State funding with the Implementation of these m easures. 3 n may be advantageous for the City of St. L ouis Park and affected residents to initiate dialogue regarding traffic on W . 38th Street prior to reaching this threshold. Source: URS I BAW Inc. The traffic volume thresholds shown in Table 3-3 serve only as a guideline for the City of St. Louis Park to follow when addressing the concern of increasing neighborhood traffic. As the thresholds are met, prior to implementing any of the traffic calming measures discussed above, with exception to a choker, the following is recommended: • Conducting another origin-destination study should be considered to determine the actual level of cut-through traffic being experienced at that time. This is important as implementing a traffic calming measure like a traffic circle or half-closure for low levels of cut-through traffic would only relocate the problem to other streets within the neighborhood. The problem is not being solved. • A detailed analysis should be conducted to determine the most beneficial measure. • Neighborhood input s hould be received prior to implementing any possible traffic calming measures. As with many traffic calming measures, the impi.ementation could have ripple effects that negatively impact nearby neighbors . 3.2.2 Non-MSA Designated Routes In addition, there are non-MSA or local roadways within the Corridor. The primary function of roadways func tionally classified as "Local" is to provide access to individual homes, shops, and s imilar traffic destinations. Local roadways within St. Louis Park are the res ponsibility of the City. Within the Corridor, there are several roadway segments classified as Local, including Natchez Avenue, W . 40th Street, Kipling Avenue, Joppa Avenue, and W. 39th Street. Table 3-4 li s ts characteristics of the selected "Local" roadway segments within the Corridor. R:W60 18\Rc port July 2001 'CxuUior_FinaLRcpon_chl.doc URS/BRW In c. -25 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 55 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table 3-4. Traffic Characteristics for Non-MSA Designated Routes Daily Functi onal Traffic Traffic Non-MSA Designated Routes Classification (2000) Capacity1 1. Natchez Avenue (between Excel sior Boulevard and W. 401h Street) Local 1,200 < 5,000 2. w. 401h Street (between Quentin Avenue and Joppa Avenue) Local 1,600 < 5,000 3. Kipling Avenue (between Excelsior Boulevard and W. 391h Street) Local 400 < 5,000 4. Joppa Avenue (between Excelsior Boulevard and W. 39th Street) Local 400 < 5,000 5. W. 39th Street (between Lynn Avenue and France Avenue) Local 500 < 5,000 6. Wooddal e Avenue {between Excelsior Bou levard and 42nd 1/2 Street) Major Collector 8,500 10,000-30,000 11 Transp O'rtatlon Research Board (TAB), 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Pl~n , 19 ;9, ~ 1 Source: Ci ty of St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan, 1999 and URS I BRW Inc. Non-MSA routes do not have to adhere to the design guidelines associated with MSA routes, so the range of traffic calming measures is much greater. Any of the four mitigation measures identified in Table 3-1 could be impl emented on these roadways. However, the impact of the measures on the operation of the roadways must be carefully considered. For instance, while the measure "Half- Closure" may be very effective at reducing through-traffic on the street in which it is implemented, it may increase the amount of through traffic on neighboring streets. In essence, the implementation of this measure may shift the problem to a new location. For addressing increases in traffic to "Local" roadways, it is proposed to establish traffic level thresholds, which are linked to traffic calming measures. The traffic calming measure to be implemented upon reaching the first traffic level threshold would be the "Choker." If this measure proves to be ineffective at addressing traffic increases, the additional traffic measures may include a "Speed Table" or a "Traffic Circle." As a last resort, the measure "Half-Closure" could be considered. However, due to the more pronounced impact of this measure on diverting traffic to other nearby roadways, the use of this measure should be carefully analyzed and discus sed with the affected residents before implementation. Table 3-5 lists the potential traffic calming measures and implementation thresholds for the selected non-MSA roadways within the Corridor. R:\460 18\R.cpol1luly 200 1\Sxcclsior_Finai_Rcport__dU ,doc UR SIBRW In c. -26 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 56 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table 3-5. Potential Traffic Calming Measures and Implementation Guidelines for Non-MSA Routes IITrafftc Potential If Traffic Potanllal lfTraHic Potential Non·MSA Designated Routos Exceeds:' Measure: Exceeds:' Measure: Exceeds:' Measure: 1. Natchez Avenue (between Excelsior 2. S peed Ta ble I Boulevard and W . 40" Street) 3,000 1. Choker 3,500 3. Traffic Circle 7,000 4. Hall-Closu re 2. W . 40'" Stroot (between auenlln 2. Speed Table I of venue and ;o~~ Avenue]= 3,000 1. Choker 3t900 3 . Traffic Circle r:.ooo 4. Hall-Closure 3. Kipling Avenue (between Excelsior 2. Speed Table I Boulevard and W. 39" Street) == 1,000 1. Choker 2,500 3. T rafllc Circle 5,000 4. Half-Closure 4. Joppa Avanuo (between Excelsior 2 . S peed Table/ Boulevard and W . 391 ' Street) 1,000 I. Choker 2,600 3. Traffic Ci rcle 5,000 4. Hall-Closure 6. W, 3~'" Street (between lynn 2. Speed Table I Avenue and France Avenue) 1,000 ==:=-=;: 6': I . Choker 2,500 3. Tratnc Circle 5,000 4. Half-Closure 6, Wooddalo Avenue (between Excelsior 2. Speed Table2 I Boulevard and 42nd 112 Street) 1=-o 10,000 I. Choker 12,500 3. T ralfic Circle2 1 Ths is lho appt"oximate mirirrum VaWc volume tha i a change from lho current level may be perceived. 2 Roadway woukf lose its MSA de s~lio n and Stale looding wilh the tmplemenlalion of these measUJes . Source: City of St. loUis Park Compreh ensive Plan, 1999 and URS /BRW Inc . Similar to MSA designated routes; the Non-MSA designated traffi c volume thresholds shown in Table 3-5 serve only as a guideline for the City of St. Lou is Park to follow when addressing the concern of increasing neighborhood traffic. As the thresholds are met, prior to implementing any of the traffic calming measures discussed above, with exception to a choker, the following is recommended: • Conducting another origin-destination study should be considered to determine the actual level of cut-through traffic being experienced at that time. This is important as implementing a traffic calming measure like a traffic circle or half-closure for l ow levels of cut-through traffic would only relocate the problem to other streets within the neighborhood. The problem is not being solved. • A detailed analysis should be conducted to determine the most beneficial measure. • Neighborhood input shou ld be received prior to implementing any possible traffic calming measures . As with many traffic calming measures, the implementation could have ripple effects that negatively impact nearby neighbors. Furthermore, the ADT threshold levels noted in the above tabl es apply for MSA and Non-MSA designated routes only under normal transportation conditions. For instance, roadway construction along Excelsior Boulevard or other major roadway closures (i .e., TH 62 reconstruction) that typically alter traffic patterns should not apply, as these conditions are usually temporary and it may be expected that traffic would divert onto other roadways. As an example, Figure 2-4 shows W . 381h Street increased from an ADT of 4,500 to an ADT of 6,000 during 1993 . At that time, Interstate 394 was under re- construction and the volumes throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor te mp orarily increased and then returned to normal upon completion of the project. To summarize, the identified traffic-calming measures to mitigate traffic increases on "Non-MS A" and "MSA" roadways within the Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Corridor were chosen based on their potential to address the issues heard from residents within the Corridor. The primary is sue heard from the public related to traffic was the use of Local and Collector streets as through-routes. While a certain amount of through-traffic is expected on "Collector" roadways, it is beneficial to have an implementation guideline to identify at what point efforts shou ld be made to calm the level of traffic. R:\l6(H8\Rcport July 1001 \Elcelslor_F!n&l__Rcport_chl.doc URSIBRW Inc. -27 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 57 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 4.0 Mobility I Congestion Analysis: Methodology Equally importan t to the concern s with c ut-throu gh traffic, is th e issue of m ob ility I congesti on a nd h ow thi s will relate to th e future pl a ns of th e City of St. Louis Park. The analysis a pproac h of thi s study is to d etermin e th e impact of future la nd u se scenarios on an e ntire n ei ghb orhood. Typically, traffic impact analyses for p ro p osed land u se developm e nts only l ook a t adjacent or nearby intersecti ons and areas. It is the inten t of th e City of St. Louis Park to assess th e impac t of any p roposed land use dev elopm e nts o n a much larger geographic area. They recognize th a t a lth ough the im pact of a d evelopment d ecreases as di stanc e in creases, the re are still impacts. The refore, the approach of this analysis was to evaluate the existing conditi on s, as we11 as proposed l and u se scenarios, to determ in e thei r impac t on th e Excelsior Boulevard Corrid or and th en to identify e ffec ti ve and fe asi ble mitigati on measures to im pr ove co nditi ons r e lated to traffic . The general proces s for addressing th e concerns of m obility I con ges ti on was comple ted u si ng a d etai led technical an alysis , which incl udes five basic steps. These s teps are summ a ri zed below. 1 . Data Collection -The items th at were obtained fro m the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County included the existing si gnal timin g plans, signal phasing, and corresponding intersection layouts for the current si gn a li zed intersecti ons wi thin the Excel sior Boulevard Corridor. URS I BRW In c. p e rfo rmed tum movem ent counts at key intersec tions in the Corridor during th e a.m. a nd p .m . p eak pe riod s. These time periods were c h osen as they represent the t im es o f day when traffi c is hi gh es t. 2. Traffic Forecasts -Expected post-development traffi c volumes wi ll be prepared for the a.m. and p .m . peak hours of operation at each of th e k ey intersecti ons. The traffic fo recasts are calc ul ated by adding estimates of the traffic th at would be generated by the n ew land uses to the existi n g turnin g movement traffic volumes, in accordanc e with a d ocumented directi o na l di s tribution. The traffic generation fo r proposed deve l opment scen ari os are compute d usin g trip generation rates published in the T ransportation Engineers (lTE) T rip Generati on Manual , (S ixth Edition, 1997), whic h is the nati ona l s tandard. 3 . Traffic Operations Analysi s -The traf fi c o p e rat i on anal ysis documents the expected levels of con ges tion at the k ey intersections in the Corridor fo r four specific scenarios; exis ting Year 2000 volum e and roadway condition s, forecast Year 2005 conditi on s (fo llowin g compl e te build ou t of the commercial and reside ntial land u ses), forecast Year 2010 conditions and forecas t Year 2015 conditions. The operati on analysis uses the procedu res outlined in th e 1 997 H ig h way Capacity M anual for b o th signalize d and unsi gnaiiz ed intersections. 4. Develop and Analyze Alte rn ativ es -Alternati ves will be d eveloped based on mitigating identified operational d e fici encies. 5. Recomme nde d Plan -The recommended plan identifies improvem e nt s to the road sys tem that are necessary to m itigate traffic con ges tion. 4.1 Transportation Models The evaluation of the Excelsior Boulevard Corrid or re quired the refin ement of th e regional travel demand mo d el (TRANPLAN) to assis t in f orecas ting future tra ffi c volumes and patterns. Five, t en a nd fiftee n-year d evelopment scenari os were u sed to evaluate development with in the Corridor. Synchro and SimTraffic softwa re were then u sed to conduct a traffic operation analys is of th e Corrid or. R:\16018\Rrport July 2001\Siuls{or_Finli_Repor1_ch4.doc URSIB RW In c . -28 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 58 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota SimTraffic is a mic roscopic computer model that simulates each individual vehicle's characteristics and beh avior in res ponse to traffic volume, signa l o p erations, tu rning movement, p edes trians , intersection configuration, bus o perati ons, parking maneuvers and roadway incidents. It can simulate d rivers' behavior and response to surrou nding traffic flow as well as different vehicle type and speed. It can accurate ly estimate vehicle d elay and queue length as well as inte rsection capacity. It can also p roduce visual animations , making it easy for individuals to understand th e results of th e traffic simulation and analysis . SimTraffic has been proven to be a very effective and p owerfu l tool to demonstrate existing and future traffic conditions , as well as the effectiveness of proposed improvements. Given the nature and complexity of the Excels ior Boulevard Corridor, SimTraffic, when combined with oth er tools mentio ned above, will produce technical details necessary for the evalu ation of alternatives and understandable analysis outputs. The general traffic analysis approach is prese nted in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1. Traffic Simulation and Analysis Framework I Street Geometry and I I Traffic Control I Traffic Control I Traffic Channelization Inventory Inventory + t I ~ I Link-Node .. I Synchro 5 u Diagram I ... .,, ,, Compile Data to I I OD Demand Processing I SimTraffic Format (through-traffic analysis f I Motorist ~" TRANPLAN Behaviors .. I Traffic I Travel Demand ... 1 Simulation Forecasting + y SimTratfic Input Data Calibration I ,, Observed Data ... SimTraffic Model I -Traffic Counts ... Validation -Travel Time -Travel Speed • Simulations for Improvement ....._ ·1 Evaluation and ~ Alternatives ,... j Recommendation R:\46011\Repon J\11)' lOOI\Excclsior_FinAI_Rcport__t.M.doc URSIBRW In c. -29 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 59 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The traffic simulation model repli cates the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor to every detail. The following is a snapshot from the SimTraffic model, showing the geographical extents of the Corridor and the respecti ve locati ons of the propose d development s analyzed in this study. Geographic Extent of SimTraffic Network and Approximate Development Scenario Locations 4.2 Traffic Impact Analysis Procedure Al'.f Jlnr Site: 2005 In order to estimate the traffic impacts of the three proposed development scenarios for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor, it is necessary to estimate the expected growth in traffic and the amount of traffic that will be generated for each of the respec tive land uses. The traffic forecasting process consists of the following key components: • Background traffic growth • Amount of site-generated traffic • Regional distribution of site-generated traffic • Intersection assignment of the site-generated traffic 4.2.1 Background Traffic Growth The first step of the traffic forecasting process is to determine the expected background growth in traffic . Traffic growth in the vicinity of the proposed development will occur between existing conditions and any given future year due to other growth and development in the region. This growth is typically termed as "background growth" and must be accounted for as part of the future volumes. As shown previously in Chapter 2: Corridor Roadway Characteristics and Review of Previous Studies ; volume charts for the primary roadways surrounding the study area are documented. The data shown in these charts and the assumptions used in previous studies (see Appendix A , Phase I : Review of R:\46018\R.tpon July 2001\Excclslor_FinJLRcport_ch4.doc URS/BRW Inc. -30 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 60 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Previous Studies) are used to estimate the background growth for th e study area. The following values, based on hi s torical and projected volum es , were assumed for the Year 2005 Horizon: • Two percent per year along Excelsior Boulevard • One percent per year along Monterey Drive, France Avenue and Park Center Boulevard • Less than one percent per year along Quentin Avenue, Natchez Avenue, W. 38 1 h Street, Inglewood A venue, Huntington A venue and Glenhurst A venue It is expected that the background growth along Excelsior Boulevard will begin to level out, as the area becomes fully developed. For this reason, the background growth rate per year along Excelsior Boulevard is reduced for the Year 2010 and 2015 horizons. Even though the background traffic throughout the corridor neighborhoods is not expected to grow, the growth rate is increased to produce more conservative results. The following values were assumed for the Year 2010 and 2015 horizons: • One percent per year along Excelsior Boulevard • One percent per year along Monterey Drive, France Avenue and Park Center Boulevard • Less than one percent per year along Quentin Avenue, Natchez Avenue, W . 38 1h Street, Inglewood A venue, Huntington A venue and Glenhurst A venue The ambient growth rates are applied to the existing traffic volume to obtain the expected Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 background traffic volumes. 4.2.2 Trip Generation The trip generation for each of the proposed development scenarios is estimated using the Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition , pubHshed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). This report is a compilation of daily and peak hour trip generation rates ba sed on actual data collected from s pecific sites where similar developments have occurred. The ITE Trip Generation Manual is an accepted and widely used resource in the Transp ortation field. The trip generation for each of the proposed development scenarios involved a two step process. • First, the trip generation for the existing land uses to be razed or expanded is estimated. These are trips that are already in the background traffic volumes. • Second, the trip generation for the proposed land use under each development plan is estimated. These are the trips that will be added to the future Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 background traffic volumes. The trip generation for the proposed land uses will be presented in later chapters under each specific development or re-development build year scenario. 4.2 .3 Trip Distribution Trip distribution refers to the geographic orientation of vehicles approaching or de parting the proposed Park Commons East, Park Commons West orAl's Bar sites. The trip distribution is estimated us ing the Hennepin County Travel Demand Model. The Travel Demand Model is a computer traffic simulation model that covers the entire Hennepin County area and is used to foreca st traffic on the area roadways. Briefly, the modeling process involves a set of assumptions regarding changes in land use and transportation. Land use is represented as a series of small geographic area s called Traffic Analysis Zones (T AZs). The population, employment, and other factors that determine the amount of trips that are either produced or attracted characterize these T AZs. The model is coded u si ng current roadway R:\116018\Rc:part July200l \E.tceblor_Fina1_Rcpm_ch4.doe URSIBRW Inc. -31 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 61 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota conditions and site access constraints. An example of this is the prohibited northbound France Avenue left-tum onto W. 38 1h Street during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Aiding the Travel Demand Model are historical traffic volumes for the primary roadways within the Corridor, as well as the results from the cut-through traffic analysis to be determined. These extra resources are used in detennining the regional trip distribution. The trip distribution for the proposed land uses will be presented in later chapters for each specific development or re-development build scenario by year. 4.2.4 Trip Assignment I Forecast Volumes The final step of the traffic forecasting process is to assign the estimated new external site generated trips to the surrounding roadway system based on the directional trip distribution of traffic. A hand assignment of the estimated trips is performed for each intersection tum movement within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. This method assigns the future vehicle trips to the most logical travel route, for both arriving and departing directions, and takes into account the following: • Intersection control • Location of each individual land use within the proposed deve lopments • Roadway characteristics The assigned trips are added to the Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 background traffic volumes to obtain forecast volumes. The forecast volumes, with background traffic, for the proposed land uses will be presented in later chapters under each specific development or re-development build scenario by year. 4.3 Mobility I Congestion A mobility and congestion analysis is a process that estimates the quality and capacity of traffic flow along segments of roadway. The ability of an intersection to process the existing or future approach traffic volumes is affected by the magnitudes of these volumes, their movement desires, the geometric design of the intersection, and the timing parameters of the traffic signal. There are two ways of perfonning this analysis, either by the critical movement method or a traffic operation analysis. ''The critical movement method is a quick-analysis planning application method that is suitable when a rough estimate of the intersection is sufficient, as it assumes "average" or typical conditions. The traffic operations analysis procedure is more appropriate for detailed res ults and recommending roadway improvements or mitigation measures".10 Previous studies completed either used the critical movement method; or a traffic operations analysis was performed for just a few of the intersections. The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor study uses the traffic operations analysis as described below . 4.3.1 Traffic Operations Analysis In order to determine the impacts of proposed developments on the surrounding roadway system, a traffic operation analysis is performed on the surrounding roadway network. The analysis process includes, determining level of service and queue lengths for each of the key intersections for the pre- development (existing) conditions and Year 2005, 2010 and 2015 post-development conditions. The level of service is based on individual vehicle delay throughout the Corridor that defines deficiencies in the roadway system. 1° Fun~amenta/s ofTransp ortation Engin eering, C.S. Papacos ta s,l9&7 R:\160 18\Rcport July '2001 \fuccl s i~_Fma.I_Rcport._ch4.doc URSIBRW In c. -3 2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 62 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 4.3.2 Analysis Tool The a pproach to the traffic operations analys is is derived from the established methodologies documented in the Highwa y Capacity Manual, Third Edition, 1997. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) contains a series of analysis techniques that are us ed to evaluate the operation of tran sportation fa c ilities under specified conditions. Synclrro5 a Highway Capacity Manual implementing operation analysis software package was used to build the roadway n etwork and as an input datab ase for all the lane geometries, tum movement volumes, traffic control and signal timing characteristics. In addition, all the signal timing parameters were optimized using Syncbro5. This information was transferred to SimTraffic5, a traffic simulation mod el, for the results. Although res ults can be taken direc tly from Synchro, they are not as accurate as SimTraffic. SimTraffic is a very detailed microscopic mo d e l that considers vehicle driver b e havior, detailed interaction between adjacent intersections, random behavior of traffi c and the delay for each individual vehicle throughout the entire peak h our. Furthermore , using SimTraffic to m odel the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor becomes ultimately important when me asuring the effects of closely spaced signals and intersections, as other analysis programs and techniques do no t provide adequate results. 4.3.3 Level of Service Summary The results of the analysis are typically presente d in the form of a l etter grade (A-F) that provi des a qualitative indication of th e operational efficiency or effectiveness. The letter grade assigned to traffic operations analysis results is referred to as Leve l of Service (LOS)11 • By definition , LOS A conditions represent high-quality operations (i.e., motorists experience very little delay or interference) and LOS F conditions represent very poor operations (i.e., extreme delay or severe congestion). Figure 4-2 shows a graphical interpreta tion of Level of Service. Figure 4-2. Level of Service Criteria LOSF LOSA Signalized Intersection 11 Highway Ca pacity Manual, Third Edition, 1997. k:IA60J 1\Repot't July 200J\Elu1sicr .. Flnal_RqJOJLch4.doc. ... ! G> u :E G> > 0 D. >-ftl 'i 0 g 1: 0 0 LOS F LOSA Unslgnalized Intersection URSIBRW In c. -33 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 63 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota In accordance the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County, and the City of St. Louis Park guidelines, this study uses the LOS D I E boundary as the indicator of acceptable traffjc operations and congestion . 4.3.4 Queue Summary Using only level of service to determine impacts would neglect potential queuing issues resulting from the background traffic or the proposed developments. A queue is defined as a line of one or more vehicles waiting to be serviced by the system. For thi s analysis, the system is represented by a signalized or unsignalized intersection. A queuing analysis is conducted to determine if adequate storage length for left and right-turn lanes exist and will be available for future conditions. In addition, the queuing analysis indicates issues with through-traffic spilling back into the upstream intersection. The storage length for the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Study is defined as the length of the turn lane (not including the length of the taper into the turn lane) or the distance between intersections (from the near side of the downstream intersection to the far side of the upstream intersection). The queue lengths reported for the analysis were the 95th percentile queues that are expected to occur during the peak hour. In some instances , the 95u' percentile queue length may exceed the storage length only once during the peak hour; however, the queue length is still reported as exceeding the storage length . 4.3.5 Defining Impacts As previously discussed, traffic impacts can be defined in a number of ways including: a) by the level of service of the entire intersection, b) by the level of service of individual movements within an intersection, and c) by the relationship between the queue length and the s torage length of an intersection movement. The following standards are used as the first step to define possible deficiencies: • For an intersection, the overall level of service of an intersection is expected to be a t a LOSE or F; • For one or more individual movements at an intersection, the level of service is expected to be at a LOS E or F, which results in a significant decre ase in the overall operational efficiency at the intersec tion ; or • For one or more queue lengths, the queue length exceeds the storage leng th, which results in significant upstream traffi c impacts. The next step is to determine if the defici ency warrants a mitigation measure or road way improvement. The following guidelines are applied when conducting a Traffic Study and identifying deficiencies that would or would not be considered warranted: • All intersection s operating at a LOS E or F as a result of background traffic or si te-generated traffic would be considered for roadway improvement or mitigation measures. • Not all intersection movements expected to be at a LOS E or F require roadway improvements or mitigation measures. For example, if an individual mo vemen t operates at a LOS E or F but has a low volume , th e movement would not be expected to si gnifjcantly decrease the overall operation at the intersection. R:'MI018'Report July 2001 \E:~c<lsior_Fina.l_Rtport_ch4 .doc URSIBRW Inc . -34 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 64 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • A queue length at a particular intersection exceeds the storage length causing through traffic to spill back through the next upstream intersection. • A queue length at a particular intersection exceeds the storage length and does not clear out throughout the peak hour, with the result that traffic volumes for the entire system begin to decrease. • Not all queue lengths that exceed storage lengths necessitate roadway improvements or mitigation measures. For example, if a queue length exceeds the storage length by only a short distance, the queue would not be expected to have a significant upstream impact. Or if the queue diminishes (clears out) regularly throughout the peak hour, the movement would not be expected to significantly dismpt upstream traffic. Once a specific deficiency is identified that necessitates consideration for a roadway improvement or mitigation measure, the following solutions are evaluated to reduce or eliminate the deficiency: • Optimizing the intersection signal timing, adjusting the intersection phasing, and/or reassigning the lane geometry. • Implementing geometric improvements, including adding through lanes, adding tum lanes or lengthening tum lanes. • Developing alternative travel routes. Summary This chapter has presented the standard methodology that was followed for determining existing and future traffic operations. The next chapter will present the results of the analysis of existing traffic operations within the Corridor. This analysis will provide a base from which to analyze future impacts . URS!BRW Inc. -35 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 65 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 5.0 Mobility/Congestion Analysis -Baseline Conditions {2000) In addressing the concern of mobility and congestion throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor, further documentation of the existing conditions must be conducted , since the efficiency of the Corridor roadways to handle traffic is based on the efficiency of the intersections along Excelsior Boulevard. The detailed intersection information begins to define the key intersections to study exclusively, such as collecting specific signal timing parameters. After this is documented, a detailed traffic operations analysis of the existing conditions can be modeled to create the baseline for comparing future development impact. 5.1 Data Collection The first step in addressing these concerns is to further define the corridor and collect existing traffic data. This process involves defining intersections, intersection lane geometry, traffic control, traffic volumes, and signal timing parameters . The following sections document the existing condition data collection. 5.1.1 Key Intersections Key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor included in this study were selected based on the potential level of future project related impacts. With consideration taken to previous studies conducted, resident input, and meetings between the City of St. Louis Park and URS I BRW, Inc. the following thirteen intersections were selected for analysis: • Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 East Ramp -Park Center Boulevard • Excelsior Bouleva rd I Wooddale Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Natclrez A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive-W. 38 1h Street • Monterey Drive I W. 38th-39th Street • Monterey Drive I Rec. Center Entrance -W. 36 Y2 Street • Excelsior Boulevard I Inglewood A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Huntington A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Glenhurst A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue • France Avenue I W. 38th Street The intersections of Excelsior Boulevard I J(jpling Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard I Joppa Avenue were not included in thi s study due to the time constraints with the Minnesota Department of Trans portation Ramp Meter Study. It was not possible to collect accurate and consistent turn movement counts at these intersections in the available time. However, the intersection geometry, d aily traffic volume and functional classification were reviewed at these intersections. It was concluded that th e intersections of Inglewood, Huntington and Glenhurst with Excelsior Boulevard would be representative of this section of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. 5.1.2 Intersection Geometry and Traffic Control The existing conditions intersection geometry and traffic control information for each of the key intersections was documented. Figure 5-1 details this information and indicates, under existing conditions, the key intersections consist of th e following types: R:'A6018\Rcport July 2001 1Jh.t.el5ior_FinaLRq xut_chS.doc URS!BRW In c. -36 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 66 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • Six signalized intersections, each with multiple through lanes and auxiliary turning lanes on the major street approaches. • Six two-way stop intersections. • One one-way stop "T" intersection. VRSIBRW In c. -37 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 67 CENTER · ~ Traffic Signal T Stop Sign * Turn Lane Extends Full Length of Roadway N A No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF 111 tiiKOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 5-1 Existing Conditions Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 68 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 5.1.3 Traffic Volumes Intersection turning movement volumes were collected during the a.m . and p.m . peak periods over several days by URS I BRW, Inc. in October of 2000 for the thirteen key intersections. Also collected were daily traffic counts for the primary roadways within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. Figure 5-2 documents the traffic volume collection locations. It should be noted that the data collection was conducted prior to the start of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Ramp Meter Study. Fi ure 5-2. Data Collection Locations ~ z z .::; z (l_ ;.-Q ,,. :!) ... et: u._... .. ~ ~ !;I . •" r ~~ r ·,~, 4 1.tJ rH S T N A NtJ :;r. • ._) -Da lly Traffic Coollt e Turning Mo'lemML Couot The turning movement volumes were conducted between 6 and 9 a .m. and 3 and 6 p.m. to capture the peak hour for each of the intersections. The existing traffic volumes for each of the key intersections during the p.m. peak hour are shown in Figure 5-3 . The a.m. peak hour traffic volumes can be seen in Figure 5-4 and the average daily traffic volumes for the primary roadways within the Corridor can be seen in Figure 5 -5. URS/BRW Inc. -39 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 69 W. 36th St. _jllJ WI . ~> O::<( :J a.. ~ N A No Scale w u ·z <( 0:: u. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _11/ tJJKOUIS URS BRW,Inc. Figure 5-3 Year2000 Existing Turning Movements PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 70 W. 36th St. _Jw WI· <C> o:::<C -' a.. S2 N A No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study lf{CITYOF __/1/ jJJKOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 5-4 Year2000 Existing Turning Movements AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 71 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study /lh CJTY OF ST.LOUIS PARK URS BRW, Inc. N A No Scale ->100 ,000 -20,000 -40,000 -10,000 -20,000 3000-10,000 Under 3,000 Figure 5-5 Existing Average Dail y Traffic Volumes Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 72 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 5.1.4 Signal Timing Hennepin County Highway Department suppli ed informalion regarding the traffic signal operati on at each of the key signalized intersections along Excelsior Boulevard. The informalion supplied included the extent of the actuated-coordinated system and detailed signal timing parameters during both the a.m. and p.m. peak h ours. Signal System Operation An actuated-coordina ted sys tem is defined as a system of traffic signals, each of which can sense and respond to vehicle presence. They are synchronized to provide a relationship between specific green indications at the adjacent intersections in the system to permit continuous operation of groups of vehicles along the s treet in acco rd ance with a time schedule. There are five intersections al ong Excelsior Boulevard that operate as an actuated-coordinated system, which include: • Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 West Ramp-Xenwood Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 East Ramp -Park Center Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Quenlin Avenue Note that the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard I TI-l 100 West Ramp -Xenwood Avenue, was not included as part of thi s Corridor Study. The intersections of Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive-W. 38 1h Street and Excelsior Boulevard at France Avenu e , currentl y operate actuated-uncoordinated. An actuated-uncoordinated traffic signal operates in response to vehicle presence at that intersection alone, so it does not consider traffic progression from adjacent signal s li ke a coordinated system would. Signal Timing Parameters Signal timing parameters that were provided by Hennepin County included the specific green time for each turn movement, intersecti on phasing, cycle length (if coordinated), and offset (if coordinated) for each of the key signali zed intersections. Other information included in this was unique operation parameters. An example of this is the west approach right turn movement at Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive-W. 38th Street intersection, where a green arrow is displayed only durin g the south approach left-tum green arrow. Another exampl e is the operation of th e Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100-Park Center Boulevard and Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale Avenue intersections. Though they are considered two different intersections, they are timed as if it were one intersection with five legs, greatly improving the capacity as compared to considering them as separate intersections. This information will prove to be very important for determining the existing level of congestion and mobility through these intersections, as well as for forecasting future l evels of congestion and locating areas subject to roadway improvements or mitigation measures. 5.2 Traffic Operations Analysis of Existing Conditions The traffic operations analysis of existin g conditions looks at each of the key intersections tum movement and overall intersection LOS for both the a.m. and p .m. peak periods. Also analyzed is th e approximate tum movement queue length for each of th e signalized intersections. The results com e from SimTraffic, which modeled the actual signal timin g parameters in operation today , the existing intersection l ane geometries R:\4601 1\Rcport J\lly 200 1\E..uxl,l or_Fi.nt.l~qxHi_chl.doc: URS/BRW In c. -43 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 73 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota (Figure 5-1), and th e existing turn movement volumes shown previously in this document (Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4). Furthermore, this section documents how the existing roadway and intersection Jane geometries, traffic control, and signal timing parameters accommodate the current traffic volumes . This analysis provides a benchmark for comparing when development volumes are added to the Corridor roadway netw ork for each build scenario. The results are detailed in the following sections . 5.2.1 PM Peak Hour The existing p.m . peak hour turning movement LOS and overall inte rsection LOS for each of the key intersections are shown in Figure 5-6. Detailed res ults that include the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and th e approximate 95 1 h percentile queue length with respect to available storage can be seen in Appendix B , Year 2000 Traffic Operations Analysis. The results s how that all the intersections , overall, operate at a n acceptable LOS and do not experience congestion (LOS E or F), as defined in Chapter 4. It should be noted that at the few highlighted tum movement locations shown in Figure 5-6, vehicles experience longer delays, but are not considered to be an operational deficiency for the reasons discussed in the Defining Impa cts section of tl1is report. The only movement of primary interest is the north approach left-turn at the Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive -W . 38th Street intersection where a longer delay or LOS E is experienced. This longer delay might be contributing to the high level of cut-through traffic entering the Minikahda Vista neighborhood . The results of the p.m. peak hour qu euing analysis show that at the present time, only the north approach of Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive-W. 38 1h Street has a potential problem with queuing . The 95th percentile queue is approximately 300 feet, which extends about 50 feet beyond the intersection of Monterey Drive a t W. 38th-39 1h Street. This creates problems with access and mobility at the W . 381h-39th Street intersection with Monterey Drive, but because it does not impact this intersections LOS, or its west approach delay, it will not be considered for a roadway improvement measure at this time. 5.2.2 AM Peak Hour The existing a.m. peak hour turning movement LOS and overall intersection LOS for each of the key intersections are shown in Figure 5-7. Detailed results that include the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 95 1 h percentile queue length with respect to available storage can be seen in Appendix B , Year 2000 Traffic Operations Analysis. The results s how that all the intersections, overall, operate at an acceptable LOS and do not experience congestion (LOS E or F), as defined in chapter 5 . It should be noted that at the few highlighted turn movement locations shown in Figure 5-7, vehicles experience longer delays , but are not considered to be an operational deficiency because the vehicles clear out at the end of every cycle. The results of the queuing analysis show that during the a.m. peak hour there are no regular problems with vehicles spilling back into other intersections or turn lanes blocking the through movement traffic flow. R:\160lil\Repol1 July '2001 \&«.lsiOI'_FinaJ_.Rc:port~chS.doc URSIBRW Inc. -44 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 74 ~ --lW WI . <C> rr< ci > ...J OJ ~ a.. ~ l No Scale w (.) z <( a::: u. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF 111 f,JliOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 5-6 Year2000 Existing Conditions Level of Service PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 75 ~ A No Scale w .U z <( 0:: u. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study FffCITYOF _1_/j jJJxOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 5-7 Year2000 Existing Conditions Level of Service AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 76 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 6.0 Year 2005 Scenario Analysis The purpose for analyzing the mobi lity a nd congesti on f or phase I is to determine h ow th e ex istin g r oadway geometry, traffic control and si gnal tim ing parameters is expecte d to accommodate the increased traffic of the proposed devel op m ent scena ri o f o r the Year 2005. Ag ain , the proposed development scen arios for this phase include re,d evel opment of both P ark Comm ons East and Al's Bar site. B oth of th ese re-devel opmen t land u ses were shown in Hgure 1-4 and Table 1-1. The followin g sections d etail the ac tual number of trips being genera ted by these l and u ses and the expec ted forecast volumes for each of the key inte rsec tions. A traffi c operati on s analys is is performed and roadway mitigati on m easu res are s ugges ted to accommodate th e proposed developments. 6.1 Forecast Year 2005 Traffic Vo l umes Following the methodology in c h apter 4, the trip ge ne ration fo r th e proposed land uses for th e Year 2 005 can be es timated. Sh own previously in T ab l e 1-1, are the actua l exi sting an d proposed land use facilities. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual , these l a nd uses can be converted into vehicle trips. Table 6-1 sh ows the estimated exi stin g and propose d trips being generated by th e land u ses in the Park Commons East site during both the a .m. and p .m . pe ak hours. Like wise, Table 6-2 sh ows th e esti mated tri ps being generated by the land uses in the Al 's Bar site during both a.m. and p.m. peak hours . Table 6 -1 Year 2005 Park Commons East Trip Generation PM Peak Pe riod L dU T.. G Extstma an se flO eneratton Directional Di stribution Vehi c les-PM Peak Hour Land Use/ ITE Code 1 Entering Ex iting Entering Exiting Total 1. Specia lty Retail /814 43% 57% 17 22 39 2. Res tauran t /832 60 % 40% 123 82 204 3. OHice 1710 17% 83% 4 20 24 4. Hea lth Club /4932 61 % 39% 42 27 69 Existing Total 185 151 336 Projected f2005J Trio Generation fwith Prooosed DevefoomentJ Directional Distribution Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ ITE Code1 Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 1. SQ_ecialtv Retail/814 43% 57% 90 119 209 2. Quality Restaurant /831 67% 33 % 141 69 2 10 3. Office /710 17% 83 % 36 176 2 12 4. Apartments /22 1 66% 34% 248 128 3 76 5. Townhome /231 57% 43 % 18 14 3 2 6. Health Club /493 61% 39% 66 42 108 7. Day Care /565 47% 53% 62 70 132 Proposed Total 66 0 618 1 279 'Trip Generation Ma nual, Sixlh Ed~io n, Institute of Tran sportation Engineers, 1997. R:.,.6011\R<portluty10011E.tulsi,..Y.W_R<po<Lclt6.doc URSIBRW In c. -47 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 77 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota AM Peak Pe ri od Existmg Land Use Tno Generation Directional Di stribution Vehicles -AM Pea k Hour Land Use/ITE Code 1 Enterinq Exiting Entering Exiting Total 1. Specialty Retail/814 6 1% 39% 10 6 16 2 . Res taurant /832 52% 48% 91 84 174 3 . Office 1710 88% 12% 18 2 20 4. Health Club /493 46% 54% 2 3 5 Existing Total 120 95 215 Proiected (2005) Trio Generation (with Prooosed DeveloomentJ Dire ct ion al Di stribution 1 Vehicles-AM Pe ak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 Enterinq Exitinq Ent erinq Exitinq Total 1. Specialty Retail /814 61% 39% 5 1 32 83 2. Quality Restaurant/831 2 82% 18 % 19 4 23 3. Offi ce /71 0 88% 12% 157 2 1 178 4. Apartm ents /221 20% 80% 61 244 305 5. T ow n home /231 25% 75 % 6 19 25 6. Hea lth Club /493 46% 54% 3 4 8 7. Day Care /5 65 53% 47% 67 60 127 Pro_j)_osed Total 364 384 749 1Trip Generation Manual . Sixth Ed~ion . In stitut e of Transportation Engineers. t 997 . 2 Tr ip Generation Manual does not provide directional distribution during the AM Peak Period of adlace nt street fo r this use; it was assumed to be the sam e distribution as during the peaK hour of gene rato r Table 6-2. Year 2005 Al's Bar Site Trip Generation PM Peak Peri od Ex1stma Land Use T,. G flO eneration Directi onal Di s tribution Vehi c les -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 Entering Exitinq Ent erinq ExitinCJ Total 1. Specialty Retail/814 43% I 57% 2 3 5 2 . Bar /836 66% 134% 17 9 25 Existing Total 19 11 30 Proiected (2005) Trio Generation (with Prooosed DeveloomentJ Direc tional Distribution Vehicles -PM Pe ak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 Entering Exitinq Enterinq Exitinq Total 1. Specialty Retail /8 14 43% 57% 22 30 52 2. Office 171 o 17% 83% 7 34 4 1 3. Ap a rtm ent s /22 0 67% 33% 25 12 37 4. Townhomes /231 57% 43% 4 3 7 Proposed Total 58 79 137 'Trip Generation Manual. Sixth Ed"ion. l n sl~ut e o f Transportation Engineers, 1997. R:\46018\Reporl July2001\D lC(.Is i or...Fin:aJ_R~_th6.doe URS/BR W Inc. -48 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 78 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota AM Peak Period E . . L dU 1",. G xtstma an se rtD eneratton Directiona l Distribution Vehicles -AM Peak Hour land Use/ITE Code 1 Entering Exiting Entering Exitin!l Total 1. Spec i alty Retail /814 61 % 139% 1 1 2 2. Ba r /836 0% lo% 0 0 0 Existing Total 1 1 2 Proiected (2005} Trio Generation (with Prooosed Devel oomentJ Direct ional Di stribution 1 Vehicles -AM Peak Hour land Use/ITE Code1 Entering Exiling Entering Exitinq Total 1. Specialty Retail /814 61% 39% 13 8 21 2. Office /710 88% 12% 30 4 34 3. Apa rtments /220 16% 84% 5 26 31 4. Tow nhom es /231 25% 75% 1 4 6 Proposed Total 49 42 91 'Trip Genera ti on M anual, Sixth Ed hi on, Institute of T ran sp ortation Engineers, 1997. These numbe rs are the starting poin t for determining th e ac tual trips th a t would be added to th e roa dwa y network. Both th e Park Commons East and Al's Bar sit e r e-development pl ans incorporate a mixed-use developme nt of office, retail , restaurant, and residen ti a l. When integrating l and us es of this type, i t has been docu m e nted by the ITE Trip Generation M a nu al , a nd is expected that a good nu mber of th ese trips would be captured wi thin the d evelopment. Captured trips are represented by a reductio n factor that accounts for multi-purpos e trips that occur internall y in mixed-use developme nts. An exa mple of thi s is an empl oyee in a n office land u se vi siting th e re t ai l area before leaving the development area. Studi es perlorme d in th e past, a s d oc um e nte d in the ITE Trip Gener ation Manual, sh ow that th e to tal trips gen erated by a mi xed-u se development may be redu ced b y as mu ch as 25 percent. For both th e Park Commo ns East s ite and Al's Bar site, u s ing a more con servati ve approach , it i s assumed th at the captu red trip redu cti on is 20 pe rcent. Bel ow is a s ummary of th e p .m. peak hour captured trip redu ction that shows appr oximately 256 of the trip s e ntering or exitin g th e P ark Comm on s East site a nd 27 of the tri ps e nte rin g o r ex itin g the Al 's Bar Site a re e xpected to be ca ptured tri ps th at never reach th e Excelsior Boulevard roadway network. 20% = Assumed Captured Trip Per c entage PM Peak Hour Entering Exiting Total Captured Trips for Park Commons East 128 1128 1256 Captured Trips for A/'s Bar Site 14 114 127 This can b e expecte d to occur du rin g the a.m. peak h o ur as we ll. B elow i s a summary of the a .m . peak hou r capture d trip reduction that s h ows approximately 150 of the tri ps en teri n g or exiti ng the Park Commons East si te and 18 o f th e trip s e n tering or exitin g the Al' s Ba r S it e. These a re expected to be capture d trips that would never reac h the Excelsior Bou leva rd roadway network. 20% =Ass umed Ca ptured Trip Percentage AM Peak Hour Entering Exitinq Total Captured Trips for Park Commons East 13 111 ]150 Captured Trips for A/'s Bar Site 10 18 118 An other con siderati on that appli es to mi xed-use developments is pass-by trips. P ass -by trips are those trips that would alread y be passin g th e si te alon g Excelsior Bouleva rd but a re attracted to th e site when passin g through th e area. As s uch , th ese trips are devel opmen t-generated trips that a re curre ntly a part of th e Excelsio r Boulevard back ground thr ou g h traffi c. Studies d oc umente d in the ITE Trip Generation R:\460J 8\Rtpo11 July 2001 \Eu:dsior_Final_Rq>Ort_ch6.doc: URSIBRW I nc. -49 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 79 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Manual show that an estimated 20 percent of all retail based trips can be considered as pass-by. Pass-by trip reductions for residential and office land uses are not used, since these types of uses do not generate pass-by trips. However, the retail based pass-by trips are being neglected since the calculated number of 33 vehicles would have a negligible affect on the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor roadway network. The difference between the existing land use trip generation and the proposed land use trip generation provides the net increase in traffic associated with the development of the Park Commons East site and Al's Bar site on the Corridor roadways . As shown below, the results of the traffic forecasting process indicates that approximately 766 12 and 455 new external vehicle trips will be added to the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor roadway network during the p.m. peak hour and a.m . peak hour, respectively. PM Peak Period PM Peak Hour Entering Exiting Total Projected: Projected Trips for Park Commons East 660 618 1,279 Projected Trips for A/'s Bar Site 58 79 137 Total Projected Trips-Phase I 719 697 1,416 Reductions: ·~ ~ :;--..