HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/03/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
MARCH 9, 2026
6:00 p.m. Study session – Community Room
Recess (at approximately 7:10 p.m.) – The city council will take a short recess from the study session so that
those who observe Ramadan may break their fast.
Discussion items
1. Westopolis annual update
2. Application for financial assistance for Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes – Ward 1
3. Safe Streets Action Plan overview
Written reports
4. Connected infrastructure system kick-off
5. Community + Civic Engagement system wrap-up
8:00 p.m. Special city council meeting – Council Chambers
1. Call to order.
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Approve agenda.
3. Presentations - none.
4. Minutes - none.
5. Consent items – none.
6. Public hearings – none.
7. Regular business.
a.Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding
8. Communications and announcements – none.
9. Adjournment.
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in person. At regular
city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by attending the meeting in-person or by
submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are
available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at
www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798). Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on
the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast.
Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 9, 2026
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Westopolis annual update
Recommended action: No action required. Becky Bakken, President & CEO of Westopolis will
be in attendance to provide an annual update on the activities of our destination marketing
organization.
Policy consideration: None at this time. This presentation is for informational purposes.
Summary: Every year, Westopolis prepares an annual report on the state of the local tourism
industry, their activities and results. The mission of Westopolis is to enhance St. Louis Park and
Golden Valley’s economy, image and quality of life by promoting the area as a prime meeting
and visitor destination. Ms. Bakken will provide a summary of 2025 activity, including economic
impacts, employment trends and performance statistics of nine (9) hotel properties in the area.
Financial or budget considerations: Pursuant to state law (M.S. 469.190) a 3% lodging tax is
collected on applicable short-term rentals. Per ordinance, the city has the authority to – and
does - retain five percent of the lodging tax proceeds collected each month for administrative
costs. State law requires that 95% of the gross proceeds from any lodging tax imposed be used
to fund a separate non-profit organization for the purpose of marketing and promoting the city
to visitors.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: 2025 Visitor Profile
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
29% of visitor spending goes to local businesses
2025 Visitor Profile
TOP 10 MARKETS
1.Minneapolis/St. Paul (50+ miles)
2.Fargo
3.Chicago, IL
4.Duluth
5.Minot/Bismarck, ND
6.Rochester
7.New York, NY
8.La Crosse/Eau Claire, WI
9.Milwaukee, WI
10.Des Moines, IA
TOP 10 MARKETS
Ranked by Average Daily Visitor Spend
1. La Crosse/Eau Claire, WI ..............................$116
2. New York, NY ............................................ $92
3. Minot/Bismarck, ND .................................. $86
4. Chicago, IL................................................. $62
5. Des Moines, IA ........................................... $55
6.Duluth ..................................................... $54
7. Minneapolis/St. Paul (50+ miles) ................... $51
8.Rochester ................................................ $50
9.Fargo ........................................................ $46
10. Milwaukee, WI ...........................................$41
% of Spend
65 +18%
55-64 14%
45-54 15%
35-44 16%
25-34 22%
18-24 15%
% of Spend
$151K +35%
$101K- 150K 21%
$81K- 100K 12%
$61K- 80K 12%
$41K- 60K 8%
$21K- 40K 7%
of visitors come
from out-of-state
OVERALL SPEND
76% Residents
13% Local Visitors
11% Visitors
Visitor Spend
by HHI
71%
St. Louis Park & Golden Valley, 2025 Jan - Dec Data by Zartico
52% Food & Beverage
27% Retail
10% Hotels
10% Gas
1% Arts & Entertainment
.4% Outdoor Recreation
Top Categories Visited
Retail ...........................................37%
Outdoor Recreation ..................36%
Food & Beverage .........................16%
Hotels ............................................8%
Arts & Entertainment ..................2%
Attractions .....................................1%
Visitor Spend by Category
Visitor Spend
by Age Group
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 1)
Title: Westopolis annual update Page 2
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 9, 2026
Discussion item: 2
Executive summary
Title: Application for financial assistance for Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes – Ward 1
Recommended action: Discuss Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation’s (GMHC)
application for financial assistance for its Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes redevelopment.
Policy consideration: Is the EDA and city council willing to consider entering a purchase and
redevelopment contract with GMHC to sell city owned land, enter subgrant agreements for
existing federal funds and cleanup grants, and provide financing of up to $400,000 from the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) to enable the project to achieve financial feasibility?
Summary: GMHC has a preliminary development agreement with the EDA to acquire four
vacant and contaminated city-owned parcels located at 5639, 5643, 5647 and 5707 Minnetonka
Boulevard. GMHC plans to construct four twin homes, providing a total of eight affordable for-
sale homes suitable for long term family ownership, to be kept in a community land trust (CLT)
by Homes Within Reach, maintaining permanent affordability of the homes when they are re-
sold by their initial buyers.
The proposed project has an anticipated total development cost of $7.86 million. The
development has extraordinary project costs associated with contamination cleanup and
necessary site improvements, among other factors. All units would be affordable to households
with incomes below 80% of the area median income (AMI), with a goal to target at least two
homebuyers with incomes between 50% AMI - 60% AMI, exceeding the city's Inclusionary
Housing Policy requirements. A report shared with the city council on March 2, 2026, analyzed
the redeveloper’s financial assistance request in detail.
Financial or budget considerations: GMHC has identified approximately $7,868,000 in funding
sources, including $4,127,904 in grant funds secured by the EDA and city on the project’s
behalf, among other grants and private sources. GMHC is currently completing a bid package to
obtain updated contractor estimates and has expressed concern that construction costs may
exceed the contingency. As a result, GMHC is requesting $400,000 from the AHTF to ensure the
project can commence before year-end. Without this funding, the project risks forfeiting over
$1 million from Hennepin County’s Accelerator Program. Ehlers, the EDA’s financial consultant,
and staff determined that up to $400,000 in financial assistance from the AHTF can be
considered, pending receipt of final bids with the expectation of minimizing city assistance. The
proposed redevelopment includes GMHC purchasing the city’s land for $1 million, utilization of
secured city and EDA grants of $4,127,904, and the creation of permanent affordable
homeownership opportunities.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: City council report of March 2, 2026; Discussion
Prepared by: Dean Porter-Nelson, redevelopment administrator
Keith Dahl, municipal advisor, Ehlers
Reviewed by: Jennifer Monson, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director and EDA executive director
Tiffany Stephens, financial analyst
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Application for financial assistance for Minnetonka Boulevard Twin Homes – Ward 1
Discussion
There is a correction to the March 2, 2026 written report: page 7 of the written report shared
on March 2, 2026, included a discrepancy between the narrative summary of the uses of
financing and table that listed the uses of financing. The “Uses of Financing” table in the report
included the correct breakdown of funds in each category and the figures in the narrative
summary were incorrect. A corrected narrative summary of the table is included below. The
table is identical to the table previously shared.
Summary of “Uses of Financing” table: funds will be used for land acquisition ($1,014,400);
construction costs ($4,419,156); site costs ($703,236); soil cleanup and environmental costs
($872,760); and soft costs ($859,076), totaling $7,868,628 in total uses of funds.
Uses of Financing Estimated
Amount
Percentage Per unit
Land acquisition including $14,400 closing costs $1,014,400 12.9% $126,800
Construction (including construction of the 8
homes, permits, general contractor fees,
contingency, certifications & warranties)
$4,419,156 56.2% $552,395
Site costs - grading/excavation, alley/site
improvements, landscaping, stormwater
management, utilities
$703,236 8.9% $87,905
Soil cleanup & other environmental costs $872,760 11.1% $109,095
Soft costs (architecture, engineering,
environmental, construction interest, legal fees,
land trust admin, developer fee, etc.)
$859,076 10.9% $107,385
Total uses $7,868,628 100% $983,580
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 9, 2026
Discussion item: 3
Executive summary
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview
Recommended action: None at this time. This report summarizes the development of the Safe
Streets Action Plan and identifies the upcoming steps in the process. The plan will be presented
to the council on March 23, 2026, followed by action by the council on April 6, 2026.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the Safe Streets Action Plan to
support the city in future safety-focused, multimodal transportation investments and policies?
Summary: The Safe Streets Action Plan provides a comprehensive, data-driven framework to
guide future safety investments, reduce traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries, and
support multimodal transportation options throughout St. Louis Park with a goal of eliminating
fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.
The city hired the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (“SEH”) to manage and guide
development of the plan, and staff worked closely with stakeholder groups representing
residents, schools and partner agencies to develop the plan. This collaboration helped shape
plan goals, identify community priorities and refine recommended strategies.
The overarching goal of the plan is to reduce—and ultimately eliminate—severe and fatal
crashes for all people using the transportation system. Safe access for all users is essential to a
thriving community, and the draft plan outlines objectives, policies and recommendations that
can guide future transportation investments.
Together, these elements form a blueprint for addressing the locations with the most severe
crashes and for implementing strategies and infrastructure improvements that enhance
roadway safety. The Safe Streets Action Plan can help inform capital improvement planning and
guide the pursuit of funding opportunities aimed at improving overall roadway safety at priority
locations.
Financial or budget considerations: This planning study identifies long-term safety needs and
potential improvements, none of which are currently funded. It outlines options to guide future
transportation investment decisions and positions the city to pursue funding opportunities as
they become available.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Draft Safe Streets Action Plan
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview
Discussion
Background: In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park received a federal Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) grant to develop an action plan focused on improving roadway safety. Developing this
plan positions the city to pursue future SS4A implementation grants that can fund safety
improvements.
A critical part of developing the Safe Streets Action Plan is improving safety, mobility and access
to the transportation network, particularly for vulnerable roadway users and in underserved
communities, providing equitable investment to places that need funding the most. The final
plan recommends actions and policies to improve safety for all people using the road, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, people using transit, people with disabilities, passengers and drivers.
Present consideration: The draft Safe Streets Action Plan is attached to this report and is
currently available for community review. The public input we received will be used to refine
recommendations prior to adoption.
The Safe Streets Action Plan was developed to guide efforts to reduce and eliminate fatal and
severe injury crashes by 2050. The plan also incorporates an interim benchmark of reducing
fatal and severe injury crashes by 50% by 2040.
The plan was developed through an extensive process that included four main phases:
• Data collection and public outreach
• Identification of needs and priorities
• Development of the implementation approach
• Finalizing the Safe Streets Action Plan
In addition to data gathering by the project team, the city organized two advisory committees
that helped guide plan development and recommendations. These groups represented diverse
technical skills, backgrounds and perspectives.
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
The TAC is made up of city, county, MnDOT and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) staff. City staff included representatives from administration, public works,
planning, public safety (police and fire), communications, sustainability and engineering
departments.
• Stakeholder Advisory Committee
The stakeholder advisory committee was made up of representatives from the school
district, advocacy groups and residents.
The four phases of the plan were completed over an extended period, with regular check-ins
and guidance from both the Technical Advisory Committee and the Stakeholder Advisory
Committee. A brief description of each phase and its key activities is provided below:
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview
Phase 1: Data collection and public outreach
The plan analyzed crash data, risk factors, equity metrics, and community feedback to identify
the highest-risk locations on city roads, county roads and at-grade state highways.
Crash history and high-Injury network
Over the last decade, the city experienced roughly 6,000 crashes, with pedestrians and
bicyclists representing only 3% of crashes but 44% of fatal and severe injury crashes. Seventy
percent of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred at intersections.
Analysis identified 12.75 miles of the city’s street network as part of the high-Injury network
(HIN), representing 7.5% of roadway miles but 61% of fatal and severe injury crashes. Several
HIN corridors are already funded for reconstruction between 2025 and 2028.
High-Risk Locations
Other crash risk factors were analyzed to understand locations that may not have a strong crash
history but have other factors that may make them more likely to result in fatal and severe
injury crashes in the future. These included crashes involving people walking or biking
regardless of injury, proximity to schools, at-grade regional trail crossings, roadways with four
or more lanes and locations where crashes occurred more frequently at night.
Equity analysis
The plan also evaluated 13 equity indicators, incorporating six into the prioritization process.
This information helped ensure that safety investments are prioritized where needs are
greatest. Higher need areas often overlap with high injury corridors.
Community feedback themes:
• Concerns about vehicle speeds on both major corridors and residential streets
• Safety challenges at intersections, particularly multilane crossings
• Support for multimodal infrastructure improvements, including safer crossings and
bicycle connections
• High‑concern areas including Minnetonka Boulevard, Texas Avenue, Excelsior
Boulevard, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, and the Aquila and Fern Hill
neighborhoods
Phase 2: Identification of needs and priorities
The city used four criteria to rank areas with the most pressing safety issues. Each criterion
carried a different weight in the evaluation process (based on feedback received from the
public and advisory committees). Criteria included:
• High-injury locations: mapping of high-injury network (HIN) and high-injury
intersections. (40% weight)
• High-risk locations: such as schools, four+ lane roadways and vulnerable road user
crashes. (30% weight)
• Equity considerations: The plan incorporates 13 equity indicators to ensure that safety
investments are prioritized where needs and likelihoods of injury are greatest. (20%
weight)
• Public input: density of comments identifying locations that felt unsafe. (10% weight)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview
These criteria resulted in a total of 28 locations being identified as top areas to be considered
for safety improvements. Locations were then placed in tiers based on a combination of scores
from the evaluation process and upcoming funded construction projects.
• Tier 0: There are four Tier 0 segments. These segments are either under construction or
will be under construction within a year of the Action Plan.
• Tier 1: Highest-priority locations without near-term reconstruction. Six Tier 1 locations
were identified. All six of these locations involve county and/or state-owned roadways
and will require significant interagency coordination and advocacy.
• Tier 2: Moderate-priority locations, many of which may be suitable for interim quick-
build or demonstration projects. The 18 Tier 2 locations are a mix of city, county and
state-owned roadways and intersections.
Recommendations include measures such as intersection geometry changes, pedestrian
crossing enhancements, traffic calming, visibility improvements, signal timing adjustments and
potential demonstration projects. Appendix B of the draft plan provides detailed
recommendations for each site.
A review of the 28 locations shows that the city’s Capital Improvement Plan has already
addressed many of the segments with the greatest safety needs. Projects such as Cedar Lake
Road, Minnetonka Boulevard – Phase 1 (Hennepin County) and Highway 7 (MnDOT) have
recently been, or will soon be, completed.
Phase 3: Development of the implementation approach
A deeper review of the 28 locations identified key safety concerns, recommended
countermeasures and future action items. These findings are detailed in the final Safe Streets
Action Plan. In addition to infrastructure needs, the plan outlines strategies to address non-
infrastructure issues such as driver behavior and emergency response through education, policy
updates and coordinated efforts aligned with the Safe System Approach.
Recommended strategy framework
The plan aligns with the Safe System Approach, which emphasizes layered protection through
safer roads, safer speeds, safer users, safer vehicles and improved post‑crash response. Seven
key focus areas guide implementation:
• Infrastructure investments
• New safety technologies
• Policy updates
• Education programs
• Safe Routes to School initiatives
• Incentive programs for businesses and residents
• Additional safety evaluations, such as lighting reviews
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview
Implementation approach
The plan includes a structured “effort–impact” framework to prioritize achievable goals.
High‑impact recommendations include:
• Completing one major road/intersection reconstruction or two demonstration projects
annually
• Advancing bicycle and pedestrian network connections
• Evaluating automated enforcement if enabled by future state legislation
• Updating the city’s crosswalk guidance and traffic calming practice
• Continuing coordination with county and state agencies for improvements on non‑city
roadways
Short‑term “quick wins” such as signal timing changes and targeted crossing upgrades are
prioritized while larger projects pursue external funding.
Phase 4: Finalizing the Safe Streets Action Plan
The draft Safe Streets Action Plan has been reviewed by both the Technical Advisory Committee
and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and is now out for public comment.
The final phase of plan development includes incorporating public feedback, finalizing
recommended projects and strategies and preparing a public-facing dashboard to track
progress on action items once the plan is adopted.
Next steps: All community members are invited to review the full draft Safe Streets Action Plan
and provide feedback during the public comment period, which is open from Feb. 20 through
March 23, 2026. Community input will be used to refine recommendations prior to plan
adoption.
The draft plan will be presented to the city council on March 23, 2026. At that meeting, staff
will share community feedback; in addition, the community will be able to provide comments at
the meeting.
The council will be asked to act on the final plan at the city council meeting on April 6, 2026.
Approval of the plan will include a resolution of support for the goal to eliminate fatal and
severe injury crashes by 2050.
St. Louis Park, MN
Safe Streets Action Plan
February 2026 - DRAFT REPORT
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 6
Contents
Project Team ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Background ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Why is a Safety Streets Plan Needed in St. Louis Park? ..................................................................................... 4
How the Action Plan was created ..................................................................................................................... 4
Safety Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................... 7
City-wide Crash History ..................................................................................................................................... 7
High-Injury Network (HIN) .............................................................................................................................. 10
Top Injury Intersections................................................................................................................................... 12
Equity Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Public Engagement .......................................................................................................................................................... 15
Engagement Activities ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Key Themes ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
Priority Area Identification ............................................................................................................................................... 18
Top 28 Priority Areas ....................................................................................................................................... 21
Safety Toolkit ................................................................................................................................................... 24
Recommended Treatments ............................................................................................................................. 24
Ongoing City Efforts ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
The Action Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Using the Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................... 25
Effort vs. Impact .............................................................................................................................................. 26
Transparency and Accountability ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A – Safety Treatment Toolkit
Appendix B – Recommendations for top 28 priority locations
Appendix C – Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum
Appendix D – Prioritization Technical Memorandum
Appendix E – Engagement Summary
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 7
PROJECT TEAM
City of St. Louis Park, Project Management
• Jack Sullivan, PE, Deputy Engineering Director/Assistant City Engineer
• Debra Heiser, PE, Engineering Director
Technical Advisory Committee Members
• Travas Diersen, St. Louis Park Police
• Cary Smith, St. Louis Park Fire
• Laura Chamberlain, St. Louis Park Community Development
• Kala Fisher, St. Louis Park Public Works
• Pat Coleman, St. Louis Park Public Engagement
• Ben Sandell, St. Louis Park Communications
• Emily Ziring, St. Louis Park Building and Energy
• Kyle Fitterer, MnDOT Metro District
• Tom Musick, Hennepin County
• Kristi Sebastian, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) | Minnesota Division Office
Stakeholder Committee Members
• Tom Sachi, Resident
• Ian Thomas, Resident/America Walks
• Dan Mollick, Resident
• Alex Calderone, Resident
• Quinn Thompson, Resident
• Steve Mollick, Resident
• Sandy Hicks, Resident
• Laurie Pape Hadley, Resident
• Dave Hanson, St. Louis Park School District
SEH Consultant Team Members
• Jen Desrude, PE, Project Manager
• Chelsea Moore-Ritchie, AICP, Deputy Project Manager
• Leo Johnson, PE, Safety Engineer
• Adrian Diaz, Public Involvement Support
• Tylor Schwarz, GISP, GIS Specialist
• Justin Anibas, PE, Safety Engineer
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 8
BACKGROUND
St. Louis Park (SLP) is a vibrant suburb located in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
within the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area. Known for its strong
neighborhoods, diverse population, and commitment to equity and sustainability,
St. Louis Park has a rich history dating back to the late 19th century and became an
incorporated city in 1954. The city is home to approximately 50,000 residents and
continues to grow as a welcoming, connected, and forward-thinking community.
Geographically, St. Louis Park is located just west of the City of Minneapolis, offering
direct access to downtown Minneapolis via express transit routes, regional trails,
and the interstate and county road system. The city is bordered by Hopkins and
Minnetonka to the west, Golden Valley to the North, Minneapolis to the east and
Edina to the south. It is served by a network of regional highways, freight rail lines,
and will have stops along the future METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest Light
Rail Transit - see Figure 1), further enhancing its connectivity and multimodal
transportation options.
Community Origins
The St. Louis Park area was
home to the Dakota people
prior to the arrival of the first
European settlers. However, it
is unlikely there was much
Dakota settlement that
occurred in what is now St.
Louis Park because of the
predominance of marsh land.
Most Dakota people settled
near Bde Maka Ska, (formerly
called Lake Calhoun) which is
just east of St. Louis Park. The
Dakota people were pushed
west when white settlers came,
and they ultimately were
forced out altogether.
There is little data available to
map the movements and
settlements of the Dakota
people who occupied the
general area. The European
settlers who followed in the
1850s were farmers, mostly
British, Irish, or American-born.
These settlers cleared the land
of brush and trees to create
farmsteads, which produced
livestock and produce for a
growing Minneapolis
population. They also began to
establish the social and political
institutions that had guided
and ordered their lives in
earlier settlements, including
government, education, and
religious institutions.
Figure 1 - Place Types Framework (source: St. Louis Park 2040 Comprehensive Plan)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 9
Why is a Safe Streets Action Plan Needed in St. Louis Park?
While the city has made significant safety investments in the community over the past few decades, there is also an
acknowledgment that every person deserves to be able to walk away from a crash. While eliminating all crashes is
unrealistic, the city is committing to a Vision Zero goal of working towards eliminating fatal and severe injury
crashes by the year 2050.
• This includes a benchmark goal of a 50% reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2040.
While this goal is ambitious and will require significant collaboration across departments and with other agencies, this
Safe Streets Action Plan provides a road map to work towards the goal and document progress for the community.
This plan was made possible by grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) program and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The process allowed the city to take a data
driven approach to identifying and prioritizing actions for reducing or eliminating serious injury and deadly crashes
throughout St. Louis Park.
How the Action Plan was created
The Action Plan was built around a comprehensive and community-focused approach.
The process:
• Engaged local stakeholders
• Identified crash hotspots and high-injury networks
• Provided recommendations for citywide safety improvements and initiatives
• Prioritized projects that address the most pressing safety issues
• Developed a process to ensure accountability and transparency
The action plan is guided by the Safe System Approach,
which understands that people will sometimes make mistakes,
but those mistakes should not result in life-altering or deadly
consequences. This strategy calls for safer street designs,
multiple layers of protection, and shared responsibility
between the city, community members, and partner
organizations. By working together, we can make sure that
crashes don’t become tragedies.
A core goal of the plan is equity.
It recognizes that different users and neighborhoods may
experience different risks. The action plan looks closely at
where severe crashes happen, especially in areas that have
been historically underserved or where walking, biking and
transit use are critical to everyday life, such as getting to work,
the grocery store, or critical services such as healthcare.
The action plan also supports other city goals outlined in the
2040 Comprehensive Plan (St. Louis Park Vision 3.0), including:
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 10
• Equity: Investments are focused where safety needs are greatest, especially in
disadvantaged communities.
• Environmental Stewardship: Supports carbon neutrality goals by promoting safer routes
for non-motorized travelers.
• Neighborhood Strength: Safer streets support vibrant, connected communities.
• Reliable Travel Options: Enhances safety for all travel modes, including walking, biking,
driving, and transit.
• Inclusive Engagement: Solutions are rooted in community input and lived experience.
The Action Plan Process
The following page shows the planning process for the Safe Streets Action Plan. The plan started in summer of 2024
and was completed in the winter of 2025/26. There were four main phases of the project:
Phase 1: Data Collection and Citywide Outreach
The city gathered crash data, evaluated risk factors, considered equity, and collected public input. This helped identify
areas across St. Louis Park with the highest safety concerns and identify citywide trends.
