The URL can be used to link to this page

01-23-2024 City Council Agenda(REDUCED)REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RICHFIELD MUNICIPAL CENTER, COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 23, 2024 7:00 PM INTRODUCTORY PROCEEDINGS Call to order Pledge of Allegiance Open forum Call into the open forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001 Use webinar access code: 2630 078 8926 and password: 1234. Please refer to the Council Agenda & Minutes web page for additional ways to submit comments. AGENDA APPROVAL 1. Approval of the Agenda Approval of the Minutes of the (1) City Council Work Session of January 9, 2024; (2) City Council Meeting of January 9, 2024; and (3) Special City Council Meeting of January 12, 2024. 2.Consent Calendar contains several separate items, which are acted upon by the City Council in one motion. Once the Consent Calendar has been approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further Council action on these items is necessary. However, any Council Member may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. All items listed on the Consent Calendar are recommended for approval. A. Consider the approval of the Foundational Public Health Responsibilities (FPHR) grant provided by the Minnesota Legislature and administered through the Minnesota Department of Health. Staff Report No. 12 B. Consider adoption of resolutions of support for two grant opportunities offered through MnDOT's Safe Routes to School program: 1. An infrastructure grant application by Public Works for $500,000 to construct pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 70th Street between Elliot and 12th Avenues at Richfield STEM and Dual Language Elementary Schools. 2. A planning grant application by ISD #280 for planning assistance to update the 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan. Staff Report No. 13 3. Consideration of items, if any, removed from Consent Calendar OTHER BUSINESS 4. Consider the appointment of a youth member to the Sustainability Commission. Staff Report No. 14 5. Consider approval and adoption of an Active Transportation Action Plan for the City of Richfield. 6. Consider amending the city's 2024 Legislative platform to include the NorthSTAR Bill. Staff Report No. 16 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT 7. City Manager's Report CLAIMS AND PAYROLLS 8. Claims and Payroll COUNCIL DISCUSSION 9. Hats Off to Hometown Hits 10. Adjournment Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the City Clerk at 612-861-9739. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota City Council Work Session January 9, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Supple called the work session to order at 5:45 p.m. in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Present: Council Members Absent: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen, and Sharon Christensen Simon Trautmann Staff Present: Guests Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Chris Swanson, Management Analyst; Dustin Leslie, City Clerk; Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director Liz Veaderko, Project Manager – Design and Construction Division Manager – Facility Services; Scott Diumstra Director – Libraries Department; Margo Geffen, Director – Facility Services Department; Christi Duffy, Design and Construction Division Manager; Matthew Kruntoriad, Principal Architect from MSR Design; Scott Berger, Architect and Project Manager from MSR Design; David Hough, Hennepin County Administrator; and Debbie Goetel, Hennepin County Commissioner. ITEM #1 UPDATE ON HENNEPIN COUNTY SOUTHDALE LIBRARY PROJECT City Manager Rodriguez introduced the guests from Hennepin County. Veaderko and Kruntoriad gave the presentation covering the following: library location, project schedule, library use overview, feedback received, partnerships, challenges and opportunities, regional trail connections, and preliminary site plan. Mayor Supple asked if the 2nd floor would be at-grade. Kruntoriad confirmed that it would be at-grade. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if the square footage would be the same as the old library. Kruntoriad confirmed that the public facing part of the library would be the same square footage. Veaderko and Kruntoriad continued with the presentation covering possible transit options, outdoor activities, landscaping, and design initiatives. Mayor Supple spoke about opportunities to work with Edina to share the Arts Center. City Council Work Session Minutes -2- January 9, 2024 Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he liked that the library would be staying in the same location rather than moving to the Southdale mall. He also stated he was disappointed in the site plan which seemed too car oriented. He further stated that he would like to see the building closer to the street so it would be more accessible for pedestrians. He also said he was happy about the trail connections. Council Member Hayford Oleary and County Administrator Hough spoke about feedback received from the Edina Planning Commission and Edina City Council. Council Member Christensen asked where the current library collection would be housed during construction. Veaderko stated they would be put in storage. County Administrator Hough stated staff would investigate options for a possible pop-up library. Council Member Whalen spoke about how youth groups could use the space and that he hoped conversations about programming would include after school programs. He also spoke about sustainability and parking. Council Member Whalen and County Administrator Hough spoke about mixed-use options like housing for the extra spaces. Administrator Hough stated they looked at the possibility but would have to relinquish the property for there to be housing. Mayor Supple spoke about the green spaces and was happy with how they would be utilized. She also said she was excited about the geothermal heating. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Supple adjourned the work session at 6:48 pm. Date Approved: January 23, 2024 Mary B. Supple Mayor Dustin Leslie Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Council Members Present: Mary Supple, Mayor; Sharon Christensen; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; and Ben Whalen Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Mary Tietjen, City Attorney; Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director; Jay Henthorne, Police Chief; Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager; Karl Heumiller, Recreation Services Director; Chris Swanson, Management Analyst; Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director; and Dustin Leslie, City Clerk PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Supple led the Pledge of Allegiance. OPEN FORUM Mayor Supple reviewed the options to participate:  Participate live by calling 1-415-655-0001 during the open forum portion  Call prior to meeting 612-861-9711  Email prior to meeting kwynn@richfieldmn.gov Kathleen Balaban, 6526 Stevens Avenue, stated she did not believe the City utilized the Sun Current newspaper to the extent it should be used. She expressed concern regarding the 2024 priorities and that nobody asked her what her legislative priorities were for the City. She noted she had issues with air quality in the City. She stated the Council Members did not make any comments on what the 2024 legislative priorities were and did not receive citizen input. Santwana Dasgupta, 6951 First Avenue South, stated she was a member of the Richfield Community for Public Safety organization. She indicated their focus was on the results from data they analyzed regarding low level traffic stops and that people of color were stopped at a significantly higher rate than those who were white. She stated they have been raising this issue for over 2 years and were disappointed their findings had not been addressed. She noted several cities have either enacted laws to stop or reduce the traffic stops and while they have had several meetings with the City and the Police Department regarding this, they do not believe their data was being taken seriously. She stated it felt like they had run into a brick wall and no progress had been made on this issue. She requested the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Regular Council Meeting January 9, 2024 City Council Meeting Minutes -2- January 9, 2024 City Council look at this. She requested if their data did show this was a problem, then the City Council needed to advocate for change at the County and State levels that would make it illegal for routine low level stops to be conducted. She also requested if their data was correct, that the City Council work with staff and the Police Department to review the approach to low level traffic stops and take appropriate action to address the inequity. City Manager Rodriguez read an email received from Laury Baars, at 6508 Stevens Avenue expressing concern about the property at 101-66th Street being an eyesore. They requested if the owner was given another year before building on this site, that the Council make it contingent on the immediate removal of the buildings on the premises for safety concerns. City Manager Rodriguez read an email received from Alex Asmus, 6401 Harriet Avenue, urging the Council to reject the request for the granting of an extension for an extension of the PUD at 66th Street. He expressed concern that an extension would set a precedent for laxity in project timelines and could be taken advantage of in the future. He noted all developers were having challenges with increased labor and materials. He stated giving an extension to January 2025 prolonged the need for housing and commercial space in the City. He indicated the City had to uphold the integrity of their policies and expectations they set for development in the City and denying the extension would send a strong message that the City was supportive of development but were also stringent about commitments and timelines. City Manager Rodriguez read an email received from Jonna Klisch, 6641 First Avenue South regarding the proposed extension of the North Bay Development at 101-66th Street. She stated every time the project came up for discussion, the City had shown no consideration for the surrounding neighbors and what they had to say about the project. She indicated the buildings were an eyesore and a safety risk. She asked what was the developer’s plan to address these issues. She noted there has been no communication with the surrounding neighbors on the project status from the City or Council Members that represent their area. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/Whalen, S/Christensen to approve the minutes of the: (1) City Council Work Session of December 12, 2023; (2) Regular City Council Meeting of December 12, 2023. Council Member Trautmann noted on page 2, his name was misspelled. Council Member Hayford Oleary requested the removal of the sentence that stated staff spent too much time on speed limits and replace with he thanked staff for their work on speed limits. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #1 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Mayor Supple requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. M/Hayford Oleary, S/Christensen to approve the agenda with the removal of Item D on the Consent Agenda. Motion carried: 5-0 City Council Meeting Minutes -3- January 9, 2024 ITEM #2 CONSENT CALENDAR City Manager Rodriguez presented the consent calendar. A. Consider approval to designate an Acting City Manager for 2024 (Staff Report No. 01) B. Consider the designation of Mayor Pro Tempore for 2024 (Staff Report No. 02) C. Consider representatives to serve as the 2024 liaisons to various local, regional, and state organizations, and City boards and commissions (Staff Report No. 03) D. Consider adoption of a resolution granting an extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development at 101 – 66th Street East (Staff Report No. 04) E. Consider approval for a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor license for the Blessed Trinity Catholic School, located at St. Richard’s Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their 2024 Sno*ball Dance taking place February 3, 2024 (Staff Report No. 05) F. Consider the approval of an agreement allowing Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept grant monies from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, the Edward Byne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. (Staff Report No. 06) RESOLUTION NO. 12173 RESOLUTON AUTHORIZING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY/POLICE TO ACCEPT THE EDWARDS BYRNE MEMORIAL GRANT (JAG) FOR $11,813.25 FROM THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS TO PURCHASE LAPTOPS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES G. Consider the approval of the Response Sustainability Grant. This new grant is awarded to public health departments and tribal health agencies via the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) based on funding provided by the Minnesota State Legislature. (Staff Report No. 07) H. Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2024 (Staff Report No. 08) RESOLUTION NO. 12174 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING AN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2024 I. Consider a resolution designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2024, including the approval of collateral (Staff Report No. 08) RESOLUTION NO. 12175 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING U.S. BANK A DEPOSITORY OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF RICHFIELD FOR THE YEAR 2024 RESOLUTION NO. 12176 City Council Meeting Minutes -4- January 9, 2024 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, BANKS, AND CREDIT UNIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE DEPOSIT AND INVESTMENT OF CITY FUNDS IN 2024 RESOLUTION NO. 12177 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS DEPOSITORIES FOR THE INVESTMENT OF CITY OF RICHFIELD FUNDS IN 2024 J. Consider approval of the purchase of eleven (11) Ford SUV Police Interceptor vehicles for Public Safety from McGovern Municipal Headquarters for $498,743.85 plus destination, tax, title, and license fees and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration. (Staff Report No. 10) M/Whalen, S/Trautmann to approve the consent calendar removing Item D. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #3 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS, IF ANY, REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Supple stated approvals typically expired after one year unless extended due to the economic climate. She noted the approvals had already been extended and now the applicant needed a second extension due to labor, material costs, and the high interest rates. She stated the developer was looking at options including bringing in a partner to help finance the project. She noted the developer had continued to make progress and the full building permits have been approved. She indicated if an extension were not granted, the applicant would be required to begin the land use approval process. She noted staff continues to support the proposed development as an investment that capitalized on the major investment made along 66th Street and the needed housing in the City. M/Supple, S/Hayford Oleary to adopt the resolution granting a one-year extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development to 101 – 55th Street East, adding a condition requiring the removal of the vacant buildings on the site within 90 days. RESOLUTION NO. 12172 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SECOND TIME EXTENSION FOR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 101 – 66TH STREET EAST Council Member Whalen noted he understood and shared the communities concerns about the vacant buildings and how long this had gone on. He asked if this would add significant costs for the developer, what the impact would be, and would the developer ask for more assistance. Director Poehlman responded that the amount that had been pledged to the development was the maximum amount available under the TIF note. She indicated she had a conversation with the developer and he believed they could get the buildings down within 60 to 90 days. Council Member Whalen requested a summary of the developers progress. Director Poehlman summarized what the developer had done including submitting full building plans and the building permit City Council Meeting Minutes -5- January 9, 2024 was ready. She indicated the developer still had to secure his construction financing though. She stated with respect to the TIF district, there was a statutory timeframe for expenditures which expired March 2025 so if the project was not moving forward there would not be TIF assistance to help the project. Council Member Whalen asked what the impact would be if this were denied. Mayor Supple noted she had taken all of that into consideration and she did think there was a valid concern from the residents and that this was a way to get those buildings down because of a safety hazard. She did not believe this would hold up development and she did want to see the development move forward. Mayor Supple requested a summary of what happened with TIF with respect to this agreement. Director Poehlman responded the HRA had an agreement with the developer that if the development was created with qualified expenditures made through tax increment, the City will reimburse the developer up to $2.685 million over the course of the life of the district which she believed was 23 years now. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he supported the motion as amended. He indicated he did not want to see making a project that was financially struggling more expensive, but one of the developers duties was to keep the buildings secure. He stated he did not like that the City was in this situation, but he believed it was reasonable that the developer demolish the building. Council Member Whalen stated while he had some healthy skepticism of developers, this particular developer has had two other successful developments in the community, so he had more confidence in this and he did not feel the developer was dragging the City along. He stated he supported the overall project and the best route was to move forward and approve this. He noted he would support the motion as amended. Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #4 CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY’S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES FOR 2024. (STAFF REPORT NO. 11) Council Member Hayford Oleary presented Staff Report 11. City Manager Rodriguez stated staff had made several changes based on feedback from the December 12 Work Session which she reviewed. M/Hayford Oleary, S/Trautmann to adopt the proposed legislative priorities for 2024. Council Member Trautmann stated the process as to how the Council came to the legislative priorities was evolving. He acknowledged the staff’s time constraints but requested they prioritize time to look into the North Star Act to be included in the priorities this year. Mayor Supple requested this be put on a further work session agenda. Council Member Whalen stated he was supportive of the idea, but noted if they really wanted to make a serious impact he believed that would need to be done within the next month or so. He asked if that would be a realistic timeframe. City Manager Rodriguez responded it would be hard, but staff will work on it and get it done. She indicated this it might need an additional work session to be scheduled. She requested they look at this for next year as a legislative priority but bring it to a work session this year. Council Member Trautmann stated he believed this was important and was a priority for the community. City Council Meeting Minutes -6- January 9, 2024 Mayor Supple asked if they could add a work session in March to discuss this. Council Member Trautmann responded he would like this to be discussed within the next month. Council Member Whalen noted there were committee deadlines in the legislature that he did not think were set yet but were likely to be mid-March. He believed Council Member Trautmann was correct with the timeline they would need. He noted to clarify the miscommunication, it sounded like there were community members that planned to speak on this tonight but were told there would be a work session coming up instead. He stated he supported a work session within the next month. He acknowledged the research might not be ready, but for community members that wanted to speak to this point it was important they find a way to make space for that. Council Member Hayford Oleary asked if the motion needed to be amended. City Manager Rodriguez stated she was confused about the comment on community members being dissuaded from coming to the meeting. She indicated she did nothing to dissuade them from coming to this Council meeting. She stated she was looking for direction as to whether Council felt this was urgent and wanted to include and amend it for this platform or if they are comfortable waiting and having a work session this year and include it in the next platform. She noted the Bill was presented last session and did not get a hearing. She indicated a lot of the goals in the Bill was to have a clear line that local law enforcement did no federal immigration control or enforcement and they already had a position on that in the City. She noted locally they were already doing much of what the Bill was hoping to achieve with the legislation. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he supported the idea of the Bill. He was concerned about the aggressive drop everything and get this in though approach. He stated he understood why it was relevant and important to a lot of the residents. He asked if it was Council Member Trautmann’s desire that this became one of the three to five top priorities or added to the list under the public safety item. Council Member Trautmann responded he would be open to either. He noted this was important as it provided a level of clarity and he believed it was a good policy for the City. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he was reluctant calling this one of their top priorities because it did not relate as directly as the other items. However, he acknowledged Council Member Trautmann had strong feelings that if this were done in March there would not be sufficient time. Council Member Trautmann stated he did not think there was sufficient time to make the difference. He wanted the City to speak publicly and say this was a priority for the City and this was a legislative priority. He believed doing this sooner rather than later was better. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he was fine with an additional meeting or adding it to an existing work meeting. He requested as long as they would be doing this early, that it would be ready to go on the same Council agenda so there was not a 2-week delay to get it on the Council agenda. Mayor Supple stated this was not something they could decide tonight and it needed to be discussed at a work session. She agreed this was a good idea and something they should look into. She stated she was in agreement with having another meeting. Council Member Whalen stated if the issue was finding time to do this, he suggested they have a discussion at a Council meeting instead of a work session meeting. He thanked staff for their work on this and he appreciated the community feedback. Council Member Trautmann thanked the City Manager and Chief Henthorne for doing good work on this throughout the years. He thanked them for their leadership and flexibility. Motion carried: 5-0 City Council Meeting Minutes -7- January 9, 2024 City Manager Rodriguez stated based on what she heard there was consensus among the Council to bring this back as soon as possible before February either at a work session or at a Council meeting to have further discussion and consider amending it into the platform. Council Member Whalen stated he wanted to give staff permission to come back and tell the Council if this needed to be delayed a month. He requested staff keep the Council updated on the next steps. ITEM #5 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Rodriguez stated she had no report. ITEM #6 CLAIMS AND PAYROLL M/Whalen, S/Trautmann that the following claims and payrolls be approved: U.S. BANK 01/04/2024 A/P Checks: 325638 - 326122 $5,834,702.53 Payroll: 183928 – 184569 43731 – 43744 $1,639,914.84 TOTAL $7,474,617.37 Motion carried: 5-0 ITEM #7 HATS OFF TO HOMETOWN HITS Council Member Trautmann thanked the Friends of Woodlake and the Woodlake Nature staff for the New Years Eve Midnight Walk. Council Member Hayford Oleary stated he had no items. Council Member Christensen echoed Council Member Trautmann’s comments regarding the Woodlake Nature Center. Council Member Whalen gave hats off to his 16-month-old son who had his first sledding experience at Roosevelt park. He thanked the recreation and public works staff for the sledding hills. Mayor Supple gave hats off to the staff. She noted there were a lot of things going on behind the scenes the people did not see and she did not want to take staff for granted. She thanked staff for all of their hard work. She thanked all of the community volunteers. She stated if anyone was interested in signing up for the citizens police academy they need to register by tomorrow. She gave hats off to Rachel from the Sustainability Committee. City Council Meeting Minutes -8- January 9, 2024 ITEM #8 ADJOURNMENT M/Trautmann, S/Whalen to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0 Date Approved: January 23, 2024 Mary Supple Mayor Dustin Leslie Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Richfield, Minnesota Special City Council Work Session January 12, 2024 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Supple at 7:45 a.m. held in the Bartholomew Room. Council Members Mary Supple, Mayor; Simon Trautmann; Sean Hayford Oleary; Ben Whalen; Present: and Sharon Christensen Legislators Present: State Representative Michael Howard, District 50A; Metropolitan Council Representative John Pacheco, District 6; Hennepin County Commissioner Debbie Goettel, District 5; Steve Unowsky, ISD 280 Superintendent; Talia Glass, Senior Community Representative for Congresswoman Omar; Dana Nelson, MAC; Michele Ross, MAC Staff Present: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager; Sack Thongvanh, Assistant City Manager; Melissa Poehlman, Community Development Director, Jay Henthorne, Public Safety Director; Kristin Asher, Public Works Director; Karl Huemiller, Recreation Services Director; Mike Dobesh, Fire Chief; Kumud Verma, Finance Manager; Scott Kulzer, Administrative Aide/Analyst; Brittany Bartlett, Equity Coordinator; and Chris Swanson, Management Analyst Item #1 DISCUSSION WITH LEGISLATORS The City Council and City staff met with the local Legislators to discuss items of mutual interest to the City of Richfield. ADJOURNMENT The work session was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:15 a.m. Date Approved: January 23, 2024 Mary B. Supple Mayor Dustin Leslie Katie Rodriguez City Clerk City Manager AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 2.A. STAFF REPORT NO. 12 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Jennifer Anderson, Support Services Manager DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Jay Henthorne, Director of Public Safety/Chief of Police 1/11/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the approval of the Foundational Public Health Responsibilities (FPHR) grant provided by the Minnesota Legislature and administered through the Minnesota Department of Health. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The FPHR funding will support the implementation of FPHR by community health boards. The FPHR are the unique responsibilities of governmental public health that define a minimum package of public health capabilities and programs that must be available in every community. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By motion: Approve the Foundational Public Health Responsibilities grant administered through the Minnesota Department of Health. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT Governmental public health has a unique responsibility for protecting and promoting the health of the public. While Minnesota’s nationally recognized state-local public health partnership has served Minnesotans well since it was established in 1976, many state and local health officials have serious concerns about their ability to fulfill that responsibility. A number of challenges have left us all at risk—increasing demands on decreasing resources, the changing role of public health from providing direct services to broader population-based prevention activities, new health threats, disparities in health status, decreasing budgets, and hiring challenges—to name a few. A group of local and state public health leaders developed a framework for what Minnesotans should expect from their state and local public health partnership. This framework outlines a set of foundational public health responsibilities that are grounded by a core value: where you live should not determine your level of public health protection. The framework also recognizes that diseases and disasters do not distinguish geographic boundaries. The framework is intentionally forward-looking and focused on what should be instead of what is. The framework represents the work governmental public health must do, and the important work governmental public health does, to meet the unique needs of communities across the state. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Health equity is a foundational capability within the framework, ensuring a strong foundation that supports the foundational areas consisting of communicable disease control, chronic disease and injury prevention, environmental public health, maternal child and family health, and access to and linkage with clinical care. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): Public Health departments across Minnesota are mandated by Minnesota Statue 145A to provide 6 areas of public health responsibilities: Assure an adequate local public health infrastructure Promote healthy communities and healthy behaviors Prevent the spread of communicable diseases Protect against environmental health hazards Prepare for and respond to emergencies Assure health services D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: None E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Richfield's allotment of FPHR funding is $220,548 for CY2024. Annual allotments are scheduled but unknown at this time. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: The City Attorney has reviewed the agreement and approves of its contents. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): The City Council could decide not to accept the funding and direct staff on how to proceed. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type FPHR grant award letter Cover Memo Grant Award Cover Sheet DATE: January 3, 2024 This is to notify you of your Community Health Board’s Foundational Public Health Responsibilities Grant award for January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 (calendar year 2024). These funds can only be used for the activities outlined in Exhibit A. While connected to the Local Public Health Grant in Minn. Stat. chapter 145A.131 this is a unique funding source and must be tracked separately from the LPH Grant. CONTACT FOR CHB: Jennifer Anderson, CHS Administrator City of Richfield Community Health Board 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, MN 55423 CONTACT FOR MDH: DeeAnn Finley, Community Health Division (deeann.finley@state.mn.us or 651-201-4551) Grantee SWIFT Information Grant Agreement Information Funding Information Name of MDH Grantee: City of Richfield Community Health Board Address of Grantee: 6700 Portland Avenue So. Richfield, MN, 55423 Grant Project Agreement Number: NA Total Grant Funds: $220,548.00 Grantee SWIFT Vendor Number: 0000197711 SWIFT Vendor Location Code: 0000197711 SWIFT DBA/Fiscal Host: RICHFIELD CITY OF FINANCE DIRECTOR Remit Address: 6700 PORTLAND AVE S, RICHFIELD Period of Performance Start Date: January 1, 2024 Period of Performance End Date: December 31, 2024* Total State Grant Funds: $220,548.00 Total Federal Grant Funds: $0.00 *The Local Public Health Grant (and aligned Foundational Public Health Responsibilities Grant) period is 1/1/20 to 12/31/24. This Grant Award Cover Sheet includes only the 2024 FPHR award. Payments for this grant will include the following code: MDH.FPHR.STATE.R.[invoice period – e.g. Q12024] GRANT AWARD COVER SHEET 2 EXHIBIT A: Grantee’s Activities/Scope of Work The purpose of this funding is to support the implementation of Foundational Public Health Responsibilities by community health boards (grantees). The Foundational Public Health Responsibilities are the unique responsibilities of governmental public health that define a minimum package of public health capabilities and programs that must be available in every community. This funding must be used to fulfill foundational public health responsibilities as defined by the commissioner in consultation with the State Community Health Service Advisory Committee. Based on the recommendation of SCHSAC, Grantees cannot use these funds for non-FPHR activities at this time. More details on the Foundational Public Health Responsibilities and examples of the work supported by these funds can be found on the MDH website: Funding for Foundational Public Health Responsibilities. Duties: 1. Grantee shall complete, and update as necessary, proposed activities and a workplan for MDH approval in REDCap. This workplan will assure compliance with funding requirements and make connections with other grantees. Any changes made to the original proposal must reviewed and approved by MDH. 2. Grantee shall complete a proposed budget in REDCap by the date provided to them by MDH. Any revisions made to the original budget must be made in REDCap and reviewed by MDH. 3. Grantee shall implement activities to carry out foundational public health responsibilities in accordance with the definitions outlined on the Funding for Foundational Public Health Responsibilities website and Foundational Public Health Responsibilities Grant Expenditure Guide. 4. Grantee shall provide requested financial and programmatic reporting information by the dates provided to them by MDH to meet funding reporting and monitoring requirements. AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM # 2.B. STAFF REPORT NO. 13 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/17/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider adoption of resolutions of support for two grant opportunities offered through MnDOT's Safe Routes to School program: 1. An infrastructure grant application by Public Works for $500,000 to construct pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 70th Street between Elliot and 12th Avenues at Richfield STEM and Dual Language Elementary Schools. 2. A planning grant application by ISD #280 for planning assistance to update the 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Infrastructure Grant: In 2020 and 2021, Richfield and ISD #280 participated in an engineering study for the STEM and RDLS elementary school campus through a MnDOT Safe Routes to School grant. This study identified opportunities on 70th Street to improve crossing conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists that were then tested during a demonstration project at the Elliot Ave and 12th Ave intersections in summer of 2023. Feedback received during the demonstration project has led to a proposed project incorporating curb extensions (bump outs) at Elliot, 10th, 11th, and 12th Avenues as well as grade separating the eastbound bike lane and moving it behind the curb to avoid conflicts with school traffic. If the grant is awarded, this concept will be presented and refined using the city's public engagement process. In November, staff submitted a letter of intent to MnDOT and were encouraged to apply for funding. Planning Assistance: The first Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan was developed in 2009, and the current Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan was developed in 2014 utilizing a similar grant opportunity from the Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Partnership (MnSHIP). In the following 9 years, significant progress has been made on the plan. There are minimal projects - both infrastructure and non-infrastructure - remaining for implementation and funding, and the challenges facing students walking to and from school have changed significantly over the past decade. This opportunity provides a consultant through MnDOT to update the existing plan and identify new projects that both ISD #280 and the city can implement to improve biking and walking conditions for students in the district. This application is being led by ISD #280. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Adopt the resolutions of support for two grant opportunities offered through MnDOT's Safe Routes to School program: 1. An infrastructure grant application by Public Works for $500,000 to construct pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 70th Street between Elliot and 12th Avenues at Richfield STEM and Dual Language Elementary Schools. 2. A planning grant application by ISD #280 for planning assistance to update the 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT See executive summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic Considerations: By adopting these resolutions, the city is leveraging external funding sources to ensure sustainable infrastructure financing. Additionally, safer walking and biking conditions can lead to a mode shift away from parental vehicles for students commuting to school, which emphasizes that climate resistance is a priority. Equity Considerations: The student body of Richfield Public Schools is more economically and demographically diverse than the city as a whole. Providing safe infrastructure for students to travel to school helps to remove a safety barrier that disproportionately affects lower-income and BIPOC residents. A safe route to school helps remove some of the stress burden affecting students and parents from traditionally underserved communities, potentially leading to positive educational outcomes such as arriving safely, alert, and on time to school each day. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): All design will conform to the city's Complete Streets Policy and all design will be conducted utilizing the the city's public engagement process. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: Applications for infrastructure funding are due February 2nd, 2024. Applications for planning assistance are due February 16th, 2024. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: Infrastructure Funding: No immediate financial impact. City would be responsible for any project elements that exceed the grant award, as well as design and construction administration costs associated with the capital construction. Planning Assistance: No financial imapct. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: None ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 70th Street SRTS Infrastructure Grant Resolution Resolution Letter ISD 280 SRTS Planning Assistance Resolution of Support Resolution Letter Infrastructure Grant Funding Project Location Exhibit STEM/RDLS Safe Routes to School Engineering Study Exhibit 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan Exhibit RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR 70th STREET SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Funding solicitation is a competitive state funding allocation process available to local governments, school districts, and other schools in the state of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Infrastructure Funding program’s purpose is to fund school-adjacent pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements; and WHEREAS, infrastructure improvements at the Richfield Dual Language (RDLS) and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) elementary schools have been identified by a 2021 Safe Routes to School Engineering Study; and WHEREAS, possible infrastructure improvements were demonstrated in the summer of 2023 under another MnDOT grant-funded project; and WHEREAS, approximately 5% of STEM students, and 8% of RDLS students currently walk or bike to school; and WHEREAS, improving pedestrian crossings will increase safety and improve the experience of the entire community, including students traveling to and from school ; and WHEREAS, no local government match funding is required for capital construction if the project is selected; and WHEREAS, the City will be responsible for funding engineering, right of way, inspection, and other non-SRTS eligible costs, as well as SRTS-eligible items in excess of the SRTS Infrastructure Funding grant amount if the project is selected; and WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, construction is tentatively scheduled for 2025; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield supports Public Works’ Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Funding application for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 70th Street at the STEM and RDLS elementary school campus. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of January, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Dustin Leslie, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR ISD #280’S SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLANNING ASSISTANCE APPLICATION WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) Safe Routes to School Planning Assistance solicitation is a competitive state funding allocation process available to local governments, school districts, and other schools in the state of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Assistance program’s purpose is to support SRTS plans for K-12 schools across Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield and ISD #280 first collaboraively developed a Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan in 2009; and WHEREAS, the Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan was last updated through a grant from the Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Partnership in 2014; and WHEREAS, the 2014 Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan identified a substantial number of both infrastructure and non -infrastructure projects to improve conditions for students who walked, bicycled, or rolled to school ; and WHEREAS, approximately 15% of students district-wide currently walk or bike to school; and WHEREAS, improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will increase safety and improve the experience of the entire community, including students traveling to and from school; and WHEREAS, if the above project is selected, planning activities are tentatively scheduled to begin in 2024; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield invests in infrastructure to best serve today’s and tomorrow’s residents, businesses, and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City of Richfield ensures that City services are accessible to people of all races, ethnicities, incomes, and abilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richfield supports ISD #280’s application for Safe Routes to School Planning Assistance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this 23rd day of January, 2024. Mary Supple, Mayor ATTEST: Dustin Leslie, City Clerk SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL RICHFIELD ENGINEERING STUDY April, 2021 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Study was made possible by funding from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Special thanks to the individuals below who provided their expertise, time, and feedback for this Study to ensure it encompassed the needs of the children and broader community who will benefit when walking, rolling, or bicycling from these improvements. Project Team Will Wlizlo – Safe Routes to School Coordinator, Richfield Public Schools ISD #280 Jack Broz, P.E. – Transportation Engineer, City of Richfield Girma Feyissa, P.E. – State Aid Programs Support Engineer, MnDOT State Aid for Local Transportation Consultant Team Members SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Renae Kuehl, P.E., PTOE – Principal-in-Charge Chris Brown, AICP – Project Manager Matt Pacyna, P.E. – Project Advisor Anna Chunying Schwartz – Project Support, Associated Consulting Services RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................................. 1 Identified Needs ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Alternative Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Potential Projects ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Next Steps .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Engineering Study Framework ............................................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................................8 Study Background .................................................................................................................................................. 8 What is Safe Routes to School? ............................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Analysis........................................................................................................... 10 Study Location and Focus Schools ...................................................................................................................... 