~~ o-~ ::::; Existing Trips for Park Commons East 185 151 336 Existing Trips for A/'s Bar Site 19 11 30 Captured Trips for Park Commons East 128 128 256 Captured Trips for A/'s Bar Site 14 14 27 Total Trip Reduction -Phase I 346 304 650 Total New External T r ips Being Added to the Corridor-Phase I 373 393 766 AM Peak Period AM Peak Hour Entering Exiting Total Projected: -~ -· Projected Trips for Park Commons East 364 384 749 Projected Trios for A/'s Bar Site 49 42 91 Total Projected Trips-Phase I 413 427 840 Reductions: Existinq Trios for Park Commons East 120 95 2 15 Existinq Trips for A/'s Bar Site 1 1 2 Captured Trips for Park Commons East 73 77 150 Captured Trips for A/'s Bar Site 10 8 18 Total Tri p Reduction -Phase I 204 181 385 Total New Ext ernal Trips Being Added to the Corridor -Ph ase I 209 246 455 The Park Commons East and Al's Bar site regional trip distribution for the new external vehicle trips are shown in Figure 6-1. Again, these percentages represent the directional orientation in which these vehicles will access the developments. After ass igning the new external vehicle trip s to specific tum movements throu ghout the Corridor they are added to the year 2005 background traffic volumes. The forecast year 2005, p.m. peak period turn volumes can be seen in Figure 6-2 and the a.m. peak period tum volumes can be seen in Figure 6 -3 . 12 (Total New External Trips Being Added to the Corridor-Pha se I)= (Tota l projected Trips -Phase I)-(Total Trip Reduction-Phase I) I ,4 I 6-650 = 766. This calculation is calculated the same for the AM Peak Hour. The total trip reduction, as shown in the table, accounts for captured trips and eKisting land uses . R:\46018\R.eport July '2001\Excelsi or_Fin3LReport_ch6.doc URS!BRW In c. -50 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 80 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study 11/},C/TY OF ST.LOUIS PARK Source: Hen nepi n County Tra vel Deman d Model Ori gi n-Destina tion Survey (Li cense Pl ate Trace) Historical Traffic Counts N A No Scale Park Commons East Regional Trip Distribution • • Al's Bar Site Regional Trip Distribution URS BRW, In c. Figure 6-1 Park Commons East and Al's Bar Site Regional Trip Distribution Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 81 ~ _jill w, . <(> o:::<( Q > ...J Ill l No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _11/ jifxOUIS URS BRW,Inc. Figure 6-2 Year2005 Forecast Turning Movements PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 82 ~ N A No Scale w u z <( 0:: u.. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study rffCITYOF _11/ ti!:UJS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 6-3 Year2005 Forecast Turning Movements AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 83 Excelsior Bouleva rd Corridor Traffic S tudy St. Louis Park, Minnesota 6.2 Year 2005 Traffic Operations Analysis The traffi c an alys is is condu c te d f or b oth th e a.m. a nd p.m . p eak peri od s with th e Year 2005 fo recas t vo lumes add ed to the roadway network. The exis tin g geo me tr y a nd contr ol documen ted i n Figure 5-1 is th e assum e d co nditi on. C urrentl y , th e City of S t. Lo ui s Pa rk is prepari ng to wid e n th e Excelsi or Bou lev ard B ri dge c rossin g TH 100, however, thi s was n ot accounte d fo r in th e Year 2005 traffi c op er ation s an alys is. It will b e trea ted as a compl eted improveme nt p rojec t f or th e Year 2010 analys is. It is i mp ortant to n ote th a t thi s anal ys is us es th e Yea r 20 00 timin g plans obta in e d from H e nnepin County, where the i ntersec ti ons of E xcels i o r B oule va rd a t TH 100 West R a mp throu gh Excel sior Boul evard a t Qu e ntin A ven ue a re oper atin g actu ate d-c oordin ate d. B oth of th e intersections of Excels io r B ouleva rd I Monte rey Dri ve - W . 381h S treet and Excels io r Boul evard I France Ave are opera tin g ac tuated-u ncoo rdinated . In addition , th e inte rsecti o n o f Excel si or Bo ul eva rd an d Na tc hez A venu e is a t wo -way s top sign control. 6 .2.1 PM Peak Hour The Excel sior Boule vard Co rridor was modele d with SimTraffi c to ob ta in the o vera ll intersecti o n a nd turn m ove ment levels of service. Fig ure 6 -4 s hows th e Level o f Service fo r each of th e key intersections unde r the p.m. p eak h our condition s . D etai le d res ults that inclu de th e actu al average de lay pe r ve hicl e in seconds and the app roxi ma te 9 51h p ercentile qu eu e le n gth with resp ect to availa bl e s t orage can b e see n in Appendix C , Yea r 2005 T raffic Op e rat io n Ana lysis . Th e a n alys is indicates th at th e following intersecti ons wm l ikel y expen ence con ges ti on a n d may warrant a roadway mi tiga ti on measure in th e Yea r 2005 : • E xcel si or Bouleva rd I Natc h ez Ave nu e (the n o rth approac h operates a t a LOS F) • M ontere y Dri ve I W . 38th -39lh S treet (th e wes t ap proach operates at a LOS F) B oth of th ese a re uns ign alized intersecti ons an d th e ir con ges ti on is based on th e i nsuffici ent number of gaps on E xcelsi or B oul eva rd and M onte r ey Dri ve , res pecti vel y. T h e inte rsection of Excel si or Boule vard at N a tch ez A venue is th e focal i ntersecti on in to the Park Co mm on s East developmen t. This intersecti on will n eed to provi de a s afe pe des t ria n access, tra nsi t circula to ry service a nd safe access inbound an d ou tb ound th e d evel op ment am ong o th e r thin gs. T he intersecti on of M onterey Dri ve at W . 38 1h -39lh Street al so serves as a n access to the P ark Co mmo ns East d evel o pm ent as well as the c o nd omi niums on th e no rthwest quadra nt. This intersecti on i s in very close proxi mity to th e inte rsecti o n of M onte re y Drive with E xc el s i or B oul evard. O n e of the m a in compon e nts contributing to the poor op e ra ti on of th e M o nterey Drive I W . 38 111 -39 1h Street inte rsecti on i s the impac t f ro m the 9 5lh pe rcentil e qu eu e bein g p ro duced fro m th e Exce lsio r B oulevard I M o nte re y Dri ve -W. 38lh Street inte rsecti o n no rth a pproach. The qu eue extends over 100 feet beyon d th e W. 38 111 -39lh S treet intersecti on w ith M onterey D ri ve. Thi s conditi o n comp ro mi ses vehi c le safety. In additi on , there h as b e en conc ern r aised from th e resi d ents of the W olfe P ark neig hbo rh oo d with th e c urrent s ight d ista nce f or the w es t approach l eft -tum m ovement , as c urrently pa rki n g is allowed al on g both sides of M onte rey Dri ve, making it very di f fi cult to see on-coming southb ou nd ve hi cles. The results al so ind icated a few tum m ovement d e fi cien cies at the Excels ior B ouleva rd I Park Center Boule v ard a nd E xcels i or Bo uleva rd I M onte rey Dri ve -W. 38 u1 Street intersecti o ns . Th e poor l evel of service fo r these two intersections turn m ovem ents is ba sed on poor pro gressi on of ve hicl es th rou g h th e Co rrido r. Curre ntly, th e c oordin ated sys te m d oes not includ e E xcel sior B oul evard a t M on terey Drive - R:\460 1Mq>ott Joly 2001\S•cclslocFinal..keport_ch6.doc. URSIBR W Inc. -54 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 84 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota W . 381h Street, which further contributes to the poor progression of vehicles. The signal timing along Excelsior Boulevard should be better optimized to increase vehicle progression. As shown in Figure 6-4, there are other intersection tum movements with a LOS E or F. However, these are not considered to be operational deficiencies because of the reasons outlined in the Defining Impacts section earlier in this report. The following operational deficiencies will be discussed and mitigated in a later section: • Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue • Monterey Drive I 38th-39th Street • Vehicle progression through th e Excelsior Boulevard Corridor 6.2.2 AM Peak Hour Figure 6-5 shows the Level of Service for each of the key intersections under the a.m. peak hour condition. Detailed results that include the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 95'h percentile queue length with respect to available storage can be seen in Appendix C, Year 2005 Traffic Operation Analysis . The analysis indicates that the Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue intersection will likely experience congestion and may warrant a roadway mitigation measure in the Year 2005. Both the north and south approaches of this intersection operate at a LOS F during the a.m. peak hour. Again , this intersection is unsignalized and the poor operation is based on th e insufficient number of gaps along Excelsior Boulevard. As shown in Figure 6-5, there are other intersection tum mov ements with a LOS E or F. However, these are not considered to be operational deficiencies because of the reasons outlined in the Defining Impac ts section earlier in this report. R:\4 60 I 8'\Report July '200 I \Excels ior _fin.ll_Report_ch6.doc URSIBRW Inc. -55 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 85 W. 36th St. ~ _..Jw WI . <t:> cr.::t: ::J a. ~ N A No Scale w (.) z <( e: Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study FffCITYOF _I_Dj~OUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 6-4 Year2005 Level of Service PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 86 ~ ::i c.. ~ N A No Scale lu (.) z < 0:: LL Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _J_/j tJJKOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 6-5 Year2005 Level of Service AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 87 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 6.3 Identification of Year 2005 Traffic Flow Mitigation Measures This section presents mitigation measures to improve the defined deficiencies in the previous secti on. Since th e deficiency defined in the a.m. peak hour is also defined in the p.m. peak h our, only the results from the p.m . peak hour will be presented. In addressing these deficiencies the key features of the suggested intersection and operation improvements are illustrated in Figure 6-6 and the following: 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez A venue and vehicle progression through the Corridor. • Install a traffic control signal at the intersection of Excel sior Boulevard and Natchez Avenue. The eastbound and westbound left turn s will operate exclusive only, right-of- way :indicated by a left-tum green arrow. The northbound and southbound movements will operate permitted, meaning a simultaneous green ball for both directions, where left turning vehicles yield the right-of-way. • Construct the Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenu e north approach to consist of two approach lanes, one exclusive left-turn bay with approximately 100 feet of storage and one shared through/right-tum lane. • Development and implementation of actuated-coordinated timing plans on Excelsior Boulevard that would extend from th e coordinated system that currently begins at TH 100 West Ramp-Xenwood Avenue and ends at Quentin Avenue to include the signals through the Monterey Drive-W. 38 th Street intersection. The coordinated timing plans are optimized using leading and lagging left-tum operation to improve progression through the Corridor. In the traffic operations analysis, it was found that extending the coordinated system to the Excelsior Boulevard at F ranc e A venue intersection would not prove beneficial , s o it should remain uncoordinated. 2. Monterey Drive I 38th -39th Street • Reconstruct th e Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive-W. 38th Street north approach to include two left-tum lanes, one through lane, and one right-tum lane with at least 160 feet of storage for the left most left-tum lane and the right-turn lane. The o th er left-tum Jane and the through lane would extend the full length of roadway to the W. 38th -39th Street intersection with Monterey Drive. • The intersection of Monterey Drive I W. 38th -39th Street would include one through lane and one tluoughlright-tum lane on the north approach, one through l ane and one exclusive left-tum lane with 50 feet of storage on the south approach. • Eliminate on-street parking for the section of Monterey Drive between W. 36 Y2 Street- Recreation Center Entrance and W. 38 th -39th Street to accommodate a 4-lane cross- section . The southbound dire ction should provide continuity with the north approach of Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive -W. 38 1h Street, such that the left travel lane wou ld tum into a left-tum only lane and the right travel lane would tum into a through lane. The northbound direction could be reduced to one travel lane, if the existing roadway right-of-way doesn't provide for enough room. R:\46011\R.eport July lOOJ\G.Ic:clslor_FinAI_RfPOI't_ch6.doc URSIBRW In c . -58 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 88 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study W. 38th ST. Jlh CITYOF ST. LoUIS PARK No Sc ale ~ Traffi c Signal T Stop S ign._,.. . -Re m ove On-Street Parking to Accommodate Four-La n e C ross-Section * Left-T urn Bay with 50 Feet o f St orage ** Left-Turn Bay w ith 100 Feet of St o rage URS BRW, Inc. Figure 6-6 Yea r2005 Suggested Lane Geometry a nd Traffic Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 89 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The key int ersec ti ons were re-modeled u si ng SimTraffic to include th e above mitigati on measures. Excelsior Boulevard is o ptimi zed for eas t an d west b ound progression to maximize through moveme nt ca paci ty. This is accom pli shed b y utilizing leading and laggin g left-tum operation. The res ults of thi s anal ysis a re s ho wn i n Figure 6-7. Onl y res ults for th e intersec ti o ns being impacted by th ese improvements are s hown ; th e remaining key intersections in th e Corridor will not b e affected b y th e im provem ents. The de tail e d results including the actual av e ra ge delay per vehicle in second s and the approx im ate 95th p erc entile qu eue l e ngth with res p ect to available storage can be seen in Appendix C, Year 2005 Traffic Operation Analysis. The p.m. p eak h our analysis indi cated th e Excels ior B oulevard I N atchez Avenue intersection would exp erience cong es tion and operate at a LOS F. Due to thi s poor operati o n a nd the proposed P ark Commons Eas t site plan's limit ati on in s torage space on the north approach requiring short queue le ngth s, it was concluded that in order for thi s intersec tion to operate above th e LOS D I E threshold with minimum qu eues, Natc hez Av enu e mu s t operate with a traffic si gn al. Providing a traffic signal at the Excelsi or Boulevard I Natchez A venu e inte rsection fa cilitates efficient m ovement in a nd out of the P ark Commons East si te while providing a safe pedestrian crossing location. In addition , N atc h ez A venue at Excelsior Bo ul evard mu s t have a n exclusive left-tum bay on th e north approac h. The ins tall a ti on of a traffic si gnal a t the Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez A venu e intersec tion creates a relative ly close spacing of si gnal s al o ng Excel sio r Bouleva rd. The Minn eso ta Manual on Uniform Traffic Control D evices (MMUTCD) recommend s that traffi c control signals within Y2 mile spacing of one anoth e r operate in coordina tion . Fo llowing thi s g uide lin e, th e intersec ti ons of Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue and Excelsior B ouleva rd I Monterey Drive-W. 38 1h Street were added to th e ex isting coo rdinat ed system . Providing coordin ation to the Excelsior Boulevard at France Avenue intersection would no t prove benefici a l because of th e combination of the lon g di stan ce and many business and residential driv eway a ccess points dis mpting th e plato on of traffic. In conjunction with this Corridor Study, a Traffic Impac t Study was p erformed fo r the Park Commons East deve lo pme nt a lone . The s tudy looked at three possible miti gation alterna ti ves for th e M onterey Drive I W. 38 1h-39th Street intersection . These included : • Alternative 1: Converting M onterey Drive I W. 38 1h -39th Street intersecti on to a ri ght-in a nd ri ght-out on ly access point with n o oth er full access to the site along M onterey Drive. • Altern a tive 2: Allowin g M onte rey Drive at W . 38th-39th Stre et to remain unsign a lized, but make improvements to the Excelsior Boulevard I M onterey Drive -W . 38 1 b Street intersecti on n orth a pproach. • Alternative 3: Con ve rting Monterey Drive I W . 38th-39 'h Street in tersectio n to a right-in and right-out only access point with a full access point lo cate d approxi ma tel y 500 feet to th e n orth on Monte rey Drive. It was concluded and reco mm end ed th at Alternative 2 be impl e me nted , so the Excelsio r Boulevard Corrido r Study only pres ents improveme nts for thi s measure. During the analysis, it was found that the queue l ength s on the north approach of the Excelsior Boulevard I M onterey Drive-W . 38'h Street inte rsection we re extendin g over 100 feet beyond theW. 38th -39'h S treet inte rsec ti on with Monterey Drive. This created problems with blocking access points an d th e m obility of traffic . Excelsior B oul evard at Monter ey Drive-W. 38 th Street n orth approac h was modified to include du al le ft-tum lanes, one throu gh lane and one rig ht-tum lane to provide ad dition a l s torage space a nd r edu ce vehicles stacking throu gh theW. 38 1h-39th Street inte rsecti on. URSIBRW Inc. -60 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 90 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Th e re sults for thi s alterna ti ve indicate that the un s ignali zed full access at the Monterey Drive I W. 38th -39th Street intersection, specific ally the west approach left turn movement, will meet the operational objective of facilitating trav e l through the Corridor with move m ents operating at a LOS D or b etter. In addition, thi s improvement makes Excelsior Boulevard at Monterey Drive -W. 38th Street operate even more efficiently. The queue lengths were reduced to the a va ilabl e storage as defined below, w ith the only exception being the through movement, where the 95th percentile qu eue was found to be approximately 240 feet. This however, does not present any impact to th e Monterey Drive I W. 38th- 39th Street intersection. If thes e features are provid ed, the key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor will meet th e operational objective of facilitating travel through the C orri dor with the higher volume turn movements operating at a LOS D o r better. 6.3.1 Neighborhood and Corridor Impact Providing the mitigation measures, as di scussed above, will facilitate a n efficient level of traffic operations throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor as well as providing potential benefits. A traffic sig nal at Excelsior Boulevard and Natchez A venue provides the following: I. Safe protected pe destrian crossing for access to th e Park Commons East development, Wolfe Park and the recreation center without having to go to Quentin Avenue or M onterey Drive -W. 38th Street. 2. Exclusive left-tum green arrows on the east and west approaches at this intersection may deter potential cut-through traffic from using Natchez A ve nue to the south of Excelsior Boulevard, as a longer delay is expected for this type of control versus an unsignalized intersec tion . 3. Improved delay for the Natchez Avenue north approach left-tum onto Excelsior B oulevard. 4. Access to th e transit system at the Park Commons East development, Town Green. The progression of traffic along Excelsior Boulevard is expected to experie nc e a rel a tiv ely minimal impact. The travel time between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive -W. 38th Street i s found to only increase an average of 6 seconds p er vehicle during the p.m. peak hour. Providing dual left-tum lanes and an exclusive right-tum lane to the north approach at the Excelsior Boulevard I Monterey Drive-W . 38th Street intersection makes this approach operate more efficiently. The benefits include: 1. Possible reduction in c ut-through traffic, as the north approach left-tum movement is much more efficient. 2. Reduces the amount of green time actually used for the north approach through movement onto W . 38th Street. However, enough green time would still be needed to accommodate adequate pedestrian crossing time, when pe destrians are present. 3. Reduces the s tacking distances, which may impac t the operation of th eW. 38th-39th Street intersection. URSIBRW In c. -61 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 91 -- Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study /IA C ITY OF S T.LOUIS PARK URS BRW ,Inc. N A No Sca le Figure 6-7 Year2005 Level of Service with Mitigation Measures PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 92 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 7.0 Year 2010 Scenario Analysis The purpose for analyzing the mobility and congestion for phase IT is to determine how the existing geometry and the implemented mitigation measures suggested for Year 2005, traffic control and signal timing parameters are e xpected to accommodate the increased traffic of the propos ed development scenario for the Year 2010. Again , the proposed development scenarios for this phase include a partial re-development and expansion to th e Park Commons West si te. This also includes all development land uses for the Year 2005. The land uses for the Year 2010 were shown in Figure 1-5 and Table 1-2 . The following sections detail the actual number of trips being generated by these land uses and the expected forecast volumes for each of the key intersections. A traffic opera6ons ana lysis is petformed and roadway mitigation measures are sugges ted to accommodate the proposed developments. 7.1 City of St. Louis Park Improvement Projects Prior to the proposed developments or expansion of existing developments within the Park Commons West site, the City of St. Louis Park has planned to implement two roadway improvement projects impacting the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. These projects as detailed below and in Figure 7-1 include: l. Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 bridge widening project. The widening of the bridge will reconstruct the eastbound Excelsior Boulevard to accommodate two left turns, two through lanes and a bicycle l ane. The bicycle Jan e is designed such that St. Louis Park and Hennepin County can easi l y convert it to a third through lane when needed in the future. The existing is onl y one left-turn Jane and two through lanes. 2. As :indicated in the Review of Previous Traffic Studies sec6on, SRF Consulting Group conducted a Feasibility Study of the Park Commons West area circulation. Recommended in that study and adopted by the City of St. Louis Park, the following roadway improvements are anticipated to be in-place before re-development of Park Commons West. • Construc6on of a "north-south" coll ector roadway linking W. 36th Street at Park Center Boulevard with Excelsior Boulevard at Quentin Avenue. • Construction of new "east-west" l ocal street connection that would extend from Quen6n Avenue at W. 38th-39th Street to Park Center Boulevard. This improves and assists in internal vehicle circu la6on among the development parcels, without access to Excelsior Boulevard. • Improve access to TH 100 from Excelsior Boulevard by the conversion of Park Center Boulevard to a on e-way northbound roadway. Park Center Boulevard starts as a northbound one-way at Excelsior Boulevard and becomes a two-way street at W. 38th-39th Street. R:\46011\R.cpon July 200J\EJ.ulslor_Fanat_Report_ch7.doc URSIBRW Inc. -63 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 93 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study J/ACITYOF ST. LOUIS PARK URS 8 RW In East/West Connector Existing Local Street Bridge Widening Project Adding Turn Lane & Bike Trail (future 3rd thru lane Figure 7-1 City of St. Louis Park Improvement Projects Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 94 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 7.2 Forecast Year 2010 Traffic Vol umes Following the methodology in c h apter 4, th e trip ge ne ration fo r th e proposed land u ses for the Yea r 20 10 can b e es timated . S ho wn previou sl y in T able 1-2, are the actua l existin g and proposed land u se facilities. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, th ese land uses can be convert ed into vehicle trips. T ab le 7 -1 s hows the estimated existing a nd proposed trip s being generated by th e la nd u ses in the P ark Commons West site during both the a.m. and p .m . peak h ours for year 2010. Table 7-1. Year 2010 Park Commons West Trip Generation PM Peak Period E . t ' L d U T . G f x1s mg an se np enera 1on Directional Di stribution Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ITE Code 1 Entering Exiting Entering Exiting T otal 1. Norwest Bank Office /715 15% 85% 5 29 34 2. Wayside Home /620 42% 58% 3 4 7 3. Citizen's Bank Off ice/715 15% 85% 13 73 86 4. Medical Office /72 0 27% 73% 28 75 102 Existing Total 49 181 230 Projected (2010) Trip_ Generation (with Proposed Developments} Dire ctional Di stribution 1 Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ lTE Code1 Enteri ng Exiling Entering Exitln<J Total 1. Se ni or Residential /253 59% 41 % 18 12 30 2 . Rec reat ional Community Center /495 34% 66% 36 69 105 3 . Office /71 0 17% 83% 9 46 56 4 . Specia lty Retail /8 14 43% 57% 65 86 150 5. Medical Office /72 0 27% 73% 205 554 759 Propos ed Total 333 768 1100 1Trip Generation Manual, Sixlh Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. AM Peak P e1iod L dU 1i' G E x1stmq an se np enerat1on Directional Dis tribution' Ve h icles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 Entering Exiting Entering_ Exitif!g_ Total 1. N orwest Bank Office /715 89% 11% 32 4 36 2. Wayside Home /620 62% 38% 5 3 8 3. CHize n's Bank Offi ce 1715 69% 11 % 79 10 89 4. Medica l Office /720 80% 20% 54 14 66 Existing Total 170 30 200 Projected (2010) Trip Generationfwith Proposed Developments) Directional Distribution Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land U se/ITE Code1 Entering Exiting Entering Exiting T ot al 1. Senior Reside nti al /253 63% 37% 13 8 21 2. Recrealio nal Community Cen ter /49 5 66% 34% 52 27 79 3. Office /710 88% 12% 41 6 47 4. Specia Hv Retail/814 61% 39% 36 23 60 5. Medical Office /72 0 60 % 20% 403 101 504 Proposed Total 547 164 711 'Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1 997. URSIBRW Inc. -65 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 95 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota These numbers are the starting po int for d ete rminin g the ac tual trip s that would be add ed to th e roadway netwo rk. For Year 2010 or Phase II, th e predomin ant land use is office space . There is a small degree of mixed-u ses between office , retail and residential spaces being proposed . Recogni zing that c aptured and pass -by trips may likely occur within this dev elopment, its impact is negligibl e and its affec t is being neglected . The difference between the existing land us e trip generation and the proposed la nd use trip generation provi des the net increase in traffic as sociated with the development of the Park Commons West -Phase II site on the Corridor roadways . As shown below, the results of the traffic forecasting process indicates that a pprox imately 871 13 and 511 new ex ternal vehicle trips will be added to th e E xcelsior Boulevard Corrido r ro adway network during the p.m. peak h our and a.m . peak hour, re spectiv ely. PM P eak Period PM Peak Hour Entering Exiting Total Projected: Projec ted Trios for Park Commons We st -Phase II 333 768 1,100 Total Projected Trips-Ph ase II 333 768 1100 Reductions: :...--:'"""~-= Existi ng Trips for Park Commons We st-Ph ase II 49 181 230 Total Trip Reduction-Phase II 49 181 230 Total New External Trips Being Added to the Corridor-Phase II 284 1587 1871 AM Peak Peri od AM Pe ak Hour Enteri1!9_ Exiti1!9_ Total ProJected: Projec ted Trips for Park Commons West -Phas e II 547 164 711 Total Projected Trips-Phase II 547 164 711 Reductions: -...:':----~ Existing Trips for Pa rk Commons West -Phase II 170 30 200 Total Trip Reduction-Phase II 170 30 200 Total New External Trips Being Added to the Corridor-Pha se II 376 1134 1511 The Park Commons West region al trip distribution for the new external vehicle trips is shown in Figure 7 -2, Again, these percentages represent the directional orientation in whi ch these vehi cl es will access the developments . After assig ning the ne w external vehicle tri ps to s pecifi c tum movements througho ut the Corri dor, th ey are added to the ye ar 2010 background traffic volum es . Included within the year 2010 background traffic vo lumes are the phase I development volumes . However, the Phase I d eve lo pment s pecific volumes were not inc reased by the growth rate fac tor. The fore cast year 2 010, p.m. peak period tum volumes can be seen in Fi gure 7 -3 and th e a.m. peak period turn volumes can b e seen in Figure 7-4. 13 (To tal Ne w Ex ternal Trips Being Added to the Corridor -Ph as e H)= (Total proj ected Trips -Phas e II)-(Total Trip Redu cti on -Phase II) I , 100 -230 = 871 . This calculation is calcul a ted the same for th e AM Peak H our. The tot al trip reducti on, as s ho wn in th e table, accounts for ex isting land uses. R:\1 60 18\Rcpon July 2001\Exeelslor_FinaLRepol13 h 7.doc URS/BRW In c. -66 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 96 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study 11/},CITY OF ST.LOUIS PARK Source: URS w. 38th st. Hennef>in County Tra vel Demand Model Origin-Dest i nation Survey (License PI ate Trace) His to rica l Traffi c Counts N A No Scale BRW, Inc. Figure 7-2 Park Commons West Development Regional Trip Distribution Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 97 ~ N A No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study lffCITYOF mti!;tUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 7-3 Year2010 Forecast Tuming Movements PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 98 W. 36th St. ~ _jill wJ . <(> O:::<( Q ~ m N A No Scale w (.) z <! 0::: u. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study FffCITYOF _11/ tJfxOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 7-4 Year2010 Forecast Turning Movements AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 99 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 7.3 Year 2010 Traffic Operations Analysis The traffic analysis is conducted for both the a.m. and p.m. peak periods with the Year 2010 forecast volumes added to the roadway network. It is important to note that this analysis assumes all mitigation measure s suggested in the Phase I, Year 2005 analysis are implemented prior. Also included are the improvement projects being implemented by the City of St. Louis Park prior to the Year 2010. Figure 7-5 shows the intersection lane geometry and traffic control with these mitigation and roadway improvements implemented. This is the assumed base condition for the Year 2010 analysis. The signal timing was optimized to a llow the coordinated system to operate it s optimal efficiency for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 7.3.1 PM Peak Hour The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor was modeled with SimTraffic to obtain the overall intersection and tum movement levels of service. Figure 7-6 shows the Level of Service for each of the key intersections unde r the p.m . peak hour conditions. D etail ed results that include the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 951 h percentile queue length with respec t to available storage can be seen in Appendix D, Year 2010 Traffic Operation Analysis. The analysis indicates that the following intersections will likely experience congestion and may warrant a roadway mitigation measure in the Year 2010: • Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard. Both of these are signalized intersections, and their congestion is based on the insufficient leve l of servi ce for one or more high volume movements. Both of these intersections overall level of service is sati sfac tory , LOS D or better, but there is a movement deficiency that impac ts other movements within the intersection or upstream intersections. The intersection of Excelsior Boulevard at Park Center Boulevard is the TH 100 East Ramp intersection. The west approach through movement operates at a LOS E during the p .m . peak hour. In addition, the through move ment 95lh percentile queue length extends into the Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 Wes t Ramp intersection. The impact of thi s long queue creates poor operation of the through movement at both the West Ramp and East Ramp intersections. Discussions with the City of St. Louis Park have indicated that the City is willing to allow this movement to operate under these conditions until it is further warranted for an improvement. The intersection of Excelsior Boulevard at France A venue is the east most signalized intersection within the Corridor. The south approach left-tum and the east approach left-tum movements are expected to operate at a LOS E and LOS F, respectively, under the 2010 d evelopment land use scenario. The 95111 percentile queue le ngth for these two movements are approximately 640 feet for the south approach left and 409 feet for th e east approach left-tum . These do not impact upstream intersection operations, nor do they exceed th e available storage l e ngth, but they do require a significant amount of green time to move all the vehicles through th e intersection . The hi gh delay being reported is contributed to this long queue, which can not all b e processed in a single cycle length. The impact o f thes e moveme nts operating poorly, may encourage vehicles to cut-through the neighborhood to avoid thi s delay. R:\46011\R cport July 2001\Sxc:eblQf_FmaJ_R cport_dl7.doo URSIBRW Inc. -70 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 100 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota As shown in Figure 7-6, there are other intersection turn movements with a LOS E or F. However , these are not considered to be operational deficiencies because of the reasons outlined in the Defining Impacts section earlier in this report. The operational deficiencies noted at Excelsior Boulevard and France A ve nue wm be further discussed and mitigated in a later section. 7.3.2 AM Peak Hour Figure 7-7 shows the Level of Service fo r each of the ke y intersections und er the a.m. peak hour condition. Detailed results that include the actual average dela y per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 95th percentile queue length with re sp ect to available storage can b e seen in Appendix D , Year 2010 Traffic Operation Analysis. The analysis indicates that all the key intersection s within the Corridor will operate sufficiently under the Year 2010 deve lopment conditions. As shown in Figure 7-7, there are a few intersection turn movements with a LOS E or F. Howe ver, these are not considered to be operational d eficiencies because of the rea sons outlined in the Defining Impa c ts section ear]jer in this report. R:\46018\Rcport July 2001 \Elcei!I Of"_finll_Report_ch7 .dot URS/BRW Inc. -71 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 101 W. 36th St. ~ ...JW wt . <(> o:::<( ci ~ al ...J a.. ~ ~ Traffic Signal T Stop Sign w u z <( 0::: LL St. -4-Lane Cross-section (No Parking) * Turn Lane Extends Full Length of Roadway N A No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _1_// JJ:fxOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 7-5 Year2010 Base Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 102 ~ :J a.. ~ A No Scale w .u z '<( 0::: LL Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF .1/J tJfxOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 7-6 Year2010 Level of Service PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 103 W. 36th St. I C) ....Jill WI . <(> O::<( :J a.. S2 N A No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CJTYOF _1_// tJJ:UIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 7-7 Year2010 Level of Service AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 104 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 7.4 Identification of Year 2010 Traffic Flow Mitigation Measures This section prese nts mitiga ti on measures to improve the defined deficiencies in the previous section. Only the results from the p.m. peak h our will be presented. In addressing the se deficiencies th e key fea tures of the sugges ted intersection a nd operation improveme nts a re illustrated in Figure 7 -8 and the following: 1 . Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue • Add a Jeft-tum Jane to the south approach. This approach would be r eco ns tru cted to include one exclusive left-tum Jane, one sh are d through I l eft-tum lane and one exclusive right-tum lan e. The key intersections were re-modeled us ing SimTraff:ic to include the above mitigation measures. Excelsior Boulevard is optimized for eas t and west bound progression to maximize through movement capacity. This is accomplished by utili z ing leading and Jagging left-tum operation. The results of thi s analysis are s hown in Figure 7-9. Only results for the intersecti ons being impacted by these improvements are s ho wn; the remaining key intersections in the Corridor will not be affected by this improvem ent. The detailed res ult s, including the actual average delay per vehicl e in seconds and the approximate 951h p ercentile queue length with respect to available storage, can be seen in Appendix D, Year 2010 Traffic Operation Analysis. The p .m. peak hour analysis indicate d the Excelsior Boulevard I France Avenue intersection would experience congestion and the so uth approach left-tum and east approach l eft-tum would operate at a LOSE and LOS F, respectively. Due to thi s poor operation , the proposed is to cons tru ct an additional l eft-tum lane on th e south approach. Providing the additional left-turn at the Excelsior Boulevard I France Avenue intersection facilitate s a n efficient movement onto westbound Excelsior Boulevard. Also by providing the ad ditional left-tum lane, less green time is needed to move all th e so uth approach vehicles through, thus providing more green time to other movem ents in the inte rsectio n. B oth the eastbound and westbound through movements are further improved, as well as the east appr oach left- tum movement, which improves to a LOS E. If these features are provid ed, the key intersections within the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor will meet the operational objective of facilitating travel through the Corridor with th e higher volume turn movements operating at a LOS D or b e tter. Contributi11g Factors It should be noted that it might be mi sleading to ass ume the operational deficie ncy f ou nd at the Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue inters ection is directly caused by th e Y ear 2010 developme nt scenario. • The historical trend in background traffic growth for both Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue ha s b een increasing quite steady and is expected to r emai n so into th e future. • The actual development site-generated volumes at the intersec tion of Excelsior B oul evard I France Avenue are relatively low. The mitigation measure proposed at this inte rsection will likely be necessary a t this inters ection whether the Park Commons Wes t site is re-developed or not, due to the increasing background traffic growth. URSIBRW Inc. -75 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 105 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Neighborhood and Corridor Impact Provision of the mitigation measures as discussed above will facilitat e an efficient level of traffic operations throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor as well as providing other potential benefits. Provision of an additional left-tum lane on the south approach at Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue provides the following: 1. An efficient south approach left-tum movement onto westbound Excelsior Boulevard 2. PotenHal reductions in cut-through traffic, as vehicles are more apt to make thi s movement rather than using local or neighborhood roads . Without this improvement, this intersection tum movement is expected to operate poorly in the future with or without the proposed developments. Implementing the additional left-tum lane proposed for the south approach at the Excelsior Boulevard I France Avenue intersection may require the following: 1. Multi-agency involvement including the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County. 2. Right-of-way acquisition from the existing gas station property on the southwest comer. 3. Minor redesign of the intersection geometries for the southwest comer. R:\4601&\Rcpot1 July 2001 \E.xcc.taiOI"_flnal_Repon_dt7.doc. URSIBRW Inc. -76 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 106 W. 36th St. 12 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study -..J 0.. -~ J/A C ITYOF ST.LoUIS PARK J/ I : . N W. 39th St. A No Scale ~ Traffic Signal * Left-Turn Bay with 240 Fe et of Storage URS BRW,Inc. -·-.. ' ~ Figure 7-8 Year 2010 Sugg este d Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 107 W . 36th St. 12 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study -_J 0... -~ J/h CITYOF ST.LOUIS PARK t- (J) " ::::> :I: t. z W . 39th St. URS BRW,lnc. w (.) z <( 0:: u.. N A No Scale Figure 7-9 Year2010 Level of Service with Mitigation Measures PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 108 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic S tudy St. Louis Park, Minnesota 8.0 Year 2015 Scenario Analysis The purpose for analyzing the mobility and congestion for phase ill is to determin e how the existing geometr y and th e imp l emented mi tigation m easures suggested for Year 2005 and 2010, traffic control and signal timing parame ters are expected to accommodate the increased traffic of th e proposed development scenario for th e Year 2015. Again , th e proposed development scenarios for thi s phase include a compl ete build-out or e xpansion to the Park Commons West site. This includes all development l and u ses for the Year 2005 and for the Year 2010. The land uses for the Year 20 15 were sh own in Figure 1-6 and Tabl e 1-3. The foll owin g sections detail the actu al number of trips being generated by these land u ses and the exp ected forecas t volumes f or each of the key intersections . A traffic operations a nal ys is is performed and roadway mitigation m easures are suggested to accommodate th e proposed developments. 8.1 Forecast Year 2015 Traffic Volumes Following the methodology in c hapter 4, the trip generatio n for the proposed land u ses for the Year 2015 can be estimated. S hown previous ly in Table 1-3, are the actu al existing and proposed land use facilit ies. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manu al , th ese land u ses can be converted into vehicJe trips. Table 8-1 shows the estimated existing a nd proposed trips being generated by the l an d u ses in the Park Commons We st si te during both the a.m . and p.m. peak h ours for year 2015. Table 8-1. Year 2015 Park Commons West Trip Ge neration PM Peak Period E .. L dU T,'G XISitng an se fiP enerat1on Directional Distribution1 Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 EnterinQ ExitinQ Entering Ex iting Total . 1. Medical Office /720 27% 173% 352 952 1 304 2. Discount Store /815 50% I 50% 165 165 331 Existing Total 517 1117 1 634 Projected (2015) Trip Generation (wi th Proposed Developments and Expansions) Directional Distribution 1 Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 Enterinq Exiting Entering ExitinQ Total 1. S pecia lty Retail /814 43% 57% 46 61 108 2. Discount Store /8 15 50% 50% 272 272 545 3. Office 171 0 17% 83% 32 154 186 4. Hotel /31 0 49% 51% 42 43 85 5. Medical Office /720 27% 73% 579 1 565 2 143 Proposed Total 971 2 096 3067 'Trip Generation Manual, S ixth Ed~lon, ln sm ute ofTransportallon Engineers, 1997. R:\4601 1\Report July2001\E.tc:cllior_FWl_Rr:pcwt_dlt:.doc URS/BRW I nc. -79 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 109 Excelsior Bouleva1·d Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota AM Peak Peri od Existina Land Use Trip Generation Directional Distribution 1 Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ ITE Code 1 Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 1. Medical Office /720 80% 120% 692 173 866 2. Discount Store /815 66% !34% 51 26 77 Existing Total 743 199 943 Projected {2015) Trip Generation {with Proposed Developments and Expansions) Directional Distribution 1 Vehicles -PM Peak Hour Land Use/ ITE Code 1 Entering Exiting Entering Exiting Total 1. Specialty Retail /814 61 % 39% 26 17 43 2. Discount Store /815 66% 34% 84 43 127 3. Office /710 88 % 12% 137 19 156 4 . Hotel /310 58 % 42% 47 34 80 5. Medical Office /720 80% 20% 1 138 285 1 423 Proposed Total 1432 397 1 829 1Trlp Generallon Manual, SIX1h Editi on, Institute of TransportaUon Engineers, 1997. These numbers are the starting point for determining the actual trips that would be added to the roadway network. For Year 2015 or Phase III, the predominant land use is office space. There is a small degree of mixed-uses between office, retail and residential spaces being proposed. Recognizing that captured and pass-by trips may likely occur within thi s development, its impact is negligible and its affect is being neglected. The difference between the exi sting land use trip generation and the proposed land us e trip generation provides th e net increa se in traffic associated with the development of the Park Commons West -Phase III s ite on the Corridor roadways. As shown be low, the results of the traffic forecasting process indicates that approximately 1433 14 and 877 ne w external vehicle trips will be added to the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor roadway network during the p .m. pea k hour and a .m. peak hour, res pectively. PM Peak P e riod PM Peak Hour Entering Exiting Total Projected: Projected Trips for Park Commons West -Phase Ill 971 2,096 3067 Total Projected Trips -Phase Ill 971 2096 3067 Reductions: Existing Trips for Park Commons West -Phase Ill 517 1 117 1 634 Total Trip Reduction-Phase Ill 517 1117 1634 Total New External Trips Being Added to the Corridor-Phase Ill 453 979 1 ,433 14 (Total New External Trips Being Added to th e C orridor -Pha se HJ)= (Total projected Trips -Phase III) -(Total Trip Reduction -Phase lll) 3 ,067 -1,634 = I ,43 3. Thi s calculation is calcul ate d the same for the AM Pe ak Hour. The tot al trip reductio n, as s hown in the tabl e, acco unts o r exis tin g land uses. R:\4 60 1 1\Rc port Ju ly '200 1 \£l ee Is ior_Finai_Report_ch 8 .doc URS/BRW In c. -80 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 110 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota AM Peak Peri od AM Peak Hour Entering_ Exitil'!g Total Projected: Projected TrifJ§ for Park Commons West -Phase Ill 1,432 397 1,829 Total Projected Trips -Phase Ill 1,432 397 1829 Reductions: -~·-- Existing Trips for Park Commons We st -Phase Ill 74 3 199 943 Total Trip Reduction -Phase Ill 743 199 943 Total New External Trips Being Added to the Corridor-Phase Ill 689 198 887 The P a rk Commons Wes t regi onal trip di stributio n for the new e x ternal vehicle trip s is th e same as Ye ar 2 010 and is shown i n Fi gure 7 -2, Aga in, th ese p e rcenta ges repres e nt the direc ti onal orienta tion in which these vehicles will access the d e vel o pments. After ass igning th e new e xtern al vehicl e trips to specific turn mo ve me nt s througho ut the Corrido r they are added to th e ye ar 2 01 5 b ackground traffic volumes . Include d within the ye ar 2015 background tr affi c volumes are th e Phase I de velopm ent volumes and Phas e II development volumes. Howe ve r, the Phase I and Phas e II d e velopme nt s pecific volumes were not inc re ased by the growth rate fa c to r. The f orecas t year 2015 , p.m. p eak p e ri o d tum vo lum es can b e seen in Fi g ure 8-1 and th e a.m. peak period tum volumes can b e seen in F ig ure 8-2. R:'J601 8'\Rcport Ju l)' 2001 \E.~:c.clsior_FinalRcp<K1_chl .doc URS!BRW In c. -8 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 111 N A No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF .Ill f,J):UIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 8-1 Year 2015 Forecast Turning Movements PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 112 ~ N A No Scale w ~ w (.) z < 0::: u. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study FffCITYOF _J.Jj t'J1iOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 8-2 Year2015 Forecast Turning Movements AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 113 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 8.2 Year 2015 Traffic Operations Analysis The traffic analysis is conducted for both the a.m. and p.m . peak periods with the Year 2015 forecast volumes added to the roadway network. It is important to note that this analysi s assumes all mitigation measures suggested in the Phase I, Year 2005 analysis and Phase II, Year 2010 analysis are implemented prior. Also included are the improvement projects being implemented by th e City of St. Louis Park prior to the Year 2010. Figure 8-3 shows the intersection lane geometry and traffic control with these mitigation and roadway improvements implemented. This is the assumed base condition for the Year 2015 analysis. The signal timing wa s optimized to a11ow the coordinated system to operate its optimal efficiency for both the a.m. and p.m . peak hours. 8.2.1 PM Peak Hour The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor was modeled with SimTraffk to obtain the overall intersection and tum movement levels of service . Figure 8-4 shows the Level of Service for each of the key intersections under the p.m. peak hour conditions. Detailed results that include the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 951h percentile queue length with respect to available storage can be seen in Appendix E, Year 2015 Traffic Operation Analysis. The analysis indkates that the following intersections will likely experience congestion and may warrant a roadway or intersection mitigation measure in the Year 2015: • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue The eastbound through movement at th e intersection of Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard is found to operate poorly under Year 2015 development conditions . This movement was noted in the Year 2010 analysis as a potential problem and as expected, has been found to be even a larger problem into the Year 2015. Vehicles throughout the p.m. peak hour wiU experience long delays , with multiple stops before progressing through the intersection and a queue length extending beyond the Excelsior Boulevard I West Ramp -Xenwood Avenue intersection. The impact of this queue spiUing back into the West Ramp intersection increases the delay for both the eastbound Excelsior Boulevard through movement and vehicles exiting TH 100, and vehicles making a right-tum to go eastbound on Excelsior Boulevard. The operational deficiency for the intersections of Wooddale Avenue, Park Nicollet Boulevard and Quentin Avenue with Excelsior Boulevard are directly interrelated with each other. The east approach through movements at each of these intersections operates at a very poor level of service (E or F). The poor level of service i s created by the 95lh percentile queue for each of these movements extending into the upstream intersection. In the analysis and through the simulation, vehicles are found stopping multiple times before progressing through the intersection, as the queue does not clear during the cycle. In addition, both the Park Nicollet Boulevard and Quentin A venue intersections, north approach right- tum volumes are expected to be much higher in comparison to the current volumes. This increase in volumes add even more congestion to this section of Excelsior Boulevard as the intersections are closely spaced, leaving very little room for vehicle stacking. The south approach left-tum movement at Excelsior Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue operates at a LOS F. The problems associated with this movement are created by the increased volume of traffic on both the east and west approaches and its close proximity with the Park Center Boulevard intersection. URSIBRW Inc. -84 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 114 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota As shown in Figure 8-4, each of the key intersections to the east of Quentin Avenue operates at a LOS E or F. However, the poor operations of these intersections are caused directly by the insufficient westbound throu gh movements at Wooddale Avenue, Park Nicollet Boulevard and Quentin Avenue. Over the course of the peak hour ma ny vehicles are forced to stop multiple ti mes at a single intersection, creating an impact reachi n g through the France A venu e intersec tion with Excelsior Boulevard. Further co mpli cations to the Quentin Avenue intersection include th e north approach, which under existing lane geometry requires a long green time to process all th e vehicles during a given cycle l eng th, decreas ing th e amount of green time that can be given to Excelsior Boulevard. In addition, th e queue of vehicles extends throu gh the W. 38th -39th Street intersection with Quentin Avenue. Another deficien cy, which adds to the poor operati on of the east approach throu gh movement, is the west approach left-tum. The west approach left-turn is currently only one lane with 220 feet of s tora ge. In order to manage the high volume of traffic on this left-tum l ane, a significant amount of green t ime is needed . Again, this takes green time away from the east approach through lane adding to its already poor delay, long queues and its increasing impact to the key intersections to the east. To summarize, th e Year 20 15 traffic vo lum es do not fair well under the base intersection and roadway lane geometry . The magnitude of the problem is very seriou s, creati ng poor operations for every intersection in th e Corridor. High levels of vehicles exiting the Park Commons West development via Park Nicollet Boulevard and Quentin Avenue mixed with very high levels westboun d through vehicles along Excelsior Boulevard, creates a congested and failed roadway network extendin g through France A venue. The Corridor is unable to handle this level of traffic, unless serious roadway improvements are made. A later secti on wjJl discuss alternative measures for accommodating thi s level of traffic and mitigating the following deficiencies: 1. Westbound through movement along Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 and Quentin Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale Avenue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venu e 2. Eastbound through movement along Excelsior Boulevard from west of TH 100 through Quentin A venue • Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard 3. Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin Avenue 8.2.2 AM Peak Hour Figure 8-5 shows the Level of Service for each of the key intersections under th e a.m. peak h our condition. Detailed r esu lts that include the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 95th percentile queue length with respect to available s t orage can be seen in Appendix E, Year 2015 Traffic Operation Analysis. The analysis indicates th at all the key intersections within the Corridor will operate sufficiently under the Year 2015 development conditions. The only deficiency is the 95th percentile queue length for the west approach l eft-tum at Excel sior Boulevard and Quentin Avenue. The queue extends approximatel y 120 feet beyond the available storage, yielding potential b locking of eastbound th rough vehicles. As R:\46011\Rcport July 2001'Excdsior_Fanai_RtpOft_chS.doc URSIBRW Inc. -85 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 115 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota shown previously, this movement i s a problem during the p.m. p eak hour as well. Mitigating thi s deficiency will be discussed in the next section . As s hown in Figure 8-5, th ere are a few intersecti on tum movements with a LOS E or F. However, these are not considered to be operational defidencies because of the reasons ou tlin ed in the Defining Impa cts section earlier in this report. R:\16018\R.tpOCt July 2001\&cdsiot_FUW_Report_th1tdoc URSIBRW Inc . -86 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 116 ~ 5\. 3~ _Jill WI . <(> o:::<( c ::i m ~ Traffic Signal T StopSign * Tum Lane Extends Full Length of Roadway l No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _/_/] tJJKOUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 8-3 Year2015 Base Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 117 W. 36th St. ~ _jUJ UJ I . <t> t:r:<( ::i ll. ~ N A No Scale w ~ z ~ Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _1_// tiJKOUIS URS BRW,Inc. Figure 8-4 Year2015 Level of Service PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 118 ~ l No Scale Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF .111 t~~OUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 8-5 Year2015 Level of Service AM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 119 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 8.3 Identification of Year 2015 Traffic Flow Mitigation Measures This secti on presents mitigation measures to improve the defin e d defi cienc ies in the prev iou s section . Only th e results from the p.m. peak h our will be presented as it e ncompasses all measu res needed for an efficient transportation n etwo rk, including the a .m . p eak peri od . As n oted , th e magnitude of th e defi ciencies und er the Year 2015 is very larg e, making the m eas m es presented more in volved and costl y. In d iscu ssion with the City o f St. Louis Park, two ge neral miti ga ti on a lterna ti ves were d eveloped. The m eas ures as d e tail ed below and in Figure 8-6 includ e: Alternative 1: A cloverleaf on th e north side of Excelsior Boulevard at Excel sior Boulevard I TH 100 Wes t Ramp. • Access to TH 100 southbound is converted to a right-turn mo veme nt from th e pre vi o us le ft-turn m ove m en t. • Vehicles destin ed for westbound Excelsio r Boulevard would b e brou g ht up an ex it ramp on th e north side, rather th a n the south as current. • Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 West Ramp traffic sign al would b e removed. Alternative 2: Co ns truct ion o f a n ew TH 100 bridge crossi ng th a t would conn ect 391h Street with Wooddale Avenue on th e west side of TH 100. • All ows direc t access to T H 100 southb ound via a cloverleaf ram p tying into an existing entrance l an e. V e hicles leaving Park Commons West and d es tin ed south on TH 100 wouldn't have to get on Excelsior Boulevard . The following discus ses the impacts of these alternatives. Also, additio n al intersection and roadway improve me nts will be di scu ssed for eac h alternati ve. T he basis for the above two alternatives i s to reduce the amount of conflict between Excel sior Boul evard through vehicl es and the high percentage of vehicles des tin e d for TH 100 southbound by ei th er reducing the volum e of vehicles on Excelsior Bouleva rd or reducing th e number of conflictin g movements. URSIBRW In c . -90 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 120 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study 1/ACrrYOF ST.LOUIS 'ARK Local Road • Alternat ive 1: Proposed Cloverleaf to Southbound TH 1 00 and En trance to Westbound Excelsior Blvd. (Signal is Removed) Alternat ive 2: Bridge Crossing and Exten sion of 39th to Wooddale Ave . wit h Access to Sou thbound TH100 Note: Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are separate propos als and wo uld not be Imple mented together. URS .R w In Figure 8-6 Year2015 Alternative Access to Southbound TH1 00 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 121 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 8.3.1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 consists of constructing a cloverleaf exit ramp and a westbound Excelsior Boulevard entrance ramp on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard. Providing thi s type of access would eliminate the need for a signal in this location. The key features of the suggested inters ection and additional operation improvements needed in addressing the operational deficiencies using alternative 1, are illustrated in Figure 8-7 and the following: 1. Excels ior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard • Remove the bicycle lane proposed to be constructed in Year 2010, to construct a third lane on the west approach. This approach would have dual left-turn lanes and three through lanes. • The east approach would be reconstructed to accommodate three through lanes and one right-turn lane. Currently, there are two right-turn lan es; the right most right-tum lane would be extended by 200 feet to allow a total of 400 feet of storage. The inner right- turn currently extends back to within 50 feet of Park Nicollet Boulevard. This lane would be extended the full length of roadway to Park Nicollet Boulevard and converted to a through lane. • The south approach would remain as existing. The south approach right-tum would be programmed such that it would operate as a green right-tum arrow si multaneously with the west approach left-turn movement and would operate as a green ball with the south approach through moveme nt. 2. Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale A venue • Convert the south leg to a right-in and right-out only access. The center median would be connected to ensure left-tum movements do not occur. • The traffic signal would be removed and the south approach would be controlled by a stop sign. • The wes t approach would include two through lanes and one s hared through I right-tum lane as existing. • The east approach would be consistent with the east approach at Park Center Boulevard. 3. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • The north approach would be reconstructed to accommodate dual right-tum lanes, one through lane, and one exclusive left-tum lane. Currently, there is one exclusive left- tum lane, one shared through I left-tum lane and one exclusive right-tum lane. • The traffic signal phasing on Park Nicollet Boulevard would be converted from permitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tum phasing. • The east approach would be reconstnJcted to add a third through lane. The lane geometry would include one exclusive left-tum lane, two through lanes and one shared through I right-tum lane. The shared through I right-turn lane would extend the full length of roadway to Quentin A venue. • The south approach would remain as existing. • The west approach would be as existing with dual left-tum lanes, two through lanes and one shared through I right-tum lane. 4. Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue R:¥t60J8\Repo11 July 2001 \S.lcels ior_Fln&L.Rqx.t_th1.dcx: URSIBRW Inc. -92 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 122 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • The north approach would be reconstructed to include one exclusive left-turn lane, one through lane and one exclu sive right-tum lane. The left-lane and through lane would extend the full length of roadway to the W. 38th -391h Street intersection. The right- turn lane would be constructed with 180 fe e t of storage. • The east and south approaches would be unchanged . • The west approach would be recon structed to include dual left-turn lanes, two through lanes and one exclusive right-turn lane. The right-turn lane would extend the full length of roadway as the means for termin ating the third through Jane coming from the Park Nicolle t Boulevard intersection. • Th e traffi c signal phasing on Quentin A venue would be converted from permitted only to ex clusive I permitted left-turn phasing. The key intersec tions were re-modeled using SimTraffic to include the above mitigation measures. Excel sior Boulevard is optimized for east and west b ound progress ion to maximize through movement capacity. This is accomplished by utilizing leading and lagging left turn operation. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8-8. The detailed results including the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 95th percentile queue l ength with respec t to available storag e can be seen in Appendix E, Year 2015 Traffic Operation Analysis. Providing a cloverleaf e ntrance ramp to TH 100 southbound and an exit ramp from southbound TH 100 to westbound Excelsior Boulevard on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard eliminates the need for a traffi c signal at th e Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 West Ramp-Xenwood Avenue intersection . The results found that by removing the traffic signal and eliminating the conflicts betwee n movem e nts at thi s intersection greatly increases the capacity of this section of roadway. Although this helps in moving traffic through the Corridor, it alone does not solve the deficiencies listed in the previous section. As shown in the list above, it was found that other measures needed to be implemented. Efforts were made to kee p the original eastbound lane geometry at the Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard intersection. The geometry included dual left-turn lanes and two through lanes; however, the analysis indicated a very poor through mov e ment operation under this condition, necessitating the third through lane. The third through lane needs to be maintained to the Quentin Avenue intersection where it will transition into a right-tum only lane. Without the third lane maintained to Quentin Avenue, traffic becomes "bottlenecked", making the third eastbound lane across the bridge ineffective. By converting Wooddale Avenue to a right-in and right-out access only eliminates two left-tum movements, the south approach left-tum and th e east approach left-tum, thus helping increase progression of vehicles along Excelsior Boulevard. A vajlable stacking room between Park Center Boulevard and Park Nicollet Boulevard is increased and more green time can be given to the westbound and eastbound through movements. The volumes from these two movements were di stributed to other intersections. The south approach left-tum movement (307 vehicles) was mainly relocated to Park Nicollet Boulevard (260). The remaining 57 vehicles were relocated to Quentin Avenue. The cut- through analysis found only 10 vehicles on the south approach at Excelsior Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue were coming from a location further away than W. 44th Street. Using this information and ADT counts along Wooddale Avenue, it can be concluded that the majority of traffic on the south approach is being generated by the Miracle Mile Shopping Center. The remaining is being generated by local neighborhood traffic that could easily access Quentin A venue. The east approach left-tum movement (98 vehicles) was again relocated to Park Nicollet Boulevard (25) and Quentin Avenue (73). Since access into Miracle Mile is restricted for southbound traffic on Wooddale Avenue, the majority of the traffic was relocated to Quentin A veni1e. URSIBRW Inc. -93 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 123 Excels ior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Impl ementing th ese mea sures will re quire s ign ific a nt right-of-way acq uisition, specifically for cons tru c tin g th e cloverleaf exit ram p and the entrance ram p on the no rth s id e Excelsior Boulevard . The acquis iti on would impact reside nti a l homes a nd an existing funeral home. lli ght-of-way will need to be acquired on the n o rth and south sides of Excelsior Boulevard between Xenwood Avenue an d Quentin A venue to accommod a te three lanes of travel in each directi on and dua l left-tum lanes on the wes t approach at Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin A venu e. The third travel lane in the eastb ou nd directi on would termin ate by turnin g into a right-tum o nly lane at th e Qu entin Avenue intersection as i t is currently. Likewi se in th e westbound directi on, the third travel lane would t ermina te by turn ing into a right-tum only lane c rossing the bri dge. M a intairung three trav e l la nes in th e ea s tbound a nd westbound direc ti ons in this secti on of Excelsio r B oul evard i s necessary for an efficien t tra ns p ortation ne twork. The r es ults also show that making improvements to th e Park Cente r Boul eva rd , Park Nicollet Boulevard and Qu e ntin Avenue intersections with Excelsior B oulevard dramati call y improved th e l evel of servi ce f or each of th e k ey intersections to the eas t of Qu e ntin Avenue. Though , th e re are sti ll a few intersecti on tum m ovement s with a LOS E o r F , these a re n ot considered to be operation al d eficiencies b ecau se of the reasons outlined in the Defining Impacts secti on earlier in thi s r epo rt. If th ese features are provide d , the key inte rsecti on s wi thin th e Excelsio r B oulevard Corrid or will m eet th e operational objective of facilitating travel throu g h the Corrid or with th e hi g her volume tum movements operating at a LOS D or b e tter. Neighborhood and Corridor Impact Th e provision of a clov e rl eaf exi t r amp a nd a westbound Excelsior B oul evard entran ce r a mp on the north side of Excelsior Bo ul e vard alon g with all th e o th er suggeste d roa dwa y impro veme nts h elps improve the l evel of m obility and conges ti on throu gh th e Corridor. The benefi ts would include a much- improved access to TH 100 southbound th at facilitates th e fl ow of traffic throug h out the en tire Corridor. M ost importantly, maintaining and accommodating th e hi gh l evel s of traffic on Excelsior Boul evard will ai d in minimi zi ng c ut-throu g h traffi c. As seen hi s tori call y, if vehi cles are n o t be in g served on th e mainline, they will seek alternative routes, likely alon g collectors and loca l roa d s th ro u gh th e neighborho od s. The cost a nd complicati ons b ecom es th e main issue w hen dealin g wit h mitigation m easures of this mag nitude. 1. Significant ri ght-of-way acquisition. The gener al locations a re as follow s: • The no rth and south side of Excelsior B ouleva rd b etween P ark Nicollet B oulevard and Quentin Avenue, to acco m moda te the third lan e of travel and du al left-tum lanes o n the wes t approac h a t the Excelsior B oulevard I Qu e ntin A ve nu e intersection. • The entire south side of Excels ior Boulevard b etween Park Cente r Boulevard and P ark Nicoll et Boul evard , to maintain the third eas tb o und travel l an e. • Po rtion s of the north s ide of Excelsi or Boulevard b etween Park Center Bouleva rd and Park Nicoll et B ouleva rd . E xtension of the existing ri ght most right-turn lane b y 200 f eet and the extension of the existi n g inn er right-tum la ne to exten d back to Park Nicollet Boulevard . • The n orth side of Excel s ior Boulevard b etwe e n X en woo d A venue and Park Center B oulevard, to cons tru ct the cloverleaf ramp. • The n orth approach at Excelsior Boulevard and Qu e ntin A ve nu e t o accommod a te an exclu sive ri ght-tum lane. R:\46011'\Rcport July 200l\Excchlor_finli_Rcpon_c.hl.doc: URSIB RW I nc. -94 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 124 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • The north approach at Excelsio r Boulevard and Park N icoll et Bouleva rd to accom m od a te an addi ti o na l exclu siv e right-tum lane. 2 . Compli cati ons in vo l ving the purc h ase of h omes and busi nesses on th e north side of Ex celsior Boulevard an d X en woo d A venue. 3 . Multi-agency involv e ment including the Minnesota Department of Trans p ortat ion , He nnepin County and the City of St. Louis P ark. 4. Will likely require an En vironment al Impact Statement (EIS) process. 5 . Complications invol vin g the Mirac le Mile parking lot. R:\46011\Rcport July2001\Excxlsior_F"tNl_Report_th8.doc URS/BRW Inc. -95 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 125 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study r W. 36th ST. N A No Scale ••• Add a Third Lane on the North Side of Bridge (The Lane Would Turn Into the Cloverleaf Exit Ramp) -Construct Cloverleaf Exit Ramp to TH100 Southbound & Entrance Ramp to Westbound Excelsior-Blvd. (Traffic Signal Would Be Removed) ~ Traffic Signal T Stop Sign * Lane Begins Midway Between Wooddale Ave. and Park Nicollet Blvd . ** Turn Lane Extends Full Length of Roadway J/ACrrYOF ST. LOUIS PARK URS BRW, Inc . Figure 8-7 Year2015 Alternative 1 Suggested Lane Geometry and Traffic Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 126 W. 36th St. ~~w <{> O:::<{ :J ·a.. ~ l No Scale w (.) z <{ 0::: LL Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study UJ CITYOF _1// jJJKOUIS URS BRW,Inc. Figure 8-8 Year2015 Alternative 1 Level of Service . PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 127 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 8.3.2 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 consists of constructing a bridge crossing TH 100 that would connect W. 39 1h Street with Wooddale Avenue on the west side of TH 100. A cloverleaf exit ramp on W. 39'h Street would also be constructed to tie into th e existing ramp, allowing direct access to southbound TH 100 . Providing a bridge in this location accomplishes two things , the first being another pedestrian crossing linking the Park Commons West developments with the neighborhoods west of TH 100. The second is it provides vehicles direc t access to TH 100 southbound without having to use Excelsior Boulevard. The trip assignment was re-distributed to account for the new W . 39'h Street Bridge and new southbound TH 100 access point location. As shown in Figure 8-9 the basic assumption is 50 percent of all the Park Commons West development site generated vehicles currently a ccessing TH 100 southbound via the Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 West Ramp -Xenwood Avenue intersection would be relocated to the new bridge. It is assumed that the background traffic along Excelsior Boulevard would remain the same, as it is not likely these vehicles would change their travel route. The complete build-out of the Park Commons West site is expected to generate approximately 1,566 outbound vehicles . Of the 1,566 vehicles, it is estimated that 225 would be relocated from the Excel sior Boulevard I TH 100 West Ramp -Xenwood Avenue intersection to the new W . 39'h Street Bridge crossing. In addition, a conservative estimate of 34 vehicles is removed from the background traffic and relocated to the new W. 39'h Street Bridge. The Park Commons East development site-generated traffic may also use this new bridge, but because of the location of the parking within the development with respect to the bridge, the impact would be minimal, so it was neglected. The re-distributed volumes for the intersections impacted by this bridge are shown in Figure 8-10. (XXX) R:\16011\!1epon July 2001\Escelslor_Finli_Repon_chl.doc W. 38111 Sl Total Slta ~nerareu Traffte rroril Pall< ComrMrlB w es l Naw Sil o Generaled Volunl9 lnctea se or Decrease Tollll Park Commons West Existing Bal!k!Jiound Volun>.:!<S Subjecl lo Relocation lrlcrassa or o ectaaselrl Park Co mm or\S WP.Sl Backyround Vo lurn es N A URSIBRW In c . -98 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 128 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study 1/hCITYOF ST. LOUIS PARK URS BAW,Inc. N A No Scale Figure 8-10 Year2015 Alternative 2 Redistributed Turning Movement Volumes for Impacted Inte rs ection s PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 129 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The k ey fe atures of th e suggested intersection and additional o pera ti o n improve m ents n eeded in address ing the operationa l defic ie n ci es und er alt ernative 2, are illu st rated in Figure 8-11 and the f olJowing: 1. Excelsior B oulevard I Park Cen t er Boulevard • Remove the bicycle Ja ne proposed to be constructed in Year 2010, to construct a third lane on th e west approach. This approach would have dual l eft-turn lanes a nd three through lanes. • The east approach would be reco ns tru c ted to accommodate three through lanes and one right-turn lane. Curre ntl y, th e re are two right-tum lanes; the right m os t right-tum lane would be extended by 200 f eet to allow a to tal of 400 feet of s torage. The inner right- tum currently ex tends back to within 50 feet of Park Ni colle t Boulevard. This lane would b e extend ed the full leng th of roadway to P ark Nicollet Boulevard and co nvert ed to a throughlane. • The south approach would remain as existing. The south approach ri ght-tum would be programmed such tha t it would operate as a green right-tum arrow simultaneously with the west approa ch left-tum m oveme nt. This would operate as a green ball with the south approa ch through move ment. 2. Excelsior B o ule vard I Wood dal e Avenue • Convert the south leg to a right-in and right-out only access. The cent e r m edia n would be connected to ensure left-turn m ovements do not occur. • The traffi c signal would be removed and th e south approach would b e controll e d by a stop si gri. • The west approach would include two throu gh lanes and one shared throu gh I ri ght-tum l an e as ex is ting . • The east approach would b e consistent with the east a ppro ach at P ark Center B oulevard . 3. Excel sio r Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • The no rth approach lane geometry would b e re-a ssigned to accommodate one exclusive ri ght-tum lan e, one through l ane, a nd one ex clus ive left-tu m lane. Currently, there is one exclusive l eft-tum lane, one shared throu g h I left-tum lane and on e exclus ive right- turn lane. • The traffi c sig nal phas ing on P ark Nicollet B oulevard would be converted from penni tte d only to exclusive I p ermitted l eft-tum phasing. • The east approach would be recons tructed to add a third throu gh l ane. The lane geo me try would include one exclusi ve left-tum Ja ne, tw o through lanes a nd one shared through I right-tum l a ne. The s ha red through I right-tum lane would extend the full l ength of roadway to Quentin Avenu e. • The south approach would remain unc h anged . • The west approach would be as exi stin g with dual left-tum lanes, two through l anes and one shared through I ri ght-tum lane. URS/BRW In c. -100 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 130 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 4 . Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • The north approach would be reco ns tructed to includ e· one exclusive left-tum lane, one through lane a nd one exclus ive right-tum Jane. The left-lan e and through lane would extend the full length of roadway t o th e W. 381h -391h St intersection. The right-tum lane would be constructed with 180 feet of s torage . • The east and south approaches would be unchanged. • The west approach would be reconstruct ed to include dual left-tum Janes, two through l anes and one excl usive right-tum lane. The right-turn lane would extend the full length of roadway as the m eans for terminating the third through lane coming from the Park Nicollet Boulevard intersection. • The traffic signal phasing on Quentin A venue wou ld be converted from permitted only to exclusi ve I permitted left-tum phasing. The key intersections were re-modeled using SimTraffic to include the above mitigation measures. Excelsior Boulevard is optimized for east and west bound progressi on to maximize through movement capacity. This is accompHshed by utilizing leading and lagging left tum operation. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 8-12. The detail ed results including the actual average delay per vehicle in seconds and the approximate 95th p erce ntile queue length with respect to available storage can be seen in Appendix E, Year 2 015 Traffic Operation Analysis. Even though the volumes in the westbound directio n of Excelsior Boulevard have been lowered, there is s till a problem with mobility and congestion. The additional mitig at ion measures needed under this alternative are th e same as for Alternative 1 an d for the same reason. The. only difference is the north approach at Exce lsior Bouleva rd and Park Nicollet Boulevard, where only one exclusive right-tum lane is needed versus two specified in Alternative 1. The reason is the decrease in traffic on this approach due to the new bridge crossing and access to southbound TH 100. lf these features are provided, the key intersections within the Excelsi or Boulevard Corridor will mee t the operational objective of facilitating travel through the Corridor with the higher volume tum movements operating at a LOS D or better. Neighborhood and Corridor Impact The provis ion of a bridge crossing, linking W . 391h Street with Wooddale A venue on the west side of Excelsior Boulevard does help with mobility and congestion on Excelsior Boulevard, as it provides another access location to southbound TH 100. Equally important is it establishes an alternate route connection extending from Monterey Drive on the east to TH 7 on the west provi ding potential to attract traffic from both Excelsior Boulevard and W . 361 h Street. Potential neighborhood b e nefits would include: 1. Provides an additional TH 100 pedes trian crossing location. 2. Gives direct connection from the Park Commons West and Park Commons East developments with the neighb orhoods west of TH I 00. 3. Provides an alternate route to accessing TH 100 southbound. Residents voiced concern that motorists currently cut through the Browndale neighborhood to access TH 100 southbound at W . 50th Street. This may alleviate the perception of that travel pattern. R.:\46011\Report July WO I\Etulsior_Finai....Rtpon_chl .doo URSIBRW Inc. -l 01 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 131 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Lo uis Park, Minnesota Similar to Alternative 1, impl e menting th e n ecess ary mitigation m easures f or an effici ent transportation n e twork is compri sed of man y complications, which include: 1. Significant right-of-way acqui sition . The gen eral locations are as follow s: • The north and south side of Excelsior Boulevard betwe en Park Ni co ll e t Bouleva rd and Quentin Avenue, to accommodate the third l ane of travel and dual left-tum lanes on the wes t approa c h at the E xcels ior Boulevard I Quentin Avenue intersection. • The entire south side of Excelsior Boulevard between Park Center Boulevard and Park Nicollet Boul evard , to m a intain the third eastbound travel lane. • Portions of th e north si de of Excelsior Boulevard between Park Center Boulevard and Park Nicollet Boulevard . Extension of the existing ri ght most ri ght-tum lane by 200 feet and the extension of the existing inner right-tum lane to extend back to Park Nicollet Boulevard. • The north side of Excelsi o r Boulevard between Xenwood A venue and Park Center Boulevard, to construct tran sition from three lanes of travel to two.15 • The north approach at Excelsior Boulevard and Quentin A venue to accommodate an exclusive ri g ht-tum l ane. 2. Multi-agency involvement including the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County and the City of St. Louis Park. 3. Will likely requi re an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. 4. Complications involving th e Miracle Mile p a rking lot. 5. Complications with neighborhood residents on the west side of TH 100 over concern of increased traffic along Wooddale A venu e. 15 Currentl y th e westbound directi on of E1tcels ior Boulevard cons is ts of two Jan es of travel. Witb the proposed developme nts for Year 2015, it is necessary to maintain lbree tra vel lanes in botb the wes tbo und and eas tb oWid directions between the intersec ti ons of Xenwood Avenu e and Quentin Avenu e. Th e right-of-way acquisition would be required in order to meet the geometric lane drop requirements of transili oning the third trav el lane in the wes tb ound directi on back down to th e existing two travel Janes tr aveling to the west of X en wood Ave nu e. R:.,.6011\Report July20011Exoeldor.YII\Il..Report_chl.doc URSIBRW Inc. -102 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 132 -- Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study W. 361h ST. N A No Scal e ••• Add a Third Lan e on th e North Side of Bridge {The Lane Would Turn Into a Right-Turn Only Lane at Xenwood Ave.) -Construct a New Bridge Crossing Connecting 39th St. with Wood dale Av e. and Provid e a Direct Access to TH100 South Boun d ~ Traffic Signal T Stop Sign * Lane Beg ins Midway Between W ooddale Ave . and Park Nicollet Blvd . ** Turn L ane Exte nd s Full Length of Roadway 1/hCITYOF ST.LOUIS PARK URS B RW, Inc . Figure 8-11 Year 2015 Alternative 2 Suggested Lane G eo metry a nd Tra ffi c Control Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 133 ~ _~w WI . <C> o:::<C Cl > ..J Ill ..J Cl. ~ N A No Scale w u 2 <( ~ LL. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study (/) CITYOF _IJ] t'Ifx:OUIS URS BRW, Inc. Figure 8-12 Year2015 Alternative2 Level of Service PM Peak Hour Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 134 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 9.0 Recommended Transportation Plan The Excelsi or Boulevard Co rrid or T r affi c S tud y, which beg an in May of 2000, was initiated to address hi storical , existing, and future transportati on needs within the Corridor. As shown earli er in this report, the Ci ty of St. Louis Park i s c u rrentl y cons id eri ng re-devel oping or expandi ng th e dev elopment s ites of Park Commons East, Al's Bar, and Park Commons Wes t. Thou gh th e Excelsior B oulevard Corridor has been s tudi ed numerou s tim es wi th prior proposed developments, a comprehensive tran s portation study cons iderin g the surroundin g nei ghborhoo ds and the full extents of th e Corridor has yet to be compl eted . The mrun inten t of the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffi c Study was to a ddress th e present co ncerns of th e n eig hb orhood res id en ts with cons id eration to th e en tire geographical ex tent of th e Corridor. Open hou ses and public meetings were h e ld during th e course of th e study to collect inpu t, hear issues, and answer questions voi ced b y th e residents; and to allow th e City of St. Louis P ark a nd URS I BRW to reciproca te with pre limin ary findings. The following sections pres ent general guidelines a nd recommendati ons th at are sens tUve to the concerns of the neighborh ood res id en ts and are intended to provide an efficien t transportation n e twork into the futu r e. 9 .1 Neighborhood Traffic Issues Within th e Excelsior Boulevard Corridor there are several roa d way segments that have been id entifi ed by residents as being too h eavily travele d . In address ing thi s con cern, an ori gin -destination s urvey wa s compl e ted u si ng the methodologies of a li cense plate trace to quantify the amount of vehi cles making a throu g h trip, term e d as c ut-throu gh traffi c . The results found th at all the analyzed roadways wi thin the Minikahda Vista an d Browndale n eighborh oo ds with the excepti on to W . 38th Street, a collector roadway, had minimal level s of c ut-through traffic . For th e other anal yzed segments, none registered more th an 10 ve hi cles p er direction durin g th e peak hou r of traffi c . N onetheless, recogni z ing this s till as a valid issu e, th e fo llo wing four traffic ca lming m easures are recommended as potential solutions to alter o r redirect potential n eighb orhood c ut-throu gh vehicles, which include: 1. Chokers 2. Speed Table 3. Traffic Circl e 4. Ha lf-C los ure Compli ca ting any miti gati on of these r oadways throu gh physical c hanges i s the fact that some a re Municipal State Aid (MSA) rou tes and th erefore must adhere to s trict design guid el ines. Another potential mea sure would be the provision of parking o n on e side of the street, specifically for W. 38°' Street. However, thi s would require recons tru c ti on of the roadway to accommodate a two-foot wider cross-sec ti on, i n order to maintain the MSA route de s ign ati on . Design consideration s for Non-MS A roadways are not as s trin gent and th erefore more traffic calming options are available. The following table suggests traffic l evels wh en th e City of St. Louis Park s hould cons ider a potential mitigation measure for MSA designated rou te s. R:\46018\Rcporl July 200J\Excelsior_Fio•I_Repon_ch9.doc VRSIBRW Inc. -105 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 135 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota MSA Designated Routes Implementation Guidelines Daily Traffic Traffic II Traffic Potential MSA Designated Routes (2000) Capacity' Exceads:2 Measure: 1. Wooddal e Avonuo (between 42nd t /2 Slreet and W. 44"' Streel) 4,500 10,000 • 30,000 5,500 1. Choker 2. W. 39" Stroot (between Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue) 4,500 8,500. 10,000 5,ooo• 1. Choker 3. Quentin Avenue (between Excelsior =Boulevard and Wooddale Av~t 1,950 8,500 • tO,OOO 3,000 !._Choker ' Transportalion Research Board (TAB), 1994 Highway Capacity Manual, City ol St. Lou is Park Comprehensive Plan, 1999. 2 This Is lhe approximate minimum ltaltio volume !hat a change lro m the current level may be perceived. " Roadway would lose its MSA designalion and associated State funding with lhe implemenlalion ol lhese measures. ' II may be advanlageous lor the City of St. Louis Park and alfec led residents l o initiale dialogue regarding ltalfic on W. 38th Street prior lo reaching lhis lhreshold. Source: URS I BRW Inc. II Traffic Potential Exceeds:' M easure: 7,500 Measures 2·3 • 7,500 Measures 2·4' 5,000 Measures 2·3' The following table suggests traffic levels when the City of St. Louis Park should consider a potential mitigation measure for Non-MSA designated routes. Non-MSA Designated Routes Implementation Guidelines Dally T10ftlc Traft lc UTrarflo Pot ontlal IITraHfc Pol on11al MTralflc Potantlal Non-MSA Datlgnal ad Rou1ot (2000) Capactty 1 Excoods~ Moasuro: ExCO<Idl:t MoiSUIO! Excoads:1 Maasuro: 1. Natc hn Avenue (between Exctlskx 2. SpoodTabfo/ Boofevard and W. <.d"Stroet) 1,200 < 5,000 3000 I. Chol<or 3,500 3. Traffic Circle 7,000 4. Hllf-CfosU<o 2. W. 40• Street (bGtweon Quentin 2. Spood Tabfo/ ~dJopga Avenue) 1,600 < 6,000 3,000 1. Choker 3,500 3. Traffic Circle 7,000 4. Half-Closure =-=x-, 3. Kipling Avonuo (bolwaen Excolslor 2. Spood Tabla/ 8oufev81d and W. 391~ Street) -< 5,000 I 000 t. Choker 2.600 3. Tral lic Circle 5 .000 4 . Half-Closure ____. 4. Joppa Ave nue (between Excolslor 2. Spood Tabfo/ rz= SoulevaJd and W. 39111 Street} 400 < 51000 1,000 I. Chokor 22!1L -3. Traffic Circlo 5,000 4. Haf~Ciosuro ;;;=am 5. W, 3D" Stroot (baiWoon Lynn 2. Speed T abfo/ ~Avenue and France Avenua) 500 < 6,000 1,000 1. Choker 2 ,500 3. Tralic Circle s,ooo 4. Half-Closure 6. Wooddal e Av onuo (bet wea n Excelsior 2. Sptod Tabfo 'I Boulevard and 42nd l f.i! Street) 8 .500 I 0.000 • 30,000 10,000 1. Choker 121500 3. Tmtllc Citcle 3 --===::&: ~ ' Transpcrlalion Research 80111d (TAB), 1994 Highway C.paclty Manual, Cil)l of Sl. Louis Park Comp!ohonsrvo Plan, 11199. a This It tha appoxlmata minimum lt affk: vol'uma that a change from the cuuent lave! rna~ be perce ived. 3 Roa<May would lose Its MSA deslgnaUon and anoclated Statelundlng with the Implementation ot these meas utes. Source: C~y of Sl. Louis ParkComp!ohonsivo Plan, 1999 and URS /BRW Inc. T he traffic volume thresholds shown in the above MSA and Non -MSA route tables serve only as a guideline for the City of St. Louis Park to follow when addressing the concern of increas ing neighborhood traffic . As the thresholds are met, prior to implementing any of the traffic ca lming measures discussed above, with exception to a choker, the following is recommended: • Conducting another origin-destination study should be considered to dete rmine the actual level of cut-through traffic being experienced at that time. This is important as implementing a traffic calming meas ure like a traffic circle or half-closure for low levels of cut-through traffic would only relocate the problem to other streets within the neighborhood. The problem is not bein g solved. • A detailed analysis should be conducted to determine the most bene ficial measure. • Neighborhood input should be received prior to implementing any poss ible traffic calming measures. As with many traffic calming measures, the implementation cou ld have ripple effects th a t n egative ly impact n earby neighbors . R:\46018\Rcpcrt July 2001\Excelsicr_Finai_Rcport_ch9.d oc URSIBRW Inc. -106 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 136 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Furthennore, the AADT threshold levels noted in th e above tables shou ld only apply for MSA and Non- MSA designated routes under normal tran sportation con ditions. For instance, roadway construction along Excelsior Boulevard or oth e r major roadway clos ures (i.e., TH 62 recon s truction) that typically alter traffic patterns should not apply, as these conditions are u sua lly temporary and it may be expected that traffic would divert onto other roadways. As an example, W. 381 h Street increased from an ADT of 4,500 to an ADT of 6,000 during 1993. At that time, Inters tate 394 was under re-construction and the volum es throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor temporarily increased and then returned to normal upon completi on of the project. To summarize, the identifie d traffic-calming measures to mitigate traffic increases on "Non-MSA" and "MSA" roadways within the Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study Corridor were chosen based on their potential to address th e issues heard from residents within th e Corridor. It will be beneficial to th e City of St. Louis Park to h ave implementation gu id elines to identify at what point efforts should be made to calm the level of traffic . 9.2 Mobility I Congestion A primary concern raised by the neighbo rho od res idents was the issue of mobility and congestion throughout th e Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. Many residents felt traffic levels would worsen to the point of making it so con gested, vehicles wouldn't want to travel al ong Excelsior Boulevard, encouragin g motorists to use local roads and cut-through the n eighborhoods. By maintaining, or improving travel along Excelsior Boulevard, the level of cut-lhrough traffic should diminish. A detailed traffic opera tion s analysis fo r each phase was conducted to determin e the impacts th e proposed development scenarios would have on th e entire Excelsior Boulevard Corridor. The following sections di scuss the roadway mitigation measures reco mmended to accommodate the development scenarios of Year 2005,2010 and 2015. 9.2.1 Year 2005 The Year 2005 or Phase I development scenario includ es a complete re-development of both th e Park Commons East and Al' ~ Bar sites. The development land u se is characterized by a mixe d -use of office, residential , and retail: The following are the rec ommended mitigation measures the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County should implement to accommodate the expected levels of traffic these de ve lopments will generate. 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Natchez Avenue and vehicle progression through the Corridor • In stall a traffic control signal at the inte rs ecti on of Excelsior Boulevard and Natchez A venu e. Th e eastbound and westbound left turns will operate exclusive only , right-of- way indicated by a left-tum green arrow. The northbound and southbound movements wi ll operate pe rmitted, meaning a simultaneous green ball for both direc tions, where l eft turning vehicles yield th e right-of-way. • Construct the Excels ior Boulevard I Natchez A venue north approach to consist of two approach lan es, one exclusive left-tum bay with approximately 100 feet of storage and one shared through/right-turn lan e. R:\46018\Rcpm Ju ly 2001\Excelsior_fiooLRepot1_ch9.doc URSIBRW Inc. -107 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 137 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota • D ev elopme nt and implementation of ac tu ated-coordinated timing plans on Exc elsior Boul eva rd that would extend from th e c oordin a ted system that c urre ntl y b egi ns at TH 100 W es t Ramp -Xenwood A venue and ends at Quentin A venue to include the signals through the M on terey Drive-W . 38°' Street intersection. The coordi nated timing plans shou ld be optimi z ed using l e ading and lagging left-tum opera tion to improve progressi o n thro ugh th e C o rrid or. In the traffi c opera ti o ns analys is, it was found that ( extending th e coordinated system to th e Excelsior Bou levard at Fran ce A venue J intersection would not prove be nefi cial , s o it shou ld remain uncoo rdin a ted . \ ~ 'rJO ~ Y'-' 2. Monterey Drive I W. 381h-391h Street '1 So I) S\lv~ 'J} • R ec ons tru c t th e Ex cels io r Boul evard I M onterey Drive -W . 38th S treet north':b'Pproach to include two left-tum lanes, one throu gh l a ne, and one righHum lan e wi th a t least 160 feet of s to rage for the l eft most left-turn lan e and th e right-tum la ne. The other l eft-tum 1 l ane and the throu gh l ane would e x tend the full len gth of roadway to th e W. 38 1 " -39 1 h Street inte rsecti on with Monterey Drive. • The intersection of M o ntere y Drive I W. 38th -39th Street wou ld in clude one through lane and one through/right-tum lane on th e north approach, on e through lan e and one exclusive le ft-tum Jane with 50 feet of storage on the south approach . • E limin a te on-street parking for the secti on of M on terey Drive between W. 36 !h Street- R ecreation Center En tr a nc e and W . 38 'h -39th Street to accommodate a 4-lane c ro ss- section . The southbound directi on sh ould provide continujty with tl1e north approach of Excels ior Boulevard a t Monterey Drive -W. 38t" Street, suc h that the l eft trav el lan e would tum into a l eft-tum o nl y lane and the ri ght travel lane would tum into a through l ane. The northb ound direction cou ld be redu ced to one travel lane, if the existing ro adway ri ght-of-way doesn't provide f or enough r oom. The result of impl eme ntin g th ese intersec tion l ane geometries and traffic signal improvements will provide an efficient leve l of traffi c operations throu gho ut th e Excelsior Boul eva rd Corridor. The be nef its of providing a tra ffic s ign al at the Excelsi or Bouleva rd I Natchez A ve nu e intersection include: 1. Safe protec ted pedestri an crossing for access to tlle Park Commons East de ve lopment, Wolfe Park and tl1 e r ecreati on center without havin g to go to Qu entin Avenue or Monte rey Drive-W . 38th Street. 2 . Exc lu s ive left-tum g reen arrows on the east and we s t approaches a t thi s inte rsec tion may d e ter p otential c ut-th rough traffic from us ing Natchez A venue to th e south of Excelsior Boulevard, as a l on ger del a y i s ex pected for this type of control versus an unsignalized inte rsection . 3 . Improved del ay for th e Natc hez Ave nue north approach left-tum on to Excels i or B ouleva rd . 4 . Ac cess to the trans it syste m at th e Park Commons East d evel opment, Town Green. Providing dual left-tum l anes and an exclusive right-tum lane to the north approach at th e Excelsior Bou levard I Monte rey Drive - W . 38th Street inte rs ec tion makes tlli s approach o p erate m ore efficientl y. The benefit provides possible re du c tion in c ut-throu gh traffic , as the north approach left -tum mo ve ment' J is much more effi cient. Thi s wou ld al so reduce s tacking di s tan ces, wh ic h m ay impac t the operation of theW. 38th-39th Street intersecti on. R:\46018\Report July 2001\ExcclsiocfioaLReport_ch9.doc URSIB RW Inc.-108 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 138 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota R emov ing on-street parking along Monterey Drive provides improved site distance and improved access at the M onterey Drive I W. 381h-391h Street intersection. 9.2.2 Year 2010 Th e Year 2010 or Phase II development scenario includes a partial re-development of the Park Commons West site. The d evelopment land use is characterized by a mixed-use o f office, residential, and retail. The following is th e recommended mitigation measure the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County should consider implementing to accommodate the forecasted levels of background traffic and development relat ed traffic. 1. Excelsior Boulevard I France A venue ~ ' 11 I \ 1r lql}'l' ('- • Add a left-turn lane to the s~uth ,af)pmach. Thi s approach would be reconstru c ted to / include one exclusive left-turn la n e, one s hared through I l eft-tum lane and one exclusive right-turn lane. Impl e menting this intersec tion lane geometric improvement will facilitate an efficient le vel of traffic operations throughout the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor as well as providing other potential benefits . Provision of an additional left-turn lane on the south approach at Excelsior Boulevard and France A venue provides th e followin g: 1. An efficient south approach left-tum movement onto westbound Excelsior B oul evard . 2. P otenti a l reductions in cut-through traffic, as vehicles may be more apt to make this movement rather than using local or neighborhood roads . Without this improvement, this intersecti on tum movement is expected to o perate poorly in the future with or without the proposed developments. Implementing the additional le ft-tum lane proposed for the south approac h at the Excelsior Boulevard I France Avenue intersection may require the following: 1. Multi-agen cy involvement including the City of Minneap olis, the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County. 2. Right-of-way acquisition from the existing gas station prop erty on the sou thwest comer. 3. Minor redesign of the intersection geometries for the southwest corner. 9.2.3 Year 2015 The Year 2015 or Phase III development scenario includes a complete build-out of the Park Commons West site. The development land use is characterized by a mixed-use of medical office and retail. Land use assumptions for this scenario were very aggressive, meaning a worst case traffic-generating scenario. The traffic operations analysis uncovered numerous operational deficiencies along Excelsior Boulevard between TH 100 West Ramp -Xenwood A venue and Quentin A venue. Because mitigating the magnitud e of the problems will be very costly; the traffic operations analysis was conducted considering two general alternatives. R:\46018\Report July 2001\Exc<lsiaJ'ioai_Report_ch9.doc URSIBRW In c. -109 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 139 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Alternative 1 Alternative 1 consists of constructing a cloverleaf access on th e north side of Excelsior Boulevard at Excelsior Boulevard I TH 100 West Ramp. The features of this measure include: • Access to TH 100 southbound is converted to a right-tum movement from the previous left-tum move ment. • Vehicles destined for westbound Excelsior Boulevard wou ld be brought up an exit ramp on the north side, rather than the south as current. • Excelsior Boulevard at TH 100 Wes t Ramp traffic signal would be removed. The additional recommended mitigati on meas ures th e City of St. Louis Park and Henn epin County should consider impl ementing, in addition to the above, includes the f ollowin g: 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard • R emove the bicycle lan e proposed to be constructed in Year 2010, to construct a third Jane on the west approach. This approach would h ave dual left-tum lanes and three through lanes. • The east approach would be reconstructed to accommodate three throu gh lanes and one right-tum Jane. Currently, there are two right-tum lanes; the right most right-tum l ane would be extended by 200 feet to allow a total of 400 feet of storage. The inner right- tum currently extends back to within 50 feet of Park Nicollet Boulevard. This lane would be extended the full le ngth of roa dway to P ark Nicollet Boulevard and converted to a through l ane. • The south approach would re main as existing. The south approach right-tum would be programmed s uch that it would operate as a green right-tum arrow simultaneously with the west approach left-tum movement and would operate as a green ball with the south approach through movement. 2. Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale A venue • Convert the south leg to a right-in and right-out only access. The center median would be connected to ensure left-tum movements do not occu r. • The traffic signal would be removed and the south approach would be controlled by a stop sign. • The west approach would include two through lanes and one s hared through I right-tum Jan e as existing. • The east approach would be consistent with the east approach at Park Center Boulevard. 3. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • The north approach would be reconstructed to accommodate dual right-tum lanes, one through lane, and one exclusive left-tum lane. Currently, there is one exclusive left- tum lane, one share d through I left-tum lane and one exclu sive right-tum lane. • The traffic s ignal phasing on Park Nicollet Boulevard would be converted from p e rmitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tum phasing. • The east approach would be reconstructed to add a third thro ugh lane. The lane geometry would include one exclusive left-tum lane, two through lanes and one s hared R:\46018\Report July 2001~ceJ,jor_Fioal_Report_ch9.doe URSIBRW Inc. -110 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 140 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota through I ri ght-tum Jan e. The shared through I ri ght-tum lan e would extend the full le ng th of roadway to Quentin Av e nu e. • The sou th approac h would remai n as existing. • The west approa c h would be as exi s ting with dual left-tum la n es, two throu gh lanes and one shared through I right -tum lane . 4. Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • The north approach would be recon s tru c ted to include one exclu sive left -tum Jane , one through l a n e and one exclusive right-turn l ane . The left-J a ne and through lane would extend th e full len gth of roadway to the 38 1b -39th Street inters ecti on. The right-tum l ane would b e cons tructed with 180 feet of s torage. • The east and south approaches would be unc hanged . • The west approac h would be reconstructed to include du a l l eft-tum lanes , two throu gh lanes and one e xclusive right-tum l a ne . The ri g ht-tum lane would extend th e full length of roadw a y as the means for terminating the third through l a ne coming from tlie P ark Nicollet Bouleva rd intersection . • The traffi c sig n al phasing on Qu e ntin A venue would b e conve rted from permitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tum phasing. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 cons ists of cons tru c ting a new TH 100 brid ge c ro ssing that would conn ec t W. 39 th Street with Wooddale A venue on th e west side o fTH 100. The features of this measu re include: • Allows direct access to TH 100 southbound via a cloverleaf ramp tying into an e xi s ting entrance lane. Vehicles l eaving P a rk Commons W es t and destined south on TH 100 wouldn't have to get on Excelsior Boulevard. The additional r ecommended miti gation m easures the City of St. Louis Park a nd H ennepin County should conside r implementing, in addition to the above, includes th e following: 1. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Center Boulevard • Re move the bicycle Jane proposed to be construc te d in Y ea r 2010, to cons truct a third lane on the west approach. This approach would ha ve dual left-tum lanes and three through lan es. • The east approac h would be rec ons tru c ted to accommodate three through l a nes and one right-tum lane. Currently, there are two ri ght-tum l anes; th e right m os t ri g ht-tum lane w ould be ex te nd ed by 200 feet to all ow a tot al of 400 feet of storage. The inner right- tum currently extends b ac k to within 50 fe et of Park Nicollet Boulevard. This lane would be extend ed the full leng th of roadway to Park Nicollet Boule vard and convert e d to a throu g h lane . • The s outh approach would r emain as existin g. The south approach right-tum would b e programmed s u ch th at it w ould operate as a green ri ght-tum arrow simultaneously with the west approach left-tum mov e ment. This w ou ld operate as a g reen ball with th e south approach thro u g h m ovement. R :1460 t8\Report Jul y 2001 \Excelsior..J'ioat_Report_ch9.doc URSIBRW In c. -111 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 141 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2. Excelsior Boulevard I Wooddale A venue • Convert the south leg to a right-in and right-out o nly access . The cent er median would b e connected to ensure left-turn movements do n ot occur. • The traffic signal would be remov e d and th e south approach would be controlled by a stop sign. • The west approach would include two through lanes and one s hare d through I right-turn lane as existing. • The east approach would be consistent with the east approach at Park Center Boulevard. 3. Excelsior Boulevard I Park Nicollet Boulevard • The n orth approach lan e geomeu·y would be re -assign ed to accommodate one exclusive right-turn lane, one throu gh Jane, and one exclu sive left-tum lane. Currently, there i s one exclusive left-turn lane, one s hared through I left-tum lane and one exclusive right- tum lane. • The traffic s ignal phasing on Park Nicollet Boulevard would be converted from permitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tum phasing . • The eas t approa c h would be recons tructed to add a third through lane. The Jane geometry would include one exclu sive left-tum l ane, two throu gh lanes and one shared through I right-tum lane. The shared through I right-turn lane wou ld extend the full length of roadway to Quentjn A venue. • The south approach would remain unchanged. • The west approach would be as existing with dual left-tum lanes, two through lanes and one shared through I right-turn lane. 4. Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin A venue • The north approach would be reconstructed to include one exclus i ve l eft-turn lane, one through lane and one exclusive right-tum lane. The left-lane and through lane would extend the full length of roadway to the 38 1h -391 h St intersection. The right-turn lan e would be constructed with 180 feet of storage. • The east and south approaches would be unchanged. • The west approach would be reconstructed to include dual left-tum lanes, two through lanes and one exclusive right-tum lane. The right-turn lane would extend the full length of roadway as th e means for terminating th e third through lane coming from the Park Nicollet Boulevard intersection. • The traffic signal phasing on Quentin Avenue would be converted fr om permitted only to exclusive I permitted left-tum phasing. R:\46018\Reportluly 2001\ExcdsiorJjnai_Report_ch9.doc URSIBRW Inc .-112 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 142 . ( Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Y ear 2015 Complications As shown, th e recommended intersection la n e geo m e tri es, traffic control , alternative-access alignments to TH 100 southbound and sign a l improvem ents n ecessary for an efficien t tra nsportation n e twork is com pri sed o f many complica ti ons. I . Signifi cant ri ght-of-way acqui siti on which in c lud e: • The north an d south side of Excelsior Boulevard between Park Nicoll et Boul evard and Quentin Avenue, to accommodate th e third lane of travel and dual l eft-tum la nes on the west approach at the Excelsior Boulevard I Quentin Avenue intersection. • The entire south side of Excel sior Bouleva rd b e tw een Park Center Boul evard a nd Park Nicollet B ou levard , to main tai n th e third eastbound travel lane . • Portions of the north side of Excelsi or Boulevard between Park Center Bouleva rd and Park Nicollet Boulevard. Exte nsion of th e existi ng right most right-tum l ane by 200 f eet and th e exten sion of th e existing inne r ri ght-tum lane to extend back t o Park Nicollet Bo ule vard. • The north side of Exce ls ior B oulevard between Xenwood Avenue a nd Park Center Boulevard, to constru ct transition from three lanes of travel to two. 16 • The north approach at Excelsi or Boulevard and Quentin A venue to accommodate an excl usive ri ght-tum l an e. 2. Multi-agency involvement including the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County an d the Ci ty of S t. Lo ui s Park. 3. Will likely require an Environmental Impact S ta te m ent (EIS) p rocess. 4 . Complicati on s involving th e Miracl e Mile parking lo t. 5. Complications with neighborhood residents on the west side of TH 100 over concern of increased traffic alon g W ooddale A venue. Other Recommendations Though implem e nta tion of either alternative will provide for adequate operation s of th e Excelsior Boulevard Corridor, furth e r investigation is recomme nded, including: 1. Ide n tification o f other p otenti al alternatives. • In conjunctio n with e ither Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 the City of St. Louis Park should work with th e M in nesota Department of Transportation to en s ure that th e W. 36th S treet interchange is re designed to provide full direct access to TH 100. 2. Re-examination of the amount of re-development or expansion that cou ld occur in the Park Commons West area into the Year 20 15 . 16 C urrently th e westbound direction of Excelsior Boulevard cons ists of two lanes of travel. With th e proposed d evelopments for Year 201 5, it is necessary to maintain three travel lanes in both th e westbound and eastbound directi ons between the intersections of Xenwood Avenue and Quentin Avenue. The right-of-way acquisiti on woul d b e required in order to mee t the geometric l ane drop requirements of transitioning th e tltird travel lane in th e westbo und direction back down to th e ex isting two trave.l lanes traveling to the west of Xenwood Ave nue. 1bis note only applies if Alternati ve 2 is imple mented, as Alternative 1 requires much more right-of-way to construct a cl over leaf exit ramp. R:'-16018\Repc<t July 2001\Excelsior_Fioai_Repc<t_ch9.doc URS/BRW In c. -113 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 143 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 9.2.4 Projected Mobility I Congestion As shown in this chapter, many mitigation measures were recomm ended to maintain an efficient level o f traffic operations a long Excelsior Boulevard into th e Year 2015, providing the proposed d evel op ments are completed. In addressing th e concerns of the neighborhood residents , Figu re 9-1 shows a comparison between the overall intersection level of service for existing conditions and eac h development build scenario. The le ve l of service sh ow n in Figure 9-1 for e ach of the develop ment build scenarios is with the above miti ga tion measures impleme nted . Figure 9-1. Comparison of Intersection Level of Service Signalized Intersections GO ,-------------------------------------------, LO S F ~~------------------------------------------~~ 70 ExQe1skw 8MI/ EJ.oeJsiOf BNd I Eiccekior S,_.d I Exeeblor BNd I Exeeb.lot BHd I Excelsior Bttd I Exoo~lor B._,d I P~~o1k Cen'tr Blvd Wooddale Ave P11 kNicollet Ou flltin Ave Na tchez Ave MonltHI'J 01 Fre®e Ave e~• lnt er1ecUon )•Existing •vear2005 D Ve 112010 0 Yta.r201S(AII. 1} •vear2:015 (AI, 2) I Uns ignaliz ed Intersections 60 ,----------------------------------------------, LOS F oo r-------------------------------------------47.LO~S~E ~o40 ~~~------------------~~--------------------~~ I -o 5 ~ Nol Congested U2s r---------------------------------H---------47.~ ; -c !20 15 ~------------------------,------rr--------~LO~S~B Monlffey D' I Monllfty Or I Exoelsk)r BH'd I Exoelslof BMi I Excehiot Bttd I Fr.tnoe Ave I W. 381h ·39th St W. 38 tn S1 Inglewood Ave 1-l!ntitgtonAve GltnhwstAve W. 38lhSt lnletlee11on l•eusling •vear200S c v .. r2010 D VtM201S (AI. 1) •vear201S (Al. 2) I As shown, implementing the p roper miti gation meas ures to accommodate the year 2005, 2010 and 20 15 prop osed deve lopments maintains an efficient intersec tion level of service that is quite comparable to, and in a few cases better tha n, the existing operation of the E xcelsi or Boulevard Corridor. R:\46018\Repon Ju ly 2001\Excelsior_Fi nai_ReporLch9 .d oc VRSIBRW Inc. -11 4 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 144 Appendix A: Phase I-Review of Previous Studies 1\COLUMBIAIVOLI\PROJECTS\4(.018\Repon July 2CHli\Excclsio r_FinaLRcpon_Ap<h .doc URS!BRW Inc. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 145 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Introduction This repmt documents an in vestigation of studies previous ly conducted for the Excels ior Boulevard Cotridor S tudy Area. T h e portion of Excels ior Boulevard under stud y in th e City of St. Louis Park extends from Highway 100 on the west to France A ven u e on the east in a southwest/northeast diagonal alignment. This four-lane urban arterial is an integra l comp one nt of the regional road system providing access to maj or conunercial nodes and direct conn ecti o ns to major north-south freeways includin g Highway169 and Hi g hway 100. The g en eral study area exte nt also in c ludes th e parallel a nd adjacen t streets l ocated several bl ocks on eith er side of Excelsior Boulevard. The Corridor , relative to its lo cati on within the City of St. L ouis Park is shown in Figure 1. Figure A-1. General Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Stud Area Residents of th e neig hborh oods adj ace nt to Excelsior Boulevard h ave identified several issues and concerns. The issu es id e ntifi ed to thi s date, include: • Current and future tr affic on Excelsior B o ulevard • C urrent and future traffic in th e neighborhoods north and south of Excelsi or Boulevard. • The inter-relationship of the exis ting traffic studies that h ave been completed for va ri ous reasons in the past. • The relationship between traffic forecasts and development growth . As well as these issues , additional issues may be identified through meetings with area residents and business owners and operato rs to be complete d late r in the s tudy process. The purpos e of this document is to conduct a review of ex isti n g studies done in the s tudy area and to mak e observations on study content and assumptions, and on th eir app licability to th e Corridor study. In addi ti on R:\460 18\Report July 200 1\Excel sior_Finai_Repon_Apdx A.doc Ph ase I -Review of Previous Studies URS/BRW, In c. A -1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 146 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota to thi s rep o rt , t wo 3-rin g binde rs co nt ainin g th e reviewe d rep o rt s an d d ocu m e nts related to th e Excelsi or B o ul evard C orrid o r ha ve been compil e d aJl owin g for easy re trieval of d a ta a nd i n formatio n . Corridor Characteristics: The Corri do r is described in term s o f tra n sp o rt ati o n a nd land use ch aracteristi cs. T ransport ati on c h ar ac teris tics inclu de a d efiniti o n and d escripti o n o f the road w ays, an d lan d use characteri sti cs consist of a descripti on o f th e c ity-defin ed ne ig h borh ood s locate d within the Corri dor. Transportation -Roadway Network T he s tud y are a is served b y two reg ional hi ghways, TH 100 and TH 7, which acc om m odate the major no rth- south a nd e a st -wes t move men ts. Excelsi or B o ul evard (CSAH 3) is th e roadway with in t he Corri dor th at ser ves s ub-region al tr avel need s. O th e r roadways w ithin th e corrid or includ e several coBector s treets serving commerc ia l ne ed s in cluding, F ran ce Avenu e (CSAH 17), M onter ey D ri ve, W.36'h Street, an d other coll ec tor s treets that ar e residential i n character in c luding W ooddale Avenu e, Q uentin A venu e, a nd W. 38'h Street south of E xcel sio r Boul e vard . W. 38'h/39'h S treet n orth of Excels ior Boulevard is a coll ec to r th a t serves b oth reside nti a l a nd comm erc ia l needs. T h ese road ways a re id e nti fie d o n Fi g ure 2. Fi ure A-2. Primary Focus Roadwa / l , Each of th ese road ways, as well as all roads can be descri bed b y th e ir function . Fu nct io na l classifi cation is a p rocess by w hi c h s treets a nd h igh ways are g roupe d int o classes according to th e service provided . A hi erarchical st ructure is used to describe th e op eratio n of a ll road ways w ithin a t ransportation system . The hie rarch y, in ascendin g ord er , in clu d es local streets, co ll ector s treets, minor arteri als, princip a l arteri a ls, a nd fr eeways. The diffe rentiati on be twee n street classification s is based on th roug h-traffic movement an d access to adj acent la nd . L ower fun c ti ona l cl asses, such as local and coll ector s treets, provide greater access to adj acent land or indi v idu a l prop erti es th an h igh er fun cti o n al c lass ificati ons, s uc h as arteri als or freeways. F uncti onal classifi cati ons in S t. L oui s Park conform to th e M e tropoli tan Coun c i l standards as p u bli shed in R:\4601 8\Report July 2001\Excels ior_Finai_Repo rt_Apdx A.doc Phase !-R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, I nc . A-2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 147 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota th e Tra n spo rt a t io n D evelopm ent G uide/Policy Plan. This g uid e sep a rates road ways into fi ve (5) s treet classi fic ati o ns inclu d in g prin c ipal arte rial s, min o r art e rial s, 1 m ajor coll ectors, mi nor coll ect ors a nd local s treets. These c lass ificati o ns address th e fun c ti on of s tat e, c ounty an d city streets from a s ta ndpoint o f th e safe and e ffi c ie nt movement of traffi c throu gh th e C it y whil e providing satisfactory access to reside nts an d busin esses locate d within th e C ity. Within th e E xcels ior B oulevard Conido r Tra ffi c S tud y area th e ro ad w ay class ifi catio ns represented in c lud e: • Minor Arte rial ("A "): Reliev e r: Fra nce A venu e (CSA H 17) from E xcels ior B o ul evard sou th ward . • Min or Arterial ("A"): A ug men te r: E xcels ior B oul evard . • M inor A rte rial ("B "): M onterey Dri ve. • Collector S tree t (Major): W oodda le Av e nu e from Excels io r B o ulevard south ward , Park Cent e r B oulevard , a nd W . 36'11 S treet. • Collector S tree t (Min or): W . 39'" S t re et north of E xcelsior Boulevard , W. 38'11 S treet north and so uth o f E xcelsior B o ul e vard , and Que ntin A venue n orth and so uth of Excel sior B oulevard . • L ocal Street : W . 39'h S treet south o f E xcels ior B oul evard . In addition to fun c ti o nal cl assificati o n, road ways are also cl assifi ed o n th e basis of whi ch leve l of gove m me nt owns o r has j u ri s di c ti on over th e road . The three level s o f govern men t in vo l ve me nt are the Minn esota D e partme nt of tran s p ort ati on (Mn/DOT), H e nn e pi n C ounty, and the C i ty of St. Louis P a rk . M n/DOT maintains th e Interstate and State TJUn k Hi gh way Syste m. He nn epi n Coun ty mai ntai ns th e Cou n ty State A id H igh ways (CSAH ) and Coun ty R oad (C R) sys te m s. T h e re maining s treets and r oad ways l oca ted withi n th e C ity are th e res ponsibility of the C ity of St. L o uis P ark or are private s treets m aintained by the propert y ow ner s. T a ble 1 li sts th e prim ary road ways within the conidor accordin g to th eir direction a l orient ation and classifi cati o ns. Table A-1. C lassification of Roadways within th e Corridor Directional Functional Juris dic tio nal Roadway Orientation Cla s sification Clas sification TH 100 No rth-South Principal Art eri al Mn/DOT Exce lsior Bou l evard (C SAH 3) East-W es t Minor Art eri al ''A" Augmenter Hennepi n Cou nty Fr ance Av enu e (CSAH 17) North-So uth Minor Arteri al "A" Re li ever Hennepin County Monterey Drive North-South Mi nor Art eria l "B" City of St. Lo uis Park W ooddale Av enue No rth -Sou th Collector (Major) City of St. Louis Park Pa rk Cen te r Blvd. North -South Co llector (Majo r) City of S t. Lou is Park W . 36th S tr ee t Eas t-Wes t Collector (Major) Ci ty of St. Lo uis Park W. 38th S tree t East-West Coll ector (Minor) City of St. Lo uis Pa rk Quentin A ven u e North-So uth Collector (Mino r) Ci ty of St. Lo uis Park Source: City ol St. Lo uis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020. Traffic: Existing and Historical Counts W ithin th e Coni do r hi s to ri cal tr affi c volu mes are ava il able for many of the p rimary r oad ways. T he C ity of St. L oui s P ark, H enne pin County, and the Minnesota Dep artme nt o f Transp o rtati on coll ects and tabul a tes 1 Withi n th e Comprehe nsi ve Plan, Minor Arteri al is s ubdivided in to "A" Minor Arterials, and "B" Minor Arteria ls. "A" Minor Arterials includes : Re li evers, Expa nde r s. Co nn ectors, and Augmen ters. "B" Minor Arteri als in cl udes Coll ector Streets (Major and Mi nor) (see the Comprehensive Plan for more detail). R:\460 18\Report Jul y 200 1\Excelsior_Fi nal_Report_Apd x A.doc Phase I -Review of Pre vious Studies URS I BRW, In c. A -3 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 148 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Pari<, Minnesota Average Daily Traffic (ADT) vo1umes on several roadways within the Corridor. ADT volumes consis t of th e total traffi c carried on any particular road in a 24-hour period.2 Presented in thi s section are the hi s torical traffic trends th at were available for the primary roa dways in th e Corridor. TH 100 is a n01th-south roadway, serving as the western boundary of the Conidor study area. Access to TH 100 is provided via an interchange at Excelsior Boulevard. Currently, TH 100 averages over 105 ,000 vehicles per d ay, both north and south of Excelsior Boulevard. As indica ted in Figure 3, daily traffi c has grown considerably on TH 1 00 over th e past 10 years. Fi ure A-3. Historical Traffic Volumes on TH 100 115.000 -• ------. -- ----------------------- 110.000 -----• -- 105,000 -------- _,t) --------________ _,. _____ _ .... ,.. ~ 100,000 u ----------..... ~------------,.,,., ,.. :;: ~ 95,000 ---"jf·---------------·---- 0 / G) 90,000 ------------·r -------------------- D E ::> z / 85,000 --;---··---------------------· ; 80.000 . ----..:::..-.: tj'/_ ----.. --- -. -------------. 75,000 -------· 70,000 +-----.---~---.---~---.---~-~----~ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 19 97 1998 1999 Year 1-<> •TH 100 (N. of Exc elsio<Bivd) --TH 100 (S.of Excelsior Blvd) I Excelsior Boulevard (CSAH 3) i s an east-west roadway within the study area extendin g from TH 100 to France Avenue. Currently, traffic on section s o f Excels ior Boulevard within th e Conidor average betw een 16,000 and 19 ,000 per day. West of th e Corridor (west of TH 1 00) daily traffi c volumes exceed 25,000 vehicles p e r day. In gene ral , traffic on Excelsior Boulevard within the Corridor has been d ecreasing over the past te n-years.3 As sh ow n in Figure 4, traffic on the section of Excelsior Boulevard west of Monterey Drive w a s approximate ly 28,000 in 19 92. In 1998, the volume of traffic had dropped to approx imate ly 2 0,400. 2 In addition to this infonnati on, hi storical traffic volumes from 1990 through 1998 are provided as an appendix to the report, (see Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study Reference Book 1 -Traffic and Signal Studies (3-ring binde r)). A lso prov ided in thi s book are hi stori cal turnin g movement traffic counts for several Excelsior Boulevard inlersect ions including Monterey Drive, Wooddale Avenue, Quentin A ve nue, and France Avenue. 3 During the early 1990's secti ons of 1-394 near Excelsior Boul e vard were under construction wh ic h cou ld have had an impact on Excelsior Boulevard traffic levels . R :\460 18\Report July 200 1\Eltce ls ior_Final_Report_Apdx A.doc Phase I -R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A -4 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 149 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Figure A-4. Historical Traffic Volumes on Excelsior Boulevard 31,000 29,000 27,000 :1 0 25,000 ~ ~ 0 23,000 " .0 5 21,000 z 19,000 17,000 ...... -.... ... .... ----~--------_..._ -------------------------- ... ' ' - ---. --.. -----_, ----------- ---------- ---------------~'--------------~----\. / •• -fl •• . ' ----.... ----·· ... ---. . \ \ / ------" --------/---.. ---' / ' / -------~~------- , -----.. --~: ------.-..... ·-~ ·-·" ~ --------tJ. ; .. ---~ , • .... b ···· ' ----- ------· ------------'-'6.---- 15,000 +--~-~--~-~-~--~-~-~--~-~ 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year 1-•Excelsior Blvd. (W. ol TH 100) --Excelsiol Blvd. (W. ol Monterey Or.) • b •Excelsior Blvd. (E. ol Monterey Or.) I France Avenue (CSAH 17) is a no rth-south roadway that form s th e eastern boundary of the study area and serves as the border between St. Louis Park and Minneapolis . CmTently, France A venue averages approx imately 9,300 vehi c les per day. Thi s represents an increase of appr ox imately I ,000 vehicles since 1990. Figure 5 presents a grap hic di splaying the historical tre nd in traffi c growth for France A venue. Fi ure A-5. Historical Traffic Volumes on France A venue 1 O,(X)() --- -- --- ----------· --·· -- ------------- 9,000 . ----- --.. ----------- ., 8,500 " u 8,000 ~ " > 0 7,500 .... " ..0 E :::1 z 6,500 ----. --. ---. - ------ ---------------- - - --- - 6,000 ------•. ----.. ------ ------~ -- - --- ---------- 5,500 . --------------• ----------~ ------._ ----- - ---~· 5,000 -~----~--~-~-----,~---.-------.--~-~--~-~ 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Year !-+-France Avenue (S. ol Excelsior Blvd.) I Monterey Drive is a north-south roadway th at traverses the middle portion of the Corridor. South of R:\46018\Report July 200 1\Excelsior_Fin ai_Report_Apdx A.doc Phase 1 -R evi ew of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A-5 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 150 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Excelsi o r B oul e vard , M o nte rey Drive inte rsects with W . 38'h S treet, which continu es e as twa rd. Currently, M onte rey Dri ve ave rage s approximately 10,000 ve hi c les pe r d ay, up from approximatel y 8,00 0 vehicles p er d ay in 19 80. In more recent years (1 994 to 1999), M o nte rey Dtive has fl uc tuate d be twee n 8,000 a nd 10,000 vehi cles pe r da y (see Fig ure 6 b elow). Wooddale Avenue is a n o rth-south ro adway that traverses th e wes te rn p o rti o n o f the Corrid or. His to ri c al traffic c ounts indi cate that traffic in c rease d from approximately 5,000 vehicl es p er d ay in 198 0 to over 7 ,0 00 ve hicles per day in 199 4 fo r which th e most recent d ata was av ail able (see Figure 6 below). W . 3811' Street within th e C o rridor i s an eas t-wes t road way that ex tend s fro m Exce ls ior Boulevard o n th e west wh e re it connec ts with M o nterey Drive, to F rance Avenu e o n th e east. Ctme ntl y, West 381h Street a verage s approx imately 4 ,500 ve hi cles p er day . Hi s tori cal traf fi c count info rm ation in dicates th at the level of traffi c has r emained re lati vely cons is tent sin ce 198 0, with some p eaks and va ll eys occurri ng in 1993 and 19 97, respective ly (see Figure 6 below). Quentin A venue is north -south road way th at connec ts W . 391h Street no rth o f Excelsior B oul evard w ith th e area south of E xcelsi o r B o ulevard on th e wes te rn portion o f th e Corrid o r. Traffi c on Quentin A ve nu e has been rel ati vely cons tant since 1980 when daily traffi c vo lumes we re approxi mate ly 2 ,300 ve hicl es. In more recent years traffi c has ac tu ally d ecreased , as it n ow is a pproximate ly 2,000 vehicles p er d ay (see Figur e 6 below). Figure A-6. Historical Traffic Volumes on Monterey Drive, Wooddale Avenue, West 381h Street and Quentin Avenue "' Q) (j :c Q) > 0 ... Q) .Q E :l z 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7.000 6 ,000 5,000 4.000 _-o ------------------------____ ..-!!---------------------_...t:r_ . -_WJ>«!d!lal::Y•::; -----~ _-:. -. ------. ; ;-oA ~:-------------. - ..... ...-,"" "' ... ----. ------------------, .. ---------------------.. --. ' • J'.:..~B,!!l ,lil~l!~ .. " ~ _• ~ ·-'::: ~ ~ :~ • ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ ' :0:: • ____ _,.~~ __ .......... ' 3,000 ~-.a~ntl~ A~u e • --X-...... 2.ooo --------.":'-~-"'.!.-·---x .... ----~----··---'----.-;.x.-.-.---x - 1,000 . --.. --------- ----- - 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 Year -Mon!erey Drive (N. of Ex. Bd.) -<> •Wooddale Avenue, (S. ol Ex. Bd.) • • 'W. 38th Slree t , (S. of Ex. Bd.) -x •Quentin Avenue, (S. ol Ex. Bd.) R:\460 18\Report July 200 I \Excels ior_Fin al_Report_Apdx A. doc Phase 1 -Review of Pre vious Studies URS I B RW, Inc. A -6 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 151 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Throu gh th e application of th e fo reca st land use to the roadway network, daily traffic vol um es are generat ed. Figure 7 presents th e projecte d dai ly traffi c for maj or road ways in the Conidor area. For reference, the 1997 traffic vo lumes are sh ow n next to the 2020 forecast. As thi s figure indicates, Excel s ior Boulevard, for th e 2020 forecast land us e would increase subs tantially over 1997 values. H owever , traffic volumes were obtained from a large regiona l-based model, which typically are used to forecast traffic for more major roadways suc h as freeways. In analy zing a s mall area such as the Corrido r, a sub-a rea model should be created to ensure a more detailed traffic forecast. Fi ure A -7 . Forecast (2020) and Existin (1997) Dail Forecast 2020 Daily Traffic Volumes J PfOfX'Ud Aver11ge (Wy Traffic; {2020) ---Cityl.mts Sourc e: Comprehensive Plan 2000 -2020, City of St. Louis Park. Corridor Neighborhoods xoo 8'XIQ Existing Ave•~ Oa ily'Ttiiffic (1997) ----C"I!)Limu ~ •• --CORR IDOR The Excelsior Boulevard Corridor li es within th e defined boundaries of four St. Louis P ark neighborhoods. These neighborhoods, as defined in Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020,4 include Wolfe Park a nd Minikahda Oaks, whi ch are north of Excelsior Boulevard, and Minikahda Vista and Brownda le, w hi ch are south of Excelsior Boulevard. These ne ighborhoods are presented on Figure 8, whi ch also presents all the defined City of St. Louis Park neighborhoods and their respective boundaries. ' Cit y of St. Louis Park Comprehens ive Plan 2000 -2020 prepared in J 999 by the Community Development Department. R:\460 18\Report July 2 00 1\Exccls ior_Fi nai_Repon_Apdx A.doc Phase 1-R e view of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A -8 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 152 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota F igure 8. St. Louis Park Neighborhoods Reference to Neighborhood 7 8 5 (/) CiTYOF _I_I_J ~"'JOUIS 35 1. Shelard 2. Ki lmer 3. Crestview 4. Westwood Hills 6. North Side 7. Pennsylvania Park 8. Eliot 9. Blackstone 10. Cedarhurst 11 . Eliot View 12. Cobblecrest 13. Minneh-aha 14. Amhurst 15. Aquila 16. Oak HUI 17. Texa Tonka 18. Bronx Park 19. Le nox 20. Sorenson 2 1. Birchwood 22. Lake Forest 23. Fern Hill 24 . Triangle 25 . Wolfe Park 26. Minikahda Oaks 27. Minlkahda Vista 28. Browndale 29. Brookside 30. Brooklawn s 31 . El mwood 32. Meadowbrook 33. South Oak Hill 34. Westdale 35. Creekside Source : Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020, City of St. Louis Park . R:\46018\Re port July 2001\Excclsior_FinaLReport_Apdx A.doc Phase I-Review of Previous Studies URSIBRW,Jn c. A-9 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 153 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wolfe Park Wolfe P ark is generall y defined by TH 100 o n th e west, th e CP Rail line o n north , F rance A venue and B ass Lake Park on the east and Ex ce]s ior B o ulev ard on th e south . N e ighborhood characteri s ti cs are presented on Fi g ure 9, foll owed by a mo re de tailed description . rc A-9. Wolfe Park N borhood Characteristics Sidewalk 'Roads Qllllsi Public Bldg. l..nke Pnrk We tlan d Neighborhood #25 Wof&ePM& SbalnAerM: 330 ,8 1915 M.mber & T)'ptot Hwsif'9 Units Sflg\&.faml:t Ae.kkrt\111: :x> Con6omh\.lm.: :0. '.'• d P•k & Open Space: 12.5'>1 3~.0 1\ TO'M'lhooUI; 34 "'~-""'"* 1002 ().I~J:; " 2000 -2020, City Present e d in Tab]e 3 are neighborhoo d charac te ri s tic s o f Wolfe Park foll owed by a narrati ve describing neighborhood charac te r, development g uidelines, and des ired improvem ents as defined in th e Comprehensive Plan. R:\46018\Report J uly 200 1\Excelsior]ina i_Report_Apdx A.d oc P hase 1 -R eview of Previous Stud ies URS I BRW, Inc. A-10 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 154 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table A-3. Key Characteristics of the Wo lfe Park Neighborhood. Neighborhood Name: Wolfe Park Major Neighborhood Features: Park Commons Rec Center Neighborhood Park: Wolfe Park, Bass Lake Major Neighborhood Streets: Excelsior Blvd; Monterey; W 36th S t.; Belt Line Blvd; Park Center Blvd. 1996 Average Weekday Traffic Counts: Excelsior -20,600; Monterey -8,000; W 36th St. -14,000; Belt Lioe Blvd· I 0,500; Park Center - %Change From 1980: Excelsior-4% de crease ; Monterey· +3%; W 36 th St. -4% decrease Pedestrian I ss ues: Crossings at Excelsior Boulevard and TH. 100 Housing Condition: See Chapter P Anchoring Businesses and Institutions: Rec Center, Pos t Office, Park Co mm ons, Health Sys tems Neighborhood Character: This neighborhood is distinguished by its diversity, conta ining a mixture of housing, commercial, medical, offi ce , aod industrial uses. New, intense mixed use development is proposed for th e area located northeast o f Excelsior Boulevard and Highway 100. This area, named Pa rk Commons, is proposed to be a new town cente r for St. Louis Park. Park Commons will feature a new town square and Wolfe Park as important c ivi c features . Wolfe Lake and Bass Lake provide major recr eationa l and visual amenities, and function as storm sewer and pending areas. A pedes trian trail has been developed around Bass Lake which connects Bass Lake witb Wolfe Park, the Recreation Center, the new Park C ommons, Exce lsior Boulevard, Park Cent er Boulevard and Highway 7. High density residential uses exist on the north side of Bass Lake and on tlt e s outh, east and west sides of Wolfe Park. Industrial uses are located on the west side of Beltline Boulevard and along the northeast comer of the neighborhood. Mixed medium and high density residential us es are exist along the south side of Bass Lake. Most of the commercial ar ea and those areas south and wes t of Monterey and 36th Stre e t are part of the proposed Park Commons and are included in the City's Redevelopment District. The Redevelopment Plan identifies land us e and sets forth development goals and objectives. See a lso th e Chapter P, Redevelopment and Chapter R, Livable Communities. Specific Development Guid elines: An urb an design for Park Commons is included in Chapter P. All redevelopment of the Park Commo.ns area shall comply with the Redevelopment Plan for the area. A ny expansion of commercial uses north of Exce ls ior Boulevard and east of Monterey Drive sh ali provid e aesth et ic barriers and transitions from the coiTIIflercial front on Excelsior Boulevard to residential uses being mindful of scale, density, quality, aesthetics, land use intens ity, and vehicle access. Desired Neighborhood Improvements: Trees; adult recreational programs; improved transit; improved winter sidewalk maintenance; affordable senior housing; sidewalks especia ll y on Park Glen Road ; imp roved pedestrian crossings; pedestrian lighting; noise reductions. Source: Comprehensive Plan 2 000-2020, City of S t. Louis Park. R:\460 18\Re po rt July 200 I \Excelsior_Fi na i_Report_Aptlx A.d oc Phase 1 -R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A-ll Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 155 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Minikahda Oaks Minikahda Oaks, is a small ne ighb orhood of Jess th an 30 acres , gen erally defined by Bass Lake Park to the we st, th e CP Rail lin e on north , France A ve nu e o n th e eas t, and Bass Lake Park and the B ass L ake Preserve on th e s outh . N eighbo rhood c harac te ri s tics are presented on Fi gu re 10, f ollowe d by a m o re detai led desc ription. Fi ure A-10. Minikahda Oaks Nei hborhood Characteristics N S!dewalk NRoa!ls -Quasi Pub! ic Bldg. -Lake ~Pari< -Wetland + Neighborhood #26 ~t)~ 29.6 1990 PqK.Ialim: % o1 Park & Open Space: 23% 1~8 Mtan Valoe l~roole ·romlt( residential): $139,313 Avetape Ye~ 8:..il (lilgle-t.uri)f resld.!ndal): 1947 Nll'l'lber & Type of Houaing UN\S Sf'IQ»-Fwnty ReskienUal: n Ccn<lo!nl->>••.: DJp1u: Source: Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020, City of St. Louis Park. Presented in Tabl e 4 are neighbo rh ood characte ri s ti cs ofMinikahda Oaks fol1ow ed by a narrati ve desc ribing n eighborhood c haracte r, development guidelines, and des ired improvement s as d e fined in the Comprehensive Plan. R:\460 18\Repo rt Jul y 2001\Excelsior_Final_Report.._Ap dx A.doc Phase I -Re view of Previou s Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A-12 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 156 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table A-4. Key Characteristics of the Minikahda Oaks Neighborhood. Neighborhood Name: Minikahda Oaks Major Neighborhood Fearurcs : Bass Lake Minlkahda Country Club Neighborhood Park: Bass Lake Park Major Neighborhood Stree ts: Excels ior Blvd. 1996 Average Weekday Traffic 19 ,300 Counts: %Change From 1980: +22% T raffic Issues: Access at Excels ior Bl vd. From Fran ce Pedestrian Issues: Safe crossing at Excelsior Blvd. Housing Condition : See Chapter P Anchoring Businesses and Institutions: Al's Neighborhood Character: Minikahda Oaks is a small single family neighborhood originally subdiv ided in 1926, is located between Bass Lake and Minikahda Country Club. H o me co nstruc tion continued steadily betwee n 1927 and 1980. A commercia l edge occurs along Excels ior Boulevard. S pecific Development Guidelines: Redevelopment of the commercial comer s hall be mi xed use including small scale retail, office, and residential uses, with primarily residentia l uses on the north side. The trans ition fr om a commercial front to the single fami ly area sha ll be mindful of scale, density, quality, aesth etics, and vehic le access. Civic uses within the commerc ia l area are enco uraged. New deve lopment s ha ll fo ll ow ur ban design goals set in Chapter R . Desired Neighborh oo d Improvements: Pedest ri an light ing; improved transit. Source: Comprehensive Plan 2000 -2020, C ity of S t. Louis Park. R:\460 18\Report J ul y 200 1\Excelsior_F inal_Re port_Apdx A.doc Ph ase 1-Review of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc . A-1 3 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 157 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Stud y S t. Louis Park , M inn es ota Minikahda Vista Minika hd a Vista is ge nerally defined by Wooddale Avenue on the west, Exce lsior Bou leva rd on the north , France A ve nu e on the east, a nd the c ity of Ed in a on th e sou th and sou th east. Neig hb orh oo d cha rac teiis tic s are presented on Figu re 11 , foll owed by a more detailed d esc1i pti o n. A-11. Minil<ahda Vista N borh oo d Characteristic s Sidewalk Roads Quasi Public Bldg. Lal:c Pnrk Wetland Sou rce: ·--2~0Frtl Slz.e in Acres: 244.1 1990 Population: 2187 Numt>or & Type ol Housi ng 4 .1~ %of Parle & Open Spaca: Condominium: %o r CommerciaVIndustrlat 6.3% TO'M'I houu: 1998 Mean Value tsioglo ·famOy residential): $1 52,592 Average Yeer 8UIII t•inglo·famlly residential): 1944 Plan 2000 -2020, St. Louis Park . Presented in Table 5 are ne ighb orhood charac teri sti cs ofMinikahd a Vista foll owed by a nan ati ve describing ne ighb orhood c har ac ter , deve lop ment gui de li nes, and desire d improv ements as defined in th e Comprehensive Pl an. R:\460 18\Report July 200 1\Excel s ior_F inai_Re port_Apdx A.doc Phase 1 -R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A-14 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 158 Excelsior Bou levard Corrid or Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table A-5. Key Ch aracteristics of the Minikahda Vista Neighborh oo d . Neighborhood Name: Minikahda Vista Neighborhood Park : Minikahda Vista Park Major Neighborhood Streets : Excelsior Blvd; W 38th Street; France Ave; Quentin 1996 Average Weekday T raffic Counts: Excelsior -19,300 ; W 38th St.-3,450; France -9,300· Quentin -I ,800 % Change From I 980: Excelsior-; W 38th St. -5% deer ; France -2% decr ;_Quentin -23% deer. Housing Condit ion: See Chapter P An cboriJlg Businesses and Ins titutions : Miracle Mile; Susan Lind gre n School Neighborhood Character: The Minikahda Vista neighborhood was full y subdivided during the first quarte r of the 20th century. Re si dential development occurred relatively early with diverse housing s izes and styles . The primary land us c in this neighborhood is low density residential with some public use. Secondary uses exist on propertie s adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard and include comm ercial and medium density residential uses. Commercial areas adjacent to Excels ior Bou levard we st of Monterey are co nsid ered to be part of Park Commons (see Chapte r P, Redeve/opmem and Wolfe Park Neighb orhood). The commercial parcels are includ ed in the City's Redevelopment District, and redevelopment' of some of these parcels into mi xed co mme rc ia l and civ ic uses is ant icipated . Specific Deve lopment G ui delines: Redeve lopment within the Park Commons area is subject to requir ements of the Redevelopment Plan. In the remain ing commercial are as, re staurant s with liquor are prohibited as are car wash es, outs ide storage and sa les, and s imi lar heavier commercia l uses. Building height s on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard are generally limited to 35 feet. Desired Ne ighborhood Jmprovements: Complete sidewa lk system; acce ssible park; underground uti li ties; traffic calmin g; need more green space; improved winter sidewalk maintenance; improved transit; LRT; decorative pe destrian lighting; safe crossings on Excelsior Boulevard; move-up housing; alley paving. Source: Comp reh ensive Pla n 2000-2020, Ci ty of S t. Louis Park . R:\460 18\Rcport July 200 I \Excelsior_FinaL Rep ort_Apdx A.doc Phase I-Review of Pre vious Studies URS I BRW, In c. A -15 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 159 Excelsior Boulevard Corrid or Traffic Study St. Lou is Park, Minnesota Brownda/e Brownd ale is genera ll y defined by TH 100 on th e west , Excels ior Boulevard a nd Wooddale Avenue on th e n orth, Wooddale Avenue on the east, and the city of Edina on th e so uth . Neighborhood ch a racteris ti cs are presented on Figure 12, followed by a more detai led desctiption. Fi ure A-12. Browndale Nei hb orh ood Characterist ics Neighborhood #28 ~~ C~y d Edina OX) 0 OOJ !!!!!!!!5=...'i!!!!!!!!!!!l!!!!!!!!iii;;;;;==~1:200. foot A./Si dewalk Size in Acres : 160.9 /\/Roads 1990 Population: 1 25~ -Quasi Public Bldg. mr~ke % d Pork & Open Spa co: 8.6% Park -Wetland 'A. d Convne<c lalnnduatt1el: 1.1% Number & Typo of HOU$ing Urits Shgi8-Famly Resldenllol: 5<9 Condominium: 0 Apartment 18 + 1998 Mean Velue (lingle-family reoldontial): $1H.672 QJplex : Averaoe Year Sui~ ($lngl&-famlly reoldentiol): 1942 So urce: Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020, City of St. Louis Pa rk. Presented in Table 6 are ne ighbqrhood c harac teristics of Browndale followed by a n arrative d escribing neighborhood character, development gu ide lines , a nd desired improvements as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. R:\460 18\Report Jul y 200 1\Excelsior_FinaLReport _Apdx A.doc Phase I -Revie w of Previous S tudies URSIBRW, In c. A-16 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 160 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table A-6. Key Characteristics of the Browndale Neighborhood . Neighborhood Name: Brown dale Neighborhood Park: Browndale Park Major Neighb orhood Streets: Woodale I 996 Average Weekday Traffic Counts: 3,200 % Change From 1980: +1% Pedestrian Issues: Crossings at TH. I 00 and Excelsior Housing Condition: See Chapter P Anchoring Businesses and Institutions: Most Holy Trinity School Neighborhood Character: The Browndale neighborhood was subdivided in 1915 and home construction occurred relatively early taking advantage to street car lines on 44th Street. With the exception of commercial and civic uses along its northern boundary, the Browndale Neighborhood is composed primarily of single famil y homes. Browndale Park provides a recreation and aesthetic amenity in the south cen tra l portion o f the neighborhood. Wooddale, a minor coll ector route, serves the neighborhood . A pedestrian link is proposed extending from the pedestrian bridge at Highway 100 to Brookside Community Center through the neighborhood to Susan Lindgren Sch ool. Specific Development Guidelines: No expansion of commercial deve lopment into the re sidenti al area is proposed . Desired Neighborhood I mprovements: Add s idewalks, especially along Quentin, Brook Street, and Wooddale north of Princeton; Stricter winter ma intenance for sidewalks; accessible si dewa lks; safe crossings, especially on Excelsior Boulevard; a walking trail and rest rooms in Browndale Park; improved transit, especially north/south connections; Traffic calming; Pedestrian lighting; Sound walls on TH. I 00; larger single family homes; added gymn as ium space, add trees. Source: Comprehensive Plan 2000 -2020, Ci ty o f St. Louis Park.5 Previous Studies Several rep01 t s and documents rela ted to the Excels ior Boulevard Conidor study area have been produced over the pas t 15 to 20 yea rs . Provided in Table 1 is a comprehensi ve li st of these documents, which provides for each , th e year it was produced, the general content or typ e of study, and who prepared th e study or document. Also included for th e li sted studies/doc uments are comments providing information on th e conten t and th e physical documen t, i .e., number of pages. The documents were broken into four ptimary categories including Traffic Related Information, Signal (Traffic) Related Information, Environmental Related Inf01mation, and Other Information, wh ic h includes vatious plan and design s heets of vatious Excelsior Boulevard projects. Provid ed in the section s b elow are su mmaties of the studies for each of these categories. 5 Since the production of th e Comprehensive Plan, it has been recommended by th e Planning Commi ssion that Wooddalc be reclassified as a Major Co llector. R:\46018\Report July 200 1\Excelsior_Finai_Re port_Apdx A.d oc Phase I -Review of Previous S!udies URS I BRW, In c. A-17 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 161 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Parl{, Minnesota Traffic Related Information I Documents T raffi c re la ted i nformati on cont a in s s tudi es, me mo randums, a nd letters th a t have been completed over th e p ast 15-20 ye a rs . For ease of reference th e info rm ation has been subd iv ided in to t wo s ub -categori es inc luding: • Tra ffi c: S tud ies • T raffi c: L e tt ers I M e mora nd u ms6 Review of Traffic Studies A total of seven complete (fin al ve rsion) traffi c s tudi es were reviewed for the p urpose of making observa tions regard i ng each s tudi es content and ass um pti o n s, an d o n the ir appli cabil ity to th e Corrid o r. Liste d in Tabl e 7 a re th e s tudi es th at we re rev iewed .· ITS·3 Table A-7 . Traffic Studies conducted within or n ear the Corridor Document Type Traffic: Study Traffic: Study I Traffic : Stu dy · FINAL Traffic: Study-Draft Traffic: Study Street vacation agreement fo r Park Center Blvd./Excelsi or Blvd, toW. 39th S tree t. Includes agreement for subdivision improvements (35 page report). Parsons TranspMalion Group SRF Inc. Parsons TranspMation Group I Barton·Aschman Associates, Inc. Barton·Aschman Associates, Inc. S RF Inc. City of St. l o uis Park The primary geog raphic f ocu s of th e traffi c s tudies li sted in T ab le 7 was th e north east quadran t of th e T H 100 an d Excelsi or B o ulevard Intersection . Onl y o ne is a comprehens i ve look at th e geograph ic area of th e C o rrid or in i ts e ntire ty. Thi s is th e Exce lsior Boulevard Traffic Study con d ucted in 1987. The o ther si x 6 The liste d srudi es lett ers a nd memorand ums a re presented in the ir entire ty in the E xcelsi or Boul evard Cor ri dor T raffic Study Reference Boo k 1 (3- ring bi nder). R:\4601 8\Report J u ly 200 1\Excel sior_F in al _Report_Apdx A .doc Phase I-Review of Prev ious Studies URSIBRW,Inc. A-18 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 162 Excelsior Boulevard C orridor Traffic S tudy St. Louis Park, Minnesota s tu d ies, wh ic h foc used on th e wes te m e nd of th e Corrid or, in c lud e: • S u mm a1y of P ark Com mo ns West Feasibili ty S tu dy compl e ted in 1999 • P ark Commons East T ra ffic Impact A nal ys is comp le ted in 1999 • Excelsior Bou levard/Quen tin A venu e Traffic S tud y comp leted in 1999 • P ark C ommons -Phase 1 T raffi c S tu dy compl eted i n 1998 • T ower Pl ace D evel opme nt T ra f fic Imp ac ts to Excel s io r B oul evard completed in 1992, and • Excelsi or B oul evard at TH 100: S t. L oui s Centre compl e ted in 1987 Each o f these s tudi es is reviewed in th e fo ll owin g sec tions, however , because th e focus of th e maj ority of th e tr a ffi c s tudies is on techni c al iss ues, it m ay b e he lp fu l to b ri e fl y explain one of t he primary measures in d e termini ng travel condi tion s. Usi n g th e level of service (LOS) criteiia, road ways can be a nalyzed to d e te nnine its opera tin g L OS. LOS is a qu anti ta ti ve analysis that com pares th e vehi c le f low of traffic on a typical roadway with th e vehi cle fl ow capacity of th at parti cular roadway. The resul ting ratio is then classified in one of six levels of serv ice. LOS is an "A-B -C -D-E -F" g radin g sys te m th at rates th e quality o f op erati on o n a s treet sys te m . The levels of ser vice range from an "A'', th e best tr affic operation, to "F," the poorest. W ithin th e Twin C ities Region , a n accepta bl e d es ig n L OS h as been determi ned to be "D ." Design LOS D m ean s th at travele rs m ay expect th at L OS D m ay occur d urin g th e peak ho ur of travel. Abbreviated definitions for eac h L O S are defin e d in F i gure 13. F ' 12ure A 13 L - Level-of-service A ________ !Jll_ B ___ a::~ ______ .::_ g;ll c JtlJ. _i.t:oc:rn ~-tffi : D -Q---1%'%1: E ~~ F ~~iiHfg~ R:\460 18\Report July 200 I \Excclsior_Fi nai_Report _Apdx A.doc eve o fS e rv1ce D 'ti esc np· o n Description Free Fl o w. Low V o lumes a nd n o d e la ys. S table Flo w. S p eed s r es tricte d b y trav e l c onditio n s,m in o r dela ys . S tabl e Flo w. S p eed s and ma ne uv e rability c lose ly co ntro ll e d du e to higher vo lumes. Stable Flo w. S pe e d s co n s id e rabl y a ffec ted by ch a n ge in o per a tin g c ondi t ion s. Hig h d e n s ity tr a ffi c r estricts man e uvera bili ty . U n stable Flo w. L o w s p ee d s, cons id e rable d e lay, vo lum e a t or ne a r cap a city. Fo 1·ce d F lo w. V e r y l o w s p ee ds , volumes e xceed ca pacity, l o n g d e lay s with s top-and -go traffi c . Phase 1-Review of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A-19 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 163 Excelsior Bouleva rd Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Pari{, Minnesota Excelsior B oulevard Traffi c Study-1987 (SRF Consulting Group) The Excelsior Boul evard Traffic S tud y was conducted in I 987. This has been the most comprehensive study done to date on th e a rea defi ned as th e Excelsior Bo ulevard Conidor. The study was in iti ated for a nal yzing the impac t that proposed develo pments would have on th e roadway system. Devel opments included a mixture of office, hotel, restaurant, and big box retail. Some of this d evelopment has been constmcted sin ce this s tudy, i.e., Targe t. Sever al improveme nts were ide ntifi ed in thi s study in c lud in g s i gnal-timing adjustments, and im prov in g access to ex is tin g developments, including the Wolfe L ake Condomi niums. Several p o te nt ial improveme nt a lternatives were identified to address th e proble m of cut-throu g h traffic us in g W. 38'" S treet. These improve m ent alternati ves inclu ded th e co n vers ion of 38111 Street from two-way to one-way operati o n , the disconn ection of 38111 Street fro m Excel sio r Boulevard an d th e di sconnection of 38'" Street f rom Fran ce Aven ue. Observations and C orridor Applicability/Impli cations: Observati ons an d th e ir re lati onship to th e Corrid or are described b elow. Observations: • This report represents the most geograph ic ally compre hens i ve study of th e reviewed traffic s tudi es th at f oc u ssed on areas with in th e Corrid or. • The s tud y looked at altern at ive d evelopme nt scenarios including one more specific to th e area adjacent to the CNW R a ilroad line north near CSAH 25 and one mo re specific to the Excels io r Boulevard area. • P eak hour thro ug h traffic was included as part of th e study to gauge the amoun t of travel through the are a. • The issue of c ut-throu g h traffic u si ng W. 38111 Street was add ressed in which alte rn atives were p resented to ad dress the problem . • Various traffic-en gin ee ring improvements were identifi ed to address or mitigate the impact of in c reased traffic within the s tud y area. Corridor Applicability/Implications, and Conclusions: T hi s s tudy was the mos t compre he ns i ve of the traffi c s tudies conducted with in the Corridor. It presented som e u seful a nd applicab le alte rnatives to address ex istin g and po ten tial need s. Its li mitation is only that it is over 13 yea rs o ld an d several of the improveme nts suggested and d evelopme nts proposed have been imple me nt ed, thereby limiting its usefulness in addressin g exis ting need s wi thin the Con·idor. Park Commons West Feasibility -1999 (SRF Consulting Group) This study was a co ntinu ation of wo rk initiated by the Vision St. Louis Park s trateg ic planni ng process begun in 1994 that recommended creation of a "town center" in th e Park Commons a rea. Figure 14 illustrates the "tow n center" concept. R:\460 18\Rcport July 2001\Excelsior_F inal_Repon_Apdx A .doc Phase I -Review of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A-20 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 164 Excelsior Boulevard C orridor Traffic Study St. Loui s Park, Minnesota Fi ure A-14. P ark Commons Town Center Co nce t Town Cente r -Street Sta nd ards -------··--S t. Louis PMk, MN As part of thi s p lan a consulta nt was hi red to make recom mendati ons regarding locati on, fea sibility and design of proposed road way co nn ections for th e western p o rti on of the Park Commons concept area. T he co ns ultant reviewed four roadway a lte rn a ti ves that were developed throu gh th e Park Commons West Task Force. Each of th ese alternatives add ressed th e ci rc ulati on of traffic for given d evelo pme nt scen ari os. Presented in Table 8 are the proposed developme nt scenarios for P ark Comm ons Wes t. Table A-8. Park Commons West Land Use Projections -. . Pa•·ccl . Exist ing Projected 2020 Nnrwest Bank (Redevelop) 20.000sf office (estimate) 300 un it resid ential ( 150 market rate nnd !50 independent senior) Park Sho res ( Bx pa nd) 252 assisted liv in g and ind ependent 2 99 un its senior ho us ing senior unit s and surface parking Ways ide House (Redevelop) 4 1 IJ~d treatment fnci lity 60,000 sf civic, 30,000 sf office rcp lncing exist ing Citizens Bonk (Redevelop) 50,000sf oOice and 280 space surfa ce 58,000sf retail. 