Phase 2: Identification of Needs and Priorities
The city worked with the Technical and Stakeholder Committees to review public feedback and data collected, and
worked with them to define, identify and prioritize needs and action items. The detailed data analysis and method for
prioritizing projects and strategies is provided in the following chapters.
Phase 3: Implementation Plan Development
Once project areas and city-wide safety issues were identified, the project team and committees worked together to
develop infrastructure recommendations and non-infrastructure related strategies (such as education programs and
policy changes) to address the identified needs. This identification or needs and priorities provides opportunities to
pursue outside funding sources to implement changes more efficiently.
Phase 4: Accountability and Transparency
The Safe Streets Action Plan is an implementation plan meant to move action items forward. A large part of this is
accountability. Each action item is assigned to a city department to champion the progress, and all action items have
timelines for implementing changes. Once the plan is finalized, a public-facing dashboard will be created to show real-
time progress on action items. This ensures the plan remains transparent, up-to-date, and responsive to the
community’s needs.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 11
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 12
SAFETY ANALYSIS
Working towards eliminating deadly and serious injury
crashes is at the heart of the Safe Streets Action Plan
process. This process is both reactive, looking back at where
fatal and severe injury crashes have occurred, and
proactive, looking at where people are at higher risk.
The city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the need to
prioritize safety investments in line with the modal
hierarchy: pedestrians first, bicyclists and transit riders
second, and people driving in vehicles third. Findings from
the safety analysis support this approach, with pedestrians
and bicyclists making up only 3% of total crashes, but 44%
of fatal and severe injury crashes (Figure 2).
This is a trend that is consistent across the Twin Cities and
across the country and is the reason this group is identified
as Vulnerable Road Users (VRU). Due to the higher risks for
VRUs, non-serious injury and non-fatal crashes for
pedestrians and bicyclist were reviewed, since these
crashes can more easily result in a fatal or severe injury in
the future.
City-wide Crash History
Ten years of crash data (2014-2023) was collected and
analyzed using the statewide crash database.1 The data
included crashes on city, county and state-owned roads
with at-grade intersections where two or more directions of
travel interact.2 This information was used to develop both
a High-Injury Network (HIN) and Top Injury Intersections
list. Table 1 provides an overall summary of the data.
Over the past decade, there were roughly 6,000 crashes, with 1% of crashes resulting in a fatal or severe injury, 25% of
crashes resulting in at least a minor injury or possible injury, and 3% involving a pedestrian or bicyclist. Since the goal of
the plan is to focus on safety, and reducing fatal and severe injury crashes, the analysis focused on the 25% of crashes
that involved injuries as well as all pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. While some locations may experience high rates of
crashes or feel unsafe, they may not show up as high-injury locations due to “property damage only” or no history of
pedestrian or bicyclist involved crashes.
1 MnDOT Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2).
2 Crashes that occurred on the mainline for state highways (Interstate 394, Hwy 100 and Hwy 169) were excluded since these are not owned by
or interact with city or county roads. Ramp interchanges were included in the analysis.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 13
Table 1 - Summary of 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023)
Crash Type Number of crashes % of total crashes
All Reported Crashes 5936 100%
Fatal or Severe Injury Crashes 64 1.1%
Minor/Possible Injury Crashes 1413 23.8%
Property Damage Only 4459 75.1%
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes 196 3.3%
Motorcycle/Moped/Scooter Crashes 47 Less than 1%
Figure 3 shows the crash totals by injury type over the past 10 years. Figure 4 shows a comparison of overall crashes
compared to the county and metro from 2018-2023. Overall crash trends for the city were similar in Hennepin County
and the broader Twin Cities area. Total yearly crashes showed an increase in 2019, a drop in 2020 (likely pandemic
related), and a partial rebound from 2022 to 2023.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Total Crashes
Fatal and Severe
Injury
Total minor injury or
possible injury
crashes
Figure 4 - Comparison of total annual crashes on locally owned streets within St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and the
Twin Cities Metro Region from 2018-2023
Figure 3 - 10-year crash totals by year for the City of St. Louis Park
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 14
Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Types
A total of 64 fatal and severe injury crashes occurred in the city over the 10-year period. Eliminating these crashes is
the primary objective of the plan, so trends were reviewed to understand common factors for these crashes citywide.
Both the types of road users and the types of crash factors were reviewed, and findings are shown below.
By User Type
• Young Drivers: While younger drivers (15–24)
make up 11% of the population, they are
involved in 25% of the most serious crashes.
By Crash Factors that were noted in 20% or more of
fatal and severe injury crashes
• Intersections: 69%
• Angle Crashes: 33%3
• Occurred at night: 31%
• Drivers were under the influence: 20%
• Single vehicle incidence: 20%
Intersections and right angle crashes are typical of fatal and severe injury crashes. This is one of the reasons the city
began implementing roundabouts at certain locations, to slow speeds and reduce high speed conflict points (Figure 5).4
Crashes that occurred at night, drivers under the influence, single vehicle crashes (indicating high vehicle speeds), and
young drivers were additional citywide risk factors identified.
3 Includes 9 right angle bicyclist crashes with vehicles.
4 Roundabouts have been shown to decrease fatal injury crashes by 86%, severe injury crashes by 83%, and 42% for all injury crashes. MnDOT
office of Traffic Engineering
Figure 5 - Conflict point between traditional and roundabout intersections (Source: FHWA
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 15
High-Injury Network (HIN)
A High-Injury Network was created to highlight roads with a high density of injury related crashes. Each crash type was
scored, with fatal and severe injury crashes ranked higher than minor injury crashes. A total of 12.75 miles of roadway
were included in the city’s final HIN map, shown in Figure 6 and Table 2.
•The HIN network makes up 7.5% of the road network 5 and accounts for 61% of fatal and severe injury
crashes.
•Over ¼ of the HIN is funded for reconstruction in the next one to four years.
•The city reduced the HIN miles by 20% from 2014 to 2023, due to substantial reconstruction and safety
improvements.6
Table 2 - High-Injury Network Locations for the City of St. Louis Park (2024)
Location Extents Planned/Programmed Construction
Louisiana Ave Wayzata Blvd to Franklin Ave Completed in 2025
Louisiana Ave Cedar Lake Rd to BNSF Railroad bridge Approved for construction in 2026
Park Place Blvd I-394 interchange to Cedar Lake Rd None
Park Center Blvd 36 St W to Excelsior Blvd None
Texas Ave W 36 St to Hwy 7 None
Cedar Lake Rd Rhode Island Ave to Louisiana Ave Approved for construction in 2026
Minnetonka Blvd US 169 interchange to Louisiana Ave Hennepin County planned in 2028/2031
Minnetonka Blvd Dakota Ave to Vernon Ave Hennepin County planned construction in 2028
Minnetonka Blvd TH 100 Interchange to Inglewood Ave Hennepin County construction completed 2025
W 26 St 7 Natchez Ave to Joppa Ave None
W 36 St Boone Ave to Texas Ave None
Hwy 7 Aquila Ave/Blake Rd to Wooddale Ave Roadway lowering in 2028 between Texas Ave and
Louisiana Ave to reduce vertical curve
Excelsior Blvd Meadowbrook Ln to Kipling Ave None
CSAH 25 Hwy 100 to Beltline Blvd None
Notable in the analysis is that most of the locations included in the HIN are considered high-volume roads, many of
which are county or state-owned roads. While the HIN can show important information about where the majority of
injury severe crashes are occurring, it is unsurprising that they are occurring at high volume locations.
5 Measured in linear roadway miles
6 In addition to the HIN segments, eight additional segments were flagged by the crash analysis as part of the original High-Injury Network, but
these locations were removed due to substantive reconstruction that occurred during the crash analysis period.
7 While W 26th Street met the criteria for the HIN, a review of crashes shows abnormal driver behavior as contributing factors and multiple
crashes. In these situations, engineering solutions may not solve for the crash type, however it remains part of the HIN for methodological
consistency and further review.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 16
Figure 6 - High-Injury Network for City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 17
Top Injury Intersections
To understand where fatal and severe injury crashes are occurring more frequently than expected based on volume
and road type, a top injury intersection analysis was completed to highlight intersections with a higher fatal and severe
injury rate or with other risk factors. This approach helped identify intersections that might otherwise be overlooked in
the HIN due to lower traffic volumes 8. Figure 7 shows the results of the top injury intersections, rated by injury risk.
Only five intersections were found to be over the critical injury rate 9, resulting in a ranking of higher risk. Of the five,
three of these locations are scheduled for reconstruction in the next few years. Another 37 intersections were
identified with medium risk10, with about half scheduled for safety updates in the next 2 to 10 years. The remaining
intersections were identified as lower risk 11. These locations were still in the top 100 list for number of crashes for both
local and non-local roads but did not have fatal or severe injury crashes or vulnerable road user crashes.
Additional detail on the safety analysis and methodology can be found in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum
found in Appendix B.
8 The top injury intersections analysis pulled the top 100 crash locations for all roads, as well as the top 100 crash locations for
9 Intersection Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Rate (FAR) are based on the number of fatal and severe injury crashes per 100 million entering
vehicles.
10 Moderate to low rate of injury crashes, but with a high rate of total crashes10 and at least one pedestrians or bicyclist crash.
11 Lower risk intersections had moderate to low rate of injury crashes, a high rate of total crashes, and no pedestrians or bicyclist crashes.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 18
Figure 7 - Top Injury Intersections for the City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 19
EQUITY ANALYSIS
Because low-income residents
and residents who identify as a
person of color are historically
more likely to be victims of a
fatal or severe injury crash12,
and because transportation
needs vary by neighborhood, an
equity analysis was conducted
to inform higher need areas for
walking, biking and access to
transit. This included a review of
13 different equity indicators
such as housing density, job
density, median household
income, and number of people
with a disability.
The Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) and
stakeholder committee were
involved in the selection of the
equity considerations and
weighting that was incorporated
into the project prioritization
process. Based on the feedback,
poverty rate, race, affordable or
senior housing, population
density, residents under the age
of 18 and pedestrian generators
including low-wage worker job
concentrations and transit stops
were included as scoring
criteria.13
12 MnDOT’s Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment
13 The residents with disabilities dataset was considered for inclusion, but due to significant overlap with affordable housing/senior housing data,
it was removed. Grocery stores were also considered for inclusion by the stakeholder committee, but due to significant overlap with the low
wage worker job concentrations, grocery store locations were not added to the scoring criteria.
Schools were not selected because they were already included in the High-Risk dataset which received a higher weighting for the prioritization
score. ysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity. Governors Highway Safety Administration. June 2021.
Figure 8 - Affordable Housing Locations and Areas above the county average for
poverty rate
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 20
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
To inform the development of the Safe Streets Action Plan, the city and project team conducted a multi-phase
community engagement process to better understand local transportation safety concerns, priorities, and lived
experiences. The outreach strategy was designed to reach a diverse group of residents, workers, and stakeholders,
including those who are often
underrepresented in planning
processes. Input gathered through
this engagement helped shape the
goals of the plan, identify key areas
of concern, and guide the selection
of strategies to improve safety for all
road users in St. Louis Park.
Engagement Activities
The following activities helped reach people where they were, to reduce
barriers to engagement.
• Yard Signs and Flier Campaign with QR codes to the project
website were placed at key locations with high pedestrian and
bicycle traffic.
• Pop-up Events brought the project directly to the public. Five
events at community spaces and city-sponsored activities
reached over 460 in-person participants, offering accessible
opportunities for feedback.
o St Louis Park Art Fair at the Recreation Outdoor Center
(August 7, 2024)
o Movies in the Park (August 7, 2024)
o Fire Department Open House (August 18, 2024)
o Aquila Park (October 21, 2024)
o Hennepin County-St. Louis Park Library (October 29,
2024)
• Community Workshop held at the Westwood Nature Center (Oct
15, 2024), engaging in hands-on mapping activities and
discussions.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 21
• Online Survey conducted during the first phase (Fall 2024)
gathering insight on travel modes, safety concerns, and
investment priorities.
• Interactive Mapping Tool (Fall 2024) allowed stakeholders to
provide comments on specific locations, routes, and areas of
interest. Comments identified specific safety concerns across the
city, specifically on major roads such as Excelsior Blvd,
Minnetonka Blvd, and Louisiana Ave.
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Stakeholder Committee
reviewed technical data and guided the development of
strategies and project locations to ensure recommendations
reflect community needs. The TAC members included city staff
from various departments such as police, fire and planning as
well as MnDOT and Hennepin County representatives. The 10-
member Stakeholder Committee represented diverse
backgrounds and modes of transportation, including residents,
advocacy groups and a representative from the school district.
• Pop-up Workshop at Parktacular on June 14, 2025, introduced
the planning process, top priority projects, and upcoming Action
Plan to the public.
Key Themes
The following key takeaways are based on public feedback gathered through the engagement activities outlined
previously.
Traffic Management and Speed Control
Speeding and unsafe driving behaviors along busy streets were top concerns. Feedback also
mentioned that vehicles drive too fast along residential roads.
Survey respondents ranked calming vehicle traffic (selected by 64% of participants) as the
top transportation priority, while traffic enforcement was ranked third (selected by 47%).
Public input emphasized the need for traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds,
especially near school zone areas, parks, and commercial areas.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Intersections
The public highlighted safety concerns at intersections throughout the city, specifically
along roads with high traffic, multiple lanes, faster speeds, or near commercial areas.
Based on survey input, improving safety conditions at intersections (selected by 57% of
participants) ranked second as a top priority for the city’s future transportation priorities.
Many engagement participants shared that they do not feel safe walking or biking across
busy streets with children, even at intersections with controlled crossings.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 22
Positive Feedback regarding City’s Multimodal Investments
Throughout engagement events, many stakeholders shared their general support for the city’s
continuous efforts to expand and improve the multimodal network. The pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure was highlighted as a key community asset in St. Louis Park.
Top areas of concern
Through the online comment map, community members were able to share locations where they felt unsafe walking,
biking or driving. Figure 9 shows these locations are spread throughout the city, with higher concentration of safety
related comments near Texas and Minnetonka Blvd, Wooddale Ave and 26th Street, Excelsior Blvd and Hwy 100, and
the Fern Hill Neighborhood. Additional areas of moderate comment density include locations along Louisiana Ave,
West Lake Street, Knollwood Mall, and areas in close proximity to schools.
Figure 9 - Online
Comment Map (Fall
2024)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 23
PRIORITY AREAS
Information from the safety analysis, as well as equity analysis and public feedback were used to develop a data driven
method for prioritizing future safety improvements. The method was created with input from the TAC , the Stakeholder
Committee, review of public survey comments, and a review of national best practices. Locations were scored and
weighed using four main categories, with a maximum possible score of 30 points. The high-injury network and high-risk
locations made up 70% of the scoring criteria with equity considerations and public feedback comprising 30%. Table 3
shows the criteria and scores included in the location prioritization.
Table 3 - Prioritization Criteria
Criteria Total
Points
(30)
Scoring Categories (Points)
High-Injury Locations
12
• High-Injury Network (HIN)(6pts)
• High-Injury Intersections (6pts)
High-Risk Locations 9
• Vulnerable Road Users Crashes (2pts)
• Proximity to Schools (2pts)
• At-grade Regional Trail Crossings (2pts)
• Roadways with 4 or more lanes (2pt)
• Crashes occurring more frequently in the dark (1pt)
Equity
Considerations
6
• Poverty Rate (1pt)
• Percentage of residents identifying as a person of color (1pt)
• Affordable/senior Housing (1pt)
• Population Density (1pt)
• Residents Under the Age of 18 (1pt)
• Pedestrian Generators (Low-wage worker jobs, transit stops) (1pt)
Public Feedback 3 • Density of Public Comments (2-3pts)
When the criteria were applied across the city, the highest scoring locations had a total of 23 points out of 30. No
locations scored for all 14 categories. Figure 10 shows the scoring throughout the city while the Prioritization Technical
Memorandum, included in Appendix D provides a full methodology for the analysis. Areas highlighted show locations
with the greatest need for safety investment, based on documented crash history, other risk factors and public
feedback. A total of 28 locations score either moderate (9-16) or high (17-23) on the prioritization map.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 24
Figure 10 - Priority Scoring for Safety Improvements
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 25
Top locations were then identified based on reasonable construction extents and grouped into tiers based on their
score and future construction status for the roadways. Table 4 provides a summary of the priority tiers and
considerations for action items based on planned and programmed projects.
Tier 0 projects were high scoring (23-17) and moderate scoring (16-9) locations with reconstruction in progress or to be
completed by the end of 2026. Since these projects are already underway, recommendations revolve around the post-
construction review process to ensure safety concerns were sufficiently addressed in the reconstruction.
Tier 1 locations represent the highest priority locations. These are all part of the High-Injury Network and will require
significant coordination with county and state partners since these locations are mostly under county and state
jurisdiction. Throughout this process, both the county and state were engaged to evaluate and identify safety concerns
and recommended solutions.
Tier 2 locations represent the moderate scoring locations. These are a mix of roads under the city, county and state
jurisdictions. Many of these locations provide greater opportunities for quick build or demonstration projects, which
are less expensive and have fewer barriers to implementation.
Table 4 - Prioritization Tiers
Tier Criteria Action Items
Tier 0 High scoring (23-17) and
moderate scoring (16-9)
with planned reconstruction
in progress or planned by
2026
• Consider temporary safety improvements and/or additional construction
management precautions before and during reconstruction
• Review existing construction plans to ensure identified safety concerns and
needs were accounted for in reconstruction plans
• Post construction evaluation
Tier 1 High scoring (23-17) with no
planned reconstruction
• Identify key safety concerns
• Assess short-term quick build solutions
• Assess medium- and long-term solutions
• Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding
Tier 1 High scoring (23-17) with
planned reconstruction in
the next 3-10 years
• Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures
• Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design
Tier 2 Moderate scoring (16-9)
with no planned
reconstruction
• Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures
• Assess short-term quick build solutions
• Assess medium- and long-term solutions
• Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding
Tier 2 Moderate scoring (16-9)
with planned reconstruction
in the next 3-10 years
• Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures
• Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design
Tier 3 All other low scoring (1-8)
locations
• Monitor locations and conduct follow-up evaluation next time a crash
analysis is completed.
• Complete a post-fatal/severe crash review for all new fatalities or
pedestrian/bicyclist crashes that occurred after the December 2023
collection period.
• Identify system wide strategies such as education and enforcement to
improve safety systemwide.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 26
Figure 11 and Table 5 provide a summary of the Tier 0, 1 and 2 locations. These include roads and intersections owned
by the city, county, or state. Many of the Tier 1 locations involve county/state roads and will require significant
coordination to advocate for safety improvements outside the city’s jurisdiction.
Figure 11 – Top 28 Priority Areas (St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan, 2025)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 27
Table 5 - Top 28 Priority Areas (St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan, 2025)
Tier Map
#
Project Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns
0 1 Cedar Lake Rd (Rhode Island
Ave S to Louisiana Ave (City
(MSA))
2026 Pedestrian and bicyclist safety at crossings along Cedar
Lake Rd (Particularly at Nevada Ave)
0 2 Minnetonka Blvd - Hwy 100 to
Lake St (County)
2025 Project is currently under construction, so a safety
review was not completed.
0 3 Louisiana Ave - I-394 to W
22nd St (City (MSA))
2025 North/south traveling bicyclist safety at crosswalks.
0 4 Louisiana Ave - W 22nd St to
BNSF RR bridge (City (MSA))
2026 North/south traveling pedestrian and bicyclist safety at
crosswalks/driveways
1 5 Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100
NB entrance ramp (MnDOT/
County)
2025
pavement only
Turning conflicts
1 6 Minnetonka Blvd - Cedar Lake
Trail Bridge to Texas Ave
(County)
2028 • Segment wide: Vehicle speeds, Pedestrian crossing
concerns, particularly at Utah Ave, Xylon Ave
intersections, Bicyclist crossing concerns along
Minnetonka Blvd.
• Minnetonka Blvd at Texas Ave Intersection: Red
light running, visibility due to vertical curve, and
ADA opportunities
1 7 Texas Ave - 36th Ave S to Hwy
7
(City-MSA)
None • Pedestrian crossing/facility concerns near a high
pedestrian generator
• Public Comments: Unsignalized intersection at Cub
Foods feels unsafe for both drivers and pedestrians
• Visibility concerns in the SE corner of 36th St and
Texas Ave
1 8 Texas Ave and Hwy 7 (MnDOT) 2028 vertical
curve lowering
• High vehicle speeds, visibility due to vertical curve
• Pedestrian/ Bicyclist safety concerns in high
pedestrian generator area
1 9 Excelsior Blvd West Segment -
Powell Rd to Hwy 100
(County)
None Varies, Part of the HIN
1 10 Excelsior Blvd East Segment -
Hwy 100 to W 36th 1/2 St
(County)
2028 (west
100
interchange)
Varies, Part of the HIN
2 11 36th St - Regional Trail
Crossing to Texas Ave
(City-MSA)
None • Vehicle speeds
• Trail crossing concerns (Cedar Lake Trail)
• Bicyclist crossing concerns along 36th St
• Intersection signal timing and pedestrian concerns
(Aquilla and Texas intersections)
• Visibility concerns (36th St and Texas)
2 12 Wooddale Ave S - W 35th St to
W 36th St (City-MSA)
None • Pedestrian crossing safety at 35th and 36th
• Visibility concerns for westbound off ramp
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 28
• Future CP Rail Regional Trail by Three Rivers Park
District
2 13 Cedar Lake Rd and Ridge Dr
(City-MSA)
None • Visibility concerns likely contributing to bicyclist
safety issues on south leg
2 14 Cedar Lake Rd and Hwy 169
Ramp (MnDOT)
Signal
replacement
project 2026,
sidewalk on
east side of
Jordan, Bridge
reconstruction
in 2035.
• Pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety
• Motorist speeds
• Visibility concerns
2 15 26th St - Natchez Ave S to
Joppa Ave S
(City-MSA)
None • Visibility concerns at Natchez Ave with pedestrian
generators
• Stop sign compliance concerns
2 16 Park Center Blvd - W36th St to
Excelsior Blvd
(City-MSA)
None • Bicyclist crossing safety at 36th St
• Pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety at Target
signal
• Motorist safety issues at Excelsior Blvd and Park
Center Blvd
2 17 Park Place Blvd - I-394 to
Gamble Dr
(City-MSA)
None • Bicyclist safety along high volume roadway (street
bicyclists)
• Pedestrian crossing safety at intersections
2 18 Louisiana Ave at W 27th St
(City-MSA)
None • High vehicle speeds
• Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety
• Potential visibility issues for westbound movements
2 19 W 30th 1/2 St and Virginia Ave
(City)
None • Pedestrian safety / Safe Routes to School
• Visibility issues due to parking
• Uncontrolled intersection
2 20 Aquila Neighborhood
(City)
None • Pedestrian crossing safety / Safe Routes to School
• Vehicle speeds on Xylon Ave
• Visibility issues due to street parking
2 21 Hwy 25 (Hwy 7) and Beltline
Blvd (County and City-MSA) None • Long crossing distances at intersection with high
pedestrian generators
• ADA improvement opportunities
• Potential signal timing concerns with high
percentage of rear-end crashes
2 22 Beltline Blvd – Hwy 7 service
road to Park Glen Rd
(City-MSA)
2032 • Vehicle speeds
• Missing connection from on street trail to regional
trail and pedestrian bridge over Hwy 25 (Hwy 7)
• Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing concerns at Park Glen
and future light rail station
2 23 Virginia Ave S - North Cedar
Lake Regional Trail Crossing to
Texas Ave
(City-MSA)
None • Trail crossing visibility issues with horizontal curve
• Connection under rail bridge
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 29
2 24 Hwy 7 and Blake Rd
(MnDOT, City, City of Hopkins)
None See MnDOT report 14 for more information
2 25 W 36th St and Hwy 100 Ramp
Interchange
(MnDOT)
2029 signal
replacement • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety at south
crosswalk
2 26 Minnetonka Blvd (Cavell Ave
to Boone Ave)
(County)
2031 • Vehicle speeds
• Horizontal curve
2 27 Hwy 169 ramps at Minnetonka
Blvd (MnDOT/ County)
2030 • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing safety
2 28 W 16th St and Duke Dr
City (local)
None • Pedestrian safety at west crosswalk with left turning
vehicle conflict
• 4-lane undivided cross-section with all-way stop and
possible visual clutter concerns
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS
For each of the top 28 locations, an in-depth safety review was conducted to provide recommended treatments.
Treatments range from short to long term and include quick-build solutions15 and demonstrations projects 16 where
possible, to efficiently address safety needs. Solutions were based on the safety treatments identified in the
comprehensive Safety Toolkit, as well as engineering judgement based on site review.
Additional details on the recommended short-, medium- and long-term 17 recommendations can be found in Appendix
B (Recommendations for top 28 project locations) and Appendix D (Prioritization Technical Memorandum).
Safety Toolkit (Appendix A)
Specific engineering treatments that can be applied to the top safety projects, as well as infrastructure citywide, must
be based on research and best practices to ensure that treatments are not only safe, but an effective and efficient use
of resources. MnDOT has developed the Local Road Traffic Safety Infrastructure Strategies (2024) which provided the
basis for the treatment toolkit included in Appendix A. The toolkit outlines various treatments that can be used to
improve road safety, as well as the estimated crash reduction when treatments are applied, and a rough estimate of
cost.
14 In 2022, MnDOT completed a full corridor study of Hwy 7 from Hwy 100 in St. Louis Park to Co. Rd. 33 in Hollywood Twp. Additional MnDOT
study of treatment for Hwy 7 through St. Louis Park is underway at the time of this report.
15 Quick build solutions are small actions that can be taken that require less cost to implement permanent solutions,
such as signal timing changes or signage.
16 Demonstration projects are temporary installations, typically applied with temporary paint and barriers, to change
the character of a roadway before a more permanent solution can be built. These projects allow a concept to be
tested in the real world before being made permanent.
17 While timing of recommendations are subject to funding availability, short-term typically refers to actions that can
be taken within two years or less, medium-term is generally two to five years, and long-term is greater than five years.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 30
ONGOING CITY EFFORTS
While the Safe System Approach was only adopted by the Federal Department of Transportation in 2022, the city has
been using the approach for decades to address road safety. These include initiatives such as:
• Multidisciplinary traffic committee meetings (monthly)
• Neighborhood traffic control audits18 (twice a year)
• Citywide speed limit reduction (2022)
• Fatal and severe injury crash reviews
• Comprehensive speed data collection
• Targeted reconstruction of high-injury network
The city’s efforts have led to substantial improvements to 20% of the city’s High-Injury Network between 2014 and
2023, with over ¼ of the remaining HIN funded for reconstruction in the next one to four years. While the city has
made significant progress, this planning process allowed a unique opportunity to take a proactive, citywide approach to
planning the next ten plus years of improvements. The following section provides an action plan rooted in the Safe
System Approach to work towards eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes throughout the city.
THE ACTION PLAN
The goal of the Safe Streets Action Plan is not only to identify safety needs throughout the community, but to develop a
roadmap for the city to follow to efficiently implement the recommendations. This includes a combination of strategies
and projects designed to work towards the goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes throughout the city.
These recommendations are grounded in the data driven process outlined in this document to identify where needs
are greatest and applies action items rooted in proven safety best practices.
Using the Safe System Approach
While building safer roads is typically the first thing people think of when identifying ways to improve road safety, it
does not fully address the other elements of the Safe System Approach: Safer Users, Safer Vehicles, Safer Speeds, Post
Crash Care. To work towards Vision Zero, all Safe System elements must be employed. The focus areas and action items
in this section take a holistic approach to road safety, acknowledge the shared responsibility across departments and
agencies, and includes timelines and direct actions that can be taken to work towards reducing fatal and severe injury
crashes.
The focus areas and their corresponding action items were developed with input the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and a Stakeholder Committee, ensuring that the action items reflect local priorities and lived experiences.
Feedback from engagement activities was critical in identifying problem areas and shaping appropriate actions. After a
review of the systemic safety issues, precedent plans, the Safe System Approach, and feedback from the community,
seven key focus areas were identified.
18 Neighborhood traffic control audits have been used by the city to comprehensively review up to two neighborhoods per year.
This includes review of 50-60 intersections to understand what safety changes can be made during upcoming street reconstruction
projects.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 31
7 Focus Areas
1. Infrastructure investments to work towards safer transportation facilities
2. Exploring new technologies to more efficiently address road safety
3. Reviewing city policies and practices to ensure decisions are rooted in safety
4. Education initiatives to promote safer user behavior
5. Safe Routes to Schools programming to enhance safety for the most vulnerable road users
6. Incentive programs to reduce barriers and promote action around safety improvements for residents and
businesses
7. Additional safety evaluation to better understand best practices and needs in key areas and inform future
actions
Effort vs. Impact
For each focus area, action items were developed and
evaluated on an Effort vs. Impact scale to understand:
1. Where easy wins could be found (lower effort/higher
impact)
2. Major projects that could have the greatest impact
(higher effort/higher impact)
3. Additional or “fill in” tasks (lower effort/lower impact)
4. And actions that required a high amount of effort with
limited ability to provide meaningful impacts (higher
effort/lower impact), i.e., thankless tasks.
Figure 12 provides a visual representation of the effort to
impact scale. Actions that were estimated to be high effort
and low impact were removed with high impact initiatives
prioritized.
The following page provides details about each action
item, such as key safety concerns, which departments are
responsible for leading and supporting the initiatives, and a
timeframe goal for completing the action item.
Funding and Timeline Goals
While the action items provide a path for the city to work towards its Vision Zero goal, each item comes with a cost.
The speed at which many of the items can be completed is depended on funding availability at the city, regional, state
and national levels. The “Easy Wins” such as quick-build and demonstration projects will be the initial focus for
implementation while funding for “Major Projects” and “Fill In” actions are pursued. As funding becomes available, this
document helps prioritize projects based on the safety needs and provides documentation for future funding
applications. The timeline goal is as estimate that is strongly influenced by external funding availability.
Figure 12 - Effort vs. Impact Scale
1 2
3 4
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 32
Action Items
Focus Area 1: Infrastructure Investments
Physically changing the character of the roadway, sidewalks and trails is broadly accepted as the most effective way to
improve user safety. Over the past decade, the city has made substantial road improvements, with 4-to-3 lane
conversions, roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands and other proven safety countermeasures, resulting in significant
reduction in the High-Injury Network.
These investments, however, come with tradeoffs. Projects are expensive, time consuming, and don’t address all
elements of the safe system approach (i.e. safer vehicles and post-crash care). For this reason, infrastructure
investments need to be based on available funding and balanced to mitigate construction impacts to the community.
Action Item 1A - One to two high priority projects per year
Details: Complete one road or intersection reconstruction project or two demonstration
projects annually.
Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads, Safe Speeds
Timeframe Goal: Ongoing
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works, Fire/Police)
The top project lists provides data driven prioritization for future safety improvements, including mid-term solutions at
the highest risk locations. As with all projects, the ability to implement these changes is dependent on funding. Beyond
the city’s funding process, federal, regional and state grant programs are often available to supplement city efforts. For
roadways outside the city’s jurisdictions, this may include advocating for and supporting funding applications for the
agency that owns the roadway.
The safety analysis and treatment recommendations detailed in the prioritization memorandum provides a starting
point for city staff to understand basic costs and feasibility before applying for funding. The Safety Toolkit, provided in
Appendix A, provides additional proven safety countermeasures for consideration at these locations, and citywide.
Action Item 1B - Bicycle and pedestrian network development
Details: Continue working towards completion of the city's planned bicycle network and
reducing pedestrian facility gaps.
Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: Ongoing
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works)
In alignment with the city’s goal of enhancing safety for all travel modes, continuing to build out the network for non-
motorized users can provide a greater level of separation between modes, enhancing safety while also supporting
additional city goals such as equity, environmental stewardship, and neighborhood strength. In addition to the top
safety needs highlighted in this document, the Active Living Sidewalks and Trails Plan highlight additional opportunities
to improve protected facilities for non-motorized users.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 33
Upcoming projects such as the CP regional trail extension offer improved north/south bicyclist connections through the
middle of the city, a desire that was echoed by many during public engagement process. Other opportunities include
improved north/south connection from Cedar Lake Rd to Cedar Lake Trail for walking and biking, connections over Hwy
7 near Texas Ave. to facilitate safer pedestrian and bicyclist crossing between Knollwood Mall and the future SW Light
Rail Transit (LRT) station at Blake Rd., and a north/south connection near Park Place Blvd. to connect bicyclists to the
regional trail system.
Focus Area 2: Explore New Technology to Enhance Road Safety
Action Item 2A - Explore automated enforcement
Details: Explore the use of automated enforcement, such as speed safety cameras
and red light cameras (as legislation allows), for their use on the High-Injury
Network or at High-Injury Intersections where other safety countermeasures are
not easily applied.
Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Users
Timeframe Goal: 3+ years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Police (Public Works, Engineering)
Automated enforcement uses traffic safety cameras (i.e. speed and red light cameras) to collect the license plate of
vehicles and issue a fee to the owner of the vehicle when a speed or red light violation is recorded. While the use of
automated enforcement is widely accepted throughout the country, it is not currently allowed under state law. At the
time of this plan, a pilot program is underway to evaluate the long-term use and application of traffic safety cameras,
and this option may be available to the city in the next few years. These programs have been shown to reduce fatal and
severe injury crashes by up to 56%19 and are an FHWA proven safety countermeasure. While effective, the
implementation of programs can be complex and require considerable political support.
Action Item 2B - Use technology to identify high-speed corridors
Details: Utilize subscription to data analytics provider, such as Streetlight, to determine
where and when high rates of speeding occur throughout the city.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Users
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works, Police/Fire)
The city already uses data analytics software which aggregates cell phone data (without personally identifiable
information) to provide information on user behavior for people walking, biking and driving. It can, relatively efficiently,
identify speeding hot spots, including times of day and days of the week when high rates of speeding occurs. This helps
the city identify traffic calming solutions (such as those listed in the safety toolbox and future neighborhood traffic
calming guidance) or target enforcement effort.
19 MnDOT TRS2203
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 34
Speeding has become the leading cause of traffic deaths in the state 20, and even at lower speeds (i.e. 35 mph),
speeding can have devastating consequences for vulnerable road users. The city has taken substantial action in the past
few years through the adoption of the citywide speed limit reductions and the “20 is Plenty” education campaign.
Through this, the city has seen a reduction in speed on locally owned roadways 21, but more can be done to target
locations and times for where speeds put vulnerable road users and drivers at higher risk. By using existing software to
identify these high speed locations, the city can better allocate resources to the highest need areas.
Action Item 2C - Safety technology for city-owned equipment
Details: Pursue opportunities for safety technology on city owned fleet, such as intelligent
speed assistance devices, backup cameras, etc. and explore other technology upgrades to
city owned or leased equipment (i.e. signal, asset management tools, etc.)
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Speeds, Safe Users, Safer Vehicles
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Fleet (Engineering, Public Works)
Intelligent speed assistance devices 22, backup cameras, and other safety features that support safe driving, have the
opportunity to provide lifesaving benefits for all road users. The city owned fleet is a small percentage of the vehicles
on the roadway, but safety technology can help improve safety outcomes, set an example for the community, and has
the potential to provide cost saving benefits or offsets in the form of insurance premium reductions.
Focus Area 3: Updates to City Policies and Practices
Action Item 3A – Review the city’s 2014 Crosswalk Guidance
Details: Review the Crosswalk Guidance to reflect updates in national and international best
practices for prioritizing pedestrian safety near high-density pedestrian generators.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, High Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works)
Over the past 12 years since the Crosswalk Guidance document was published, many changes in pedestrian safety best
practices and FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures have occurred. The city has also adopted the Complete Streets
and Green, Living Streets Policy with a modal priority framework to guide decisions along the county’s transportation
network. An update to the Crosswalk Guidance provides the opportunity to work towards these policy objectives. It
also provides an opportunity to expand the current guidance and treatment recommendations at intersections (both
signalized and unsignalized), an area that was identified as a top systemic issue through the safety analysis as well as
through public feedback.
20 Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2022
21 2024 St. Louis Park Citywide Speed Limit Review
22 Intelligent Speed Assistance | NHTSA
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 35
More robust guidance for signalized and unsignalized intersections could include countermeasures such as Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at signals near high pedestrian generators and geometric changes to the roadway such as
curb extensions, which have both been shown to improve visibility and, therefore the safety, of people walking and
biking.
Action Item 3B – Explore Neighborhood traffic calming guide
Details: Pursue funding for the development of a neighborhood traffic calming guide to
outline procedures for prioritizing locations and providing design best practices for
neighborhood streets. This includes exploring funding sources to implement solutions on
locally owned corridors.
Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years/ Ongoing
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works, Fire/Police)
A neighborhood traffic calming guide provides the opportunity to utilize the excessive speed data information
developed through Action Item 2B, to implement a data driven process for prioritizing and implementing traffic calming
solutions on local roadways. This includes the development of treatment guidance in coordination with the fire
department to ensure treatment measures don’t hinder their ability to respond to emergencies and public works, who
provides overall maintenance. It also includes the pursuit of dedicated funding and identification of prioritization
criteria to implement both quick-build and long-term solutions where the needs are greatest.
Action Item 3C – Continue interagency safety working group
Details: Continue meeting with the interagency safety working group developed through
this process to evaluate citywide opportunities for safety improvements beyond the city’s
jurisdiction. Continue meetings with the TAC to continue inter-departmental collaboration.
Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: Ongoing
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (All)
This planning process brought together city staff from various departments, agency partners, and stakeholders to work
collaboratively across disciplines to address road safety. This action calls for the continued collaboration with annual
Safe Streets Action Plan TAC meetings and bi-annual County and State coordination meetings, to provide updates on
the action items, discuss any necessary changes, and continue the momentum to move projects and actions forward.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 36
Action Item 3D – Post safety improvement evaluation
Details: Develop guidance to define projects evaluation process and work with council to
develop a funding source for post-project evaluation.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, High Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Public Works)
Develop guidance to inform what metrics projects should be evaluated by, based on the type and scale of the project.
Work with council to develop a funding source for post-project evaluation. Explore automated tools and dashboards for
assessing post-countermeasure effectiveness.
Action Item 3E – Update development review process
Details: Review land use and development projects review processes to ensure that urban
design for security principles are considered for all projects.
Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: Less than 1 year
Lead Department (Support Departments): Community Development (Engineering)
Fatal and severe injury crashes on private property were not evaluated through this report, however, parking lots and
other pedestrian facilities such as plazas remain susceptible to fatal and severe injury crashes, whether unintentional or
intentional. FEMA’s Site and Urban Design for Security encourages cities to adopt design best practices which consider
potential security concerns. By incorporating best practices review into the development process, private property
owners could better protect their property, particularly for high pedestrian traffic areas such as outdoor restaurants,
plazas, and parks.
Focus Area 4: Education
Action Item 4A – Develop senior education program
Details: Review and expand senior education programs focusing on safe driving, walking
and biking behaviors and alternatives to driving.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Users
Timeframe Goal: 3+ years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Communications Department (Police)
We heard from the community that education about newer infrastructure, technology and resources was a desire,
particularly for older residents. Minnesota’s Towards Zero Deaths (TZD) office and other organizations provide a variety
of resources, videos, and training targeted towards older road users. This action will involve working with the TZD office
to assess resources that best fit the needs of the community and help to disseminate those resources to seniors. This
may include roundabout education and training resources, share the road education about pedestrian, bicyclist and
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 37
motorcyclist rights, ADA resources, and alternate transportation options. While targeted education for youth was
considered, it was not pursued as an action item due to new, robust legislative requirements for pedestrian and
bicyclist safety education in schools and existing drivers educations programs.
Action Item 4B – Conduct Safe System training for city staff and elected officials
Details: Training/educating city staff and elected officials on Safe System concepts and
Toward Zero Deaths initiatives to raise awareness and promote road safety awareness
across departments.
Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: All
Timeframe Goal: Ongoing
Lead Department (Support Departments): Administration (Engineering, Fire/Police)
Promoting safety education across agencies is part of the Safe System acknowledgement that safety is a shared
responsibility. Yearly training for city staff and elected officials can continue the education around the need for road
safety action, so that every person has the opportunity to walk away from a crash.
Action Item 4C – Implement a citywide traffic safety advertising campaign
Details: Create a traffic safety campaign aimed at reducing severe injuries and fatalities by
addressing speeding and dangerous driving behaviors.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Users
Timeframe Goal: Ongoing
Lead Department (Support Departments): Communications (Engineering, Fire/Police)
Create a culturally relevant traffic safety campaign aimed at reducing severe injuries and fatalities by addressing
speeding and dangerous driving behaviors such as running red lights, failing to yield to pedestrians/bicyclists and
intoxicated driving. May include a website with resources and education around road safety (i.e. Roundabouts and
demonstration projects, pedestrian safety, ADA resources and more.)
Focus Area 5: Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Programming
Action Item 5A – Pursue SRTS implementation grant funding
Details: Seek state Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Implementation grants for safety
enhancements identified within the plan.
Effort vs. Impact: Low Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Administration (Engineering)
Aquila Elementary was identified in the plan as a top priority project. Recommendations for roadways adjacent to the
school include curb extensions to improve student visibility and provide traffic calming, along with a variety of other
crossing and facility improvements. Intersections near the St. Louis Park High School and Central Community Center
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 38
were also included. These locations and the safety analysis provided in this report will support state SRTS grant
applications when the next funding round becomes available.
Action Item 5B – Pursue SRTS planning grant funding
Details: Explore a partnership with schools to evaluate and pursue planning grant
applications.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Administration (Engineering)
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) supports SRTS plans for K-12 schools across Minnesota through
planning assistance awards. These plans include student and parent/caregiver engagement, analysis of existing
conditions and local data, prioritize potential infrastructure improvements and school-based education and
encouragement strategies, and identify school-based education and encouragement strategies. The city will work with
private and public schools throughout the city to educate and provide support for planning grant applications.
Focus Area 6: Incentive Programs
Action Item 6A – Evaluate business and/or private property owners incentives program
Details: Evaluate incentives program for businesses to take proactive steps to train staff on
DWI reduction best practices and for private property owners to make improvements to
private property to reduce vehicle conflicts with Vulnerable Road Users.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Building and Energy (Administration)
Driving while intoxicated (DWI) or under the influence made up 20% of the fatal and severe injury crashes in the city
from 2014-2023. Incentive programs can help encourage businesses that serve alcohol or are selling THC products take
advantage of training programs for staff to reduce the opportunity of DWI crashes. They can also provide resources to
businesses to provide safe rides for people who do become intoxicated. This action calls for the evaluation of an
incentive program in collaboration with staff who oversee liquor and dispensary licensing for future programming and
funding consideration.
Action Item 6B – Equitable access to safe vehicles program
Details: Evaluate existing educational resources, incentives and/or loan programs for
residents to upgrade, repair or retire personal vehicles that do not have basic safety
technology or present other safety risks.
Effort vs. Impact: Moderate Effort, Moderate Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Vehicles
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 39
Lead Department (Support Departments): Engineering (Administration)
Research existing educational resources, incentives and/or loan programs for residents to upgrade or retire personal
vehicles that do not have basic safety technology such as autobraking and rear cameras, and received free services to
make safety related repairs such as break lights and headlights. Consider the inclusion of non-motorized safety
equipment as well such as bike lights, helmets, and high visibility vests. Evaluate the viability of programs that are not
actively available to the community and pursue funding based on the evaluation results. Educate low-income residents
and user groups on existing and new safe vehicle incentives such as advertising campaigns and/or pop-up events.
Focus Area 7: Additional Safety Evaluation
Action Item 7A – Conduct lighting review
Details: Pursue funding for a lighting analysis of the top locations identified as having
higher percentage of crashes occurring at night and pursue additional funding for lighting
upgrades based on results of analysis.
Effort vs. Impact: High Effort, High Impact
Safe System Elements: Safe Roads
Timeframe Goal: 1-3 years
Lead Department (Support Departments): Public Works (Engineering)
Complete a lighting review at 3-5 locations per year identified as having higher percentage of crashes occurring at
night. Pursue funding for lighting upgrades based on findings and demonstrated need of the lighting analysis.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 40
Action items vary in level of effort to ensure that,
regardless of funding availability in any particular
year, actions are still able to be taken to continue to
work towards the vision zero goal. Action items 1A,
1B, 2A and 7A are the highest effort with the
highest perceived benefit to user safety. These are
considered Major Projects and require significant
time, funding and effort to implement. Action items
that have moderate level of effort with high impact
and low effort with medium impact are considered
quick wins and are easier to initiate and fund.
As stated previously, funding opportunities change,
and providing a diversity of efforts can help the city
continue to take smaller actions while pursuing
funding for larger projects.
Action Item Legend
• 1A - One to two high priority projects per year
• 1B - Bicycle and pedestrian network development
• 2A - Explore automated enforcement
• 2B - Use technology to identify high-speed corridors
• 2C - Safety technology for city-owned equipment
• 3A – Review the city’s 2014 Crosswalk Guidance
• 3B – Explore Neighborhood traffic calming program
• 3C – Continue interagency safety working group
• 3D – Post safety improvement evaluation
• 3E – Update development review process
• 4A – Develop senior education program
• 4B – Conduct Safe System training for city staff and elected officials
• 4C – Implement a citywide traffic safety advertising campaign
• 5A – Pursue SRTS implementation grant funding
• 5B – Pursue SRTS planning grant funding
• 6A – Evaluate business and/or private property owners incentives program
• 6B – Equitable access to safe vehicles program
• 7A – Conduct lighting review
Figure 13 - Effort vs. Impact for Action Items
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 41
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The City of St. Louis Park developed this Safe Streets Action Plan with a strong commitment to public transparency. To
ensure the plan reflects the experiences and priorities of residents using the city’s transportation system, the city and
project team implemented a multi-phase public engagement strategy design to reach a wide range of community
members. Through community events, public surveys, an interactive mapping tool, and stakeholder advisory group, the
city gathered meaningful input that informed the plan’s goals, strategies, and project locations. These efforts focused
on concerns around traffic speeds, intersection safety, and multimodal access.