10 Previous Plans and Other Studies ........................................................................................................................ 17 Community Engagement (Parent Survey) ......................................................................................................... 18 Transportation Network ........................................................................................................................................ 21 School Access and Site Operations .................................................................................................................... 27 Parking ...................................................................................................................................................................30 Safety Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 3: Issue Identification and Needs Summary ...................................................................................... 38 Identified Transportation Issues........................................................................................................................... 38 Summary of Needs ............................................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4: Alternative Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 40 School Property Access and Circulation ........................................................................................................... 40 Crossing Improvements and Sidewalk Upgrades ............................................................................................... 52 Chapter 5: Potential Projects ............................................................................................................................ 57 C1. 70th Street and Elliot Avenue Crossing ...................................................................................................... 60 C2. 70th Street and 12th Avenue Crossing .......................................................................................................... 62 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY C3. Elliot Avenue Crossing.................................................................................................................................. 64 S1a. 71st Street Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................... 66 S1b. 71st Street Sidewalk ....................................................................................................................................... 68 S2. 12th Avenue Sidewalk ..................................................................................................................................... 70 P1. Parking Lot Redesign ..................................................................................................................................... 72 Other Considerations .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Chapter 6: Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 81 Agency Coordination ............................................................................................................................................ 81 Identify Priorities ................................................................................................................................................... 81 Focused Timeline and Actionable Steps ............................................................................................................. 82 Celebrate Wins ..................................................................................................................................................... 82 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ................................................................................................... 4 Table 2. Focus Schools Overview ............................................................................................................................. 13 Table 3. On-Street Parking Utilization Analysis .................................................................................................... 32 Table 4. Parking Lot Alternative Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................... 47 Table 5. Traffic Operations by Access Point .......................................................................................................... 48 Table 6. Parking Lot Queue Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 49 Table 7. Uncontrolled Crossing Infrastructure Options ........................................................................................ 53 Table 8. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 70th Street and 12th Avenue (all-way stop) ................................... 54 Table 9. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Elliot Avenue and 71st Street (side-street stop) ........................... 54 Table 10. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ............................................................................................... 57 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2. Project Area and Focus Schools ................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3. Residential Density.................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. Student Population – Richfield Dual Language School ......................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Student Population – Richfield STEM School ........................................................................................ 15 Figure 6. Student Population – Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools ..................................................... 16 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Figure 7. Student Distance between Home and School ........................................................................................ 18 Figure 8. Typical Mode by Student ......................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 9. Parent Perception of Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling to School ......................................................... 20 Figure 10. Existing Transportation Network ........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 11. Existing Transportation Conditions ........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 12. Existing Turning Movement Counts ...................................................................................................... 26 Figure 13. Existing School Access and Circulation................................................................................................. 28 Figure 14. Existing Maximum Parking Utilization .................................................................................................. 33 Figure 15. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Severity (2010-2019) ................................................................. 35 Figure 16. All Crashes by Severity (2015-2019) ................................................................................................... 36 Figure 17. All Crashes by Manner of Collision (2015-2019) ................................................................................ 37 Figure 18. Identified Issues ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 19. Parking Lot Alternative 1 ........................................................................................................................ 43 Figure 20. Parking Lot Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................44 Figure 21. Parking Lot Alternative 3........................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 22. Parking Lot Alternative 4 ...................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 23. Example of Sidewalk Pedestrian Clear Zones ...................................................................................... 56 Figure 24. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ............................................................................................ 59 Figure 25. Stopping and Sight Distance ................................................................................................................. 74 Figure 26. Likelihood of Injury or Death by Traffic Speed .................................................................................... 75 Figure 27. Lighting Design Guidance for Pedestrians and Bicyclists ................................................................... 76 Figure 28. MnDOT Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance .......................................................................................... 77 APPENDICES Appendix A – Richfield Safe Routes to School Grant Application (Parent Survey) Appendix B – Parking Utilization Data Appendix C – AutoTURN Graphic Appendix D – Concept Designs EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Richfield Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Engineering Study focused on the school campus of the Richfield Dual Language School and the Richfield Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) School. The Study’s objective was to complete a technical analysis of parking lot improvements, as well as multimodal enhancements on, or adjacent to, the school property. As a part of Safe Routes to School (SRTS), proposed infrastructure specifically focused upon improving the safety, comfort, and convenience for children walking, rolling, or bicycling to school. SRTS is a national program intended to improve safety for children to access school and encourage a more active lifestyle through physical activity. The Richfield Safe Routes to School Engineering Study was led by Richfield Public Schools and the City of Richfield. It illustrates strategies and potential improvements as recommended by the school district’s Safe Routes to School Coordinator and the City’s Transportation Engineer. The Study organizes needs and justifies potential improvements for future funding requests by the City of Richfield and/or Richfield Public Schools to implement the potential projects identified. EXISTING CONDITIONS Project Location and Focus Schools The focus schools include Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School which are two pre- kindergarten through 5th grade schools located in the east side of the City of Richfield. The Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School have 341 families and 509 families enrolled, respectively, which in total accounts for approximately 20 percent of the school district’s enrollment in 2020 (4,411 students). The approximate three city block site that includes both schools is bound by 70th Street to the north, 71st Street to the south, Elliot Avenue to the west, and 12th Avenue to the east. The surrounding area is primarily low- and medium-density residential with pockets of nearby commercial retail. The densest student population nodes correspond with denser housing found along Chicago Avenue near 71st Street immediately southwest of the schools, as well as along Portland Avenue. Previous Plans and Other Studies Other applicable studies were reviewed as a part of the planning process including:  Richfield Bicycle Master Plan (2012)  Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)  Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan (2018) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY One item included in both Richfield’s Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan is implementing a sidewalk along 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. Parent survey responses collected in early 2020 from both schools were also studied. Of the top three concerns, the perception of unsafe conditions at intersections or roadway crossings pertained to this Study. Infrastructure improvements that would sway parents to consider allowing their child(ren) to walk, roll, or bike were also collected, and include:  Intersections and roadway crossings  Sidewalk connectivity  Speed reduction Note that most students at either school live further away than the typical threshold for a child to walk or bike (i.e., greater than one mile) and most students access their school by family vehicle or school bus. Transportation Network The transportation network was reviewed to identify existing infrastructure for walking, rolling, bicycling, and driving on, and adjacent to, the school property. Existing multimodal facilities include some sidewalk and bicycle facilities, as well as marked crossings at adjacent intersections along the 70th Street and 12th Avenue corridors. Some inter-neighborhood sidewalks exist as well along adjacent streets. School access and connectivity on the school campus is primarily auto focused with three wide driveways accessing the north parking lot. Limited internal queueing capacity and existing circulation patterns within the north parking lot results in congestion during peak arrival and dismissal periods. Parking is available adjacent to the school campus on-street along one, or both sides of the road, as well as off-street in the school’s north parking lot which has approximately 140 total spaces. Ten years of vehicle-to-bicycle and vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes were reviewed as well as all crashes over the last five years. A total of 16 crashes were recorded immediately surrounding the schools, with 75 percent occurring at intersections. The crashes were evenly distributed by time of day and day of week, and the severity of most crashes included possible injury or property damage only (PDO). The manner of collision was also studied which details the way in which the crash occurred (e.g., rear end). Additional analysis of multimodal elements, turning movement counts, traffic operations, school access and circulation, parking, and safety is covered in Chapter 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY IDENTIFIED NEEDS Broadly identified issues were recorded from the existing conditions analysis and included access and circulation deficiencies of the shared parking lot and conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as difficult crossings and sidewalk gaps. Key needs developed to address those issues include: School Property Access (all modes) and Parking Lot Circulation (both schools) Improve school parking lot access to reduce vehicular operational issues. Construct multimodal crossing enhancements at driveways and sidewalk connectivity through and across the parking lot for safer and more convenient access to both schools. Improve vehicular circulation and internal queuing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods to limit conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enhance overall parking lot safety and operations via streamlined circulation enhancements. Crossing Improvements or Sidewalk Upgrades Implement crossing infrastructure improvements at adjacent intersections to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort, as well as upgrade sidewalk to improve accessibility via sidewalk widening or maintenance or filling a sidewalk gap. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION Potential alternatives are based upon evaluated opportunities that would improve or eliminate identified needs and issues. Chapter 4 organizes potential improvements and project opportunities to address the two high- level needs identified by the Study. Potential projects were vetted using engineering judgment and reviewed by both Richfield Public Schools and the City of Richfield. School Property Access (all modes) and Parking Lot Circulation (both schools) Review access improvements to the north parking lot for all transportation modes including safer and more convenient access to the schools by walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as streamlined vehicular access. Evaluation of parking lot circulation to improve vehicular operations inter- and intra- the north parking lot, as well as provide adequate internal queueing space for peak drop-off/pick-up periods. Crossing Improvements and Sidewalk Upgrades Analysis of crossing infrastructure upgrades at key intersections along 70th Street including Elliot Avenue and 12th Avenue, as well as Elliot Avenue at 71st Street. Review sidewalk infrastructure and propose locations for upgrades or maintenance. School Property Access and Circulation The focus of the Study is primarily on the shared parking lot between both schools and improving the access, circulation, and multimodal connectivity. Four alternatives were studied using a decision matrix to identify the most favorable alternative which was also confirmed by the school district. The access operations and circulation as well as multimodal was further analyzed for the preferred alternative. Additional project details can be found in Chapter 5. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Crossing Improvements and Sidewalk Upgrades The study of crossing improvements and sidewalk upgrades adjacent to the school was performed. This included both uncontrolled and controlled crossings of 70th Street, ADA-improvements to crossings and sidewalks on Elliot Avenue, and filling a sidewalk gap along 71st Street. Additional project details can be found in Chapter 5. POTENTIAL PROJECTS This Study offers a range of potential infrastructure improvements including a redesign of the parking lot to improve vehicular and multimodal safety and connectivity, as well as crossing enhancements at adjacent intersections, filling a sidewalk gap along 71st Street, and upgrading sidewalk along Elliot Avenue and 71st Street (see Table 1 and Figure 1). Detailed summaries of each potential project are included in Chapter 5. Table 1. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ID1 Location Project Type Description Estimated Cost2 C1 Elliot Avenue Uncontrolled Crossing Crossing of 70th Street at the intersection. $40,000 C2 70th Street and 12th Avenue Major Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop. $35,000 C3 Elliot Avenue Uncontrolled Crossing Crossing of Elliot Avenue at 71st Street. $6,500 (crossing only) $120,000 (crossing+sidewalk)3 S1a 71st Street Sidewalk Construction of sidewalk from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. $110,000 S1b 71st Street Sidewalk Construction of sidewalk from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. $165,000 S2 12th Avenue Sidewalk Reconstruct sidewalk from 70th Street to 71st Street and add a bus pullout. $90,000 P1 RDLS/STEM Parking Lot Parking Lot Parking lot rehabilitation or reconstruction (two options). $175,000 (mill & overlay) $830,000 (preserve curb) $1,050,000 (full reconstruct) 1 Order does not denote priority. 2 Cost estimates for crossing infrastructure does not include pedestrian-scale lighting and were developed using the concept designs produced by SRF Consulting Group. Parking lot cost range denotes efficiencies described in the project page. 3 Includes construction of new sidewalk along Elliot Avenue from 70th Street to 71st Street and 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to Chicago Avenue. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Other considerations are detailed in Chapter 5 that organize additional potential enhancements for vehicular and multimodal elements of the parking lot redesign, as well as other multimodal items for future review. Proposed Enhanced Crossing Proposed Sidewalk Upgrade Proposed Sidewalk Improvement ID Focus School # Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Potential Safe Routes to School Projects Richﬁeld, MN Figure 1 Existing Sidewalk Richﬁeld Dual Language School Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) C1 C2 C3 P1 S1 Review for potential future bike lane implementation. Richﬁeld STEM School Lowered speed limits along 70th Street and 12th Avenue could potentially enhance the safety and comfort of children walking, rolling, or bicycling along and across the corridors. School zone speeds could also be further reviewed as none are present in the City. East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue South0 250 500 ft S2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY NEXT STEPS This Study offers a range of potential infrastructure improvements to improve access to the Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School. Actionable next steps were organized to ensure this document is fully utilized and implemented to the best of the Richfield School District and City of Richfield’s ability.  Agency Coordination: Identify a champion and regularly coordinate within a small team that includes various agency and school district representatives as well as other key area stakeholders.  Identify Priorities: Prioritize projects using the Study and small group discussion.  Focused Timeline and Action Plan: Create a timeline and action plan that identifies planned improvements, responsible parties, the estimated cost, and associated schedule. The action plan will focus on implementation, identify synergies with other planned projects, and allow agencies to be prepared for funding opportunities. Celebrate wins! 70th Street and 12th Avenue intersections looking northeast. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Page intentionally left blank. ENGINEERING STUDY FRAMEWORK 7 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY ENGINEERING STUDY FRAMEWORK This engineering study is organized into six chapters outlined herein: Chapter 1: Introduction Study introduction and Safe Routes to School program background. Chapter 2: Existing Conditions Analysis Outlines the quantitative and qualitative approach undertaken for the Study and foundational elements to support the planning process. Chapter 3: Issue Identification and Needs Summary Identifies issues and summarizes needs from the existing conditions analysis. Issues could include an unsafe crossing or sidewalk gap for example. Chapter 4: Alternative Evaluation Analyzes potential infrastructure opportunities and evaluates opportunities to address known issue areas. Potential improvements are identified within two broadly defined options. Chapter 5: Potential Projects Summarizes the potential transportation infrastructure improvements derived from the alternative evaluation into project fact sheets. Chapter 6: Next Steps Actionable next steps to organize project champions and implement the Study’s potential improvements. CHAPTER 1 – Introduction 8 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION STUDY BACKGROUND The Richfield Safe Routes to School Engineering Study (herein known as “the Study”) sought to improve access to the Richfield Dual Language School and the Richfield Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) School for children to walk, roll, or bike safely, comfortably, and conveniently to school as well as for parents or guardians to efficiently drop-off or pick-up their child(ren) during peak arrival and dismissal periods. The Study’s objective was to complete technical analysis of parking lot improvements as well as multimodal enhancements on, or adjacent to, the school campus for consideration in the long-term. The Richfield Safe Routes to School Engineering Study was led by Richfield Public Schools and the City of Richfield. It illustrates strategies and potential improvements approved by the District’s Safe Routes to School Coordinator and the City’s Transportation Engineer. The Study organizes needs and justifies potential improvements for future funding requests by the City of Richfield and/or Richfield Public Schools to implement the potential projects identified. WHAT IS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL? Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program that receives federal and state funding in Minnesota with the objective of increasing safety for children to walk, roll, or bike to school and encourage more active lifestyles through physical activity. The program began in 2005 with federal funding and has continued to receive support from all levels of government. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) administers the SRTS program in Minnesota which includes technical and programmatic support as well as competitive grant funds for SRTS studies, programs, education, and infrastructure. The statewide program is guided by a five-year strategic plan that was completed in September 2020 with a vision for youth in Minnesota to safely, confidently, and conveniently walk, bike, and roll to school and in daily life.1 The Minnesota Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan was updated in the fall of 2020. It updates the 2015 Strategic Plan and establishes a five-year action plan for MnDOT, the Minnesota Department of Health the Minnesota Department of Education, and other participating agencies and partners. There are six overarching goals that guide the Strategic Plan as well as three-phase strategic planning process. Visit the Safe Routes to School webpage hosted by MnDOT for more information or to view the Strategic Plan. 1 MnDOT. (n.d.). About Safe Routes to School. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/about.html CHAPTER 1 – Introduction 9 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SRTS focuses on a multidisciplinary approach guided by the “6 E’s”:  Evaluation: Understand the issues that need to be addressed and the projects and/or programs of each of the following 5 E’s that could be most effective.  Education: Classes and activities that teach children (and their parents or guardians) pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety skills, the benefits of walking, rolling, or bicycling to school, the best route to get to school, and the positive impacts on personal health and the environment.  Encouragement: Events and activities that create interest in both students and parents to walk, roll, or bike to school.  Equity: Ensure that SRTS initiatives benefit all, with specific attention toward addressing barriers and inclusivity for lower-income students, students of color, and others that face ongoing disparities.  Enforcement: Strategies to deter unsafe behavior of drivers and other modes to encourage all road users to obey traffic laws and share the transportation network safely around schools.  Engineering: Infrastructure improvements designed to enhance the safety of children (and more broadly benefit parents, guardians, and/or community members) walking, rolling, bicycling, and driving along school routes. The Study focuses on the “engineering” component to enhance the built environment for children walking, rolling, or bicycling in Richfield. It was funded and supported by MnDOT to complete planning and conceptual design for local agencies and school districts across Minnesota. Source: Minnesota Department of Health CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 10 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Existing conditions data provides a foundation in which to identify issue areas, organize opportunities that attempt to resolve those issues, and summarize potential improvements. The following section outlines school- specific data and previous planning efforts, data analyzed for the existing transportation system, operations, and safety, and school circulation and access. STUDY LOCATION AND FOCUS SCHOOLS Location The City of Richfield is located immediately south of Minneapolis in Hennepin County and has an estimated population of approximately 36,000 as of 2018. The study area is in the eastern portion of the City and includes a roughly three city block site where two schools are located (see Figure 2). The site is bound by 70th Street to the north, 71st Street to the south, Elliot Avenue to the west, and 12th Avenue to the east. The schools are approximately one-third of a mile east of Portland Avenue/County State-Aid Highway 35 (CSAH 35) and one-half mile west of Trunk Highway 77 (TH 77/Cedar Avenue). Most of the built environment surrounding the schools includes low-density single-family housing and medium-density multi-family housing (see Figure 3) . An analysis of residential property density illustrated that the densest housing is located immediately southwest of the schools between Chicago and Elliot Avenues, and south of 71st Street. Denser housing is also located along Portland Avenue/CSAH 35 about one-third of a mile west of the schools. Density can be the precursor for a higher propensity to walk or bike, as well as provide insight into where children may be living, which is further organized using student enrollment data later in this document. Richfield STEM School. Source: Richfield Fun Club Focus School School Boundary Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Project Area and Focus Schools Richﬁeld, MN Figure 2 East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft Residential Density Richﬁeld, MN Figure 3 Richﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School East 70th Street East 71st Street East 69th Street East 72nd Street East 73rd StreetElliot Avenue14th Avenue SouthBloomington Avenue SouthDiagonal Blvd.Park AvenuePortland Avenue12th Avenue South0 500 1,000 ft Focus School Higher Density Residential Population Lower Density Residential Population Existing Sidewalk Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) Existing Bike Lane Existing Multiuse Trail CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 13 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Focus Schools The Richfield Public School District No. 280 serves the City of Richfield. As of 2020, the District had approximately 4,400 students enrolled, of which 850 families or nearly 20 percent of the district total, attend one of the two focus schools. The Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School are both pre-kindergarten through 5th grade magnet schools (see Table 2). Table 2. Focus Schools Overview Focus School Location Student Population School Day Arrival and Dismissal Times Richfield Dual Language School West side of the school property bordered by 70th Street and Elliot Avenue. 341 7:40 a.m. to 2:10 p.m. 7:15 to 7:40 a.m. and 2:10 to 2:30 p.m. Richfield STEM School East side of the school property bordered by 70th Street and 12th Avenue. 509 7:40 a.m. to 2:10 p.m. 7:15 to 7:40 a.m. and 2:10 to 2:30 p.m. Source: Richfield Public Schools There are 241 families total, 154 Richfield STEM School and 87 Richfield Dual Language School, that live within a one-half mile walkshed of their school. This accounts for approximately 28 percent of the total campus student population. The estimate roughly corresponds to the walk zones developed by the school district for each school. Both schools enroll students citywide as they are magnet schools; therefore, a greater number of students live more than one mile away than is typical for a neighborhood school in Richfield. The schools operate during “normal” conditions on the same schedule. This temporarily changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic which is ongoing during the writing of this Study. Due to the same arrival and dismissal times, there are efficiencies gained via shared school bus ridership and deficiencies due to the high peak-hour traffic volumes produced by all parents or guardians generally arriving at the same time to one location. Student household location data identifies the potential SRTS benefit from enhanced multimodal infrastructure to/from the schools and is helpful toward understanding the routes students could use to access their respective schools. Potential improvements for those key areas, such as a busy intersection, are important to consider so they are not a barrier for children to walk, roll, or bike safely, comfortably, and conveniently to access their school. The location of where students live who are enrolled at either school was analyzed using data shared by the school district for the purposes of the Study (see Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). The densest student population nodes correspond with denser housing found immediately southwest of the school property and along Portland Avenue/CSAH 35. This shows that existing sidewalk along 70th Street, Chicago Avenue, 71st Street, and Elliot Avenue could be key connections for those nearby students. Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Student Population - Dual Language School Richﬁeld, MN Figure 4 Focus School Higher Density Student Population Lower Density Student Population Existing Sidewalk Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) Existing Bike Lane Existing Multiuse Trail Richﬁeld Dual Language School 0 500 1,000 ft East 70th Street East 71st Street East 69th Street East 72nd Street East 73rd StreetElliot Avenue14th Avenue SouthBloomington Avenue SouthDiagonal Blvd.Park AvenuePortland Avenue12th Avenue South0.5 MILE WALKSHED Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Student Population - STEM School Richﬁeld, MN Figure 5 Richﬁeld STEM School East 70th Street East 71st Street East 69th Street East 72nd Street East 73rd StreetElliot Avenue14th Avenue SouthBloomington Avenue SouthDiagonal Blvd.Park AvenuePortland Avenue12th Avenue South0.5 MILE WALKSHED0 500 1,000 ft Focus School Higher Density StudentPopulation Lower Density StudentPopulation Existing Sidewalk Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) Existing Bike Lane Existing Multiuse Trail Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Student Population - Dual Language School & STEM School Richﬁeld, MN Figure 6 Richﬁeld STEM School Richﬁeld Dual Language School East 70th Street East 71st Street East 69th Street East 72nd Street East 73rd StreetElliot Avenue14th Avenue SouthBloomington Avenue SouthDiagonal Blvd.Park AvenuePortland Avenue12th Avenue South0.5 MILE WALKSHED0 500 1,000 ft Focus School Higher Density Student Population Lower Density Student Population Existing Sidewalk Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) Existing Bike Lane Existing Multiuse Trail CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 17 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY PREVIOUS PLANS AND OTHER STUDIES A review of previous plans and ongoing studies was completed to identify supportive planning elements and synergies with the Study. Key elements of these studies include: Richfield Bicycle Master Plan (2012)  Both 70th Street and 12th Avenue are identified as future bicycle routes. Of note, 70th Street has since been implemented via two centerline miles of buffered bike lanes from Diagonal Boulevard via 18th Avenue to Lyndale Avenue.  Implement school zones in the City that are well-designed and properly signed.  Expand education and encouragement programs for bicycling to school by all ages. Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014)  Construct sidewalk within school property along 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue.  Reconstruct existing sidewalks along Elliot Avenue and 71st Avenue to provide well-maintained and ADA-compliant walking infrastructure.  Implement an ADA-compliant curb ramp on the east side of Elliot Avenue at 71st Street.  Add adult school patrol at the 70th Street and Elliot Avenue intersection.  Install more bike racks at the school and locate them at an accessible location on the property. Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan (2018)  Construct a sidewalk section, identified as a priority, within school property along 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue.  Ensure all sidewalks adjacent to the school are well-maintained and ADA-compliant. The three planning documents align with the vision of the Study to provide a safe and comfortable space for children walking, rolling, or bicycling. One item included in two of the three plans is to construct a sidewalk on school property along 71st Street. None of the plans considered or developed strategies to improve the parking lot and associated access and circulation for drop-off and pick-up activities. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 18 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT (PARENT SURVEY) The school district engaged with parents at both schools to identify walking and bicycling demand and perceived issues for children to be able to access their school by those transportation modes. A survey was administered in February 2020 to parents with students enrolled at either school. A total of 95 survey responses were received as a part of the reporting process by the school district (see Appendix A for raw data). Richfield organizes their findings into three groups: all students, Hispanic students, and female students. The following sections organize data for all students. Distance between Home and School Approximately 35 percent and 28 percent of students live less than one mile from the Richfield STEM or Dual Language Schools, respectively (see Figure 7). The one-mile threshold is a reasonable distance for most elementary and middle school-age children to walk, roll, or bike when safe and accessible connections are present. The distance threshold increases to one and one-half miles for high schoolers under similar conditions.2 Figure 7. Student Distance between Home and School Source: Richfield Safe Routes to School Parent Survey’s, February 2020 2 Lam, Tiffany. (2018, May 22). Too far to walk? National Safe Routes to School Partnership. https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/blog 0%10%20%30%40%50% Less than 1/4 mile 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile 1/2 mile to 1 mile 1 mile to 2 miles More than 2 miles Dual Language School STEM School CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 19 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Typical Mode by Student Most students take the school bus or family vehicle to arrive and depart from their school. A small number of students at both schools currently walk to access their school (see Figure 8). There is also some desire by students to walk or bike to/from their school with an estimated 15 percent each at both schools asking for permission to do so from their parents. Figure 8. Typical Mode by Student Source: Richfield Safe Routes to School Parent Survey’s, February 2020 Perception of Walking/Bicycling to School A parent’s perception will either allow or prohibit their child (or children) from walking, rolling, or bicycling to/from school (see Figure 9). Understanding trends from this survey question aids in the identification of issues and organization of project alternatives that could improve these perceptions. Parents of both schools largely agree on the key perceived issues for their children. The top perceptions that directly apply to infrastructure improvements include:  safety improvements at intersections and crossings  implementing upgrades that balance walking and bicycling with traffic volumes  addressing vehicular speed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% STEM School Dual Language School STEM School Dual Language School Morning Afternoon Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 20 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Figure 9. Parent Perception of Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling to School Source: Richfield Safe Routes to School Parent Survey’s, February 2020 Of note, this chart depicts a parent’s perception of certain considerations and how much those affect their decision to allow, or not allow their child to walk, roll, or bike to/from school. A child’s age is another factor a parent or guardian may consider when allowing their children to walk, roll, or bike to/from school. By the end of their children’s education at either school (i.e., 5th grade) 39 percent and 29 percent of parents would allow them to travel by an alternative mode to the Richfield STEM School or Richfield Dual Language School without an adult, respectively. This illustrates that with infrastructure improvements and other educational and programmatic opportunities, there is interest from students and potential approval by parents to participate in SRTS. Leveraging this is important so the Richfield SRTS program may find success as well as achieve broader environmental and healthy living goals promoted by the program. 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70% Weather Safety of Intersections and Crossings Distance Amount of Traffic Along Route Speed of Traffic Along Route Time Sidewalks or Trails Accompanied by Adults Crime After School Programs Crossing Guards Covenience of Driving Dual Language School STEM School CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 21 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK The transportation network was reviewed to identify existing infrastructure for walking, rolling, bicycling, and driving on, and adjacent to, the school property. Existing multimodal facilities include some sidewalk and bicycle facilities, as well as marked crossings at adjacent intersections along the 70th Street and 12th Avenue corridors. School access and connectivity on school property is primarily auto focused with some congestion at access points and limited internal queueing capacity within the parking lot during peak arrival and dismissal periods. The following sections summarize each transportation mode as it exists today (see Figure 10). Walking, Rolling, and Bicycling Sidewalk connectivity near the schools is limited, as it is in much of the City. Due to the time in which the City of Richfield developed (i.e., post-WWII and before new urbanism in the 2000s) a sidewalk network was not fully developed with most streets absent of sidewalk entirely. Sidewalk connectivity is focused along busier streets such as 70th Street and 12th Avenue (along one-side). The 70th Street sidewalk stretches from Lyndale Avenue to 18th Avenue and the 12th Avenue sidewalk from outside the City’s southern border to 66th Street, both of which run along the north and east sides of the school campus, respectively. Short sidewalk segments also exist along one-side of nearby lower volume streets including Elliot Avenue and 71st Street adjacent to the schools, as well as Chicago Avenue. Marked crossings exist at three intersections adjacent to the schools:  70th Street and Elliot Avenue (side-street, stop-controlled)  70th Street and 12th Avenue (all-way, stop-controlled)  12th Avenue and 71st Street (side-street, stop-controlled) Due to the limited sidewalk network, the number of marked crosswalks is correspondingly limited. All existing marked crossings could be potential barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely and comfortably to both schools due to traffic volumes and/or uncontrolled crossings (i.e., no stop sign or traffic signal present). Bicycle infrastructure including buffered bike lanes and sharrows (i.e., bicyclists sharing the travel lane with vehicles) exist along 70th Street and 12th Avenue, respectively. Both connect to the school property and interconnect with Richfield’s bicycle network. 70th Street at Elliot Avenue looking east. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Focus School Existing Sidewalk School Crossing Sign Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection Marked Crosswalk STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Existing Transportation Network Richﬁeld, MN Figure 10 East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthExisting Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOP SPEED LIMIT30 SPEED LIMIT30 SPEED LIMIT30 SPEED LIMIT30 Richﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 23 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Multimodal Activity Multimodal activity was studied using StreetLight to estimate the frequency for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross at each intersection, instead of traditional pedestrian and bicyclist counts due to the COVID-19 pandemic that disrupted school operations. The 2019 data included daily estimates during the months when school was in session and only during Monday through Thursday. The data does not provide raw counts but rather an estimated level of use that can identify areas of higher activity. The data is organized using app- based locational cell phone data that is anonymized and organized by StreetLight using proprietary algorithms. Activity is estimated using this data and normalized using sample trip counts and Census Block population. StreetLight data can assist in identifying locations with higher usage, which can aid in the prioritization of improvements.  