174,000sf medical parking office West of Quentin /North of 36,200sf ofticc and medical office ami 23,600sf reta il and 70,800sf medi cal E xcelsior (Redevelop) 123 space surface parking uffice We st of Quenti n/South of 28,000s f medical office( estimate) 5,500 sf bank and 33.500 sf medical Excelsior (Redevelop) office (estimate) 3&00 -Park Nicoll et Campus 260,000sf medica l office and 307 space 347.600 sf medica! oiTicc (Expand) surface parking 96,400sfmcllical offtcc-·-3850 -Park Nicoll et Campus (No 96,400sf m~dicaloffice Change) 3900 -Park Nicollet Campus 60,000sf medical offic~ and 434 s pncc 167}00 sf medical office (Expand) surface parking Parking Ramp (Expand) 948 Splice parking structure 14 22 space pa rk ing structure Targd (Expand) 78,000sf retail and 500 space surt:1ce 128.500 sf retail, I 00.000 office parking Byerly's (No change) 98,000sfretail (grocery) and 575 space 98,000s f retail (grocery) and 575 su r face p~rking space su r face parking AAA (No change) 40,000sfoffice (estimate) Qnd 160 40,000sf office and i 60 space 5p ace surface parking surface pnrking S ite South of AAA (redevelop) (surface pu rkin g) 18,000 s frct~i l, 120 room hott!l R:\460 18\Report J uly 2001\Excelsior_Fin ai_Repon_Apdx A. doc Pha se 1 -Revie w of Pre viom Studies URS I BRW, In c. A -21 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 165 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The traffic study also inc luded impac ts of developing Park Commons East with 188,0 00 SF. of retail , 79,750 SF. of office and 54 8 h ous in g units. Out o f the study several tr affic circulation improvements were recom me nd e d. These inc lud ed th e cons truction of a no rth-south co ll ecto r road o n th e wes tern portion of the Corrido r connecting 36th Street and Excelsior Boulevard. Several o th e r roadway improveme nt s were recom me nd e d t o facilitate travel flow primarily o n the north s id e of Excelsior Boulevard bet wee n TH 100 a nd Mon terey D ri ve. Traffic impacts and recommendations for th e area south of E xcel s ior B oul evard were not addressed in thi s study. Figure 15 displays th e tran sportation improvements recommended in this study. Observations and Corridor Applicability/Implications : Observations an d th eir relationship to th e Corridor are described below. Observations: • The stud y l ooke d at a full 2020 build -out of th e Park Commons lan d resulting in an additional 2,800 P.M. peak hour trips. • The study looked at several roadway improvement scenari os, ultimately recommending: R:\460 18\Report July 200 1\Excels ior_Finai_Report_Apdx A.doc Phase I -Re view of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A-22 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 166 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota )> Constru c ti on of a "n orth-south" collector roadway linking W . 36111 Street with Excelsior Boulevard . > Constm ction of n ew local s tree t connecti ons to as sis t in intemal ve hi c le circu la ti o n amon g the deve lopme nt parcel s. > Improve access to TH 100 from Excelsior B o ul e vard through intersection l ane-geometry improvements and th e conversion of Park Center Boulevard to a one-way northbound roadway (only to one-way until it be comes an ea s t-we st roadway) upon construction of th e north-s outh collector. • With th e identifi ed improvements s hown in Figure 15, all but one of th e analyzed intersections would operate at a LOS D or better. The intersection of Excelsior Boulevard/Park Center Boulevard with th e TH 100 northbound on and off r amps was forec as t to operate a t LOS E fo r 2020 c onditions.7 To a ll eviate pressure at these r amps, the s tudy recommend ed working with Mn/DOT to achieve full direct access to TH 100 at 361h Street. Corridor Applicability/Implications and Conclusions: The study addressed concems of th e impact of traffic on th e area comprised by a nd adjacent to the proposed Park Commons Deve lopment, however, the impact of traffic on areas south of Excelsior Boulevard and east of Monte re y Drive were not analyzed. The Park Common s Wes t traffic study ide ntifi ed and analy zed reasonable improvement meas ures to improve o r maintain the c urre nt LOS on roadways within the s tud y area vicinity. The land use a ssumptions were aggress ive representing a full build-out of mos t of th e developable lan d within the Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Corridor. Howeve r, al th o ugh the study was technically th o r ough and contained reasonable improvement m e asures to mitigate the impact of increased traffic, the s tudy area was not comprehe ns ive enough to analy ze the impac t on other pote ntially affected areas within th e Corridor. Park Commons East Traffic Impact Analysis -1999 (Parsons Transportation Gro up) This traffic impact analy sis stud y was conducted in December, 1999 by the Parsons Transportation Group f or the Park Commons a rea (same general area as that s tudied in the P a rk Commons Phase I Study -/998 (see previous section of report) East Traffic Impact Analysis . Thi s updated report reflects a c hange in the trip gene rati on rates used in the previous report as well as a change in th e existing and proposed development c haracteris tics.8 In the traffic analysis trips generated by th e existi ng and proposed deve lopment traffic were d etermined whi ch were then a ss igne d to re gio nal road network which consi s ted of the i ntersections of Excelsior Boulevard with Quentin A venue, Ottawa A venue/Natchez A venue, and Monterey Dtive. Figure 16 s hows th e s ite location of the proposed Park Commons East developme nt. 7 Access improvements include two eastbou nd left-turn lan es from E xcels ior B oulevard to TH I 00. 8 For example, I 58 tri ps were i.nclud ed for the ex isting restaurant for the I 998 an alys is. whil e th e I 999 analysis ind icat es 373 trips. R:\4601 8\Report July 200 1\Excelsior_F in ai_Report_A pdx A.doc Phas e 1 -Review of Previou s Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A -23 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 167 Ex ce lsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study ·a ···, ... ;;-A (!.·.Wo lf e .C•. • ., I : '~· ..... ... Park St. Louis Park, Minnesota Tabl e 9 presents a summary of th e existing and propos ed l and use for th e Park Commo ns Eas t d e vel opment area. Thi s trip table sh ows th at th e proposed development would result in 1,150 new p.m. peak ho ur trips. Table A-9. Park Commons East L a nd Use a nd T rip Ge n er ation -Weekday P .M. P ea k Hour L a nd Use ITE Code' ITE Unit Size Rate Trips Ex isting Retail/8 14 KSF2 38,058 2.59 99 Restaurant/832 KSF 34,308 10.86 373 Offi ce/710 KSF 17 ,23 1 5.72 99 Res idential/2 1 0 Dwelling Unit 17 1.28 22 Existin g Total 592 Propos ed Retail/814 KSF 79,000 2.59 205 Qual it y Restaurant/ KSF 12 ,000 7.49 90 831 Restaurant/832 KSF 23,00 0 10.86 250 Grocery Store/850 KS F 36,000 11.43 411 Apparel Store/870 KSF 12,500 4.80 60 Electronics S tore/ KSF 42,500 4.50 191 863 Office/710 KSF 70,000 2 .25 158 Apartments/22 1 Dwell ing Units 570 0 .54 306 Townhome/231 Dwelling Units 90 0.83 75 Proposed Total 1,746 ' IriP Generation Ma nua l, Sixth Edition, Ins ti tute of Transpo rtation Engineers 1997 1 KSF-Thousand Squ are Fe et o f Gross fl oo r a rea . ' Source: Park Commons Eas t Traffic Impa ct Analysis-1999 (PTG) R:\460 18\Rep ort July 200 1\Excels ior_Final_Report_Apdx A.doc Phase I-R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A-24 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 168 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota The ex isting traffic LOS a nd th e forecasted L OS with the addition of th e traffic from the proposed d evel opment was d isttibuted a nd assigned to th e three intersections. Figure 17 shows the existing and projected p.m. peak hour tra ffic for the three intersections as identified in the Park Commons East Traffi c Study F" Jf!ur e A 17 P k C -ar ommons E PMP I H ast ea { our T ff" V I ra JC o umes !~I ~ 0 -l~~ ~ :~; ~ l~8 " '-ls 50 '-20 40 75 230 305 "-m :no 60 30 1'10 40 s I<S f-71S .,_, 10 200 270 60 20 55 -nons lO S 10 -uo eJs ,) II.. ,-35 3S ) I I.. ,-so 50 J I 1.. ,-15 20 .r-15 10 Excelsior Blvd 250 115--" 'I 1 16 4$ ...... 'I 1 ( ns 1ts-" '\ t ( ,. IO!i 10J 1145 1115_. ~ 10 30 t O S 30 13251080--f>-<4 5 75 5 10 30 30 t290 1150-10 5 30 1$ ss--x 60 tOS tO ., 55""""" 30 JO"""X I ~ * z .... ?jot. ~, LEGEND I Baso Volumo199~ I Post DsvelopmtHJI Volume 2004 Source : Park Commons East Traffic Impac t Analysi S-1999 (~TG) The analys is sh owed th at th e additional p.m. peak hour traffic generated by th e proposed development would require the signalization of Excel sior Boul evard with O tt awa A venue/Natchez Avenue (Refe !Ted to as East Park Street in the study). With the additi on of a traffic control (either si gnali zed or a roundabout) at this location it was concluded that the operational LOS for the three intersections wo uld remain at "C" or h igher. In effect, the operati on of the three intersections wou ld b e minimally affected by th e additional traffic. Table I 0 s ho ws the overall LOS for th e three i ntersections for both base (exi sti ng 1999 traffic), and with th e addition a l traffic from the developme nt. T bl A 10 E . f a c -xis m g a n d P . t d LOS t E I . B ro]ec e a xce s1or ou evar d I t f n ersec IOns Intersection LOS (and sec. delay) Excelsior Intersection Pre-Post- Location Development-1999 Development-2004 Monterey Drive c (15.6) c (23.4) Ottawa Ave nu e/Natchez Ave nue 8 (7.6) 8 (12 .9) Quentin Avenue 8 (7 .0) 8 (9.4) Source: Park Commons East Traffi c Impact Analysis -1999 (PTG) Obser va tions and C orridor ApplicabiJityllmplications: O b servati o ns and th eir relationship to the Corridor are described be low. Observa tions: • The study was cond ucted for a project EA Wand to update a previou s s tud y conducted in 1998. In th e R:\460 18\Report Jul y 200 I \Excels ior_F in al_Report_Apdx A .doc Phase I -Review ofPreviou s Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A -25 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 169 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota were analyze d aga in . The a nalys is conclud ed th at th e LOS would n ot c h ange with th e additi o n al tra ffi c. Table 1 I shows th e resu ltin g LOS as calc ulated for th e intersections. T bl A 11 E . t' a e -'XIS mg an d p . t dInt fOJCC e ti LOS ersec . on Intersection LOS Pre-Post- Intersection Development Development Quentin Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard B B Quentin Avenue and Vall acher Avenue A A Quentin Avenue and West 40th Street A A Source: Excelsior Boulevard/Quentin Avenue TraH1c Study. To address the concerns of t he resid ents in the surrou nd ing neighborhood regardin g traffic impacts from th e proposed d evelopm e nt , three s treets sou th of Excels ior B oul evard were a nalyzed. It was determined th at during th e p.m . peak hour, th e pro posed developmen t would add 6 trips to V allac her Avenu e Eas t of Q ue ntin , 25 tri ps toW. 40'h S treet wes t of Quentin, 7 trip s to 40'11 Street eas t o f Quentin, and 24 trips to Q uen tin A venu e so uth o f 40111 Street. The daily trips were also assigned to roadway ne twork and it was conclude d th at the daily traffic vo lum es were all within the acceptable daily range of traffic based on c rite ri on est abl is hed by th e Metropolitan Council. Observations and Corridor Applicability/Implications: Observations and th ei r rel at ionship to the Corridor are describ ed below. Obs ervatjons: • T he relative ly s mall increase in traffic would have minimal traffic impact on th e analyzed intersecti on s. • Based o n th e Metropolitan Counci ls c riterion of vehicles per day, all of th e roadways would continue to oper ate well within th e establi sh ed g uid elines. Corridor Applicability/Implications: The s tud y addressed co ncern s of the impact of traffic generated by th e prop osed bank/de ntal office. The impact of th e additional tra ffi c o n the Corridor neighborh ood located to th e south o f the development was a lso addressed . C onclusion: The Excelsior Boulevard/Quentin A venue Traffic Study determined th e impact of the additional traffic projected to be generated by th e ban k/dental offi ce bui ld ing proposed fo r the south wes t quadrant of Excelsior Boul evard and Qu e ntin A venu e. In th e analy s is it was determined that the adj acent intersection s would con tinu e to operate at acceptable levels of serv ice. Park Commons Ph ase I Stu dy -1998 (Parsons Transportation Group) The Park Commons Phase I Study focused on traffic op erati ons analysis in which co nceptu al geome tri c l ayouts of new intersection s of O tt awa a nd Prin ceto n A ven ues with Excelsior Boulevard were d es ig ned and evalu ate d . T he purpose of th e stu dy was to initiate con versations with Hennepin County regarding th e need fo r new traffic controls on Excelsior Boulevard to facilitate pedestrian crossings a nd vehi c ul ar m ovem ents near the future Town Green at O tt awa. The P ark Common s redevelopment concept plan consisted of th e creation of a T own G reen, which would be a linear park ex tendin g from Wolfe Park on the north to Excels ior R :\460 t8\Repon Ju ly 200 1\E~t ce ls ior_Fi na i _Repon_Apdx A.doc Phase I -R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A-27 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 170 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Table A-12. Trip Generation Summary -Weekday PM Peak Hour Land Use/ITE Code1 ITEUnit Size Rate Trips Existing Retail! 814 KSp2 53,844 4.93 Office/710 KSF 17,231 1.49 Residential! 210 Dwelling Unit 17 1.01 Existing Total Proposed Retai11814 KSF 97,000 4.93 Office/710 KSF 144,000 1.49 Apartrnent/221 Dwelling Unit 2153 0.58 Townhome/230 Dwelling 38 0.54 Relocated Restaurant/831 KSF 21000 7.49 Proposed Total .. 1 Trtp Generation Manual, Fifth and SIXth EdttJOns, Inetttute of TransportatiOn Eng~neers, 199111997 • KSF-Thousand Square Fest of Gross floor area. • Proposed development includes 203,000 eq. ll. of apartment uee, 950 square feet per apartment was used to convert to approximately 216 apartment units. 423 99 22 644 478 241 124 28 158 871 In calculating the number of trips using the identified trip rates it has been determined that the existing trips p.m. peak hour trips generated may be 466 rath er than 544 as reported.9 Likewise the number of trips generated with the proposed or future land use, may be 836 rather than 871 as reported. Therefore, the differential between the two land use scenarios, existing and proposed, is larger than shown in the table . The proposed land use would actually add 370 new trip s rather than the 327 as it is represented. Using the co mputer s imulation software CORSIM alternative roadway concepts were tes ted for the area of Excelsior Boulevard generally extending from Quentin A venue on the west to Monterey Drive on the east. The study was updated in 1999 for th e Park Commons Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAQ)-(Park Commons East Traffic Impa ct Analysis (Parsons Transportation Group) and is based upon a more recent development scenario and roadway concept. Observations and Corridor Applicability/Implications: Observations and th e ir r elationship to the Corridor are described below. Observations: • The s tudy looked at a full 2020 build-out of the Park Commons land . • The study looked at several roadway scenarios to accommodate traffi c within the development via a c irculation system and also on th e adjacent roadways. The re commended improvement scenario was identified as Option A3 th at involves one-way north-south side streets with sig nals at their intersections with Excelsior Boulevard. • While the s tudy used sophi s ticated software, CORSIM, to d e termine its operational LOS, the analysis may be fl awed due to in correc tly calculating the amount of trips generated by the exi sting and proposed development. 9 Notes i1tdicate that the existing analysis may have assumed that 158 trips generated by 1m existing restaurant were included in the calc ulation. Therefore, the calcu lated trips of 4 23 may be valid while only the reported rate for Retail/814 is in correct. NOTE however, that the updated 19 99 report lis ts the existing re staurant generat ing 373, not 158 trips. Regarding the other calculations for existin g co nditi ons. Office/71 0 trips (99) is incorrect and s hould be 26, and Residential/2 1 0 trips (22) is incorrect and should be 17 . R :\460 18\Report July 2 00 I \Excelsior_Fi nal_Report_Apdx A.doc Phase 1 -Review of Previous Studies URS I BRW. In c. A-29 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 171 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Corridor Applicability/Implications and Conclusions: The s tudy comprised th e portion of th e Corridor west of Monterey Drive and north of Excelsior Boulevard . The impact of th e tra ffi c was not dete rmined for the areas of th e CotTid or south of E xcel sior Boulev ard and cast of M onterey Dri ve . Although th e Park Comm o ns Phase I s tud y may be flawed due to calculation errors. The study used a very e ffecti ve evalu ation technique (CORSIM) for an alyzing intersec ti on and segment LOS . CORSIM and other traffi c s imulation pac kages in c luding S imTraff ic are very va lu able to ols for s imul ating ex p ected traffi c conditions for different land u se/tran spm1 ation assumpti ons. Tower Place Development Traffi c Impacts to Excelsior Boulevard -1992 (Parsons Transp o rtation Group) This memorandum was prepared in 1992 to a nal yze th e impact th at the proposed Tower P lace d evelopment would have o n Excelsior Boul evard 's traffic operati on . The me morandum wa s divide d into two sections wi th the fir s t d oc um e ntin g ex is ting condition s on Excelsior Boulevard and the secon d secti on analyzin g future ope ratin g co nditions of Excels ior Boulevard wi th th e additional tJaffic . A lth ough not stated clearly in th e me morandum , th e development was proposed for the northwest quadrant o f th e intersec tion of Exce ls ior Boulevard and Quentin A venue. The proposed devel o pm e nt, T ower Pla ce, was for 740,000 SF. of medical-re lated offic e space. The number of P .M. peak h our trips generated by this d evelopment was calc ul ated to be 1 ,375. In th e analysi s of exist in g conditions u s in g 1985 Hi ghway C apacity Manual pro cedures , it was d e tel'mined the sec ti on of Excels ior Boulevard ex tendin g from TH 100 to Quentin Avenue operated poorly with th e intersecti ons of Exce lsior Bou levard with Wooddale Avenue/Park Center D ri ve, and with Quentin Av enu e op er a tin g at LOS F. It was als o d e tennined that th e addition al traffi c gen e rat ed by th e Tower Place deve lopmen t wou ld place furth e r demand o n th e ro adway sys te m. However, it mu st be note d that s ubsequ ent to thi s s tud y, several traffi c c ircul ation improvem e nts were made in th e Park Nicoll e t C lini c vicinity to address the impac ts. The improvements include th e provision of more access t o th e clini c. P ri or to th e imple m en tation of access improvem e nts th e primary p oint of e nt ry was via Quentin A ve nu e. Impro vements th a t h ave occurred s in ce 1992 include n ew access roadw ays includin g Park Nicoll e t B oul evard , wh ich is parallel to Quentin A venu e, and Park Center Boulevard (via Au to C lub Drive). In add iti o n, a large parking ramp h as been constJUcted in whi c h direc t access is provid ed via Auto Club Drive and Park Cente r Boulevard . Quentin A venue d oes not prov ide direct access to the parking s tru c ture. A lso a contributing fa c tor to th e p oo r LOS in 1992 was th e impac t of in c reased traffic on Excelsio r Boule vard du e at least pa rtl y, to reconstru ction ofl-394 whi ch resulte d in th e divers ion of trips onto Excelsior Bou levard. With th ese improvements, traffi c h as b een div e rte d from Quentin A venue, resulting· in an improve d LOS goin g fro m Fin 1992 to a B in both 1998, a nd 1999. 10 Th ese analyses were conducte d as part of th e Park Common s East Traffic Study conducte d by Parsons Transportati o n Group. In th ese analyses, it was determined that the inters ection of Excelsi or Bou levard and Quentin A venue operated at a LOS of B fo r exis tin g conditions. 111 In ad diti on, to the lis te d improvements and the 1-394 reconstructi on, the Excelsior Bo ul evard bridge over TH I 00 is schedul ed for recon struc tion to begin in 200 1. It is anticipated that this proj ect will improve th e n ow of traffic between E xce ls ior Bouleva rd and TH 100, wh ic h may imp rove the operation o f the inte r secti ons w ith Excels ior Boulevard. R :\46018\Report July 200 1\Excelsior_.Fin a l_Rep ort_Apdx A.doc Phase I -R e vi ew of Previous S tudies URS I BRW, Inc. A-30 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 172 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Tabl e 13 presents th e results of th e two ind epen den t analyses compl eted by th e P arson s Transportation G roup f or th e intersection of Excels io r Boulevard a nd Q ue ntin A ve nu e. Table A-13. Inters ection LOS Analysis inconsistencies between Traffic Studies Tower Place Deve lopment Traffic impacts to Excelsior Boulevard (PTG -1992) Intersection: Exce lsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenu e Existing Conditions (1992): LOS F Excelsior Boule va rd/Quen tin Avenue Traffic Studv (SRF -1999} Intersection: Exce lsior Boulevard an d Quentin Avenu e Existing Conditions (1998): LOS 8 Improvements made to intersection since 1992 study: Substantial improvements were made including the co nstru cti on new access poin ts to th e Park Nicoll et Clini c, which re sulted in diverting trips away from Quentin Avenue. Park Commons Eas t Traffic Impact Analysis (PTG -1999) Intersection: Exce lsior Boulevard and Quentin Avenu e Existing Conditions (1999): LOS B Improvements made to intersection since 1992 study: S ubsta nti al improvem ent s we re made in cluding th e cons tru cti on new access points to th e Park Nico ll et Cl inic, whi ch resulted in divert inQ trips away from Quentin Av enu e. As Table 13 indicates, the e ffect of th e tra nsport ation improveme nts in the vicini ty of th e Park N icollet Clinic we re substant ia l, res ulting in improv ing th e operati on o f th e intersecti on f rom a LOS F in 1992 to a LOS B in 1998 a nd 1999, respectively Observations and Corridor Applicability/Implications: Obse rvation s and their relationship to th e Corridor are desc rib ed be low. Obs ervations: • Results of the Excel sior Boul evard and Que ntin Avenue intersection anal yses s how that th e post-1992 improvements made to th e roa d way system in th e vicini ty th e Park Nicoll et C linic had a s ignificant effect o n improving thi s inte rsections operati o n. The improveme nt s include th e provi si o n of m ore access to the clini c inc lu ding the Park Nicollet Boulevard , w hi ch is parall el to Qu entin A venu e, and Park Center Boulevard via Auto C lub Drive. In addition , a la rge parking ramp has been cons tru cted in which direct acces s is provided via Auto C lub Drive and Park Center B o ul evard. Q ue ntin Avenu e d oes not provide d irect access to th e p arki n g structure. With these improvements, traffi c h as been div erted fro m Quentin Avenue , resultin g in a mu c h-improve d LOS goi n g fro m Fin 1992 to a B in both 1998 , and 1999. • S in ce th e 1992 s tud y, a pmti on of th e d evelopme nt has been constru cted. This traffic wou ld be reflecte d in th e a nal ys is of ex ist ing conditi o n s containe d in later studi es. Corridor Applicability/Implications, and Conclusion: The s tudy add ressed concern s of th e impact of traffi c o n th e are a co mpri sed by and adjacent to the proposed T ower P lace develo pm ent. Howe v e r , th e curre nt validity of the analys i s is questionable due to traffic R :\460 18\Re port July 200 1\Exce ls ior_Finni_Report_Apdx A .doc Phase I -Review of Pre vio us Studies URS/BRW,lnc. A-3 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 173 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota improveme nts that h ave been m ade and reduc ti o ns in tr affic on so me ro ad s sin ce the d ate of th e s tudy . Excels io r Bouleva rd at TH 100, St. Louis Centre -1987 (B arton-A schman Associates, Inc.) This s tudy was condu c ted to dete rmine the traffi c and p arking impac t o f a multi-u se development pro posed fo r th e n orth east qu adrant of the inte rch an ge of TH 100 a t Excels io r B oul ev ard . The proposed d ev elopment c onsis ted of a s h opping m all , offi ce buildings, a hot e l, and a res taurant. The number of P.M . p e ak hour ttips wa s ca lculate d to be over 1 ,2 70 . These trip s we re ass ig ne d to the adj acent ro adway ne twork to d e termine th e ir potenti al impac t. As part of th e s tud y a c once p tu a l d es ign for an inte rnal c ircul ation syste m wa s d e ve loped. Corridor Applicability/Implications, and Conclusion: S ubsequ ent to th e co ndu c t o f thi s stud y th e area h as b een parti ally develo ped and th ere fo re th e impact is represente d in mo re recentl y co mpl e ted s tudi es. Traffic : Letters and Memorandums Provide d in Table 14 are le tt ers and me mora ndums re la ted to traffi c w ithin or near th e Excelsi or B oulevard S tudy Corrid o r. Table A-14. Traffic Letters and Memorandums co ndu cted with in or near the Corridor Housing and Rcdev. Author ity ~ousing and Redev. Aulhori ly Excerpts from the ~iinules of the Housing and Redevelopment Aulhorlty. Discussespedesttian b:rkige from Wolle Pruk 10 Bass Lake (1 p age letter/memo). ITL-1 1 I NA )Sheet of notes shooving loops in lntersocUon )TraHfc: Letter/ Memo )NA One page ol loose-leal no lebook paper explaining a meeting ol the St. LOUis PaJtners tor 12/29. (1 p age ol noles) R:\46018\Rc po n Jul y 200 1\Exccls io r_Finnl_Re pon _Apd x A.doc Ph ase I -R evie w of Previo us Studies URS I BRW. Inc. A -32 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 174 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Most of the l e tte rs an d memor andums li s ted in Table 14 are brief -1 or 2 page documents. One excepti on to thi s i s the Position Paper of the Minikahda Vista Neighborhood A ssociation (MVNA) on the Park Commons East Redevelopment Project presented by th e MVNA Task Force in Febmary 2000. The content of this paper is briefly s ummarized in the following section. Position Paper on the Park Commons East Redevelopment Projec t This paper was prepared to present th e position of some of th e Minikahda Vi s ta neighborhood resident s on th e proposed Park Commons East Development. The proposed Park Commons East Development would occupy an approximately 15 acre parcel on th e n orth side of Excelsior Boulevard generally exten ding from Quentin A venue to Monterey Drive on the east. In their review of th e Park Commons East development proposal th e MYNA Pos ition P aper raised several concerns, th ese are briefly pre se nted in th e following paragraph s. • "Excelsior Boulevard will no t be able to s upport the ex tra traffic projections generated by the Park Commons East and Norwest Bank projects. This is in spite of the proposed traffic li ght synchron ization along Excelsior Boulevard" (NOTE: Th e results of several traffi c studies contra dict this claim.). • "There h ave been separate traffic studies done o n each project as th ey have com e up: Water Tower Project, the Dental!Norwes t Bank Building, and Park Commons East developm ent. With th e exception of th e traffic s tudy done by Barton-Aschman (PTG) each of th e other studie s ha s assumed each proj ec t independent from th e oth er and are indicatin g little or no problem with th e increased traffic" (NOTE: Several transportation improvements have been made subsequent the 1992 Barton-Asclunan report which have had an effect on improving traffic conditions). • "We believe th e City mu st take immediate s te ps to have a traffic s tud y done of the e ntire area from TH · 100 eas t to France Avenue which will take into accou nt current traffic , the pre liminary proposal by Park Nicollet for a 60,000 sq. ft. addition to their campus, Dentai/Norwest Bank building, and Park Commons East." Numerous other concerns were rai sed in the Position Paper. One state ment that was put in bold tex t in th e paper s tat ed: "We in the neighborhood believe that traffic concerns should diive the redevelopment process rather than th e other way around . We beli e ve c mTent traffic is sues will on ly get worse as a result of the Park Commons Development havi ng become a true r etaiVcommercial development vs . the "livable community development" th at was originally e nvis ioned . Signal Related Information I Documents Signal rel ated infonnation contains studies, memorandums, and lett ers. For ease of reference the infonnation has been s ubdivided into two s ub-categories in c luding: • Signal : Studies • Signal : Letters I Memorandums The li s ted studi es letters and m emorandums are presented in th eir e ntirety in the Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic S tudy Reference Book I (3-Iing binder). R:\460 18\Rcport July 200 1\Exce l sior_Finai_Report_Apdx A .doc Phase 1-Re vie w of Prev iou s Studies URS I BRW, Inc . A-33 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 175 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Signal Studies Provided in Table 15 are studies rel ated to s ignals within or near th e E xcels ior Boulevard S tud y Corridor. Table A-15. Signal Studies conducted within or near the Corridor Commen ts/Content : Revi sed 1987 report . Includes Traffic Signal Justilicallon Report (5 pages) and Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation (8 pages). l ss-2 I 1988 I Excelsior Boulevard and The Avenue I s ignal: Study l eather Belrose Boje, Ina. Comments/Content: Revised 1987 report . Includes TraJiic Signal Justdica tion Report (5 pages) and Traflic Signal Warrant l ss-3 I 1988 I West 39 /h Slreer and The Avenue I signal: Study l eath er Belrose Boje, Inc . Comments/Content: Revised 1987 report. Includes Traffi c Si nal Justilication Report (6 pa es) and Trallic Si nal Warran t Evaluation (6 pa es). Westwood Planning and Eng. Bather Belrose Boje, Inc . Comments/Content: Includes Traffic Signal Juslilicalion Rep ort (5 pages) and Traffic Signal Warrant Evaluation (8 pa ges) I ss-a I 198 7 I Excelsior Boulevard and Wooddale Avenue I Signal: Stu dy leath erBelrose Boje, Inc. Comments/Content: Includes Traffic Signal Justiti cati on Report (5 pages) and Traffic Si gnal Warrant Evaluation (8 pages). Comments/Content: Survey dat a requesl to p repare signal pl ans (1 page teller/mem o). Signal Study: Letters and Memorandums Provided in Table 16 are l etters and memorandums re lated to traffic s ignals within or near the Excelsior Boulevard S tud y Corridor. Table A-16. Signal Study Letters and Memorandums conducted within or near the Corridor Signal: Letters and Memorandums Comments/Content: Survey data request to prep are signal plans. (1 page letter/memo) R:\460 18\Re port July 2 00 1\Excelsior_Fin ai_Report_Apdx A .doc Phase 1-R evie w of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A-34 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 176 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Environmental Related Information I Documents Environmental related information contains studi es, s ubmittals, memorandums, and letters dati ng from 1984 to 2000. For ease of referenc e th e infonnation h as been su bdivided into t wo sub-categori es includi ng : • Traffic : Studi es • Traffic: Letter s I Memorandums The liste d studi es, s ubmittal s, le tt ers, an d me morandums are presented m th eir entirety in the Excelsi o r Bou levard Corridor Traffic S tud y R efe ren ce Book II (3 -rin g binder). Environmental: Studies and Submittals P r ovided in Table 17 are e n vironme ntal s tudie s and s ub mittals that have been completed with in or n ear th e Excelsior Boulevard S tudy Corridor. Table A -17 . Envh·onmental Studies and Submittals conducted within or near the Corridor Comments/Content: Drafl ol application l or an Indirect So urce Permlllor Park Commons (26 page report). 1999 Envitonmenral Assessment Wotksheet -Patk Commons Envirorvnenlal: Study, Submillal City ol St. Louis Park Eas t Mixed Use Redevelopment Comments/Content : Envltonmenlal Assessment Worksheet prepared by Avalon Bay Communiiles l or the CHy of St.l ouis Park (20 page worksheet). JE S-3 I 1987 JShopsonThBAvenue JEnvlrorvnenlal : Study, Submlltal !Braun Comme nts/Content : NE Quad. 0 1 Excelsior Blvd. & Highway 100 Preliminary Foundation Investigation (19 page repo rt ). I ES-4 I 1987 I On The Avenue -Log of Boling I EnvitOrvnenlal : Study, Submitlal !Braun Comments/Content: Environ. evaluation of Shops on The Avenue. Includes boring log. leiter/memorandum, and groundwater analysis (25 pa e report). 1987 n The Avenue · Petmillor Sanifary Sewer Extensions Envirorvnental : Study, Submillal Jim Grube and/or Changes Comm enlsiContenl: Application f or permit f or sanitary sewer exlensions and/or changes lor lhe On Tne Avenue project (I p age application). I ES -7 I 1987 JOnTheAvenue-lndireciSourcePefl)lit I Envlrorvnenlal: Study, S\Jbmillal !Jim Grube Comments/Content: Comments and changes made for the I ndirect Source Permit (26 page permit). I ES·8 I 1987 I On The Avenue -Applicalron for Indirect Source Permil I Envirorvnental: Study, Submillal !St. louis Centre Partners Comments/Content: Application for the Indirect Source Permit (26 page permit appllcallon). 1986 Preliminary Subsurface Exploration Program Proposed Environmenlal: Study, Submillal Twin CilyTesling Corporation Office-Commercial Deve/opmenl Comments/Content: Prelimi nary subsurface exploration program for proposed olflce/com. development. Report and boring log data (15 page report). Also includes a loose site map. I ES·10 I NA JOn Tl>eAvenue ·lnoirecl Source Permif I Envirorvne ntal: Study. Submlllal IJ. Michael Valentine Comments/Content: Drafl ollndirecl So urce Permit l or The St . Lou is Centre Partners. Discusses I he construction of St. louis Centre (10 pages). Of the s tudies and submittals li sted in Table 17, one i s of parti c ular signi fi cance from a traffic a nd development st andpoint, th e Park Commons East Mixed Use Redeve lopment Environmen ta l Assessment Worksheet ( EA W). The contents of the traffic a nal ysis study were presented in th e Traffic secti on. Refer to that secti on for a summary on the EA W. T he complete report is contained in th e 3-ring binder entitl ed Reference Book II -Traffic and Signa l Studies. R :\460 18\Report July 200 I \Excelsior_Finni_Repon_Apdx A.doc Phase I -Review of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc . A-35 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 177 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota Environmental: Letters and Memorandums P rovided in Table 18 are letters a nd me m orand um s related to e n vi ron m e ntal e le ments that have been completed w ithin o r near th e Excelsior Boulevard S tud y Corridor. Table A-18. E n vi ronmental Letters and Memorandums condu c ted within or ne a r the Corridor Comments/Content: Es timate of cost to construcllrealmenl tacililies lor the remediation of groundwater contamination on the ·on The Avenue' site. (2 age lett er/memo) Rosewood Construction. Inc. Comments/Content: Letter rega rding Execullve Summary and Braun Engineering report (2 page lett er). 1988 Summary of findings lor t11e benefits oft he St. Environmental: Letter I Memo. L ouis Park Housing and Redevelopmenl Authority Westwood Planning and Engineering. Comments/Content: Execullve Summary of field and analytical s tudies lhat have been perfonned on lhe sHe (5 page letter/memo; 7 page report). 1988 Environmental Concerns for On The Avenue and Environmental: Letter I Memo. Minn. Poilu lion Control Agency Old Bel/line Dump Properties Summary of soil and groundwater conlamlnallon conditions l o r On The Avenue and Old Be llline Dum site (3 page letter/memo). Response to the Braun report (Februa 10, 1988). Includes environmental recommendations and findings (3 page letter/memo). 1988 On The Avenue-Status of Indirect Source Permit Environmental : Letter I Memo. Minn . Pollution Control A ency Comments/Content: Le"er/Memorandum discussing lhe processln or the application tor an Indi re ct Source Permit (2 page l etter). 1987 On The Avenue -Public Notice of Intent to Act Upon an En vironmental: Letter I Memo. J. Michael Valentine Application for an Air Quality Indirect Source Permit Comments/Content: Leiter/Memorandum discussin the re ceived application from The St. Louis Centre Pa rt ners lor an Indirect Source Penni! (2 page memo). EL·8 1987 On The Avenue-Preliminary Review of an Appl/calfon Environ mental: Leiter I Memo. Susanne Pelly Spllzer for an Indirect Source Permit for St. Louis Centre Comments/Content: Review or th e Indirect Source Permit submitted by The St. Louis Ce ntre Partners {6 page review). IEL·9 I 1987 j on The Avenue ·Indirect Source Permit I Environmental: Leiter I Memo. !susanne Pelly Spitzer Comments/Content: Draft of Indirect Source Permit (6 page draft ). I EL·10 I t9B7 I on The Avenue· Air Quality Indirect Source Permil !Environmenta l: Leiter I Memo. I Bill Thibaull Comments/Content: Comments about the proposed Indirect Source Permit (2 page teller). jEL-11 I 1987 j on The Avenue -Indirect Source Permil !Environmental : Leiter I Mem o. I various er Recommend review and comments (1 age letter/memo). Environmental: Leiter I Memo. Peter Hilger Memorandum staling there is an enclosed Indirect Sou rce Permit . Recommend review and comments (1 pa e leiter/memo). Comments/Content: One page of results from Vol atile Organic Testing of water (1 page or re suhs). I EL-16 I NA I Performance Criteria tor Pumping Station I Envi ronmental: Leiter I Memo. I NA Comments/Content: Three sheets containing cri te ria for a pumping s tat ion (3 pages). R :\460 18\Report July 200 1\Excelsio r_Finni_Report_Apdx A.doc Phase I -R eview of Previous Studies URS I BRW, Inc. A-36 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 178 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Par){, Minnesota Other Information Other information coll ected that is applicable to the condu ct of th e Excelsi or Bou levard Corrid or Traffic Study incl udes architectural diagr am and e nginee ring plans, and tra ffic count info nnation . Hi s t01i ca l traffic count maps have been compil e d for the years from 1993 to 1998. Traffic informati on fro m th ese maps and other data were present ed in th e Trans portation sec ti on of thi s report. These maps are e ncl osed in th e 3-ring binder inform ati o n appendi x entitle d Excelsior B o ulevard Corridor Traffic Study R ef ere nce Book I-Tra ffi c and S ignal Studi es . Provided in Table 19 i s a li st of th e other informati o n, not fittin g an y o f the pre-defined categories, th at have been compiled f or this report. 11 Table A-19. Plans/Diagrams and other Information to the Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study REFERENCE BOOKS: Provided as an a ttachm ent to this rep ort are two 3-ring binders contammg th e r eviewed re p orts and d ocume nts related to th e Exce lsior Boulevard Corrid or, these include: 1. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study R e feren ce Book 1: • • • • • • Traffic Studies Traffic L e tt e rs/M em orandums Signal Studies S ignal L etters/Memorandums Historic al Traffic Count Maps Turning Movement Counts 11 TI1 e li sted infonnati on is a lso contained in th e Exce lsior Boul evard Corridor Traffic Sn1dy Reference Book II Environmen tal Sn1dies, Lener/M cmos, and Oth er lnfom1a1ion (3-ring binder). R:\460 I 8\Rc port Jul y 200 1\Excelsior_Finai_Rcport_Apdx A.doc Phase 1-R eview of Previous St udies URS I BRW, In c. A -37 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 179 Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2. Excelsior Boulevard Corridor Traffic Study Re(ereJLce Book II: • Environmental Studies • Environmental Letters/Memorandums and Submittals (i.e., EA Ws) • Other (Plans/Diagrams) R:\460 I 8\Repon July 200 1\Excelsior_Final_Repon _Apdx A.doc Phase I -Review of Previous Studies URS I BRW, In c. A-38 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 180 Appendix B: Year 2000-Traffic Operations Analysis 1\COLUMB IAI VO L I IP ROJECTS\4ti0 18\R,po n July 200 IIExcclsior_Fmoi _R,pon_Ap<h .duc URSIBRW In c. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 181 Table B-1 Intersection Level of Service Year 2000-Existing Lane Geometry and Signal Timing PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Tries {veh!hr) 220 1103 0 0 Delay {seclveh) 61 60.9 0 0 Total Delay (seclhr) 13420 67173 0 0 Level of Service E E A A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (vehlhr) 0 1379 382 50 -· Delay (sec/veh) 0 13.4 11 68.4 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 18479 4202 3420 Level of Service A B B E Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh!hr) 136 1265 60 63 Delay (seclveh) 52.8 16 10.8 42 :rotal Delay (seclhr) 7181 20240 648 2646 East Approach Thru 898 12.8 11494 B East Approach Thru 1050 44.8 47040 D East Approach Thru 1057 13 13741 Level of Service D B B D_ ~ ----Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru # Trips (veh/hr) 191 1135 122 69 892 -Delay (seclveh) 71 14 8.5 65.8 15.9 Total Delay (seclhr) 13561 15890 1037 4540 14183 Level of Service E. B A .E B Source: BRW, Inc. Right 476 6 2856 A Right 0 0 0 A Right 13 8.9 116 A Right 67 11.1 744 B South Approach Left Thru Right 430 69 544 41.9 44.8 21.4 18017 3091 11642 -D D c South Approach Left Thru Right 289 0 80 50.8 0.0 5.7 14681 0 456 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 26 0 89 38.1 0.0 4.6 991 0 409 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 89 14 51 49 44.1 16.2 4361 617 826 0 D B 1 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 113 0 193 50.4 0 13.2 5695 0 2548 D A B North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 93 0 17 51.4 0.0 4.5 4780 0 77 D A A North Approach Left Thru Right 106 32 134 45.9 46.8 6.5 4865 1498 871 D D A Intersection Intersection Total LOS 4046 33.6 c 135936 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3230 27.3 c 88278 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 2819 18.0 B 50828 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 2902 21.7 c 62993 -5/10/01 Year 2000-PM Exist Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 182 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 17 1257 4 24 972 14 Delay (sec/veh) 5.8 1.5 5.4 16.8 6.3 10.6 Total Delay (seclhr) 99 1886 22 403 6124 148 Level of Service A A A c A B -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Tries (veh/hr) 148 1073 49 8 869 161 Delay (seclveh) 72.9 24.4 62.3 85.8 35.7 24.8 Total Delay (seclhr) 10789 26181 3053 686 31023 3993 Level of Service E c E --_f_ D c -Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 61 0 50 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 17.5 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 1068 0 245 0 0 0 Level of Service c A A A A A Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 1/2 St • Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 36 0 26 10 0 92 Delay (sec/veh) 12.9 0.0 1.5 13.4 0.0 4.2 Total Delay (seclhr) 464 0 39 134 0 386 Level of Service B A A B A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 0 1357 7 4 983 8 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 4.1 6.4 6.1 1.2 5.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 5564 45 24 1180 40 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips !vehlhr) 17 1316 10 6 983 13 Delay (sec/veh) 4.3 1.6 5.0 19.4 1.2 5.1 Total Delay (seclhr) 73 2106 50 116 1180 66 Level of Service A A A c A A Unsignalized lntersectron Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 8 0 5 18.4 0.0 6.1 147 0 31 c A A South Approach Left Thru Right 52 75 1 66.9 50.5 99.6 3479 3788 100 E D F South Approach Left Thru Right 19 362 0 6.8 2.2 0 129 796 0 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 4 406 15 4.6 0.3 2.9 18 122 44 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 3 0.0 0 4.4 0 0 13 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 1 0 0.0 47.1 0 0 47 0 A E A 2 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 37 5 13 27.0 31.1 15.0 999 156 195 D D B North Approach Left Thru Right 283 157 94 60.7 54.5 38.8 17178 8557 3647 E 0 D North Approach Left Thru Right 0 484 80 0 1.5 1.9 0 726 152 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 93 529 3 5 0.9 4.8 465 476 14 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 3 0 0 1.0 0 0 3 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 16 0 9 23.2 0 9.2 371 0 83 c A A Intersection Intersection I Total LOS , 2356 I 4.3 A 10208 I Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 2970 37.9 0 1'12473 --Intersection Intersection; Total LOS 1056 3.0 A 3116 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1214 1.8 A 2163 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2365 2.9 A 6869 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2371 1.7 A 4092 5/10/01 Year 2000-PM Exist Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 183 Excelsior 81vtf I Glenhurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right --# Trips (vehlhr) 34 1280 14 --Delay (sec/veh) 9.7 2.3 4.7 Total Delay (sec/hr) 330 2944 66 Level of Service A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior 81vtf I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 55 927 298 ··---Delay (sec/veh) 65.3 35.8 11.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 3592 33187 3278 Level of Service E D 8 France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right -#Trips (veh/hr) 7 28 117 Delay (sec/veh) 31.5 20.9 9.7 Total Delay (seclhr) 221 585 1135 Level of Service D c A . Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 ----------Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 8 960 9 15 0 7 19.3 3.1 5.5 75.3 0 18.6 154 2976 50 1130 0 130 c A A F A c East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 233 645 19 317 74 325 46.8 20.9 12.7 51.6 9.1 21.3 10904 13481 241 16357 673 6923 D c 8 0 A c East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4 17 22 23 687 35 10.0 15.0 6.6 4.6 2 5.1 40 255 145 106 1374 179 A 8 A A A A Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC] A <= 10 B <= 15 c <= 25 0 <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3 ol3 North Approach Left Thru Right 1 0 27 8.4 0 4.1 8 0 111 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 18 9 21 63.7 54.7 9.0 1147 492 189 E D A North Approach Left Thru Right 38 493 4 14 8.5 11.5 532 4191 46 B A 8 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2355 3.4 A 7898 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2941 30.8 c 90463 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1475 6.0 A 8808 I I 5/10/01 Year 2000-PM Exist Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 184 Table B-2 Intersection Level of Service Year 2000 • Existing Lane Geometry and Signal Timing AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp· Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left ---# Trips (veh/hr) 341 822 0 0 --Delay (sec/veh) 61.2 34.9 0 0 Total Delay (seclhr) 20869 28688 0 0 Level of Service E c A A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 0 943 225 47 Delay (seclveh) 0 8.5 7.5 62.1 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 8016 1688 2919 Level of Service A A A E Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 178 915 1 0 -· Delay (sec/veh) 42.9 4.1 6.3 0 Total Delay (seclhr) 7636 3752 6 0 Level of Service D A A A Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 171 686 134 57 Delay (seclveh) 51.3 7.4 6.7 58.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 8772 5076 898 3335 Level of Service D A A E Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach Thru Right 868 235 16.3 5.3 14148 1246 B A East Approach Thru Right 843 0 34.1 0 28746 0 c A East Approach Thru Right 812 75 8.8 6.9 7146 518 A A East Approach Thru Right 655 65 14.9 6.3 9760 410 B A South Approach Left Thru Right 210 0 251 39.7 0 9.8 8337 0 2460 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 252 0 158 47.9 0.0 5.5 12071 0 869 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 44 0 73 57.5 0.0 4.1 2530 0 299 -E A A --~ South Approach Left Thru Right 83 31 82 53 42.4 14.4 4399 1314 1181 D D B 1 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 82 0 178 51 0 11.2 4182 0 1994 D A B -North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A_ A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 31 0.0 0.0 2.6 0 0 81 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 77 27 155 48.2 50 3.8 3711 1350 589 D D A Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2987 27.4 c 81923 ~ Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2468 22.0 c 54308 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2129 10.3 B 21967 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2223 18.4 B 40795 5/10/01 Year 2000-AM Exist Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 185 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 5 810 18 14 741 70 Delay (sec/veh) 6.3 1.2 5.0 8.3 5.2 9.1 Total Delay (seclhr) 32 972 90 116 3853 637 Level of Service A A A A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-w. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 219 591 109 48 758 118 Delay (sec/veh) 43.1 16.2 42.4 57.6 26.7 14.2 Total Delay (seclhr) 9439 9574 4622 2765 20239 1676 Level of Service D B D E c B Monterey Dr /38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 21 0 7 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 6.8 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 143 0 24 0 0 0 Level of Service A A A A A A Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Or/ W. 36 1/2 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 3 1 4 18 1 161 Delay (sec/veh) 4.9 13.4 1.3 10.4 5.5 4.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 15 13 5 187 6 692 Level of Service A B A B A A -----• Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 0 723 3 4 929 3 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 3.4 6.4 7.0 0.9 4.9 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 2458 19 28 836 15 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 6 731 4 2 927 24 Delay (sec/veh) 5.6 1.0 4.3 7.6 1.1 5.1 Total Delay (seclhr) 34 731 17 15 1020 122 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 39 63 103 35.1 31.9 22.3 1369 2010 2297 ,E 0 c South Approach Left Thru Right 61 51 55 39.3 37.3 15.3 2397 1902 842 D D B South Approach Left Thru Right a 379 0 3.0 1.4 0 24 531 0 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 395 3 0.0 0.4 3.4 0 158 10 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 18 0.0 0 4.3 0 0 77 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 7 1 5 11.4 19.8 4.8 80 20 24 B c A 2 of 3 ..... North Approach Left Thru Right 16 67 1 26.5 23.4 46.7 424 1568 47 0 c E North Approach Left Thru Right 80 115 1 42.2 45.3 74.2 3376 5210 74 D D E North Approach Left Thru Right 0 190 68 0 0.3 1.8 0 57 122 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 27 233 2 3.9 0.4 4.8 105 93 10 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 1 0 0 0.9 0 0 1 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 16 2 8 12.8 15.2 4.9 205 30 39 B c A Intersection Intersection ! Total LOS 1947 6.9 A 13414 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2206 28.2 c 62115 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 673 I 1.3 A 901 I Intersection Intersection j Total LOS 848 1.5 A 1295 I Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 1681 2.0 A 3435 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1733 1.3 A 2337 5/10/01 Year 2000 ·AM Exist Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 186 Excelsior Blvd I Glenhurst Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 5 742 1 8 920 4 11 0 17 Delay (seclveh) 6.7 1.2 4.1 6.6 2.8 8.1 18.5 0 4.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 34 890 4 53 2576 32 204 0 73 Level of Service A A A A A A c A A . Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 13 659 107 186 593 22 300 43 213 Delay (seclveh) 46.2 22.9 5.2 35.5 12.0 12.3 29.9 29.2 9.9 Total Delay (seclhr) 601 15091 556 6603 7116 271 8970 1256 2109 Level of Service D c A D B B c c A France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 0 14 28 16 45 36 9 520 31 Delay (seclveh) 0.0 12.2 4.4 10.3 9.8 5.9 3.3 1.5 4.9 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 171 123 165 441 212 30 780 152 Level of Service A B A B A A A A A Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table 9·1, Highway Capacity Manual. 