To maintain ongoing transparency, the Safe Streets Action Plan will:
• Undergo a public comment period for this report
• The final study report will be posted on the city’s webpage
• A tracking dashboard will be created to allow for real-time updates on projects and strategies
• and a yearly report will provide progress on action items and crash trends
The City of St. Louis Park is committed to continuing this transparent and responsive approach, adapting strategies as
needed based on emerging data and feedback. For more information, visit the city’s website to view the progress
tracker dashboard.
CONCLUSION
The city is committed to eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by the year 2050. While this goal is ambitious and
will require significant collaboration across departments and with other agencies, this Safe Streets Action Plan provides
a road map to work towards the goal and document progress along the way.
As a member of the community, there are actions you can take to help the city achieve its goal. Advocacy for road
safety initiatives at the local, state and federal levels is one way members of the community can help fund
improvements. Checking out the Toward Zero Deaths safe roads program and sharing it with your friends and family
can help spread the word about common sense traffic safety strategies. And most of all, you can practice safe driving,
walking, biking and rolling behaviors to slow speeds and improve awareness of your surroundings so that everyone has
a chance to make it home safely at the end of the day.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 42
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Safety Treatment Toolkit
Appendix B – Recommendations for top 28 project locations
Appendix C – Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum
Appendix D – Prioritization Technical Memorandum
Appendix E – Engagement Summary
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 43
Appendix A: Safety Treatment Toolkit
Introduction
The purpose of this toolkit is to provide a list of road safety countermeasures that can be applied to roads in the City of
St. Louis Park. The toolkit is based on the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s District Safety Plan Road Safety
Strategies, also known as the Big Book of Ideas, and modified to reflect countermeasures applicable within the city.
Countermeasure can be selected based on the type of location needing improvement. The crash reduction factor
(CRF)1 of each countermeasure and estimated cost provided will also help aid decision making. Icons are shown next to
a countermeasure if the countermeasure addresses pedestrians, bicyclists, or equity. In some cases, it also indicates
what severe type the countermeasure is meant to address.
Countermeasure Icons:
The pedestrian icon indicates that the countermeasure addresses safety for people walking or using a
wheelchair
The bicyclist icon indicates that the countermeasure addresses safety for people biking or using a scooter
This icon indicates that the countermeasure addresses Equity Safety
Severity Key
K = Fatal
A = Serious Injury
B = Minor Injury
C = Possible Injury
O = Property Damage Only (PDO)
1 Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are provided for each strategy (if available) to estimate the proportion of crashes that could be
reduced if the strategy is implemented. The adjacent notes show what types of crashes the CRF applies to. Example: A CRF of 20%
that applies to KABC (fatal or injury crashes) and single vehicle run off road (SVROR) crashes indicates that the total number of
injury run off road crashes would be reduced by 20% if the associated strategy were implemented.
For more information on a specific strategy CRF and accompanying Crash Modification Factor (CMF), see the Big Book of Ideas, or
contact MnDOT’s Office of Traffic Safety.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 44
Segments Countermeasures
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 45
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 46
Intersection Countermeasures
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 47
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 48
Segment countermeasures descriptions and example photos
Access Management
Managing roadway access reduces potential conflict points by combining or
limiting access locations.
Shared Use Path
Paths that accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians, separate from motor
vehicle traffic.
Sidepath
A shared-use path located parallel to a roadway.
Separate Bike Lane
On-street bicycle lanes that are physically separated from vehicles by features
such as curbs, bollards, parking lanes, or buffers.
Bike Lane
Dedicated lanes on a roadway reserved exclusively for bicycle use.
Shared Roadway
A roadway where bicycles and vehicles operate in the same travel space,
effective on lower-speed streets.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 49
Divided Roadway
A roadway where opposing directions of traffic are separated by a median,
barrier, or open space.
Mid-Block Crosswalk
Pedestrian crossings located between intersections to provide access where
demand is high but no nearby crosswalk exists.
Pedestrian Refuge Island/Median Island
Protected space in the middle of the roadway where pedestrians can stop before
completing a crossing.
Pedestrian Barriers to Prevent Mid-Block Crossing
Fences or barriers that restrict mid-block pedestrian crossings at unmarked
locations.
Remove Sightline Obstructions
Keeping intersections and roadways clear of visual obstructions (such as vegetation
or parked vehicles) to improve driver visibility and recovery space.
Road Diet (3 & 5 Lane Conversions)
Reconfiguring a multi-lane roadway, often converting a four-lane undivided street
into three lanes with a center two-way left-turn lane, to calm traffic and improve
safety.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 50
Sidewalks
Paved pedestrian walkways that provide accessible travel, typically run parallel to
roadways.
Appropriate Speed Limits for All Users
Speed limits are set considering land use context, pedestrian and bicycle activity,
and driveway density, rather than relying only on roadway geometry.
Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign
Electronic signs that display a driver’s real-time speed as they pass, encouraging
compliance with posted limits.
Speed Safety Cameras
Cameras that detect and record speeding vehicles by capturing photo or video
evidence above a set threshold.
Traffic Calming Design
Physical roadway design elements such as narrowed lanes, median installations, or
gateway treatments that encourage lower vehicle speeds and improve safety.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 51
Variable Advisory Speed Limits
Signs that provide adjusted advisory speeds in response to weather or roadway
conditions.
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
A signal system at unsignalized crossings that alerts drivers with flashing lights when
activated by pedestrians.
RRFB (Rapids Rectangular Flashing Beacon)
Flashing light devices installed at unsignalized crossings to increase driver
awareness of pedestrians, activated by button or detection.
Lighting
Corridor-wide or intersection-based lighting improves visibility and safety at night.
Plowable Centerline Reflective Markers
Centerline markers designed to withstand snowplow operations, improving
visibility at night and in poor weather.
Pedestrian Safety Zones at Targeted Locations
Targeted locations with high pedestrian activity where enforcement strategies are
focused on improving safety.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 52
Intersection countermeasures descriptions and example photos
Access Management
Consolidating entry points helps reduce the number of potential vehicle conflict
areas.
Roundabout
Circular intersection that naturally slows vehicles, decreasing the likelihood of severe
crashes.
Mini Roundabout
A smaller-scale roundabout designed for constrained spaces. It provides similar
safety benefits as a standard roundabout but requires less right-of-way.
Partial Grade-Separated Intersection
Some turning movements are split onto different levels to reduce need for traffic
signals.
Center Island Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands/Median Island
Space in the middle of a roadway where pedestrians have protection from vehicles.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 53
Left Turn Calming/Hardened Centerlines
Concrete curbs or bollards along the centerline force drivers to take slower, wider left
turns, protecting crosswalk users.
Remove Sightline Obstructions/Maintain Vision Triangles
Removing or managing obstructions such as vegetation or parked cars preserves
drivers’ ability to see pedestrians, cyclists, and other vehicles.
Turn Lanes
Dedicated lanes for left or right turns keep turning vehicles out of through lanes,
improving traffic flow
3/4 intersection
Similar to a standard four-leg junction but restricts left turns from minor
approaches, lowering conflict points.
Corridor Signal Timing
Signals can be adjusted to discourage speeding while still supporting efficient traffic
progression along a corridor.
Curb Extensions and Curb Bump-Outs
Extending the curb into the roadway reduces pedestrian crossing distance and
improves visibility.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 54
Traffic Calming Design
Narrow lanes, medians, and similar features reduce driving speeds and improve
safety in urban areas
Yellow Change Intervals
The change interval between green and red needs to be carefully timed to ensure
drivers clear the intersection safely before cross-traffic receives a green.
Confirmation Light
A blue light mounted on the back of a signal turns on with the red phase, helping
police officers identify red-light violations.
Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA)
This signal allows left turns after yielding to opposing traffic.
High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon (HAWK)/Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(PHB)
Installed at unsignalized crossings, these pedestrian-activated beacons use flashing
and solid lights to alert drivers to stop for crossing pedestrians.
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Pedestrians start crossing before vehicles get a green light.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 55
Pedestrian Countdown Timers
Visual and audible times that inform pedestrians how much crossing time remains.
Pedestrian Safety Zones
Apply pedestrian countermeasures at high-pedestrian or equity-priority locations.
Protected Intersection
Separates bicycles from vehicle paths by providing designated bike lanes and
protected crossings.
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Flashing lights activated by pedestrians pushing a button or permissive detection to
draw driver attention to unsignalized crossings.
Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements
High visibility crosswalk, improved lighting, and enhanced signing and pavement
marking.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 56
Enhanced Transit Stops and Bus Transit
Improved seating shelter, and heating at transit stops to improve comfort for
users. Decreased headways, travel lanes, and signals to improve travel times and
reliability.
Intersection Bicycle Signing and Markings
Green colored pavement, perpendicular bike lane crossings, bike box, etc
Raised Crosswalks/Raised Intersections
Crosswalks elevated to sidewalk height slow vehicles and highlight pedestrian
priority.
Reflective Signal Head Backplate
Adding reflective borders around traffic signals improves visibility.
Retroreflective Strips on Signposts
Retroreflective panels on signposts increase visibility at night.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 57
Appendix B – Recommendations for top 28 priority locations
For each of the top 28 locations, an in-depth safety review was conducted to provide recommended treatments. Treatments range from short- to
long-term and include quick-build solutions and demonstrations projects where possible, to efficiently address safety needs. Solutions were based
on the safety treatments identified in the comprehensive Safety Toolkit, as well as engineering judgement based on site review.
• Quick build solutions are small actions that can be taken that require less cost to implement permanent solutions, such as signal timing
changes or signage.
• Demonstration projects are temporary installations, typically applied with temporary paint and barriers, to change the character of a
roadway before a more permanent solution can be built. These projects allow a concept to be tested in the real world before being made
permanent.
• Major projects: Most construction projects that require geometric changes to the roadway or significant infrastructure investment such as
new signals and lighting are considered long-term recommendations due to the amount of time needed for project design and funding.
While timing of recommendations are subject to funding availability, short-term typically refers to actions that can be taken within two years or
less, medium-term is generally two to five years, and long-term is greater than five years.
Table B1 – Tier 0 Projects for the St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan and Recommended Treatments
Map
#
Tier 0 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Medium- to Long-Term Recommendations
1 Cedar Lake Rd
(Rhode Island
Ave S to
Louisiana Ave
(City (MSA))
2026 • Pedestrian and bicyclist safety at crossings along Cedar
Lake Rd (Particularly at Nevada Ave)
Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash
history to confirm effectiveness of safety
measures.
2 Minnetonka
Blvd - Hwy 100
to Lake St
(County)
2025 • Project is currently under construction, so a safety review
was not completed.
Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash
history to confirm effectiveness of safety
measures.
3 Louisiana Ave -
I-394 to W
22nd St (City
(MSA))
2025 • North/south traveling bicyclist safety at crosswalks. Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash
history to confirm effectiveness of safety
measures.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 58
Map
#
Tier 0 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Medium- to Long-Term Recommendations
4 Louisiana Ave -
W 22nd St to
BNSF RR bridge
(City (MSA))
2026 • North/south traveling pedestrian and bicyclist safety at
crosswalks/driveways
Post-construction evaluation of speed and crash
history to confirm effectiveness of safety
measures.
Table B2- Tier 1 Projects for the St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan and Recommended Treatments
Tier 1 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
5 Minnetonka Blvd
and Hwy 100 NB
entrance ramp
intersection
(MnDOT/ County)
2025
Pavement
only
• EB left turning movement
conflict (flashing yellow
arrow with dual left turns)
• WB right conflict with
pedestrians
Work with MnDOT to
evaluate signal phasing
opportunities to provide
protected movements and
reduce the risk of conflict
for both motorists and
vulnerable road users
N/A Work with MnDOT to
consider geometric changes
to the intersection to increase
pedestrian safety and comfort
6 Minnetonka Blvd -
Cedar Lake Trail
Bridge to Texas Ave
Segment (County)
2028 • Vehicle speeds
• Pedestrian crossing
concerns, particularly at
Utah Ave, Xylon Ave
intersections
• Bicyclist crossing concerns
along Minnetonka Blvd
• Red light running, visibility
due to vertical curve, and
ADA opportunities at
Minnetonka Blvd at Texas
Ave
Work with the county to
implement quick-build
solutions from Cedar Lake
Trail Bridge to Texas Ave
to slow vehicle speeds,
improve safety for
students walking and
biking to school and
people accessing the Texa-
tonka shopping center.
Work with the county to
ensure complete streets
principals and high comfort
pedestrian crossings are
prioritized in the upcoming
corridor reconstruction
N/A
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 59
Tier 1 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
7 Texas Ave - 36th
Ave S to Hwy 7
segment
(City-MSA)
None • Pedestrian crossing/facility
concerns near a high
pedestrian generator
• Public Comments:
Unsignalized intersection at
Cub Foods feels unsafe for
both drivers and
pedestrians
• Visibility concerns in the SE
corner of 36th St and Texas
Ave
Demonstration project to
reduce curb radii at 36th
and Texas as well as
Cub/Knollwood Mall
shopping center entrance
Consider lane reduction in
the SB direction
Evaluate visual
obstructions at SE corner
of 36th and Texas
Geometric changes to the
mall entrances to reduce
vehicle conflicts, make the
pedestrian more visible to
motorists, and reduce
pedestrian crossing distances.
Evaluate intersection control
or access changes at mall
entrance
8 Texas Ave and Hwy
7 intersection
(MnDOT)
2028
Roadway
Lowering
• High vehicle speeds,
visibility due to vertical
curve
• Pedestrian/ Bicyclist safety
concerns in high pedestrian
generator area
Queue warning system
installed in the WB
direction in 2025
Coordinate with MnDOT
to pursue the lowering of
the vertical curve to
improve sight distance
(Project planned for 2028)
N/A Work with MnDOT to
evaluate alternate
interchange options that
improve pedestrian safety,
including a grade separated
option for pedestrians and
bicyclists to reduce existing
gap in comfortable crossing
opportunities
9 Excelsior Blvd West
segment - Powell
Rd to Hwy 100
(County)
None • Varies, Part of the HIN Work with Hennepin
County to evaluate RRFBs
or other pedestrian
crossing enhancements at
key pedestrian crossing
locations
Work with Hennepin County
to complete a corridor study
to evaluate long term solutions
and identify project funding
N/A
10 Excelsior Blvd East
segment - Hwy 100
to W 36th 1/2 St
(County)
2028
(west 100
interchan
ge)
• Varies, Part of the HIN Work with Hennepin
County to evaluate RRFBs
or other pedestrian
crossing enhancements at
key pedestrian crossing
locations
N/A Work with County to
complete a corridor study to
evaluate long term solutions
and identify funding
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 60
Tier 1 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
Evaluate signal timing and
signing improvements at
Hwy 100 east interchange
Table B3 - Tier 2 Projects for the St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan and Recommended Treatments
Map
#
Tier 2 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
11 36th St segment -
Regional Trail
Crossing to Texas
Ave
(City-MSA)
None • Vehicle speeds
• Trail crossing concerns (Cedar
Lake Trail)
• Bicyclist crossing concerns
along 36th St
• Intersection signal timing and
pedestrian concerns (Aquilla
and Texas intersections)
• Visibility concerns (36th St
and Texas)
Corridor Study of
36th St from
Regional Trail
Crossing to Texas
Ave
Work with Three Rivers
Park District to consider
quick-build solutions or a
demonstration project for
North Cedar Lake Trail
crossing, bike lane
treatments along 36th , and
temporary speed
reductions treatments
Apply for funding for safety
improvements based on
corridor study
recommendations
Geometric changes to the
roadway to slow traffic and
support safety pedestrian
and bicyclist crossings
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 61
Map
#
Tier 2 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
12 Wooddale Ave S
segment - W 35th
St to W 36th St
(City-MSA)
None • Pedestrian crossing safety at
35th and 36th
• Visibility concerns for
westbound off ramp
• Future Three Rivers Park
District CP Rail Regional Trail
Request MnDOT to
evaluate leading
pedestrian intervals
at Hwy 7 ramp
signals and
implement signal
timing improvements
Request MnDOT to
evaluate signage and
turning restrictions
on Hwy 7 westbound
off ramp
Demonstration project at
35th St to change roadway
geometry and improve
pedestrian crossing safety
Post-construction traffic
study and safety evaluation
at 36th St
Continue to work with
Three Rivers Park District
on CP Rail Regional Trail
funding and design
Consider long-term
geometric changes to
improve crossing safety at
35th St intersection,
depending on CP rail
funding and timeline as well
as demonstration project
results
13 Cedar Lake Rd and
Ridge Dr
intersection
(City-MSA)
None • Visibility concerns likely
contributing to bicyclist safety
issues on south leg
Conduct a sight
distance review to
confirm visual
obstruction, and if
necessary, work with
property owners to
remove obstructions
Conduct an evaluation for
2-years post safety
improvement to verify
effectiveness
N/A
14 Cedar Lake Rd and
Hwy 169 Ramp
intersection
(MnDOT)
Signal
replacement
project
2026,
sidewalk on
the east side
of Jordan,
Bridge
reconstructi
on in 2035.
• Pedestrian and bicyclist
crossing safety
• Motorist speeds
• Visibility
Work with MnDOT
to implement a
demonstration
project at Jordan Ave
and evaluate and
remove visibility
concerns if
appropriate
Explore a School
Zone Speed Limit
(SZSL)
N/A Work with MnDOT to
implement geometric
changes to the intersection
and bridge to reduce
vehicle speeds, shorten
crossing distances, and
accommodate a trail
crossing
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 62
Map
#
Tier 2 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
15 26th St segment -
Natchez Ave S to
Joppa Ave S
(City-MSA)
None • Visibility concerns at Natchez
Ave with pedestrian
generators
• Stop sign compliance
concerns
N/A
Evaluate uncontrolled
crossing opportunity to
improve crossing safety for
pedestrians
Evaluate signage and
marking opportunities to
improve stopping
compliance
Implement improvements
based on evaluation
recommendations, (i.e.
markings and signage)
based on evaluation results
16 Park Center Blvd
segment – W 36th
St to Excelsior Blvd
(City-MSA)
None • Bicyclist crossing safety at
36th St
• Pedestrian and bicyclist
crossing safety at Target
signal
• Motorist safety issues at
Excelsior Blvd and Park Center
Blvd
Evaluate pedestrian/
bicyclist
improvements at
36th St and Target
signal intersections
such as protected
signal phasing, LPIs
and striping upgrades
Implement short term
pedestrian/ bicyclist
improvements at 36th St
and Target
Evaluate road diet (4- to 3-
lane conversion)
Geometric changes to the
corridor to improve
pedestrian/bicyclist safety
17 Park Place Blvd
segment - I-394 to
Gamble Dr
(City-MSA)
None • Bicyclist safety along high
volume roadway (street
bicyclists)
• Pedestrian crossing safety at
intersections
Evaluate corridor
signals for
opportunities to
improve pedestrian
crossing safety
Pursue implementation
funding for pedestrian
crossing upgrades based on
evaluation findings
Improve bicyclist
connectivity and
wayfinding through the
corridor to connect to the
Cedar Lake Rd multiuse trail
and Cedar Lake Regional
Trail to key destinations
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 63
Map
#
Tier 2 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
18 Louisiana Ave at W
27th St intersection
(City-MSA)
None • High vehicle speeds
• Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing
safety
• Potential visibility issues for
westbound movements
• Potential red light running
issues
Demonstration
project to reduce
crossing distance and
discourage
southbound weaving
by motorists
Evaluate LPIs
Consider lane reduction
Signal upgrades to improve
pedestrian safety
Geometric changes to the
intersection to improve
pedestrian crossing safety
Bicycle facilities along
Louisiana Ave to provide
north/south connection
Road narrowing to facilitate
complete streets design
principles
19 W 30th 1/2 St and
Virginia Ave (City)
intersection
None • Pedestrian safety / Safe
Routes to School
• Visibility issues due to parking
• Uncontrolled intersection
Evaluated existing
parking restrictions
Evaluate stop
controlled
northbound
approach
Demonstration project to
enforce parking restrictions
and improve intersection
visibility
Geometric changes to the
roadway to reduce crossing
distance based on
evaluation and
demonstration project
findings
20 Aquila
Neighborhood area
(City)
None • Pedestrian crossing safety /
Safe Routes to School
• Vehicle speeds on Xylon Ave
• Visibility issues due to street
parking
Explore School Zone
Speed Limits
Apply for Safe
Routes to School
(SRTS)
demonstration grant
funding
Implement SRTS
demonstration project to
shorten crossing distances
and reinforce parking
restrictions on Xylon Ave
Pursue funding for a small
area study to further
evaluate the transportation
and safety needs in the
neighborhood
SRTS implementation and
geometric changes to the
roadways to complete
sidewalk connections,
encourage slower speeds
and improve pedestrian and
motorist visibility
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 64
Map
#
Tier 2 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
21 Hwy 25 (Hwy 7) and
Beltline Blvd
intersection
(County and City-
MSA)
None • Long crossing distances at
intersection with high
pedestrian generators
• ADA improvement
opportunities
• Potential signal timing
concerns with high
percentage of rear-end
crashes
Work with County to
develop a long term
solution to
pedestrian exposure
at intersection and
identify funding
N/A Geometric changes to the
intersection to improve
pedestrian crossings
Evaluate and pursue (if
appropriate) a road diet
south on Beltline Blvd to
remove 4 lane cross-
section
22 Beltline Blvd
segment – 32nd St
to Park Glen Rd
(City-MSA)
2032 • Vehicle speeds
• Missing connection from on
street trail to regional trail
and pedestrian bridge over
CSAH 25
• Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing
concerns at Park Glen
Work with Three
Rivers to develop
temporary bicyclist
and pedestrian
wayfinding for
interim facilities and
a long term
wayfinding plan for
connections to key
destinations
Implement long-term
crossing improvements at
Park Glen such as
geometric changes to
Beltline Blvd, signalized
crossing opportunity, and
improved trail connectivity
Work with Three Rivers to
implement permanent
pedestrian and bicyclist
wayfinding
N/A
23 Virginia Ave S
segment - North
Cedar Lake
Regional Trail
Crossing to Texas
Ave
(City-MSA)
None • Trail crossing visibility issues
with horizontal curve
• Connection under rail bridge
Evaluate signage and
striping
improvements to
improve trail crossing
visibility
Implement quick build
recommendations based on
evaluation
Support Three Rivers Park
District’s to identify
regional trail crossing
improvements
Identify long term strategy
to fill bicycle facility gap
under rail bridge or identify
alternate route for north/
south access to Cedar Lake
Rd
Support the
implementation of regional
trail crossing
improvements as identified
by Three Rivers
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 65
Map
#
Tier 2 Project
Locations (Road
Owner)
Funded
Projects
Key Safety Concerns Short-Term
Recommendations
Medium-Term
Recommendations
Long-Term
Recommendations
24 Hwy 7 and Blake Rd
intersection
(MnDOT, City-MSA,
City of Hopkins)
None • See MnDOT report for more
information
Work with MnDOT to
evaluate grade separation
for pedestrians and
bicyclists between Blake
Rd. and Texas Ave
N/A
25 W 36th St and Hwy
100 Ramp
Intersection
(MnDOT)
2029 signal
replacement
• Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing
safety at south crosswalk
Evaluate turning
restrictions and
pedestrian signal
improvements
Consider geometric
changes to improve
pedestrian/ bicyclist
crossing safety
N/A
26 Minnetonka Blvd
segment - Cavell
Ave to Boone Ave
(County)
2031 • Vehicle speeds
• Horizontal curve
Work with county to
evaluate short-term
speed reduction
measures, advance
warning signs and
lighting at horizontal
curve
Protected bicycle facility
along Minnetonka Blvd in
addition to corridor wide
pedestrian and bicyclist
crossing safety
improvements
N/A
27 Hwy 169 ramps
intersections at
Minnetonka Blvd
(MnDOT/ County)
2030 • Pedestrian/ bicyclist crossing
safety
None Work with MnDOT and
County to pursue safety
improvements at ramp
interchanges in alignment
with the broader
Minnetonka Blvd corridor
plans
N/A
28 W 16th St and Duke
Dr intersection
City (local)
None • Pedestrian safety at west
crosswalk with left turning
vehicle conflict
• 4-lane undivided cross-section
with all-way stop and possible
visual clutter concerns
Conduct a study to
explore intersection
safety opportunities
for pedestrians and
bicyclists
Consider a demonstration
project based on study
findings, to provide short
term improvements for
pedestrian safety
Consider long-term
geometric changes and
signal options based on
study findings and
demonstration project
result
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 66
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Sullivan (PE)
FROM: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie (AICP), Leo Johnson (PE, MN)
DATE: April 21, 2025
RE: St. Louis Park Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum
SEH No. STLOU 179709 14.00
In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park obtained a grant through the federal Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A)
program to develop an action plan to improve road safety. In June of 2024, the city launched the Safe Streets
Action Plan to prevent, reduce and eliminate serious injury and deadly accidents for everyone using the roads.