70th Street and 12th Avenue: High Estimated Activity  12th Avenue and 71st Street: Medium Estimated Activity  70th Street and Elliot Avenue: Medium Estimated Activity  Elliot Avenue and 71st Street: Medium-Low Estimated Activity Locations were further studied during a review of existing conditions on September 29, 2020, which confirmed the 70th Street and 12th Avenue intersection as a key crossing location for students. Roadway Network The school campus of the Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools is surrounded by 70th Street to the north, 71st Street to the south, 12th Avenue to the east, and Elliot Avenue to the west. Three of the four streets are classified as local which illustrate their use for short, localized trips. The 70th Street corridor is classified as a major collector and provides east-west connectivity across the City from 18th Avenue to Lyndale Avenue, as well as west of Interstate 35W and into the City of Edina. All four streets are urban (i.e., curb and gutter), two-lane roadways with on-street parking along one (70th Street and 12th Avenue) or both sides (Elliot Avenue and 71st Street). Functional classification is the grouping of roadways into classes that define how the roadway serves vehicular travel within the broader roadway network. Local roadways service short, localized trips, while collector roadways provide key connections between local streets and the regional arterial network. The roadway cross-sections from curb face to curb face are approximately:  34 feet wide: Elliot Avenue and 71st Street  36 feet wide: 12th Avenue  44 feet wide: 70th Street 12th Avenue SouthExisting Trac Conditions Richﬁeld, MN Figure 11 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School AADT Trip Distribution To/From Schools A or B Level of Service C D E or F Overall Intersection Worst Movement Morning Afternoon # 3,150 2,100 1,500 2,050 2,300 40%20% 10% 30% X% East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 25 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Traffic Volume Vehicular activity was analyzed using average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes along 70th Street and 12th Avenue from MnDOT’s publicly available data. As of 2017, the 70th Street corridor is the busiest near the school with 2,100 to 3,150 AADT volume while 12th Avenue has 2,050 to 2,300 AADT volume north and south of 70th Street, respectively (see Figure 11). Of note, a review of historic AADT volumes since 1997 showed that traffic volumes have decreased about ten percent along 70th Street and 12th Avenue. This coincides with the surrounding context of established neighborhoods, stable population, and limited growth. Intersection turning movement counts (TMCs) were collected using StreetLight due to the COVID-19 pandemic that significantly impacted traffic volumes and travel patterns in 2020. This data includes hourly and daily traffic volumes from 2019 and focuses on weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday) during the months when school was in session. The data is collected the same way as the pedestrian and bicycle volumes using anonymized app-based cell phone locational data and applied using proprietary algorithms. MnDOT’s AADT volumes were used to cross-reference the StreetLight data and produce estimates of existing traffic at the intersections surrounding the school property (see Figure 12). Traffic volumes play a key role in determining appropriate multimodal infrastructure such as a bike lane versus multiuse trail or the type of pedestrian and bicycle crossing treatments (e.g., the threshold for a rectangular rapid flashing beacon). Trip distribution, which illustrates the total number of vehicular trips accessing the school property, was also organized using this methodology. It displays the percent total of trips along surrounding major roadway corridors. Many trips originate from the west via 70th Street which was confirmed on September 29, 2020 during a review of peak periods. Traffic Speed The posted speed limit along all streets surrounding the schools is 30 miles per hour (mph) (see Figure 10). There are no school zone speed limits in the City of Richfield. Traffic Operations Existing traffic operations were studied using TMC volumes at all intersections immediately surrounding the school. Additional review of driveway operations for accessing the school campus are described in the following section. Adjacent intersections experience some congestion for brief periods of time during the peak morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. All intersections operate at a level of service (LOS) A or B during both peak periods which means the traffic volume, number of travel lanes, and intersection traffic controls provide adequate capacity for the area. One movement, northbound on Elliot Avenue at 70th Street, operates at a LOS C which illustrates some delay. This is likely because of limited gaps in traffic along 70th Street coupled with the side-street, stop-control at the intersection. The LOS, which is dictated by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), does not account for brief congestion (less than 15 minutes) or queuing. 11th Avenue SouthExisting Turning Movement Counts Richﬁeld, MN Figure 12 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Focus School AM School Peak Hour Volume (7:10 AM - 8:10 AM)# Afternoon School Peak Hour Volume (1:40 PM - 2:40 PM)(#) East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot Avenue14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP 1 178 12 (3) (94) (2)743(2)(1)(1)5 171 30 (7) (97) (9)7507(12)(5)(8)E. 70th St. STOP Elliot Ave. S.STOP1331(5)(11)19 2 (5) (5)1265(1)(16)E. 71st St.Elliot Ave. S.STOP 71 1 (10) (4)1419(7)(9)63(7)(0)E. 71st St.Elliot Ave. S.STOP 191 78 (99) (35) 84 97 (71) (35) E. 70th St.RDLS EntranceSTOP 167 (84) 84(68) E. 70th St.RDLS Exit9951(50)(34)4 110 17 (9) (54) (3)374211(17)(36)(8)12 47 76 (13) (65) (21)17193(13)(15)(7)E. 70th St.12th Ave. S.STOPSTOP ALL WAY 1287(50)(10)228(129)12839(59)(35)STEM Access 12th Ave. S.STOP 13511(92)(8)E. 71st St.12th Ave. S.STOP20728(136)(3)32 6 (2) (3)70143(9)(130)9 11 (2) (6)2137(5)(98)E. 71sh St.12th Ave. S.STOP STOP 1 178 12 (3) (94) (2)743(2)(1)(1)5 171 30 (7) (97) (9)7507(12)(5)(8)E. 70th St.Elliot Ave. S.STOP 8 8 (12) (12)3610(4)(8)7410(13)(8)Bus/Empl. Access Elliot Ave. S.STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY STOP 0 250 500 ft Side-Street Stop-Controlled Intersection All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersection STOP STOPSTOP ALL WAY CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 27 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SCHOOL ACCESS AND SITE OPERATIONS Vehicular access to the school property is important for family vehicle drop-off and pick-up, as well as school buses, staff, and teachers. Access and site operations are key toward limiting barriers, such as inadequate accommodation of parent drop-off and pick-up activity and ensuring acceptable site operations. Unacceptable site operations could create safety hazards as well as spillover congestion to surrounding streets and impact pedestrian or bicyclist safety. It is critical to balance vehicular improvements with multimodal enhancements to ensure driving is not over- incentivized in lieu of walking or bicycling. Environmental and health benefits are key SRTS objectives directly supported by expanded multimodal access and connectivity. The following sections describe access locations and operations, and parking lot circulation for the Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools (see Figure 13). Observations were recorded on Tuesday, September 29, 2020 during arrival and dismissal of the two schools. Of note, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the schools were operating on staggered schedules which does not illustrate “normal” conditions, although the data was still used to gauge general school activity. Parent Drop-off and Pick-up Drop-off and pick-up accessibility, design, and operations represent key components of this Study. The two schools use a shared parking lot with separate drop-off and pick-up areas and operate on the same schedule under normal conditions. This means the peak periods are compounded by twice as much activity within one school property as compared to Richfield’s other schools. The 2020 total enrollment of both schools is 850 families and up to half of them may be dropped off in the morning or picked-up in the afternoon by their parent or guardian on a given day. Therefore, the schools are a significant generator of traffic in the area and may contribute up to an estimated 15 percent of the average daily traffic in the area. This is corroborated by parent survey’s which assists in estimating mode share as well as vehicular trip generation estimates produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition which is described in the following sections. 13th Avenue South11th Avenue SouthExisting School Circulation and Access Richﬁeld, MN Figure 13 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Focus School Parking Lot Access Parking Lot Circulation Richﬁeld Dual Language Richﬁeld Dual LanguageMain Entrance Peak Trac Queue East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthAM Queue: 100 feet PM Queue: 50 feet AM Inbound: 175 PM Inbound: 70 AM Outbound: 150 PM Outbound: 85 AM Queue: 100 feet PM Queue: 75 feet D D Richﬁeld STEM School Richﬁeld STEM SchoolS D AM Inbound: 255 AM Outbound: 230 PM Inbound: 110 PM Outbound: 130 S12 3 1 2 School buses and sta/teachers3 Richﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 29 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Access and Circulation The current configuration of access and circulation for the two schools is not adequate during peak school periods for the volume of parents or guardians dropping-off and picking-up their students. The schools use a shared parking lot with no barrier separating operations. District staff shared with the project team that a temporary barrier (i.e., traffic cones, etc.) used to be employed; however, that was typically moved and ignored by parents of the Richfield STEM School that preferred using the Richfield Dual Language School’s 70th Street parking lot entrance. Many parents access the school via the west along 70th Street and do not want to perform out-of-direction travel to access their assigned entrance at 12th Avenue. There are three access points that serve the north parking lot:  Richfield Dual Language School: One enter-only and one exit-only driveway, both on 70th Street. The access points are slightly offset from the 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue intersections, respectively. The entrance is 44 feet wide (the same width as 70th Street) and has a very wide turning radius that allows eastbound motorists to turn into the school property at a higher rate of speed. A crossing guard is stationed here during arrival and dismissal periods. The exit is 30-feet wide and can be difficult for motorists to see oncoming traffic due to on-street parking that limits safe sight distance.  Richfield STEM School: One driveway for entering and exiting via 12th Avenue. There is a right-turn only restriction during peak periods for exiting vehicles. During review of operations on September 29, 2020, this restriction was followed by most parents, though a notable amount disregarded the posted restriction and made a left-turn. The driveway is 30-feet wide and can be very busy during arrival and dismissal. It is also located less than 100 feet south of the 70th Street and 12th Avenue intersection. A crossing guard is stationed here during arrival and dismissal periods. Due to the design and width of the driveways, multimodal access and safety is limited during the peak periods before and after school. Turning speeds, as well as inattention and unsafe decision making by motorists exacerbates the problem. Both schools circulate counterclockwise so a child may exit or enter the vehicle directly from the sidewalk. Technically, Richfield STEM School parents must circulate through the parking lot due to the single driveway assigned to that school. However, many bypass the congestion on 12th Avenue and access the school through the parking lot since there is no physical division present between the schools. Internal queueing capacity is adequate for the Richfield STEM School under existing conditions. Richfield Dual Language School parents do not have to circulate completely through their parking lot due to the organization of the one-way entrance and exit. The dedicated curb space for drop-off and pick-up is not well utilized along the school frontage due to the main entrance location and parents not pulling far enough past. This limits the internal queuing capacity of the parking lot and unnecessarily extends the queue out of the parking lot onto 70th Street. This breakdown in queueing was observed on September 29, 2020. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 30 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Access Operations The estimated volumes at each driveway were derived using a combination of MnDOT’s AADT volumes, StreetLight traffic volume estimates, and the ITE’s Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition. The ITE’s Manual uses decades of data collection to produce peak hour and daily vehicular estimates for a variety of land uses (e.g., single-family home, fast-casual food establishment, elementary school, etc.) within primarily urban or suburban contexts. The elementary school land use produces peak hour vehicle count estimates for both schools based upon student enrollment that was cross-referenced to the other traffic volume data sources. The three access points can experience some congestion during the peak arrival and dismissal periods. The driveways operate at a level of service (LOS) A or B during both peak periods which means by volume, number of lanes, and traffic control, the intersections operate acceptable and experience minimal or no delay. Field observation on September 29, 2020 noted minor delay for exiting vehicles of both schools. The outcome of this analysis shows that up to 175 and 255 vehicles are estimated to access the Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School, respectively, during the morning peak period. This can create queues that extend up to 100 feet (approximately four car lengths) for those entering the parking lot from both access points per school. Queues also extend out of the entrance driveway onto 70th Street from the Richfield Dual Language School due to limited internal queueing capacity and inefficient circulation. In the afternoon, the vehicle estimates are less due to a variety of factors including after school programs. The queues reduce slightly during dismissal, though some queueing continues along 70th Street and 12th Avenues, as well as out of the parking lot from the Richfield Dual Language School entrance driveway. School Bus Richfield Public Schools provides school bus transportation to students who live outside of one mile for elementary schools (grades K-6) and two miles for secondary schools (grades 7-12). Bus transportation is also offered to those who live within those threshold distances, described as a “walk zone”, via the District’s Pay- to-Ride program. Approximately 45 and 50 percent of students at both schools take the bus in the morning or afternoon, respectively. PARKING Parking capacity both on-street and off-street in the school’s north parking lot was studied to understand typical demand and inform potential improvements to the parking lot. Along with school site operations, parking is another opportunity to balance demand while providing enough supply to ensure school access is not severely impacted. Parking is an opportunity to balance supply with demand to manage modal priorities and incentivize walking, rolling, bicycling, or taking transit in lieu of making it easier to drive, and is important toward achieving the environmental and health benefits of SRTS. CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 31 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Off-Street The parking lot in the north side of the school property is used for visitor parking and drop-off/pick-up access for parents or guardians of students for both schools. The parking lot is approximately 600 feet long and 110 feet wide equating to nearly 70,000 square feet of impervious surface. There is also a parking lot south of the two schools which is used by school buses, staff, and teachers. Approximately 20 percent of the total area of the school property is devoted to off-street parking between the two existing lots. The existing supply of parking in the visitor lot is approximately 140 spaces. During the afternoon of September 29, 2020, the parking occupancy was estimated immediately prior to dismissal at about 75 percent occupied or 105 spaces. Potential parking lot design alternatives will consider the existing demand while balancing other elements such as multimodal connectivity, snow storage, and optimized circulation. 12th Avenue looking south at Richfield STEM School driveway. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 32 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY On-Street Review of on-street parking utilization was performed with Nearmap, an online aerial imagery tool that has high-quality aerial images of urbanized areas with the exact date each image. The sun’s shadow was used to estimate the time of day within a two-hour range (see Table 3 and Figure 14). Five time periods were chosen during the 2018 and 2019 school year, and on weekdays (Tuesday through Friday). Four of the five analysis periods occurred between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., and the other during the peak afternoon dismissal period as the school buses were present and on-street parking use considerably higher than average. This demonstrated that parents use available on-street parking, most notably along 12th Avenue, to pick-up their child instead of entering the parking lot. Parking supply per city block was estimated using the length of the block and divided by the average length of a parallel parking space (about 25 feet). An estimated 50 on-street parking spaces are located adjacent to the school property and on average demand is about 18 parking spaces. This analysis is an important consideration to support parking removal either in the parking lot or on-street to increase sight distance at the school’s driveways or implement on-street bicycle infrastructure. Table 3. On-Street Parking Utilization Analysis Street Extent Supply1 Max Demand Avg. Demand 70th Street Elliot Avenue to RDLS Entrance 8 2 (25%) 1 (12%) 70th Street RDLS Entrance to RDLS Exit 7 4 (57%) 2 (31%) 70th Street RDLS Exit to 12th Avenue 15 13 (87%) 7 (44%) 12th Avenue 70th Street to 71st Street 19 16 (84%) 8 (43%) 1Number of parking spots. Raw data can be found in Appendix B. Source: Nearmap 2020, SRF Consulting Group 2020 12th Avenue SouthExisting Peak Parking Utilization Richﬁeld, MN Figure 14 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School 0% On-street Parking Utilization (% Full) 25% 50% 75% 100% East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft CHAPTER 2 – Existing Conditions Analysis 34 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY SAFETY ANALYSIS Crash analysis is a critical piece of the existing conditions data review process. Analyzed crashes include ten years of vehicle-to-bicycle and vehicle-to-pedestrian crashes as well as all crashes over the last five years. The manner of collision was also studied over the last five years which details the way in which the crash occurred (e.g., rear end). The data was derived from MnDOT’s Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT2) and includes recorded crashes by law enforcement that provide crash details and approximate location. Crashes immediately adjacent to the school property were reviewed. Source: streets.mn Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2010-2019) No pedestrian or bicyclist crashes were recorded near the schools (see Figure 15). One pedestrian crash was recorded in the south parking lot. Richfield Public Schools could not determine the cause of that crash. All Crashes (2015-2019) A total of 16 crashes were recorded immediately surrounding the schools, with 75 percent occurring at intersections (see Figure 16). Crashes occurred at the intersections of 70th Street and Elliot Avenue (3 crashes), 71st Street and Elliot Avenue (3 crashes), and 70th Street and 12th Avenue (6 crashes). The crashes were evenly distributed by time of day and day of week. There was one serious injury crash on Elliot Avenue near 71st Street, the result of an individual driving a moped under the influence of alcohol. The severity of the other crashes around the schools primarily included possible injury or property damage only (PDO). The manner of collision was also studied which details the way in which the crash occurred (e.g., rear end) (see Figure 17). All three crashes at 70th Street and Elliot Avenue were right-angle crashes caused by a driver on Elliot Avenue failing to stop for 70th Street traffic. Three of the six crashes at 70th Street and 12th Avenue were related to the all-way stop control and a motorist’s failure to yield. At the Richfield Dual Language School exit and 70th Street there is one reported vehicle crash during morning school arrival where a vehicle turning left out of the exit failed to yield to an eastbound vehicle on 70th Street. Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes by Severity Richﬁeld, MN Figure 15 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Focus School Fatal (0) Serious Injury (0) Minor Injury (1) Possible Injury (0) Property Damage Only (0) Unknown Severity (0) Existing Sidewalk Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft Chicago AvenueAll Crashes by Severity (2015 - 2019) Richﬁeld, MN Figure 16 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Focus School Fatal (0) Serious Injury (1) Minor Injury (1) Possible Injury (4) Property Damage Only (12) Unknown Severity (3) East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft Focus School Angle (5) Front to Front (1) Front to Rear (3) Sideswipe (1) Other (9)All Crashes by Manner of Collision Richﬁeld, MN Figure 17 Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue SouthRichﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School 0 250 500 ft CHAPTER 3 – Issue Identification and Needs Summary 38 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 3: ISSUE IDENTIFICA TION AND NEEDS SUMMARY The next step in the planning process includes the application of existing conditions data to understand gaps and issues that will highlight areas of need. Those locations will be the focus of the Study to devise opportunities to develop project solutions. IDENTIFIED TRANSPORTATION ISSUES The access and circulation as well as multimodal transportation issues for both schools include broad themes organized from the issues analysis to devise key needs for further consideration (see Figure 18). Issue #1 Parking lot access for both schools causes safety and operational issues within school property and along 70th Street and 12th Avenue during peak periods. The width and design of driveways does not support multimodal connectivity or comfort. Parking lot circulation is inefficient due to shared parking lot facilities between both schools. The lack of separation and internal queueing capacity exacerbates safety and operational issues. This is most notable for Richfield Dual Language School. Issue #2 Locations on, or adjacent to, the school property exist that limit multimodal connectivity, safety, and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists. This includes crossings of 70th Street, ADA accessibility, and sidewalk gaps or maintenance. SUMMARY OF NEEDS The needs are informed by the two broad issues defined for the Study (see corresponding colors). School Property Access (all modes) and Parking Lot Circulation (both schools) Improve school parking lot access to reduce vehicular operational issues. Construct multimodal crossing enhancements at driveways and sidewalk connectivity through and across the parking lot for safer and more convenient access to both schools. Improve vehicular circulation and internal queuing capacity during peak drop-off and pick-up periods to limit conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Enhance overall parking lot safety and operations via streamlined circulation enhancements. Crossing Improvements or Sidewalk Upgrades Implement crossing infrastructure improvements at adjacent intersections to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety and comfort, as well as upgrade sidewalk to improve accessibility via sidewalk widening or maintenance or filling a sidewalk gap. 11th Avenue South10th Avenue SouthElliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthStreetlight poles in sidewalk reduce clear width for ADA-accessibility. Lack of pedestrian-scale lighting. Long crossing distance and wide turning radius. Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Identiﬁed Issues Richﬁeld, MN Figure 18 Existing Sidewalk Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) Uncontrolled crossing dicult for children. Sidewalk is not level to RDLS driveways. Parking lot circulation inadequate for peak queues and operation. Lack of separation between schools to delineate operations. Crossing guard present though dicult to cross during peak times. Limited drop-o/pick-up opportunities for special needs buses to STEM. STEM access is close to the 70th St. intersection. No sidewalk along 71st St. No pedestrian ramp for crossing. Focus School Identiﬁed multimodal issue East 70th Street East 71st Street Columbus AvenuePark Avenue12th Avenue SouthOn-street parking near intersections reduces site distance for safe crossings Richﬁeld Dual Language School Richﬁeld STEM School Other identiﬁed issue 0 250 500 ft CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 40 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION Potential alternatives are based upon evaluated opportunities that would improve or eliminate identified needs and issues. This section organizes potential improvements and project opportunities to address the two high- level needs identified by the Study using the latest state and national guidance. Potential projects were vetted using engineering judgment and reviewed by both Richfield Public Schools and the City of Richfield. School Property Access (all modes) and Parking Lot Circulation (both schools) Review access improvements to the north parking lot for all transportation modes including safer and more convenient access to the schools by walking, rolling, or bicycling, as well as streamlined vehicular access. Evaluation of parking lot circulation to improve vehicular operations inter- and intra- the north parking lot, as well as provide adequate internal queueing space for peak drop-off/pick-up periods. Crossing Improvements and Sidewalk Upgrades Analysis of crossing infrastructure upgrades at key intersections along 70th Street including Elliot Avenue and 12th Avenue, as well as Elliot Avenue at 71st Street. Review sidewalk infrastructure and propose locations for upgrades or maintenance. SCHOOL PROPERTY ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The focus of the Study is primarily on the shared parking lot between both schools and improving the access, circulation, and multimodal connectivity. The shared parking lot does not provide adequate queueing capacity for the Richfield Dual Language School or safe and convenient multimodal connectivity to either school’s main entrances. Driveways for both schools also experience congestion and are not well-designed. Four alternatives were studied using an evaluation matrix to identify the most favorable alternative which was also confirmed by the school district. The access operations and circulation as well as multimodal connectivity to support safe passage around and across the parking lot were further analyzed for a hybrid alternative. Parking Lot Alternatives Four parking lot alternatives were developed using existing conditions data and engineering judgment to maximize the finite space available. Each alternative is described below, including the pros and cons of each. Alternative 1 One access point shared by both schools and operating as an entrance/exit to a shared parking lot (see Figure 19). The drop-off/pick-up area includes dual lanes with three marked crossings and is curb-separated from the parking lot. Short-term parallel parking is included along the entire length of the drop-off/pick-up aisle. This is the only alternative that includes 90-degree parking and two-way parking lot circulation. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 41 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Pros Cons Parking Supply Increased internal queue capacity. Addition of visitor/short-term parking. East-west internal sidewalk for safer multimodal circulation. One entrance and exit for both schools, focusing all traffic onto 70th Street, increasing congestion. Dual drop-off/pick-up lanes create safety issues for children exiting vehicles/crossing. Minor decrease in parking supply. Existing: 140 Proposed: 134 Net: -6 Alternative 2 Two access points, one each on 70th Street and 12th Avenue (see Figure 20). Both operate as an entrance/exit to a shared parking lot and are designed to provide access to each school. The drop-off/pick-up area includes a single lane with four marked crossings and is not separated from the parking lot. The parking is maintained as angled at 60-degrees and one-way parking lot circulation. Pros Cons Parking Supply Increased internal queue capacity for Richfield Dual Language School. Minor increase in parking capacity. East-west internal sidewalk for safer multimodal circulation. Combined parking operations. Shared middle aisle creates potential conflict point as circulation awkwardly crosses there between both lots. Decreased internal queue capacity for Richfield STEM School. Existing: 140 Proposed: 144 Net: +4 Alternative 3 Two access points, both on 70th Street (see Figure 21). Both operate as an entrance/exit into a separate parking lot for each school. The drop-off/pick-up areas include a single lane with marked crossings at both ends. A separated, buffered sidewalk provides a north-south connection between the two parking lots from 70th Street to the school frontage. The parking is maintained as angled at 60-degrees and one-way parking lot circulation. Pros Cons Parking Supply Increased internal queue capacity. Physically separated parking lots. East-west and north-south internal sidewalk for safer multimodal circulation. Both entrance/exits are on 70th Street, focusing all traffic into one area and exacerbating congestion. Slight decrease in parking capacity. Increased safety issues for children walking, rolling, or bicycling due to focused vehicular access along 70th Street. Existing: 140 Proposed: 137 Net: -3 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 42 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Alternative 4 Two access points, one each on 70th Street and 12th Avenue (see Figure 22). Both operate as an entrance/exit to a separated parking lot and are designed to provide access to each school. The drop-off/pick-up areas include a single lane with marked crossings at both ends. A separated, buffered sidewalk provides a north- south connection between the two parking lots from 70th Street to the school frontage. The parking is maintained as angled at 60-degrees and one-way parking lot circulation. Pros Cons Parking Supply Increased internal queue capacity. Physically separated parking lots. East-west and north-south internal sidewalk for safer multimodal circulation. Maintained parking capacity. Maintains existing location of the 12th Avenue entrance near the 70th Street intersection. Existing: 140 Proposed: 140 Net: +/-0 70th Street looking east at Elliot Avenue with Richfield Dual Language School shown. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 19: PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE #1 43H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Concepts.dwg : CONCEPT 4 // 8/17/2020 - 4:51PMRichfield STEM School - Concept 4 Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 4 X X X RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 20: PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE #2 44H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Concepts.dwg : CONCEPT 1 // 8/17/2020 - 4:50PMRichfield STEM School - Concept 1 Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 1 X X X RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 21: PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE #3 45H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Concepts.dwg : CONCEPT 3 // 8/17/2020 - 4:50PMRichfield STEM School - Concept 3 Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 3 X X RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FIGURE 22: PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE #4 46H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Concepts.dwg : CONCEPT 2 // 8/17/2020 - 4:50PMRichfield STEM School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 2 X X CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 47 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Alternatives Evaluation A high-level analysis of the four parking lot design alternatives was performed to determine the appropriate improvements for vehicular access, driveway location and operations, parking lot circulation, and multimodal safety and connectivity. A evaluation matrix was developed to measure five key criteria quantitatively and qualitatively and identify tradeoffs (see Table 4).  Access: How the access location facilitates peak vehicular demand and connectivity inter- and intra- parking lot.  Operations: How the parking lot design accommodates traffic demand and improves operations at each access point and the surrounding roadway network.  Parking: How the parking lot design improves school access and circulation via separate or combined operations and maximizes parking supply within the limited space available.  Circulation: How the location of access points maximizes internal queueing capacity and limits spillback onto surrounding roadways.  Multimodal: How the parking lot design supports safe, comfortable, and convenient connections and crossings for children walking, rolling, or bicycling within and across the parking lot area. Table 4. Parking Lot Alternative Evaluation Matrix Access Operations Parking Circulation Multimodal Existing – No Build Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 = positive impact, = neutral impact, = negative impact Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Based upon the evaluation matrix, the most favorable alternative is Alternative 4 as it provides the most opportunities for improvement while limiting impacts to access and operations. The following section provides additional detail regarding operations, circulation, and parking for consideration as the project moves into design and development. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 48 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Alternative 4 Hybrid Review In August 2020, the four parking lot alternatives were presented to the Richfield School District’s Safe Routes to School Committee. Feedback was provided during the presentation, as well as via written statements shared by the Safe Routes to School Coordinator from the District’s Transportation Department, the principals and/or staff of both schools, and pedestrian/bicyclist advocates. The input was used to organize a locally favored parking lot alternative from Alternative 4 that accommodated most requests. Access location, circulation, and general parking lot design did not change between Alternative 4 and the hybrid update. The most significant change regarded parking capacity as it reduced a total of 26 parking spaces, from 140 parking spots to 114 parking spaces. This was done to provide specific parking for vans that transport youth experiencing homelessness or at high-risk to both schools, as well as provide snow storage space along the buffered outer edges of both lots. It was confirmed by the school district and City that such a reduction in parking was acceptable to balance other desired improvements. Further analysis is detailed for the Alternative 4 hybrid including access operations, circulation and queue capacity, and multimodal connectivity and safety. Access Operations Access operations was studied using Synchro/SimTraffic 11 under existing traffic volumes (see Table 5). By closing the Richfield Dual Language Schools one-way entrance and creating a two-way entrance and exit along 70th Street, streamlined circulation and expanded internal queueing capacity is accomplished. Table 5. Traffic Operations by Access Point Intersection Existing1 Proposed AM PM AM PM 70th Street and RDLS entrance (westbound approach) 1 sec delay LOS A 100-foot queue 1 sec delay LOS A 50-foot queue N/A N/A 70th Street and RDLS exit2 (northbound approach) 12 sec delay LOS B 100-foot queue 10 sec delay LOS A 50-foot queue 15 sec delay LOS B 75-foot queue 11 sec delay LOS B 50-foot queue 12th Avenue and STEM enter/exit (eastbound approach) 11 sec delay LOS B 100-foot queue 10 sec delay LOS A 50-foot queue 11 sec delay LOS B 100-foot queue 10 sec delay LOS A 50-foot queue 1Worst approach operations for a side-street stop using the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020, Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 49 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY There is little to no negative impact on existing traffic operations after modifying the Richfield Dual Language School’s access. Delay increases when the exit is modified into an entrance and exit due to increased traffic volumes at the shared locations, though queuing decreases for both northbound and westbound traffic through simplified operations. Of note, additional analysis should be conducted prior to implementation to ensure existing and future traffic operations are adequately accommodated. Parking Lot Circulation and Queueing Further analysis of parking circulation and queueing capacity was studied (see Table 6). The existing and potential queueing capacity was analyzed, as well as average queues per peak period was completed. The average demand was formulated using the previously described access volume analysis to formulate the number of cars expected during the peak hour and cross-referenced by demand reviewed during a field visit of arrival and dismissal periods. Using 25 feet, the average length of a vehicle plus space between when queued, the peak 15-minute queue length was devised and displayed as a range to account for fluctuations due to the dwell time per vehicle. This was confirmed using the average dwell time recorded on September 29, 2020. Table 6. Parking Lot Queue Analysis School Issue1 Solution Existing Capacity Proposed Capacity Avg. Demand RDLS Parents will pull maximum 50 feet past the main entrance, severely limiting internal queueing capacity. Moving the entrance to the existing RLDS exit increases internal queueing capacity by providing space for cars to circle through the parking lot (even with parents still not pulling forward). 175 feet 325 feet 200 – 300 feet STEM Combined parking lot operations limits actual internal queueing capacity due to parents entering from two directions (many use the RDLS entrance instead of driving out of direction). Physically separating the parking lots between the two schools will force parents to enter via the designated STEM entrance and exit, thereby creating more orderly operations and increasing queueing capacity. 350 feet 750 feet 450 – 550 feet 1 Identified during field analysis of arrival and dismissal on Tuesday, September 29, 2020. These are not considered “normal” conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, though provide the best real-world analysis possible during the time of this Study. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 The potential parking lot configuration would significantly increase internal queueing capacity for both schools while creating formalized parking lot circulation via separated, streamlined operations per school. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 50 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Multimodal Access An important consideration of the parking lot redesign is how children will be able to safely cross driveways as well as comfortably and conveniently access the school (i.e., main entrances, bike parking, etc.). Each mode needs a well-defined and highly recognizable, separated path of travel across the parking lot.3 Focus on such enhancements ensure that the largely auto-focused parking lot reconstruction is balanced with multimodal improvements to ensure driving is not further incentivized by the potential project. Driveway Design Driveway design best practices from the SRTS National Partnership’s Keep Calm and Carry-On to School – Improving Arrival and Dismissal for Walking and Bicycling (2018) were reviewed to identity key items for consideration during the design development phase of the project.  Driveway Consolidation: Removing driveways without significantly impacting traffic operations to eliminated conflict points and improve multimodal connectivity.  Driveway Width: Minimize driveway width to reduce the distance and exposure for those crossing. Narrowed driveway lanes and tightened curb radii will increase safety by slowing the turning speeds of entering or exiting vehicles. A driveway that is a total of 24 feet wide with two 10-foot lanes plus curb would significantly improve the crossing over existing conditions.  Driveway Crossing Infrastructure: The Richfield Dual Language School’s entrance and exit do not have a continuous sidewalk connection across the driveways (see existing and improved examples below). The existing design allows higher turning speeds which creates unsafe crossing conditions. The continuous sidewalk across the driveway, along with tightened curb radii, will slow turning vehicles. It will also achieve ADA-compliance by maintaining a level pathway along the corridor. 3 Keep Calm and Carry On to School – Improving Arrival and Dismissal for Walking and Biking (2018), Safe Routes to School National Partnership CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 51 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY  Other Driveway Considerations: Two other driveway design considerations include implementing pedestrian-scale lighting at driveway crossings and no parking controls within 60-feet of the 70th Street driveway. The parking restrictions would remove approximately six parking spaces, though provide needed sight distance for outbound vehicles to properly see 70th Street traffic. Dangerous driving conditions were viewed during a field visit due to motorists exiting the Richfield Dual Language School by turning without properly seeing if the travel lanes were clear or drivers inching out into the parking lane to view westbound traffic while both blocking the sidewalk and not looking for pedestrians or bicyclists. Intra-Site Connectivity Sidewalk connectivity along and across the parking lot is key toward providing children safe passage from 70th Street or 12th Avenue to the main entrances of either school. Moreover, following desire lines of travel is important toward ensuring out-of-direction travel is minimized as that can promote unsafe behavior.  Seven-foot, curb-separated sidewalk east-west across the length of the parking lot. Running between the 60-degree parking stalls, the sidewalk is wide enough to provide a five-foot clear zone when accounting for bumpers that may protrude across the curb line.  Eight- to ten-foot buffered sidewalk running north-south in between the two parking lots and connecting 70th Street to the school frontage. The separated sidewalk provides comfortable multimodal connectivity and could include landscaping, trees, and pedestrian-scale lighting. This could be a visually improved gateway connection from 70th Street to the schools.  Ten-foot sidewalks surrounding the parking lots. This includes along both 70th Street and 12th Avenue, as well as the school frontage. North-south sidewalk connectivity from the 10th Avenue intersection to the Richfield Dual Language School main entrance is also maintained and expanded to ten feet. 12th Avenue sidewalk looking south at the Richfield STEM School. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 52 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS AND SIDEWALK UPGRADES The study of crossing improvements and sidewalk upgrades adjacent to the school was performed. This included both uncontrolled and controlled crossings of 70th Street, ADA-improvements to crossings and sidewalk, and filling a sidewalk gap along 71st Street. Crossing Improvements Roadways with higher traffic volumes and perceived speeds can become barriers for children to walk, roll, or bike safely, comfortably, and conveniently to access their school. Safety improvements at intersections or crossings was the number one issue and corresponding need identified in the parent surveys when considering allowing their child to walk or bike to school. Three adjacent intersections were further analyzed for potential multimodal enhancements. Potential crossing infrastructure was reviewed using the latest guidance from the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Guide (2018), Minnesota Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2020), MnDOT’s Minnesota Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), Minnesota Local Road Research Board’s (LRRB) Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Guide (2020), Saint Paul’s Street Design Manual (2016), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide. Each infrastructure item has an estimated average cost using planning-level guidance found in MnDOT’s Minnesota Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety or the Minnesota LRRB Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Guide. The net benefit is described as a crash modification factor (CMF) from the Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. A low-cost improvement could have a high benefit illustrating how the two measures are not exclusive. Infrastructure elements were identified using location-specific engineering judgment. Cost estimates were further distilled per the planning-level concept design produced for each location as described in Chapter 5. 