1997) {Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <-10 A <-10 B <= 20 B <= 15 c <= 35 c <= 25 0 <= 55 0 <= 35 E <= 80 E <= 50 F > 80 F > 50 Source: BRW, Inc. 3ol3 North Approach Left Thru Right 10 0 11 6.1 0 5.5 61 0 61 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 5 9 37 44.9 25.3 4.5 225 228 167 D c A North Approach Left Thru Right 13 289 1 8 6.2 5.5 104 1792 6 A A A Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 1729 I 2.3 A 3987 I Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 2187 19.7 B 43191 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1002 4.0 A 3975 5/10/01 Year 2000-AM Exist Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 187 Table B-3 Approximate Queue Lengths ·Signalized Intersections Year 2000-Existing Lane Geom and Signal Timing PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I THIOO East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach Left I Thru I Thru Thru I 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) an I 794 1 734 134 I Link I Storage Length (ft) 355 I 625 I 625 1ao I Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 224 .l ·239 _]' 206 164 J ljnk I Storage Length (ft) 130 I 130 I t30 2so I Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Thru Right I Right Left I left I Thru I Right I Right Left I Left I Right 2t8 I 209 I 8t t96 1 200 I 124 I ts6 1 1t4 76 L 56 I 85 130 I 130 I 130 25o I 250 I sao I 35o I 35o 395 I 3ss I 200 East Approach South A pptoach Thru I Thru I Thru Left Right 327 I 319 I 339 306 46 475 I 475 I 475 615 400 East Approach South A ocroach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right left Thru/Rt Left I Thru/Lt 95 Percentile. Queue Length (ft) 66 I 185 I 478 I 329 I 219 70 I 532 I 347 I 26 48 52 65 I 49 Link I Storage Length (ft) 275 I 275 1 4eo I 48o T 480 230 I 68o 1 680 T 135 100 100 335 1 335 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North A preach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Thru/Lt Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 1e6 I 561' 561' I 5n 161 I 326 I 320 I 85 86 I 41 135 58 Link I Storage Length (ft) 220 I 685 685 I 685 300 T 500 l soo I 75 na T na 300 300 -• Queue length modijied by using results from Synchro Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr • W. 38th St West M preach East Approach South Approach North Aporoach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left ·1 Thru/Rt Left I Thru/Rt 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 268 I 404 I 398 I 205 42 I 407 I 405 I 144 85 I 104 2aa I 311 Link I Storage Length (ft) 240 I 820 I 82o I 200 eo I 126s I 126s I 80 200 T na 200 200 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Accroach South Apcroach North Apptoach I Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right Thru/Lt I Right I 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) 197 I 393 499 I 219 227 I 190 I 182 318 I 218 17 I 36 I Link I Storage Length (ft) 240 I 820 82o I 200 300 I na I na na I 240 na_l 200 Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SimTraffic, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 2000-PM Existing Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 188 Table B-4 Approximate Queue Lengths • Signalized Intersections Year 2000 ·Existing Lane Geom and Signal Timing AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach Left 1 Thru I Thru Thru I 95~ Percentile Queue Length (It) 3831 1ss I 808 147 I Link I Storage Length (It) ~625 _l 625 130 l Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Aooroach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Lelt I 95lh Percentile Queue Length (It) 103 I 83 I 85 69 I Link I Storage Length (It) 130 .l 130 .l 130 250 l Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach ! Thru Right I Right Left I Left I Thru I Right I Right Left I Left I Right ! 249 I 190 I 54 114 l 97 l 0 l 60 I 49 46 I 32 l 76 130 _l 130 I 130 250 I 2so I 6801 350 1 350 395 I 395 I 200 East AD roach South Approach Thru Thru I Thru Lelt Right 309 210 I 211 241 65 475 475 l 475 515 400 East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Left I Thru/Lt 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 102 I 118 I 57' I 57' l 57' 0 I 145 1 153 I 49 58 47 0 I 5 Link I Storage Length (ft) 275 I 275 I 48o I 48o I 480 230 I 68o I sao I 135 100 100 33s I 335 • Queue Length m~ified by using results from Synchro Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West A~ proach East Approach South Approach North A >proach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Thru/Lt Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length (It) 21g l 87' ar L 25' 90 I 228 I 226 I ag 79 89 129 54 Link I Storage Length (It) 220 L 685 68s I 685 300 I 500 I 500 I 75 na na 300 300 Queue Length m~ifled by using results from Synchro Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr· W. 38th St West A~ proach East Approach South Approach Norlh A >Prosch Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Left Thru/Rt 95~ Percentile Queue Length (It) 178 I 139 549 I 111 117 l 273 I 2a1 1 143 111 109 95 149 Link I Storage Length (It) 240 I 820 82o I 200 80 I 126s I 126s I 80 200 na 200 200 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West A~ proach East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru/Rt Thru/Lt Right Thru/Lt Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 31' I 168 163 I 55 142 I 123 I 134 232 102 2 36' Link I Storage Length (fl) 240 I 820 82o I 200 300 I na I na na 240 na 200 • Queue Lenglh modified by using results from Synchro Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SimTraffic, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 2000-AM Existing Geom and nming Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 189 Appendix C: Year 2005-Traffic Operations Analysis 1\COLUMB IAI VOL 1\PROJ ECTSWiO 18\Rcpo n July 200 1\Exccls ior _Fm oi_Rcport_Ap<b .doc URSIBRW Inc . Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 190 Table C-1 Intersection Level of Service Year 2005 -Developments with Existing Lane Geometry and Signal Timing PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 213 1124 0 0 1111 549 Delay (sec/veh) 58.2 74.6 0 0 12 6.1 -Total Delay (seclhr) 12397 83850 0 0 13332 3349 Level of Service E E· A A B A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips {veh/hr) 0 1547 395 66 1315 0 -Delay (seclveh) 0 14.9 13.5 65.5 49 0 Total Delay {sec/hr) 0 23050 5333 4323 64435 0 Level of Service A B B 'E D A Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips {veh/hr) 146 1410 59 89 1331 12 Delay (sec/veh) 54.7 22.2 14.1 46.3 14.2 9.5 Total Delay (seclhr) 7986 31302 832 4121 18900 114 Level of Service D c B D B A Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 242 1273 128 70 1144 97 Delay (sec/veh) 67.7 11.7 9.8 56.4 22.5 17.5 Total Delay (seclhr) 16383 14894 1254 3948 25740 1698 Level of Service E B A E c B Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Lett Thru Right 463 68 674 53.1 59.1 60.6 24585 4019 40844 D E .E South Approach Left Thru Right 274 0 70 50.7 0.0 7.2 13892 0 504 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 29 0 100 56.3 0.0 5.5 1633 0 550 E A A South Approach Left Thru Right 79 24 43 47.9 46.7 15.4 3784 1121 662 D D B 1 of 3 North Approach Intersection Intersection Left 115 74.5 8568 E· Left 0 0.0 0 A Left 122 52.5 6405 D left 118 39.1 4614 D Thru Right Total LOS 0 218 4535 0 17.1 42.9 D 0 3728 194672 A B North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 0 0 3667 0.0 0.0 30.4 c 0 0 111537 A A North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 0 23 3321 0.0 5.2 21.7 c 0 120 71962 A A North Approach Intersection Intersection 1 Thru Right Total LOS 24 168 3410 I 40.3 11 22.6 c 967 1848 76914 D B 5110/01 Year 2005-PM Development with Existing Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 191 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr} 88 1346 7 15 1194 48 Delay (sec/veh) 12.5 1.3 5.2 18.6 2.0 5.6 -·-Total Delay (sec/hr) -·---1100 --·1750--269--36 279 2388 Level of Service B A A c A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 164 1172 68 6 1048 187 Delay (sec/veh} 79.0 24.4 73.2 121.8 53.3 39.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 12956 28597 4978 731 55858 7387 Level of Service E c E F D D Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 168 0 72 0 0 0 -Delay (sec/veh) 136.7 0.0 58.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 22966 0 4219 0 0 0 Level of Service F A F A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 1/2 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr} 33 0 19 6 0 112 Delay (sec/veh) 25.8 0.0 1.5 32.0 0.0 6.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 851 0 29 192 0 672 Level of Service D A A D A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 0 1480 2 4 1166 3 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 4.6 9.5 9.9 1.6 4.7 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 6808 19 40 1866 14 Level of Service A A A A A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave . West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr} 12 1450 17 4 1168 7 Delay (sec/veh) 14.6 1.9 4.9 10.1 1.3 4.1 Total Delay (seclhr) 175 2755 83 40 1518 29 Level of Service B A A B A A -Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 5 2 6 16.1 13.4 9.4 81 27 56 c B A South Approach Left Thru Right 43 56 0 63.4 57.3 0 2726 3209 0 E E A South Approach Left Thru Right 34 369 0 18.9 7.2 0 643 2657 0 c A A South Approach Left Thru Right 5 496 20 9.7 0.2 3.3 49 99 66 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 5 0.0 0 21.8 0 0 109 A A c South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 5 0.0 0 11 0 0 55 A A B 2 of 3 North Approach Intersection Intersection 1 Left Thru Right Total LOS 65 5 46 2827 98.1 97.9 66.1 5.6 A 6377 490 3041 15892 F F F North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 319 179 119 3361 69.4 70.5 57.6 47.0 D 22139 12620 6854 158054 E E E North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 0 571 184 1398 0 6.9 2.7 25.0 c -0 3940 497 34921 A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 79 739 9 1518 5.4 1.2 5.2 2.2 A 427 887 47 3318 A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection 1 Left Thru Right Total LOS 0 0 1 2661 I 0 0 o.g 3.3 A 0 0 1 8856 A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS I 16 0 9 2688 69.7 0 24.3 2.2 A 1115 0 219 5990 F A c 5/10/01 Year 2005-PM Development with Existing Geom and nming Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 192 Excelsior Blvd I Glen hurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 36 1409 25 Delay (seclveh) 9.5 3.2 5.9 Total Delay (sec/hr) 342 4509 148 Level of Service A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right !--· # Trips (veh/hr) 95 1031 291 __ Delay (seclveh) 83.2 37.1 8.9 Total Delay (seclhr) 7904 38250 2590 Level of Service F D A France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right -#Trips (vehlhr) 4 34 127 Delay (sec/veh) 18.1 20.2 10.9 Total Delay (sec/hr) 72 687 1384 Level of Service c c B . Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9·1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997} LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC} A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 18 1150 12 18 0 10 16.4 1.1 4.4 75.9 0 38.5 295 1265 53 1366 0 385 c A A F A E East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 264 757 24 343 101 341 75.6 31.7 18.2 79.2 19.4 32.1 19958 23997 437 27166 1959 10946 E c B E B c East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 11 19 27 16 754 49 18.0 23.5 9.3 4.9 2.4 4.8 198 447 251 78 1810 235 c c A A A A Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10·7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 15 c <= 25 D <: 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3 of3 North Approach Intersection Intersection I Left 2 66 132 F" Left 30 83.9 2517 F Left 20 11.8 236 B Thru Right Total LOS 0 22 2702 ' 0 4.7 3.2 A 0 103 8598 A A North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 13 48 3338 52.7 9.5 41.0 D 685 456 136865 D A North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 531 15 1607 8.3 14.2 6.2 A 4407 213 10019 A B 5(10(01 Year 2005-PM Development with Existing Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 193 Table C-2 Intersection Level of Service Year 2005-Developments with Mitigation PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 oo East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 220 1253 0 Delay (sec/veh) 47.1 37.4 0 Total Delay (seclhr) 10362 46862 0 Level of Service D D A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 0 1702 373 Delay (seclveh) 0 13.7 11.2 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 23317 4178 Level of Service A B B Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 124 1610 64 Delay (sec/veh) 37.1 7.5 8.9 Total Delay (sec/hr) 4600 12075 570 Level of Service D A A --------Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 276 1422 121 Delay (sec/veh) 56.3 13.4 7.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 15539 19055 883 Level of Service E B A --'---Source: BRW, Inc. Left 0 0 0 A Left 72 103.5 7452 F Left 59 64.4 3800 E Left 90 44.4 3996 D East Approach South Approach Thru Right Left Thru Right 1067 579 487 74 717 14.8 8.2 49.1 52.5 25.4 15792 4748 23912 3885 18212 B A D D c East Approach South Approach Thru Right Left Thru Right 1320 0 276 0 86 49 0 60.4 0.0 6.6 64680 0 16670 0 568 D A E A A East Approach South Approach Thru Right Left Thru Right 1333 14 26 0 81 9.9 8.6 52.7 0.0 4.5 13197 120 1370 0 365 A A D A A East Approach South Approach Thru Right Left Thru Right 1107 75 81 32 36 18.4 11.7 53.1 33.1 20 20369 878 4301 1059 720 ~--B-~ c B 1 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 95 0 229 73.8 0 14.9 7011 0 3412 E A B North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A ---North Approach Left Thru Right 123 0 27 53.6 0.0 11.1 6593 0 300 D A B North Approach Left Thru Right 100 28 166 43.6 48.9 8.4 4360 1369 1394 D D A Intersection Intersection Total LOS 4721 28.4 c 134195 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3829 30.5 c 116865 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3461 12.4 B 42989 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3534 20.9 c 73923 5/10/01 Year 2005-PM Development-Mitigation Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 194 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach left Thru Right left Thru Right ___ #Trips (vehlhr) 122 1420 6 13 1153 31 --Delay (sec/veh) 36.1 3.2 8.6 36.0 9.5 11.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 4404 4544 52 468 10954 350 level of Service D A A D A B Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 165 1202 76 8 1002 189 Delay (seclveh) 40.2 17.8 39.2 113.2 39.6 27.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 6633 21396 2979 906 39679 5160 level of Service D B D F D c Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 164 0 58 0 0 0 --Delay (seclveh) 26.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 4330 0 220 0 0 0 level of Service D A A A A A • Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 1/2 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 35 0 18 14 0 101 -· Delay (sec/veh) 12.1 0.0 2.2 25.3 0.0 6.1 Total Delay (sec/hr) 424 0 40 354 0 616 Level of Service B A _A~'-_Q A A --• Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach left Thru Right 7 4 3 32.6 30.2 27.2 228 121 82 c c c South Approach Left Thru Right 59 83 0 44.3 49 0 2614 4067 0 D D A South Approach left Thru Right 34 401 0 9.8 1.6 0 333 642 0 A A A South Approach left Thru Right 1 539 13 10.6 1.4 5.5 11 755 72 B A A 2of3 North Approach left Thru Right 65 3 36 48.9 43.2 4.7 3179 130 169 D D A North Approach Left Thru Right 340 166 122 43.6 41.8 14.7 14824 6939 1793 D D B ---North Approach left Thru Right 0 565 190 0 2.3 6.0 0 1300 1140 A A A North Approach left Thru Right 66 719 2 4.8 0.4 4.8 317 288 10 A A A Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 2863 I 8.6 A 24680 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3412 31.4 c 106989 Intersection lnt.ersection I Total LOS 1412 I 5.6 A I 7964 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS j 1508 I 1.9 A 2884 I 5/10/01 Year 2005-PM Development-Mitigation Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 195 Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE ·CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 Source: BRW, Inc. Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections ! (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY:J PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 15 I c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3 of 3 5/10/01 Year 2005-PM Development-Mitigation Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 196 Table C-3 Intersection Level of Service Year 2005 -Developments with Existing Lane Geometry and Signal Timing AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 365 987 0 0 1071 267 -Delay (sec/veh) 71.6 33.1 0 0 13.1 5 Total Delay (seclhr) 26134 32670 0 0 14030 1335 Level of Service E c A A B A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr} 0 1183 252 52 1084 0 -Delay (seclveh) 0 10.2 8.1 59.4 40.5 0 Total Delay (sec/hr} 0 12067 2041 3089 43902 0 Level of Service A 8 A E D A Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr} 190 1166 -4 1 1043 73 Delay (sec/veh} 39.9 5.8 8.3 101.7 11.6 8.0 Total Delay (seclhr} 7581 6763 33 102 12099 584 Level of Service D A A F B A Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 228 887 129 61 822 85 Delay (sec/veh} 48.7 12.6 6.6 57.4 19.8 11 Total Delay (seclhr) 11104 11176 851 3501 16276 935 Level of Service D B A E B B -Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 252 1 347 40.2 22.4 12.7 10130 "22 4407 D c 8 South Approach Left Thru Right 235 0 150 46.5 0.0 6.7 10928 0 1005 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 54 0 80 58.9 0.0 4.4 3181 0 352 E A A South Approach Left Thru Right 64 36 91 50 37.4 13.8 3200 1346 1256 D D B --1 of 3 North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 102 0 199 3591 45.8 0 16.3 26.9 c 4672 0 3244 96644 D A 8 North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 0 0 0 2956 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 c 0 0 0 73031 A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection 1 Left Thru Right Total LOS I 2 0 29 2642 72.6 0.0 4.0 11.7 B 145 0 116 30955 E· A A North Approach Intersection Intersection j Left Thru Right Total LOS ~ 91 28 191 2713 I 53.7 52.1 6.7 21.1 c I I 4887 1459 1280 57271 D D A I --5/10101 Year 2005-AM Development with Existing Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 197 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 42 1027 16 28 913 87 -----Delay (sec/veh) 9.8 1.3 5.4 8.3 3.1 6.7 Total Delay (sec/hr) 412 1335 86 232 2830 583 Level of Service A A A A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 275 755 137 55 916 126 -Delay (sec/veh) 53.5 17.7 56.3 80.9 33.6 21.6 Total Delay (sec/hr) 14713 13364 7713 4450 30778 2722 Level of Service D B E F c c Monterey Dr /38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 99 0 14 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 9.2 1-· 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) -~ 0 35 0 0 0 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 112 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 1 3 3 9 1 175 --·---Delay (sec/veh) 5.6 2.5 1.1 11.2 14.7 4.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 6 8 3 101 15 700 Level of Service A A A B B A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 0 882 3 6 1101 3 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 4.0 8.3 7.3 1.1 5.1 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 3528 25 44 1211 15 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 13 879 12 2 1082 23 --Delay (seclveh) 5.9 1.4 5.1 4.5 1.2 5.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 77 1231 61 9 1298 122 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsigna\ized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 35 46 84 107.3 89.9 72.2 3756 4135 6065 F F. F South Approach Left Thru Right 72 42 44 53.7 43.9 15.8 3866 1844 695 D D B South Approach Left Thru Right 4 434 0 4.5 1.7 0 18 738 0 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 514 3 0.0 0.2 3.4 0 103 10 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 18 0.0 0 5.3 0 0 95 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 6 4 8 22.0 38.5 4.9 132 154 39 c E A 2of 3 North Approach Intersection Intersection I Left Thru Right Total LOS 45 47 25 2395 I 56.7 59.5 34.1 10.7 B 2552 2797 853 25635 F F D North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 79 110 18 2629 56.4 54.3 37.4 34.7 c 4456 5973 673 91245 E· D D L___------North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 0 195 96 842 0 0.5 1.7 2.3 A 0 98 163 1962 A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection Left Thru Right Total LOS 18 279 1 1007 4 0.4 4.7 1.1 A 72 112 5 1133 A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection I Left Thru Right Total LOS 0 0 1 2014 I 0 0 0.9 2.4 A 0 0 1 4919 I A A A North Approach Intersection Intersection 1 Left Thru Right Total LOS 19 0 9 2057 I 14.1 0 12.6 1.7 A I 268 0 113 3504 I B A B I 5110/01 Year 2005-AM Development with Existing Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 198 Excelsior Blvd I Glen hurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 4 903 0 Delay (seclveh) 5.9 1.4 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 24 1264 0 Level of Service A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right -#Trips (vehlhr) 38 769 116 Delay (seclveh) 55.6 25.9 5.5 Total Delay (seclhr) 2113 19917 638 Level of Service E c A France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right ··--#Trips (vehlhr) 0 16 34 Delay (seclveh) 0.0 10.6 3.4 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 170 116 Level of Service A B A . Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <-10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7 1068 8 14 0 17 2.4 0.8 4.2 25.1 0 6.5 17 854 34 351 0 111 A A A D A A East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 181 702 27 317 42 236 44.8 18.1 11.5 41.9 40.3 14.2 8109 12706 311 13282 1693 3351 D B B D D B East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 9 26 24 7 570 25 11.0 10.2 8.9 2.9 1.5 5.2 99 265 214 20 855 130 B B A A A A Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC A <-10 8 <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3 of3 Left 9 23.6 212 c Left 13 50.6 658 D Left 15 10 150 A North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 0 10 2040 0 2.9 1.4 A 0 29 2896 A A North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 14 32 2487 31.2 4.5 25.5 c 437 144 63358 c A North Approach Intersection Intersection Thru Right Total LOS 291 5 1022 5.5 11.6 3.6 A 1601 58 3677 A B 5110101 Year 2005-AM Development with Existing Geom and Timing Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 199 Table C-4 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2005-Developments with Existing Lane Geom and Signal Timing PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH100 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach East Approach Left I Thru I Thru Thru I Thru Right I Right 95"' Percentile Queue Leng1h (ft) 377 1 815 I 718 178 I 226 I 219 I 80 Unk I Storage Length (It) 355 I 625 I 625 130 I 130 I 130 I 130 Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach East Ap roach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Thru 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 216 I ·248 I 221 309 I 416 382 I ass Link I Storage Length (ft) 13a I 130 I 130 25o I 475 475 I 475 Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd South Approach North Approach Left I Left I Thru I Right I Right Left I Left I Right 2o5 I 232 I 41a I 39s 1 368 66 I 50 J 120 25o I 250 I 680 I 350 I 350 395 I 395 I 200 SoU1h A ~J>f_oach Left Right 295 158 615 400 West Approach East Approach South Aporoach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I ThruiRt Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I ThruiRt Left I Thru/Lt I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (II) 84 I 233 I 386 I 503 I 283 120 I 639 I 457 I 65 50 I 60 61 I 45 I 11 Ljnkl Sto'!ge Length (ft) 275 I 275 I 480 I 48a I 480 23o r 680 -, 68o T 135 1oo T 100 335 I 335 I 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West AI proach East Approach South Approach North A preach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left 1 Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Thru/Lt Right 95m Percentile Queue Length (ft) 238 I 75. 1s· I 25. 198 I 410 I 440 I 106 91 59 135 97 Link I Storage Length (ft) 220 I 685 685 I 685 300 T 500 T 500 1 75 na na 200 200 • Queue Length modified by using resulls lrom Synchro Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach SoU1h Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Left I Th ru/Rt 95'" Percentile Queue Leng1h (II) 294 I 407 I 422 I 207 43 I 574 I 620 I 141 84 I 109 281 I 320 Link I Storage Leng1h (ft) 24o I 82o I 82o I 200 80 I 1265 I t26s I 80 200 I na 200 I 200 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Approach SoU1h Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 147 I 200 I 299 I 221 317 I 286 Unk I Storage Leng1h (ft) 240 1 820 _l 820 1 _2~ 350 I na Noles: 1. All Queue lenglhs are results modeled by SimTraffic, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right I 21s 653 I 362 I na na I 240 Thru/Lt I Right 56 I 36 100 T 100 5110/01 Year 2005-PM Developments with Existing Geom and Tim ins Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 200 Table C-5 Approximate Queue lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2005-Developments with Mitigation PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd ITH100 East Ramp .. Park Center Blvd West Approach Left 1 Thru 1 Thru Thru I 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) 3841 687 I 549 144 Unk I Storage Length (ft) 3551 625 I 52s 13o I Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I 95'" Percentile Queue Length (fl) 225 I 247 · I 199 241 I Link I Storage Length (ft) 1so L 130 l 130 250 1 Excelsior Blvd I Park Ntcollet Blvd West App_roach East Approach South Approach North Appro.ch Thru Right I Right Left J Left I Thru L Right j Right Left Left I Right "232 242 102 213 212 95 197 160 58 I 52 I 98 130 I 13o I 13o 2so I 250 I 68o I 350 I 35o 395 I 395 I 200 East Approach South Approach Thru I Thru I Thru Left I Right 461 I 502 I 431 312 I 52 475 ...L 475 l 475 615 l 400 East Apcroach South Aooroach North Aooroach tett I lelt I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Loft I Thrullt I Right 95" Porcen~le Queue Length (ft) 6t I 60 130612901 66 120 1 187 1 50a 1 17 52 I 56 831 33 10 Unk I Storago_L~gth (It) _ 275 275 480 480 I 480 230 I 680 I 680 I 135 too I 100 335 I 3as I 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Lelt I Thru I Thru I Right Left l Thru Thru 1 Right Left 1 Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right 95" Percentile Queue Length (fl) 254 491· I 491· I 25" 109 I 275 I 386 I 119 120 I 46 14o I 90 Link I Storage Length (It) 220 I 685 I 685 I 685 300 I soo I 50o I 75 na I na 2oo 1 2oo • Queue Length modllled by using results from Synchro Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Avo West Ap!>roach East A_pproach South ~roach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru/Rt LVThru/Rt Left I Thru/Rt 95~. Percentile Queue Length (ft) 142 92 102 40 176 198 36 82 52 Link I ~ora_go Length (It) 24o I 9oo I 9oo 240 I 430 I 430 na too I 100 Exeelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr .. W. 38th St West Approach East Aooroach South Aaoroach North Aooroach Lefl I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Lett I Left I Thru I Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length (It) 190 I 252 I 2ss I 107 71 433 481 t37 71 100 146 155 249 T t43 Unk I Storage Length (It) _24o_ 1 _ll2o_ .1_ 820 I 200 60 I 12ss I 12ss I 60 200 I na t60 I 2oo I 200 I 160 Excelsior Blvd I Franco Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Loft I Thru 1 Thru J Right Left I Thru Thru/Rt ThrulltJ Right Thrullt I Right 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 164 I 2s2 I 266 I 231 237 I 191 I 178 316 I 210 32 I 24 Link I Storage Length (It) 24o I 82o I 820 I 200 350 I na I na na L 240 100 ...L 100 Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SimTraNic, unless otherwise I'Oted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 2005-PM Developments • Mitigatior Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 201 Table C-6 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2005 -Developments with Existing Lane Geom and Signal Timing AM Peak Period Excelsior BlvdiTHIOO East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach East ApP<oach Left I Thru I Thru Thru I Thru Right I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 3641 45o I 450 12o I 266 I 252 I 50 Link I Storage Length (It) _ ~ j__62L_i 625 130 _L_ 1~ _!_ 130 _l 130 Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach East ApPfoach Thru I Thru I ThruiRt Left I Thru l Thru j_ Thru 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 147 I 182 I 163 84 I 300 I 341 I 215 link I Storage Length (ft) 130 I 130 I 130 25o I 475 I 475 I 475 Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd South Approach North Approach Left I Left I Thru I Right I Right Left I Left I Right 114 I 111 I s I 87 I 53 56 I 39 I 85 250 _!_ 250 j_ 680 j_ 350 j_ 350 395 _!_ ~95 _l_ 2()()_ South Approach Left Right 210 76 615 400 West Approach East Approach South ApPfoach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left [ Thru Thru [ Right Left l ThruiRt Left I Thru/Lt I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 101 I 113 I 373 I 444 I 107 3 I 343 I 346 I 74 64 I 59 3 I 0 I 8 link I Storage Length (ft) 275 I 275 I 4ao I 48o I 480 230 I 68o I 680 I 135 100 l 100 335 I 335 I 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West A~ preach East Ap~roach South Approach North A lproach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru [ Right Left Thru/Rt ThruiLt Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length {ft) 227 I 132" 132" I 25" 88 I 326 I 342 I 90 53 78 129 75 Link I Storage Length (ft) 220 I 685 s85 I 685 300 I 500 I sao l 75 na na 200 200 • Queue Length modified by using results from Synchro Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr· W. 38th St West Approach East Approach South Approach North A proach Left l Thru [ Thru l Right Left l Thru Thru L Right Left Thru/Rt Left Thru/Rt 95 Percentile Queue length (ft) 284 I 203 I 194 I 180 121 I 369 l 397 I 144 106 95 124 133 Link I Storage length (ft) 240 l 82o I 82o I 200 80 l 12ss l 12s5 I 80 200 na 200 200 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Af proach East Approach South Approach North AJlllfOach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 118 I 245 261 I 174 131 I 176 Unk I Storage Length (II) 240 l 820 82o I 200 350 I na Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results mOdeled by SimTraffic, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. Thru/Rt Thru/U I 187 270 I na na Right 167 240 Thru/lt I Right 27 I 20 1oo I 100 5/10/01 Year 2005-AM Developments with Existing Geom and Tim in~ Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 202 Appendix D: Year 2010-Traffic Operations Analysis 1\COLUMB II\\ VOLI\PROJECTS\41i1J 18\Repon July 200 1\E.celsior _F111>l_Rcpon_Apd.•.doe URS/BRW In c. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 203 Table D-1 Intersection Level of Service Year 2010-Developments with Existing Lane Geometry PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 258 1345 0 0 Delay (seclveh) 55 55.7 0 0 Total Delay (seclhr) 14190 74917 0 0 Level of Service D ~--· A A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (vehlhr) 0 1699 393 69 Delay (sec/veh) 0 10.7 12.1 71.8 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 18179 4755 4954 Level of Service A B B E Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (vehlhr) 220 1498 61 66 Delay (sec/veh) 35.7 4.4 6.9 62.1 Total Delay (sec/hr) 7854 6591 421 4099 Level of Service D A A ·E Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left # Trips (vehlhr) 249 1389 140 75 Delay (sec/veh) 54.9 10 6.3 49.6 Total Delay (sec/hr) 13670 13890 882 3720 Level of Service D A A D Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach Thru Right 1432 692 7.6 5.7 10883 3944 A A East Approach Thru Right 1837 0 18.6 0 34168 0 B A East Approach Thru Right 1634 18 16 9.0 26144 162 B A East Approach Thru Right 1214 103 14.9 10.9 18089 1123 B B South Approach Left Thru Right 534 124 726 48 38.2 24.7 25632 4737 17932 D D c South Approach Left Thru Right 255 0 80 46.8 0.0 6.2 11934 0 496 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 22 0 98 47.9 0.0 3.5 1054 0 343 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 100 39 48 39.9 40 23.4 3990 1560 1123 D D c 1 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 198 0 251 42.1 0.0 12.6 8336 0 3163 D A B North Approach Left Thru Right 193 34 237 46.6 40.1 14.3 8994 1363 3389 D D B Intersection Intersection Total LOS 5111 29.8 c 152235 -----Intersection Intersection Total LOS 4333 17.2 B 74487 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 4066 14.3 B 58166 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3821 18.8 B 71793 5110101 Year 2010-PM Development wl Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 204 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right -#Trips (vehlhr) 120 1545 13 19 1275 25 Delay (seclveh) 38.4 5.0 13.5 45.8 9.0 15.2 Total Delay (sec/hr) 4608 7725 176 870 11475 380 -Level of Service D A B D A B Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 218 1272 72 11 1102 210 Delay (seclveh) 62.7 21.1 48.3 86.8 38.4 32.2 Total Delay (sec!hr) 13669 26839 3478 955 42317 6762 Level of Service ·E c D , .. F D c Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 162 0 65 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 31.3 0.0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 5071 0 410 0 0 0 Level of Service D A A A A A ~ Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 112 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 36 0 26 5 0 127 Delay (seclveh) 14.2 0.0 2.9 44.7 0.0 8.1 Total Delay (sec!hr) 511 0 75 224 0 1029 Level of Service B A A '~ -'-~ ~Ejt ::. A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 0 1596 15 5 1250 4 Delay (seclveh) 0.0 5.4 9.0 16.8 1.3 5.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 8618 135 84 1625 21 Level of Service A A A c A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 17 1569 17 6 1256 13 Delay (seclveh) 7.2 1.9 5.7 10.3 1.2 4.8 Total Delay (sec/hr) 122 2981 97 62 1507 62 Level of Service A A A B A A -Unslgnalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 10 1 5 46.9 73.3 10.9 ~--~ :-·-· 55 D E B South Approach Left Thru Right 60 59 4 51.2 53.9 32 3072 3180 128 D D c South Approach Left Thru Right 39 457 0 11.6 1.3 0 452 594 0 B A A South Approach Left Thru Right 7 580 12 4.7 1.4 5.3 33 812 64 A A A -·--South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 7 0.0 0 12.1 0 0 85 A A B South Approach Left Thru Right 2 0 2 56.7 0 16 113 0 32 I t',. F. A c 2 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 62 5 45 50.8 42.1 9.1 3150 211 410 D D A North Approach Left Thru Right 338 206 127 44.7 46.7 19.7 15109 9620 2502 D D B North Approach Left Thru Right 0 606 209 0 3 7.0 0 1818 1463 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 83 783 1 6.4 0.4 4.8 531 313 5 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 2 0 0 6.0 0 0 12 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 19 0 7 66.6 0 16.4 1265 0 115 F. A c Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 3125 9.5 A 29600 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3679 34.7 c 127630 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1538 6.4 A 9808 Intersection Intersection 1 Total LOS , 1660 I 2.2 A 3597 Intersection lntersectio n Total LOS 2879 3.7 A 10580 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2908 2.2 A 6357 5/10/01 Year 2010 • PM Development w/ Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 205 Excelsior Blvd I Glen hurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 30 1542 19 Delay (seclveh) 7.9 2.4 5.4 Total Delay (sec/hr) 237 3701 103 Level of Service A A A . Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 85 1110 355 Delay (sec/veh) 64.2 34.7 10.4 Total Delay (sec/hr) 5457 38517 3692 Level of Service E c B .· --------France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 10 36 123 Delay (seclveh) 39.8 36.7 13.2 Total Delay (seclhr) 398 1321 1624 Level of Service E E B . Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9·1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DElAY PER VEHICLE (SEC' A <-10 8 <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 17 1232 8 10 0 7 9.6 1.0 4.3 50.5 0 15 163 1232 34 505 0 105 A A A F A B East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 261 835 28 349 112 337 122.1 23.6 21.3 74.3 18.1 35.3 31868 19706 596 25931 2027 11896 F c c E B D East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4 23 18 16 767 34 24.6 19.7 7.1 5.8 2.2 5.3 98 453 128 93 1687 180 c c A A A A Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC] A <-10 8 <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 3 0 37 36.7 0 7.7 110 0 285 E A A North Approach Left Thru Right 46 12 31 59.4 57.2 4.7 2732 686 146 E --~ A --North Approach Left Thru Right 22 603 12 14.9 8.6 11.7 328 5186 140 B A 8 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2905 2.2 A 6475 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS ! 3561 40.2 D 143255 Intersection Intersection 1 Total LOS 1668 I 7.0 A 11637 5/10/01 Year 2010-PM Development w/ Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 206 Table D-2 Intersection Level of Service Year 2010-Mitigation 1 PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru #Trips (veh/hr} 90 1153 --Delay (sec/Veh} -62.8 30.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 5652 34590 Level of Service E c Level of Service for Signalized Intersections {Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 ------£ ----> 80 Source: BRW, Inc. Right 358 11.0 3938 B East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 271 806 26 365 106 343 67.5 19.9 15.2 48.5 7.8 17.2 18293 16039 395 17703 827 5900 E B B 0 A B Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections {Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC A <= 10 B <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 1 of 1 North Approach Left Thru Right 33 16 40 54.4 53.1 6.1 1795 850 244 D D A Intersection Total 3607 29.4 106225 Intersection LOS c 5/10/01 Year 2010-PM Mitigation 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 207 Table D-3 Intersection Level of Service Year 2010-Developments with Existing Lane Geometry AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp -Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 410 1154 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 48 27 0 0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 19680 31158 0 0 Level of Service D c A A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left # Trips (veh/hr) 0 1267 287 52 Delay (seclveh) 0 6.7 6.4 66.8 -Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 8489 1837 3474 Level of Service A A A E Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 238 1211 5 0 Delay (seclveh) 37.8 3.7 6.1 0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 8996 4481 31 0 Level of Service D -_A A_ A ~-Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (vehlhr) 274 854 169 71 Delay (sec/veh) 52.6 10.6 5.7 30.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 14412 9052 963 2166 Level of Service D B A c --~ Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach Thru Right 1313 287 8.2 7.7 10767 2210 A A East Approach Thru Right 1372 0 22.8 0 31282 0 c A East Approach Thru Right 1170 102 6.2 5.4 7254 551 A A East Approach Thru Right 905 88 10.8 5.8 9774 510 B A ---South Approach Left Thru Right 290 22 388 49.2 40.7 14.4 14268 895 5587 D D B South Approach Left Thru Right 202 0 174 49.2 0.0 6.6 9938 0 1148 D A A South Approach Left Thru Right 47 0 87 46.1 0.0 2.8 2167 0 244 0 A A South Approach Left Thru Right 67 44 115 37.1 39.7 18.4 2486 1747 2116 D D B 1 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 48 0 213 41.0 0.0 4.9 1968 0 1044 D A A North Approach Left Thru Right 135 36 252 55 47.5 11 7425 1710 2772 D D B -Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3864 21.9 c 84565 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3354 16.7 B 56168 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3121 8.6 A 26734 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3010 18.3 B 55134 5/10/01 Year 2010 ·AM Development wl Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 208 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 33 1100 13 14 989 96 Delay (seclveh) 52.4 4.0 7.8 54.2 4.4 7.2 ·-Total Delay (seclhr) 1729 4400 101 759 4352 691 Level of Service D A A D A A -Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right ~ Trips (vehlhr) 290 811 145 68 949 140 -Delay (seclveh) 44.4 16.3 74.4 92.1 32.8 24.1 -Total Delay (seclhr) 12876 13219 10788 6263 31127 3374 ~vel of Service D B E F c· c -Monterey Dr /38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 94 0 21 0 0 0 Delay (seclveh) 4.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 423 0 59 0 0 0 Level of Service A A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 112 St -Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) -2 3 6 12 0 153 Delay (seclveh) 2.7 2.5 1.4 12.2 0.0 6.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 5 8 8 146 0 964 Level of Service A A A B A A . Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 0 967 2 4 1151 0 Delay (seclveh) 0.0 3.4 5.3 5.9 1.1 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 3288 11 24 1266 0 Level of Service A A A A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right . -#Trips (vehlhr) 12 966 11 0 1144 21 Delay (seclveh) 6.1 1.3 5.1 0.0 1.1 5.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 73 1256 56 0 1258 105 Level of Service A A A A A A . Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 30 59 96 57.6 45.0 24.5 1728 2655 2352 E D c South Approach Left Thru Right 98 43 47 52.2 44.1 24.6 5116 1896 1156 D D c South Approach Left Thru Right 12 468 0 4.0 1.3 0 48 608 0 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 550 4 0.0 1.3 4.7 0 715 19 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 13 0.0 0 4.7 0 0 61 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 8 4 6 20.7 40.2 7.8 166 161 47 c E A 2of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 44 61 23 41.6 32.8 22.6 1830 2001 520 D c c North Approach Left Thru Right 100 117 25 44 53.9 13.8 4400 6306 345 D D 8 North Approach Left Thru Right 0 220 121 0 1.5 5.2 0 330 629 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 23 322 2 3.4 0.2 4.7 78 64 9 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 16 0 4 11.5 0 11.8 184 0 47 8 A 8 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2558 9.0 A 23118 Intersection Intersection j Total LOS 2833 I 34.2 c 96867 Intersection Intersection 1 Total LOS 936 I 2.2 A 2097 I Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1077 1.9 A 2017 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2137 2.2 A 4649 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2192 1.5 A 3353 5110/01 Year 2010-AM Development wl Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 209 Excelsior Blvd I Glen hurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 5 984 0 -Delay (sec/veh) 6.0 1.3 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 30 1279 0 Level of Service A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 41 848 128 --· ---Delay (seclveh) 44.4 24.5 7.1 Total Delay (seclhr) 1820 20776 909 Level of Service D c A France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 1 20 39 -Delay (seclveh) 9.0 14.8 4.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 9 296 176 Level of Service A B A -Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections I (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY ' PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 J Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 5 1143 8 16 0 26 4.3 0.8 4.6 15.1 0 5.7 22 914 37 242 0 148 A A A c A A East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 181 755 25 322 37 219 45.7 17.7 10.0 39.5 33.3 15.5 8272 13364 250 12719 1232 3395 D B_ -~-'-D c B -East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 8 42 26 10 548 27 16.5 12.5 5.3 2.7 1.4 4.9 132 525 138 27 767 132 c B A A A A Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10·7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F_ > 50 -3of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 8 0 13 24.4 0 5.3 195 0 69 c A A North Approach Left Thru Right 12 19 47 45.6 38.1 6.1 547 724 287 D 0 A North Approach Left Thru Right 10 315 3 8.2 5.6 10.0 82 1764 30 A A A Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2208 1.3 A 2936 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2634 24.4 c 64294 Intersection lntersectio n Total LOS 1049 3.9 A 4078 5/10/01 Year 2010-AM Development wl Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 210 Table 0-4 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2010-Developments with Existing Geometry PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH100 East Ramp. Park Center Blvd West Aooroach Lett I Loft I Thru I Thru gs Percentile Queue Length (ft) 101 I 41o I 647 671 Link I Storage Length (ft) 3s5 I 355 I 625 I 625 Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 165 I 188 I 192 112 I Link I Storace Length (It) 130 130 130 250 Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Aooroach South Approach Thru I Thru Right I Right Left I Loft I Thru I Right I Right 108 104 50] 59 238 I 236 l 133 l 220 j 1g2 130 J.~o ~ _130 ~ 130 250 l 250 l 680 l 350 l 350 East Approach South Approach Thru I Thru I Thru Left I Right 285 I 239 I 242 267 I 59 475 475 475 615 400 East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Left I Thru/Lt I Right 95 Percentile Oueue l.Dngth (fl) 103 I 118 I 64 I 71 I 69 1ss 1 397 I 403 I 9 49 I 49 101 1 89 I 103 _____hlni< /_Sic)rage Longth_(fj)__ ____2IL1__~~ ~ _l ~80 __l__ 480 230 __l_ 680 _l 680 _1 135 10~_1 100 33~j_ 335 j_ 1_5S Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West A roach Eut ~proach South Approoch North App_roach Loft I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right 95'" Percentile Queue Length (II) 249 I 295 276 I 191 88 I 28o I 319 I 88 108 83 201 I 140 Unk I Storage Length (II) 22o I 685 6851 685 300 I 5001 50o I 75 na na 200 I 200 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Left [ Thru J Thru/Rt Left [ Thru Thru/Rt Lt!Thru/Rt Left I Thru/Rt 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) t31 I 198 I 211 75 I 197 I 197 41 87 I 59 Link I Storage Length (ft) 24o I soo I 900 240 1 430 I 430 na 100 I 100 Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr. W. 38th St West Approach East Approacn South App<oach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Left I Left I Thru I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 296 I 393 I 369 I 2o6 60 I 489 I 504 I 132' 81 I 105 163 I 188 I 221 I 162 Unk I Storage Length (It) 240 l 820 1 a2o L 200 80 L 1265 L 1265 l 80 200 L na 16o L 200 _L 200 j_ 160 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Ea•t Approach south Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left Thru Thru/Rt Thru/Lt Right Thru/Lt I Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 112 I 296 I 299 I 250 409 I 466 I 342 64o I 291 51 I 4 Link I Storage Length (ft) 240 I s2o I 820 I 200 350 I na I na na I 240 1oo I 100 Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SimTraHlc, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 201 0-PM Developments with Existing Geometl) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 211 Table D-5 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2010-Mitigation 1 PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd ITH100 East Ramp· Park Center Blvd West Approach Left I Left I Thru ~ r Thru 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 120 I 269 I 649 I 608 Unk I Storace Length (It) 355 355 625 625 Excelsior Blvd I Wood dale Ave West Aooroach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I 95 Percentile Queue Length (fl) 158 I 169 I 119 173 I Unk I Storoge Length (ft) 13o I 13o I 13o 250 I Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach South Approach Thru Thru Right Right Left Left Thru Right Right 185 I 14o I 721 72 239 I 242 I 100 I 241 I 149 130 .1 130 .1 130 .1 130 250 .1 250 1 680 .1 350 .1 350 East Accroach South Approach Tl>ru I Thru I Thru Loft I Right 468 I 410 I 316 396 I 220 475 I 475 I 475 s15 I 400 Eas1 Approach Sou1h Approach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Loft I Thru/Lt I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 111 I 120 I 84 I 91 I 68 156 I 420 I 4431 90 63 I 61 147 1 \24 I 100 Unk I ~to_rage Length_(fl)_ 275 j_ 275 j_ 480 j___ 480 j_ 480 230 j_ 680 l 680j_ 135 100 J 100 335_1 335 L 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 239 I 293 I 322 1 203 105 I 273 1 268 I 92 ml 84 18o 1 143 Unk I Storage Length (fl) JOOj_ 685_1_6851 685 300 l 500_15001 75 na I na 200 1 200 ExceJslor Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Lelt I Thru I Thru/Rt left I Thru Thru/Rt lVThru/Rt Lert I Thru/Rt 95 Percentile Queue length (fl) 171 I 244 1 249 49 I 219 I 220 52 89 I 67 Unkl Storage Length (fl) _ ~ 240 ~ 1 ~~ 9oo 1 9oo 240 I 430 j 430 na 1oo I 100 Excelsior Blvd/ t.Aonterey Or· W. 38th St West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach left I Thru I Thru Right left Thru Thru Right Left Thru/Rt Left Left Thru I Right 95'" Percentile Queue Length (It) 274 I 351 I 359 I 110 44 I 436 I 500 I 134 94 I 111 151 I 1s4 I 22s I 1s8 Unk I Storage length (ft) 240 _j 820 I 820 l 200 80 1 12ss 1 1265 1 80 200 I na 15o i 200 I 2oo I 160 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Eas1 Approach South Approach North Approach Lef1 I Thru I Thru I Right Lef1 .I Thru Thru/Rt Left j_ Thru/Lt I Right Thru/L1 J Right 95~ Percentile Queue length (It) 128 I 263 I 212 I 239 290 I 233 I 2so 150 I 184 186 43 I 30 Unk/ Storage Length (It) 240 J 820 l 820 I 200 350 l na l na 240 1 na 240 100 I tOO Noles: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SlmTraff<:. unless otllerwlse noted. Source: BAW, Inc. 5110101 Year2010·PM Mitigation 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 212 Table 0-6 Approximate Queue Lengths-Signalized Intersections Year 2010-Developments with Existing Geometry AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH100 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West ADD roach loll Loll I Thru I Thru 95"' Percentile Oueue Lenglh (It) 163 .I 166 r 3,, 1 344 Link I Storage Length (It) 355 I 355 I 625 I 625 Excelsior Blvd I Wood dale Ave West Aooroach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Lett I 95 Percentile Oueuo Lenglh (It) 121 1 t03 I 92 93 I Link I Storage Length (It) 130 130 130 250 Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd WestAJl2foach East Aooroach Soulh Approach Thru I Thru Right I Right Lett I Left I Thru I Right I Right 114 141 55 51 t37 I 149 I 31 I 103 l 55 130 I 130 I 13o I 130 ~.l__2SO_l 680 l ~0 _l_ 35Q_ East Approach South Approach i Thru I Thru I Thru Lett I Right 223 I 220 I 174 2031 68 475___1__ 475 __ L£S 615___l_ 400 EastAI'J)I'OOCh Soulh Approach North~oach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru!Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru!Rt Left I Thru!Lt I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 1111 121 1 87 I 1s I 68 0 I 254 I 252 I 160 78 I 50 47 I 15 I 58 ___ Link/Storag~.!"gth(ft) _ -275 _l___Es_j_ 48.0 l 4~ j_-480_-~o_ 1 ~o L 6so J t35 100 I 100 335 1_335 j 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Eut Approach Soulh Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Lett I Thru!RI Thru/LI I Right 95"' Percentile Oueue Lenglh (It) 253 I 2so I 249 I 70 101 I t83 I t48 I 73 85 I 140 185 I 112 Link I Storage Length (It) 220 _l 685 _l 685 J 685 300 _l 500 J 500 _l 75 f1a _l na -200 _l_ 200-Excelsior Blvd I Nalchez Avo We$t Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Lett I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru!Rt LI!Thru/Rt Lett I Thru!Rt 95'" Percentile Queue Lenglh (It) 72 I 112 I 120 46 I 71 I 80 155 83 I 90 Unk I Storage Leng1h (It) 240 _l 900 _l 900 240 _l 430 _l 430 na_ 10.Q_ _l 100 -Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Or· W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Soulh Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Lett I Thru/Rt Left I Left I Thru I Right 95'" Percentile Queue Length (It) 244 I 189 I 175 I 201 105 I 380 I 417 I 132 131 1 107 64 I n I 165 I 42 Link I Storage Length (II) 24o 1 82o 1 82o l 2oo so I 12§ L 12ss l 8() 200 l na 160 L _goo j 200-j 160 Excecslor Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Lett I Thru I Thru j Right Left I Thru Thru/Rt Thru/Lt [ Right Thrutll j Right 95" Percentile Queue Length (It) 1o9 I 256 I 262 I 162 154 I 187 I 194 324 I 176 33 I 8 Link/ Storoge Length (II) 240 J 82o I 82o I 200 350 L na 1 na na l 240 100 I 100 Note5: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SimTrafflc, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year2010-AM Developments with Existing Geometr) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 213 Appendix E: Year 2015-Traffic Operations Analysis 1\COLUM B IAI VOL 1\PROJECTS\4(,() 18\Rcport July 200 !\Excelsior _Fu~>I_R cpon_Apdx.doc URS/BRW In c. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 214 Table E-1 Intersection level of Service Year 2015-Developments with Existing lane Geometry PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd/TH100 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach left Thru Right left #Trips (veh/hr) 321 1351 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 93.6 66.1 0 0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 30110 92003 0 0 level of Service F E A A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left # Trips (vehlhr) 0 1905 376 61 Delay (sec/veh) 0 12.1 10.2 142.2 ·-Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 23051 3635 11516 Level of Service A B B F Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (veh/hr) 284 1637 64 40 -Delay (sec/veh) 56.2 10 10.2 60.2 Total Delay (sec/hr) 15961 16370 653 3208 Level of Service E A B F Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right left __ .,_. #Trips (veh/hr) 326 1521 152 33 -Delay (sec/veh) 45 22.9 6.5 161.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 14670 34631 966 5990 Level of Service D c A F Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach Thru Right 1440 560 23.4 9.1 33696 5276 c A East Approach Thru Right 1747 0 79.1 0 136188 0 E A East Approach Thru Right 1270 25 62.4 34.0 79248 850 E c East Approach Thru Right 634 69 333.7 336.1 211566 23329 F F South Approach Left Thru Right 519 167 912 56.4 47.3 36.4 30310 6645 33197 E D D South Approach Left Thru Right 276 0 80 479.7 0.0 294.7 133357 0 23576 F A F South Approach left Thru Right 27 0 108 45.7 0.0 4.9 1234 0 529 D A A South Approach left Thru Right 145 36 57 46 29.7 21.1 6670 1069 1203 D c c 1 of 3 North Approach left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 242 0 547 44.5 0.0 27.7 10769 0 15152 D A c North Approach left Thru Right 244 52 414 52.8 50.8 37.1 12683 2642 15359 D D 0 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 5310 44.0 D 233436 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 4467 74.7 E 333524 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 4244 33.9 c 143974 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3683 89.9 F I 331199 5/10/01 Year 2015 ·PM Development w/ Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 215 Excelsior Blvd I Natche~ Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 126 1727 3 11 743 23 Delay (sec/veh) 63.1 16.3 21.6 113.2 203.7 202.8 ·-· Total Delay (sec/hr) -7951 28150 1245 151349 65 4664 Level of Service E B c F F F Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 215 1459 98 4 667 127 Delay (sec/veh) 45.6 6.8 44.0 207.8 532.5 528.7 -· Total Delay (sec/hr) 9804 9921 4312 831 355178 67145 Level of Service D A D f.' F F Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 177 0 77 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 33.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) -5841 0 1109 0 0 0 Level of Service D A B A A A -Unsignali~ed Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 112 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 33 0 24 9 0 115 Delay (sec/veh) 16.8 0.0 4,8 28.5 0.0 10.4 --Total Delay (sec/hr) 554 0 115 257 0 1196 Level of Service c A A D A B -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 0 1797 6 5 806 2 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 4.5 7.9 17.9 125.7 192.1 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 8087 47 90 101314 384 Level of Service A A A c .. F F -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 8 1773 17 5 827 8 -·-· Delay (sec/veh) 37.9 2.3 5.5 85.7 118.2 200.2 Total Delay (sec/hr) 303 4078 94 429 97751 1602 Level of Service ---~ A L__~ F F F • Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 11 1 6 1862.0 1401.0 2215.0 20482 1401 13290 F F F South Approach Left Thru Right 73 76 1 73.1 41.9 25 5336 3184 25 E' D c South Approach Left Thru Right 25 373 0 16.1 1.4 0 403 522 0 c A A South Approach Left Thru Right 2 521 15 5.3 1.6 5.1 11 834 77 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 7 0.0 0 7.9 0 0 55 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 5 1 5 2350.0 0 913 11750 0 4565 F A F 2 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 79 5 41 57.8 166.7 111.2 4566 834 4559 e. F F North Approach Left Thru Right 349 219 145 46 44.9 51.9 16054 9833 7526 D D D North Approach Left Thru Right 0 633 180 0 4.2 10.8 0 2659 1944 A A B North Approach Left Thru Right 88 781 1 5.5 0.5 4.7 484 391 5 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 6 0 0 13.4 -0 0 80 A A B North Approach Left Thru Right 19 0 5 586 0 829.0 11134 0 4145 F A F Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2776 85.9 F 238556 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3433 142.5 F 489149 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1465 8.5 A 12477 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1589 2.5 A 3922 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2629 41.9 E 110058 Intersection Intersection ! Total LOS 2673 50.8 F 135850 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Development w/ Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 216 .-. Excelsior Blvd I Glenhurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right ---#Trips (vehlhr) 33 1731 17 Delay (seclveh) 7.7 7.2 9.9 Total Delay (seclhr) 254 12463 168 Level of Service A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 91 1288 354 .. Delay (sectveh) 103.4 27.8 9.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 9409 35806 3363 Level of Service F -L_ ~-~ France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Lett Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 4 42 131 Delay (sectveh) 234.5 112.5 91.6 Total Delay (seclhr) 938 4725 12000 Level of Service F F F Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Lett Thru Right Left Thru Right 7 861 11 13 0 6 110.5 94.3 130.4 1047.0 0 20.2 774 81192 1434 13611 0 121 F· "F F F A c East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 188 575 16 318 89 343 723.2 870.0 1067.4 201.5 64.1 60 135962 500250 17078 64077 5705 20580 f F F F E E East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 9 23 25 25 808 42 98.0 100.0 126.2 61.5 58.4 31.5 882 2300 3155 1538 47187 1323 . F F F F F D Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 1 0 11 8.3 0 950.2 8 0 10452 A A F North Approach Left Thru Right 38 18 37 55 34.6 69.9 2090 623 2586 D c E North Approach Left Thru Right 29 517 5 16.7 6.5 19.5 484 3361 98 c A c Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2691 44.8 E 120479 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 3355 I 237.7 F 797530 ' ' Intersection Intersection j Total LOS I 1660 I 47.0 E 77990 _I 5110101 Year 2015-PM Development wl Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 217 Table E-2 Intersection Level of Service Year 2015-Mitigation 1 PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right -· #Trips (vehlhr} 304 1460 0 Delay (seclveh) 51.4 24.2 0 Total Delay (seclhr) 15626 35332 0 Level of Service D c A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 0 1900 456 Delay (sec/veh) 0 3.3 6.1 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 6270 2782 Level of Service A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 288 1652 67 Delay (sec/veh) 47.7 25.2 24.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 13738 41630 1628 Level of Service D c c Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 350 1461 153 --Delay (seclveh) 47.3 30.8 9.6 Total Delay (sec/hr) 16555 44999 1469 Level of Service D c A Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach Left Thru Right 0 1823 838 0 18.4 13.3 0 33543 11145 A B B East Approach Left Thru Right 0 2648 0 0 9.8 0 0 25950 0 A A A East Approach Left Thru Right 102 1874 38 42 33.2 59.1 4284 62217 2246 D c E East Approach Left Thru Right 142 1264 125 76.1 32.5 31.7 10806 41080 3963 .E c c -South Approach Left Thru Right 496 167 903 47.9 45.3 29.4 23758 7565 26548 D D c South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 96 0 0.0 7.1 0 0 682 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 273 0 88 79.4 0.0 46.4 21676 0 4083 E-A 0 South Approach Left Thru Right 185 36 50 48 52.7 28.5 8880 1897 1425 D D c --1 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 227 0 518 33.9 0.0 29.9 7695 0 15488 c A c North Approach Left Thru Right 286 40 481 45.4 43.8 35.5 12984 1752 17076 D D 0 Intersection Total 5991 25.6 153518 Intersection Total 5100 7.0 35684 Intersection Total 5127 34.1 174686 Intersection Total 4573 35.6 162885 Intersection LOS c Intersection I LOS A I Intersection LOS I c Intersection LOS D 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Miligation 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 218 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave -West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 104 1720 12 17 1393 34 Delay (sec/veh) 68.7 3.6 7.3 40.6 9.4 11.5 Total Delay (sec/hr) 7145 6192 88 690 13094 391 Level of Service E A A D A B Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Or-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 219 1453 95 4 1194 222 Delay (sec/veh) 55.0 7.1 64.0 32.6 41.0 35.8 -Total Delay (sec/hr) 12045 10316 6080 130 48954 7948 Level of Service 0 A E c 0 D Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 164 0 85 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 35.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 5740 0 578 0 0 0 Level of Service D A A A A A • Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Or I W. 361/2 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 33 0 27 14 0 122 Delay (sec/veh) 19.0 0.0 4.7 27.9 0.0 8.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 627 0 127 391 0 1013 Level of Service c A A 0 A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 0 1829 7 10 1334 2 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 6.0 12.5 12.7 1.4 5.4 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 10974 88 127 1868 11 Level of Service A A B B A A Unsignalized lntersecllon Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 23 1792 14 6 1322 15 Delay (sec/veh) 12.7 2.1 5.3 33.3 1.3 4.7 Total Delay (sec/hr) 292 3763 74 200 1719 71 Level of Service 8 A A D A A • Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 13 6 7 66.4 41.7 38.5 863 250 270 E 0 D South Approach Left Thru Right 65 79 1 56.1 24.1 32.6 3647 1904 33 E c c South Approach Left Thru Right 38 477 0 12.4 1.4 0 471 668 0 8 A A South Approach Left Thru Right 5 618 11 11.2 1.4 5.5 56 865 61 8 A A South Approach left Thru Right 0 0 1 0.0 0 1.9 0 0 2 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 6 1 4 30.9 71.7 7.8 185 72 31 0 F A 2of3 North Approach left Thru Right 63 15 50 47.5 33.8 12.3 2993 507 615 0 c B North Approach Left Thru Right 389 208 150 42.6 41.4 18.8 16571 8611 2820 0 0 B North Approach Left Thru Right 0 661 178 0 2.5 5.8 0 1653 1032 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 106 797 11 5.4 0.5 4.8 572 399 53 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 3 0 0 13.2 0 0 40 A A 8 North Approach Left Thru Right 12 0 10 35.7 0 9.1 428 0 91 E A A Intersection Total 3434 9.6 33097 Intersection Total 4079 29.2 119059 Intersection Total 1603 6.3 10142 Intersection Total 1744 2.4 4163 Intersection Total 3186 4.1 13109 Intersection Total 3205 2.2 6926 Intersection LOS A I I Intersection I LOS I I c Intersection lOS A Intersection LOS A Intersection I LOS I A I i I Intersection' LOS I A I I 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Mitigation 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 219 Excelsior Blvd I Glenhurst Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 33 1766 22 18 1309 7 12 0 4 -Delay (sec/veh) 8.2 7.9 7.6 22.5 1.0 4.4 61.6 0 32.2 Total Delay (seclhr) 271 13951 167 405 1309 31 739 0 129 Level of Service A A A c A A F A D . Unsignalized lntersect1on Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right -# Trips (vehlhr) 113 1311 342 301 901 21 373 106 364 Delay (seclveh) 65.7 29.5 10.0 71.7 18.2 13.9 49.4 12.2 20.6 ---Total Delay (seclhr) 7424 38675 3420 21582 16398 292 18426 1293 7498 Level of Service E c A .E B 8 D B c -France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right ~~ -· #Trips (veh/hr) 4 49 157 10 24 23 31 822 42 Delay (seclveh) 51.6 32.2 17.8 30.4 19.1 12.4 6.7 3.3 6.4 Total Delay (sec/hr) 206 1578 2795 304 458 285 208 2713 269 Level of Service F D c D c B A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <-10 A <= 10 B <= 20 B <= 15 c <= 35 c <= 25 D <= 55 D <= 35 E <= 80 E <= 50 F > 80 F > 50 Source: BRW, Inc. 3of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 5 0 19 199.8 0 18.8 999 0 357 F A c North Approach Left Thru Right 33 13 29 49.2 32.8 6.1 1624 426 177 D c A - - - - ---North Approach Left Thru Right 33 610 8 15.4 6.4 9.3 508 3904 74 c A A Intersection Total 3195 5.7 18358 Intersection Total 3907 30.0 117235 ---·--Intersection Total 1813 7.3 13302 Intersection 1 LOS I A I I Intersection 1 LOS c ----Intersection LOS A 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Mitigation 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 220 Table E-3 Intersection Level of Service Year 2015-Mitigation 2 PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd /TH100 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 319 1460 0 Delay (sec/veh) 60.7 16.5 0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 19363 24090 0 Level of Service E B A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 0 1963 373 Delay (sec/veh) 0 2.7 5.6 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 5300 2089 L_. _ l_elfel <>! S.I!!Vice _ -A A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Lett Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 278 1712 62 Delay (sec/veh) 48.3 27.5 23.4 Total Delay (seclhr) 13427 47080 1451 Level of Service D c c -Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Lett Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 356 1587 169 Delay (sec/veh) 55 35.1 14.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 19580 55704 2417 Level of Service D D B Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 0 1650 885 573 150 875 0 32.3 8.5 55 49.4 27.6 0 53295 7523 31515 7410 24150 A c A D D c East Approach South Approach Lett Thru Right Left Thru Right 0 2610 0 0 0 79 0 23.9 0 0 0.0 6.3 0 62379 0 0 0 498 A c A A A L_ _A East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Lett Thru Right 101 1958 51 300 0 123 49.3 30.6 28.8 65.8 0.0 47.5 4979 59915 1469 19740 0 5843 D __ c __ c ___ ,J:_ .. -L. A D -East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 133 1226 137 184 34 46 74.8 12.9 9.3 43.2 52.8 33.8 9948 15815 1274 7949 1795 1555 E B A D D c 1 of 3 North Approach Lett Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Lett Thru Right 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 274 0 381 42.0 0.0 33.5 11508 0 12764 D A c North Approach Left Thru Right 266 48 335 48.1 49.2 12.8 12795 2362 4288 D D B Intersection Total 5912 28.3 167346 Intersection Total 5025 14.0 70266 Intersection Total 5240 34.0 178175 Intersection Total 4521 30.0 135481 Intersection J LOS I I c Intersection LOS B Intersection LOS c Intersection LOS c I 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Mitigation 2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 221 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 111 1834 9 23 1392 40 Delay (seclveh) 63.8 5.7 7.4 56.4 5.3 9.5 Total Delay (seclhr) 7082 10454 67 1297 7378 380 Level of Service E A A E A A Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right -# Trips (vehlhr) 217 1551 111 5 1209 220 Dela~ (sec/veh} 42.3 7.3 49.8 76.9 53.8 53.4 -· Total Delay (sec/hr) 9179 11322 5528 385 65044 11748 Level of Service D A D ,, E D D Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) -168 0 88 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 23.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 4015 0 378 0 0 0 Level of Service c A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 112 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 36 0 21 10 0 110 Delay (sec/veh) 12.7 0.0 2.6 14.0 0.0 6.3 Total Delay (seclhr) 457 0 55 140 0 693 Level of Service B A A B A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (veh/hr) 0 1901 4 11 1364 8 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 6.3 10.0 25.5 1.3 5.5 Total Delay (seclhr) 0 11976 40 281 1773 44 Level of Service A A A D A A -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 24 1844 16 8 1368 15 Delay (sec/veh) 21.0 17.0 17.3 17.3 1.3 5.0 Total Delay (sec/hr) 504 31348 277 138 1778 75 Level of Service c c c c A A -Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 7 2 8 55.0 49.7 25.5 385 99 204 D D c South Approach Left Thru Right 83 71 0 47.5 50.7 0 3943 3600 0 0 D A South Approach Left Thru Right 40 463 0 9.7 1.4 0 388 648 0 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 9 602 13 4.6 1.5 5.4 41 903 70 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 10 0.0 0 26 0 0 260 A A D South Approach Left Thru Right 1 1 1 79.8 118.5 21.2 80 119 21 F F c 2of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 68 6 31 54.1 52.8 14.0 3679 317 434 D D B North Approach Left Thru Right 365 195 148 41.9 42.0 19.9 15294 8190 2945 D D B North Approach Left Thru Right 0 609 160 0 2.1 5.7 0 1279 912 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 92 739 5 4.6 0.5 4.9 423 370 25 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 1 0 0 0.9 0 0 1 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 23 0 11 458 0 470.0 10534 0 5170 F A ·F Intersection Total 3531 9.0 31775 Intersection Total 4175 32.9 137177 Intersection Total 1528 5.0 7621 Intersection Total 1637 1.9 3177 Intersection Total 3299 4.4 14375 Intersection Total 3312 15.1 50044 Intersection LOS A Intersection LOS c Intersection I LOS i A I I Intersection LOS A Intersection 1 LOS A ' Intersection LOS c I I I 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Mitigation 2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 222 Excelsior Blvd I Glen hurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right --··-#Trips (vehlhr) 25 1816 29 Delay (sec/veh) 27.0 37.8 37.6 Total Delay (sec/hr) 675 68645 1090 Level of Service D E E -Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 107 1289 394 --Delay (seclveh) 97.1 36.2 10.7 Total Delay (seclhr) 10390 46662 4216 Level of Service f.. D B France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 10 49 139 .. Delay (sec/veh) 42.7 36.6 24.4 Total Delay (seclhr) 427 1793 3392 Level of Service E -. E. c -Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9-1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 B <= 20 c <= 35 D <-55 E <= 80 F > 80 -·-------Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 20 1360 12 12 0 3 76.2 1.2 4.6 344.0 0 557 1524 1632 55 4128 0 1671 F A A F A F East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 263 901 17 375 88 366 55.0 20.1 26.3 51.9 9.9 20.8 14465 18110 447 19463 871 7613 D c c D A c East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 6 26 15 32 800 40 46.7 33.1 17.8 5.0 2.5 5.7 280 861 267 160 2000 228 .E D c A A A Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections (Table10-7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC~ A <= 10 B <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <-50 F > 50 3of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 1 0 24 2174 0 273.0 2174 0 6552 F· A F North Approach Left Thru Right 35 12 40 52.7 44.9 7.8 1845 539 312 D D A North Approach Left Thru Right 27 629 8 11.4 6.3 7.9 308 3963 63 B A A Intersection Total 3302 26.7 88146 Intersection Total 3887 32.1 124931 ----Intersection Total 1781 7.7 13742 Intersection I LOS D I Intersection LOS c Intersection I LOS I A I 5/10/01 Year 2015 • PM Mitigation 2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 223 Table E-4 Intersection Level of Service Year 2015-Developments with Existing Lane Geometry AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 00 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips {vehlhr) 554 1239 0 0 -Delay {sec/veh) 53.4 44.3 0 0 Total Delay {sec/hr) 29584 54888 0 0 Level of Service D D A A Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left # Trips {vehlhr) 0 1477 310 68 Delay {sec/veh) 0 8.2 7 84 Total Delay {sec/hr) 0 12111 2170 5712 Level of Service A A A . f.:HF Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Left Thru Right Left #Trips (vehlhr) 401 1298 0 2 Delay {sec/veh) 36.1 3.1 0 80.1 Total Delay {sec/hr) 14476 4024 0 160 Level of Service D A A ,, F Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left Thru Right Left # Trips {vehlhr) 386 930 162 70 Delay {seclveh) 39.7 16.3 5 54.8 Total Delay {sec/hr) 15324 15159 810 3836 Level of Service D B A D Source: BRW, Inc. East Approach Thru Right 1484 353 10.9 6.4 16176 2259 B A East Approach Thru Right 1539 0 44.7 0 68793 0 -D A East Approach Thru Right 1273 118 9.4 6.9 11966 814 A A East Approach Thru Right 935 110 30.1 14.6 28144 1606 c B South Approach North Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 316 145 543 0 0 0 46.5 47.9 15.6 0 0 0 14694 6946 8471 0 0 0 D D 8 A A A --South Approach North Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 248 0 203 0 0 0 53.6 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13293 0 1766 0 0 0 D A A A A A South Approach North Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 48 0 97 76 0 286 43.4 0.0 6.8 50.9 0.0 6.8 2083 0 660 3868 0 1945 D A A D A A South Approach North Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 77 42 101 152 44 308 44.2 38.8 21.3 50 41.8 8.9 3403 1630 2151 7600 1839 2741 D D c_'---D D A --1 of3 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 4634 I 28.7 c 133016 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3845 27.0 c 103846 ----Intersection Intersection Total LOS 3599 11.1 B 39997 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 3317 I 25.4 c 84243 I 5/10/01 Year 2015-AM Development w/ Existing Geom~try Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 224 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 44 1139 17 16 1033 116 ------Delay (sec/veh) 45.3 3.5 5.1 32.3 6.7 10.9 Total Delay (sec/hr) 1993 3987 87 517 6921 1264 Level of Service D A A c A B Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr-W. 38th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right ----#Trips (veh/hr) 297 835 154 58 1012 143 Delay (sec/veh) 31.2 8.7 55.0 101.9 45.4 34.4 -Total Delay (sec/hr) 9266 7265 8470 5910 45945 4919 Level of Service c A D ./ .'i~F.-·· · D c Monterey Dr I 38th -39th St West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (veh/hr) 97 0 16 0 0 0 Delay (sec/veh) 4.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 466 0 46 0 0 0 Level of Service A A A A A A ---• Unsignalized Intersection Monterey Dr I W. 36 1/2 St-Rec Center Ent West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 1 0 5 5 1 165 Delay (sec/veh) 5.5 0.0 1.5 15.7 8.2 6.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 6 0 8 79 8 990 Level of Service A A A c A A ----• Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd /Inglewood Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right #Trips (vehlhr) 0 1021 2 8 1205 3 Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 3.1 11.5 7.9 1.1 5.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 3165 23 63 1326 16 Level of Service A A B A A A • Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I Huntington Ave West Approach East Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right # Trips (vehlhr) 13 1026 10 2 1192 26 --.--Delay (sec/veh) 11.3 1.3 4.9 3.7 1.1 5.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 147 1334 49 7 1311 138 Level of Service B A A A A A -Unsignalized Intersection Source: BRW, Inc. South Approach Left Thru Right 42 51 85 ----61.6 45.2 34.7 2587 2305 2950 E ; D c South Approach Left Thru Right 106 59 75 55.0 41.7 18.8 5830 2460 1410 D D B South Approach Left Thru Right 13 488 0 5.1 1.3 0 66 634 0 A A A ----South Approach Left Thru Right 0 571 1 0.0 1.6 7.1 0 914 7 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 17 0.0 0 6 0 0 102 A A A South Approach Left Thru Right 5 1 5 74.8 0 47.9 374 0 240 F·,.J A ,:· ·-"E ~ 2 of 3 North Approach Left Thru Right 50 50 29 ~---~ 47.0 40.3 2350 2015 374 D D B North Approach Left Thru Right 103 123 27 52.3 53 15.4 5387 6519 416 D D B North Approach Left Thru Right 0 236 102 0 1.2 5.1 0 283 520 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 28 325 2 4.3 0.2 4.7 120 65 9 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 A A A North Approach Left Thru Right 25 0 9 21.1 0 12.6 528 0 113 c A B Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2672 -----10.2 B 27350 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2992 34.7 c 103797 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 952 2.1 A 2016 I Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1104 2.0 A 2205 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS I 2256 2.1 A 4695 Intersection Intersection I Total LOS 2314 1.8 A 4241 5/10/01 Year 2015-AM Development w/ Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 225 ... Excelsior Blvd I Glenhurst Ave West Approach Left Thru Right -·· #Trips (veh/hr) 4 1067 0 Delay (seclveh) 8.3 1.3 0.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 33 1387 0 Level of Service A A A Unsignalized Intersection Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach Left Thru Right -· #Trips (vehlhr) 40 908 138 -Delay (sec/veh) 49.6 23.4 9.0 Total Delay (seclhr) 1984 21247 1242 Level of Service 0 c A France Ave I W. 38th St West Approach Left Thru Right ----· #Trips (vehlhr) 0 18 57 Delay (seclveh) 0.0 10.3 4.3 Total Delay (sec/hr) 0 185 245 Level of Service A B A . Unsignaliz.ed Intersection Level of Service for Signalized Intersections (Table 9·1, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 8 <= 20 c <= 35 D <= 55 E <= 80 F > 80 Source: 8RW, Inc. East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 8 1190 9 11 0 17 8.4 0.8 4.7 31.1 0 7.3 67 952 42 342 0 124 A A A D A A East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 203 815 29 307 34 241 47.0 15.7 13.4 35.1 41.5 7.9 9541 12796 389 10776 1411 1904 0 B B 0 D A East Approach South Approach Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7 35 20 16 563 27 9.5 9.6 5.3 3.4 1.4 4.9 67 336 106 54 788 132 A A A A A A Level of Service lor Unsignalized Intersections (Table10·7, Highway Capacity Manual, 1997) LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (SEC) A <= 10 8 <= 15 c <= 25 D <= 35 E <= 50 F > 50 3of3 North Approach Left Thru Right 1 0 10 30 0 7.2 30 0 72 0 A A North Approach Left Thru Right 17 20 37 46.7 36.7 3.4 794 734 126 D 0 A North Approach Left Thru Right 15 338 6 5.3 5.6 10.4 80 1893 62 A A B Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2317 1.3 A 3050 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 2789 ' 22.6 c 62943 Intersection Intersection Total LOS 1102 3.6 A ---3949 5110101 Year 2015 ·AM Development w/ Existing Geometry Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 226 Table E-5 Approximate Queue Lengths • Signalized Intersections Year 2015-Developments with Existing Geometry PM Peak Period Excelsior 8fvd I TH1 00 East Ramp. Park Center Blvd West Approach Left I Lelt I Thru I Thru 9S" Percentile Queue Length (It) 1g6 446 698 706 Unk I Storage Length (ft) 355 I 355 I 625 I 625 Excelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Lelt I 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 166 185 205 340 Link I Storage Length (It) 130 I t3o I 130 25o I Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach South~roach Thru I Thru Right I Right tort I Loft I Thru I Right I Right 215 200 209 154 246 252 t81 3t5 250 130 I 130_l__t;J_O~ ~ _l 25Q__~__l_~()~ East Approach South A_l)J)roach Thru I Thru I Thru Left I Right 531 '566. . 540 . 795 521 • 475 I 475 I 475 615 I 400 East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I lelt I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru I Right Lett I Thru!Rt Left I Thru/Lt I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 2oo I 223 I 23s I 2o3 I 132 166 I 1s1 I 774 I 81 54 I 61 180 I 358 I 225 _ Unk I Storage !-ength (It) 275 j_ 275 j_ 480 j_ 480 J 480 230 j_ 680 J 680 1 135 tOO j_ tOO 335_] 335_l 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Left Thru Thru Right Left _l Thru Thru .l Right Left L Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right 95"' PercenWe Queue Length (ft) 279 I 365 I 386 I 349 236 I "969 I 968 I 105 t55 I 80 26o I 248 Link I Storage Length (It) 220 .I 685 I 685 I 685 300 I 9oo I 90o I 75 na I na 2oo I 2oo Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru/Rt Left Thru Thru!Rt Lt/Thru/Rt Left Thru/Rt 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 210 I 487 I 395 t87 I 1o55 I 1055 255 124 I 117 Link I Storage Length (ft) 240 900 900 240 B20 820 no 100 100 Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Or· W. 38th St West Approach East Aporoach South~oach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Lett I Left I Thru I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 247 L 239 J t84 l 138 24 1 "t625• _lr 1622.J 128 tt4 L 110 174 1 187 _l 253 t92 Unk I Storage Length (h) 240 I 820 I a2o I 200 80 I t265 I 1265 I 80 2001 na t60 I 200 I 200 I 160 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach I Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru!Rt Left I Thru/U I Right Thru/Lt I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 19o I 274 I 2n I 208 • · 391 '··I to3s I 1012 29s· I 744 1 342 51 ISO Unk I Storage_ Length (ft) 24Q_ j_ ~ _i .szo _L 200 350_j_ na _j_ _na g40 ___!__ na j_ 24() tOO j__!OO Noles: 1. All Queue lllllgti\S are resulls modeled by SlmTraffiC. unless otherwise nOied. Source: BAW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year2015-PM Developments with Existing Geometl) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 227 Table E-6 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2015 -Mitigation 1 PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd ITH100 East Ramp-Park Center Blvd West Approach Left I Lett I Thru I Thru I 95'" Percentile Queue Length (It) 127 I 140 I 282 I 273 I Link I Storage Length (It) 355 I 355 I 625 I 625 I Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach Thru 285 625 Left I left I Thru J Thru _I Thru/Rt 95~ Percentile Queue Length (It) 129 I 154 I 312 I s1s I 244 __ l.i~k L Storage Length (It) ---275 j_ 275-j_ 480 j_ 480 j_ 480 Excelsior Blvd f Quentin Ave East A >preach South Approach Thru I Thru Thru I Right Left I Lett I Thru I Right I Right 243 I 304 521 I 366 230 I 187 I 1ss I 270 I 226 775 I 775 775 I 400 250 I 250 I 680 I 350 I 350 East AJ>proach South A roach North A >Proach Lett I Thru Thru j ThrufRt Lett Thru/Rt Left I Thru Right I Right 122 I 252 I 364 I 410 78 69 11o I 0 t58 I 160 230 j_ 680 j_ 680 l 680 100 100 335 l_ 335 20Q j__ 200 West Approach East Approach South A >preach North Approach Left I Left I Thru I Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Left I Thru I Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 165 I 341 I 424 I 471 I 481 202 I 537 I El12 I 100 180 93 233 I , 211 I 204 Link I Storage Length (It) 220 j_ 220 j_ 685 _l 685 j_ 685 300 j_ 900 _l 900 l 75 na na 200 j_ 200 j_ 180 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West Apjlfoach East ApJ>roach South Approach North Approach Left I Thru I ThrufRt Left I Thru ThruiRt LtfThrufRt Left I ThruiRt 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 138 I 200 I 198 52 I 210 I 221 62 1o3 I 66 Link I Storage Length (It) 240 j_ 900 j_ 900 240 j_ 820 j_ 820 na 100 j_ 100 Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr· W. 38th St West A roach East Approach South Approach North Approach Left 1 Thru Thru j Right Left 1 Thru Thru I Right Left 1 Thru/Rt Left i Lett I Thru I Right 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 264 I 158 183 I 146 19 I 516 I s38 I 133· 97 I 110 186 I 214 I 201 I 178 Link I Storage Length (It) 240 I 820 820 I 200 80 I 1265 I 12s5 I 80 2oo I na 160 I 2oo I 200 I 160 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West A roach East Approach South Approach North A tproach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru/Rt Left J Thruflt I Right Thruflt Right 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 205 I 280 271 I 223 326 I 297 I 265 165 I 309 207 39 42 Link I Storage Length (It) 240 I 820 82o I 200 350 I na I na 240 I na 240 100 100 Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SimTraffic, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Mitigation 1 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 228 ,..... Table E-7 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2015-Mitigation 2 PM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd ITH100 East Ramp· Park Center Blvd West Approach Left I Left I Thru I Thru I 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 134 I 149 I 321 I 144 I Link I Storage Length (ft) _ 355j~Sj62SI s26 I Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Bl\ld West Approach Thru 162 625 Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt 95"' Percentile Queue Length (It) 145 I 235 1 34g L 338 I 302 Link I Storage Length (ft) 21s I 21s I 48o I 480 I 480 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach Left l Left I Thru [ Thru 1 Right 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) 188 I 309 I 48o I 485 I 535 Link I Storage Length (It) 220 I 220 I 685 I 685 I 685 Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave East A >proach South Approach Thru I Thru Thru I Right Left I Left I Thru I Right I Right BOO I BOO 750 I 409 256 J 251 I 121 _l 253 l 213 775 I 11s 775 I 400 250 I 2so I 5ao I 350 I 350 East Approach South A >preach North Approach Left I Thru Thru I Thru/Rt Left Thru/Rt Left I Thru I Right 184 I 408 I 399 I 410 85 87 2g2 I 254 I 215 230 I 680 I 680 I 680 100 100 335 I 3~_11lQ_ East Apj)roach South A Jj)roach North Apj)roach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Left I Thru I Right 11s I 26o I 337 I 78 185 102 248 I 117 I 155 300 I 900 I 9001 75 na na 200 I 200 I 180 West Approach East ~j)roach South ~preach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru/Rt Left I Thru Thru/Rt LVThru/Rt Left I Thru/Rt 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) 134 I 300 I 321 50 I 153 I 158 43 96 I 67 ~k I Stor"ge Length (ft.L__ -~-900 _l_ 900 -240 _j 820 j_ 820 na 100 l tOO Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr· W. 38th St West A roach East Approach Soulh Approach North Aj>proach _I Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Left I Left I Thru I Right I 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) 254 I 278 323 I 118 54 I 723 I 806 I. 143 116 I 110 169 I 187 1 190 I 139 I _ Unkj~orage Le_ngth jf!l_ 240_ j_ 820 820 j_ 200 80 j_ 1265 l 1265 l 80 200 l na 160 j_ 200 1 200 l 160 J Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Ap preach East Approach South Approach North A >preach Left I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru Thru/Rt Left I Thru/lt I Right Thru/Lt Right 95 Percentile Queue Length (It) 201 I 250 240 I 243 261 I 286 1 287 147 1 160 168 42 19 Link I Storage Length (It) 240 I 820 82o I 200 350 I na I na 24o I na 240 100 100 Noles: 1. All Queue lengths are resulls modeled by SimTraffic, unless otherwise noted. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 2015-PM Mitigation 2 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 229 Table E-8 Approximate Queue Lengths -Signalized Intersections Year 2015-Developments with Existing Geometry AM Peak Period Excelsior Blvd I TH1 DO East Ramp· Park Center Blvd West Approach Left I Left I Thru I Thru 95" Percentile Queue Length (rt) 228 I 337 I 527 I 518 Link I Storage Length (rt) -355 l -355 _l_ 625 j_ 625 EXcelsior Blvd I Wooddale Ave West Approach Thru I Thru I Thru/RI Left 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) t59 I 129 I 114 251 I Link I Storage Length (ft) 130 l t3o L 13o 25o 1 Excelsior Blvd I Park Nicollet Blvd West Approach East Approach South Approach Thru I Thru Right I Right Loft I L~ft I Thru I Right I Right 148 I 135 I 94 I 56 138 I 159 I 15o I 157 I 73 130 l 130 j_ 130 j_ 130 2~0 _l _250 _l 680 _l_350 j__ 3_5Q_ East Approach South Approach Thru Thru Thru Left Right "561 ·I 524 I 436 311 I 105 475 I 475 1 475 6ts I 400 East Approach South Approach North Approach Left I left I Thru I Thru I Thru/Rt Loft I Thru Thru I Right Left I Thru/Rt Left I Thru/Lt I Right 95"' Percentile Queue Length (ft) 1771 t85 I 73 I so I 45 15 I 220 I t9t I 94 69 I 62 6t I 32 I 79 Link I Storage Length (ft) 275 I 275 1 48o I •8o 1 480 23o I 680 I 680 I 135 1oo I 100 335 I 335 I 155 Excelsior Blvd I Quentin Ave West Approach East Approach South lpproach North Approach Left 1 Thru I Thru _ L Right Left I Thru Thru I Right Left Thru/Rt Thru/Lt I Right 95" Percentile Queue Length (tt) 343 I 365 I 31o I 165 84 I 321 I 342 I 108 90 108 141 I 111 Link I Storage Length (ft) 220 I 685 I 685 I 685 300 I 90019001 75 na na 200 I 2oo Excelsior Blvd I Natchez Ave West~roach East Ap]Jroach South Approach North Approach Left I Thru I Thru/Rt Left l Thru Thru/Rt LVThru/Rt Left _l Thru/Rt 95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 91 I 1o8 I 1o5 49 I 120 I 137 197 80 I 82 Link I Storage Length (ft) 24o I 9001 900 240 I 820 I 820 na •oo I 100 Excelsior Blvd I Monterey Dr· W. 38th St West Approa<:h East Approa~h South Approach North Appto.ach Loft J Thru I Thru 1 Right Left l Thru Thru _l Right Loft _j Thru/RI Loft 1 Left _l Thru 1 Right 95~ Percentile Queue Length (ft) 247 I 187 I 114 I 198 100 I 494 I 531 I 119 138 I 130 60 I 73 I 162 I 85 Link I Storage Length (ft) 240 I 82o I 820 I 200 80 I 1265 I 12s5 I 80 200 I na 16o I 200 I 200 I 160 Excelsior Blvd I France Ave West Approach East Approach South Approach North Approach 1 Loft I Thru I Thru I Right Left l Thru Thru/Rt Loft I Thru/Lt l Right Thru/Lt I Right ] 95 Percentile Ououo Length (ft) 1o8 I 211 I 262 I 156 183 I 225 I 205 124 I 111 I 49 28 I 24 I Link I Storage Length (ft) z~o I 82o I 82o I 200 350 I na I na 240 1 na I 240 100 I too I Notes: 1. All Queue lengths are results modeled by SlmTranic, unless otherwise noled. Source: BRW, Inc. 5/10/01 Year 2015-AM Developments with Existing Geometr) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic DiscussionPage 230 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 231 Park Commons West Park Commons East Al's Bar SiteFRANCE AVE SEXCEL SI O R B L V D 40TH ST W 35TH ST W 38TH ST W KIPLING AVE SJOPPA AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SGLENHURST AVE S36 1/2 ST W 36TH ST WBELTLINE BLVD37TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE SMO N T E R E Y D R VALLAC H E R A V E LYNN AVE SPARK GL E N R D NATCHEZ AVE S39TH S T W QUENTIN AVE SWOLFE PK WY 34TH ST W PARK CENTER BLVDRALEIGH AVE SPRINCETON AVE SMINIKAHDA CTPARK NICOLLET BLVDPRINCETON LN 36TH ST WHIGHWAY 100 S39TH ST W Excelsior Blvd CorridorComprehensive PlanLand Use Guidance 1,000 Feet ¯ Legend Study Redevelopment Areas Study Redevelopment Areas Comprehensive Plan (2030) Land Use Categories RL - Low Density Residential RM - Medium Density Residential RH - High Density Residential MX - Mixed Use COM - Commercial IND - Industrial OFC - Office BP - Business Park CIV - Civic PRK - Park and Open Space ROW - Right of Way RRR - Railroad August 5, 2015 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 232 Park Commons West Park Commons East Al's Bar Site EXCEL SI O R B L V D 40TH ST W 35TH ST W 38TH ST W KIPLING AVE SJOPPA AVE SGLENHURST AVE SHIGHWAY 100 S36 1/2 ST W 36TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE SBELTLINE BLVD37TH ST WMO N T E R E Y D R VALLAC H E R A V E LYNN AVE SPARK GL E N R D NATCHEZ AVE SQUENTIN AVE S39TH S T W WOLFE P K W Y PARK C O M M O N S D R 34TH ST W PARK CENTER BLVDRALEIGH AVE SPRINCETON AVE SOTTAWA AVE SMINIKAHDA CTPARK NICOLLET BLVDMERID IAN LN 36TH ST WHIGHWAY 100 S39TH ST W Excelsior Blvd CorridorRedevelopment MapProjected vs. Actual Park Commons East Projected Actual Difference Commercial (sq. ft.) 143,700 123,981 (19,719) Office (sq. ft.)114,200 0 (114,200) Residential (units)660 644 (16) Al's Bar/AmericInn Site Projected Actual Difference Commercial (sq. ft.) 42,000 9,333 (32,667) Office (sq. ft.)22,000 7,140 (14,860) Residential (units)69 190 121 Hotel (rooms)36 0 (36) Park Commons West Projected Actual Difference Commercial (sq. ft.) 293,600 122,433 (171,167) Office (sq. ft.)923,100 529,883 (393,217) Residential (units)300 192 (108) Hotel (rooms)120 0 (120) Treatment Facility (beds) - 41 41 TOTAL Projected Actual Difference Commercial (sq. ft.) 479,300 255,747 (223,553) Office (sq. ft.)1,059,300 537,023 (522,277) Residential (units)1,029 1,026 (3) Hotel (rooms)156 0 (156) Treatment Facility (beds) - 41 41 1,000 Feet ¯ Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 3) Title: Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Discussion Page 233 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Discussion Item: 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Unimproved Alleys RECOMMENDED ACTION: This item is on the agenda at the Council’s request. Staff desires direction on the policy question noted below. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to change the Assessment Policy for alleys to allow for a level of City cost participation in their construction, reconstruction and maintenance? SUMMARY: There are 21.2 miles of alleys throughout the City. These alleys are broken down into two categories, improved and unimproved. According to City policy, for an alley to be considered improved, it is constructed of concrete. 16 miles of alleys have a concrete surface and meet the minimum standard for an improved alley. 5.2 miles of these alleys are considered unimproved according to City policy. Of the unimproved alleys, 2.36 miles are asphalt and 2.85 miles are gravel. The current City Assessment Policy for funding alley improvements, both initial construction and replacement, has the abutting property owners responsible for 100% of the improvement costs. The level of cost participation is shared between the property owners that have direct benefit (70% of the cost) and the property owners that have indirect benefit (30% of the cost). This policy was last updated in 2000. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated cost to pave the unimproved alleys remaining in the City is estimated to be $3.3 million. Additional information on this cost is included in the Discussion section. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Alley Map City Asset Management Summary - Alleys Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 2 Title: Unimproved Alleys DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: There are 21.25 miles of alleys throughout the City. 16 miles of alleys have a concrete surface and meet the minimum standard design for an improved alley. 5.2 miles of these alleys are considered unimproved according to City policy. Of the unimproved alleys, 2.36 miles are asphalt and 2.85 miles are gravel. The majority of our alleys were improved before 1980. Our oldest concrete alley was constructed in 1958. There have been 17 alley improvement projects since 1990. The life expectancy of a concrete alley is 50-70 years. The City’s Asset Management Summary for alleys is attached. Design/ Construction/ Materials The City’s standard design for alley paving includes six (6) inch thick concrete pavement, 10 feet in width, with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and abutting paved driveways. Private driveways, outside the alley right-of-way, are the responsibility of the property owner. The driveway connections will match existing materials and grades. Pavement grades will be established to provide positive drainage without requiring storm sewer construction where possible. Maintenance Repairs to alleys are made as needed whether identified during an inspection or by a service request. Repairs are made as soon as reasonably possible (if determined to be a hazard). Repairs to paved alleys are essentially limited to pothole patching; repairs requested beyond that are done by petition at the cost of benefitting adjacent owners. Gravel alleys are typically graded at least once per year. All alleys are plowed when snow accumulates to at least two inches. Alleys are very rarely sand/salted. Cost Estimate The estimated construction cost to pave the unimproved alleys remaining in the City is estimated as follows: Cost Construction $2,392,817.00 Contingency (20%) $478,563.40 Construction Total $2,871,380.40 Engineering and Admin (15%) $430,707.06 Total Improvement Cost $3,302,087.46 The construction estimate is based on actual costs of alleys constructed by the city in the early 2000s with a 3% a year inflationary increase. We have also added a contingency to this cost, to cover any unexpected costs. Funding The City Assessment policy was approved in 2000 as Resolution No. 00-078. The policy for funding alley improvements, both initial construction and replacement, has the abutting property owners responsible for 100% of the improvement costs. The level of cost participation is shared between the property owners that have direct benefit (70% of the cost) and the property owners that have indirect benefit (30% of the cost) The full text is below: Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 4) Page 3 Title: Unimproved Alleys “5. ALLEY PAVING A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows when at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement: 1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT) 2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT) B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage exists, there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley. C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of the improvement. D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.” Special assessments are a charge imposed on properties for a particular improvement that benefits the owners of those selected properties. The authority to use special assessments originates in the state constitution which allows the state legislature to give cities and other governmental units the authority “to levy and collect assessments for local improvements upon property benefited thereby.” The legislature confers that authority to cities in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. Minnesota state law, chapter 429.010 and 429.111 provides that a municipality shall have the power to make public improvements such as sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water source and distribution facilities, street improvements including grading, curb and gutter, surfacing, sidewalks, street lighting, landscaping, and recreational facilities, etc. The various procedures that the municipality must follow including reports, notices and public hearings are well defined within the law. The statute further provides that the cost of any improvement may be assessed upon property benefited by the improvement based upon the benefits received whether or not the property abuts on the improvement and whether or not any part of the cost of the improvement is paid from other funding sources. The law is not specific on how these benefits are to be measured or how the costs are to be apportioned, but rather makes it incumbent upon the municipality to determine with assistance of the city engineer, city attorney, appraisers or other qualified personnel, a fair and equitable method of cost sharing among the properties involved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is reviewing the City’s Assessment Policy to ensure that we are consistent with Council direction and State law. In conjunction with this review, we recommend that the section for alleys be reviewed for consistency with state statute. Any direction at this time from Council relating to the City’s cost participation in alley construction would be helpful. The assessment policy discussion is expected to be in front of the City Council in September. ")20 ")17 ")5 ")25 ")3 §¨¦394 £¤169 ¬«100 ¬«7 LYNN29TH TEXASMORNINGSIDE 36TH LAKE MO N T E R E YUTICARALEIGHVERNON 25THHAMPSHIRE BELTLINEMINNETONKA 32ND WOODDA L E S E R V I C E DR H IGH W A Y 7NATCHEZ35TH GAMBLE WAYZATA BLACKSTONE28TH 33RD WOLF EQUENTIN MONTEREY34TH M E A D O W B R O O K 26TH ZARTHAN41ST CEDARLAKE CEDA R L A K E BROWNDALEMACKEYFOREST WALKER JOPPAOTTAWALAKEINGLEWOODWALKERGEORGIA TOLEDOPARKDALE SALEM42 1/2 PA R K C O M M O N S 24TH22ND 43 1/2XENWOODCLUB 14TH DAKOTA24TH LOUISIANAWALKER 14TH 36TH CAVELL FRANCEGLENHURSTOREGONMONTEREY16TH XENWOODOXFOR D PARKLANDS26TH RHODE ISLAND18TH AQUILA33RD 43 1/2 23RD 28TH 27TH RANDAL L 22ND IDAHOJOPPA36TH 35TH CED A R W O O D MEADOWBROOKBRUNSWICKEDGEWOODHILLSBOROLI B R A R Y FRANKLIN QUEBEC36TH 42ND 35THBOONE 29TH 34TH CAMERATA 14TH 28TH 27TH 16TH UTICABURDWYOMING26TH S E R V IC E D R H IG H W A Y 7 WYOMING31STSUMTER 32ND TAFTVALLAC H E R 32ND 33RD 40TH FRANKLIN NATCHEZBARRY 32ND HAMILTON DIVISION 24TH 32 1/2 25 1/2 XENWOOD37TH 36 1/2TOLEDOR E P U B L I C BASSWOOD 40TH EDGEB R O O K 25 1/2 31ST 39THENSIGN29TH DAKOTA30 1/2 26TH YUKON18TH44TH 31S T ALABAMAOXFORDCOLORADO37THUTAH34 1/2 GLEN394HOVVIRGINIAINGLEWOODDAKOTAFRANKLIN KIPLINGWESTSIDE B O O N E JORDANSUMTER24TH BROOKJOPPAWOODCOLORADOGEORGIAJERSEY22ND N B H W Y 1 00 S TO EB I394 23RD 33RD LYNNB R O W N L O W FORD W E S T M O R E L A N D 13TH 13 1/2 WEBSTERYOSEMITEWEBSTERVIRG IN IA 31ST LYNNSALEMQUEBECQUEBEC16TH ZINRANDARTXYLONOREGONMARYLANDYUKONNEVADAOREGONVERNONIDAHONEVADAEDGEWOODHAMPSHIREFLORIDAPENNSYLVANIAIDAHOCAVELLMARYLANDDAKOTASALEMYOSEMITEPRINCETONRALEIGHALABAMAXYLONUTAHWEBSTERHIG H W O O D NEVADARHODEISLAND22ND NORTHYUKONFLAG23RDDECATURPHILLIPS 394 HOV M O N I T O R 37THKILMER NATCHEZWESTENDBRUNSWICKOTTAWA14TH VERNONWEBSTERZARTHAN35THHILLSBOROCAVELLHAMPSHIREDUKE 40THSUMTER22ND N B H W Y1 6 9 TO E B I394 STANLEN EDGEWOODKILMERXYLONP A R K G L E N CEDARWOOD RALEIGH28TH KNO LLW OO D MALL A CCE S LOUISIANAPARK PLACEPARK CENTER PARKCENTERKIPLINGALABAMAFRANCEPARKNICOLLETTEXASTEXASZARTHANUTICAVIRGINIA VIRGINIA GLENHURSTQUENTINID A H O 25TH PENNSYLVANIASHELARD SHELARD2NDAQUILAEB I394 TO SB HWY100 S YOSEMITECOLORADOFORDFORDUTAHOTTAWAFLAGFLAGBOONE25TH BROOK S ID EUTAHVIRGINIAKENTUCKYKENTUCKYFLAG HILLRIDGE EDGEWOODWAYZATA394 HOV E L IO T V IE W PAR K E R ZARTHANFORD BRUNSWICKHUNTINGTONCOLORADOF L AGFLAG KENTUCKYALLEYUTICAUTAHJERSEYBLACKSTONEALABAMAHUNTINGTONTOLEDOSALEMMELROSECAVELLUTAHJORDANPOWELL LOUISIANA394HOV23RD 28TH Unimproved Alleys 0 0.5 1 1.5Miles ¯ Legend Alleys Asphalt 12,439 ft (2.36 mi)/$1,082,691 (26) Gravel 15,052 ft (2.85 mi)/$1,310,126 (42) Concrete 84,718 ft (16.05 mi.)/(165) City Limits Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Unimproved Alleys Page 4 O:\Pubwks\Assets\Alleys\CIP-Mgmt\Alley Asset Mgmt.doc Page 1 of 2 ASSET MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Division: Operations – Streets Item: Alleys Date Created: January 3, 2005 Date Revised: June 24, 2014 Date Reviewed: June 24, 2014 How Asset is Managed: Scheduled maintenance (no scheduled replacement) Original Cost: Varies by location and year of construction. Vendor(s): Operations for repair. Bid process for replacement. Vendor Contact Info: Based on bid process. Responsible Party: Jeff Stevens, Operations, for maintenance Phillip Elkin, Engineering, for replacement Inventory: O:\Pubwks\Assets\Alleys\Inventory Inspection Frequency: Annually Inspection Criteria: Surface evidence of structural damage or deterioration (potholes, cracks). Severe rutting or potholing of unimproved alleys (gravel or asphalt). Maintenance Frequency: As needed. Maintenance Criteria: Service request – will repair if it is a hazard. Plow alleys when every accumulation of snow requires to plow streets. Alleys are very rarely sand/ salted. Maintenance cost: Plowing: ..\..\..\Operations\Snow\Storm Records\Yearly Storm Records\Year by Year Summary.xls Repair costs in Operations Budget currently under patching of alleys. Replacement Frequency: The city will fund alley maintenance/ repairs for the first 20 years after construction. Repair/replacement after 20 years is based upon condition of each alley and at the request/cost of adjacent owners. Replacement Criteria: Replacement is based upon adjacent lot owner petition. Process is managed by Engineering. Replacement Cost: Based upon bidding process. Approximately $90/ lin. ft. (2015) Replacement Approval Process: Petition process by adjacent lot owners to request project. City Council must authorize a contract for the project. Process is managed by Engineering. Replacement Public Process: See above. Regulatory Requirements: None Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Unimproved Alleys Page 5 O:\Pubwks\Assets\Alleys\CIP-Mgmt\Alley Asset Mgmt.doc Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ALLEY ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Program Objective The City of St. Louis Park believes that it is in the best interest of the residents for the City to maintain the city-owned alleys. The City will maintain the alleys in a safe and cost effective manner, keeping in mind safety, budget, personnel and environmental concerns. Background Alleys are an important part of transportation and service in St. Louis Park. The City will use city employees, equipment and/or private contractors to provide this service. Inspection Alleys are inspected annually by Operations staff. Alleys are also informally inspected during sweeping and snow plowing. During inspections, staff notes surface evidence of structural damage or deterioration, such as potholes and cracking. Maintenance Repairs to alleys are made as needed whether identified during an inspection or by a service request. Repairs are made as soon as reasonably possible (if determined to be a hazard). Repairs to paved alleys are essentially limited to pothole patching; repairs requested beyond that are done by petition at the cost of benefitting adjacent owners. Gravel alleys are typically graded at least once per year. All alleys are plowed when snow accumulates to at least two inches. Alleys are very rarely sand/salted. Installation / Replacement The adjacent lot owners present a petition to upgrade the alley to concrete or to replace an existing alley in poor condition. The installation/ replacement process is managed by Engineering. Funding Operations budget for maintenance. Property owners are assessed for installation/ replacement construction. The bidding process determines the cost of the project. Other Agency Involvement Adjacent property owners Regulations & Requirements None Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 4) Title: Unimproved Alleys Page 6 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Discussion Item: 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange Modifications RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish staff to pursue the recommendations made in this report to improve safety at this location SUMMARY: Engineering staff has been working with MnDOT on alternatives at this intersection due to the increase in crashes since the beginning of the Highway 100 construction. Staff is recommending no left turns at the exit ramps of Highway 7 to get onto Wooddale Avenue as a way to lower the number of accidents occurring at this intersection. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Intersection Crash Diagrams Map of Closure Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 5) Page 2 Title: Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange Modifications DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: During a study session on June 15, engineering staff proposed installing 4 way stops at the off ramps of Highway 7 onto Wooddale Avenue as a way to help lower the accident rate at these intersections. Accidents have gone up significantly in this area since the Highway 100 construction began. The tradeoff for the potential to have a lower accident rate via a four-way stop was the large backup which would occur. During the Study Session, other alternatives were discussed, including the possibility of closing the ramps or limiting left turns. In late June, engineering staff met with MnDOT traffic to discuss the following: 1. 4 way stops at each off ramp of Highway 7 to Wooddale Avenue 2. Elimination of the left hand turns at each off ramp of Highway 7 to Wooddale Avenue During this meeting it was clear that MnDOT traffic believed the current configuration was better than the 4 way stop option. MnDOT was open to the idea of eliminating the left hand turns at the ramps as long as the crash data maps supported it. The crash data which was assembled at this intersection show three movements in which the majority of the accidents are occurring. Please see the attached crash data maps. The areas of concern are as follows: A. Both off ramps of Highway 7 onto Wooddale Avenue. B. The left hand turns from southbound Wooddale Avenue to eastbound Highway 7. Engineering staff has reviewed the crash data and believes that a reduction of crashes will occur by eliminating the left hand turns at each off ramp of Highway 7 to Wooddale Avenue. As a way of minimizing disruption to police and fire response times, engineering is proposing to add a sign which allows emergency vehicles to make a left hand turn. Due to the amount of traffic making a left hand turn from southbound Wooddale Avenue to eastbound Highway 7, staff believes that this movement should still be allowed. If council is in support of these restrictions staff will work with MnDOT on the detour routes and needed signage. The timeline for implementation is proposed as follows: 1. Install advance warning signage, notify nearby neighborhoods, businesses, schools, and post on social media August 11. 2. Close left hand turns at both ramps beginning August 18. Staff is anticipating that these restrictions would be temporary and would remain until the closure of Highway 7 east of Wooddale Avenue is in-place. The Highway 7 closure is expected to occur late October to early November and be closed for approximately 300 days to remove and construct the Highway 7 Bridge over Highway 100. STOP STOPRAILROAD TH 7 EB ON RAM PWOODDALE AVETH 7 W B ON RAM P TH 7 EB OFF RAM P TH 7 W B OFF RAM PWOODDALE AVEWOODDALE AVESTOPSTOPSTOPW ALKER ST HW Y 7 FRONTAGE RDHWY 7 FRONTAGE RD CEDAR LK TRAIL CEDAR LK TRAIL M NTH 7 EB M NTH 7 W B Collision DiagramNorthMinnesota Department of TransportationPrepared By: MRDate: 7/15/2015Location: WOODDALE AVE Time Period: 2015 (Pre-Construction) 01/03/15 (19) Dl-S-S 01/21/15 (15) L-C-D 01/13/15 (09) L-C-D C Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange ModificationsPage 3 STOP03/17/2015 (19) L-C-WM[2]C 04/05/15 (11) L-C-D C STOPRAILROAD TH 7 EB ON RAM PWOODDALE AVETH 7 W B ON RAM P TH 7 EB OFF RAM P TH 7 W B OFF RAM PWOODDALE AVEWOODDALE AVESTOPSTOPSTOPW ALKER ST HW Y 7 FRONTAGE RDHWY 7 FRONTAGE RD CEDAR LK TRAIL CEDAR LK TRAIL 03/23/15 (17) L-C-W 04/03/15 (18) L-C-D 04/13/15 (19) L-C-DC C 06/16/15 (15) L-C-D 05/15/15 (16) L-C-D 05/13/15 (16) L-C-D03/28/15 (12) L-C-D 05/07/15 (08) L-C-D 06/05/15 (14) L-C-D M NTH 7 EB M NTH 7 W B 01/23/15 (12) L-C-D 07/11/15 (00) Dl-C-DC 07/13/15 (14) L-C-DB 07/10/15 (17) L-C-D Collision DiagramNorthMinnesota Department of TransportationPrepared By: MRDate: 7/15/2015Location: WOODDALE AVE Time Period: 2015 During Construction Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange ModificationsPage 4 STOP STOPRAILROAD TH 7 EB ON RAM PWOODDALE AVETH 7 W B ON RAM P TH 7 EB OFF RAM P TH 7 W B OFF RAM PWOODDALE AVEWOODDALE AVESTOPSTOPSTOPW ALKER ST HW Y 7 FRONTAGE RDHWY 7 FRONTAGE RD CEDAR LK TRAIL CEDAR LK TRAIL Collision DiagramNorthMinnesota Department of TransportationM NTH 7 EB M NTH 7 W BPrepared By: MRDate: 6/22/2015Location: WOODDALE AVE Time Period: 201410/02/14 (18) Du-R-W 10/22/14 (17) L-C-D 04/28/14 (14) L-R-W 11/18/14 (16) Dl-C-D 08/04/14 (09) L-C-D 05/01/14 (11) L-C-WC 02/21/14 (15) L-C-S C 06/18/14 (07) L-C-W 11/22/14 (15) L-C-W 09/03/14 (11) L-R-W Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange ModificationsPage 5 ¬«7WO O D D A L E WO O D D A L E 35TH S E R V IC E D R H IG H WA Y 7WALKERWOODDALEAVETOWBHWY7 W O O D D A L E A V E T O E B H W Y 7 W B H WY 7 T O W O O D D A L E A VE E B H W Y 7 T O W OOD D A L E A V E 0 30 60 90 120Feet ² ProposedNo Left Turnsto Wooddale Ave. from Highway 7 Legend Left Turn Lane Closure Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 5) Title: Wooddale Avenue & Highway 7 Temporary Interchange Modifications Page 6 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Written Report: 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the progress of the Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the improvements being discussed for the Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project? SUMMARY: On March 11, 2013 the City Council approved a 10 year Storm Water Capital Improvement Plan. The Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project was approved as part of this plan. The overall focus of the project includes repairing the damage from past practices, improving the aesthetics, improving habitat and preventing future degradation of the resource. In previous Staff reports, the improvement project has been broken down into four separate phases: Vegetation Management, Dredging, Utility Improvements and Restoration. Work began on the vegetation management this spring with the Arbor Day event and continues with work on an overall vegetation management plan. During the past three months the City Engineering Staff has been collecting information needed to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). This document is necessary for a MnDNR permit for working within the wetland. As part of our findings in preparing the EAW, it was discovered that the nuisance cattails, which the removal of is a goal of the project, are actually floating on a bog of peat and that the depth of the wetland is 3-4 feet below this floating bog. This discovery has changed the focus and direction of the project which are outlined in the attached discussion along with an update on each of the phases of the project. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The overall Bass Lake Restoration Project has a budget of $5,826,000 and is funded by using the Stormwater Utility Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Design Concept Highlights from Vegetation Management Plan Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 2 Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: The goal of the Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project is to improve the water quality, remove contamination and improve the overall aesthetics of this important City resource. To accomplish this goal, the project has been divided into four phases of improvements; infrastructure, excavation, vegetation and restoration. The Engineering Department is leading the design process for the project. Key Staff from the Operations and Recreation Department are also a part of the design team and are involved with decision making. Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Staff has been working to complete an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) which is necessary to receive agency approval before any work within the lake itself can occur. Barr Engineering has been assisting the City in this effort by writing the language of the EAW using the information that Staff has collected along with the Great River Greening (GRG) plan. This document is expected to be completed in August, where it will undergo a 30 day public and agency comment period. Approval of this document will allow the City to undertake improvements within the lake area. Vegetation improvements, which do not fall under the MnDNR jurisdiction, have already been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Vegetation Management On May 9 of this year, area I of the vegetation management phase was implemented as part of Arbor Day in the City. This project removed a large number of undesirable trees including invasive species and planted 275 new trees. The result of this effort has been a noticeable difference in improved vistas to the Bass Lake Preserve area as well as healthier ecosystem. To ensure that our new plantings meet long term goals, Great River Greening (GRG) was hired to prepare a comprehensive plan that focuses on the removal of invasive and undesirable species, re-introduction native vegetation while focusing on habitat restoration as well as a long term maintenance plan. This plan is designed to outline the appropriate plant species and locations that will promote the habitat for the desired wildlife and to improve on the overall aesthetics of the Preserve. GRG has submitted a draft plan to the City for review. We have included highlights of this submission with this report. Excavation Prior to excavation in the wetland, the soils must be tested for known contaminates to determine what level of disposal the excavated material will require. In collecting these samples, the direction of our project took an unexpected turn. Previously, the condition of dominant cattails had been attributed to a shallow lake bottom caused by long-ago purposeful filling and siltation. While Staff was collecting soil samples, it was discovered that, in fact the lake had more depth than previously believed. The cattails were found to be growing on a floating bog. In digging around the testing areas, Staff found that the cattail growth was occurring on a layer of floating peat 12-18 inches thick and that below the peat layer was 3-4 feet of water. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Page 3 Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update This discovery has major implications in how we move forward. While removal of this material and disposal options became much easier, the amount of material allowed to be removed was reduced. The MnDNR will allow up to 50% of the lake cover to be removed in cases like Bass Lake Preserve where the non-native species is negatively affecting habitat. With this restriction, the proposed plan is now to remove an approximate 100 feet wide swath along the shoreline to achieve open water (as shown in the attached Design Concept exhibit). The Design Concept exhibit also illustrates the level of contamination found. While the areas identified for cattail removal are suitable for general fill disposal, the areas on the western border of the wetland are highly contaminated and will require additional testing. For this reason we are proposing to request a Voluntary Investigation and Pollution Cleanup (VIC) from the MPCA in this area. This evaluation will document existing conditions, allow us to apply for funding assistance and find a suitable location for disposal. Infrastructure In addition to the change in direction of the dredging efforts, the extent of the infrastructure improvements has also been found to be less of an impact that previously thought. In earlier reports, the apparent excessive silting of the lake was attributed to the discharge pipes out letting into the lake. While we have found some areas that need improvement, the majority of inlet pipes are not a significant contributor of degradation to the lake. 2015 Schedule August- EAW out for comment August- Public Meeting to present EAW and Vegetative Management Plan September -Area II Vegetation Management Plan December 2015 - Cattail Removal 3 5 T H S T PARK G L E N R D BELTLINEBLVD3 6 T H S T 3 6 1 /2 S T CP RR 34TH ST RANDAL L A V E GLENHURST AVEHUNTINGTON AVE\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\Proposed Stormwater Management Pond Proposed Voluntary Investigation and Pollution Cleanup area (VIC) Clear cattail area for the installation of new outlet control structure 100 foot vegetation management buffer ±200 0 200100 Feet Bass Lake PreserveRestoration Project Legend Proposed Improvement Areas Stormwater Pond VIC Vegetation Management \\\\Potential Boardwalk Project Area Trails "?B Storm Structrue Storm Mains Design Conceptfor Open Water Areas Proposed Improvements Proposed VIC dredging area: 6.7 Acres Proposed 100 foot buffer area: 10.7 Acres Proposed outlet control structure area: 1 Acre Proposed ponding area: 1 Acre Estimated excavation volume: Approximately 40,000 cu. yds. It is anticipated that entire Bass Lake area will not be dredged, the purpose of this figure is to identify potential dredging areas in order to determine estimated excavation volumes for each selected area. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 4 Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 5 vDraftTable of Contents Executive Summary 1 1. Background and History of Site 3 1.1 Land Use History 4 1.2 Historic Aerial Photos 6 1.3 Pre-settlement Vegetation 13 1.4 Bibliography 13 2. Current Conditions and Use 15 2.1 Geological Context 17 2.2 Soils 17 2.3 Minnesota Land Cover Classifi cation System (MLCCS) 19 2.4 Bibliography 20 3. Natural Resources Management & Mission Sustainability 21 3.1 Habitat Types 23 3.2 Threats and Opportunities 24 Opportunities 26 3.3 Cultural Areas 27 3.4 Bibliography 32 4. Management Actions 33 4.1 Implementation Plan for Restoring Native Plant Communities 33 4.2 Implementation Schedules 48 4.3 Invasive and Noxious Terrestrial Plant Management 57 Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) 57 Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus) 57 Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) 59 Honeysuckle (Lonicera tartarica, L. morrowii, L. x bella) 60 Birdsfoot Trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) 62 Burdock (Arctium minus) 63 Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) 64 Crown Vetch (Coronilla varia) 66 Sweet Clover (Melilotus offi cinalis, M. alba) 67 Motherwort (Leonurus cardiaca) 68 Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) 69 Amur Maple (Acer ginnala) 71 Combined Maintenance Tables 71 4.4 Bibliography 75 Appendix A: Soil Map Unit Descriptions 77 Appendix B: Plant Species Lists 99 Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 6 1Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftExecutive Summary The goal of this document is to provide a strategic framework with technical considerations to achieve a more functional, resilient, livable Bass Lake social ecological system. The framework is based on three guiding principles: 1) the project is technically feasible, 2) the project is economically viable, and 3) the project is scientifi cally valid (Cairns 2000). The framework employs theories, concepts, and models based on: 1) planetary evolutionary trends, 2) edaphic constraints, 3) historic analysis, 4) alternative stable state and state transition models, 5) resilience, and 6) social ecological systems. The restoration scenario we develop here offers St. Louis Park guidance to implement a project to enhance the ecological integrity of Bass Lake Preserve in ways that are sustainable to the City and inviting to the community. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 7 3Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraft1. Background and History of Site Th e Bass Lake Terrestrial Basin Ecosystem The historic structure of the Bass Lake biotic community consisted of open tree groves interspersed by patches of open prairie. Underbrush and dense tree growth was disallowed by a multitude of grazing browsing herbivores and fi re. Herbivory and fi re used to encourage herbivory, created a positive feedback loop that strongly maintained open structure and consumed any dead down wood. Herbivores included beaver, elk, passenger pigeons, bison, rabbits, mice and a host of herbivorous insects. During hot sunny days, herbivores restricted their activities to the shady groves where intense herbivory resulted in grazing lawns (McNaughton 1984). Grazing lawns were the dominant vegetation in the groves and can be described as a short cool season community composed of low growing and prostrate graminoids and forbs. The openness facilitated cool drying breezes that inhibited small biting insects and decomposing microbial and fungal populations. The openness allowed easy movement through the landscape and areas of respite for many organisms including humans. Historic Structure of the Bass Lake Preserve Terrestrial Biotic Community The historic classifi cation for Bass Lake was likely Palustrine Emergent Marsh (PEM) (Cowardin 1979). Historic documents indicate the presence of fi sh; however, sustainable fi sh populations in Bass Lake would only be possible if the lake was deep enough or with enough current to prevent winter kill. The actual depth of the historic Bass Lake can be determined through sediment boring. A complete restoration of the historic Bass Lake can only be realized through knowing the historic lacustrine substrate and dredging to achieve it. These lacustrine substrates are important to the water chemistry of the lake. This is not a recommendation to move towards a complete restoration, but is instead a statement on the importance of substrate structure on water quality. The low catena associated with Bass Lake means it has acted as a landscape receiving basin for thousands of years. Low catena landscapes, including wetlands, marshes, and lakes are susceptible to nutrient saturation. In the historic Bass Lake ecosystem, nutrients entering the basin were strongly regulated through organisms, and nutrient loading was insignifi cant. Nutrients that made it to the lake were exported out by another set of biotic controls. Therefore, in historic times, low catena basins existed in the clear water state. These controls included edible aquatic plants feeding migrating waterfowl nutrients, or winter fi sh kills feeding nutrients to terrestrial predators, and aquatic reptiles nutrient rich eggs in upland soils feeding raccoons, or the masses Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 8 21Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraft3. Natural Resources Management & Mission Sustainability Figure 3.1: Trail and bench, ©Todd Rexine Restoration The people of St. Louis Park desire to evaluate the ecological composition associated with the Bass Lake Preserve, making it more pleasant for respite, recreation, and provide more opportunities to explore nature in an urban environment. The fi rst step is to design scenarios that describe different outcomes. The second step is to identify habitat archetypes that the site could be restored towards. The third is to assess opportunities and threats to restoration. These three combined help to inform which we can devise goals and objectives strategies to achieve a successful project. Scenarios: The following scenarios and accompanying strategies are designed to inform us on ways to achieve a more functional, resilient, livable Bass Lake social ecological system. The strategies and scenarios are based on three principles: 1) the project is technically feasible, 2) the project is economically viable, and 3) the project is scientifi cally valid (Cairns 2000). Scenario I. Complete Restoration: Complete restoration implies we achieve a community confi guration that resembles St Louis Park circa 1491, complete with large herbivores and frequent fi re. This will require reductions in tree densities by 90%, denitrifi cation of soils and muck, eliminating the current herbaceous vegetation, reseeding and implementing a multiple year establishment maintenance regime, putting in place perimeter and paddock fencing, locating producers willing to graze Bass Lake, and implementing frequent fi re. Scenario II. Leave it as is: In this scenario no management is implemented and the site is left as is. Scenario III. Restoration of Functional Ecosystems: This option is focused less on restoring a subjective historic plant community and more on restoring a functional ecosystem. In this scenario, the community confi guration is composed of desirable species, but it’s not the same composition or confi guration of the historic community confi guration. More importantly, the new confi guration is functional which is the foundational concept of “Resilience”. Functional ecosystems provision quality ecosystem services including food and fi ber production, water purifi cation, soil Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 9 22 Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan - City of St. Louis ParkDraftFigure 3.2: Bass Lake Preserve Work Units Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 10 23Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftbuilding, nutrient regulation, fl ood mitigation, and cultural amenities including recreational, esthetic, and spiritual opportunities for humans. Restoring functional ecosystems instead of historic confi gurations will require a different set of expectations, whereby visions of pristine native plants communities are replaced by concepts of desirable vegetation, ecosystem services, resilience and livability. Strategies to achieve a functional Bass Lake ecosystem include: 1) Reduce internal nutrient loads by harvesting biomass. 2) Reduce nitrogen inputs, including road wash, mower discharge, and neighborhood contributions of lawn clippings and pet feces. 3) Thinning trees and shrubs to increase sunlight to the ground layer. 4) Leveling steep slopes to permit small tractors to mow and harvest biomass. 5) Transition vegetation from being dominated by undesirable to desirable species. 3.1 Habitat Types The site lends itself to restoration towards two primary habitat archetypes. Due to the current altered state of the soils, vegetation make up and the location in an urban landscape a full restoration to a pristine natural habitat is unrealistic. What can be accomplished though is to create a healthier ecosystem for the fl ora and fauna in the area. As a side affect of creating a sustainable healthy ecosystem the user experience will increase as species diversity increases on the site with a broader array of fl owering species, pollinators, birds, and other wildlife. The two primary ecosystem archetypes that lend themselves to restoration on the site are Savanna and Floodplain Forest . Both of these systems allow for varied habitat types with in them as well as varied user experiences while walking through the Preserve. Savanna The Savanna archetype would fall along the western and northern edge of the site: Units 1 - 6 (see fi gure 3.2). This corresponds with the topography in these areas being higher and not susceptible to fl uctuation of water levels associated with storm events. Savannas are comprised of large open grown trees with a ground cover combination of graminoids (grasses,sedges, rushes) and wildfl owers. Trees are spaced out and allow sun light to get to the ground layer allowing for a diverse ground layer complex. The understory or shrub layer is minimal and spotty. Typically Savanna areas are found in upland areas that are dry and have well drained soils. Any shrub layer would have been kept in check by periodic fi res and grazing mammals. Floodplain Forest Those areas along Bass Lake’s shoreline and lowlands provide for more of a Floodplain Forest ecosystem. These areas tend to be along the eastern and southern edges of Bass Lake Preserve: Units 7 -10 (see fi gure 3.2). These sections of Bass Lake have the potential for water fl uctuation after rain events as the surrounding landscape drains into Bass Lake. The soils tend to be moist or wet through out the growing season. A lot of the typical fl ood plain tree species already occur on site such as Cottonwoods (Polpulus deltoides), American Elm (Ulmus americana), Black and Green Ash (Fraxinus nigra and F. pennsylvanica), Black Willow (Salix nigra), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), and Boxelder (Acer negundo). Floodplain forests tend to have and open understory. The shrub layer tends to be on the edges or where sun light is able to penetrate the canopy. Ground layer is composed of graminoids and forbes that can tolerate wet soils and shade. Goals: 1. Woody vegetation is thinned to provide a more open Bass Lake Basin 2. Dense stands of undesirable vegetation are replaced by more desirable vegetation Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 11 24 Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan - City of St. Louis ParkDraft3. A desirable ground layer vegetation is reestablished 4. Rough terrain is smoothed allowing better access for long term maintenance. 5. Dead down woody debris is reduced in order to facilitate long term management 6. A long term management plan is implemented to reinforce open Floodplain Forest Objectives: 1. Woody vegetation (< 9” dbh) is thinned by 80% 2. Woody vegetation (< 14” dbh) is thinned by 25% 3. Woody vegetation is thinned in patterns that permit long term management 4. Rough terrain is smoothed to facilitate long term maintenance 5. Undesirable vegetation domination is reduced by 80% 6. Desirable vegetation cover is increased to 80% 7. Dead down woody debris is reduced by 80% 8. A long term management regime is implemented and includes mowing, collecting dead down wood, tree thinning, and chemical treatments. 3.2 Th reats and Opportunities An understanding of threats and opportunities facing any form of restoration or enhancement of the terrestrial habitat at Bass Lake Preserve will help with the success of the overall project. Threats can become a larger issue only if there is not an understanding of how they need to be managed and kept in check. Opportunities are topics that allow for greater ecological impact or visitor enhancement. Th reats Excessive Nutrient Loads Nitrogen is considered the limiting terrestrial nutrient for plants. Fertilizers for lawns and agricultural crops contain nitrogen. Farmers will apply upwards to 170 pounds of nitrogen per acre year for corn farming and it’s nitrogen that produces the lush green appearance of fertilized lawns. However, too much of any good thing can lead to undesirable outcomes. In a concept known as the “paradox of enrichment (Rosenzweig 1971), too much of a good thing, at some threshold, destabilizes the community confi guration we intend to enhance. In the case of vegetation, too much nitrogen will facilitate excessive weed growth of nitrogen loving species, or “nitrophiles” (Curtis 1971). Many “invasive” plant species aren’t necessarily invasive, but are instead nitrophiles and symptomatic of eutrophic soils. Nitrophiles display a similar set of traits, including fast growing, competitive, non-edible, irritant producing, and labile structures. When soil nitrogen levels exceed a threshold, nitrophilic species rapidly outcompete desirable vegetation. Furthermore, nitrophilic species reinforce the eutrophic state by producing excessive labile, nonfl ammable, and non-edible biomass that is, “left to rot to worm and weevil” (Leopold 1949). This represents a classic example of the “alternative stable state and state transition model” (Scheffer et al. 2001). Historically, soil nitrogen levels are at least three times higher (Galloway et al. 2004), and nitrophilic plants are increasingly dominating our vegetation, a symptom of soil eutrophication. The primary sources of excess nitrogen include burning fossil fuels and using fertilizers. Another aspect of soil eutrophication is the loss of denitrifi cation by fi re and the loss nitrogen reservoirs associated with herbivores. Historic fi re burned thatch biomass and in the process transformed organic nitrogen into atmospheric dinitrogen. The loss of fi re allows the buildup of thatch, including herbaceous plant debris, dead down wood, and tree leaves. The biomass eventually decomposes and releases nitrogen into the soil instead of the atmosphere. Likewise, the loss of herbivores on the landscape translates to a loss of a signifi cant nitrogen reservoir. For example, the historic North American elk population acted as a 2.8 billion pound nitrogen reservoir. If we include the loss of historic beaver, bison, passenger pigeon, waterfowl, and other wildlife populations, we can see how the nitrogen cycle has gone from being intrabiotic to extrabiotic (Odum 1969), or instead of being tied-up in living organisms, nitrogen is readably available in the environment. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 12 25Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftSources of Nitrogen at Bass Lake include atmospheric deposition at a 5-7% annual rate (Galloway et al. 2004), excessive leaf litter and woody debris created by an afforested landscape, road wash carrying tailpipe reactive nitrogen compounds, and neighborhood contributions of lawn clippings and pet feces. Nitrogen is water soluble and fl ows downhill with the water. Low areas can exhibit fi ve times the amount of nitrogen than uplands. Since Bass Lake is the lowest landscape catena, nitrogen has and will continue to accumulate in the basin Nitrophilic species are numerous in the Bass Lake landscape. Herbaceous species in particular include: Burdock (Arctium lappa), Common Milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Bull Thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Motherwort (Leonurus cardiac), Reed Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea), Common Dock (Rumex crispus), and Narrow-Leaf Cattail (Typha angustifolia). Woody nitrophilic species include Box Elder (Acer negundo), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and Red Elm (Ulmus rubra). Both types of vegetation, herbaceous and woody, produces copious amounts of decomposing detritus that promotes rapid nitrogen fl ow. The thick growth also promotes humid environments favorable to detritivore populations that also accelerates nutrient fl ow (Nowacki, 2008). Undesirable Vegetation Project goals include a reduction in cover by undesirable vegetation and an increase in cover by desirable vegetation. While much of the Bass Lake Basin is devoid of any vegetation due to intense shade, the few open sunny patches in the Bass Lake Basin are dominated by undesirable vegetation. The undesirable vegetation is in direct response to sunlight and high nutrient loads. This observation should inform tree thinning strategies and near and long term management. Tree thinning should occur in ways that avoid too much sunlight in any one particular space. Areas thinned need to be managed in ways that discourage undesirable vegetation while promoting desirable vegetation. Mowing offers an effi cient and effective mechanism for achieving these objectives. Afforestation The American Society of Forests defi nes “afforestation” as, “The establishment of a forest or stand in an area where the preceding vegetation or land use was not forest”. Afforestation is facilitated by the loss of herbivores, including beaver, elk, bison, and passenger pigeons, coupled to the loss of Amerindian fi re. Woody plants that were formerly suppressed by browsing and fi re were released. The loss of herbivory and fi re also resulted in a signifi cant loss of a nitrogen reservoir and a denitrifi cation process. The resulting buildup of nutrients allowed for more competitive tree species, such as green ash and red elm, to outcompete more symbiotic tree species such as oak and hickory. Like other nitrophilic species, the competitive trees reinforce high nitrogen environments. The nitrophilic tree species, not being limited by nitrogen, produce copious amounts of seed. The seeds germinate immediately on coming into contact with soil. The fast growing nature of nitrophilic species soon overtop more desirable tree and herbaceous plant species. The desirable vegetation is outcompeted for sunlight and eventually fails. Within a generation, an old fi eld can transition from grassland to treeland. We shouldn’t confuse afforested “treelands” with “forest”. The term “forest” should be reserved for a type of vegetation, composed of forest vegetation that is Cretaceous and older in origin. Afforested lands are recent and novel confi gurations. Novel biotic confi gurations, typical of high nitrogen environments, are disconnected, and instead of being complex, they are complicated. Only the most competitive species survive, often forming dense monocultures. Competitive species allocate few if any resources to symbiotic structures, such as edible structures, including nectar, pollen, forage or fruits. In the worst case scenario, when resources aren’t limiting, competitive species produce irritates and allopathic compounds that discourage other life forms. Afforested lands have become an increasingly common landscape feature. They serve us with few if any ecosystem services and represent a serious threat to global sustainability. Rough Terrain Some soils in the Bass Lake Preserve are disturbed and are therefore considered a near and long term threat to site preparation and maintenance. A successful project in the Bass Lake Basin will require frequent machine and foot access as mowing or haying will become the number one near and long term management tool employed to ensure goals and objectives are achieved and maintained. Smooth terrain will allow for easier long term management to achieve the objectives for the site. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 13 26 Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan - City of St. Louis ParkDraftWoodchips The woodchips in Units 1 and 2 represent a signifi cant threat to future vegetation management. The use of woodchips and mulch represents a classic example of a tactic designed to achieve some specifi c objective, such as soil stabilization and weed control, that overtime actually achieves the exact opposite objective. In this case, the woodchips will decompose releasing nitrogen and unleash a rank vegetation maelstrom that accelerates soil erosion. Also, woodchips and mulch in drought conditions pose a wildfi re threat, and during wet conditions, fungal spores can negativity impact air quality. Financial Constraints Total restoration of a pristine wetland is probably not economically viable or technically feasible, considering the Bass Lake Basin context (e.g. urban setting, fi ll, and catena). It is the objective of this document to provide St. Louis Park with a restoration / mitigation pathway that is economically viable, technically feasible, and scientifi cally valid. Opportunities People Bass Lake is surrounded by an urban environment and the trail is used by a variety of groups. Thinning the brush and removing trees and dead down wood will improve the environment of Bass Lake by making it more inviting to more people. Reconnecting people to natural areas will create more awareness to the benefi ts of green open spaces. Trees Although we have noted the overabundance of trees at Bass Lake, we are fortunate to have trees on the site. The trees provide shade for park visitors and habitat for wildlife. On several occasions, park visitors expressed their desire to maintain shade over the trail. Cared should be taken to be attentive to what trees and the location of trees removed. Trees should be harvested in ways to provide trail shade. Larger trees will be left in key strategic locations that maximize shade on the trail. It is recommended the City of St. Louis Park continue with their planting of higher quality trees, such as oaks, maple, and aspen. Eventually, the dominant tree species at Bass Lake will represent Water Quality Upon visual inspection, the water quality associated with Bass Lake appears clear. The water is clear and restoration efforts should focus on reconnecting trail visitors to the lake. Community Engagement Restoration should include community engagement. Volunteer events can facilitate community engagement, ownership and achieve work goals and objectives. Eventually a group of community stewards could step forward to adopt Bass Lake Preserve. Access and User Experience While restoration of the vegetation is being undertaken providing varying types of access to Bass Lake Preserve should be kept in mind. There is the potential for creating a board walk across Bass Lake. This would allow users to get out on to Bass Lake and experience the wetland vegetation and wildlife Figure 3.4: Low culvert allowing water to back fl ow to wetland Figure 3.3: Bridge on elevated trail allowing lake connection to backwater area Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 14 27Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftthat comprise a major portion of the site. It also would allow for a short loop for those patrons that don’t have the time or endurance level to walk the full loop. The existing trail itself allows for various types of access and experience as it is currently laid out. There is the potential to enhance the trail along the southern side by either fi lling or by elevating the trail. If the trail is merely elevated (fi gure 3.3 and 3.4) as opposed to fi lling in the surrounding landscape there is the opportunity to reconnect the small wetland basins to the south of the lake that have been cut off by the existing trail alignment. This can be accomplished by installing culverts or rustic bridges and advantageous locations. Vistas and vantage points are something to also keep in mind as the understory is opened up with the removal of unwanted trees and shrubs and exotic vegetation. These areas would allow for patrons a place for repose along the trail to take in the surrounding landscape and wildlife. This could be benches or merely a pull off with a plaque denoting something important about what they are seeing and experiencing. 3.3 Cultural Areas With any restoration of a public open space in an urban environment care needs to be exercised to how the restoration will affect surrounding neighbors as well as any access or structural areas that are needed on the site. Surrounding area Depending on the neighbor and the buffer to the trail the opening up of the understory maybe un welcomed. Native shrub plantings can be away to help private landowners retain their sense of privacy while still improving the habitat quality of the site overall. Sample shrub list: Amorpha fruticosa False Indigo Cornus sericea Red-osier Dogwood Ilex verticillata Winterberry Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Viburnum lentago Nannyberry Viburnum rafi nesquianum Downy Arrowwood Viburnum trilobum Highbush Cranberry More information on exposure, habitat, height, and bloom time can be found in Appendix B: Plant Species Lists Stormwater treatment There has been discussion of the stormwater treatment area in the Northeast corner of Bass Lake Preserve and what that should look like. Care should be taken as to what type of plant species are retained or planted in this area. From a maintenance stand point it would be best to limit the amount of trees or shrubs in this area that shed bud scale and fl owers in the spring and leaves in the fall. With out removal of the leaves they will decompose into compost creating an area for seeds to germinate. Unwanted detritus around sand fi ltration structures can cause a maintenance headache. If the detritus aren’t removed they will lead to the eventual failing of the system as the sand gets choked up with compost and vegetation. A better strategy is to treat the area as an open wetland environment planting graminoids and forbs with low stature shrubs for screening if so desired. See table 3.1. and 3.2 For a sample plant list for this area. Attention to sunlight exposure will need to be monitored when selecting fi nal plant list. Figure 3.5: Vista with bench Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 15 43Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftFigure 4.2: Bass Lake Preserve Work Units Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 16 44 Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan - City of St. Louis ParkDraftGeneral Comments The following information provides general recommendations for the entire Bass Lake Preserve. Woody Vegetation Remove all buckthorn Harvest 80% of trees (< 9” dbh) (Green Ash, Cottonwood, Red Elm, Boxelder) and treat stumps of all species except aspen. Harvest 25% of trees (< 16” dbh) (Green Ash, Cottonwood, Red Elm, Boxelder) and treat stumps of all species except aspen Target female trees, including Cottonwood and Green Ash Clean up down wood to facilitate future maintenance and reduce decomposition All standing trees and shrubs are lopped (4’ to 8’ feet high) to mimic browse lines and fi re singe Plant high quality trees and shrubs (Figure ? Tree and Shrub List) in suitable locations. Vegetation Seed soils with a graminoid mix (Table 4.1 & 4.2). Mow vegetation 3 times the fi rst season Spot herbicide treat for broad-leaf weeds listed in (see Section 4.3) Mow vegetation 2 times per year for 3 years following the fi rst mowing. (Mow in late June and mid-August). Monitor to determine weedy sections and less weedy sections Increase mowing weedy sections Implement wildfl ower (Table 4.3 & 4.4) reintroductions in less weedy areas. Wildfl ower seed mix is broadcast seeded in fall or late winter. Seed several times (multiple seed rains) over a period of several years. Identify key locations for intensive fl ower propagation (butterfl y gardens) Conduct volunteer event for planting wildfl owers, trees and shrubs. Unit Specifi cations The following information unit specifi c notes and recommendations that were taken for Bass Lake Preserve. These work units are based on site visits and delineated according to homogeneity of vegetation, edaphic attributes and similar tasks. Work Units are shown in fi gure 4.2. Unit 1 (fi gures 4.3) Size: 1 acre Remove woodchips Mow undesirable vegetation to prevent seed production and decrease sunlight competition Herbicide treat undesirable vegetation Seed bare soils Implement maintenance mowing and spot herbicide treatment procedures Figure 4.3 : Work Unit 1: Weeds and resprouting trees coming through woodchips. Weeds in the photograph include Burdock, Catnip and Motherwort. Resprouting trees include Boxelder and Buckthorn. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 17 45Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftUnit 2 (fi gure 4.4 & 4.5) Size: 0.75 acres Remove woodchips Skid steer level and smooth rough terrain Mow undesirable vegetation to prevent seed production and decrease sunlight competition Herbicide treat undesirable vegetation Seed bare soils Implement maintenance mowing and spot herbicide treatment procedures Install bench Unit 3 Size: 0.4 acres Remove woodchips. Remove Mulberry (Morus rubra) Wall of Buckthorn Native pollinator garden along mowed turf pond Unit 4 Size: 1 acre Some mowing has occurred here and there no Buckthorn Control Leafy spurge (fi gure 4.6) Smaller Buckthorn clearing Unit 5 Size: 1.8 acres Gazebo and viewsheds (fi gure 4.7) Larger trees, mainly cottonwood North knoll offers a nice high area for savanna restoration Figure 4.5: Woodchips associated with Work Units 1 – 2. The ruler shows 9 inches, but the ruler isn’t near the bottom. Figure 4.4: Work Unit 2. Weeds growing in woodchip include Canada thistle. Figure 4.6: Image showing how mowing eliminates Buckthorn but facilitates Leafy Spurge in Unit 4. Figure 4.7: Unit 5 photograph showing potential viewsheds over Bass Lake. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 18 46 Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan - City of St. Louis ParkDraftUnit 6 (fi gure 4.8 & 4.9) Size: 2.2 acres Lots of potentials to open up viewsheds to the Bass Lake Caution, tree removal on the south side (lake side) of the trail needs to consider the amount of sunlight falling on the trail. Thinner harvest recommended, smaller shrubs and buckthorn, leave enough canopy trees to keep some shade on the trail. Water run off over the trail. Potential stormwater basin Shrub screen between trail and residential/commercial structures Some dense buckthorn Unit 7 Size: 0.65 acres Lots of potentials to open up viewsheds to the Bass Lake Caution, tree removal on the south side (lake side) of the trail needs to consider the amount of sunlight falling on the trail. (fi gure 4.10) Thinner harvest recommended, shrubs, buckthorn, leave enough canopy trees to keep shade on the trial. Shrub screen between trail and residential/commercial structures Some sunlighted areas showing excessive weed growth Unit 8 Size: 1.5 acres Some nice potential views Some sunlighted areas showing excessive weed growth Shrub screen between trail and residential/commercial structures Some sedge meadow species (fi gure 4.12) Lots of potentials to open up viewsheds to the Bass Lake Caution, tree removal on the south side (lake side) of the trail needs to consider the amount of sunlight falling on the trail. (fi gure 4.11) Thinner harvest recommended, shrubs, buckthorn, leave enough canopy trees to keep shade on the trail. Lots of dead down decomposing wood on the residential side of trail. (fi gure 4.13) Unit 9 Size: 1 acre Lots of dead down decomposing wood on the residential side of trail (fi gure 4.13) Some nice potential views Some native plants along shorelines (fi gure 4.14) Nice viewshed potentials North facing on the lake side, heavier harvest potentials Steep bare soils on residential side Lawn clippings dumped in woods Figure 4.8: Photograph showing the junction of Units 5 and 6, a nice upland knoll and a good site for savanna restoration. Figure 4.9: Photograph looking upstream at runoff and a potential infi ltration basin site in Unit 6. Figure 4.10: Photograph showing potential clearings to increase viewsheds and breezes in Unit 7. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 19 47Bass Lake Preserve: Upland Vegetation Management Plan- City of St. Louis ParkDraftUnit 10 Size 0.75 acres Dumpster in parking lot right at the lake edge (move it back) Dead down decomposing wood Shrub screen apartment buildings Aspen grove Figure 4.11: Photograph showing potential clearings in Unit 8 Figure 4.12: Photograph showing low growing cool season grasses in Unit 8 Figure 4.13: Down wood is a threat as it prohibits maintenance and fuels nutrient loading. Down wood is found throughout the Bass Lake Basin. Figure 4.14: Quality hydrophytes found in Unit 9 - Broadleaf Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 6) Title: Bass Lake Preserve Restoration Project Update Page 20 Meeting: Study Session Meeting Date: August 10, 2015 Written Report: 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: SWLRT Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action necessary at this time. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the SWLRT project. SUMMARY: Municipal Consent On July 23rd a new set of plans for SWLRT was distributed for Municipal Consent review. These plans were approved by the Metropolitan Council on July 8, 2015. St. Louis Park will consider the Municipal Consent plans at the City Council meeting on September 21, 2015. An Open House will be held prior to the City Council meeting at City Hall. Plans can be found at: http://www.stlouispark.org/light-freight-rail.html Funding for Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs) As the design process for SWLRT continues, two changes to the project have potential SLP project cost participation implications. One is the Beltline Station Lynn Ave. Extension Locally Requested Capital Improvement (LRCI) and the other is addition of stairs to the trail bridge over Beltline Boulevard and the underpass at Wooddale Avenue. Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI Staff has continued discussion with the Southwest Project Office (SPO) on the Beltline area circulation. The new parking lot plan at Beltline creates some awkward circulation in the new base SWLRT plans. Incorporating the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI into the base project is an option that would solidify the project plans and make it easier to move forward with development of the area. Additional commitment for funding could be considered by the City Council in September. Further details are in the “Discussion” section of this report. Stairways to access regional trail Additional discussion is also occurring on the provision of stairways in addition to the ramps for the grade-separated crossings at Wooddale and Beltline stations. This would provide a much better access for pedestrians to travel to and from the regional trail. Some of this cost could be borne with the federal grant received for the trails by Hennepin County for the grade separations of the trail; some would have to be covered by the City. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI Drawing Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Title: SWLRT Update DISCUSSION Funding for Locally Requested Capital Investments (LRCIs) Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI The City previously requested inclusion of the Extension of Lynn Ave and construction of a backage road at Beltline Station as a LRCI. Staff has been working with the SPO on the possibility of putting the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI into the base LRT project (please see attached drawing), thereby benefitting from the Federal Transit Administration funding match of 50% of the cost. The much smaller park and ride lot as shown in the Municipal Consent plans for the Beltline Blvd Station changes the LRCI somewhat and means it would be more costly to construct than previously projected. The access provided on the Municipal Consent plan does not leave particularly good access for future development, which means the LRCI is now more important for providing effective access to the park and ride and the EDA redevelopment property. A solution to both of these problems would be to incorporate the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI into the Base SWLRT project design. If the Lynn Avenue Extension is part of the base project, much of its cost would be covered by FTA matching funds. Incorporating the Lynn Ave/Backage Road into the SWLRT Base project would keep SLP’s cost essentially the same ($1.6 million) as projected for the original LRCI. Staff has told the SPO that they should assume for now SLP supports inclusion of the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI in the base SWLRT project. The City may need to take formal action on its commitment at a future meeting, most likely when the City officially approves the Municipal Consent Plans September 21st. Including the LRCI into the base project at this time will solidify the street plans for the area, and set the table to move forward with development in this area. Our work has shown that creating appropriately sized blocks within the area would be much more conducive to preparing the area for transit-oriented development and with more certainty, development could occur sooner. Staff will bring forward additional cost information to the Council for discussion at an upcoming Study Session. Stairways to regional trail Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District along with federal grant funds are providing the local funding for inclusion of the trail grade separations at Beltline, Wooddale and Blake Road. The designs for these grade separations include ramp connections to the Wooddale and Beltline but not stairways. Considering the importance of these crossings to SLP, adding stairs to maximize the grade separations usability seems like a wise investment. Much of the cost of adding the stairs can be covered by the grants and FTA matching funds. There is a funding gap of $100-135,000 for the stairs in SLP’s grade separations. We have directed the SPO to assume for now that SLP would cover this shortfall. Formal action on this commitment may be needed at a future City Council meeting, and if so that would also occur on September 21st. Study Session Meeting of August 10, 2015 (Item No. 7) Title: SWLRT UpdatePage 3