The plan will include objectives, policies, and recommendations that will inform future transportation investments
and improvements.
The following technical memorandum details the citywide safety analysis that was completed to inform the City of
St. Louis Park’s Safe Streets Action Plan. It includes both the identification of reported crashes as well as the
identification of high-risk areas. This information will be combined with a equity considerations to help prioritize
improvements using a data driven approach.
10-Year Crash Analysis
The crash analysis includes a review of 10-year crash data to inform the development of a High-Injury Network
(HIN) and Top Injury Intersections crash list. All analysis within this report excluded mainline and ramp crashes on
I-394, TH 100, and US 169 which are out of the city or county’s jurisdiction and do not include at-grade crossings
within the city 1. MnDOT’s TH 7 was, however, included in the crash analysis due to at-grade crossings between
Blake Rd. and Texas Ave. The analysis does not include crashes that occurred on private property. The most
recent 10-years of crash data, from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2023, was obtained from the MnDOT Crash
Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2). The dataset only includes crashes where a police report was filed.
CITYWIDE STATISTICS
Crash severity is separated into five categories based on injuries sustained during the crash.
•Fatal – Crash that results in a death
•Severity A – Crash that results in an incapacitating injury or serious injury
•Severity B – Crash that results in a non-incapacitating injury or minor injury
•Severity C – Crash that results in possible injury
•Property Damage – Crash that results in property damage only, with no injuries
1 While mainline and ramp crashes were excluded, all ramp intersection crashes remained in the 10-year analysis
data.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 67
2024 crash data was not included in the crash analysis since this information was not available at the time the
safety analysis was started. Fatal injury crashes that occurred after the analysis period are being reviewed
independently for treatment opportunities but were not able to be included in the High-Injury Network or Top Injury
Intersections analysis. Table 1 provides a summary of the nearly 6,000 total crashes by injury and mode.
Table 1 - Summary of 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) in the City of St. Louis Park (excluding US169, MN 100, and I-394)
Crash Type Number of crashes % of total crashes
All Reported Crashes 5936 100%
Number of Fatal or Severe Injury
Crashes (K and A)
64 1.1%
Minor Injury or Possible Injury Crashes
(B and C)
1413 23.8%
Property Damage Only 4459 75.1%
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes 196 3.3%
Motorcycle/Moped/Scooter Crashes 47 Less than 1%
When looking at the data by year, there is a noticeable increase in the total number of crashes in 2019 (129 crash
increase), followed by a large decrease in 2020 (304 crash decrease). This 2020 decrease is largely attributed to
the COVID 19 pandemic restrictions and a shift in travel behavior at the local, regional and national level (See
Figure 1A). Figure 1B shows similar trends occurring across Hennepin County and the Twin Cities metro for total
crashes pre (2018-2019), during (2020-2021) and post (2022-2023) pandemic years.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
Total Crashes
Fatal and Severe
Injury
Total minor injury or
possible injury
crashes
Figure 1B – Comparison of total annual crashes on locally-owned streets within St. Louis Park, Hennepin
County, and the Twin Cities Metro Region from 2018-2023
Figure 1A - 10-year crash totals by year for the City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 68
FATAL AND SEVERE INJURY TRENDS
Because Safety Action Plans are aimed at reducing and eliminating severe-injury and fatal crashes affecting all
roadway users, these crash types were reviewed separately to understand systemic trends in fatal and severe -
injury crashes. The following data details fatal and severe-injury crashes by risk-based characteristics such as
age and crash type.
Table 2 - Fatal (K) and Severe (A) Injury Crashes in St. Louis Park 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) by age (excludes US
169, MN 100 and I-394)
Risk-Based
Characteristic (by
demographics)
Driving Age
Population Estimate2
(42,113)
Percent of
Driving Age
Population
# of K&A
Crashes in 10-
year analysis
Percent of K&A
Crashes in 10-year
analysis
Elderly Drivers (65+) 8260 20% 11 17%
Adult Drivers (25-64) 28,990 69% 37 58%
Younger Drivers (15-24) 4863 11% 16 25%
Table 2 shows the percentage of fatal and severe-injury crash by age group compared to their proportion of the
population. This information shows that while young drivers (age 15-24) make up roughly 11% of the population,
they account for 25% of fatal and severe-injury crashes. Elderly drivers, make up a similar percentage of the
population and fatal and severe injury crashes, however this does not adjust for the number of driver 65+ who are
no longer able or who choose not to drive. These groups represent opportunities for outreach and education to
improve road safety.3 Adult drivers (age 25-64) were involved in 58% of the fatal and severe-injury crashes,
despite making up 69% of the population, indicating an overall lower risk group.
Table 3 on the following page documents the percentage of fatal and severe-injury crashes by crash type. This
information show that 69% of fatal and severe-injury crashes are occurring at intersections, 31% occurred after
dark, 20% under the influence, and 20% single vehicle crashes. While speed and distracted driving are a low
percentage of K&A crashes, this is likely more a factor of limited reporting capabilities, rather than in indicator that
these risk-based factors are not an issues in K&A crashes.
2 Based on 2023 US Census ACS Estimates
3 From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: In 2021 more than 20% of licensed drivers in the
United States were 65 or older (FHWA, 2022). As drivers age, their physical and mental abilities, driving
behaviors, and crash risks all change, though age alone does not determine driving performance. Many features
of the current system of roads, traffic signals and controls, laws, licensing practices, and vehicles were not
designed to accommodate older drivers. Older Americans are increasingly dependent on driving to maintain their
mobility, independence, and health. The challenge is to balance mobility for older drivers with safety for all road
users.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 69
Table 3 - Fatal (K) and Severe (A) Injury Crashes in St. Louis Park 10-year crash analysis (2014-2023) by crash type
(excludes US 169, MN 100 and I-394)
Risk-Based Characteristic
(by crash type)
# of K&A Crashes in
10-year analysis
Percent of K&A Crashes
in 10-year analysis
% of pedestrian and
bicyclist crashes
Angle Crashes 21 4 32.8% N/A
Intersection Crashes 44 69% 67% (131)
Occurred after Dark 20 31% 22% (43)
Wet, Snow, Slush, Ice 11 17% 20% (40)
Under the Influence 13 20% 5% (10)
Single Vehicle Crashes 13 20% N/A
Distracted Driver 4 6% 10% (19)
Failure to Yield 10 16% 30% (59)
Disregard Control 3 5% 1% (2)
Speed 2 3% 1.5% (3)
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST CRASHES
As mentioned previously, 196 pedestrian and bicyclist crashes
occurred during the 10-year reporting period. While this means
pedestrians and bicyclists make up 3% of total crashes, they
account for 44% of the fatal and severe injury crashes. For this
reason, this group is defined as a vulnerable road user.
CRASHES BY LOCATION
Figure 2 on the following page shows the locations for crashes
that occurred from 2014 to 2023. It also calls out locations
where the crash was coded by law enforcement as resulting in
a fatal or severe injury and whether the crash involved a
vulnerable road user such as a pedestrian, bicyclist or
motorcyclist. As expected, higher crash totals and severities
are generally clustered around high volume roadways such as
county and municipal state aid roads. The following outlines the
process used to analyze the data and identify the high injury
locations throughout the city.
4 Includes nine bicyclist involved angle crashes
100%100%
3%
44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Total Crashes K&A Crashes
Percentage of
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Crashes
All user crashes Ped/bike crashes
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 70
Figure 2 - Crashes in St. Louis Park, MN from 2014 to 2023 (Excludes Hwy 100, I-394 and US 169)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 71
HIGH-INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
A high-injury network (HIN) is a geospatial analysis of crash data that identifies the highest concentrations of
traffic crashes resulting in serious injuries and fatalities within a given roadway network or jurisdiction 5. This
network was developed to help guide future actions and project prioritization in areas with a strong history of
crashes resulting in injuries.
High-Injury Network Methodology
Fatal (K), severe injury (A) and minor injury crashes (B) from the 10-year crash data (2014-2023) were used to
develop the network. These crashes were attributed to segments throughout the city and given a score of 3 for
each fatal (K) and severe injury (A) crash and 1 for minor injury (B) crashes6. This is the same weighting system
used in MnDOT’s High-Injury Network Methodology. The segments were then normalized for segment length to
the mile. Once normalized, the segments that had a score of seven or higher over a mile, were included in the
network7.
To confirm this methodology, the FHWA developed GIS analysis tool for HINs was used to map the data, applying
the same 3:1 weighting. The results were the same between the two methods.
Threshold
As noted in MnDOT’s High-Injury Network Methodology, the determination of what HIN score threshold would
qualify as part of the HIN is a judgement call. There is no set standardized number seen in other HIN analysis
methodologies and they must be customized to the context. For this study a score of 7 per mile was set as the
lower limit of HIN segments.
Data Quality Control
After the initial HIN was developed, a manual review was conducted for locations that had undergone construction
during or after the analysis period, as well as appropriate coding of data to segments8. Crash data was reviewed
for locations with significant reconstruction or engineering solutions completed between 2014 and 2024 to
understand if injuries were still occurring post-construction. Locations that were removed due to reconstruction
are identified separately in the HIN map on the following page. Additionally, a few locations were added or
removed due to miscoding of crash data to the incorrect segment.
Findings for High-Injury Network
A total of 13 miles of roadway were included in the HIN. This network makes up around 7.5%9 of linear
roadway miles in the city, but accounts for 61% (39) of fatal and severe injury crashes. The roadways within
the city’s HIN are shown in Figure 3 and detailed in Table 1 below.
5 FHWA definition provided in the Safe Streets 4 All program
6 Severity C (Possible Injury) and Property Damage crashes were weighted as zero points each and were not
factored into the analysis.
7 For instance, a half mile segment with two severity A crashes and three severity B crashes would have a score
of 9. Six points for the two severity A crashes and one point for each severity B crash.
8 When crash data is entered by law enforcement officials, the location is not always appropriately attributed. A
manual review of locations that were just above or below the thresholds was completed to understand if the
location should be included or removed due to data being mis-attributed to a particular segment.
9 There were a total of 172.85 miles of roadway included in the analysis.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 72
Figure 3 - High-Injury Network for City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 73
Table 4 - High-Injury Network Locations for the City of St. Louis Park (2024)
Location Extents Construction Notes
North/South Segments
Louisiana Ave Wayzata Blvd to Franklin Ave Approved for construction in 2025
Louisiana Ave Cedar Lake Rd to BNSF Railroad
bridge
Approved for construction in 2026
from Cedar Lake Road to BNSF
Railroad bridge
Park Place Blvd I-394 interchange to Cedar Lake Rd None
Park Center Blvd 36th St W to Excelsior Blvd None
Texas Ave W 36th St to Hwy 7 None
East/West Segments
Cedar Lake Rd Rhode Island Ave to Louisiana Ave Approved for construction in 2026
Minnetonka Blvd US 169 interchange to Louisiana
Ave
Hennepin County planned
construction in 2028/2029
Minnetonka Blvd Dakota Ave to Vernon Ave Hennepin County planned
construction in 2028
Minnetonka Blvd TH 100 Interchange to Inglewood
Ave
Hennepin County approved
construction in 2025
W 26th St 10 Natchez Ave to Joppa Ave None
W 36th St Boone Ave to Texas Ave None
Hwy 7 Aquila Ave/Blake Rd to Wooddale
Ave
TBD
Excelsior Blvd Meadowbrook Ln to Kipling Ave None
CSAH 25 Hwy 100 to Beltline Blvd None
In addition to the HIN segments, eight additional segments were flagged by the crash analysis as part of the High-
Injury Network (see Figure 3 and Table 2), but these locations were removed due to substantive reconstruction
that occurred during the crash analysis period. When possible, the post construction data was reviewed for K, A
and B crashes that occurred during the pre- and post-construction period, to understand if these locations would
still meet the HIN threshold. Locations such as Cedar Lake Rd (from Flag Ave to Rhode Island Ave) were recently
10 W 26th Street met the threshold for the HIN due to two severe injury crashes within ¼ mile. However, further review of crash
reports showed that unique and irregular driver behavior contributed to both crashes. Engineering solutions may not be able to
address the likely causes of these crashes, however, for methodological consistency, W 26th was retained in the HIN, even
though it is unlikely to cause the level of safety concern as other locations on the HIN.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 74
reconstructed and do not have sufficient crash data at the time of this report. These locations were removed due
to engineering judgement of the treatments applied and the assumption that these treatments would likely result
in substantive reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes.
Together with the HIN, the reconstructed locations and current HIN equaled a total of 9.77% of the roadways
(16.89 miles), but 83% of the fatal and severe injury crashes. As stated previously, 3.6 miles of the HIN network
roadway was reconstructed since 2014, resulting in a roughly 20% reduction in the miles of HIN throughout the
City.
Table 2 – Removed High-Injury Network Locations for the City of St. Louis Park (2024) due to recent reconstruction
Location Extents Construction Notes
North/South Segments
Texas Ave Minnetonka Blvd
to W 36th St
2017 – Improvements included pavement, bump outs, bike lanes
and crossing treatments
Dakota Ave Minnetonka Blvd
to W Lake St
2021 - Improvements included bump outs, bike lanes and crossing
treatments
Quentin Ave W 26th St to
Minnetonka Blvd
2022 – Two-way stop changed to a four way stop, ADA
improvements
Monterey Dr W 36th St to
Excelsior Blvd
2020 – Four to three lane conversion with access modifications
and center median.
Aquila Ave W 36th St to Hwy 7 2017 – 37th St intersection improvements
East/West Segments
Cedar Lake
Rd
Flag Ave to Rhode
Island Ave
2024 – Road narrowing, pedestrian refuge islands and bump outs,
sidewalks and off-street trails, other crossing treatments.
Cedar Lake
Rd
Kentucky Ave to
Colorado Ave
2019 – Off-street trail and crossing treatments
W 36th St Wooddale Ave to
Park Center Blvd
2022 – Bump outs, pedestrian refuge island and other crossing
treatments and pavement improvements.
Notable in the analysis is that most of the locations included in the HIN are considered high-volume roads. While
the HIN can show important information about where the most crashes are occurring, it is unsurprising that they
are occurring at high volume locations. The HIN does not show rates of fatal and severe injury crashes based on
traffic volume. To understand where these crashes are occurring more frequently than expected based on
average volume/crash ratios, a top injury intersection crash analysis was completed to highlight high-frequency
locations (high crash rates) and high-risk locations (presence of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes).
TOP INJURY INTERSECTION CRASH ANALYSIS
With the large number of intersections across the City of St Louis Park and nearly 6,000 crashes, a review of
each individual intersection and full vetting of volume data was not feasible based on the scope of this study. To
efficiently identify the high injury rate intersections, the top 100 list feature within MnCMAT2 was used to export
data, including location, crash type and severity, and roadway ADT (Average Daily Traffic). With this information,
the Critical Crash Rates (CCR) and Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Rates (FAR) were able to be calculated for the
following datasets:
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 75
• Top 100 intersection crash locations on the entire network
• Top 100 intersection crash locations on local roads only
The list for “local roads only” was pulled specifically to capture lower volume roadways that may still have
disproportionately high crash rates but are masked by the high-volume roadway data.
Data Quality Control:
The two lists were combined, and duplicate locations were eliminated. ADTs provided by MN CMAT2 were
manually reviewed for missing or unrealistic ADTs. A high-level manual review of the GIS data was also
completed to re-attribute or remove data from intersections as appropriate based on incorrect latitude and
longitude provided. And finally, a review of previous and upcoming construction data was completed. Locations
that have either undergone significant improvements during the 10-year crash analysis period and are no longer
experiencing fatal/severe injury or pedestrian/bicyclist crashes were noted. Locations that have been funded in
the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) between 2024 and 2034 were also noted.
Findings for Top Injury Intersection Crashes
When combined and duplicate locations were eliminated, the dataset included a total of 134 intersections, of
which:
o 6 exceeded the Fatal and Severe Injury Rate (FAR)
o 55 did not exceed the FAR, but had a history of at least one fatal/severe injury crash or
pedestrian/bicyclist crash
o 33 were above the Critical Crash Rate Index (CCR), but there was no history of fatal/severe injury crash
or pedestrian/bicyclist crash
o 42 were not above CCR and had no history of fatal/severe injury crash or pedestrian/bicyclist crash (this
group was not symbolized in Figure 4)
The data was then coded based on the injury level and construction status.
Injury level:
• High – Top crash intersections that exceeded the FAR
• Moderate – Top crash intersections that were not above FAR but had a history of ped/bike crashes or
severe or fatal crashes. Most, but not all of these locations exceeded the CCR.
• Low – Top crash intersections above the CCR that did not exceed the FAR and did not have a history of
pedestrian/bicyclist or fatal severe injury crashes. This also includes locations that were reconstructed
during or immediately after the crash analysis period and are no longer expected to present a safety
concern.11
Construction Status:
• Reconstructed between 2014 and 2024
• Planned reconstruction within the next 2 years
• Planned reconstruction within the next 3-10 years
• No planned reconstruction
This information is symbolized in Figure 4, as well as the table provided in Appendix B. For the purposes of the
Action Plan, the highest priority will be given to locations that have both a high injury level as well as no planned
reconstruction. These locations, in addition to the HIN, represent the highest potential for improvements and
impacts when trying to reduce or eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes. Additionally, locations with planned
reconstruction within the next 3-10 years will be reviewed for short-term, quick build solutions to address safety
for all users.
11 For locations that were reconstructed in the past few years, there is not sufficient post construction
crash data to fully analyze, however engineering judgement identified a substantial treatment, such that a
high injury location is no longer anticipated. It is recommended that the city complete post-construction
evaluations on Quentin Ave, Cedar Lake Rd and W 36th St due to limited availability of crash data.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 76
Figure 4 - High Injury Intersections for the City of St. Louis Park, MN (2014-2023)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 77
HIGH-RISK LOCATIONS
In addition to documented crash history, a high-risk location analysis was completed to understand areas where
injury crashes may not have occurred, but data suggests a greater risk of fatal or severe injury crashes in the
future.
High-Risk Methodology
This dataset is a combination of factors identified by the Technical Advisory Committee (see Appendix E) that
provided guidance throughout the Safe Streets Action Plan process. The data includes:
• All Vulnerable Road User (VRU) crashes regardless of injury
• Crashes that occurred more frequently at night, indicating potential lighting issues
• Proximity to Schools
To develop a single high-risk map, the following weighting criteria were applied.
• 200 ft buffer from all Vulnerable Road User crashes (1 pt)
• 100 ft buffer from intersections with a high density of crashes occurring in the dark. (1pt)
• Within ½ mile from middle schools and high schools and ¼ mile to elementary schools. (1pt)
•
Locations with two or more risk factors were included in the high-risk dataset shown in Figure 5. Locations that
were high risk for all three factors, receiving a score of 3 include:
• Cedar Lake Rd and Pennsylvania Ave to Nevada Ave
• Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 interchange
• And select locations along Minnetonka Blvd east of Hwy 100
Both Cedar Lake Rd and Minnetonka Blvd east of Hwy 100 are scheduled for substantial reconstruction within the
next two years. The interchange with Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 will require MnDOT coordination as this
location falls within MnDOT right-of-way.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 78
Figure 5 - High-Risk Locations for the City of St. Louis Park
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 79
NEXT STEPS
The information provided in this report will be used to further review and identify solutions for high-injury and high-
risk locations, as well as contribute to a data driven prioritization approach that include the results of this safety
analysis, along with an equity analysis and public feedback to assist in the prioritization of funding. The process
and results of the prioritization map will be provided in the Prioritization Technical Memorandum in early 2025 and
will be incorporated into the Action Plan documentation in Summer of 2024.
LJ
Appendices
Appendix A: Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix B: Table of Top Injury Intersection Crashes ............................................................................................ 16
Appendix C: Reconstructed Intersection analysis ................................................................................................... 17
Appendix D: Technical Advisory Committee Members ........................................................................................... 18
Appendix E: Previous Construction Projects (2014-2024) ...................................................................................... 19
Appendix F: Programmed Construction Projects (2025-2034) ............................................................................... 20
Appendix G: Low Light Crash Density ..................................................................................................................... 21
Appendix H: Vulnerable Road User Crashes .......................................................................................................... 22
Appendix I: Schools ................................................................................................................................................. 23
Appendix J: Winter Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix K: At-Grade Trail Crossings on the North Cedar Lake Trail .................................................................... 25
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 80
APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS
Statistical Crash Values and Terminology
• The crash rate at an intersection is expressed as the number of crashes per million entering vehicles
(MEV).
• The critical crash rate is a statistical value that is unique to each intersection and is based on vehicular
exposure and the statewide average crash rate for similar intersections. An intersection with a crash rate
higher than the critical rate may indicate a safety concern at the intersection and the site should be
reviewed.