70th Street and Elliot Avenue The intersection is side-street, stop-controlled and is an uncontrolled crossing of 70th Street because a stop- sign or other traffic control device along 70th Street is not present. Infrastructure improvements could enhance this crossing location and support a safer and more comfortable environment for people of all ages and abilities to cross the free-flow traffic (see Table 7). As demand at this location increases, a crossing guard could be assigned to this location as identified in the Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014). CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 53 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Table 7. Uncontrolled Crossing Infrastructure Options Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Marking Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 Advanced Yield Markings Minimum 20 feet, preferred 30-50 feet from crosswalk. Markings increases the comfort of people crossing and motorist site distance. $1,500 per crossing 0.75 - 0.89 Enhanced Signage R1-5b signs to denote the location where drivers should stop from crosswalk. Additional crossing and advanced warning signs to alert drivers. $1,000 per crossing Unvail- able Pedestrian Island Refuge Minimum six-feet wide, preferred eight to ten feet wide. Minimum 20 feet long, preferred 40 to 60 feet long. $25,000 to $50,000 per crossing 0.46 – 0.54 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,00 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, MnDOT (2021); Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2020); Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Uncontrolled crossing of 66th Street with pedestrian island refuge and enhanced signage in Richfield. Source: Google Streetview 70th Street and 12th Avenue The intersection is all-way, stop-controlled which can be difficult to cross for children dependent upon the traffic volumes and number of lanes (e.g., crossing distance). The intersection is the busiest near the schools and is a key connection point due to existing sidewalks along both the 70th Street and 12th Avenue corridors. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were analyzed to increase the safety and comfort of those crossing (see Table 8). Additional analysis was performed using AutoTURN to determine if a 45-foot school bus could successfully complete an eastbound right-turn with the proposed curb extensions. It was confirmed that by overtaking the northbound lane at the intersection the bus could (see Appendix C). An adult crossing guard is present at the intersection during peak periods immediately before and after school. CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 54 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Table 8. Crossing Infrastructure Options at 70th Street and 12th Avenue (all-way stop) Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings and Stop Bar Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. Minimum four feet, up to eight feet from crosswalk to limit vehicle encroachment. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign In addition to the R1-1, include R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing Unvail- able Curb Extension Maximize extension as it aligns with applicable design vehicle turning radius. Reduces the crossing distance as well as improves motorist vision of people crossing. $2,000 to $3,500 per corner1 0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,00 per intersection 0.55 1 $10,000 to $20,000 per corner with storm sewer impacts. Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board (2020); Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Elliot Avenue and 71st Street The intersection is side-street, stop-controlled and lower volume than other intersections analyzed in this Study. It was identified in the Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan due to existing sidewalk connections and existing curb ramp on the west side of Elliot Avenue. Potential crossing infrastructure improvements were studied to improve accessibility and achieve ADA-compliance (see Table 9). Table 9. Crossing Infrastructure Options at Elliot Avenue and 71st Street (side-street stop) Infrastructure Guidance Avg. Cost CMF High Visibility Crosswalk Markings Continental design and at least six feet wide to provide a comfortable crossing. $3,000 per crossing 0.6 In-street Pedestrian Sign In addition to the R1-1, include R1-6c signs at each approach to properly alert drivers. These could be paired with SCHOOL plaque. $1,000 per crossing Unvail- able Curb Ramp Directional, ADA-compliant curb ramps to shorten crossing distance and enhance accessibility. Location dependent Unvail- able Pedestrian-scale Lighting Adheres to illumination guidance. $10,000 to $40,00 per intersection 0.55 Source: Minnesota’s Best Practice for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (2021), MnDOT; Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020); Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 55 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Sidewalk Upgrades Sidewalk connectivity is a critical piece of multimodal infrastructure, providing space for children to walk, run, skate and play, and bike (if younger).4 Providing sidewalk facilities can reduce pedestrian crashes by up to 88 percent per the FHWA when compared to walking in the roadway. The existing sidewalk surrounding, and adjacent to, the schools was reviewed as well as potential gaps in the network. Sidewalk Gaps A sidewalk gap along 71st Street from 12th Avenue to Elliot Avenue was identified in two previous plans and confirmed by this Study as a continued need. Constructing a six-foot wide sidewalk here would fill a priority sidewalk gap in the City while providing an approximately 900-foot east-west connection between the existing 12th Avenue and Elliot Avenue sidewalks. Two options were considered along the north side of 71st Street including moving the existing fence adjacent to the athletic fields or moving the curb and reducing the width of the street. Both options preserve the existing mature street trees. Additional detail of each option can be found in Chapter 5. Sidewalk Maintenance and Widening Adequately maintained sidewalks are important toward ensuring people of all ages and abilities can access their destination, including children walking or rolling to school. Sidewalks surrounding the school property along 70th Street, 12th Avenue, and Elliot Avenue, as well as immediately west of the schools along 71st Street, should be further reviewed for future maintenance and upgrades. A preliminary review identified locations with heaving, cracks, and uneven sidewalk that could prevent a mobility challenged child from using the sidewalk and creating general safety hazards (i.e., tripping, etc.). 4 Saferoutesinfo.org. (n.d.). Sidewalks. http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/sidewalks.cfm#corridor Existing sidewalk along Elliot Avenue. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 CHAPTER 4 – Alternative Evaluation 56 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Sidewalk widening is another consideration that could benefit children accessing the schools who typically like to walk in groups or alongside an adult. Nearby sidewalks are primarily five feet wide with a boulevard. The sidewalk widens slightly along 70th Street and 12th Avenue near the schools, however, the boulevard disappears. The usable space of those wider sections is also hindered due to utility poles along 70th Street and surface quality along 12th Avenue which limits the clear zone widths and ADA-accessibility. The clear zone of a sidewalk is the unobstructed width of the sidewalk and must be at minimum four feet per the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (see Figure 23). The City of Richfield Code identifies six-foot wide sidewalk as the minimum under most circumstances. Higher-volume locations, such as near schools, are better suited by eight or ten-foot-wide sidewalks. Figure 23. Example of Sidewalk Pedestrian Clear Zones Source: City of Seattle Page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 57 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 5: POTENTIAL PROJECTS This chapter organizes the potential projects identified and described in Chapter 4 (see Table 10 and Figure 24). Each project and associated key elements are described in fact sheets that are designed to be independently used external to this Study document for public outreach or grant applications. Pertinent information such as key project items, estimated cost, and infrastructure items are included. Table 10. Potential Safe Routes to School Projects ID1 Location Project Type Description Estimated Cost2 C1 Elliot Avenue Uncontrolled Crossing Crossing of 70th Street at the intersection. $40,000 C2 70th Street and 12th Avenue Major Intersection Crossing upgrades to an all-way stop. $35,000 C3 Elliot Avenue Uncontrolled Crossing Crossing of Elliot Avenue at 71st Street. $6,500 (crossing only) $120,000 (crossing+sidewalk)3 S1a 71st Street Sidewalk Construction of sidewalk from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. $110,000 S1b 71st Street Sidewalk Construction of sidewalk from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. $165,000 S2 12th Avenue Sidewalk Reconstruct sidewalk from 70th Street to 71st Street and add a bus pullout. $90,000 P1 RDLS/STEM Parking Lot Parking Lot Parking lot rehabilitation or reconstruction (two options). $175,000 (mill & overlay) $830,000 (preserve curb) $1,050,000 (full reconstruct) 1 Order does not denote priority. 2 Cost estimates for crossing infrastructure does not include pedestrian-scale lighting and were developed using the concept designs produced by SRF Consulting Group. Parking lot cost range denotes efficiencies described in the project page. 3 Includes new sidewalk along Elliot Avenue from 70th Street to 71st Street and 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to Chicago Avenue. Source: SRF Consulting Group, 2020 Estimated project costs derived from the concept designs are produced for high-level estimating and require additional design and engineering. The estimates in this Study include (percentages derived from total):  Grading (10%) if applicable.  Erosion control (3-5%) if applicable.  Signing and striping (1-10%) if applicable.  Storm improvements (10%) if applicable.  Mobilization (5%) included for all projects.  Contingency (20%) included for all projects. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 58 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY During the Study process, the school district inquired about the potential cost associated with temporary installation of crossing improvements identified in this Study. If there is a need or desire by all relevant parties to expedite implementation, one option would be to install temporary infrastructure also referred to as a “quick build” process. “Quick build” is a project delivery method that allows for the rapid deployment of multimodal safety improvements using specific temporary materials.5 Those materials can include signage, pavement markings or striping, and bollards or flex posts. Such materials can implement within an expedited timeline, curb extensions, pedestrian island refuges, and other multimodal infrastructure. Implementing the potential crossing improvements with temporary infrastructure is an interim opportunity following the completion of final design and during the process of requesting and securing funding as well as constructing the permanent improvement. A local example of an agency implementing “quick build” projects is Minneapolis Public Works via their Vision Zero program. Three considerations of quick-build infrastructure:  Ensure a maintenance plan and agreement is in place. Bollards or flex posts can be routinely knocked over by motorists, pavement markings can fade, etc. It is important to not allow temporary projects to fall into disrepair while also understanding that these projects are not long-term solutions.  Temporary infrastructure is an opportunity to see if a design works for relatively low up-front costs. An example could be the proposed curb extensions at 70th Street and 12th Avenue where such a design could be tested, and tracked, to ensure it does not hinder larger vehicles turning. Depending upon the outcome the design can be tweaked or removed from consideration. This is the opportunity in which design modifications may be completed prior to construction of curb and gutter, pavement, and other permanent infrastructure that is much more costly to move or remove.  There is also an opportunity to broadly collect data that could support funding requests and future construction of permanent improvements at these locations, as well as data for the school district or City to use in future applicable projects. It was estimated from the planning-level designs that quick-build crossings could be implemented at 70th Street and Elliot Avenue and 70th Street and 12th Avenue for approximately $8,500 per location. This cost estimate could change and does not include infrastructure items such as pedestrian-scale lighting or account for potential maintenance needs. The following are sources used for information on the project pages:  Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (September 2020)  Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crosswalk Quick Reference Guidance, Minnesota Local Road Research Board  Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse 5 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (n.d.). Quick-Build Materials. https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/bicycle-pedestrian- mobility/complete-streets/quick-build-materials Proposed Enhanced Crossing Proposed Sidewalk Upgrade Proposed Sidewalk Improvement ID Focus School # Richﬁeld STEM School and Dual Language School Potential Safe Routes to School Projects Richﬁeld, MN Figure 24 Existing Sidewalk Richﬁeld Dual Language School Existing Buered Bike Lane Existing Shared Lane (Sharrow) C1 C2 C3 P1 S1 Review for potential future bike lane implementation. Richﬁeld STEM School Lowered speed limits along 70th Street and 12th Avenue could potentially enhance the safety and comfort of children walking, rolling, or bicycling along and across the corridors. School zone speeds could also be further reviewed as none are present in the City. East 70th Street East 71st Street Elliot AvenueChicago Avenue13th Avenue South14th Avenue SouthColumbus AvenuePark Avenue10th Avenue South11th Avenue South12th Avenue South0 250 500 ft S2 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : CROSSING 70TH & ELLIOT // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - Crossing Concept: 70th St & Elliot Ave Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 2 E 70TH ST ELLIOT AVE S60 C1. EAST 70TH STREET AND ELLIOT AVENUE $$8,500 (temporary)* - $40,000 (permanent)** KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Side-street stop-controlled intersection, adjacent to the Richfield Dual Language School, can be difficult to cross due to free-flow traffic. Reducing the crossing distance can increase predictability of vehicle gaps and limit crossing exposure/conflict points. • Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distance of 70th Street from up to 50 feet to as little as 38 feet with the two-stage crossing. • Medians could provide dual benefit as chicanes and slow 70th Street traffic. • Requires removal of approximately 8 on-street parking spaces. • Buffered bike lane width will be maintained. *Cost estimate includes temporary infrastructure such as pavement markings/striping, signage, and bollards or flex posts. **Cost estimate includes permanent infrastructure listed on next page. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Est. 0-5 children during peak periods per observations on 9/29/2020. Further study required. 3,150 (west), 2,100 (east), 600 (north), 200 (south) Posted 30 mph all approaches. RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 61 C1. EAST 70TH STREET AND ELLIOT AVENUE Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk All legs Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. $5,000 0.6 Advanced Yield Markings 30-feet from 70th St. crosswalk Increases motorist sight distance and identifies where drivers should yield in advance of crosswalk.0.75-0.89 Enhanced Signage R1-5b, other appropriate warning signage Identifies where drivers should stop in advance of the crosswalk.N/A Pedestrian Island Refuge (median) & Curb Ramps E and W legs (8-feet wide & 50-feet long)Shortens crossing distance and creates two-stage crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches.$35,000 0.46-0.54 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000- $40,0001 0.55 1 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition per Google Maps, 2020. RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : CROSSING 70TH & 12TH // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - Crossing Concept: 70th St & 12th Ave Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 3 E 70TH ST12TH AVE SC2. EAST 70TH STREET AND 12TH AVENUE SOUTH KEY PROJECT ITEMS • All-way stop controlled intersection which can be difficult for children to cross. Reducing the crossing distance can increase predictability of stopped vehicles and limit crossing exposure/conflict points. • Adjacent to the Richfield STEM School and a key crossing for children to access the school campus. • Proposed improvements could shorten crossing distances of 70th Street and 12th Avenue from up to 48 feet and 44 feet to as little as 40 feet and 32 feet, respectively. • Buffered bike lane width is maintained. 62 $$8,500 (temporary)* - $35,000 (permanent)** *Cost estimate includes temporary infrastructure such as pavement markings/striping, signage, and bollards or flex posts. **Cost estimate includes permanent infrastructure listed on next page. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Est. 5-10 children during peak periods per observations on 9/29/2020. Further study required. 2,100 (west), 1,500 (east), 2,050 (north), 2,300 (south) Posted 30 mph all approaches. RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 63 C2. EAST 70TH STREET AND 12TH AVENUE SOUTH Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk & Stop Bar Markings All legs Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. Stop bar limits vehicle encroachment (4-foot min. distance from crosswalk, preferred up to 8-feet).$5,000 0.6 Enhanced Signage All legs, R1-6c Reminds motorists of state right-of-way laws for people crossing.N/A Curb Extension & Curb Ramps SW and SE corners1 Shortens crossing distance and increases motorist vision of people crossing. Includes new ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalk approaches.$30,000 0.55 Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000- $40,0002 0.55 1 Could be implemented only along 70th Street if 12th Avenue bike lanes are implemented. 2 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition per Google Maps, 2020. RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : CROSSING 71ST & ELLIOT // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - Crossing Concept: 71st St & Elliot Ave Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 4 E 71ST ST ELLIOT AVE S64 C3. EAST 71ST STREET AND ELLIOT AVENUE $$6,500 (crossing only), $120,000 (crossing + sidewalk) KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Side-street stop-controlled intersection with no existing crosswalk and lack of curb ramp on east side. • Potential key crossing due to the high-density of student households immediately southwest of the project. • Crossing only option includes the ADA-compliant ramp on the east side, tie-in to the sidewalk, crosswalk markings, and associated signage. • Adjacent sidewalks require reconstruction due to existing cracks, bumps, and an uneven surface limiting mobility for those of all ages and abilities. The width along Elliot Avenue is also not up to City code. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Unknown, further study required. 275 (west), 250 (north), 375 (south) Posted 30 mph RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 65 C3. EAST 71ST STREET AND ELLIOT AVENUE Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Crosswalk South leg Delineates pedestrian crossing and alerts drivers. $6,500 0.6 Curb Ramp South leg ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility and interconnect three existing sidewalks.N/A Sidewalk Elliot Ave, 71 St Replacement of approximately 975 feet of existing sidewalk to increase accessibility. Add street trees where possible.$113,500 N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.$10,000- $40,0001 0.55 1 Cost is not included in the overall project estimate. This item is optional and will likely increase the total cost of the project. EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition per Google Maps, 2020. RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : 71ST SIDEWALK // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - 71st St Sidewalk (New Fence Concept) Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 5 E 71ST ST E 71ST ST 12TH AVE SELLIOT AVE S66 S1a. EAST 71ST STREET – ELLIOT AVE. TO 12TH AVE. SOUTH $$110,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a sidewalk gap identified in both the Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014) and Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan (2018), the latter of which identifies this segment as a “priority pedestrian route”. • The sidewalk would be constructed entirely on school district property which eases implementation without private property owners. • This option would move the existing chain-link fence north to provide space for a six-foot sidewalk while providing a wide enough boulevard to maintain existing mature street trees. • Provides a connection to both schools for students from the south, as well as alternate connection via the east and west. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Unknown, further study required. 275 (west), 225 (east) Posted 30 mph RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 67 S1a. EAST 71ST STREET – ELLIOT AVE. TO 12TH AVE. SOUTH Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk 71st St Six-foot sidewalk connection fills a 900-foot east-west gap. $110,000 N/A Curb Ramp 71st/Elliot ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility.N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.NA1 0.55 EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition per Google Maps, 2020. 1 Requires review of the cost to implement 11 to 18 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDYH:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : 71ST SIDEWALK (2) // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - 71st St Sidewalk (New Curb Concept) Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 6 E 71ST ST E 71ST ST 12TH AVE SELLIOT AVE S68 S1b. EAST 71ST ST. – ELLIOT AVE. TO 12TH AVE. SOUTH $$165,000 KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Fills a sidewalk gap identified in both the Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan (2014) and Richfield Pedestrian Master Plan (2018), the latter of which identifies this segment as a “priority pedestrian route”. • The sidewalk would require public right-of-way by moving the existing curb eight feet south and reducing the roadway width from 34 feet to 26 feet. • This option would move the curb to provide space for a six-foot sidewalk while providing a wide enough boulevard to maintain existing mature street trees. • Provides a connection to both schools for students from the south, as well as alternate connection via the east and west. BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Unknown, further study required. 275 (west), 225 (east) Posted 30 mph RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 69 S1b. EAST 71ST ST. – ELLIOT AVE. TO 12TH AVE. SOUTH Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk 71st St Six-foot sidewalk connection fills a 900-foot east-west gap. $165,000 N/A Curb Ramp 71st/Elliot ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility.N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.NA1 0.55 EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition per Google Maps, 2020. 1 Requires review of the cost to implement 11 to 18 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 70 S2. 12TH AVENUE BUS PULLOUT KEY PROJECT ITEMS •Provides a location for up to five 20 or 25-foot school buses to queue along the Richfield STEM School’s 12th Avenue frontage outside of the southbound travel lane. Buses currently park in the travel lane causing congestion and safety issues for all roadway users. •The upgrades enhance access to the school for students of all abilities. •Reconstruct and widen 250-feet of existing sidewalk to accommodate students boarding or alighting the school buses. Widened sidewalk provides the dual benefit of enhancing the pedestrian experience along a portion of 12th Avenue. •Upgrade the stair and ramp access to the Richfield STEM School to accommodate the wider sidewalk. •The pull out could double as short-term or handicap parking access when school buses are not present. $$90,000 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN & BIKE CRASHES PEDESTRIAN & BIKE VOLUMES TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) TRAFFIC SPEED 0 and 0 Unknown, further study required. 2,300 Posted 30 mph RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Infrastructure Implementation Benefit Estimated Cost CMFs Sidewalk 12th Ave.12-foot sidewalk connection along 250 feet of the corridor. $90,000 N/A Bus Pull Out 12th Ave.150-foot long pull out to accommodate buses that currently queueon-street and block 12th Avenue traffic.N/A Pedestrian-scale Lighting Optional Enhances safety by better illuminating people crossing, especially children. Adheres to illumination guidance.NA1 0.55 1 Requires review of the cost to implement 4 to 7 lights depending upon the desired spacing (50 to 80 feet). 71 EXISTING CONDITION Existing condition per Google Maps, 2020. S2. 12TH AVENUE BUS PULLOUT RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY 72 P1. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE KEY PROJECT ITEMS • Range of options include a hybrid (most expensive) with a full reconstruction of the parking lot. Other option maintains the parking lot within existing curb lines which could reduce reconstruction costs. Final option estimates a mill and overlay of existing pavement mill/overlay, striping, and bollards to implement proposed parking lot circulation improvements and access modifications. • Provides two separate parking lots and drop-off/pick-up facilities for each school. This will improve access and circulation, while streamlining operations for both schools. • Access is maintained for the Richfield STEM School along 12th Avenue and shifted south to expand queue space between the access and the 70th Street/12th Avenue intersection. • One access is proposed for the Richfield Dual Language School to improve operations and safety, as well as enhance multimodal connectivity and safety along 70th Street. • Internal connectivity is further enhanced by east-west sidewalks within the parking lot as well as a north-south gateway connection between the two parking lots from 70th Street. • Space along 12th Avenue is included for special needs buses to queue and drop-off/pick-up. • Though not designated as a current crossing location, ADA-curb ramp accommodations could be planned at the 10th Avenue and 11th Avenue intersections as a part of a future reconstruction project. Those ramps along 70th Street could facilitate crossings at these locations in addition to applicable crossing infrastructure per existing guidance.H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : CONCEPT 2 PREFERRED // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - Preferred Design Concept (2A) Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 1 X X Existing Parking Stalls: 140 Proposed Stalls: 114 E 70TH ST 12TH AVE S$$1,050,000 (pictured), $830,000 (preserve curblines), $175,000 (mill & overlay*) *Cost estimates do not include sidewalk and bus parking improvements along 12th Avenue. RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY P1. PARKING LOT ALTERNATIVE Infrastructure Improvement Description and Benefit Sidewalk Internal 7-foot sidewalk east-west and 8- to 10-foot north-south. 10-foot sidewalk along the school frontage and 70th Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. Wider sidewalks will improve accessibility, especially along 70th Street where light poles currently limit the clear zone width. Include street trees and landscaping when possible. Curb Ramp ADA-compliant curb ramps increase accessibility throughout the internal sidewalk network. Include crosswalk markings at all drive aisle crossings. Pedestrian-scale Lighting Provide adequate lighting throughout the parking lot to properly illuminate pedestrians and bicyclists. Parking Spaces An approximate 26 space reduction is proposed with a total of 114 spaces. About 75 percent peak occupancy was viewed during a 9/29/2020 observation which could be accommodate by the proposed configuration. Parking design remains 60-degree with a one-way drive aisle. BACKGROUND EXISTING QUEUE CAPACITY & USE, PROPOSED CAPACITY ALL CRASHES AT ACCESSTRAFFIC VOLUMES (AADT) PEAK HOUR ACCESS VOLUMES (INBOUND + OUTBOUND)RDLS: Existing - 175 ft and avg. 150 ft., max 300 ft., Proposed - 350 ft | STEM: Existing - 700 ft. and avg. 200 ft., max 600 ft., Proposed - 700 ft. RDLS: 1, STEM: 12,100 to 3,150 (70th St.), 2,300 (12th Ave.) RDLS: up to ~325, STEM: up to ~485 73 OTHER ALTERNATIVE This option preserves curb line which could reduced costs as full reconstruction may not be required.H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Concepts.dwg : CONCEPT 2 // 8/17/2020 - 4:50PMRichfield STEM School - Concept 2 Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 2 X X Existing Parking Stalls: 140 Concept 2 Stalls: 143 CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 74 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Vehicle Speeds Geometric improvements (i.e., traffic calming), coupled with lowered posted speed, could reduce speeds along Arcade Street. Lowering the posted speed will not decrease speeds alone. Medians can double as chicanes that slow traffic as lanes shift. An example is Portland Avenue in Richfield, which meanders at intersections with pedestrian island refuges and narrowed lanes (ten feet plus gutter pan). Narrowed lanes and traffic calming could lower speeds due to increased friction for motorists while maximizing ROW for multimodal uses. MnDOT standards identify travel lane widths of 10 or 11 feet (inclusion of the gutter pan as a part of the lane width is location dependent) along urban and suburban collector roadways under 50 mph.6 Tighter lane widths are credited with positively impacting a street’s safety without affecting traffic operations. Portland Avenue in Richfield. Source: Google Streetview Speed is a critical factor toward lowering the risk of serious injury or death when someone is struck by a vehicle. Children are at even higher risk due to their body size and corresponding increase in the popularity of larger vehicles (i.e., sport utility vehicles) in the United States. Speed correlates directly with a motorist’s stopping distance and vision which can be life or death for people walking and bicycling (see Figure 25). Figure 25. Stopping and Sight Distance Source: City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets (2020), National Association of Transportation Officials 6 Minnesota Department of Transportation. (2018). Travel Lane Width Standards for State Highways, Technical Memoranda 18-08-RS-06. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 75 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The traffic speed and corresponding risk of serious injury or death shows how even minor changes in vehicular speed can produce major benefits as severity exponentially increases with speed, most notably above 35 mph (see Figure 26). A person could have an approximate 25 percent likelihood of death if they were hit by a car at the posted speed of 30 mph while crossing the road at an uncontrolled location. Figure 26. Likelihood of Injury or Death by Traffic Speed Source: City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets (2020), NACTO School zone speed limits have been successfully implemented in communities across Minnesota. They are lower than the posted speed, typically between 15 mph and 25 mph depending upon the roadway context, though cannot be more than 30 mph below the posted speed limit. The MN MUTCD provides instruction to local agencies for establishing and designing school speed zones. An engineering study is required to formally install a school speed zone and includes identification of walking routes and hazards to confirm that a speed reduction is necessary. The school zone may be located 100 feet from the school property or as near to the practical point where the school zone speed should reasonably begin. In addition to a school zone, the use of both dynamic speed signs and speed enforcement during peak school periods should also be considered. A review of MnDOT-approved dynamic speeds signs showed one option with speed feedback display and flashers to further draw a motorist’s attention for compliance (see example image at right). Estimated cost per dynamic display is $10,000 and per LED flashing school sign is $3,000. Both options draw motorist’s attention and encourage drivers to slow down by making them aware of their current speed. The LED sign alerts drivers to the school zone speed and can be programmed for specific time of day, day of week, and month of year to ensure it only flashes when necessary. Source: RU2 Systems, Fast- 250 Radar Speed Feedback Sign with Flashers CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 76 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Pedestrian-scale Lighting Pedestrian-scale lighting is shorter and more frequently placed along a corridor to better illuminate people walking or bicycling as opposed to typical vehicle-oriented lighting (see Figure 27). Such lighting is critical at roadway crossings and can reduce all types of injury crashes by 59 percent.7 The shorter lighting increases the lux (amount of light in lumens per square meter) which is recommended 20 to 40 lux at five feet above the road surface to provide adequate vertical illumination within a crosswalk. Typically, pedestrian-scaled lighting is 12 to 15 feet tall (less than 20 feet) and is spaced approximately every 50 to 80 feet along a corridor or within ten feet of a crosswalk. Spacing and placement is context specific, however. During a request for confirmation of issues surrounding the school property by the school district and City, better street lighting was one item that arose. Most notably 70th Street along the school frontage and the adjacent intersections were identified. Surrounding all sides of the school campus (including 71st Street upon construction of the potential sidewalk connection) an estimated 40 to 80 pedestrian-scale lights would be required per typical spacing. Lighting along key corridors to the schools, such as 70th Street within the District’s walk zone, could also be implemented. Given the typical block size in Richfield, it is estimated at 80- foot spacing, three lights on the north and south edges and seven lights along the east and west. Figure 27. Lighting Design Guidance for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Source: Lighting Design Guidance, Global Designing Cities Initiative Bicycle Infrastructure To determine appropriate bicycle infrastructure, the AADT volumes and posted speed limits were analyzed using MnDOT’s guidance for urban and suburban roadways per the Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) (see Figure 28). 7 Gibbons, Ronald B. (2008). Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. FHWA- HRT-08-05, 1-32, Office of Safety Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 77 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY The buffered bike lane along 70th Street aligns with this guidance per the existing speed limit of 30 mph and AADT volume of approximately 1,500 to 3,000. The existing shared lane (i.e., “sharrow”) along 12th Avenue could be upgraded to a painted bike lane to better align with MnDOT guidance for urban or suburban roadways. This could provide lower stress bicycle infrastructure for a child to use as opposed to today’s conditions. Further analysis is required before implementing potential improvements as limitations may exist such as removal of on-street parking to accommodate bike lanes in each direction due to roadway width. Figure 28. MnDOT Bicycle Infrastructure Guidance = 12th Avenue Source: MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual (2020) Parking Lot – Vehicular Improvements Other considerations were identified as a part of the parking lot reconstruction including identifying locations for adequate snow storage, signing and striping, and a no idling policy. All elements should be further reviewed as a final parking lot designed is organized. Snow Storage Specific areas to accommodate on-site snow storage that are adequate for average seasonal snowfall were identified as a key concern by school district staff for the parking lot redesign. The landscaped setbacks at the edges of the parking lot could provide some storage capacity, most notably the northwest corner. Additional analysis is required for final design. CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 78 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Signage and Striping Additional signage was not considered as a part of the Study, though should be upon completion of final design. All signage and striping should comply with the MN MUTCD. Additionally, signage and striping to facilitate orderly queueing and loading processes could be considered. Signage that is too wordy or hard to understand is discouraged (examples at right). No Idling Policy Another item for consideration could be “No Idle Zones” within the parking lot(s) to reduce air pollution caused by toxic vehicle exhaust. Air pollution can be exacerbated during peak periods, especially in the afternoon during student pick-up due to parents idling as they wait for school dismissal. Children’s lungs are still developing, and when exposed to elevated levels of these pollutants, can have increased risk of developing health problems.8 On average, one pound of carbon dioxide is released for every 10 minutes a vehicle is idling which illustrates the environmental and health benefits no idle zones could provide which aligns with the broader SRTS program objectives.9 Parking Lot – Multimodal Improvements Other multimodal considerations were identified as a part of the potential parking lot reconstruction project including special need bus parking, revised bike parking, upgraded community spaces, and enhanced landscaping. All elements should be further reviewed as a final parking lot design is organized. Special Needs Bus Access School district staff requested review of the feasibility to include a bump-in along 12th Avenue to accommodate special needs buses. It was determined that a 150-foot-long drop-off/pick-up area could be included to hold five queued 25-foot buses. The improvement also includes ADA-compliant sidewalk upgrades, and stair and ramp enhancements to access the Richfield STEM School main entrance. The potential widened sidewalk could be extended along the 12th Avenue school property frontage to further enhanced connectivity and accessibility. 8 United States Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.). Idle-Free Schools Toolkit for a Healthy School Environment. https://www.epa.gov/schools/idle-free-schools-toolkit-healthy-school-environment 9 Environmental Defense Funds (February 2009). Attention Drivers! Turn off your idling engines. https://www.edf.org/attention-drivers-turn- your-idling-engines CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 79 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Bicycle Parking Implement convenient, high-quality bicycle parking that match desire lines (internal sidewalk connections) and are near each school’s main entrance. Placement should be in a location where a bicyclist would not have to dismount until reaching the bike parking area. The Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals’ (APBP) Essentials of Bike Parking (2015) describes the various types and styles of racks, as well as those to avoid due to various performance concerns. The three styles pictured at right are those most recommended by APBP per their analysis. Enhanced accommodations could also be provided such as shelters and well-lit areas to increase security and protect bicycles/riders from the elements. Shelters that are moderately enclosed would be best for the wet and cold Minnesotan climate. Such amenities could incentivize ridership while easing security concerns by parents. Periodic monitoring throughout the day by staff is recommended to limit crimes of opportunity and ensure a secure parking location for student’s bicycles. School and Community Space Additional space can be repurposed for outdoor school use and learning opportunities. Sheltered areas can also be used by parents who are unable to wait in the school’s main entrance. Providing sheltered waiting space for parents to pick- up their child(ren) that walked or biked to school is important, most notably in the harsh Minnesotan climate. Finally, the space could be utilitarian community space for gatherings and events. One location identified for potentially such improvements could be the northwest corner of the proposed parking lot. Source: Croft Community School, Charlotte, North Caroline Source: APBP, 2015 Source: Bi-Store Cycle Shelter CHAPTER 5 – Potential Projects 80 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY Wayfinding and Playful Spaces NACTO’s Designing Streets for Kids (2020) is a good resource when considering how to make streets and public spaces safer, more comfortable, healthier, and joyful for children. It is important to think about street design from a three-foot high perspective (i.e., the perspective of a child). Numerous opportunities are identified in the guidance document and could be included upon further review of future improvements proposed in this Study and applications relevant to the school campus. One potentially applicable item is an example from Detroit, Michigan called the Brightmoor Runway. A sidewalk was transformed into a running track paved with red rubber surface, painted with the distance, and included a speed display. This interactive play space in the public realm provided children with an opportunity to engage in physical activity while waiting for their school bus (pictured below).10 Such artistic and playful opportunities have numerous benefits and can be low-cost improvements with lasting impacts. Landscaping and Trees High-quality landscaping and trees have shown to support cognitive development and improve educational experiences for children and the environment (e.g., air quality, urban heat island reduction, etc.).11 Potential improvements should consider street trees and other landscaping to improve the walking and bicycling experience, as well as the environment. Green infrastructure, such as stormwater filtration, could also be implemented as a part of the potential project. Aligning with the environmental goals of SRTS, the infrastructure could double as a living laboratory and educational space for children at both schools. 10 National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2020). Designing Cities for Kids, page 41. 11 Turner-Skoff, Jessica B. (2019). The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Journal of Plants, People, Planet, 1(4), 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.39 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency CHAPTER 6 – Next Steps 81 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY CHAPTER 6: NEXT STEPS This Study offers a range of potential infrastructure improvements to improve access to the Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School. Actionable next steps were organized to ensure this document is fully utilized and implemented to the best of the Richfield School District and City of Richfield’s ability. The proposed next steps are important as they will seek to maximize the Study’s analysis and potential improvements that will enhance the school campus where children cannot safely, comfortably, or conveniently walk, roll, or bike today. AGENCY COORDINATION The most critical step toward implementing potential infrastructure improvements is to identify a champion, such as the Richfield School District’s Safe Routes to School Coordinator, that will devote some portion of their time implementing this Study. Otherwise, champions could be applicable City representatives as their time permits. It is also helpful to organize a small team or committee (ideal size of five or less members) that include representatives from the City, school district, and school staff (i.e., school principals), as well as key stakeholders if applicable. The group’s objective can include identifying funding opportunities and creatively financing projects, building relationships, and educating the community about the planned improvements, and prioritizing projects identified in the Study. It may be helpful to have this group maintain a regular meeting schedule such as monthly or quarterly meeting frequencies to maintain proper engagement. IDENTIFY PRIORITIES Prioritizing projects is essential toward an orderly and timely implementation process. Key questions to consider include:  What project would provide the most benefit relative to cost and effort?  What does the City of Richfield and Richfield Public Schools view as key improvements?  Which projects could be incorporated into other work already taking place?  