• Intersection Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Rate (FAR) are based on the number of fatal (K) and
severe injury (A) crashes per 100 million entering vehicles.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 81
APPENDIX B: TABLE OF TOP INJURY INTERSECTION CRASHES
X:\PT\S\STLOU\179709\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\Draft Final_Top Intersections Combined, 2014-2023_121224.pdf
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 82
APPENDIX C: RECONSTRUCTED INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
X:\PT\S\STLOU\179709\8-planning\87-rpt-stud\2024_1109_SLP-SSAP_TAC2_Reconstruction Review.pdf
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 83
APPENDIX D: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Name Agency Role
Travas Diersen SLP Police Police Officer
Cary Smith SLP Fire Assistant Chief/Fire Marshal
Laura Chamberlain SLP Community Development Senior Planner
Kala Fisher SLP Public Works
Public Services
Superintendent/Deputy Public Works
Director
Pat Coleman SLP Admin Community Engagement Coordinator
Ben Sandell SLP Communications Communications Manager
Emily Ziring SLP Building and Energy Sustainability manager
Deb Heiser SLP Engineering Engineering director
Jack Sullivan SLP Engineering Engineering project manager
Kimbely Zlimen MnDOT Metro District West Area Engineer
Tom Musick Hennepin County
Transportation Safety Program
Coordinator
Kristi Sebastian FHWA | Minnesota Division Office Safety & Traffic Operations Engineer
Jen Desrude SEH Inc. Project Manager, PE
Chelsea Moore-Ritchie SEH Inc. Deputy PM, AICP
Adrian Diaz SEH Inc. Engagement Specialist
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 84
APPENDIX E: PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (2014-2024)
Construction projects identified in this graphic range from sidewalk improvements to complete street
reconstruction projects.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 85
APPENDIX F: PROGRAMMED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS (2025-2034)
Construction projects identified in this graphic range from sidewalk improvements to complete street
reconstruction projects.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 86
APPENDIX G: LOW LIGHT CRASH DENSITY
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 87
APPENDIX H: VULNERABLE ROAD USER CRASHES
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 88
APPENDIX I: SCHOOLS
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 89
APPENDIX J: WINTER CONDITIONS
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 90
APPENDIX K: AT-GRADE TRAIL CROSSINGS ON THE NORTH CEDAR LAKE TRAIL
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 91
APPENDIX L: LOCATIONS REMOVED FROM TOP INTERSECTION LIST DUE TO RECONSTRUCTION
Location Years of
reconstruction
Reason for removal Recommendation for
further evaluation?
Roundabout
at 36th and
Monterey Dr
2021 In the 5-yrs analysis before reconstruction
(2015-2019), there were 24 total crashes, 1
Severity A (SB vehicle hit WB Bicyclist in
north crosswalk), 6 severity C (1 ped crash,
SB left turning vehicle) and many right-angle
crashes.
In the 2.75-yrs post construction (Sept.
2021-June. 2024), there were 9 total crashes,
1 Severity A crash (Street bicyclist biking in
the roundabout, struct by a WB vehicle failing
to yield) and 2 severity C (motorist only, rear
end).
This trend shows an improvement in overall
safety, with the exception of the road bicyclist
severity A crash. Since high-comfort facilities
for bicyclists are provided as an option under
the new design, this location was removed as
a high-injury intersection.
Complete 5-year crash
analysis at this location
once data is available to
understand if additional
bicyclist safety
countermeasures need to
be considered.
36th St at
Raleigh Ave
Fall 2021 Reconstructed Fall 2021, converted to ¾ and
dropped an EB lane. In the 10-year analysis
it’s above CCR. After reconstruction it’s still
over the CCR, but with no fatal, severe injury
or ped/bicyclist crashes. In the roughly two
years of data reviewed (2021-2023) there
were 3 PD and 2 Severity B crashes.
Complete 5-year crash
analysis at this location
once data is available to
understand if additional
bicyclist safety
countermeasures need to
be considered.
Louisiana Ave
at Lake St
Oct. 2014 After reconstructed the roundabout was still
over CCR. There were no fatal, severe injury
or pedestrian crashes. 1 minor injury bicyclist
crash occurred involving a street bicyclist.
Since high-comfort facilities for bicyclists are
provided as an option under the new design,
this location was removed as a moderate-
injury intersection.
Because 10-years of crash
data was available post-
construction, not further
evaluation is
recommended.
Louisiana Ave
at Walker St
Oct. 2014 After the reconstruction the location was still
over CCR. Over the 10-year analysis period
there were no fatal, severe injury or
pedestrian/bicyclist crashes.
Because 10-years of crash
data was available post-
construction, not further
evaluation is
recommended.
Aquila Ave at
37th St
June 2019 Reconstruction removed one NB lane, added
double NB left. In the 10-year analysis it’s
above CCR with 4 Severity B and 7 Severity
No further evaluation
recommended.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 92
C (1 ped) crashes. In the four-years post
construction (2019 – Dec. 2023) the
intersection is no longer over the CCR, no
history of pedestrian/bicyclist crashes and
there was only 1 severity C crash that
occurred.
Monterey Dr
at Park
Commons Dr
Reconstructed
in 2020
Changes to ¾ access. In the 3-years of
available data, there were no fatal, severe
injury or ped/bike crashes. 1 PD only crash
occurred.
No further evaluation
recommended.
Utica at 26th
St./ Hwy 100
entrance ramp
Reconstructed
in early 2016
The entrance ramp geometry was fully
reconstructed. From 2016 to 2023, the
location was still over the CCR, but not
history of fatal, severe injury or
pedestrian/bicyclist crashes.
No further evaluation
recommended.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 93
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Sullivan (PE) City of St. Louis Park
FROM: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie (AICP), Jen Desrude (PE)
DATE: March 28, 2025
RE: St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan - Project Prioritization Methodology
SEH No. 179709 14.00 Project Prioritization Methodology
The following technical memorandum outlines the methodology used to prioritize road safety
improvement projects across the City of St. Louis Park. The methodology was developed through
collaboration with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Stakeholder Committee, Public engagement
process as well as review of precedent Safety Action Plans from around the country 1. Methodology
The initial prioritization map includes four different types of datasets to understand where needs are
highest in the city. These include:
•High-Injury Locations: This information is based on documented 10-year crash history.
Additional information can be found in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum.
•High-Risk Locations: This category is comprised of criteria that make a fatal or severe injury
crash more likely, regardless of documented crash history.
•Equity Considerations: Because low-income residents and residents who identify as a person
of color are historically more likely to be victims of a fatal or severe injury crash 2, this information,
along with other data was combined to identify origins and destinations for high-risk users.
•Public feedback: Throughout the first phase of the process, public outreach was conducted to
understand areas of concern for residents and other stakeholders. Over 800 location-based
comments were provided, and a dot-density map identifies the locations for high-frequency
concerns 3.
1 The process used by the City of St. Paul, MN as well as Hammond, IN were the primary projects used to guide the
prioritization methodology.
2 An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity. Governors Highway Safety Administration. June 2021.
3 Additional information on engagement can be found in the Phase 1 engagement summary.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 94
Since the primary goal of the Action Plan is to reduce or eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes
throughout the city, High-Injury locations and High-Risk Locations received the highest weight in the
prioritization methodology. The weighting was based on feedback provided by the TAC, Stakeholder
Committee and Public Survey as well as a review of FHWA and local guidance documents.
Table 1 - Criteria for project prioritization map
Criteria Scoring Details
High Injury Locations 40% (12 points)
High-Injury Network
(HIN)4
6 points: Segment along HIN or at least one leg is along HIN
0 points: Segment not along HIN
High-Injury
Intersections
6 points: High - Intersection in the top 100 list 5 that are above
the Fatal and Severe Injury Rate (FAR)
3 points: Medium - Intersection in the top 100 list that does not
exceed the FAR but has a history of pedestrian/bicyclist and/or
fatal/severe injury crash.
1 point: All other locations in the top 100 list 6
High-Risk Locations 30% (9 points)
Vulnerable Road
Users Crashes
(Presence of
pedestrian/bicyclist
crash, regardless of
injury)
2 points: 200’ from crash location
Proximity to Schools 2 points: ¼ mile from elementary schools and ½ mile from
junior high and high schools.
At-grade Regional
Trail Crossings
2 points: 200’ from trail crossing
Roadways with 4 or
more lanes
2 point: 50’ from centerline
Crashes occurring
more frequently in the
dark
1 point: 100’ from crash location
4 A high-injury network (HIN) is a geospatial analysis of crash data that identifies the highest
concentrations of traffic crashes resulting in serious injuries and fatalities within a given roadway network
or jurisdiction (FHWA Safe Streets 4 All program facts)
5 See Crash Analysis Tech Memo for full methodology.
6 This including locations previously listed as high or medium but are no longer considered a concern due to recent
reconstruction. More detailed information can be found in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 95
Criteria Scoring Details
Equity
Considerations
20% (6 points)
Poverty Rate
(percentage points
above county
average for people
within 185% of the
federal poverty rate)
1 point: >10 percentage points above county, per census
block group
Percentage of
residents identifying
as a person of color
1 point: >10 percentage points above county average, per
census block group
Affordable/senior
housing 7
1 point: ¼ mile from affordable/senior housing location
Population density 1 point: >10 percentage points above county, per census
block group
Residents Under the
Age of 18
1 point: >10 percentage points above county, per census
block group
Pedestrian
Generators (Low-
wage worker jobs,
transit stops)
1 point >10 low wage worker jobs per acre (LEHD), 600’
from bus stops, ½ mile from planned Green Line Light Rail
extension stops
Public Engagement 10% (3 points)
Density of Public
Comments
3 points: High density comment location
2 points: Moderate density comment location
Total (100%) 30 pts
Initial Prioritized Locations
The following map (Figure 1) shows the results of the initial prioritization of locations. Higher scoring
locations are shown in red, and lower scoring projects are shown in yellow. Maps for each individual
criteria are located in Appendix A. The scale on the map ranges from 1 point to 23 points due to the
highest scoring locations only scoring 23 out of the possible 30 points. No locations met 100% of the
scoring criteria, with the highest scoring location overlapping with 77% of the scoring criteria. Many
locations did not score a single point for the scoring criteria and are shown without an overlay on Figure
1.
7 Proxy for residents with disability
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan overview Page 96
Hig
hw
a
y
55
10th Ave
N
Wa y zata
B
o
u
l e vard
Fo
r
d
R
o
a
d
KilmerLa
n
e
N
o
r
t
h
General Mills
Nature Preserve
(South)
Westwood Hills
Nature Center
Westwood Hills
Nature Reserve
HannonLake
H i g h w a y
7
C eda
r
L a ke
R
o
a
d
Minneto nka
B
o
u l e v ard
Minneapolis
Golf Club
Oak Ridge
Country Club Knollwood Mall
Aquila Park
Ford Park
Hopkins Public
Schools
Eisenhower
Elementary
School
N
in
e
MileCre e k
S
ch
a
e
f
e
r
R
oa
d
Belmo re La ne
Ma
l
i
b
u
D
r
i
v
e
E x ce l s i o r Bou l e va r d
2nd
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o rthe a s t
Van Valkenburg
Park
The Blake
School-Blake
Campus
Alice Smith
Elementary
S chool
Hopki ns
Interstate
3
9
4
S
t
a
t
e
H
w
y
10
0
S
Interstate Hw y 394
We s tern A v e
H a r ol d
A
ve
Country
C
l
u
b
D
r
Z
a
n
e
A
v
e
N
L
i
l
a
c
D
r
N
Xen
i
a
A
v
e
S
Laurel Ave
Greenbelt
(Cortlawn Pond)
Perpich Center
for Arts
Education
Breck School
Golden Valley
Hi gh way 7
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
F
l
o
r
i
d
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
I
d
a
h
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
L
o
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
L ake
S
t
r
e
e
t
W est
T
e
x
a
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
Wa l ker Stre e t
C e dar L ake
R
o ad Benilde Saint
Margarets
School
St. Louis Park
Junior High
St. Louis Park
MirrorLake
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
1
0
0
S
o
u
t
h
W
o
o
d
d
a
l
e
Av
e
n
u
e
Y
o
s
e
m
i
t
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
44th
S
tr e e t W est
O x f or d S t r e et
Ver
nonAv
e
nu
e
Excelsior Bou l e vard
Meadowbrook
Golf Course
Interlachen
Country Club
Highlands Park
Meadowbrook
Park
Edina
BassettsPond
A
r
dm
or
e
D
r
Theodore Wirth
Park / Parkway
TwinLake
C o unty R oad 25
Saint Louis Park
C
h
o
w
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
G
r
i
m
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
A
r
d
e
n
A
v
e
n
u
e
W
o
o
d
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
44th
S
tr ee t We st
39th
S
t
r
e
e
t
W
e
s t
F
r
a
n
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
Minnetonka Blvd
Excelsio
r
B
l
v
d
Hwy 7
I-394
I-394
Hw
y
1
6
9
Hw
y
1
0
0
Cedar Lake
R
d
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this
map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Source: State of MN, City of St.
Louis Park, SEH, Inc.
Print Date: 2/15/2025
Project: STLOU 179709
City of St. Louis Park Comprehensive
Safe Streets Action Plan
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
P
T
\
S
\
S
T
L
O
U
\
1
7
9
7
0
9
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
1
7
9
7
09
-
S
T
L
O
U
-
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
1
7
9
7
0
9
-
S
T
L
O
U
-
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
.
a
p
r
x
Figure
x1,500 0 1,500
Feet±
North Ceda
r
L
a
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
Cedar L
a
k
e
L
R
T
T
r
a
i
l
Legend
St. Louis Park
Prioritization Areas
Legend
1
St. Louis Park
tƌŝŽƌŝƟnjĂƟŽŶ ^ĐŽƌĞ
1 to 23
Te
x
a
s
A
v
e
Te
x
a
s
A
v
e
tĂ
ƌ
Ŭ
t
ů
Ă
Đ
Ğ
.
ů
ǀ
Ě
Lo
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
A
v
e
.Ğ
ů
ƚ
ů
ŝ
Ŷ
Ğ
.
ů
ǀ
Ě
W 26th St
W 36th St
W 36th St
tĂ
ƌ
Ŭ
/
Ğ
Ŷ
ƚ
Ğ
ƌ
.
ů
ǀ
Ě
Page 9ϳ
Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025
Page 5
Based on the prioritization scores, locations were grouped into projects and a tiered system was
developed to combine the high-priority locations information with phasing information such as current
funding year to prioritize resources at locations that are not already funded and/or in the planning
process. Locations with reconstruction planned in the next 3-10 years present a great opportunity for
quick build installations while locations without Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding for reconstruction
represent great opportunities for grant applications and/or future CIP funding along with potential quick
build installations. The tiers are identified in Table 2.
Table 2 - Prioritization Tiers
Tier Criteria Action Items
Tier 0 High scoring (23-
17)and moderate
scoring (16-9) with
planned
reconstruction in
progress or
planned the by
2026
•Consider temporary safety improvements and/or additional
construction management precautions before and during
reconstruction
•Review existing construction plans to ensure identified safety
concerns and needs were accounted for in reconstruction plans
•Post construction evaluation
Tier 1 High scoring (23-
17) with no planned
reconstruction
•Identify key safety concerns
•Assess short-term quick build solutions
•Assess medium- and long-term solutions
•Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding
Tier 1 High scoring (23-
17) with planned
reconstruction in
the next 3-10 years
•Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures
•Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design
Tier 2 Moderate scoring
(16-9) with no
planned
reconstruction
•Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures
•Assess short-term quick build solutions
•Assess medium- and long-term solutions
•Identify grant applications and/or future CIP funding
Tier 2 Moderate scoring
(16-9) with planned
reconstruction in
the next 3-10 years
•Identify key safety concerns and propose countermeasures
•Assess short-term quick build solutions to inform long-term design
Tier 3 All other low
scoring (1-8)
locations
•Monitor locations and conduct follow-up evaluation next time a
crash analysis is completed.
•Complete a post-fatal/severe crash review for all new fatalities or
pedestrian/bicyclist crashes that occurred after the December
2023 collection period.
•Identify system wide strategies such as education and
enforcement to improve safety systemwide.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 98
Minnetonka Blvd
Excelsio
r
B
l
v
d
Cedar Lake
R
d
ev
A
s
a
x
e
T
Lo
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
A
v
e
L
o
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
A
v
e
ev
A
a
t
o
k
a
D
36th St
B
e
l
t
l
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
961
961
493
493
001
001
7
7
1
2
3
4
56
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey map and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information, and data gathered from various sources listed on this map and is to be used for reference purposes only. SEH does not warrant that the GeographicInformation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and SEH does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking, or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The user of this
map acknowledges that SEH shall not be liable for any damages which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Source: State of MN, City of St.
Louis Park, SEH, Inc.
Print Date: 3/18/2025
Project: STLOU 179709
Pa
t
h
:
X
:
\
P
T
\
S
\
S
T
L
O
U
\
1
7
9
7
0
9
\
5
-
f
i
n
a
l
-
d
s
g
n
\
5
1
-
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
\
9
0
-
G
I
S
\
1
7
9
7
0
9
-
S
T
L
O
U
-
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
1
7
9
7
0
9
-
S
T
L
O
U
-
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
.
a
p
r
x
Figure
21,500 0 1,500
Feet
North Ceda
r
L
a
k
e
T
r
a
i
l
Cedar L
a
k
e
L
R
T
T
r
a
i
l
Prioritization Areas
City of St. Louis Park
Safe Streets Action Plan
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Legend
St. Louis Park
Segments
Tier 0
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 2 - Small Area
Intersections
Tier 1
Tier 2
N
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 99
Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025
Page 7
Table 3 and Figure 2 detail the top 28 project locations by tier.
Tier 0 Locations
There are four Tier 0 segments. These segments located on Cedar Lake Rd, Minnetonka Blvd and
Louisiana Ave are either under construction or will be under construction within a year of the Action Plan.
Action items for these locations include a review of temporary safety improvements and/or additional
construction management precautions that can be taken before construction is complete as well as a post
construction safety evaluation.
Tier 1 Locations
Six Tier 1 locations were identified with a score of 17 or higher. All six of these locations involve county
and/or state-owned roadways and will involve cross-agency coordination. The projects along Minnetonka
Blvd are all programmed under the county Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for 2028 and will be reviewed
for key safety concerns to understand short-term demonstration projects that may benefit the corridor
while also working with the county to inform the future corridor design. Highway 7 at Texas Avenue has
been studied by MnDOT and they have planned improvements to improve mainline and intersection
safety.
Tier 2 Locations
Of the 18 tier 2 locations, there are a mix of city, county and state-owned roadways and intersections.
Table 3 – Top projects identified based on prioritization score and tier
Project Location Project Type
Priority
Score Tier
Planned
Constructi
on Ownership
1 Cedar Lake Rd (Rhode Island Ave S to
Louisiana Ave) Segment 21 to 20 Tier 0 2026 City (MSA)
2 Minnetonka Blvd (Hwy 100 to Lake St) Segment 22 to 12 Tier 0 2025 County
3 Louisiana Ave (I-394 to W 22nd St) Segment 13 to 7 Tier 0 2025 City (MSA)
4 Louisiana Ave (W 22nd St to W 27th St) Segment 19 to 11 Tier 0 2026 City (MSA)
5
Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 100 NB
entrance ramp Intersection 22 Tier 1
2025
Pavement
only MnDOT
6 Minnetonka Blvd (Cedar Lake Trail
Bridge to Texas Ave) Segment 23 to 17 Tier 1 2028 County
7 Texas Ave (36th Ave S to Hwy 7) Segment 17 to 12 Tier 1 None City (MSA)
8 Texas Ave and Hwy 7 Intersection 17 Tier 1 None MnDOT
9 Excelsior Blvd (Powell Rd to Hwy 100) Segment 17 to 12 Tier 1 None County
10 Excelsior Blvd (Hwy 100 to W 36th 1/2
St) Segment 18 to 12 Tier 1 None County
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 100
Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025
Page 8
Project Location Project Type
Priority
Score Tier
Planned
Constructi
on Ownership
11 36th St (Regional Trail Crossing to Texas
Ave) Segment 14 to 11 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
12 Wooddale Ave S (W 35th St to W 36th
St) Segment 12 to 9 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
13 Cedar Lake Rd and Ridge Rd Intersection 10 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
14 Cedar Lake Rd and Hwy 169 Ramp Intersection 9 Tier 2 None MnDOT
15 26th St (Natchez Ave S to Joppa Ave S) Segment 9 to 7 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
16 Park Center Blvd (W36th St to Excelsior
Blvd) Segment 12 to 9 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
17 Park Place Blvd (I-394 to Gamble Dr) Segment 11 to 8 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
18 Louisiana Ave (W 27th St) Intersection 10 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
19 W 30th 1/2 St and Viginia Ave S Intersection 15 Tier 2 None City
20 Aquila Neighborhood (Xylon Ave, Utah
Ave S, W 30th 1/2 St, W 31st St, W
32nd St) Small Area 15 to 9 Tier 2 None City
21
Hwy 7 and Beltline Blvd Intersection 11 Tier 2 None
County and
City (MSA)
22 Beltline Blvd (Lynn Ave to Park Glen Rd) Intersection 10 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
23 Virginia Ave S (North Cedar Lake
Regional Trail Crossing to Texas Ave) Segment 12 Tier 2 None City (MSA)
24 Hwy 7 and Blake Rd Intersection 12 Tier 2 None MnDOT
25 W 36th St and Hwy 100 Ramp
Interchange Intersection 10 Tier 2 None MnDOT
26 Minnetonka Blvd (Cavell Ave to Boone
Ave) Segment 11 to 9 Tier 2 2030 County
27
Hwy 169 ramps at Minnetonka Blvd Intersection 9 Tier 2 2030
MnDOT/
County
28 W 16th St and Duke Dr Intersection 9 Tier 2 None City (local)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 101
Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025
Page 9
NEXT STEPS
A deeper review will be completed for the 28 projects to identify key safety concerns, proposed safety
countermeasures, and future action items. The details of the analysis will be presented in the final Action
Plan. The detailed crash analysis is located in the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum.
Appendix A – Transportation Equity Considerations
Because low-income residents and residents who identify as a person of color are historically more likely
to be victims of a fatal or severe injury crash 8, an equity analysis was conducted to inform the equity
consideration for project prioritization. Table 4 describes the equity indicators that were mapped and
figures A1-A15 show the mapped data.
Table 4 - Transportation Equity Considerations
Fig. # Equity Indicator Details
1
Affordable Housing
Affordable/ subsidized housing (city, 2023
housing study prepared by Maxfield Research &
Consulting)
2 At-grade trail crossings At-grade regional trail crossings locations (city)
3 Low Wage Worker Job Density Low wage worker jobs per acre (LEHD dataset)
4 Median Household Income Median household income (2022 ACS, US
Census Bureau)
5 Percent of the population under 18 Percent of children under the age of 18 (2022
ACS, US Census Bureau)
6
Percent of the population with a disability
Percent of population reported with any self-
identified disability (2022 ACS, US Census
Bureau)
7 Percentage of residents identifying as a person
of color
Percent of population self-identifying as a person
of color (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau)
8 Population Density Persons per square mile (2020 Decennial
Census, US Census Bureau)
9
Poverty Rate
Percentage points above county average for
people within 185% of the federal poverty rate
(2022 ACS, US Census Bureau)
10
Schools
Locations of both public and private school
buildings (MN Dept. of Ed, 2024 school building
locations)
8 An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity. Governors Highway Safety Administration. June 2021.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 102
Project Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum – DRAFT July 16, 2025
Page 10
11
Senior Housing
Senior housing building locations (city, 2023
housing study prepared by Maxfield Research &
Consulting)
12
Transit Stops
Active transit stops as well as planned green line
light rail extension transit stops (Metropolitan
Council data server)
13 Vehicle Ownership Percentage of households without access to a
personal vehicle (2022 ACS, US Census Bureau)
Selecting Equity Considerations
The TAC and Stakeholder committee were involved in the selection of the equity considerations and
weighting into the project prioritization scoring. Based on the feedback, poverty rate, race,
affordable/senior housing, population density, residents under the age of 18 and pedestrian generators
including low-wage worker job concentrations and transit stops were included as scoring criteria.
The residents with disabilities dataset was considered for inclusion, but due to significant overlap with
affordable housing/senior housing data, it was removed. Grocery stores were also considered for
inclusion by the stakeholder committee, but due to significant overlap with the low wage worker job
concentrations, grocery store locations were not added to the scoring criteria.
Schools were not selected because they were already included in the High-Risk dataset which received a
higher weighting for the prioritization score.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 103
Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists
Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507
651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax | sehinc.com
SEH is 100% employee-owned | Affirmative Action–Equal Opportunity Employer
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Sullivan (PE)
FROM: Chelsea Moore-Ritchie (AICP)
DATE: April 3, 2025
RE: St. Louis Park Safe Streets Action Plan - Summary of Public Engagement
SEH No. STLOU 179709 14.00
Purpose
In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park obtained a grant through the federal Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A)
program to develop an action plan to improve road safety. In June of 2024, the city launched the Safe Streets
Action Plan to develop a plan to work towards reducing or eliminating serious injury and deadly accidents for
everyone using the roads. Public engagement is a key component of developing recommendations and
strategies, as well as identifying prioritization locations. Public input helped reinforce the safety and crash data
findings.
A public engagement campaign was designed to engage a wide range of stakeholders, including those who may
not attend a traditional open house or participate in the decision-making process. The project team worked
directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that their concerns were heard, understood, and
considered. Objectives of the outreach included:
•Creating awareness of the Safe Streets Action Plan and how safety impacts all road users.
•Better understanding of ways people travel and their priorities and concerns.
•Providing interactive, accessible, and approachable engagement opportunities throughout the project.
•Reporting back to the community to ensure recommendations reflect public input.
•Developing a Safe Streets Action Plan that will help guide future transportation investments.
This document summarizes all the engagement activities and the key themes as part of the Safe Streets Action
Plan.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 104
2
St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input
Phases of Engagement
The public engagement campaign included three phases throughout the entirety of the project.
• Phase 1 - The initial phase focused on creating community-wide awareness of the project and
understand key concerns and priorities. An equity analysis was conducted to identify areas with higher
percentage of higher-risk and disadvantaged populations (i.e., low wage workers, low-income
households, residents with a disability, people of color, youth, seniors, households with zero vehicles).
Engagement events were held at locations and events easily accessible to these groups.
o Approximately 690 engagement interactions were made during this phase.
• Phase 2 – The second phase worked with a Stakeholder Committee and Technical Advisory Committee
to review public input and begin developing strategies and identifying prioritization locations.
• Phase 3 – The third phase presented draft strategies and prioritization locations to the public. Public input
during this phase to further refine recommendations and implementation strategies.
Engagement Opportunities
The City offered several engagement opportunities to engage the community in guiding recommendations and
prioritization locations. Each of the outlined engagement activities provided an interactive experience to provide
input, voice concerns, and identify future transportation priorities.
Project Webpage
The city hosted a dedicated webpage to serve as a central hub for the Safe Streets Action Plan. The site featured
up-to-date project information, upcoming engagement events, and resources, allowing stakeholders to stay
informed and engaged with the planning process.
Yard Signs
Yard signs with QR codes to the project website were placed at key locations with high pedestrian and bicycle
traffic. These helped promote the project and online survey.
Pop-up Workshops
These casual and fun workshops brought the project directly to the public. Pop-up workshops were held during
the first and third phases of the project. These workshops were held at popular community locations that attract a
diverse audience, including local events and areas with heavy pedestrian and bicycle activity.
During Phase 1, participants were able to learn about the project, share their top transportation priorities, and
identify issues at specific locations. Phase 3 focused on presenting the process for selecting project locations and
strategies, as well as gathering community input. Feedback from the community was used to further refine the
project recommendations.
The project hosted five pop-up workshops throughout the city:
• Phase 1 Workshops
o St Louis Park Art Fair at the Recreation Outdoor Center (August 7, 2024): 225 participants
o Fire Department Open House (August 18, 2024): 53 participants
o Aquila Park (October 21, 2024): 19 participants
o Hennepin County-St. Louis Park Library (October 29, 2024): 49 participants
• Phase 3 Workshop
o Parktacular Festival (June 14, 2025): 148 participants
Community Workshop
A community workshop was held at the Westwood Nature Center on October 15, 2024. Approximately 19 people
attended. The workshop had a variety of interactive stations and was an opportunity for stakeholders to learn
about the project, ask questions, and share their feedback regarding transportation safety issues.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 105
3
St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input
Online Survey
An online survey was conducted during the first phase (August 2024) with 133 participants taking the online
survey. Participants were able to identify 1) their preferred travel modes, 2) improvements that would encourage
them to walk, roll, bike, or use transit more, 3) their experience using transportation facilities, 4) the city’s future
transportation priorities, and 5) factors that determine how transportation investments are made. The online
survey summary can be found at the end of this document.
Interactive Mapping Tool
An online mapping tool allowed stakeholders to provide comments on specific locations, routes, and areas of
interest. The mapping input helped identify popular destinations, areas with safety concerns, opportunities for
improvements, and gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network. 833 comments were submitted on the interactive
map during phase one. Most common concerns were about unsafe or uncomfortable crossings, gaps in
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, high speed traffic, and unsafe driving behavior. Mapping comments were
concentrated along busier roads, including Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka Boulevard, Lake Street, Louisiana
Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, and Cedar Lake Road.
Figure 1 - Online Map
Comments
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 106
4
St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input
Stakeholder Advisory Committee
A Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) was established to guide the development of strategies and project
locations to ensure that recommendations reflect community needs. Ten community members were selected
using criteria designed to capture diverse backgrounds and perspectives. Selection factors included geographic
representation (neighborhoods and wards), prior involvement in city commissions, primary modes of
transportation, and a broad range of transportation-related insights. The Committee met three times during the
second phase of engagement. The Committee also commented on the final report and was also influential in
ensuring that the project team was engaging an audience that reflected the community’s demographic profile.
Technical Advisory Committee
A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to provide comprehensive technical guidance throughout
the development of project strategies and recommendations. The Committee included city staff from the
Engineering, Communications, Public Works, Public Safety (Fire and Police), and Community Development
departments, as well as representatives from partner agencies, including the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The TAC’s role
was to provide technical insight on transportation needs, ensure alignment with existing plans and policies, and
review proposed recommendations for feasibility and effectiveness. The Committee met regularly during the
planning process and played a key role in refining strategies to ensure they were both technically sound and
responsive to community goals.
Report Comment Period
A public comment period in coordination with a media advertising campaign was used to get the word out about
the draft report and solicit comments for consideration.
Key Takeaways
The following key takeaways are based on public feedback gathered through the engagement activities outlined
previously. This input reflects community concerns and priorities regarding transportation safety and infrastructure
improvements, highlighting key areas such as pedestrian and bicycle safety, traffic calming measures, and public
education. The following themes summarize the most frequently mentioned issues by stakeholders.
Traffic Management and Speed Control
The public highlighted frustrations about speeding and unsafe driving behaviors along busy streets, particularly
along Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka Boulevard, Lake Street, Louisiana Avenue, Wooddale Avenue, and Cedar
Lake Road. Feedback also mentioned that vehicles drive too fast along residential roads, especially those used
as cut through streets.
Survey respondents ranked calming vehicle traffic (selected by 64% of participants) as the top transportation
priority, while traffic enforcement was ranked third (selected by 47%). Public input emphasized the need for traffic
calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds, especially near school zone areas, parks, and commercial areas.
Public input highlighted the need to continue to provide education programs to improve driver behavior and safer
pedestrian and bicycle practices.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Intersections
The public highlighted safety concerns at intersections throughout the city, specifically along roads with high
traffic, multiple lanes, faster speeds, or near commercial areas. Based on survey input, improving safety
conditions at intersections (selected by 57% of participants) ranked second as a top priority for the city’s future
transportation priorities. Many engagement participants shared that they do not feel safe walking or biking across
busy streets with children, even at intersections with controlled crossings.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 107
5
St. Louis Park, MN – Safe Streets Action Plan Summary of Public Input
Positive Feedback regarding City’s Multimodal Investments
Throughout engagement events, many stakeholders shared their general support for the city’s continuous efforts
to expand and improve the multimodal network. The pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure was highlighted as a
key community asset in St. Louis Park.
How this information was used
Feedback from the online map was used directly in identifying top locations to help identify areas that may not
have a strong crash history but may have near misses or other safety concerns not captures by the data analysis.
The online survey also helped to inform the development of the equity indicators used in the prioritization
methodology. And finally, public comments were reviewed during the Safety Analysis of the top priority locations,
to inform treatment recommendations. For more information on how the public feedback was incorporated, see
the Safety Analysis Technical Memorandum and the Prioritization Methodology Technical Memorandum.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 108
Phase 1 Community Survey
Engagement Summary
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 109
44
89
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Partial
Complete
Participants
Total: 133 participants
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 110
1. What is your most frequently used mode of transportation?
Driving a personal vehicle
79%
Walking
9%
Biking
9%
Transit
2%Other -Write In
1%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 111
2. If conditions were ideal, what would be yourpreferred mode of transportation?
Driving a personal vehicle
25%
Walking / rolling
21%Biking
34%
Transit
18%
Carpool or car share
2%
Other -Write In
1%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 112
3.
What would encourage you to walk more than you
currently do? Select your top three (3) choices.
52.1
41.7
36.5
32.3
27.1
22.9
11.5 11.5 10.4 7.3
3.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Slower car
speeds /
calmer streets
Shorter
distances to
destinations
Separation
from vehicles
Improved
sense of
safety
New facilities
where there
are none
today (e.g,
sidewalks,
trails, etc.)
Better winter
maintenance
Better lighting More facilities
and amenities
(e,g,, trees,
landscaping,
lighting,
benches, etc.
Other - Write
In
Protection
from extreme
heat and cold
Nothing - I
would not
walk/roll
more
frequently
%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 113
A pedestrian light at bus stop behind knollwood
Ability to safely and conveniently cross major roads: Minnetonka Blvd and Hwy 7/CSAH25
Drivers who obey the laws
I am 89 years old
Improved crosswalks where walkers automatically get a walk sign instead of always having to request a walk.
More crosswalks with caution lights across Minnetonka west of 100
Stop signs need to be placed at the roundabouts instead of yields for traffic that is coming from highway 7. I frequently
walk for exercise in this area and the roundabouts terrify me as a pedestrian
fewer bicyclists unwilling to allow pedestrian access
the vehicles in SLP speed excessively and nothing is done about it, the last project to reduce speed did nothing, and the
police do absolutely nothing to stop it
3. What would encourage you to walk more than you currently
do?Select your top three (3) choices. Other responses
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 114
4. What would encourage you or allow you to bike
more frequently? Select your top two (2) responses.
55.8
51.2
41.9
18.6
1.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Improved driver behavior Provide more separated
facilities from cars
New bikeways where there
are none today (e.g., bike
lanes, trails, sharrows, etc
Other - Write In More bike repair stations
%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 115
Nothing. At 69 I cannot use a bicycle.
Better weather
Having children who are able to bike on their own and feeling more safe with them doing so
I am 89 years old
I do not bike
I don't bike
I won't bike on streets. Only trails. Too dangerous on streets. Also I don't bike for transportation but for recreation
Improve ride share access for the last mile to public trans
Owning a bike and wider paths on the trails since bikers and walkers share the path. Sometimes there are large groups of bikers.
Roundabout solutions, treacherous for cars much less bikes… signaling with arms WHILE " curving " the bike is harder!
The new trail tunnels under Dakota and Blake have encouraged me to bike more
bicyclists with an understanding of shared responsibility
features that show me as a pedestrian or cyclist that the drivers are going to be forced to slow down
infrastructure that prioritizes people, not cars
locations to store bike once arrived
4. What would encourage you or allow you to bike morefrequently? Select your top two (2) responses.Other responses
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 116
5. What would encourage you to take transit more
frequently? Select your top two (2) responses.
59.3
44.2
24.4
15.1
11.6 9.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
More transit options to
the places I want to go
More frequent services Other - Write In Better connections to
transit stops
Improved reliability Cheaper transit fares
%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 117
Safety
A bus on France Avenue!!!!
Free Fare. Figuring out the payment system is a hurdle
I ride the bus to work multiple times a week. I used to live the bus, but now it's not fun due to the behavior of
people on the buses and at bus stops while waiting (often far too long) for connections.
I won't use public transit.
I would not be likely to take public transit
Improved safety on public transit
Improved sense of safety/crime reduction
More Police presence throughout the city.
More ride share for the last mile.
NA-traveling with multiple young children
Nothing. Too dangerous
Safety on transit and in transit stations
Taking transit is challenging with a young child who needs a stroller.
frequent to the point where I don't need to be a slave to a schedule
n/a
none, public transport is dirty and takes forever to get where you are going
safety
safety issues
5. What would encourage you to take transit more frequently?Select your top two (2) responses.Other responses
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 118
6.
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each of thefollowing statements about transportation in the City of St. Louis Park?
Strongly disagree Somewhat
disagree
Neutral -I am not
sure
Somewhat agree Strongly agree
I feel safe WALKING and ROLLING in most
places throughout the city.
9.4% 21.2% 7.1% 40.0% 22.4%
I feel that the sidewalks and trails in the
city connect me to the places I want to go.
7.2% 16.9% 13.3% 42.2% 20.5%
I feel safe BIKING in most places
throughout the city.
10.1% 25.3% 25.3% 32.9% 6.3%
I feel that the bikeways in the city connect
me to the places I want to go.
6.4% 15.4% 25.6% 41.0% 11.5%
I feel safe DRIVING in most streets
throughout the city.
6.5% 7.8% 9.1% 31.2% 45.5%
If there were more sidewalks, trails and
bikeways in the city I would be more active.
7.8% 9.1% 16.9% 31.2% 35.1%
I would like to see more trees, plantings,
benches, etc. along the streets in the city.
1.3% 7.8% 16.9% 23.4% 50.6%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 119
7. What should be the city's top transportation prioritiesfor the future? Please select your top four (4) responses.
63.6
57.1
46.8
40.3 37.7
23.4
18.2 16.9 16.9 13 10.4 7.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Calming
vehicle traffic
Improve safety
conditions at
intersections
Traffic
enforcement
More walking,
biking, and
rolling routes
to commercial
areas
Build more
bicycle
facilities
throughout
the city
More shaded
areas along
walking/rolling
routes
Other - Write
In
Public
education
programs to
improve
behavior
Improved
access for
people with
disabilities
More
amenities
along
walking/rolling
routes
Safer routes to
schools
Improved
access to
transit stops
%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 120
Bring back the three parking spots Southeast of Hwy 100 and Cedar Lake Trail. It's hard to find a place to get on that trail.
Coming up with an idea of how it wants Louisiana—its only continuous north-south artery—to look/feel/function, from 394 to
Excelsior.
How about a water bottle filling stations along the bike trail.
I want speed bumps in my neighborhood. Delivery trucks and individuals are driving too fast. Kids play outside. People walk their dogs.
My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks.
I would like to have sidewalks on Cambridge St.
Improve signage for pedestrian crosswalks
Limiting oversized trucks and SUVs on streets
Make intersections and crossings safer for pedestrians. Drivers ignore walk signs, ignore crosswalks, and are so focused on turning
right on red lights that they don't see or look for pedestrians with the right of way. Sidewalks become meaningless when you can't
safely cross the street. Every time I walk by the roundabout by the Rec Center around rush hour, someone is having a fit because the
car in front of them yielded (as required) to incoming traffic or a pedestrian. It's not safe
STOP BUILDING ROUNDABOUTS!
Sidewalks throughout!!!!
Speedbumps for High speed highschoolers in residential neighborhoods
more roundabouts where appropriate
there is no bike lane on Louisiana Ave, WHY? Traffic is out of control on this road and nothing is done, most bikers use the sidewalk
then, police do nothing to control traffic in this city!
7.What should be the city's top transportation priorities for the
future? Please select your top four (4) responses.Other responses
Page 121
8.If you had $10 to invest into making transportation facilities safer and moreaccessible, how would you distribute funds? Please include the amount you wouldinvest in each transportation facility type. The max amount should equal to $10.00.
Type of Facilities Average
Score
Pedestrian facilities (e.g., sidewalks, trails, etc.) 3.9
Roadway improvements 3.6
Biking facilities (e.g., bike lanes, trails, bike repair stations, etc.) 3.1
Transit facilities and services (e.g., bus stops, frequency of service, etc.) 2.8
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 122
9. What should be most important when the city is selecting safety improvements? Rateeach item with 1 = not important and 5 = very important.
1 (Not important)2 3 (Neutral) 4 5 (Very important)
Minimizing impacts to adjacent
properties
15.3% 16.7% 31.9% 19.4% 16.7%
Protecting people most at risk for
severe and fatal injuries (i.e., people
walking, biking and rolling)
0% 0% 1.4% 16.4% 82.2%
Taking advantage of upcoming
projects to minimize construction
impacts and cost
2.8% 5.6% 23.9% 35.2% 32.4%
Prioritizing mobility needs for
underserved populations
4.2% 7.0% 14.1% 42.3% 32.4%
Providing the highest safety benefit 0% 1.4% 9.7% 34.7% 54.2%
Proximity to schools and senior
centers
1.4% 13.9% 20.8% 36.1% 27.8%
Locations near transit stops 4.2% 6.9% 27.8% 36.1% 25.0%
Locations near trail crossings 2.8% 8.3% 20.8% 43.1% 25.0%
High traffic areas 0% 2.8% 12.5% 27.8% 56.9%
Locations with excessive speeding 0% 2.7% 13.7% 15.1% 68.5%
Page 123
10. What is your relation to the City of St. Louis Park?Please select all that apply.
98.8
17.1
1.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
I live in St. Louis Park I work in St. Louis Park I own a business in St. Louis Park
%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 124
11. How did you hear about this survey?Please select all that apply
27.5 26.3
17.5 16.3
11.3
7.5
2.5
0
10
20
30
Other - Write In City website Social media
(Facebook, X, Tik
Tok, etc.)
Lawn signs A family member,
neighbor, or friend
Community event or
festival
Flier
%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 125
Email
Email
Email from city
Council member email
Email
Email from the city
Fall sustainability news newsletter
email from SLP
email from you
sustainability newsletter
walking in the park
11. How did you hear about this survey? Pleaseselect all that apply. Other responses
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 126
12. How would you identify your race or ethnicity?
Black, African American, or
African origin
3%
White, European American
or Caucasian
88%
Hispanic or Latino
7%
Other race(s), ethnicity or origin
3%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 127
13. How would you identify yourself?
Female
47%
Male
50%
Non-binary or other
3%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 128
14. What is your age?
18 -30 years old
12%
31 -50 years old
50%
51 -70 years old
27%
Over 70 years old
12%
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 3)
Title: Safe Streets Action Plan Overview Page 129
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 9, 2026
Written report: 4
Executive summary
Title: Connected infrastructure system kick-off
Recommended action: None. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview and
framework for the planned discussions in the study sessions included in the connected
infrastructure system.
Policy consideration: Throughout the discussions in this system, the council will be asked
specific policy questions related to the topic discussed. Additionally, during these discussions,
staff would like council to reflect on the following question (not to be answered at this time):
Do the current infrastructure policies meet the desired goal/ outcome to continue to provide a
variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and
reliably?
Summary: Over the coming weeks, a series of discussions will be held, and information will be
provided regarding the Vision 3.0 strategic priority of connected infrastructure. Some of these
are council-directed and others are staff-initiated. This is the fifth time that we have covered
this strategic priority. This report serves as a foundation for all the discussions and includes a
broad overview of what to expect during this system.
The foundation for staff to develop infrastructure projects and implement programs is the plans
and policies approved by the city council. To kick off the discussion of this system, the staff is
providing council with an overview of the topics included in this system.
Financial or budget considerations: Funds are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
for infrastructure projects. Should the council desire a change in work surrounding
infrastructure, additional resources may be required. All decision-making on specific projects in
the 2027 CIP and future years will be made as a part of the budget process in August and
September 2026.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
“What’s under my street?” graphic
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Reviewed by: Jay Hall, public works director; Jack Sullivan, assistant city engineer; Jason West,
parks and recreation director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: Connected infrastructure system kick-off
Discussion
Background: Connected infrastructure is the first of the five strategic priorities to have a fifth
study session series. Like the discussions held in 2025, the timing of this topic is early in the year
to ensure that there is time to incorporate policy direction into the upcoming CIP and budget
process.
As shown on the "What's under my street?" graphic, much of the public infrastructure that the
city is responsible for is underground. Since repair and replacement of this underground
infrastructure usually requires that the street be dug up, the most cost-effective time to replace
the underground utilities is when the streets are replaced. This is also true for the new
construction and replacement of above-ground improvements, such as sidewalks and bikeways.
In addition to the infrastructure that is within the city’s right of way, the city is also responsible
for other infrastructure, including many public facilities. Replacement and maintenance of
these facilities are also planned for in our CIP. Again, this year, we have incorporated facilities
into this system.
Infrastructure serves all of us: We are all reliant on high-quality infrastructure - whether we
identify as pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders or use personal vehicles. The city's connected
infrastructure includes sidewalks, bikeways, streets, alleys and underground utilities.
Infrastructure is directly linked to the economic development and growth of a city. It acts as a
catalyst, providing people with connections to basic needs such as emergency response, health
care, education, food resources, transportation, safety, job opportunities and more.
Infrastructure provides direct positive impacts, including efficiency, increased safety, decreased
environmental impact, and more effective delivery of public goods and services.
Most people do not typically think about infrastructure unless it is in bad condition, damaged,
or not working. Many of our roads and alleys are used by bicyclists, pedestrians and rollers
(e.g., scooters, people using wheelchairs), in addition to vehicles. These users are more
sensitive to cracks, potholes and bad drainage than vehicles. Transit, solid waste and
emergency services also rely on our system to serve our community. As a result, maintaining
our roads and alleys in good condition provides an important community benefit beyond that of
single-occupancy vehicles.
Infrastructure condition: Proactively planning for the replacement of infrastructure is essential
for our city to thrive and grow. To support this, the city has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
that describes the capital improvements and expenditures planned over the next ten (10) years.
It is a statement of the city's policies and financial ability to manage infrastructure investment
in the community.