Which project is most likely to receive funding? CHAPTER 6 – Next Steps 82 RICHFIELD SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ENGINEERING STUDY FOCUSED TIMELINE AND ACTIONABLE STEPS Once priorities are identified, create a timeline of short- (0-1 years), mid- (1-3 years), and long-term goals (3-5 years). Do not extend past five years as that is a reasonable amount of time to require updated analysis and planning. The action plan does not need to be detailed and can simply identify planned improvements, responsible parties, the estimated cost, and associated time period. The action plan will help to focus the group on next steps and keep everyone on track, progress the plan forward each meeting, and be prepared for funding opportunities such as SRTS or those from the Metropolitan Council which are most applicable for multimodal projects. Additionally, integrating with work already planned by city, county, and state agencies, or the school district, will ensure cost effective implementation when those synergies arise. It is important to remember that project implementation takes time and each small step forward supports the broader effort and continues that longer progression forward towards eventual success. CELEBRATE WINS Make sure to celebrate wins and promote the completion of Safe Routes to School projects (Walk and Bike to School Days are good times do so) to educate the public and promote the program that is critical to children’s health (47 more minutes of physical activity per week) and their ability to walk, roll, or bike to school. Source: MnDOT APPENDICIES Appendix A – Richfield Safe Routes to School Grant Application (Parent Survey) Appendix B – Parking Utilization Data Appendix C – AutoTURN Graphic Appendix D – Concept Designs APPENDIX A 2020 Safe Routes to School Parent Survey Report 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 1 INTRODUCTION At what age would you let your child bike to school by themselves? Are you more concerned about the safety of intersections or the volume of traffic in your neighborhood? Does your child think walking to school is fun? When parents answer the questions above, they are providing insights into their own behavior— and how it might be changed. Increasing the amount of time children spend walking and bicycling is inarguably good. Physical activity and fresh air lead to improved long-term health outcomes, better academic performance, reductions in mental health concerns, and a greater connection to the outdoors and wider community. But for most children to walk or bike to and from school, their caregivers must perceive that routes to school are safe, comfortable, and convenient. Just how to help parents feel that way is found by examining responses to the questions above. Luckily, they can be answered using the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Parent Survey. What is the SRTS Parent Survey? The SRTS Parent Survey gathers information about what factors affect whether parents allow their children to walk or bike to school, the perception of key safety-related conditions along routes to school, and related background information. It also helps determine how to improve opportunities for children to walk or bike to school, and measure parental attitude changes as local SRTS programs occur. The survey’s questions fit into five categories: • Respondent Demographics • Student Demographics • Travel Behavior • Respondent Safety Concerns • Student Perceptions 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 2 Methodology of This Survey The SRTS Parent Survey is a standardized evaluation activity created by the National SRTS Partnership. Data from this survey forms the bedrock of most SRTS plans and programs, which is true in Richfield as well. Most recently, Richfield Public Schools (RPS) conducted this evaluation in 2013 in advance of the creation of the City of Richfield’s 2014 SRTS Comprehensive Plan. In 2020, the SRTS Parent Survey was administered as an addendum to a larger, district-wide survey of parents and caregivers. Surveys were available in English and Spanish, the two most commonly spoken languages in RPS households. All surveys were conducted digitally and anonymously. This evaluation was open for participation for approximately two weeks. Opportunity to share opinions was promoted via electronic communications channels, including social media and email, as well as in person at teacher conferences. About This Report This document was created to share the results of the SRTS Parent Survey conducted by RPS in February 2020. The sections include: • 2020 Results at a Glance • District-Wide Summary • School-Specific Summaries • Priority Segment Summaries • Appendix Uses of Findings Findings from this survey may be used for many purposes. These include identifying opportunities to increase student walking and bicycling at both the school-district-level and within each school community, tracking changes in perception and behavior over time, prioritizing the efforts of relevant staff and partners, and more. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 3 REPORTING PARTNERS Richfield Public Schools Richfield Public Schools inspires and empowers each individual to learn, grow, and excel. Across four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, the district serves more than 4,400 students and their families. www.richfieldschools.org Minnesota Safe Routes to School Minnesota Safe Routes to School combines the expertise of multiple state agencies with national and local partners to provide parent, school, and community groups with the resources needed to support walking and biking to school. This statewide effort promotes the development of comprehensive local SRTS programs that cover all 6Es: education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, evaluation, and equity. www. mnsaferoutestoschool.org SCHOOL-SPECIFIC SUMMARIES 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 20 RICHFIELD DUAL LANGUAGE SCHOOL 41 parents and caregivers of Richfield Dual Language School students responded to the survey. Introduction Richfield Dual Language School is one of two magnet elementary schools in the district. It is located in east central Richfield and shares a campus with the other magnet. The eligible enrollment area covers the entire city, thus many students arrive by school bus or in a family vehicle. Compared to other primary schools, RDLS has a longer history of education and encouragement programming related to walking and biking. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 21 Parent Demographics The Richfield Dual Language School participants are fairly representative of the larger RDLS community. • 44% of respondents identified as Hispanic/ Latino, which slightly underrepresents reported school demographics. • 39% of participants report Spanish as their primary at-home language. Student Demographics There was a balance of student grade levels from survey participants at Richfield Dual Language School. Kindergarten, 3rd, and 4th Grade received the most responses, while Pre-K grade received the least. Female-identifying children are slightly overrepresented, but not by a concerning margin (59% to 41% respectively). Travel Behavior Being a school with city-wide enrollment, the Compared to the district’s other elementary schools, Richfield Dual Language School has the largest proportion of students who live more than 1 mile away from school. • Despite the average distance, about 5% of families report walking to and from school. • Very few families spend more than 20 minutes traveling to or from RDLS • 29% of families would allow their children to walk or bike to school without an adult by the end of their education at RDLS. Respondent Safety Concerns The top three safety concerns at Richfield Dual Language School are the same as across the district, though in slightly different order. 1. Weather or climate (68%) 2. Safety of intersections and crossings (61%) 3. Distance (59%) Compared to other RPS elementary schools, RDLS caregivers identify more safety issues that are widely concerning to the respondents. Respondents are also very concerned about the “Amount of traffic along the route” (56%) and the “Speed of traffic along the route” (51%). Student Perceptions On average, caregivers and students at RDLS perceive walking and bicycling to be more fun and more healthy at a similar rate to the district at large. 43% of families perceive that the school “encourages” or “strongly encourages” biking and walking to school. PRIORITY SEGMENT SUMMARIES 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 29 LATINO COMMUNITY MEMBERS 60 parents and caregivers who self-identified as Hispanic/Latino responded to the survey. Introduction Latino youth comprise more than 41% of the student body at RPS. Projections expect that percentage to increase. SRTS engagement tailored to the needs and concerns of Richfield’s Latino families is necessary to ensure long-term SRTS sustainability in the district. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 30 Student Demographics While all grades were represented in the children of survey participants, our Latino- specific data skews toward caregivers of primary-school-aged children. Only ⅓ of the responses were provided by parents of secondary school students. Male- and female- identifying children are nearly equal within our Latino-specific data set. Respondent Safety Concerns The top three safety concerns among Latino parents and caregivers are the same as across the district, but in a slightly different order. 1. Weather or climate (65%) 2. Distance (58%) 3. Safety of intersections and crossings (52%) The #1 issue that, if changed, would encourage caregivers to walk and bike to school with their children more often was weather or climate. While changing the weather is beyond the capacity of Richfield Public Schools, education and encouragement around winter active transportation may be a fruitful pursuit. Travel Behavior The survey’s Latino respondents report living a similar distance from their child’s school compared to the district-wide average. It is worth noting that a much greater number of these participants answered this question “Don’t know,” which skews the results. • 8% of Latino families report walking to school, which is more than double the district average. This rate falls to 5% at the end of the school day, with an increase in school bus rides to get home. • Less than 20% of Latino families spend more than 20 minutes traveling to/from school. • Approximately 20% of families report that they would feel comfortable allowing their children to walk or bike to school before the end of elementary school, 41% by the end of middle school, and the remainder by the end of high school. Student Perceptions Broadly, caregivers and students in Latino families perceive walking and bicycling to school as fun, healthy, encouraged activity, and at rates similar to the district-wide results. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 31 FEMALE STUDENTS 145 caregivers identified completing the survey while considering their female child. Introduction In survey collection, there is a general dearth of disaggregated by gender, too often leading to underrepresentation of women and girls in survey results, as well as subsequent interpretation and action. This section is a modest effort to counteract this trend. Please note that gender was not asked of the parent or caregiver in the SRTS Parent Survey, only the child of the respondent. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 32 Parent Demographics Respondents with female children are not fully representative of the school district. • Only 19% of the survey’s respondents with female children identify as Hispanic/Latino, compared to about 41% of the student population that identifies as such. • White caregivers are overrepresented, completing 71% of the responses. Student Demographics While all grades were represented in the children of survey participants, our Female- specific represents a majority (56%) caregivers of primary-school-aged children. Respondent Safety Concerns The top three safety concerns among parents of female students are the same as across the district, but in a slightly different order. 1. Weather or climate (60%) 2. Distance (59%) 3. Safety of intersections and crossings (51%) The #1 issue that, if changed, would encourage caregivers to walk and bike to school with their children more often was safety of intersections and crossings, in line with district-wide trends. Travel Behavior The survey’s caregivers of female students report living a similar distance from their child’s school compared to the district-wide average. • Approximately 5% of these families report walking to or from school, comparable to the district average. • Approximately 23% of families report that their daughter asked to walk or bike to school in the past year. This is slightly less than households of boys, who report this request at 26%. • About 24% of families report that they would feel comfortable allowing their daughter to walk or bike to school before the end of elementary school. An additional 33% would do so by the end of middle school. About 23% of parents would not let their daughter walk or bike to school at any grade level (which is a comparable rate to male students). Student Perceptions Female students perceive walking and bicycling to school as less fun than the district as a whole. They do, however, perceive those activities as a healthy, encouraged activity, at rates similar to the rest of their classmates. APPENDIX: STATISTICS TABLES 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 50 Richfield Dual Language School Race and ethnic background of parent #%School % American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 2%0% Asian/Pacific Islander 2 5%1% Black, not of Hispanic origin 1 2$2$ Hispanic 18 44 67% White, not of Hispanic origin 23 56%25% Parent Demographics Language primarily spoken in the home #% Amharic 0 0% English 24 59% Filipino 0 0% French 0 0% Russian 1 2% Somali 0 0% Spanish 16 39% Tamil 0 0% Tibetan 0 0% Vietnamese 0 0% Other 0 0% How many children do you have at RPS?#% 1 child 15 37% 2 children 16 39% 3 children 8 20% 4 children 0 0% 5 children 0 0% What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? #% Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)1 2% Grades 9 through 11 (Some HS)3 7% Grade 12 or GED (HS graduate)3 7% College 1 to 3 years (Some college)5 12% College 4+ years (College graduate)25 68% Prefer not to answer 1 2% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 51 Student Demographics Grade of child being considered #% Pre-K 1 2% Kindergarten 9 22% 1st Grade 4 10% 2nd Grade 5 12% 3rd Grade 8 20% 4th Grade 8 20% 5th Grade 5 12% Sex at birth of child being considered #% Male 17 41% Female 24 59% Gender identity of child being considered #% Male 17 41% Female 24 41% They/them 0 0% Transgender Female 0 0% Prefer not to say 0 0% Travel Behavior Child’s distance from school #% Less than 1/4 mile 5 12% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 1 2% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 4 10% 1 mile up to 2 miles 15 37% More than 2 miles 11 27% Don’t Know 2 5% How does your child arrive at school?#% Walk 2 5% Bike 0 0% School Bus 18 44% Family vehicle 20 49% Carpool 1 2% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 52 How does your child leave from school?#% Walk 2 5% Bike 0 0% School Bus 19 46% Family vehicle 17 41% Carpool 0 0% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% Child’s travel time to school?#% Less than 5 minutes 8 20% 5-10 minutes 16 39% 11-20 minutes 11 27% More than 20 minutes 2 5% Don’t know/Not sure 1 2% Child’s travel time from school?#% Less than 5 minutes 8 20% 5-10 minutes 11 27% 11-20 minutes 14 34% More than 20 minutes 2 5% Don’t know/Not sure 1 2% At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? #% Pre-K 0 0% Kindergarten 0 0% 1st Grade 0 0% 2nd Grade 0 0% 3rd Grade 0 0% 4th Grade 5 12% 5th Grade 7 17% 6th Grade 6 15% 7th Grade 3 7% 8th Grade 1 2% 9th Grade 8 20% 10th Grade 0 0% 11th Grade 1 2% 12th Grade 1 2% I would not feel comfortable at any grade 9 22% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 53 Safety Concerns What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/ from school? #% Distance 24 59% Convenience of driving 2 5% Time 16 39% Child’s before or after-school activities 7 17% Speed of traffic along route 21 51% Amount of traffic along route 23 56% Adults to walk or bike with 7 17% Sidewalks or pathways 12 29% Safety of intersections and crossings 25 61% Crossing guards 5 12% Violence or crime 8 20% Weather or climate 28 68% Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? #% Yes 6 15% No 35 85% Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Yes No Not Sure Distance 21 11 9 Convenience of driving 8 19 14 Time 19 13 9 Child’s before or after-school activities 14 14 13 Speed of traffic along route 22 12 7 Amount of traffic along route 24 12 5 Adults to walk or bike with 18 12 11 Sidewalks or pathways 21 14 6 Safety of intersections and crossings 26 10 5 Crossing guards 19 13 9 Violence or crime 14 15 12 Weather or climate 21 12 8 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 54 Student Perceptions How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Fun 9 22% Fun 11 27% Neutral 18 44% Boring 1 2% Very Boring 2 5% How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Healthy 19 46% Healthy 12 29% Neutral 8 20% Unhealthy 1 2% Very Unhealthy 1 2% How much does your child’s school en- courage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? #% Strongly Encourages 1 2% Encourages 6 15% Neither 8 20% Discourages 1 2% Strongly Discourages 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 70 Latino Community Members Parent Demographics Language primarily spoken in the home #% Amharic 0 0% English 10 17% Filipino 0 0% French 0 0% Russian 0 0% Somali 0 0% Spanish 50 83% Tamil 0 0% Tibetan 0 0% Vietnamese 0 0% Other 0 0% How many children do you have at RPS?#% 1 child 29 48% 2 children 21 35% 3 children 5 8% 4 children 1 2% 5 children 0 0% What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? #% Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)5 8% Grades 9 through 11 (Some HS)15 25% Grade 12 or GED (HS graduate)9 15% College 1 to 3 years (Some college)6 10% College 4+ years (College graduate)20 33% Prefer not to answer 5 8% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 71 Student Demographics School of child being considered #% Centennial Elementary 13 22% Richfield STEM 7 12% Richfield Dual Language School 18 30% Sheridan Hills Elementary 3 5% Richfield Middle School 11 18% Richfield High School 8 13% Grade of child being considered #% Pre-K 2 3% Kindergarten 8 13% 1st Grade 9 15% 2nd Grade 4 7% 3rd Grade 4 7% 4th Grade 7 12% 5th Grade 6 10% 6th Grade 3 5% 7th Grade 6 10% 8th Grade 4 7% 9th Grade 1 2% 10th Grade 2 3% 11th Grade 1 2% 12th Grade 3 5% Sex at birth of child being considered #% Male 31 52% Female 29 48% Gender identity of child being considered #% Male 31 52% Female 29 48% They/them 0 0% Transgender Female 0 0% Prefer not to say 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 72 Travel Behavior Child’s distance from school #% Less than 1/4 mile 6 10% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 6 10% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 13% 1 mile up to 2 miles 10 17% More than 2 miles 19 32% Don’t Know 10 17% How does your child arrive at school?#% Walk 5 8% Bike 0 0% School Bus 30 50% Family vehicle 23 38% Carpool 2 3% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% How does your child leave from school?#% Walk 3 5% Bike 0 0% School Bus 33 55% Family vehicle 16 27% Carpool 0 0% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% Child’s travel time to school?#% Less than 5 minutes 11 18% 5-10 minutes 14 23% 11-20 minutes 21 35% More than 20 minutes 6 10% Don’t know/Not sure 4 7% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 73 Child’s travel time from school?#% Less than 5 minutes 10 17% 5-10 minutes 11 18% 11-20 minutes 21 35% More than 20 minutes 7 12% Don’t know/Not sure 4 7% Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? #% Yes 12 20% No 48 80% At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? #% Pre-K 0 0% Kindergarten 0 0% 1st Grade 0 0% 2nd Grade 0 0% 3rd Grade 2 3% 4th Grade 1 2% 5th Grade 4 7% 6th Grade 4 7% 7th Grade 4 7% 8th Grade 7 12% 9th Grade 9 15% 10th Grade 1 2% 11th Grade 1 2% 12th Grade 3 5% I would not feel comfortable at any grade 24 40% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 74 Safety Concerns What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/ from school? #% Distance 35 58% Convenience of driving 5 8% Time 13 22% Child’s before or after-school activities 9 15% Speed of traffic along route 19 32% Amount of traffic along route 21 35% Adults to walk or bike with 9 15% Sidewalks or pathways 9 15% Safety of intersections and crossings 31 52% Crossing guards 7 12% Violence or crime 22 37% Weather or climate 39 65% Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Yes No Not Sure Distance 29 16 15 Convenience of driving 20 20 20 Time 28 16 16 Child’s before or after-school activities 17 25 18 Speed of traffic along route 27 18 15 Amount of traffic along route 25 19 16 Adults to walk or bike with 28 17 15 Sidewalks or pathways 18 18 14 Safety of intersections and crossings 31 17 12 Crossing guards 24 20 16 Violence or crime 21 22 17 Weather or climate 33 18 9 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 75 Student Perceptions How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Fun 10 17% Fun 17 28% Neutral 30 50% Boring 1 2% Very Boring 2 3% How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Healthy 29 48% Healthy 22 37% Neutral 9 15% Unhealthy 0 0% Very Unhealthy 0 0% How much does your child’s school en- courage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? #% Strongly Encourages 6 10% Encourages 18 30% Neither 23 38% Discourages 1 2% Strongly Discourages 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 76 Female Students Parent Demographics Language primarily spoken in the home #% Amharic 2 1% English 112 77% Filipino 0 0% French 1 1% Russian 1 1% Somali 1 1% Spanish 26 18% Tamil 1 1% Tibetan 0 0% Vietnamese 1 1% Other 0 0% How many children do you have at RPS?#% 1 child 67 46% 2 children 62 43% 3 children 10 7% 4 children 2 1% 5 children 0 0% What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? #% Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)7 5% Grades 9 through 11 (Some HS)11 8% Grade 12 or GED (HS graduate)8 6% College 1 to 3 years (Some college)20 14% College 4+ years (College graduate)94 65% Prefer not to answer 5 3% Race and ethnic background of parent #% American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 1% Asian/Pacific Islander 6 4% Black, not of Hispanic origin 13 9% Hispanic 29 20% White, not of Hispanic origin 101 70% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 77 Student Demographics School of child being considered #% Centennial Elementary 11 8% Richfield STEM 25 17% Richfield Dual Language School 24 17% Sheridan Hills Elementary 20 14% Richfield Middle School 36 25% Richfield High School 26 18% Grade of child being considered #% Pre-K 8 6% Kindergarten 20 14% 1st Grade 16 11% 2nd Grade 6 4% 3rd Grade 12 8% 4th Grade 9 6% 5th Grade 10 7% 6th Grade 13 9% 7th Grade 15 10% 8th Grade 9 6% 9th Grade 7 5% 10th Grade 4 3% 11th Grade 9 6% 12th Grade 5 3% Travel Behavior Child’s distance from school #% Less than 1/4 mile 9 6% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 10% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 28 19% 1 mile up to 2 miles 44 30% More than 2 miles 37 26% Don’t Know 5 3% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 78 How does your child arrive at school?#% Walk 6 4% Bike 0 0% School Bus 58 40% Family vehicle 66 46% Carpool 14 10% Transit 1 1% Other 0 0% How does your child leave from school?#% Walk 8 6% Bike 0 0% School Bus 65 45% Family vehicle 55 38% Carpool 10 7% Transit 1 1% Other 0 0% Child’s travel time to school?#% Less than 5 minutes 37 26% 5-10 minutes 53 37% 11-20 minutes 37 26% More than 20 minutes 7 5% Don’t know/Not sure 5 3% Child’s travel time from school?#% Less than 5 minutes 35 24% 5-10 minutes 45 31% 11-20 minutes 39 27% More than 20 minutes 12 8% Don’t know/Not sure 7 5% Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? #% Yes 34 23% No 111 77% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 79 At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? #% Pre-K 1 1% Kindergarten 0 0% 1st Grade 0 0% 2nd Grade 1 1% 3rd Grade 8 6% 4th Grade 8 6% 5th Grade 15 10% 6th Grade 30 21% 7th Grade 13 9% 8th Grade 5 3% 9th Grade 26 18% 10th Grade 4 3% 11th Grade 1 1% 12th Grade 0 0% I would not feel comfortable at any grade 33 23% Safety Concerns What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/ from school? #% Distance 86 59% Convenience of driving 17 12% Time 42 29% Child’s before or after-school activities 31 21% Speed of traffic along route 61 42% Amount of traffic along route 66 46% Adults to walk or bike with 21 14% Sidewalks or pathways 45 31% Safety of intersections and crossings 74 51% Crossing guards 12 8% Violence or crime 42 29% Weather or climate 56 59% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 80 Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Yes No Not Sure Distance 69 41 35 Convenience of driving 46 53 46 Time 65 43 37 Child’s before or after-school activities 49 50 46 Speed of traffic along route 68 40 37 Amount of traffic along route 69 40 36 Adults to walk or bike with 60 43 42 Sidewalks or pathways 72 40 33 Safety of intersections and crossings 85 30 30 Crossing guards 57 48 40 Violence or crime 61 46 38 Weather or climate 76 37 32 Student Perceptions How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Fun 20 14% Fun 42 29% Neutral 72 50% Boring 3 2% Very Boring 8 6% How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Healthy 71 49% Healthy 50 34% Neutral 23 16% Unhealthy 0 0% Very Unhealthy 1 1% How much does your child’s school en- courage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? #% Strongly Encourages 4 3% Encourages 10 7% Neither 10 7% Discourages 0 0% Strongly Discourages 0 0% 2020 Safe Routes to School Parent Survey Report 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 1 INTRODUCTION At what age would you let your child bike to school by themselves? Are you more concerned about the safety of intersections or the volume of traffic in your neighborhood? Does your child think walking to school is fun? When parents answer the questions above, they are providing insights into their own behavior— and how it might be changed. Increasing the amount of time children spend walking and bicycling is inarguably good. Physical activity and fresh air lead to improved long-term health outcomes, better academic performance, reductions in mental health concerns, and a greater connection to the outdoors and wider community. But for most children to walk or bike to and from school, their caregivers must perceive that routes to school are safe, comfortable, and convenient. Just how to help parents feel that way is found by examining responses to the questions above. Luckily, they can be answered using the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Parent Survey. What is the SRTS Parent Survey? The SRTS Parent Survey gathers information about what factors affect whether parents allow their children to walk or bike to school, the perception of key safety-related conditions along routes to school, and related background information. It also helps determine how to improve opportunities for children to walk or bike to school, and measure parental attitude changes as local SRTS programs occur. The survey’s questions fit into five categories: • Respondent Demographics • Student Demographics • Travel Behavior • Respondent Safety Concerns • Student Perceptions 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 2 Methodology of This Survey The SRTS Parent Survey is a standardized evaluation activity created by the National SRTS Partnership. Data from this survey forms the bedrock of most SRTS plans and programs, which is true in Richfield as well. Most recently, Richfield Public Schools (RPS) conducted this evaluation in 2013 in advance of the creation of the City of Richfield’s 2014 SRTS Comprehensive Plan. In 2020, the SRTS Parent Survey was administered as an addendum to a larger, district-wide survey of parents and caregivers. Surveys were available in English and Spanish, the two most commonly spoken languages in RPS households. All surveys were conducted digitally and anonymously. This evaluation was open for participation for approximately two weeks. Opportunity to share opinions was promoted via electronic communications channels, including social media and email, as well as in person at teacher conferences. About This Report This document was created to share the results of the SRTS Parent Survey conducted by RPS in February 2020. The sections include: • 2020 Results at a Glance • District-Wide Summary • School-Specific Summaries • Priority Segment Summaries • Appendix Uses of Findings Findings from this survey may be used for many purposes. These include identifying opportunities to increase student walking and bicycling at both the school-district-level and within each school community, tracking changes in perception and behavior over time, prioritizing the efforts of relevant staff and partners, and more. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 3 REPORTING PARTNERS Richfield Public Schools Richfield Public Schools inspires and empowers each individual to learn, grow, and excel. Across four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school, the district serves more than 4,400 students and their families. www.richfieldschools.org Minnesota Safe Routes to School Minnesota Safe Routes to School combines the expertise of multiple state agencies with national and local partners to provide parent, school, and community groups with the resources needed to support walking and biking to school. This statewide effort promotes the development of comprehensive local SRTS programs that cover all 6Es: education, encouragement, enforcement, engineering, evaluation, and equity. www. mnsaferoutestoschool.org SCHOOL-SPECIFIC SUMMARIES 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 18 RICHFIELD STEM 54 parents and caregivers of Richfield STEM students responded to the survey. Introduction Richfield STEM is one of two magnet elementary schools in the district, and boasts the largest enrollment of all the primary schools. It is located in east central Richfield and shares a campus with the other magnet. The eligible enrollment area covers the entire city, thus many students arrive by school bus or in a family vehicle. Two crossing guards are posted on the east side of the building to help control the considerable traffic during arrival and dismissal. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 19 Parent Demographics Respondents from the Richfield STEM community are broadly representative of the school’s community. • White-identifying caregivers make up 70% of respondents, which is overrepresented, however other EEOC categories are not correspondingly underrepresented. This may imply that there is a larger number of STEM caregivers who identified with two racess. • RSTEM has a greater rate of parents and caregivers with more than 2 children than other schools in RPS. Student Demographics There was a balance of grade levels from survey participants at Richfield STEM. 4th Grade received the most responses, while 5th grade received the least. Male- and female-identifying children are nearly equal, with one primary difference compared to district-wide responses: more boys than girls are represented at STEM. Travel Behavior Being a school with city-wide enrollment, the distance most students live from their school closely matches the trends of the district. There is parity between family vehicle and school bus trips to get to or from school, with only a small percentage of students who walk home at the end of the school day. 39% percent of Richfield STEM parents suggest that they would allow their child to walk or bike to school by the end of their education at Richfield STEM. This is by far the highest percentage across all of the RPS elementary schools. Respondent Safety Concerns The top three safety concerns at Richfield STEM are the same as across the district. 1. Distance (67%) 2. Safety of intersections and crossings (56%) 3. Weather or climate (56%) “Amount of traffic along route” was listed as the fourth-largest safety concern (50%), which may be due, in part, to traffic concerns during arrival and dismissal. By far the #1 issue that, if improved, would encourage caregivers at Richfield STEM to allow children walk and bike to school was the “safety of intersections and crossings.” Student Perceptions On average, caregivers and students at Richfield STEM perceive walking and bicycling to be more fun and more healthy than the district at large. PRIORITY SEGMENT SUMMARIES 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 29 LATINO COMMUNITY MEMBERS 60 parents and caregivers who self-identified as Hispanic/Latino responded to the survey. Introduction Latino youth comprise more than 41% of the student body at RPS. Projections expect that percentage to increase. SRTS engagement tailored to the needs and concerns of Richfield’s Latino families is necessary to ensure long-term SRTS sustainability in the district. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 30 Student Demographics While all grades were represented in the children of survey participants, our Latino- specific data skews toward caregivers of primary-school-aged children. Only ⅓ of the responses were provided by parents of secondary school students. Male- and female- identifying children are nearly equal within our Latino-specific data set. Respondent Safety Concerns The top three safety concerns among Latino parents and caregivers are the same as across the district, but in a slightly different order. 1. Weather or climate (65%) 2. Distance (58%) 3. Safety of intersections and crossings (52%) The #1 issue that, if changed, would encourage caregivers to walk and bike to school with their children more often was weather or climate. While changing the weather is beyond the capacity of Richfield Public Schools, education and encouragement around winter active transportation may be a fruitful pursuit. Travel Behavior The survey’s Latino respondents report living a similar distance from their child’s school compared to the district-wide average. It is worth noting that a much greater number of these participants answered this question “Don’t know,” which skews the results. • 8% of Latino families report walking to school, which is more than double the district average. This rate falls to 5% at the end of the school day, with an increase in school bus rides to get home. • Less than 20% of Latino families spend more than 20 minutes traveling to/from school. • Approximately 20% of families report that they would feel comfortable allowing their children to walk or bike to school before the end of elementary school, 41% by the end of middle school, and the remainder by the end of high school. Student Perceptions Broadly, caregivers and students in Latino families perceive walking and bicycling to school as fun, healthy, encouraged activity, and at rates similar to the district-wide results. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 31 FEMALE STUDENTS 145 caregivers identified completing the survey while considering their female child. Introduction In survey collection, there is a general dearth of disaggregated by gender, too often leading to underrepresentation of women and girls in survey results, as well as subsequent interpretation and action. This section is a modest effort to counteract this trend. Please note that gender was not asked of the parent or caregiver in the SRTS Parent Survey, only the child of the respondent. 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 32 Parent Demographics Respondents with female children are not fully representative of the school district. • Only 19% of the survey’s respondents with female children identify as Hispanic/Latino, compared to about 41% of the student population that identifies as such. • White caregivers are overrepresented, completing 71% of the responses. Student Demographics While all grades were represented in the children of survey participants, our Female- specific represents a majority (56%) caregivers of primary-school-aged children. Respondent Safety Concerns The top three safety concerns among parents of female students are the same as across the district, but in a slightly different order. 1. Weather or climate (60%) 2. Distance (59%) 3. Safety of intersections and crossings (51%) The #1 issue that, if changed, would encourage caregivers to walk and bike to school with their children more often was safety of intersections and crossings, in line with district-wide trends. Travel Behavior The survey’s caregivers of female students report living a similar distance from their child’s school compared to the district-wide average. • Approximately 5% of these families report walking to or from school, comparable to the district average. • Approximately 23% of families report that their daughter asked to walk or bike to school in the past year. This is slightly less than households of boys, who report this request at 26%. • About 24% of families report that they would feel comfortable allowing their daughter to walk or bike to school before the end of elementary school. An additional 33% would do so by the end of middle school. About 23% of parents would not let their daughter walk or bike to school at any grade level (which is a comparable rate to male students). Student Perceptions Female students perceive walking and bicycling to school as less fun than the district as a whole. They do, however, perceive those activities as a healthy, encouraged activity, at rates similar to the rest of their classmates. APPENDIX: STATISTICS TABLES 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 45 Richfield STEM Race and ethnic background of parent #%School % American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 2%1% Asian/Pacific Islander 4 7%8% Black, not of Hispanic origin 8 15%15% Hispanic 7 13%22% White, not of Hispanic origin 39 72%40% Parent Demographics Language primarily spoken in the home #% Amharic 0 0% English 46 85% Filipino 0 0% French 1 2% Russian 0 0% Somali 0 0% Spanish 4 7% Tamil 2 4% Tibetan 0 0% Vietnamese 0 0% Other 0 0% How many children do you have at RPS?#% 1 child 21 39% 2 children 29 54% 3 children 2 4% 4 children 1 2% 5 children 1 2% What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? #% Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)1 2% Grades 9 through 11 (Some HS)1 2% Grade 12 or GED (HS graduate)7 13% College 1 to 3 years (Some college)7 13% College 4+ years (College graduate)37 69% Prefer not to answer 1 2% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 46 Student Demographics Grade of child being considered #% Pre-K 5 9% Kindergarten 10 19% 1st Grade 8 15% 2nd Grade 7 13% 3rd Grade 9 17% 4th Grade 12 22% 5th Grade 3 6% Sex at birth of child being considered #% Male 28 52% Female 26 48% Gender identity of child being considered #% Male 28 52% Female 25 46% They/them 0 0% Transgender Female 0 0% Prefer not to say 1 2% Travel Behavior Child’s distance from school #% Less than 1/4 mile 7 13% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 4 7% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 15% 1 mile up to 2 miles 15 28% More than 2 miles 19 35% Don’t Know 1 2% How does your child arrive at school?#% Walk 0 0% Bike 0 0% School Bus 24 44% Family vehicle 29 54% Carpool 1 2% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 47 How does your child leave from school?#% Walk 2 4% Bike 0 0% School Bus 26 48% Family vehicle 25 46% Carpool 0 0% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% Child’s travel time to school?#% Less than 5 minutes 17 31% 5-10 minutes 16 30% 11-20 minutes 14 26% More than 20 minutes 2 4% Don’t know/Not sure 5 9% Child’s travel time from school?#% Less than 5 minutes 16 30% 5-10 minutes 17 31% 11-20 minutes 16 30% More than 20 minutes 2 4% Don’t know/Not sure 3 6% At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? #% Pre-K 0 0% Kindergarten 0 0% 1st Grade 0 0% 2nd Grade 1 2% 3rd Grade 8 15% 4th Grade 6 11% 5th Grade 6 11% 6th Grade 7 13% 7th Grade 3 6% 8th Grade 2 4% 9th Grade 5 9% 10th Grade 2 4% 11th Grade 0 0% 12th Grade 0 0% I would not feel comfortable at any grade 14 26% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 48 Safety Concerns What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/ from school? #% Distance 36 67% Convenience of driving 6 11% Time 20 37% Child’s before or after-school activities 7 13% Speed of traffic along route 17 31% Amount of traffic along route 27 50% Adults to walk or bike with 8 15% Sidewalks or pathways 14 26% Safety of intersections and crossings 30 56% Crossing guards 4 7% Violence or crime 14 26% Weather or climate 30 56% Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? #% Yes 8 15% No 46 85% Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Yes No Not Sure Distance 27 13 14 Convenience of driving 19 23 12 Time 26 16 12 Child’s before or after-school activities 18 21 15 Speed of traffic along route 28 17 9 Amount of traffic along route 29 15 10 Adults to walk or bike with 24 18 12 Sidewalks or pathways 30 15 19 Safety of intersections and crossings 37 10 7 Crossing guards 27 18 19 Violence or crime 24 19 11 Weather or climate 29 13 12 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 49 Student Perceptions How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Fun 10 19% Fun 19 35% Neutral 23 43% Boring 1 2% Very Boring 1 2% How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Healthy`29 54% Healthy 17 31% Neutral 8 15% Unhealthy 0 0% Very Unhealthy 0 0% How much does your child’s school en- courage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? #% Strongly Encourages 0 0% Encourages 0 0% Neither 4 7% Discourages 0 0% Strongly Discourages 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 70 Latino Community Members Parent Demographics Language primarily spoken in the home #% Amharic 0 0% English 10 17% Filipino 0 0% French 0 0% Russian 0 0% Somali 0 0% Spanish 50 83% Tamil 0 0% Tibetan 0 0% Vietnamese 0 0% Other 0 0% How many children do you have at RPS?#% 1 child 29 48% 2 children 21 35% 3 children 5 8% 4 children 1 2% 5 children 0 0% What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? #% Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)5 8% Grades 9 through 11 (Some HS)15 25% Grade 12 or GED (HS graduate)9 15% College 1 to 3 years (Some college)6 10% College 4+ years (College graduate)20 33% Prefer not to answer 5 8% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 71 Student Demographics School of child being considered #% Centennial Elementary 13 22% Richfield STEM 7 12% Richfield Dual Language School 18 30% Sheridan Hills Elementary 3 5% Richfield Middle School 11 18% Richfield High School 8 13% Grade of child being considered #% Pre-K 2 3% Kindergarten 8 13% 1st Grade 9 15% 2nd Grade 4 7% 3rd Grade 4 7% 4th Grade 7 12% 5th Grade 6 10% 6th Grade 3 5% 7th Grade 6 10% 8th Grade 4 7% 9th Grade 1 2% 10th Grade 2 3% 11th Grade 1 2% 12th Grade 3 5% Sex at birth of child being considered #% Male 31 52% Female 29 48% Gender identity of child being considered #% Male 31 52% Female 29 48% They/them 0 0% Transgender Female 0 0% Prefer not to say 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 72 Travel Behavior Child’s distance from school #% Less than 1/4 mile 6 10% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 6 10% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 8 13% 1 mile up to 2 miles 10 17% More than 2 miles 19 32% Don’t Know 10 17% How does your child arrive at school?#% Walk 5 8% Bike 0 0% School Bus 30 50% Family vehicle 23 38% Carpool 2 3% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% How does your child leave from school?#% Walk 3 5% Bike 0 0% School Bus 33 55% Family vehicle 16 27% Carpool 0 0% Transit 0 0% Other 0 0% Child’s travel time to school?#% Less than 5 minutes 11 18% 5-10 minutes 14 23% 11-20 minutes 21 35% More than 20 minutes 6 10% Don’t know/Not sure 4 7% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 73 Child’s travel time from school?#% Less than 5 minutes 10 17% 5-10 minutes 11 18% 11-20 minutes 21 35% More than 20 minutes 7 12% Don’t know/Not sure 4 7% Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? #% Yes 12 20% No 48 80% At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? #% Pre-K 0 0% Kindergarten 0 0% 1st Grade 0 0% 2nd Grade 0 0% 3rd Grade 2 3% 4th Grade 1 2% 5th Grade 4 7% 6th Grade 4 7% 7th Grade 4 7% 8th Grade 7 12% 9th Grade 9 15% 10th Grade 1 2% 11th Grade 1 2% 12th Grade 3 5% I would not feel comfortable at any grade 24 40% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 74 Safety Concerns What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/ from school? #% Distance 35 58% Convenience of driving 5 8% Time 13 22% Child’s before or after-school activities 9 15% Speed of traffic along route 19 32% Amount of traffic along route 21 35% Adults to walk or bike with 9 15% Sidewalks or pathways 9 15% Safety of intersections and crossings 31 52% Crossing guards 7 12% Violence or crime 22 37% Weather or climate 39 65% Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Yes No Not Sure Distance 29 16 15 Convenience of driving 20 20 20 Time 28 16 16 Child’s before or after-school activities 17 25 18 Speed of traffic along route 27 18 15 Amount of traffic along route 25 19 16 Adults to walk or bike with 28 17 15 Sidewalks or pathways 18 18 14 Safety of intersections and crossings 31 17 12 Crossing guards 24 20 16 Violence or crime 21 22 17 Weather or climate 33 18 9 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 75 Student Perceptions How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Fun 10 17% Fun 17 28% Neutral 30 50% Boring 1 2% Very Boring 2 3% How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Healthy 29 48% Healthy 22 37% Neutral 9 15% Unhealthy 0 0% Very Unhealthy 0 0% How much does your child’s school en- courage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? #% Strongly Encourages 6 10% Encourages 18 30% Neither 23 38% Discourages 1 2% Strongly Discourages 0 0% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 76 Female Students Parent Demographics Language primarily spoken in the home #% Amharic 2 1% English 112 77% Filipino 0 0% French 1 1% Russian 1 1% Somali 1 1% Spanish 26 18% Tamil 1 1% Tibetan 0 0% Vietnamese 1 1% Other 0 0% How many children do you have at RPS?