Engineering oversees the CIP for construction, maintenance and replacement of public
infrastructure, including bridges, bikeways, sidewalks, streets, alleys, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer, watermain and signal systems. The CIP is reviewed and revised annually with input from
public works staff.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 3
Title: Connected infrastructure system kick-off
The parks and recreation department is responsible for projects that construct, maintain and
replace city buildings, including the Recreation Outdoor Center (the ROC), aquatic park, parks,
police station and many others.
To plan and coordinate future work with other government jurisdictions, the city identifies the
years when improvements will be initiated and what funding sources will be used to pay for
them. The updated proposed CIP is presented to the city council as part of the annual budget
development process. A final CIP for the following year is adopted, along with the annual
budget, each December.
Infrastructure operation and maintenance: Once infrastructure is constructed, it needs to be
maintained. The way we design our infrastructure and the types of facilities we build have a
direct impact on the efficiency and cost of snow removal and solid waste operations. Factors
such as street width, curb design, sidewalk placement, bikeway design and parking all influence
how quickly plows and collection vehicles can operate and the frequency of maintenance
required. Thoughtful design can reduce operational challenges, minimize wear on equipment
and lower long-term labor and repair costs. Incorporating design features that support efficient
routing, safe vehicle access and ease of snow storage or waste collection helps ensure that
essential services are delivered reliably while keeping our operation and maintenance costs
manageable over the life of the infrastructure.
Present considerations: The topics listed below are scheduled to be brought before the council
over the coming months. They all center on infrastructure policy and offer opportunities to
consider how infrastructure is planned for, constructed and maintained in the city.
These topics will examine current programs and offer opportunities, identified by both council
and staff, for expansion or adjustment where applicable. Absent any policy changes, city staff
will continue to develop connected infrastructure programs and projects at the level they exist
at today.
Next steps: Throughout the discussions in this system, the council will be asked to provide
policy direction that will shape the connected infrastructure strategy in the city.
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 4
Title: Connected infrastructure system kick-off
Topic Description
Connected infrastructure
system kick-off
A report to provide a high-level overview of the study session system.
Safe Streets Action Plan A discussion regarding the draft Safe Streets Action Plan.
Background: In 2023, the City of St. Louis Park obtained a grant through the
federal Safe Street and Roads for All (SS4A) program to develop an action
plan to improve road safety.
Staff have been working with SEH to engage community stakeholders and
develop a Safe Streets Action Plan focused on reducing and ultimately
eliminating severe and fatal crashes for everyone using the transportation
system. Safe access for all users is a key part of a strong transportation
network and supports the ability of all residents to thrive. The draft plan
outlines objectives, policies and recommendations that will guide future
transportation investments and improvements.
The plan includes the following:
• A review of crash history and high-crash locations
• Identification of transportation goals
• Development of potential safety improvements, including focused
pedestrian and bicycle treatments
• Implementation plan that prioritizes key solutions based on safety
and equity needs Minnetonka Boulevard
Phase 2
A discussion to go over the recommendations for the Minnetonka
Boulevard - Phase 2 project.
Background: In 2027, Hennepin County is proposing to reconstruct CSAH 5
(Minnetonka Boulevard) from Xylon Avenue to Vernon Avenue. This project
is needed to repair existing infrastructure, remove barriers to active
transportation and transit and replace at risk watermain.
As the city continues to expand its city-maintained sidewalk, bikeway and
trail network, it is important to align winter maintenance with available
resources.
Staff from Hennepin County and the city will be presenting the
recommended design to the city council, along with costs associated with
operation and maintenance of each option.
The next public meeting for this project is planned for April 15, 2026. TH169 Multimodal study
report Council will receive a written report with information on the Minnesota
Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) multimodal study of Highway 169
from I‑394 in St. Louis Park/Golden Valley to 101st Avenue in Brooklyn Park,
completed in partnership with local agencies. The study evaluates road and
bridge conditions, mobility and safety issues and opportunities to
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 4) Page 5
Title: Connected infrastructure system kick-off
strengthen connections between different modes of transportation to
better link jobs, schools, homes and businesses.
A key focus of the study is shifting away from expanding highway capacity
for single‑occupancy vehicles and instead investing in more efficient,
multimodal ways to move people—such as enhanced bus service, bike and
pedestrian facilities, E‑ZPass lanes and land‑use planning that supports
walkable communities. A multimodal Hwy 169 is intended to support
current and future job and activity centers, improve access to services and
help communities along the corridor grow sustainably and competitively.
The study will identify preferred alternatives along the corridor and outline
a future implementation plan. As MnDOT completes this work, the findings
will help guide long‑term transportation planning and investment decisions.
Green line extension light
rail update and tour
Green Line Extension light rail staff will accompany the city council on a tour
of the LRT stations in St. Louis Park. Following the tour, Met Council staff
will present an update on the project’s status, including progress on systems
testing and public involvement efforts to support a successful launch in
2027. Railroad safety study This discussion item is to go over the completed railroad safety study.
Background: Staff has engaged SRF Consulting to complete a railroad safety
study for the Canadian Pacific/Kansas City (CPKC) railroad corridor that runs
north–south through the city. The purpose of the study is to evaluate each
crossing and develop recommendations for physical infrastructure
improvements that may be necessary to meet the requirements for
establishing a railroad quiet zone, which would reduce or eliminate routine
train horn noise at qualifying crossings. Webster Park Council will receive a written report that updates council on the progress of
obtaining Webster Park from MnDOT. Connected infrastructure
system wrap-up
Summary of discussions, questions and feedback, and policy direction.
Resposib'il ity
.City 0 Resident
•Joint res:l)onsibility: aity
owned/resident maintained
•Private utility company
What's under my street?
•street0 Concrete CUJ1J, and gutter 0 Storm sewer catch basin 0 storm sewer manhole 0 Storm sewer pipe 0 storm sewer • let
0 Manhole cover 0 sanitary sewer 1manhole 0 sanitary sewer main pipe G Fire hydrant
CD Hydrant valve
CD Watermain pipe
G Water service G Water service sttut-off G Boulevard tree
Concrete driveway apron
CD Sanitary sewer service
•Water service to house
G)Irrigation
' Pet containment system
•Sidewalk
f)Boulevardfl Private utilities (gas, ,electric, internet)
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 4)
Title: Connected infrastructure system kick-off Page 6
Meeting: Study session
Meeting date: March 9, 2026
Written report: 5
Executive summary
Title: Community + Civic Engagement system wrap-up
Recommended action: None. The purpose of this report is to summarize the outcomes of the
recent discussions within the community and civic engagement system sessions.
Policy consideration: None
Summary: The community and civic engagement system focused on expanding opportunities
for residents to connect with local government processes and programs. On various dates
throughout January and February of 2026, a series of consent items, written reports and study
session topics covered several key areas.
The series opened with a review of the Public Art Policy, followed by a facilitated discussion to
support the Vision 4.0 strategic priority-setting process. Staff presented proposed code
amendments to Chapter 2 of the city code, along with an overview of Title XI and the Language
Access Policy. Additional items included a report on funding for the Neighborhood Grant
Program and a comprehensive summary of recent election activity, voter feedback and
preparations for the upcoming election cycle.
Financial or budget considerations: None at this time
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Pat Coleman, community engagement coordinator
Reviewed by: Pa Dao Yang, racial equity and inclusion director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Title: Community + Civic Engagement system wrap-up
Discussion
Present Considerations:
This system included study sessions, discussion and regular city council meeting agenda items
covering a range of topics in relation to community and civic engagement. Reports on these
topics were considered and discussed by the city council, and where appropriate, direction on
future expectations and outcomes was provided to staff for implementation. A summary of the
topics covered in this system includes:
Meeting Subject: Public Art Policy
Date: January 12, 2026
Overview: The council received a written report and a presentation of the city’s updated Public
Art Policy that guided a discussion that allowed them to provide feedback and comments on
the public art policy. The goal of this art policy is to ensure that there is a shared understanding
around the use of public art for the community, council and staff. This policy also will help
ensure that efforts around public art is done consistently, equitably and aligns with the city’s
priorities.
Outcomes: The council was supportive of the public art policy. Staff will begin to utilize the
updated policy.
Meeting Subject: Vision 4.0 Final Strategic Priorities
Date: January 20, 2026
Overview: Led by an external consultant, TerraLuna Collaborative, the council was led through
a facilitated discussion that served as the initial conversation to determine the new set of
strategic priorities.
Outcomes: By the end of the discussion, the council, the consultant and city staff had:
● Clarity on the “why’ behind this project
● A shared understanding of Vision 4.0 themes and how they relate to current strategic
priorities
● A documented list of key questions and/or concerns to carry into the retreat design
● Agreement (or clear next steps) on the format and structure for strategic priorities
● A preliminary sense of city council’s alignment on emerging priorities (areas of strong
agreement as well as areas needing refinement)
Meeting Subject: Title VI/Language Access Plan
Date: February 17, 2026
Overview: The REI Division invited the Title VI consultant, Calyptus, to present a mid-progress
report to council during a student session on the Title VI and language access plan (LAP)
research, benchmark and recommendations to both plans.
Outcomes: Recommendations were provided to council on the Title VI and LAP. The REI division
will invite the Human Rights Commission to review the recommendations to provide their input
during their meeting on March 17, 2026. Following, Title VI and LAP will be reviewed by the city
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Title: Community + Civic Engagement system wrap-up
attorney to ensure legal compliance. Calyptus will incorporate the feedback from the HRC, city
attorney and staff into the recommendations. A final report on embedding a citywide Title VI
and LAP will be provided to council at the end of March 2026.
Meeting Subject: Boards and Commissions code revisions
Date: February 17, 2026
Overview: The council received a written report as a consent item that would amend various
sections of chapter 2 of the city code as it relates to boards and commissions. While most
updates are grammatical or structural in nature and intended to improve readability or provide
clarity, a few notable changes include:
1. Removal of the purpose sections for the Human Rights Commission and the
Environment and Sustainability Commission. These two commissions were the only
advisory bodies with standalone purpose statements and their powers and duties
already sufficiently describe their purpose. Removing these sections creates consistency
across all commissions.
2. Removal of “qualified voter” as a requirement for service on boards and commissions.
This language created an inequitable barrier for residents who are active community
members but not eligible voters. Eliminating this requirement ensures broader and
more inclusive access to civic participation.
Outcomes: The council voted by majority to approve the first reading of the proposed
amendments. A second reading and adoption occurred on March 2, 2026. Several city council
members expressed interest in developing clearer purpose statements for all commissions.
Staff plan to create a process for how specific, clear purpose statements for individual board
and commissions could be developed and where they should exist outside of the city code.
Meeting Subject: Neighborhood Grant Program
Date: February 17, 2026
Overview: The council was provided with a written report and presentation from staff on the
updates of the 2025 Neighborhood Grant Program cycle. The report served as a comprehensive
overview of the cycle year, highlighting programmatic changes made in early 2025 and the
results of those changes, while the presentation had a focus of addressing the goals set by the
council which were:
1. Does the council support the strategies laid out in this report aimed at:
a. Increasing the number of active neighborhood groups in the city; and
b. Increasing overall program spending so that appropriated funds are fully utilized
2. Are there other changes to the neighborhood program that council would like to see?
Outcomes: The council took the opportunity to share their thoughts on the current state of the
program given the information provided and gave their feedback on changes they would like to
see in 2026. Within that discussion, multiple council members expressed interest in raising the
baseline level of financial support for neighborhoods. Council reaffirmed its commitment to the
Study session meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Title: Community + Civic Engagement system wrap-up
tiered funding model. After discussion, the majority of council members also determined not to
broaden the eligibility of events for which food is a reimbursable item. Instead, both staff and
neighborhoods were encouraged to include staff presentations and other strategies to ensure a
city-purpose tie at events in order to better align the events with public purpose requirements.
Staff will follow up with an analysis and options on how to raise the baseline level of financial
support for neighborhoods. Staff will also continue to move forward with program operations
in 2026.
Meeting Subject: Elections update and recap
Date: March 23, 2026
Overview: Council will receive a written report that offers a broad summary of recent election
activity, voter feedback, and preparations for the next election cycle. It reviews the 2024 and
2025 election cycles, highlights key trends in voter behavior and service delivery, presents
findings from the annual voter experience survey, and outlines the planned services and
priorities for the 2026 election cycle.
Next steps: Staff will incorporate all council directions from each report, discussion, and
presentation, and prioritize their implementation throughout the year. Additionally, staff will
keep the council informed with updates on necessary information that is essential to the
success of any direction given.
Meeting: Special city council
Meeting date: March 9, 2026
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition
memorandum of understanding
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution approving the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) for the City of St. Louis Park to participate as a member of the Cities for
Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition.
Policy consideration: Does the city council authorize the City of St. Louis Park to participate in
the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition?
Summary: In a study session held on Feb. 2, 2026, the city council discussed recent federal
actions in Minnesota, their impact on the St. Louis Park community and the city’s response to
date. Resolution No. 26-025 was adopted by the city council on Feb. 10, 2026, which affirms the
city’s values and commitment to upholding them and outlines the city’s strategic actions in
response to federal actions to support those most impacted in St. Louis Park.
Also on Feb. 2, 2026, a coalition of mayors announced the formation of Cities for Safe and
Stable Communities Minnesota. The coalition is a grassroots, local government-led organization
dedicated to restoring stability and trust in government. Upon its formation, the coalition
comprised the cities of Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Columbia Heights, Eden
Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Maplewood, Minnetonka, Richfield and St. Louis Park
and has since more than doubled in size.
The coalition is calling for immediate state municipal aid to stabilize cities experiencing the
economic ripple effects of Operation Metro Surge. Coalition mayors reported increased police
overtime, business losses, food insecurity, rental assistance requests, and an education crisis.
The city attorney has reviewed the MOU that formally establishes the City of St. Louis Park’s
participation in the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition and has no
concerns. The MOU is necessary as cities seek to be made whole from Operation Metro Surge’s
impacts throughout Minnesota.
Financial or budget considerations: The contract has a set monthly fee of $10,000 to be divided
amongst all participating cities. The total cost for the work cannot exceed $42,500 for all cities
without approval by the coalition. The City of St. Louis Park’s portion of the costs will be funded
out of the administrative operations budget.
Strategic priority consideration: All strategic priorities are impacted and applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution, memorandum of understanding
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding
Discussion
Background: Cities across Minnesota are working together to restore stability, trust and
effective local governance following the disruption created by Operation Metro Surge. Local
governments are responsible for the well-being of residents, businesses, schools and
neighborhoods. When outside actions disrupt local systems, cities are left to manage the
consequences. Cities did not create the conditions brought on by Operation Metro Surge but
city governments are responsible for helping communities recover and move forward. A unified
group of cities has more ability to influence policy and improve coordination than any single city
acting alone.
The Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition exists so cities can coordinate,
share information and stabilize their communities while reinforcing local governance and
constitutional standards in a nonpartisan fashion.
Present considerations: The coalition’s focus is on three core priorities:
● Stabilizing local economies and city operations
● Reaffirming local control and the rule of law
● Strengthening public trust and community safety
The coalition is focused on practical coordination and real-time problem solving through
legislative advocacy:
● Validating what is happening on the ground. City leaders are bringing direct, on-the-
ground information to the State Capitol so decisions are informed by what cities are
actually experiencing, not assumptions about local conditions.
● Stabilizing city operations and protecting core services. Cities are coordinating around
how to maintain essential services and manage the pressures that emerged during and
after the surge.
● Sharing information across cities. Communities are exchanging operational insights and
lessons learned so cities do not have to navigate these challenges in isolation.
● Strengthening communication with residents. Local governments are working to
provide clear information to residents and businesses while rebuilding confidence in
local institutions.
● Engaging state and federal partners. Cities are communicating with policymakers to
improve coordination going forward and ensure local governments are part of those
conversations.
● Identifying safeguards for the future. The coalition is working to develop policy tools
and operational strategies that will help cities respond more effectively if similar
disruptions occur again. Leaders are also pursuing a municipal aid bill.
Next Steps: Momentum Advocacy has been selected to act as consultant to represent the
coalition. The City of Minnetonka will serve as the lead contracting party and the costs incurred
for the work will be shared by all parties. Momentum Advocacy also currently serves as the City
of St. Louis Park’s consultant for state and federal legislative advocacy.
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding
Resolution No. 26-____
Approving a memorandum of understanding
for the City of St. Louis Park to participate as a member of the
Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has experienced harmful impacts of Operation Metro
Surge since January 1, 2026, including but not limited to increased police overtime, business
losses, food insecurity, rental assistance requests, an education crisis and economic instability;
and
Whereas, basic city services and good governance rely upon the ability to balance
budget with community needs and Operation Metro Surge has placed an enormous burden
upon cities in Minnesota that prevent local governments and their residents from carrying out
their work; and
Whereas, the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Coalition was formed to bring cities
together and is consulting with Momentum Advocacy to provide strategic coalition
management and public affairs services on behalf of the coalition; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, on behalf of its residents, desires to enter into the
memorandum of understanding with the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota
Coalition in furtherance of the goal of being made whole,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park as follows:
1. That the City of St. Louis Park approves the memorandum of understanding with the
Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition.
2. Nadia Mohamed, the mayor for the city of St. Louis Park, and Kim Keller, the city
manager, or successors, are hereby authorized to execute such agreements and amendments
as are necessary to join membership with the Cities for Safe and Stable Communities
Minnesota Coalition, on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council March 9, 2026:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
COST SHARING AGREEMENT FOR CITIES FOR SAFE AND STABLE
COMMUNITIES (MN)
This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the City of Minnetonka
(“Minnetonka”) and the City of St. Louis Park.
RECITALS
On February 2, 2026, a coalition of mayors representing the Parties announced the
formation of Cities for Safe and Stable Communities (MN) (“CSSC”). Created during
the federal immigration enforcement effort known as “Operation Metro Surge”, CSSC is
a grassroots, local government-led coalition dedicated to restoring stability and trust in
government. The Parties agreed to hire a consultant, Momentum Advocacy
(“Consultant”), to provide strategic coalition management and public affairs services on
behalf of CSSC. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to set forth the
Parties’ agreement to cooperatively fund the services provided by Consultant.
AGREEMENT
1.Minnetonka is serving as the lead contracting party and has entered a professional
services agreement with Consultant pursuant to the attached Exhibit A. The scope of
work and fee structure is included within Exhibit A. As a member of the CSSC, the City
of St. Louis Park desires to share the cost of the work with Minnetonka and all other
members of the CSSC who separately execute a Memorandum of Understanding with
Minnetonka (the “Parties”).
2.The costs incurred for the work authorized by Exhibit A will be shared equally by
the Parties. Minnetonka will pay the consultant(s)’s invoices when due and will invoice
the Parties for their proportionate share at the end of the Term (January 26, 2026 - May
30, 2026), which must be paid within 30 days after the date of Minnetonka’s invoice.
3.The total costs incurred for the work authorized by Exhibit A cannot exceed
$42,500.00 without approval from the Parties.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding Page 4
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of
Understanding and agree to make the payment(s) identified above.
Date:__________ CITY OF MINNETONKA
By:______________________________
Its: City Manager
Date:__________ CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:______________________________
Its:
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding Page 5
RE: Proposal for Multi-City Coalition for ICE Rapid Response
Date: January 21, 2026
The following Proposal for Lobbying and Public Affairs Services outlines Momentum Advocacy’s
(“Momentum”) vision for campaign strategy, timeline, and deliverables. The plan also identifies
potential project team members and responsibilities.
Scope of Work and Deliverables
Momentum Advocacy proposes to lead the execution of a comprehensive lobbying and public
affairs campaign. The following deliverables outline the scope of services:
1. Strategic Coalition Management
●Full coalition coordination and oversight, responsive to the evolving political landscape.
●Real-time strategy adjustment informed by public sentiment, media coverage, and
internal benchmarks.
●Integration with each city’s internal communications team to ensure message discipline
and alignment across platforms.
●Use of AI tools and digital platforms to optimize content generation, rapid response, and
audience targeting.
●Strategic coalition growth to build political influence and increase leverage.
2. Earned Media & Press Engagement
●Aggressive earned media strategy in relevant and influential Minnesota markets.
●Relationship building with targeted journalists, and editorial boards, social media
influencers, and citizen journalists to position the Multi-City Coalition as a primary
source for balanced, authoritative ICE presence coverage.
●Development and placement of op-eds and feature stories that illustrate the challenges
cities and law enforcement are facing.
●Targeted social media engagement and content creation/curation in support of our
shared strategy.
3. Narrative Development & Message Architecture
●Creation of a unifying campaign narrative that escalates urgency towards peaceable
resolution between Federal, State, and Local Governments.
●Message testing and refinement to resonate with both rural and urban communities
across Minnesota.
●Incorporation of data, personal testimony, and cultural context to deepen public
empathy and broaden support.
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding Page 6
Exhibit A
4. Direct Action & Event Support
●On-the-ground support for coalition events and press conferences.
●Logistics coordination and messaging for public actions that create visual and emotional
impact.
5. Stakeholder Alignment & Internal Communication
●Continuous communication with the Multi-City Coalition campaign leads to ensure
timely updates, strategic alignment, and mutual accountability.
●Real-time briefings to Multi-City Coalition members as the situation develops.
6. Elected Official Engagement
●Coordination of meetings with local, state, and federal elected and appointed officials to
deliver the Multi-City Coalition’s message.
Proposed Timeline (4 Months)
Phase 1 – Foundation (January 26– 30)
Campaign kickoff, narrative development, media prep
Phase 2 – Coalition and Media Plan Execution (Feb 1– April 30)
Escalation of earned media, messaging amplification, direct actions
Proposed Consultant Team & Capability Statement
Momentum utilizes a team approach to public affairs, which means you will have ALL of
Momentum’s resources and capabilities working on your behalf. We take a bipartisan approach
to client representation. Our firm has significant professional and lived experience with local
governments as consultants, former staff, and former local elected officials. Our firm has
experience providing strategic communications in response to politically charged issues.
Momentum managed all communications for the Minnesota Nurses Association strike in the
summer and fall of 2025. Happy to provide references or to expand on many relevant examples.
Amy Koch, Mike Franklin, Natalia Madryga and, Kayla Drake would undertake primary
responsibility for the representation. As such, they would be your day-to-day contact persons.
However, in the event additional team members become necessary, Momentum will draw upon
its many collaborative legislative and community relationships to assure that there are no gaps
in coverage so as to maximize your prospects for success.
Proposed Fee Structure Options
A monthly retainer of $10,000 per month (January 26, 2026 - May 30, 2026)
Proposed Total - $42,500 for a 4 and a quarter-month period. Our recommendation is to assess
our progress in May 2026 following the 2026 legislative session. In addition, costs including
copies, travel, and similar items will be billed as incurred. Momentum will seek prior approval
for any cost item exceeding $100. Momentum can discuss variations on the scope of work
outlined in this proposal the commensurate monthly fee.
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding Page 7
Thank you for the opportunity. We are happy to provide any additional information to assist you
in your review and selection process.
Sincerely,
Amy T. Koch
Principal
Momentum Advocacy
akoch@momentum-advocacy.com
Special city council meeting of March 9, 2026 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Resolution approving Cities for Safe and Stable Communities Minnesota Coalition memorandum of
understanding Page 8