#% 1 child 67 46% 2 children 62 43% 3 children 10 7% 4 children 2 1% 5 children 0 0% What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? #% Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary)7 5% Grades 9 through 11 (Some HS)11 8% Grade 12 or GED (HS graduate)8 6% College 1 to 3 years (Some college)20 14% College 4+ years (College graduate)94 65% Prefer not to answer 5 3% Race and ethnic background of parent #% American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 1% Asian/Pacific Islander 6 4% Black, not of Hispanic origin 13 9% Hispanic 29 20% White, not of Hispanic origin 101 70% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 77 Student Demographics School of child being considered #% Centennial Elementary 11 8% Richfield STEM 25 17% Richfield Dual Language School 24 17% Sheridan Hills Elementary 20 14% Richfield Middle School 36 25% Richfield High School 26 18% Grade of child being considered #% Pre-K 8 6% Kindergarten 20 14% 1st Grade 16 11% 2nd Grade 6 4% 3rd Grade 12 8% 4th Grade 9 6% 5th Grade 10 7% 6th Grade 13 9% 7th Grade 15 10% 8th Grade 9 6% 9th Grade 7 5% 10th Grade 4 3% 11th Grade 9 6% 12th Grade 5 3% Travel Behavior Child’s distance from school #% Less than 1/4 mile 9 6% 1/4 mile up to 1/2 mile 15 10% 1/2 mile up to 1 mile 28 19% 1 mile up to 2 miles 44 30% More than 2 miles 37 26% Don’t Know 5 3% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 78 How does your child arrive at school?#% Walk 6 4% Bike 0 0% School Bus 58 40% Family vehicle 66 46% Carpool 14 10% Transit 1 1% Other 0 0% How does your child leave from school?#% Walk 8 6% Bike 0 0% School Bus 65 45% Family vehicle 55 38% Carpool 10 7% Transit 1 1% Other 0 0% Child’s travel time to school?#% Less than 5 minutes 37 26% 5-10 minutes 53 37% 11-20 minutes 37 26% More than 20 minutes 7 5% Don’t know/Not sure 5 3% Child’s travel time from school?#% Less than 5 minutes 35 24% 5-10 minutes 45 31% 11-20 minutes 39 27% More than 20 minutes 12 8% Don’t know/Not sure 7 5% Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? #% Yes 34 23% No 111 77% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 79 At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? #% Pre-K 1 1% Kindergarten 0 0% 1st Grade 0 0% 2nd Grade 1 1% 3rd Grade 8 6% 4th Grade 8 6% 5th Grade 15 10% 6th Grade 30 21% 7th Grade 13 9% 8th Grade 5 3% 9th Grade 26 18% 10th Grade 4 3% 11th Grade 1 1% 12th Grade 0 0% I would not feel comfortable at any grade 33 23% Safety Concerns What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/ from school? #% Distance 86 59% Convenience of driving 17 12% Time 42 29% Child’s before or after-school activities 31 21% Speed of traffic along route 61 42% Amount of traffic along route 66 46% Adults to walk or bike with 21 14% Sidewalks or pathways 45 31% Safety of intersections and crossings 74 51% Crossing guards 12 8% Violence or crime 42 29% Weather or climate 56 59% 2020 SRTS Parent Survey Report | 80 Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Yes No Not Sure Distance 69 41 35 Convenience of driving 46 53 46 Time 65 43 37 Child’s before or after-school activities 49 50 46 Speed of traffic along route 68 40 37 Amount of traffic along route 69 40 36 Adults to walk or bike with 60 43 42 Sidewalks or pathways 72 40 33 Safety of intersections and crossings 85 30 30 Crossing guards 57 48 40 Violence or crime 61 46 38 Weather or climate 76 37 32 Student Perceptions How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Fun 20 14% Fun 42 29% Neutral 72 50% Boring 3 2% Very Boring 8 6% How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? #% Very Healthy 71 49% Healthy 50 34% Neutral 23 16% Unhealthy 0 0% Very Unhealthy 1 1% How much does your child’s school en- courage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? #% Strongly Encourages 4 3% Encourages 10 7% Neither 10 7% Discourages 0 0% Strongly Discourages 0 0% APPENDIX B Major Street Limit 1Limit 2Parking South (ft)Supply (South)Demand Wed, 12‐2 pm, May 2, 2018 (South)Occupancy Wed, 12‐2 pm, May 2, 2018 (South)Demand Fri, 10a‐12p May 4, 2018 (South)Occupancy Fri, 10a‐12p May 4, 2018 (South)Demand Thur, 10a‐12p September 6, 2018 (South)Occupancy Thur, 10a‐12p September 6, 2018 (South)Demand Fri, 2‐3 pm April 19, 2019 (South)Occupancy Fri 2‐3 pm, April 19, 2019 (South)Demand Tue, 12‐2 pm September 24, 2019 (South)Occupancy Tue, 12‐2 pm September 24, 2019 (South)E 70th Street Portland Avenue Oakland Avenue S 0 0 00%00%00%00%00%E 70th Street Oakland Avenue S Park Avenue210 8 00%00%00%00%00%E 70th Street Park Avenue Columbus Avenue 170 7 229%00%115%00%00%E 70th Street Columbus Avenue Chicago Avenue 165 7 00%00%00%00%00%E 70th Street Chicago Avenue Elliot Avenue215 9 00%112%00%223%00%E 70th Street Elliot Avenue Driveway 1205 8 224%112%00%00%224%E 70th Street Driveway 1 Driveway 2180 7 114%114%114%456%456%E 70th Street Driveway 2 12th Avenue S385 15 319%213%426%1384%1278%E 70th Street 12th Avenue S 13th Avenue S180 7 00%00%00%00%342%E 70th Street 13th Avenue S 14th Avenue S205 8 224%112%00%00%337%E 70th Street 14th Avenue SS 15th Avenue195 8 00%00%00%00%00%E 70th Street S 15th Avenue Bloomington Avenue S 195 8 113%00%113%00%113%12th Avenue 69th Street 70th Street47019316%737%737%211%527%12th Avenue 70th Street 71st Street47019421%527%527%1685%1053%12th Avenue 71st Street 72nd Street4701915%211%211%421%15%Total3715 149 1913%2013%2114%4128%4128% APPENDIX C H:\Projects\12000\12667\TraffStudy\10_Richfield\CAD\12667_Richfield_Preferred.dwg : CROSSING 70TH & 12TH // 12/23/2020 - 3:04PMRichfield STEM School - Crossing Concept: 70th St & 12th Ave Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MN Figure 3 E 70TH ST12TH AVE SBUS -45 AASHTO 2018 (US) APPENDIX D Design Concept (2A)Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MNXXExisting Parking Stalls: 140Proposed Stalls: 114E 70TH ST12TH AVE S Crossing Concept: 70th St & Elliot AveSafe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MNE 70TH STELLIOT AVE S Crossing Concept: 70th St & 12th AveSafe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MNE 70TH ST12TH AVE S Crossing Concept: 71st St & Elliot AveSafe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MNE 71ST STELLIOT AVE S 71st St Sidewalk (New Fence Concept)Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MNE 71ST STE 71ST ST12TH AVE SELLIOT AVE S 71st St Sidewalk (New Curb Concept)Safe Routes to SchoolRichfield, MNE 71ST STE 71ST ST12TH AVE SELLIOT AVE S Richfield Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan April 2014 Prepared By: Acknowledgements This Safe Routes to School plan could not have been created without the time, energy, knowledge, and input of the following individuals and agencies: Jeff Pearson, City of Richfield Public Works Michael Schwartz, Richfield Public Schools Jessica Smith, Bloomington Public Health Julie Zamora, Bloomington Public Health Lee Ann Wise, Centennial Elementary School Principal Marta Shahsavand, Richfield Dual Language School Principal Jason Wenschlag, Richfield High School Principal Brian Zambreno, Richfield Middle School Principal Jodi Markworth, Sheridan Hills Elementary School Principal Joey Page, Richfield STEM School Principal ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. E-1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Process ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Existing Conditions Assessment ............................................................................................................... 2 Student Data ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Infrastructure....................................................................................................................................... 4 Centennial Elementary ..................................................................................................................... 5 Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools ....................................................................................... 6 Sheridan Hills Elementary ................................................................................................................. 7 Richfield Middle School .................................................................................................................... 8 Richfield High School ...................................................................................................................... 10 Policy and Programming .................................................................................................................... 11 Challenges and Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 11 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 12 Short-Term ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Mid-Term........................................................................................................................................... 14 Long-Term ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Funding and Implementation ................................................................................................................ 16 Appendix ..............................................................................................................................................A-1 Student Travel Tally Results ..............................................................................................................A-2 Parent Survey Results .......................................................................................................................A-3 Resources .........................................................................................................................................A-7 References ...................................................................................................................................... A-12 E-1 Executive Summary The purpose of a Safe Routes to School Plan (ARTS) is to identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making improvements in these areas. A comprehensive process involving Richfield School District, City of Richfield, parents, and residents was begun in 2012 to develop a plan for the six public schools in Richfield. Through site visits, principal interviews, data gathering, and stakeholder input, a set of recommendations has been developed to address the needs of students walking and biking to school. These improvements involve actions by multiple stakeholders and include both infrastructure and policy changes. Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students’ health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to find out why their children did not walk or bike to school. The most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime. Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades-long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the five “E’s”: §Education – Teaching children to walk and bike safely §Encouragement – Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school §Enforcement – Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school §Engineering – Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking §Evaluation – Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project This Safe Routes to School Plan plays an important function of connecting the roles of the school district and the city in jointly seeking to increase walking and biking to school. It is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed, while also capturing all the factors that influence choices about transportation. The plan builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS including policy and programming. Richfield has already taken a number of significant steps to improve walking and bicycling in the community, including: §Safe Routes to School Study (2009) §Arterials Study (2009) §Bicycle Master Plan (2012) §Complete Streets Policy (2013) §Bicycle Friendly Assessment (2013) E-2 The benefits of a comprehensive SRTS plan are to provide an all-inclusive picture of the needs throughout the school district and community, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, discussions with stakeholders, and development of recommendations. Recommendations The following sections present the recommendations of the Comprehensive SRTS Plan to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. Some recommendations could be feasibly implemented in the next year, while others may require longer timelines due to policy changes or funding. Each measure has been classified according to the agency that would lead its implementation. Existing Conditions Assessment Site Visits Principal InterviewsParent Survey ARTS Working Group Data Gathering ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Improvement Priorities Plan Recommendations Stakeholder Input E-3 City of Richfield Improvements §Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12 th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk §Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks §Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street §Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools §Replace sidewalk and construction pedestrian ramps on Elliot Avenue near 71st Street §Prioritize snow plowing and removal at schools and on school routes §Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on-street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary §Construct sidewalk on 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue §Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools §Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan §Pursue opportunities for bicycle land and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced Richfield Public Schools Improvements §Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue §Train adult crossing guards to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection §Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary §Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School §Develop a walking/bicycling section of the school district website §Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level §Incorporate walking and bicycling to school into the school district wellness policy §Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and bicycling activities §Replace and improve bicycle racks at all school sites §Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site §Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary §Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street §Introduce walking and bicycling into the physical education curriculum Joint City-District Improvements §Continue student travel tallies on at least an annual basis §Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group Based on its past planning and active efforts to improve its bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Richfield is well-positioned to implement infrastructure improvements and effect the cultural and policy changes necessary to see long-term shifts in travel behavior. 1 Introduction Walking and biking to school in the United States has decreased dramatically, from over 60 percent in the 1960s to an average of less than 10 percent today. This reduction in active transportation, and corresponding increase in vehicular transportation, negatively affects students’ health, vehicle congestion, traffic safety, and environmental quality around schools. In Hennepin County, only 24 percent of children age 6 to 17 years get the minimum amount of physical activity recommended by the Centers for Disease Control.1,2 Many factors contribute to the reduction in walking and bicycling to school. A survey of parents across the United States indicated that the most common reasons cited by parents were distance, traffic safety, weather, and crime.3 Examining the underlying issues for each of these barriers provides an opportunity to understand how they can be addressed. To reverse this decades-long trend of decreased walking and biking, the nationwide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative was created to increase walking and biking to school through the implementation of each of the 5 “E’s”: §Education – Teaching children to walk and bike safely §Encouragement – Developing programs that get children excited about walking or biking to school §Enforcement – Having law enforcement support along the designated routes to school §Engineering – Identifying infrastructure barriers to walking and biking §Evaluation – Measuring the effectiveness of the various components of the SRTS project Locally, SRTS projects have been initiated and funded through federal transportation funds, as well as the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP). SHIP is dedicated to promote active living in communities throughout Minnesota, with the goal of reducing obesity and preventing disease. The purpose of this Comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan is to document the existing walking and biking environment in Richfield, identify opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools, and develop an implementation plan for making the improvements. The comprehensive nature of the plan provides an overall view of the needs and priorities in the city. Background The Richfield SRTS Study completed in 2009 established a strong foundation for improving walking and biking infrastructure at the elementary and middle schools in the city. Since that time, several other walking and biking related plans and studies have been completed and policies enacted in the city and school district, including: §Arterials Study (2009) §Bicycle Master Plan (2012) §Complete Streets Policy (2013) §Bicycle Friendly Assessment (2013) This plan is intended to complement and support the work and planning already completed. It builds on the infrastructure improvements previously identified, but also addresses the other four areas of SRTS 2 including policy and programming. The benefits of a SRTS plan are to provide a comprehensive overview of the needs throughout a school district or city, allowing for programming and prioritization. In addition, it provides the opportunity to address district and city policies and programs related to walking and biking, and having a plan puts the agencies in a favorable position when applying for funding. At the school and neighborhood level, increased walking and biking to school has been shown to improve student health and academic performance, reduce traffic congestion around the school, and thereby also improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Project Process This plan was developed with input from the key SRTS stakeholders in Richfield, including school staff, parents, school district staff, city staff, and students. The initial phases included significant data collection and assembly, along with site observations at each school, followed by evaluations, and development of recommendations, and implementation. Stakeholder input was gathered at several key points in the process, as highlighted in the diagram below. Existing Conditions Assessment The City of Richfield encompasses seven square miles and has a population of approximately 35,000 residents. It is a first-ring suburb of Minneapolis and much of the city was developed with a grid street network, contributing to a more urban environment compared to other suburbs in the Twin Cities area. Existing Conditions Assessment Site Visits Principal InterviewsParent Survey ARTS Working Group Data Gathering ARTS Comprehensive Plan Pedestrian/Bicycle Needs/Opportunities Improvement Priorities Plan Recommendations Stakeholder Input 3 Student Data The Richfield School District serves nearly 4,300 total students across four elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school. Walk boundaries for each school, which are established by the school district, set the distance within which students are not provided bus transportation. These boundaries for the Richfield School District are generally one mile for elementary schools, and two miles for middle and high school. On a district wide basis, approximately 30 percent of students live within the walk boundary of their school. A more detailed summary for each school, based on 2012-2013 enrollment data, is shown in Table 1. The students that live within the walk boundary represent the greatest opportunities for increasing walking and biking. Table 1. Richfield Students within Walk Zone Boundaries School Total Enrollment Students Within Walk Boundary Open Enrolled Provided Bus Transportation Centennial Elementary 455 33%9%58% Richfield Dual Language 470 4%19%77% Richfield STEM 780 12%10%77% Sheridan Hills Elementary 490 22%7%70% Richfield Middle 920 35%12%53% Richfield High School 1,145 57%20%23% Total 4,260 31%14%55% Student travel tallies were conducted for kindergarten through 8th grade classrooms in fall 2012 using the National Center for Safe Routes to School standard forms. The tallies showed that an average of six percent of elementary students and 14 percent of middle school students walked or biked to school. The predominant mode at all sites was School Bus, followed by Family Vehicle. More than 25 percent of all students arrive to or from school by Family Vehicle, which accounts for significant volumes of traffic at each of the school sites.Table 2 shows the average mode results by school. A breakdown of mode for travel to and from school for each site is included in the Appendix. Counts of pedestrians and bicyclists were also conducted as part of the field observations at each site, which are described further in the next section. 4 Table 2. Richfield Student Travel Tallies School Modes To/From School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Other Centennial Elementary 8% 2% 76% 14% 0% 0% Richfield Dual Language 2% 1% 65% 31% 1% 0% Richfield STEM 5% 1% 64% 28% 1% 1% Sheridan Hills Elementary 4% 0% 66% 29% 1% 0% Richfield Middle 9% 5% 54% 29% 2% 1% A parent survey, developed by the National Center for Safe Routes to School, was conducted in August and September 2013 with 240 responses. The survey questions are directed at concerns and attitudes related to walking and biking, and parents’ perceptions of barriers to walking and biking. As shown in Table 3, the most-cited reasons by parents for not regularly walking or biking to school were distance, followed by traffic concerns (intersection safety, amount of traffic, speed of traffic). The age at which parents said they would allow their child to walk or bike to school without an adult was 5th to 6th grade. In the comments section of the survey, 66th Street and Penn Avenue were specifically mentioned multiple times as being crossing barriers for students walking and biking. A full summary of the survey results is included in the Appendix. Table 3. Issues that Affect Decision to Walk or Bike Issue DistanceConvenience ofDrivingTimeBefore or AfterSchool ActivitiesSpeed of TrafficAlong RouteAmount of TrafficAlong RouteAdults to Walk orBike WithSidewalks orPathwaysSafety ofIntersections andCrossingsCrossing GuardsViolence or CrimeWeather orClimatePercent of Respondents 67% 17% 27% 15% 56% 61% 23% 30% 65% 13% 32% 48% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. Infrastructure Richfield has an existing network of sidewalk and bicycle facilities that connect many of the key destinations in the city, as shown in Figure 1. However, many of the major east/west roadways and nearly all local roadways do not have sidewalks. City policy is to have sidewalks on both sides of arterial 5 streets and on one side of collector streets. On local streets, sidewalks may be constructed if needed and supported by residents through the public approval process. The City of Richfield plows all public sidewalks within the city. In addition to a citywide review, observations were conducted during school arrival and dismissal to evaluate the condition of the infrastructure, gather data on existing walking and biking numbers, and also identify the primary walk/bike routes to each school. Centennial Elementary Centennial Elementary School has approximately 460 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Bloomington Avenue and a portion of the south side of 73rd Street adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on 73rd Street ends at the school property line and as a result, students walking to and from the east were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway. Diagonal Blvd, located one to two blocks north of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on-street bike lanes. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had zero or one crashes over a 10- year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed on the school site and stop control was installed on 16th Avenue and 17th Avenue at 73rd Street, and on 16th Avenue, 17th Avenue, and 18th Avenue at 74th Street. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §Bloomington Avenue S between Diagonal Blvd and 76th Street has 950 vehicles per day §Diagonal Blvd between 12th Avenue S and Bloomington Avenue S has 1,450 vehicles per day §76th Street between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue has 560 vehicles per day §Cedar Avenue between 72nd Street and 76th Street has 1,800 vehicles per day 6 Most of the streets around the school are residential in nature, with relatively low traffic volumes. A school staff member patrols the 73rd Street/16th Avenue intersection to assist students crossing 73rd Street to walk to the north or to walk to and from family vehicles that park and drop off along 16th Avenue. A bike rack is located on the east side of the school, next to door 2, but there is not sidewalk connecting this location to the front entrance of the school. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were less than five bicycles parked in the rack. Approximately 10 to 25 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 73rd Street. This is a relatively small number considering that Centennial has more than 150 students within the walk boundary, the highest percentage of any of the elementary schools in Richfield. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Bloomington Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is on 73rd Street in front of the school and some loading/unloading on 16th Avenue north of the school. The south side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 2. Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools Richfield Dual Language School and Richfield STEM School are located on the same site, which is bounded by 70th Street, 12th Avenue, 71St Street, and Elliot Avenue. Since the previous SRTS study, this site has been converted from an intermediate school, with students in 3rd to 5th grades, to two separate elementary schools with kindergarten through 5th grades in both buildings. Richfield Dual Language has approximately 460 students and Richfield STEM has approximately 770 students, both with kindergarten through 5th grades. The school day at both schools is from 7:45 AM to 2:10 PM. There are existing sidewalks on the east side of Elliot Avenue next to the school site, the south side of 70th Street, and the west side of 12th Avenue. The sidewalk on Elliot Avenue is in poor condition and ends at 71st Street. As a result, students walking to and from school were generally observed to walk in the roadway or in the grass next to the roadway once leaving the school grounds. Diagonal Blvd, located two blocks south of the school, was reconstructed in 2010 to include an off-road trail on the north side of the roadway, as well as on-street bike lanes. All the streets near the schools are two-lane roadways. The crash data showed that most of these intersections had only zero or one crashes over a 10-year period. The 70th Street/12th Avenue intersection had 8 crashes from 2003 to 2009, but has had no crashes since the conversion from a traffic signal to all-way stop control. There have been two pedestrian crashes near the school, one at 70th Street/12th Avenue and one midblock on 12th Avenue, however neither crash involved a student. 7 Signed school crossings with high visibility crosswalk markings are located at 70th Street/Elliot Avenue and 70th Street/12th Avenue. School patrols are operated at the 70th Street/12th Avenue, 71st Street/12th Avenue, and 71st Street/Elliot Avenue intersections that assist with crossings. The principal of Richfield Dual Language School reported that the patrols were removed from the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection due to safety concerns for the student patrols, based on the volume and speed of traffic on 70th Street. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §70th Street between Chicago Avenue and 12th Avenue has 2,250 vehicles per day §12th Avenue S between 70th Street and Diagonal Blvd/73rd Street has 2,800 vehicles per day The remaining streets around the school are residential streets with relatively low traffic volumes. Two bike racks are located on the south side of the school buildings, one within the Richfield Dual Language playground and one near the south entrance to Richfield STEM. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were as many as 12 total bicycles parked between the two racks. Approximately 45 total students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being to/from the east on 70th Street and to/from the west on 71st Street. This is a relatively small number considering that the two schools have a total of more than 110 students within the walk boundary. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot on the north side of the school and along 70th Street. The primary areas used for family pick-up/drop- off were the south parking lot for Richfield Dual Language and 12th Avenue for Richfield STEM. During the site observations of afternoon dismissal, family vehicles were frequently observed parked up to the crosswalk on 12th Avenue at 71st Street, limiting the visibility of both adults and students crossing the street. A summary of the existing conditions at Richfield Dual Language and Richfield STEM are shown in Figure 3. Sheridan Hills Elementary Sheridan Hills Elementary School has approximately 490 students in kindergarten through 5th grade. The school day is from 8:40 AM to 3:10 PM. The east side of Thomas Avenue, south side of 64th Street, and north side of 65th Street have existing sidewalks. However, the sidewalk on Thomas Avenue does not extend north of the school. There is a 8 trail through Sheridan Park that begins at the 65th Street/Sheridan Avenue intersection and extends west to Vincent Avenue. All the streets near the school are two-lane roadways. The crash data for the intersections around the school showed that most of them had zero or one crashes over a 10-year period. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, a bike rack was installed near the front door of the school, but the rack is removed during the winter months. It was also noted there are no bike racks near the playground, which is used by children outside of school hours. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §65th Street between Penn Avenue and Vincent Avenue has 1,200 vehicles per day §64th Street between Penn Avenue and York Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day Students that would need to cross Penn Avenue or 66th Street to travel to and from school are provided bus transportation, however several students were observed crossing Penn Avenue at the signalized intersection with 65th Street. The remaining roadways around the school generally have low traffic volumes. A school staff member acts as a crossing guard at the 64th Street/Thomas Avenue intersection. Approximately 10 to 15 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being east and west on 64th Street or 65th Street. This is a small percentage of the more than 100 students that live within the walk boundary of the school. The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on Thomas Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot near the front door of the school. The east side of 73rd Street is signed No Parking 8AM-4PM School Days. During the site observations, it was noted that the wide parking lot driveway onto 65th Street can be a barrier for pedestrians. In addition, there are not good sidewalk connections from the sidewalk on 65th Street to the front door of the school, as the existing route requires crossing the parking lot traffic twice. A summary of the existing conditions at Sheridan Hills Elementary are shown in Figure 4. Richfield Middle School Richfield Middle School has approximately 900 students in 6th through 8th grades. The school day is from 8:05 AM to 2:40 PM. 9 The east side of Oliver Avenue and the south side of 73rd Street have existing sidewalks, there is an off-road trail on the north side of 75th Street, and there is a marked bicycle facility on 75th Street. The on-street markings and crosswalks appeared to have been installed with paint and were in need of repainting to improve their visibility. All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways. However, 76th Street is located just one block south of the school and I-35W is about three blocks east of the school, both of which have very high traffic volumes and can be significant barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. The crash data shows there have been two total crashes at any of the intersections adjacent to the school over the past 10 years. There are not any designated school zones or school crossings near the school. Since the SRTS study in 2009, 75th Street in front of the school was reconstructed and the off-road trail and on-road bicycle facility added. At the same time, the school’s parking lot was reconstructed to separate parent pick-up/drop-off traffic from bus traffic and staff parking. A locked bike corral was also constructed at the southeast corner of the school. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §Humboldt Avenue between 70th Street and 76th Street has 590 vehicles per day During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, the bike corral was well used and there were as many as 25 bicycles parked in or near the corral. It was noted during both observations that some bikes were locked to the outside fence of the corral and that most of the racks in the corral are the older style bicycle racks. There was also demand for bicycle parking at other areas of the school site, with up to five bikes observed parked at the northwest corner of the school, near 74th Street/Thomas Avenue, where there are not bike racks. Approximately 65 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary route being to/from the east on 75th Street. 10 The designated bus loading and unloading areas are in the parking lot south of the school and along the east side of Oliver Avenue. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot/drive- through west of the main parking lot, with the entrance on 75th Street and exit on Oliver Avenue. The east side of Oliver Avenue is signed No Parking 8AM-4:30PM School Days. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 5. Richfield High School Richfield High School has approximately 1,100 students in 9th through 12th grades. The school day is from 8:10 AM to 2:40 PM. Richfield High School was not included in the 2009 SRTS study because federal SRTS funding can only be used for K-8 schools. The south side of 70th Street and the east side of Harriet Avenue adjacent to the school have existing sidewalks. Many students were observed to walk in the street south of 72nd Street and along the railroad tracks that run north/south along the school. All the streets adjacent to the school are two-lane roadways and except for 70th Street, are residential in nature, with low traffic volumes. The Lyndale Avenue/70th Street, Lyndale Avenue/73rd Street, Harriet Avenue/70th Street, and Harriet Avenue/73rd Street intersections all have high visibility marked crosswalks and are signed as school crossings. The crash data shows that most intersections around the school have zero or one crash over the past 10 years. However, the 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection has had 2 bicycle crashes and 1 pedestrian crash, all involving high school students before or after school and there was also a mid-block pedestrian crash on 70th Street east of Harriet Avenue. The 70th Street/Pleasant Avenue intersection has had four crashes over that time period, but none involved pedestrians or bicyclists. Traffic volume data were available4 for the following roadway segments, which are generally the higher volume streets: §70th Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 3,300 vehicles per day §73rd Street between Lyndale Avenue and Nicollet Avenue has 2,050 vehicles per day The school has bike racks located in the courtyard on the north side of the school building. During the observations in November 2012 and May 2013, there were up to 25 bicycles parked in the racks as well as a few bikes chained to sign posts and fences around the school campus. It was noted that there is one new bike rack on campus, the remainder are an older style rack that has the potential to damage bike tires. Approximately 140 students were observed walking or biking to school, with the primary routes being 70th Street and along the railroad tracks. However, there are over 600 students that live within the walk boundary. 11 The designated bus loading and unloading areas are on 70th Street adjacent to the school. The primary area used for family pick-up/drop-off is in the parking lot south of the school, west of the main parking lot. A summary of the existing conditions at Centennial Elementary are shown in Figure 6. Policy and Programming The City of Richfield was awarded SRTS grant funding in 2008, which led to the completion of the Safe Routes to School Study in 2009. A number of the recommendations from that study have already been implemented. A Safe Routes Working Group has been established in Richfield that includes City of Richfield Public Works staff, Richfield School District staff, Bloomington Public Health staff, and a Richfield school principal representative. The role of this group was to share information, identify and discuss challenges and opportunities to walking and biking to schools in Richfield, and discuss the implementation and prioritization of measures to increase walking and biking to school. At the city level, the Complete Streets Policy establishes a framework for consideration and inclusion of all users in transportation projects, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, and freight operators. In addition, the city has a sidewalk plan included in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan and a separate Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) that was completed in 2012. The Richfield School District established a Wellness Policy in 2006 that addresses nutrition guidelines, nutrition education, physical activity, and parent education. The policy does not specifically address walking or biking to school, or the role of the district in active transportation to and from school. Several of the individual school sites also have wellness policies or plans, but these generally do not specifically speak to walking and biking to school. A number of localized SRTS activities have also been occurring at the individual school sites, such as participation in International Walk to School Day in the fall and National Bike to School Day in the spring, and hosting of a bike rodeo. The elementary schools also each operate a school patrol to provide for safe crossings immediately next to the school. However, there are not currently district-wide SRTS activities or walking/biking curriculum. Challenges and Opportunities As a community, Richfield has already taken a number of progressive steps to increase the opportunities for walking and biking. The creation of a Bicycle Master Plan and the passage of the Complete Streets Policy are two key measures that lay the groundwork for planning and construction of future infrastructure projects. The City has also led or been a key partner in the construction of several significant trail projects over the past five years, including the off-street trail along 75th Street, 76th Street, and Diagonal Boulevard and the future Intercity Regional Trail being built by Three Rivers Park District.Figure 7 shows the full network of planned bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure planned within the city. 12 Through discussions with the SRTS Working Group, interviews with school staff, and feedback from walking/biking assessments conducted in the community, several consistent themes related to infrastructure emerged: §The sidewalk and trail networks continue to be expanded across the city, but significant gaps still exist, and connections to destinations are needed §Crossings of major roadways are one of the most significant real and perceived obstacles to walking and biking §The lack of sidewalk infrastructure is seen as a barrier to walking and biking, particularly for elementary students, even when they live very close to school However, infrastructure alone is not enough to change behaviors. There remain pockets of the community that have not embraced walking and biking, and in some cases even discourage it. At the beginning of this planning process, two elementary schools in Richfield had language in their school handbooks that stated “for safety we encourage all students to ride the bus to school (or get a ride from parents”. This language has since been removed from the handbooks, but demonstrates that perceptions and attitudes towards walking and biking are currently a barrier in some school communities. Education and encouragement to these populations will be necessary to begin to see changes in attitudes and behaviors. Concerns about liability also remain a challenge. Encouraging walking and biking to school do not increase the district’s or school’s liability risk, but continued education of school and district administrators is needed to ensure this is not a barrier to walking and biking to school. The Minnesota Public Health Law Center has resources and training available to help address this issue, including a summary of liability for schools. This document has been included in the Resources section of the Appendix. Recommendations The following sections and the maps shown in Figures 8-13 present recommendations to increase walking and biking to schools in Richfield. The implementation timeline for each recommendation has been identified (short-term, mid-term, long-term, or on-going) as well as identifying the agencies or organizations that would most appropriately take the lead in implementation. The recommendations identified as short-term are generally actions that could be implemented in the next 6 to 12 months, mid-term improvements are generally considered to require 1 to 2 years to implement, and long-term recommendations are expected to require more than 2 years and may also trigger other processes such as policy changes or identification of significant funding sources. Funding of the recommendations is discussed further in the Funding and Implementation section of this report. 13 Short-Term §Install No Parking signing to increase visibility at the 12th Avenue/71st Street marked crosswalk. Although parking is already prohibited in this area, vehicles were observed to frequently park too close to the crosswalk next to Richfield STEM School, limiting the visibility of pedestrians stepping into the crosswalk.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Direct students walking and biking to Centennial Elementary to cross 73rd Street at Bloomington Avenue instead of 16th Avenue.There are no sidewalks on 16th Avenue or pedestrian accommodations at this intersection. In addition, the current crossing location is within the parent pick-up/drop-off area, which has more potential conflicts with vehicles pulling in and out. Implementation lead: Centennial Elementary §Mark 70th Street/Harriet Avenue intersection with high visibility crosswalks. The history of pedestrian and bicycle traffic at the intersection as well as the volume of traffic on 70th Street merit additional measures to increase conspicuity of the crossings. Durable pavement markings may also be considered for this location.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Train adult crossing guards (staff or volunteers) to patrol the 70th Street/Elliot Avenue intersection before and after school. This intersection has higher traffic volumes and speeds and was identified as a concern relative to driver compliance with the school patrols. Adult crossing guards would better be able to provide for safe crossings.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Dual Language School §Install bicycle racks on the east side of Sheridan Hills Elementary. Bicycle parking in this area will better serve students traveling to school from the east, as well as children and families using the playground outside of school hours.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Repaint bicycle pavement markings on 75th Street. The existing pavement markings are faded and need to be repainted to improve visibility.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Prioritize snow plowing at schools and on school routes. A policy that identifies higher pedestrian areas, such as adjacent to schools and along primary routes to schools, will improve the safety and opportunity for walking to school in the winter.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Install a bicycle rack on the west side of Richfield Middle School. The sports fields on the west side of the school are used by children and adults and observations showed bicycles chained to the fences in this area, indicating a demand for bicycle parking. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Provide periodic speed enforcement on 70th Street near Richfield Dual Language and STEM Schools.With the roadway width and lack of parking on 70th Street, traffic speeds have been 14 identified as a key concern of the adjacent schools. Periodic speed enforcement or traffic calming measures such as dynamic speed feedback signs (“speed wagons”) can help slow drivers as well as improve pedestrians’ perceptions of safety.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Continue twice-yearly student travel tallies to track changes in walking and biking to school. The travel tallies provide an easy way to measure the progress of the SRTS activities. In addition, having current data will support funding applications.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools and Bloomington Public Health §Develop a walking/biking section of the school district website. Walking and biking should be treated as equal transportation alternatives to riding the school bus. The webpage should list pedestrian and bicycle safety rules and tips and could also contain the school walk/bike maps. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools, with support from Bloomington Public Health Department. Mid-Term §Designate a SRTS coordinator at the school district level.Individual school sites need support to plan and implement SRTS programs, and coordination of all activities and policies across the district will make the best use of resources and best practices.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Incorporate walking and biking to school into the school district wellness policy. The language of the current policy could be strengthened to encourage walking and biking to school as having health benefits, as well as environmental benefits around the school.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Replace sidewalk on Elliot Avenue near 71st Street and construct pedestrian ramps. The intersection is school patrolled and is marked as a school crossing, however the sidewalk infrastructure does not facilitate pedestrian crossings.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Utilize existing high school and middle school clubs to support walking and biking activities.There are a number of existing clubs or the potential for new clubs that could be used to promote walking and biking, such as a “Green Team” or bike club. The bike club could include teaching students bicycle maintenance and repair, as well as safe riding skills. These clubs, with support from the district, should plan yearly activities for International Walk to School Month in October and National Bike Month in May. High school and middle school students can also support these activities at the elementary school level.Implementation lead – Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School 15 §Establish a permanent Richfield Safe Routes Working Group. The purpose of the Safe Routes committee would be to provide on-going support and organization for walking and biking activities, as well as maintain communication and coordination among each of the agencies that have a role in walking and biking to school (city, county, school district, etc). The working group could be modeled after the Bike Task Force. Some potential activities that the working group may want to consider are planning of a Walk/Bike to School Day, organizing a family walking/biking even outside the school day.Implementation lead: Bloomington Public Health and Richfield Public Schools Long-Term §Replace old and outdated bicycle racks on all school sites.Many of the existing bicycle racks on the school sites are older style racks that provide less secure parking and can potentially damage bicycle wheels. These should be systematically replaced over the next five years. A replacement program could be initiated as part of a citywide bicycle parking program.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Construct sidewalk connections on Centennial Elementary site.Direct paved connections from the south and east sides of the school will provide safer and more easily navigable routes during all weather.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Construct sidewalk on 73rd Street or designate an on-street pedestrian route east of Centennial Elementary.A sidewalk gap exists east of the school and this route will connect to the future Intercity Regional Trail.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Construct sidewalk on 71st Street from Elliot Avenue to 12th Avenue. This segment is not identified in the Richfield Sidewalk plan, but represents an existing sidewalk gap next to two school sites with more than 1,000 students.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Construct a sidewalk connection from 65th Street to the entrance of Sheridan Hills Elementary.A sidewalk connection on the east side of the parking lot would eliminate conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the school parking lot.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Implement the Bicycle Master Plan, with priority placed on routes that connect to schools. This would specifically include the proposed on-street bicycle routes on 70th Street and Sheridan Avenue/Russell Avenue and the off-road trail along the existing railroad alignment.Implementation lead: City of Richfield §Implement the Richfield Sidewalk Plan as identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.Sidewalk segments that are adjacent to or would serve as a route to school should be prioritized, including 64th Street east of Penn Avenue, near Sheridan Hills Elementary, and 73rd Street between I-35W and Lyndale Avenue, which would provide connections to Richfield High School and Richfield Middle School.Implementation lead: City of Richfield 16 §Reconstruct Sheridan Hills driveway onto 65th Street. The existing driveway is very wide and results in a large area of potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Introduce walking and bicycling education into the physical education curriculum.Walking and bicycling safely are life-long skills for a healthy lifestyle. Students should receive education and training about how to safely walk and bicycle to school, with or without sidewalks, as well as how to safely cross at intersections. Examples of physical education curricula are found in the Resources section of this plan.Implementation lead: Richfield Public Schools §Pursue opportunities for bike lane and sidewalk construction as roadways are repaved or resurfaced. The City of Richfield been proactive in seeking opportunities to narrow travel lanes when restriping roadways, which provides a small measure of traffic calming, as well as providing additional space for pedestrians and bicyclist on the shoulder. Opportunities to construct sidewalks or shoulders as part of a larger roadway projects consistent with the Complete Streets Policy should be pursued and coordinated with the citywide maintenance and operation program. Implementation lead:City of Richfield Funding and Implementation Funding for the various recommended projects may come from a variety of sources depending on the type of project and who is implementing it. Some potential funding opportunities that currently exist and may be used to fund these recommendations include, but are not limited to: §Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota §Mini-grants through the National Center for Safe Routes to School §Federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) funds administered through the Metropolitan Council §Safe Routes to School funds administered through the Minnesota Department of Transportation Over the past four years, Minnesota Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP) funds have been administered by the Minnesota Department of Health through cities and counties around the state in the form of Safe Routes to School grants, Active Living grants, and assistance with preparing grant applications for other programs. These funds may be available in some form in the future, and continued communications between school districts, cities, and counties will help identify opportunities and needs for funding in the future. 17 No one of the E’s of Safe Routes to School will by itself increase walking and biking, which emphasizes the need for cooperation among school, city, county and other agencies in the implementation of the recommendations identified in this plan. The process used to develop this plan is only the start of on- going efforts that will be needed to result in cultural changes and significant increases in walking and biking. nm nm nmnm nm nm Centennial Lake Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park Monroe Field Fairwood ParkJefferson Park Fremont Park Sheridan Park Madison Park Roosevelt Park Lincoln Field Smith Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park Taft Park TaftLake Nicollet Park Richfield Lake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Lyndale Field Augsburg Park Strachauer Park 77 MSP Airport §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 62 62 77 Ra m p 77th St 68th St 12th Ave3rd Ave74th StNicollet Ave70th St 14th AveElliot Ave66th St 1st AveLyndale AveIrving Ave73rd St 11th AveChicago Ave61st St Oakland AveColumbus Ave65th St Vincent Ave76th St 78th St 75th St Longfellow Ave18th Ave5th Ave17th AveOliver Ave63rd St Logan Ave15th AvePenn AveMorgan AveStevens Ave70 1/2 St Bryant AveNewton AveAldrich AvePortland AveXerxes AveBlaisdell AveSouthtown Dr Colfax AveQueen AveDupont AveWentworth AveDiagonal BlvdStandish AveRussell AveHumboldt AveEmerson Ave69th StUpton Ave77 1/2 St 64th St 16th AveClinton Ave4th Ave13th Ave71 1/2 St 67th St 79 1/2 StThomas Ave80th St 71st St Fremont Ave2nd AveClover DrGirard Ave79th StPillsbury AveWashburn AveGrand AveOak Grove Bl v d Harriet Ave10th AvePleasant AveGarfield AveCargo RdSheridan AveLake Shore DrHeritage Dr Park Ave Forest Dr Knox AveBarrie RdBloomington AveZenith AveYork TerJames AveLo r e n D r Colfax Ln Augsburg AveApple LnRa e D r Lynwood BlvdMeridian Xing 64 1/2 St 65 1/2 St 14th Ave16th Ave71st St 2nd Ave67th St James AveAmerican BlvdVincent Ave61st St Knox Ave61st St 68th St Humboldt AveLogan AveNewton AveJames AveSheridan AveJames AveLogan Ave5th AveDupont AvePleasant AveMorgan Ave71st St 11th AveThomas Ave66th St 16th AvePleasant Ave72nd St 63rd St Pleasant AveMorgan AveLa k e S h o r e D r 1st Ave2nd AvePillsbury Ave5th Ave64th St Harriet AveChicago AvePillsbury Ave73rd St 70th St 4th AveEmerson Ave67th St 65th St 2nd Ave13th Ave71st StVincent AveKnox Ave74th StQueen Ave64th St 65th St 12th Ave67th St Xerxes Ave64th St 63rd St Park Ave72nd St4th Ave64th St Queen AveSouthtown Dr 74th St 10th AveOliver AveWashburn Ave13th Ave71st St Garfield Ave69th St 61st St Russell AveGarfield AveUpton Ave3rd Ave16th AveAldrich AveStevens Ave75th StYork Ave63rd St Cedar AveDupont Ave18th AveSheridan AveLogan AveOliver Ave80th St 10th Ave5th Ave64th St 4th Ave75th St Wentworth Ave77th StYork Ave71st St 17th AveElliot AveGrand Ave73rd St 2nd Ave18th AveGirard AveRussell AveBlaisdell AveHarriet Ave65th St Washburn Ave76th St 15th Ave62nd St Knox Ave17th Ave15th Ave69th St69th St 2nd AveGrand AveGrand Ave74th St 11th Ave78th St 77th St 72nd St Girard Ave14th Ave80th St 5th AveClinton AveThomas AveRichfield High School Sheridan Hills Elementary Centennial Elementary Richfield Middle School Richfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Figure 1. Richfield City-Wide Pedestrian and Bicycle Existing Facilities Legend On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks School Walk Boundary Municipal Boundary Æó Æó Æó nm nmnm !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë 89:w %&'(494 Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park 77 Sidewalk Gap Bloomington Ave12th AveMinneapolis - St. Paul International Airport12th Ave76th St 77th St 67th StElliot AveAmerican Blvd 72nd St Cedar Ave69th St 74th St 66th St 73rd StColumbus AveCargo Rd 13th AveLongfellow Ave18th Ave17th Ave15th AveAirport Ln75th StDiagonal Blvd80th StBloomington AveChicago Ave22nd AveRac 3 RdThunderbird Rd16th Ave69th St 77th St13th Ave10th Ave15th Ave73rd StPark Ave16th Ave14th Ave71st St 78th St11th AveBloomington Ave17th Ave16th Ave14th Ave78t h S t 24th Ave75th St 14th Ave80th St14th AveOakland Ave71st St 80th St 24th Ave18th Ave10th Ave74th St Centennial Elementary Richfield S.T.E.M. School Richfield Dual Language School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 2. Centennial Elementary Existing Conditions Map Enrollment: 460 students Number in walk zone: 150 students Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Æó Æó Æó 89:w 89:w nm nmnm !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë Roosevelt Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park 77 Heredia Park Sidewalk on Elliot Ave in poor condition Sidewalk gap on 71st St Parked vehicles too close to crosswalk Adult crossing guards needed4th Ave12th Ave13th Ave68th St 67th St 75th St 70th StPark AveElliot Ave69th St 66th St 72nd St 74th St 14th AvePortland Ave73rd St Chicago AveOakland AveColumbus AveBloomington Ave11th Ave17th Ave71st St 10th Ave65th St 15th Ave5th AveDiagonal Blvd16th AveFe r n D rApple Ln15th Ave16th Ave69th St 11th Ave16th Ave71st St 71st St 73rd St 14th Ave5th Ave14th Ave74th St10th Ave17th Ave72nd St 15th Ave5th AveRichfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 3. Richfield Dual Language & STEM Schools Existing Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Richfield Dual Language School Enrollment: 461 students Number in walk zone: 19 students Richfield STEM School Enrollment: 772 students Number in walk zone: 93 students Æónm !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë Monroe Field Fairwood Park Sheridan Park Madison Park KennyPark France Ave%&'(W53 Jefferson Park ArmatagePark 62 No bike racks near playground 62 Wide driveway enterance No designated school crossings 60th St 69th St 65th St 67th St 68th StPenn AveVincent Ave64th St 61st St 63rd St 66th StYork AveXerxes AveBarrie RdOliver AveZenith AveAbbott AveRussell AveMorgan AveUpton Ave59th St Thomas AveNewton AveKnox AveWashburn AveLogan AveHeritage Dr Queen AveSheridan AveForest Dr GalleriaLakeview Ave 65 1/2 St Southdale Cir Oliver Ave61st S t 64th StSheridan AveNewton AveWashburn AveWashburn AveSheridan AveMorgan AveNewton AveThomas AveLogan AveThomas Ave59th St Queen AveYork AveUpton AveRussell AveQueen AveYork AveOliver AveRussell AveLogan AveVincent AveXerxes AveMorgan AveKnox Ave62nd St 62nd StUpton AveKnox AveQueen AveSheridan Hills Elementary ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 4. Sheridan Hills Elementary Existing Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 490 students Number in walk zone: 110 students Æónm !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë 89:w 89:w Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park MonroeFieldFairwoodPark Fremont Park Wood Lake Nature Center JeffersonPark Pedestrian Bridge §¨¦494 §¨¦35W §¨¦35W35W No bike racks on west side of school Bicycles parked outside corral Bicycle route pavement markings need to be repaintedPenn Ave76th St 69th St 70th St 73rd St 72nd St Upton AveOliver Ave75th St American Blvd 78th St 74th St Thomas AveLogan AveNewton AveMorgan Ave70 1/2 St Vincent AveIrving AveHumboldt AveJames AveFremont AveSouthtown Dr Girard AveKnox Ave71 1/2 St Clover DrLake Shore Dr77th St 71st St Queen AveRussell AveSheridan Ave72 1/2 St 74th StRussell AveHumboldt AveVincent AveAmerican Blvd Girard Ave77th St James AveSheridan Ave73rd St Queen AveThomas AveLogan AveKnox Ave71st St American Blvd Southtown DrNewton AveMorgan AveVincent AveHumboldt AveKnox AveLake S h o r e D r Richfield Middle School ±0 620 1,240310 Feet Figure 5. Richfield Middle School Existing Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 904 students Number in walk zone: 317 students Æónm !"$!"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë Fremont Park Roosevelt Park Augsburg Park %&'(W53 Lincoln Field RichfieldLake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Students walk along railroad tracks History of pedestrian/ bicycle crashes Bicycle racks in need of replacement 73rd St 66th St 1st AveNicollet AveLyndale Ave70th St 68th St 2nd Ave74th StHarriet Ave65th St Stevens Ave72nd St 75th StBryant AveAldrich AveBlaisdell AveDupont Ave69th St Colfax AveWentworth AveEmerson Ave67th St Pillsbury AveGrand AveOak Grove Bl v d Pleasant AveGarfield AveLa k e S h o r e D r 71st St Augsburg AveRae D r Lynwood BlvdPillsbury Ln Pleasant LnWoodlake Dr Bob's Pl Emerson Ave72nd St Pleasant Ave71st St 71st StGrand Ave69th St 75th StHarriet Ave2nd AvePleasant AveStevens AveBlaisdell Ave1st AveEmerson AvePillsbury Ave74th St Stevens Ave69th St Wentworth Ave67th St Pleasant Ave65th St Pleasant AveGarfield AveRichfield High School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 6. Richfield High School Existing Conditions Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 1,101 students Number in walk zone: 626 students nm nm nmnm nm nm Centennial Lake Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park Monroe Field Fairwood ParkJefferson Park Fremont Park Sheridan Park Madison Park Roosevelt Park Lincoln Field Smith Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park Taft Park TaftLake Nicollet Park Richfield Lake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Lyndale Field Augsburg Park Strachauer Park 77 MSP Airport §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 62 62 77 Ra m p Richfield High School Centennial Elementary Richfield Middle School Richfield S.T.E.M. School Sheridan Hills Elementary Richfield Dual Language School ±0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Figure 7. Richfield City-Wide Planned Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Legend Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks School Walk Boundary Municipal Boundary Æónm Wilson Park 77 Construct sidewalk or stripe on-road pedestrian area Improve crossing at 73rd St/16th Ave S Construct sidewalk connection from bike racks to front door Construct sidewalk connection 18th Ave17th AveCedar Ave75th St 72nd St 74th St15th Ave73rd StBloomington AveDiagonal Blvd16th Ave15th Ave16th AveCentennial Elementary ±0 150 300 Feet Figure 8. Centennial Elementary School Recommendations Map Enrollment: 460 students Number in walk zone: 150 students Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Æó Æó Æó nm nmnm !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë 89:w 89:w 89:w bcdpf í %&'(494 Roosevelt Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park TaftParkNicolletPark 77 Heredia Park Construct sidewalk on 71st Street Sign No Parking zone Install bike racks Reconstruct sidewalk Implement trained adult school patrol Construct pedestrian ramps Implement planned bike facility4th Ave12th Ave13th Ave68th St 67th St 75th St 70th StPark AveElliot Ave69th St 66th St 72nd St 74th St 14th AvePortland Ave73rd St Chicago AveOakland AveColumbus AveBloomington Ave11th Ave17th Ave71st St 10th Ave65th St 15th Ave5th AveDiagonal Blvd16th AveFe r n D rApple Ln15th Ave16th Ave69th St 11th Ave16th Ave71st St 71st St 73rd St 14th Ave5th Ave14th Ave74th St10th Ave17th Ave72nd St 15th Ave5th AveRichfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 625 1,250312.5 Feet Figure 9. Richfield Dual Language & STEM Recommendations Map Richfield Dual Language School Enrollment: 461 students Number in walk zone: 19 students Richfield STEM School Enrollment: 772 students Number in walk zone: 93 students Legend 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing èéíìë Traffic Signal Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius !!!!!!!!!!Æó nm !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìëèéíìë Sheridan Park Jefferson Park 62 Install bike racks Construct sidewalk to school enterance Construct narrower driveway Implement planned bike facility Sheridan Hills Elementary 64th St 65th St 66th StVincent AveRussell AveUpton AveThomas AveWashburn AveQueen AveSheridan Ave65 1/2 St Washburn AveUpton AveRussell AveThomas AveQueen AveSheridan Ave±0 150 300 Feet Figure 10. Sheridan Hills Elementary Recommendations Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Enrollment: 490 students Number in walk zone: 110 students Æó nm !"$ !"$!"$ !"$ èéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë Donaldson ParkRichfield Middle School I 35W76th St 73rd St 75th St RampOliver AveHumboldt AveKnox AveLogan AveNewton AveMorgan AveJames Ave78th St74th St Knox AveRampLogan Ave76th St RampNewton AveMorgan Ave±0 150 300 Feet Figure 11. Richfield Middle School Recommendations Map Enrollment: 904 students Number in walk zone: 317 students Repaint on-street bike markings Replace bike racks Install bike rack Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Æó nm !"$!"$èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë Richfield High School 70th St 73rd StHarriet AveGarfield Ave72nd St Lyndale Ave71st St Grand AvePleasant AveWentworth AveAugsburg AvePillsbury AvePillsbury Ln Pleasant Ln 72nd StPleasant AveGrand AvePleasant AvePleasant AveLyndale AveWentworth AvePillsbury Ave±0 150 300 Feet Figure 12. Richfield High School Recommendations Map Enrollment: 1101 students Number in walk zone: 626 students Repaint crosswalks Replace bike racks Legend 89:w Signed Pedestrian Crossing èéíìë Traffic Signal Marked School Crossing School Patrolled Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Æó Bicycle Racks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Off Street Trail Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks Half Mile Radius Implement planned bicycle route Implement planned off street trail nm nm nmnm nm nm !"$!"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$ !"$èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìë èéíìëèéíìë 62 LakePamela Centennial Lake Adams Hill Park Donaldson Park Monroe Field Fairwood ParkJefferson Park Fremont Park Sheridan Park Madison Park KennyPark Roosevelt Park Lincoln Field Smith Park Washington Park Wilson Park Christian Park Veterans Memorial Park Taft Park TaftLake Nicollet Park Richfield Lake Park Wood Lake Nature Center Lyndale Field Augsburg Park Strachauer Park %&'(W53 77 MSP Airport §¨¦494 §¨¦35W 62 62 77 Ra m p Implement on-street bicycle route with destination signing for Richfield Dual Language School, Richfield STEM School, and Richfield High School Implement off-street trail on Pleasant Ave, with connection to Richfield High School Implement on-street bicycle route on Sheridan/Russell, with connection to Sheridan Hills Elementary Implement planned sidewalk extension 77th St 68th St 12th Ave3rd Ave74th StNicollet Ave70th St 14th AveElliot Ave66th St 1st AveLyndale AveIrving Ave73rd St 11th AveChicago Ave61st St Oakland AveColumbus Ave65th St Vincent Ave76th St 78th St 75th St Longfellow Ave18th Ave5th Ave17th AveOliver Ave63rd St Logan Ave15th AvePenn AveMorgan AveStevens Ave70 1/2 St Bryant AveNewton AveAldrich AvePortland AveXerxes AveBlaisdell AveSouthtown Dr Colfax AveQueen AveDupont AveWentworth AveDiagonal BlvdStandish AveRussell AveHumboldt AveEmerson Ave69th StUpton Ave77 1/2 St 64th St 16th AveClinton Ave4th Ave13th Ave71 1/2 St 67th St 79 1/2 StThomas Ave80th St 71st St Fremont Ave2nd AveClover DrGirard Ave79th StPillsbury AveWashburn AveGrand AveOak Grove Bl v d Harriet Ave10th AvePleasant AveGarfield AveCargo RdSheridan AveLake Shore DrHeritage Dr Park Ave Forest Dr Knox AveBarrie RdBloomington AveZenith AveYork TerJames AveLo r e n D r Colfax Ln Augsburg AveApple LnRa e D r Lynwood BlvdMeridian Xing 64 1/2 St 65 1/2 St 14th Ave16th Ave71st St 2nd Ave67th St James AveAmerican BlvdVincent Ave61st St Knox Ave61st St 68th St Humboldt AveLogan AveNewton AveJames AveSheridan AveJames AveLogan Ave5th AveDupont AvePleasant AveMorgan Ave71st St 11th AveThomas Ave66th St 16th AvePleasant Ave72nd St 63rd St Pleasant AveMorgan AveLa k e S h o r e D r 1st Ave2nd AvePillsbury Ave5th Ave64th St Harriet AveChicago AvePillsbury Ave73rd St 70th St 4th AveEmerson Ave67th St 65th St 2nd Ave13th Ave71st StVincent AveKnox Ave74th StQueen Ave64th St 65th St 12th Ave67th St Xerxes Ave64th St 63rd St Park Ave72nd St4th Ave64th St Queen AveSouthtown Dr 74th St 10th AveOliver AveWashburn Ave13th Ave71st St Garfield Ave69th St 61st St Russell AveGarfield AveUpton Ave3rd Ave16th AveAldrich AveStevens Ave75th StYork Ave63rd St Cedar AveDupont Ave18th AveSheridan AveLogan AveOliver Ave80th St 10th Ave5th Ave64th St 4th Ave75th St Wentworth Ave77th StYork Ave71st St 17th AveElliot AveGrand Ave73rd St 2nd Ave18th AveGirard AveRussell AveBlaisdell AveHarriet AveWashburn Ave76th St 15th Ave62nd St Knox Ave17th Ave15th Ave69th St69th St 2nd AveGrand AveGrand Ave74th St 11th Ave78th St 77th St 72nd St Girard Ave14th Ave80th St 5th AveClinton AveThomas AveSheridan Hills Elementary Richfield High School Centennial Elementary Richfield Middle School Richfield S.T.E.M. SchoolRichfield Dual Language School ±0 1,250 2,500625 Feet Figure 13. Richfield City-Wide Recommendations Map Legend èéíìë Traffic Signal !"$All-Way Stop Intersection Recommended Pedestrian Improvement Area Proposed Sidewalks BMP Preferred Future On Street Route BMP Preferred Future Trail Route Future Off Street Trail Off Street Trail On Street Bicycle Route Sidewalks Proposed Sidewalks School Walk Boundary Municipal Boundary A-1 Appendix A-2 Student Travel Tally Results School Modes To/From School (Fall 2012) Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle Carpool Other AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Centennial Elementary 7% 9% 2% 2% 73% 78% 18% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Richfield Dual Language 2% 2% 1% 1% 61% 69% 34% 27% 2% 1% 0% 0% Richfield STEM 4% 5% 1% 1% 59% 69% 35% 22% 1% 1% 0% 2% Sheridan Hills Elementary 4% 4% 0% 0% 62% 71% 33% 25% 1% 0% 0% 0% Richfield Middle 7% 11% 5% 5% 59% 50% 26% 32% 2% 2% 1% 0% A-3 Parent Survey Results School Number of Survey Responses Centennial Elementary 0 Richfield Dual Language 73 Richfield STEM 156 Sheridan Hills Elementary 1 Richfield Middle School 1 Righfield High School 5 Total 236 Question 1. What is the grade of the child who brought home this survey? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Percent of Respondents 0% 12% 15% 20% 22%6% 22%0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% Question 2. Is the child who brought home this survey male or female? Male Female Percent of Respondents 41% 59% Question 3. How many children do you have in Kindergarten through 8th grade? 0 1 2 3 4 5+ Percent of Respondents 2% 46% 41% 10% 1% 0% Question 6. On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Arrive to School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle (only children in your family) Carpool (children from other families) Transit (city bus) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, etc.) Percent of Respondents 6% 1% 58% 34% 1% 0% 0% A-4 Question 6 (continued). On most days, how does your child arrive and leave for school? Leave from School Walk Bike School Bus Family Vehicle (only children in your family) Carpool (children from other families) Transit (city bus) Other (skateboard, scooter, inline skates, etc.) Percent of Respondents 6% 1% 58% 34% 1% 0% 0% Question 7. How long does it normally take your child to get to/from school? Travel Time to School < 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 11-20 minutes More than 20 minutes Don't know Percent of Respondents 18% 34% 31% 9% 8% Travel Time From School < 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 11-20 minutes More than 20 minutes Don't know Percent of Respondents 17% 31% 35% 9% 8% Question 8. Has your child asked you for permission to walk or bike to/from school in the last year? Yes No Percent of Respondents 19% 81% Question 9. At what grade would you allow your child to walk or bike to/from school without an adult? PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ Percent of Respondents 0% 1% 1% 1% 5% 12% 20% 25% 12% 7% 16% A-5 Question 10. What of the following issues affected your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 4% Distance 67% Convenience of Driving 13% Time 27% Before/After School Activities 15% Speed of Traffic 56% Amount of Traffic 61% Adults to Walk or Bike With 23% Sidewalks or Pathways 30% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 65% Crossing Guards 13% Violence or Crime 32% Weather or Climate 48% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. Question 11. Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? Issue Percent of Respondents Child Already Walks/Bikes 5% Distance 39% Convenience of Driving 11% Time 20% Before/After School Activities 16% Speed of Traffic 39% Amount of Traffic 42% Adults to Walk or Bike With 32% Sidewalks or Pathways 26% Safety of Intersections and Crossings 45% Crossing Guards 21% Violence or Crime 31% Weather or Climate 1% Percentages do not total 100% because respondents could select more than one issue. A-6 Question 12. In your opinion, how much does your child's school encourage or discourage walking and biking to/from school? Strongly Encourages Encourages Neither Discourages Strongly Discourages Percent of Respondents 3%20% 71%5%1% Question 13. How much fun is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Fun Fun Neutral Boring Very Boring Not Applicable Percent of Respondents 7% 34% 50% 4% 2% 3% Question 14. How healthy is walking or biking to/from school for your child? Very Healthy Healthy Neutral Unhealthy Very Unhealthy Percent of Respondents 41% 39% 18%2%0% Question 15. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed? School Grades 1 through 8 (Elementary) Grades 9 through 11 (Some High School) Grade 12 or GED (High school graduate) College 1 to 3 years (Some college or technical school) College 4 years or more (College graduate) Graduate School (Masters degree or doctorate) Prefer not to answer Percent of Respondents 6% 6% 11% 29% 40% 1% 7% A-7 Resources 1.National Center for Safe Routes to School, Ongoing Activities guide.saferoutesinfo.org/encouragement/ongoing_activities.cfm 2.Two Day Travel Tally, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-student-class-travel-tally 3.Parent Survey, National Center for Safe Routes to School www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/evaluation-parent-survey 4.Minnesota Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School resources and funding opportunities www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/ 5.Minnesota Public Health Law Center legal and liability resources http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/active-living/physical-activity-schools/resources 6.Examples of walking and biking curriculums for elementary and middle school students http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.html/elementary-srts-curriculum.pdf http://www.dot.state.mn.us/saferoutes/toolkit.html/middle-school-bicycle-education.pdf 7.Information and examples of pedestrian and bicycle safety campaigns http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/pedcampaign/ http://www.bikesbelong.org/resources/stats-and-research/research/bicycle-safety-campaign- review/ Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Liability Exposure for Schools Each school day presents new opportunities for students of all ages to practice healthy behaviors. Schools and school districts are improving student and community health through programs tailored to a community’s individual needs and resources. Across Minnesota, school districts are updating their policies to include school wellness, Farm to School, Safe Routes to School programs, school gardens, and are entering into facilities use agreements to expand the recreational use of school property. Well-designed policies, led by knowledgeable and supportive staff, can advance student nutrition, increase physical activity, and help develop healthy lifestyles? While school districts are generally subject to liability for their wrongful acts as well the acts of their employees, fortunately, Minnesota law provides some significant protections. What is liability? For purposes of this publication, liability can be defined as legal responsibility for another person’s injury or damages. There are numerous provisions within both state and federal law that serve as sources of potential liability for school districts. However, when a school district is considering allowing community use of its facilities for recreational activities, the possibility that someone who is using a school facility might suffer an injury and bring a claim against the district (or its officers, employees, or agents) is arguably the district’s most significant liability concern. The standards for holding someone liable differ depending on who or what caused the injury. Typically, for a person to be held liable for someone else’s injuries, an injured person must first prove that the accused had a legal responsibility to protect him or her from harm (otherwise known as “duty of care”). Concerns about “liability” can keep schools from implementing policies that would benefit students and community members alike. minnesota recreational use Liability Exposure for Schools | 2 Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Then, the injured person has to show that the accused party failed to protect him or her (or “breached” the duty of care) and as a result, was injured in an expected (or “foreseeable”) manner.1 The general expectation is that one will act reasonably toward others.2 What is considered reasonable, however, depends on the circumstances. Failure to act with as much care as an ordinary, reasonable person in a given situation would is considered negligence.3 However, there are situations where a person or entity is held to a higher or lower standard. How are school districts protected from liability? Through governmental immunities. Immunities, provided both in state statutes4 and court decisions5, protect school districts from liability for a variety of claims. Two immunities are particularly relevant when developing policies that promote healthy, active lifestyles. First, school districts are shielded from liability that might arise from discretionary conduct.6 Statutory discretionary immunity protects policy-making decisions that require considering factors such as budget, education, resources and safety.7 For example, a school district may adopt a policy stating that, due to limited resources and a desire to cultivate independence, students are responsible for getting on the correct bus at the end of the day.8 Statutory discretionary immunity protects school districts from having their decisions “second-guessed” by the courts. Discretionary conduct is distinguished from operational-level or “ministerial” conduct. Operational activities that do not involve exercising of discretion, such as following an established plan, are not protected.9 Second, school districts are generally protected from liability when injuries result from the recreational use of school property. Local governments are generally immune from claims based on the construction, operation, or maintenance of any property owned or leased for park or recreational purposes.10 School districts are also protected against claims arising from the use of school property or school facilities that are made available for public recreational activities.11 Schools that fail to warn recreational users of known, hidden hazards may still be liable for injuries.12 Are teachers, coaches and other school personnel protected as well? Yes, school personnel are generally protected as well. “Official immunity” protects individuals from personal liability for discretionary actions taken in the course of their official duties.13 This is intended to alleviate concerns that the fear of personal liability might deter independent action.14 School districts are also generally required to defend and indemnify their employees if they are sued for something arising out of their employment.15 However, school personnel are not protected for willful or malicious conduct,16 intentionally behaving in a way that is likely to cause harm to another person. Additionally, teachers may not be protected for failing to responsibly perform their regular duties. For example, a teacher who allows students to engage in dangerous play during recess may be liable if a child gets injured.17 Liability Exposure for Schools | 3 Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 What steps can a school district take to reduce the risk of liability? There are a number of common sense precautions school districts can take to reduce their risk of liability. Some common risk management strategies include: ■Creating clear policies that are based on a balancing of social, economic, financial and political factors. ■Preserving a record of the decision-making process. ■Training staff in regard to their roles in implementing policies. ■Periodically reviewing policies and procedures, revising when necessary. ■Eliminating known dangers where possible. ■Documenting all precautions taken to avoid harm or risk. ■Developing safety rules and handing them out to all students and parents. Rules should comply with any local rules, any local, state or federal laws, and any national standards. ■Requiring parents or guardians of students to sign waivers before students participate in recreational activities.18 ■Forming joint powers or facility use agreements with other public entities or community organizations that specifically outline acceptable uses of school property and facilities. ■Obtaining liability insurance that covers lawsuits arising from injuries. Last updated: May 2013 The Publication was prepared by the Public Health Law Center at William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, funded by the CDC’s Community Transformation Grant initiative and a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Active Living Research grant. (#69554). The Public Health Law Center provides information and technical assistance on issues related to public health. The Public Health Law Center does not provide legal representation or advice. This document should not be considered legal advice. For specific legal questions, consult with an attorney. Liability Exposure for Schools | 4 Public Health Law Center 875 Summit Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55105 www.publichealthlawcenter.org 651.290.7506 Endnotes 1 Lubbers v. Anderson, 539 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Minn. 1995). 2 See Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 916 (Minn. 1980); 4 Minn. Prac., Jury Instr. Guides--Civil CIVJIG 25.10 (5th ed. 2010). 3 See Baker v. Amtrak Nat. R.R. Passenger Corp., 588 N.W.2d 749, 753 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). 4 minn. stat. § 466.03 (2012) (local governments); minn. stat. § 3.736 (2012) (state entities). 5 “Common law” is developed through court decisions. 6 There are many protections available to schools and the distinctions between them can be difficult to understand. In an effort to simplify the topic of school liability, we have combined discussion of statutory discretionary immunity for municipalities as per minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 3 (2012), with discussion of common law and vicarious common law official immunity. Individual situations should be reviewed by an attorney. 7 See J.W. ex rel. B.R.W. v. 287 Intermediate Dist., 761 N.W.2d 896, 902 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009) (including consider- ation of safety issues, financial burdens, and possible legal consequences in decision-making). 8 Pletan v. Gaines, 494 N.W.2d 38, 43-44 (Minn. 1992). 9 Holmquist v. State, 425 N.W.2d 230, 232 (Minn. 1988). 10 minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 6e (2012). 11 minn. stat. § 466.03, subd. 23 (2012). 12 Lishinski v. City of Duluth, 634 N.W.2d 456, 459-61 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 13 Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep. Sch. Dist. 11, 678 N.W.2d 651, 660 (Minn. 2004). 14 Elwood v. Rice Cnty., 423 N.W.2d 671, 678 (Minn. 1988). 15 minn. stat. § 466.07, subd. 1 (2012). 16 Gleason v. Metro. Council Transit Operations, 582 N.W.2d 216, 220 (Minn. 1998). 17 Fear v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 911, 634 N.W.2d 204, 215-16 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001). 18 While waivers are not a guarantee against liability, they may reduce the likelihood of being sued. For more informa- tion, please refer to the Public Health Law Center factsheet on Waivers and Releases, available at http://www.publi- chealthlawcenter.org/resources/minnesota-recreational-use A-12 References 1 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010 Adult Data Book, Survey of the Health of All the Population and the Environment, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2011. 2 Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. SHAPE 2010 – Child Survey Data Book, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 2011. 3 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 30, 2005. 4 2009 Traffic Volumes Map, Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Data and Analysis. AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 4. STAFF REPORT NO. 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Kelly Wynn, Administrative Assistant DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider the appointment of a youth member to the Sustainability Commission. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City advisory commission terms for youth members are for one year and expire August 31 of each year. The City Manager’s office conducts recruitment seeking applicants to fill the youth vacancies each year. This recruitment includes information on the City’s website, Facebook page, and communication with the local high schools. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the appointment of Helen Burk to the Sustainability Commission as a youth commissioner. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT This information is contained in the Executive Summary. B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Appointing a youth commissioner promotes inclusivity in our community and will make for more community- representative conversations and decision making. An unintended consequence may be relying on the youth commissioners to voice concerns for all youth, and the commission can mitigate this by being mindful about how they include the youth commissioners in commission proceedings. This also contributes to the Strategic Plan outcome that staff, boards, and commissions reflect the diversity of the community. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): City advisory commissions were established by City ordinance or resolution. D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: None F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): Postpone appointment of youth commissioners to a future City Council Meeting. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 5. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW:Kristin Asher, Public Works Director 1/17/2024 OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval and adoption of an Active Transportation Action Plan for the City of Richfield. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In August 2022, Richfield was awarded a MnDOT grant to develop an Active Transportation Plan for public infrastructure in the city. Over the past 18 months, staff from MnDOT, their consultant, and a committee including representatives from Public Works, Community Development, Public Safety, Public Health, City Council, Richfield Public Schools, and the community has led a public engagement and plan development effort to create the Active Transportation Action Plan for the city. Transportation Engineer Matt Hardegger will briefly present the key details of the Active Transportation Action Plan at the City Council meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION: By Motion: Approve and adopt the Active Transportation Action Plan for the City of Richfield BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT This grant was awarded to the city in August 2022. Public Engagement consisted of an online open house (encouraging residents to comment on an interactive map), a winter bike/walk workshop held at City Hall in Feburary 2023, and a pop up event at the Richfield Eco Fair in April 2023. Staff and committee members then combined the input received at all of these engagement activities and developed the sections of the plan in coordination with MnDOT's consultant staff. The plan builds on the Bicycle Master Plan (2012), Safe Routes to School Master Plan (2014), and Pedestrian Master Plan (2018). B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Strategic considerations: Adopting the Active Transportation Plan will help to prioritize climate resiliency and reduce racial inequities by focusing on non-vehicular travel in Richfield. Equity: Providing safe and comfortable active transportation facilities creates more viable transportation options, especially for residents without access to a personal vehicle. By focusing investments in areas to benefit traditionally disadvantaged populations, more residents are provided with mobility freedom to choose a form of transportation that meets their needs. C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): The Active Transportation Action Plan is consistent with the following: Richfield 2040 Comprehensive Plan Approved Guiding Principles Approved Complete Streets Policy Approved Bicycle Master Plan Approved Pedestrian Master Plan Approved Safe Routes to School Master Plan D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: The Active Transportation Action Plan will be one of the several input measures that guide the design of upcoming and future street reconstruction and rehabilitation projects throughout the City of Richfield. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: No immediate financial impacts. Projects identified in the Active Transportation Action Plan may be added to future Capital Improvement Plans and require capital construction funding at that point. F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: None ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): None PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Active Transportation Action Plan Exhibit ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN1 Fall 2023 City of Richfield, MN Active Transportation ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN2 Acknowledgement Community Planning Team: •Joe Powers, City Engineer •Samantha Crosby, Planner •Chris Link, Deputy Public Works Director •Amy Markle, Recreation Services Director •Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer •Brad Drayna, Police Lieutenant •Will Wlizlo, SRTS Coordinator •Sean Hayford Oleary, City Council Member •Jordan Kocak, Hennepin County Bike and Pedestrian Coordinator •Esther Mwangi, SHIP Program Coordinator •Jan Matheus, Bike Walk Richfield 2 The Action Plan was funded through the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) Active Transportation Program. Learn more: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/ active-transportation- program/Project Partners: •Richfield Public Schools •Hennepin County •Bloomington Public Health •Bike Walk Richfield •Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN3 Contents Executive Summary 1.Introduction 2.Vision and Goals 3.Our Streets Today 4.Building the Network 5.Best Practices 6.Moving Forward ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN4 Executive Summary The Active Transportation Action Plan is the result of planning effort from October 2022 to September 2023 funded by MnDOT. Richfield’s Planning Team included members from the City, Hennepin County, Richfield Public Schools, Bike Walk Richfield, Bloomington Public Health and Bicycle Alliance of Minnesota. The Planning Team came together to set direction, co-create strategy and help develop this Plan. The Action Plan stitches together network priorities from the Bicycle Plan (2012), Pedestrian Plan (2018), recent accomplishments and refreshed perspectives based on community input to provide a framework for the Public Works team. It serves as a living guide. It is intended to be used, acted on and updated to continue to create more sustainable and equitable streets by design. The focus of the Action Plan is to continue to build out a connected network of separated bike lanes, quality walking routes, compact intersections and neighborhood greenways to make sure all people in Richfield can connect safely, easily, intuitively and with pride from their door to community resources by walking, biking, rolling and taking transit. As the City takes steps towards achieving this vision, starting with the adoption of a reduced citywide speed limit, this Plan outlines other key action steps focus on: 1.Neighborhood Traffic Calming: Develop a program and seek funds to implement and continue quick-build projects on residential streets, intentionally involving residents, business owners and community organizations 2.City-County-State Partnerships: Continue to deepen relationships with other street authorities including Hennepin County on the Nicollet Avenue redesign and Penn Avenue; MnDOT to address critical pedestrian/bicycle bridge repairs and other active transportation links that are needed due to the highway system 3.Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Crossings: Prioritize safety for people walking, rolling and biking, especially at intersection crossings (roundabouts, signalized and unsignalized) and mid-block locations. 4 What’s Included in the Plan? 1 2 3 4 5 Introduction Why an Active Transportation Action Plan Vision and Goals Guiding direction of the Plan Our Streets Today How the Plan was developed; key insights from process Building the Network Priority routes and projects and overarching recommendations Best Practices Core concepts illustrated Moving Forward A call to action 6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN5 5 Introduction SECTION 1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN6 Why an Active Transportation Action Plan? The City of Richfield believes that walking, biking and rolling* are essential ways people of all ages and abilities reach the places they want to go, connect with the people they want to see, and improve their physical and mental health. The City identifies active transportation as a necessary tool for improving community resiliency and environmental health by reducing the City’s carbon footprint. The Action Plan provides a framework, a living guide, for the City to track, maintain and grow a safe active transportation network for everyone. It builds on the Bicycle Plan (2012), Pedestrian Plan (2018) and Complete Street projects that 6 have been implemented, like 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue, with separated bike lanes, wider sidewalks and modern roundabouts. The focus of the Action Plan is to continue to build out a connected network of protected bike lanes, quality walking routes, compact intersections and neighborhood greenways to make sure all people in Richfield can connect safely, easily, intuitively and with pride from their door to community resources by walking, biking, rolling and taking transit. The Plan lays out priority actions and tools to continue to make Richfield the most walkable and bikeable city in Minnesota. Making equitable investments that improve safety and comfort for all people drives the street design decision making process. This is done by placing the most vulnerable user – people walking, rolling and biking– first. * Rolling refers to people using a wheelchair, stroller, scooter or other assistive mobility device. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN7 How the Plan Was Developed Four planning team meetings, walking and mapping workshops, pop-up conversations and online engagement with an interactive comment map and survey informed the development of Richfield’s Active Transportation Action Plan. Photos (clockwise from top left): •Winter bike ride participant. •Person waiting for bus along 66th Street in February. •Participants of a network planning workshop. INSIGHT Process of discovery ITERATE Putting the plan together IDEATE Turning key insights into actions During the first two planning team meetings, the team identified the vision and goals, shared perspectives on existing conditions, current policy, planned and executed an online comment map, walking and biking workshops to learn from the community and existing conditions. The planning team discussed and synthesized what they learned from existing conditions and community input to identify action steps for improving biking, walking and rolling in Richfield. The planning team solidified priority projects, programs, and policies and documented them in this Plan to provide the city with steps to continue improving active transportation in Richfield. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN8 Minnesota must reduce transportation related greenhouse gas emissions by 80% and vehicle miles traveled by 20% by 2050 to reach its climate goals. Active transportation networks help people shift from driving. Less driving means cleaner air. Street trees add to active transportation users’ comfort and help absorb and filter rainwater, reducing stormwater costs and urban heat gain. Active transportation stimulates local economies through job creation, tourism and business development. People walking and biking make more frequent trips than people driving, spending more money at local businesses. Equity Environment Economy Owning one car costs roughly $10,700 per year (AAA, 2022). 33% of people who walk, roll, bike and use transit to get to work in Richfield do not have access to a car. Car ownership should not be a requirement for getting around safely and efficiently. Why Active Transportation? “Walking the Walk; How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities”, Joe Cortright, n.d. “Cyclists and Pedestrians Can End Up Spending More Each Month Than Drivers”, Emily Badger, n.d.“Statewide Pedestrian System Plan”, Minnesota Department of Transportation, n.d. U.S. Census 2021 ACS 5-year estimates for Richfield ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN9 Social Connection Happiness Why Active Transportation? Health & Wellbeing “Active Transportation: Benefitting health, safety and equity”, American Public Health Association, n.d. Bike commuting at least 2 miles, 3 times per week is linked to: 46% lower odds of heart disease or diabetes, 31% lower odds of obesity, 28% lower odds of high blood pressure, lower medical costs, and better quality of life "Humans are social creatures— we live in community.Individual health and wellbeing is intricately tied to the health of our communities and our interactions with others." “How Do Our Social Networks Effect our Wellbeing”, University of Minnesota, n.d. Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found bicycling to be the happiest form of transportation. “U Of M Researcher: Biking Found To Be The Happiest Form Of Transport, Public Transit The Least”, CBS News Minnesota, n.d. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN10 Safe System Approach More communities and agencies, including Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration (USDOT/ FHWA) are following a Safe System Approach to traffic safety, which aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users, including people walking, bicycling and rolling. Safe System focuses roadway safety efforts on ways to effectively: 1.Design for the people in the system 2.Manage vehicle speeds by design 3.Employ proactive tools to manage risks across an entire roadway network, especially for the most vulnerable users 4.Foster integrated, collaborative and coordinated action [MnDOT] can prevent traumatic life-altering, costly crashes by focusing on creating low-speed environments in population centers and around other destinations where people are likely to walk [and bike]." - Statewide Pedestrian Systems Plan Source: FHWA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN11 Making Safety a Priority Over Speed This Plan focuses on designing safer streets to ensure all people have safer, more comfortable options and more transportation choices. Reducing driver speeds directly improves the safety of streets and sense of place. Why Speed Matters The negative impact of motor vehicle travel speed on crashes that involve people walking and biking is well documented. For example, a person walking has a 95-percent chance of surviving the crash if struck by a person driving at 20 mph. The chances of survival decrease by almost 50 percent when the person driving is traveling only 10 mph faster. Traffic crashes that kill and injure people are a serious transportation and public health concern. The Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths initiative is working statewide with cities to achieve zero traffic-related injuries and deaths, believing they are unacceptable and preventable. Lower speed streets better support businesses by increasing visibility. At lower speeds, drivers can see more of their surroundings and have more time to react, yield and stop for people crossing, parking and to avoid potentially fatal crashes. Field of vision at 15 MPH Field of vision at 30 to 40 MPH ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN12 Target Speed | Designing for Safe Speeds Conventional Street/Highway Design Proactive Multimodal Street Design Operating Speed = Design Speed = Posted Speed Target Speed = Design Speed = Posted Speed Street Design Influences Behavior The design of streets directly influences behavior. Most motorists drive to match the “design speed” of the road,using cues such as lane width, street texture, the distance between buildings, street trees, other edge features and sight-line distances rather than solely relying on the posted speed limit. In turn, streets should be designed to promote safety by taking a proactive design approach to ensure lower “target” speeds—the speed drivers should be going. Historically, roadways have been designed by observing the operating speed of the majority of drivers and designing the street for that speed. This has resulted in design speeds that are often higher than the posted speed due to wide turn radii, wider travel lanes, clear zones and more. Streets should be designed using target speed, a proactive approach to multimodal street design, by first identifying the speed drivers should go and then implementing street design treatments to ensure the operating speeds of motorists are aligned with the target speed. This convention puts vulnerable users like people walking, rolling and biking first in the roadway design while also providing safety for motorists. Streets throughout Richfield should be designed to achieve a target speed of 25 mph or less. A lower target speed is a key characteristic of streets in walkable,bikeable,mixed use, neighborhoods and commercial nodes. This Action Plan provides starter recommendations on how to start to bring the design speed more in line with the target speed through narrower lane widths, streetside landscaping, modern roundabouts and other traffic calming tools to create a safer and higher quality environment for all. Read more on target speed: https://nacto.org/publication/urban- street-design-guide/design-controls/design-speed/ Adapted from NACTO.org ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN13 Older adults and people who are Black and American Indian are disproportionately represented in fatal crashes involving people walking. Safety is Not Shared Equally Relative Pedestrian Danger by Race and Ethnicity (2010-2019) Source: Dangerous by Design, Smart Growth America, 2021 891 Bicyclist Fatalities Pedestrian Fatalities by Age (2010-2019) Addressing road safety for people who are most impacted helps achieve simultaneous goals of safety for all users, equity and climate. We have a national road safety problem. Fatalities of people walking and biking have increased faster than total traffic-related fatalities between 2010-2020. Source: US DOT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN14 Advancing Equity Focusing on the most vulnerable users – priority populations, pedestrians and bicyclists – ensures the active transportation network connects people to opportunities through safe, reliable and affordable mobility options. A connected, safe and comfortable active transportation network ensures all people have equitable access and opportunity to contribute to a vibrant, age-friendly and healthy city. Foundational to the Plan, equity is infused into the goals and recommendations. The City’s Community Alliance for Racial Equity (CARE) Team is developing an Equity Plan which will further guide prioritization and implementation of projects identified in this Action Plan. People walk, bike and roll to meet their daily needs for many reasons: for exercise, to connect with friends, enjoy nature, access transit, get to work, school, the grocery store and more. All trips begin and end by walking –everyone is a pedestrian at some point of their day– even trips by bike, bus and car. Bicycling is the most sustainable, efficient, healthy and affordable way to extend the radius in which community resources can be accessed. Priority populations, which includes, but not limited to, Black people, Indigenous people, people of color, people with low incomes, limited- or non-English speaking communities, immigrants and refugees and people with disabilities, face historic and ongoing disadvantages due to systemic inequalities in transportation and land use decision-making. This Plan uses a broad definition of pedestrian and walking. The terms “pedestrian” and “walking” includes people who travel on foot and use mobility devices such as wheelchairs, strollers and scooters. In addition, the term “rolling” is used to also include people who use mobility aid devices to move around Richfield. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN15 These Active Transportation Principles are founded in a Safe System Approach. The significance of each principle may vary from route to route and from person to person. For example, people walking or biking to the grocery store often prioritize directness whereas people out for a recreational bike ride value attractiveness and comfort more than a direct route. Regardless of trip type, safety is critical for all users, especially when ensuring children and elders have safe routes to school, parks and other places they want to go. Active Transportation Principles Safe: Does the route minimize risk of injury and danger (both traffic and personal security)? Comfortable: Does the route appeal to a broad range of age and ability levels and are there user amenities (e.g., places to sit, protection from the weather)? Coherent: How easy is it to understand where to go? How to navigate a crossing or an intersection? How connected is the network? Direct: Does the route provide direct and convenient access to destinations? Attractive: What opportunities does the route provide for people to view nature, art, historical or cultural points of interest? Is the route beautiful and well cared for (e.g. well-maintained)? To provide transportation choice and encourage active trips, routes must be: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN16 Active Transportation Principles | School Trips SafetyComfortDirectnessAttractivenessCoherenceSchool trips refers to elementary aged children walking or biking to school. This is the hardest group to design for. Safety is vital, but all characteristics are important. The route is only as strong as the weakest link, making safety at intersections and crossings critical. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN17 Active Transportation Principles | Commuter/ Errand Trips SafetyComfortDirectnessAttractivenessCoherenceSafety and directness are the most important principles for people commuting to work or running an errand on foot, scooter or bike. A key motivation is time – people value efficiency and want to be at their destination using the most direct route to minimize their commute time. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN18 Active Transportation Principles | Recreational/ Leisurely Trips SafetyComfortDirectnessAttractivenessCoherenceRecreational trip-goers or people out for a stroll with friends often see directness as the least important principle since walking, biking, rolling is the main purpose. While safety is still paramount, attractiveness is also key. Without the connection to nature, local art and cultural attractions the trip likely wouldn’t be made. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN19 Comfort Types of Bicyclists 5-9%4-7%51-56% Low Stress Tolerance High Stress Tolerance INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED ENTHUSED & SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT HIGHLY CONFIDENT People in this group would like to bike more, but do not feel safe on busy streets with fast moving traffic nearby. Biking on streets with fewer and slower-moving cars, or a space separated from vehicles, would help them feel more comfortable. National research and local survey data (page/slide 49) confirm over half of the population are interested in bicycling more often but are concerned about having to share the road with motor vehicles. They would like lower stress street environments to bike. People who will ride regardless of roadway conditions and bicycle facility. Highly confident riders represent the smallest category of people willing to bike. NO WAY NO HOW 33% People will not bike out of disinterest or inability to do so. People who have been biking for transportation for some time. They are sometimes comfortable sharing the street with drivers, but would prefer to ride on streets with bike lanes or separated paths. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN20 Who Are We Designing For? Richfield is working to implement an “All Ages, All Abilities” cycling network. To maximize the potential for more people to bike, and achieve the plan vision, it is important to design streets with the “interested but concerned” bicyclist in mind. Designing for this type of bicyclist will ensure a route and facility type that is lower stress and higher comfort to a wider audience, attracting more people of all ages and abilities. All Ages and Abilities INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED “This is the bicyclist user profile that MnDOT typically considers when selecting a bicycle facility type.” - Minnesota Bicycle Facility Design Guide Low volume, low speed residential streets become nice shared walking and biking streets with traffic calming tools such as neighborhood traffic circles. Safe System Approach: When to Mix, When to Separate? The greater the vehicle speed and the higher the vehicle traffic, the greater the physical separation needs to be between people driving and people biking. A shared street environment (pictured right), where users are mixed in the same space, can be created for people biking and driving when target speeds are at or below 20 mph and vehicle volumes are relatively low. This is a common environment on neighborhood residential streets. Separate and protect people from moving traffic when vehicle speeds are above 20 mph. This can be done visually with painted bike lanes or buffered bike lanes or physically with bikeways fully separated by curbs, street trees, on-street parking and more. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN21 Comfort Types of Bicyclists Low Stress Tolerance High Stress Tolerance INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED HIGHLY CONFIDENT WHAT IS TRAFFIC STRESS? Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a person bicycling may feel when they ride on a road close to traffic. It assigns a stress level to streets and bikeways based on factors such as: •Traffic speed •Number of travel lanes •Number of vehicles •Frequency of on-street parking turnover •Ease of intersection crossings •Presence of bike lanes •Presence of physical barrier to bike lane LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4 Most children will feel safe bicycling on these streets. The “interested but concerned” adult population will feel safe bicycling on these streets. Streets that are tolerable to “enthused and confident” riders who still prefer having their own dedicated space. High stress streets with high speed limits, multiple travel lanes and limited or non-existent marked bikeways. ENTHUSED & SOMEWHAT CONFIDENT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN22 Successful streets that are safe for people walking and biking reduce the frequency and severity of crashes and minimize conflicts between users. How street space is allocated plays a large part in managing speeds and ensuring streets are safe for all users, especially the most vulnerable. For example, narrowing,removing travel lanes and/or adding curb extensions reduces the amount of time people walking are exposed to potential conflict while crossing the street. Minimizing the crossing distance reduces the amount of time a motorist must stop while waiting for someone to cross. Narrowing and/or removing travel lanes also allows space to be reallocated for bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, fully separated paths or wider sidewalks. Installing intersection treatments like modern roundabouts or neighborhood traffic circles help manage speeds and are proven safety countermeasures, reducing the occurrence and severity of crashes. Streets that are right-sized put people first and become even greater community assets. They are places where people want to walk and bike,rather than places where people can walk and bike if they must. In turn, more people choose to walk and bike. Photos by: Samantha Lorenz Neighborhood traffic circle in winter. Chicanes provide traffic calming and space for native vegetation. Roundabout, tree-buffered sidewalk, separated bike lane and on-street parking. Putting it Together ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN23 Putting it Together: High Quality Streets for All Before | ~11,600 Average Daily Trips (ADT) On-street parking provides a traffic- calming effect. Curb space provides an area for street lights, signage, parking meters, snow storage and more. Cycle track is a different concrete color to further differentiate space. Landscape buffer zone separates people walking and biking. It provides space to better absorb rain water, store snow and access the street edge. Wide commercial sidewalk (8-10 feet) allows for social walking (two-by-two). Building provides “eyes on the street” supporting natural surveillance and making people feel watched over. Lighting also adds to a person’s sense of security. Mixed-use building with residential units setback after the first story helps to create human scale. Potential space for café style chairs and tables or benches to further activate the sidewalk. Landscape median and edge lane markings help to further manage vehicle speeds. A roundabout better manages motorist flow while maintaining a low speed environment and shortening the crossing distance for people walking and biking. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN24 Vision & Goals SECTION 2 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN25 All people in Richfield can connect safely, easily, intuitively and with pride from their door to community resources by walking, biking, rolling and taking transit. VISION ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN26 Goals ‘Feet’ on the Street & Ridership: Increase mode share and number of people walking, biking and riding transit All Season Choice & Convenience: Increase year- round active transportation access, choice, autonomy and equity Vibrant Streets: Create welcoming and inclusive streets that invite social connection and celebrate Richfield's cultural diversity Neighborhood Oriented: Ensure all residents have easy and safe connections to reliable community resources (e.g. transit, food, parks) within a 10- minute walk (1/2 a mile) of their homes Innovation: Pursue innovative projects and initiatives that put Richfield at the leading edge of active transportation Equitable Streets, Co-Created: Center people’s lived experience in public realm design and decision making to build trust, reduce racial, social and health inequities, and improve everyone's quality of life Resiliency: Ensure development in Richfield encourages active transportation trips and aligns with land uses that support the city’s financial resiliency ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN27 Our Streets Today SECTION 3 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN28 Plan and Policy Context Several plans and policies guide the development of active transportation infrastructure in Richfield. Notably, Richfield's 2040 Comprehensive Plan places people walking, rolling, cycling and taking transit ahead of people driving. Richfield’s Transportation Commission developed 8 Guiding Principles to be used to guide the design of streets: •Multimodal Design •Connectivity and Public Realm •Local Economy •Design for People •Community Character and Identity •Sustainable Solutions •Healthy and Active Lifestyles Additionally, Richfield’s “Sweet Streets” program provides a multimodal vision for the public works department in a way that is easy for the public to understand. EXISTING PLANS & POLICIES MODAL PRIORITIES 1 2 3 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN29 Plan and Policy Context EXISTING PLANS & POLICIES, CONTINUED Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan- 2014 Identifies opportunities and priorities to increase walking and biking to schools through implementation of the five “E’s”: Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Engineering and Evaluation. Climate Action Plan - 2020 Richfield’s Climate Action Plan identifies personal vehicle miles as the largest contributor to transportation-related Greenhouse Gas emissions in the city. The plan notes the importance of the city’s Complete Streets Policy in creating places for people to use active transportation modes and includes Objective 4: Encourage alternate forms of transportation, promoting a healthier mobility network. Complete Streets Policy Richfield’s Complete Streets Policy emphasizes the importance of balancing the needs of all modes in street design and ensuring that street design aligns with community values through early and frequent public engagement. Bicycle Master Plan – 2012 The Bicycle Master Plan focuses on promoting friendly coexistence between cyclists and other modes. It identifies key east-west and north-south routes for cyclists and advocates for making room on collector and arterial streets for bike lanes by narrowing and reducing car lanes or for locating bike routes on parallel local streets. Richfield Pedestrian Plan – 2018 The Pedestrian Plan identifies 12 pedestrian priority routes in the city that are “missing links” in the pedestrian network to address crossing barriers and connections to key activity centers. The plan also establishes best practices for pedestrian treatments at intersections and along roadways. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN30 Plan and Policy Context A SNAPSHOT OF RICHFIELD’S PROGRESS richfieldsweetstreets.org/learn/past-projects Lyndale Ave The city completed the reconstruction of Lyndale Ave between 66th St and 76th St in 2020. The project reallocated roadway space to people walking and biking with sidewalks, trails and bike lanes. Street trees and compact roundabouts were added to green the street and address intersection safety concerns. Portland Ave Hennepin County, in partnership with the City of Richfield reconstructed Portland Ave between 67th and 77th in 2016. The 4-lane road was converted from 4-lanes to 3-lanes—one lane in each direction plus a center turn lane. Bike lanes, trails, wider sidewalks, grass buffers and street trees were added to make the street a more complete street to all users. dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/road-diet-richfield.html West 76th St West 76th St between I-35W and Cedar Avenue was reconstructed for a sewer project. As part of the reconstruction, the street was put on a road diet. Travel lanes were reduced from two lanes each direction to one lane each direction, sidewalks were added to the street where they were missing and bike lanes with contrasting pavement were added. dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/road-diet-richfield ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN31 66th Street Photos (top): Before and after of 66th Street & Nicollet Avenue intersection (over 23,500 vehicles per day). A modern roundabout manages traffic more efficiently while breaking the crossing distance into two, 24-foot segments (versus over 60 feet before). Photos (bottom): 66th Street was right-sized from 4-to 2-lanes with tree-landscaped center medians and left turn pockets. The additional space was reallocated for a landscape boulevard, separated bike lane and new sidewalks. Edge lane pavement was used to mark travel lane edges to further manage motorist speeds and help preserve the edge of pavement. The section pictured carries over 12,000 vehicles per day. Before After Putting it TogetherPlan and Policy Context A SNAPSHOT OF RICHFIELD’S PROGRESS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN32 Street lights are not human scale. On-street parking is allowed on most streets; use varies resulting in streets that appear wider. Street trees provide shade and create a sense of enclosure which adds to the sense of comfort for people walking and biking. Many streets have gaps in coverage or trees are planted too far from the curb, not contributing to the sense of enclosure. Lack of curb extensions (which inset on-street parking) or other traffic calming treatments such as neighborhood traffic circles contribute to higher motorists' speeds due to long, straight sight distances. Residential streets are typically 36 feet wide with no sidewalks. Wider streets, mostly flat topography, lack of sidewalks and little to no visual features to break up sight distances contribute to higher motorists' speeds than what is desired for neighborhood streets where people driving are expected to share the space with people walking, rolling, biking and playing. What We Observed, Learned WALK AUDITS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN33 Crosswalk marking is missing. On higher-speed, higher-volume streets more care and consistency is needed for crossing locations. While there are many crossing treatments being used that shorten crossing distance and increase motorists' yielding behavior, crosswalk pavement markings are inconsistent or missing altogether. Use paint! As pictured below, many crossings lack high-visibility ladder, zebra, or continental crosswalk markings. These styles are more visible to approaching vehicles, especially in low light (e.g. winter, night, early morning) than standard parallel pavement markings. Crosswalk lacks high visibility crosswalk marking such as continental striping. Crosswalk marking is missing.Median crossing islands/refuges break the crossing into two shorter segments.Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB)are used at mid-block locations or intersections where signals are not warranted or desired to increase driver yielding behavior. Advanced stop bar reinforces yielding to pedestrians. What We Observed, Learned WALK AUDITS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN34 Boulevard space is an important spot for snow storage. Richfield is committed to year-round walking, rolling and biking as safe, accessible, equitable and convenient options for people to get around. Winter brings a set of complexities, especially as it relates to maintenance. There are opportunities for the city to continue to enhance the quality and consistency of clearing snow and ice from sidewalks and bikeways. Winter bike participants found riding in the middle of the street on neighborhood residential streets the most pleasant place to ride in the winter. Buffered bike lane becomes more like a standard on-street bike lane in the winter due to snow encroachments from the curb edge. On-street bike lanes are one of the most challenging bicycle facilities to maintain in the winter. Freeze-thaw cycles makes maintaining sidewalks hard. Even without a precipitation event sidewalks and bikeways need to be maintained consistently due to ice. What We Observed, Learned WINTER BIKE Corner and bus stop clearing is mixed. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN35 What We Heard, Observed, Learned INTERACTIVE ONLINE MAP & POP -UP •54+ people engaged with the online comment map, adding comment pins •420 people visited the online site •150 people engaged in sharing comments and discussion at the Richfield Eco Fair (4/15/23) “I’d like to see the city prioritize traffic calming improvements on residential streets to better manage vehicle speeds and get drivers to slow down.” – Community Member Photos (from top): •Let’s Talk Richfield interactive online comment map •Richfield Eco Fair comment map ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN36 INTERACTIVE ONLINE MAP SUMMARY 66th St & 35W is a complex intersection and discourages people walking/rolling. People shared: “I regularly walk to the Orange line stop to get downtown [Minneapolis].” “This intersection is treacherous to cross when walking.” Penn Ave has many destinations that serve the community, but is a barrier to people walking and biking today. Many shared the needed for marked crossings, wider sidewalks and bike facilities, including: “Not a comfortable pedestrian experience due to narrow sidewalk with no boulevard adjacent to fast moving traffic.” “I wish there were bike lanes on Penn. There are many things I’d love to bike to with my kids, but as a new and very cautious biker, I’m not comfortable.” “We need a real fix to Penn.” “I would like to be able to safely bike along Penn from 66th to 76th.” “The stretch of Penn from the light at 69th to 72nd Streets has no crosswalks. It’s dangerous trying to cross during heavy traffic. It deters me from using the bus or letting my kids go visit friends/Adams Hill Park.” Pedestrian Bridge over 35W is one of a few East-West crossing over the highway. It is not ADA and doesn’t support people on bikes. Better marked crossings to/from Taft Park are needed (e.g. at Bloomington Ave and 62nd St) with tools like median refuge islands. The intersection of Bloomington Ave and Richfield Pkwy is a complex intersection due to the skew and high motorist turning speeds making it uncomfortable to people bicycling and walking. Additionally, people shared a need for slower motorist speeds along Richfield Pkwy and better bike/ped connections to Target. Desire for a pedestrian and bike link through Christian Park.“The pedestrian safety environment has improved since the installation of a 4-way stop at this intersection [Bloomington Ave and Diagonal Blvd]. However, there are still safety challenges related to driver speed. Consider a roundabout or another safety enhanced intersection, including ‘closing off’ the small triangle on the SW corner of the intersection.” Higher motorist speeds and limited sightlines make the crossing at Colfax and 77th Ave “extremely dangerous and unfriendly,” several community members shared. Median refuge island, pedestrian signal and lower speeds were noted as possible solutions. Wood Lake Nature Center is a popular place to walk/bike to. An idea was shared to open the gate to pedestrians at Lake Shore Drive and Humboldt Ave. Lyndale Ave between 66th St and 70th St is enjoyed by many: “A great example of ped/bike friendly design! The paths are wide and well maintained, crossings feel safe, noise is low, and there is an abundance of shade during the summer months.” “Fantastic job with the paths/sidewalks on the west side of Lyndale. Wide and safe. Excellent lighting too!” ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN37 INTERACTIVE ONLINE MAP SUMMARY Cedar Ave trail segment is well loved. People would like to see improved connections to/from trail, less trash and extension of noise barrier along Hwy 77. 76th St & 35W is a complex intersection and discourages people walking/rolling. People shared: “Cars don't stop and wait for green at the 35W off ramp. Both of my kids have been nearly hit going to/from school. A buddy of mine did get hit.” “This is a terrible ped/bike crossing.” “The entire crossing of 35W is very unfriendly to walkers and bikers.” Nicollet Ave is uncomfortable due to lack of separation between motorists and active transportation users. There are many destinations people like to walk to, such as Augsburg Park. People shared: “Physical separation of bike lane would be nice.” Nicollet sidewalk is terrible for walking with driveways causing dips every few feet and traffic zooming by with no separation.” “Most of the time it is very difficult to cross the street.” “Bike lane is non-existent in the winter and barely there in the summer.” 66th St & James Ave is an important crossing to Monroe Park used by people of all ages. While a median refuge island exists, the two lanes in each direction and high motorists’ speeds set up a risk of multiple threat crash. People shared more crossing support is needed to feel safe, especially for children. “66th St needs to have the speed limit lowered by at least 5 mph and speed limit better enforced.” Roundabout can be challenging for cyclists due to on-street bike lane on Portland ending before roundabout, forcing cyclist to take the lane or ramp tightly onto sidewalk and high motorist entry/exit speeds. 66th St between Penn and Xerxes Ave is missing improved sidewalk/bike path. No sidewalk along 64th St. People walk in painted bike/walk lane. In winter, lane is minimized because of the snow, forcing pedestrians to walk further in street. An important route to parks. Motorists infrequently stop for pedestrians despite flashing beacons. Connect trails to Lyndale. Portland Ave has improved. People shared they feel more comfortable walking and biking. People also shared they would still like to see improvements at crossings including at signalized and unsignalized intersections and roundabout. Plus more trees, greater separation from traffic and reduction in speed limit. “Crossing 77th St to get to Roosevelt Park is scary. A marked crosswalk would be appreciated.”“Dangerous intersection at 76th St and Knox Ave. This makes it difficult to access the new transit tunnel under 494.” Walking route to parks, schools and City Hall despite no sidewalk. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN38 What issues affect your decision to allow, or not allow, your child to walk or bike to/from school? What We Heard, Observed, Learned 55% 52%51% 48% 40% Safety of intersections and crossings Distance between home and school Weather or climate Amount of traffic along route Traffic speeds along route “Richfield is not safe for kids to walk/bike to school. Period. Intersections are a mess and traffic moves too quickly and does not watch for bikers/pedestrians. Even if the school handed out incentives, I would not allow either of my children to walk or bike to school.” -SRTS Survey Respondent SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) SURVEY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN39 Would you probably let your child walk or bike to/from school if this problem were changed or improved? 50% 36%35%34%33% Safer intersections/crossings Better snow/ice removal in winter A group of students to walk/bike with Less traffic along route Slower car speeds along route “Solo los lunes llevo a mi hijo, los demas días usa el bus de la escuela, pero si me gustaría llevar vicicleta un día ala semana y yo iría con el.” (“I only take my son on Mondays, the other days he uses the school bus, but I would like to take my bike one day a week and I would go with him.”) -SRTS Survey Respondent What We Heard, Observed, Learned SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) SURVEY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN40 High (fast) motorists’ speeds was a top concern identified by parents/caregivers of school aged children. Other challenges to walking or biking to school included: •Need to address crossings through better marked crosswalks and traffic calming treatments to slow motorists and increase driver stopping/yield rates. Key crossing areas identified: •Crossing at 71st and 12th Ave •Crosswalks needed on 70th St •Crossing at Penn Ave and 60th St •Need to address challenging intersections: •Thomas Ave and 64th St – drivers run the stop sign •76th St and 35W – right turns are dangerous •66th St and 35W – drivers do not expect bikers and walkers •Elliot Ave and 72nd St – lack of intersection control •Need to address challenging corridors: •73rd St/Diagonal – high motorists’ speeds and lack of sidewalks •66th St – high traffic volumes and speeds •70th St – high traffic volumes and speeds and snow clearing concerns •71st St – Sidewalk needed south of RDLS •Portland and Nicollet Ave – drivers running red lights •Penn Ave – no bike facilities and sidewalks in poor condition What We Heard, Observed, Learned SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) SURVEY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN41 •Lower speed limits! •Address crossings to improve safety and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists and improve motorist yielding rates, especially along higher volume, higher speed streets (e.g. 66th, Penn, Nicollet, Portland, 76th/77th) and near parks. •Prioritize a redesign of Penn Ave to better support people walking, biking and rolling and business access. •Address highway intersections and need for ped/bike/ADA compliant bridge over 35W. Summary of Engagement Findings •Continue to celebrate and better connect routes to parks through street treatments and wayfinding. •Continue to prioritize Safe Routes to School. •Traffic calm neighborhood streets, especially popular walking routes that don’t have sidewalks today (e.g. 64th St, 68th St, 69th St, Chicago, Logan). ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN42 How Are We Moving Today? 3% Walk In Richfield, 3.2 percent of commuters walk to work compared to 2.3 percent statewide. ACS, 2021 5- year estimates 2% Bike In Richfield, 2.1 percent of commuters bike to work compared to 1.5 percent statewide. ACS, 2021 5-year estimates 6% Transit In Richfield, 6.3 percent of commuters take transit to work compared to 2.7 percent statewide. ACS, 2021 5-year estimates 40% People of Color Approximately 40 percent of commuters who walk to work are people of color and 20 percent are living in poverty. Richfield Pedestrian Plan, 2018 33% Without a Car 32.5 percent of people who walk, bike and use transit to get to work do not have access to a car. ACS, 2021 5-year estimates 30% of Students 30 percent of students live within ½ mile of a school. Richfield SRTS Comprehensive Plan, 2014 40% More Walking Richfield has seen a 40 percent increase in walking where pedestrian improvements have been made (e.g. at crosswalks). Richfield Sweet Streets 80 Miles per Day Richfield ranks the 2nd most in vehicle miles traveled of Twin Cities Inner Ring Suburbs at nearly 80 Miles per household per day. Richfield Climate Action Plan, 2020 700,000 to 1 Million Transit Trips There are about 700,000 to 1 million people boarding or exiting the bus in Richfield every year. Metropolitan Council, 2019-2022 Transit Stops Boardings and Alightings BY THE NUMBERS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN43 Pedestrian and Bicyclist Traffic Safety 10% fatal and severe injury crashes 10.6 percent of the 160 crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists were fatal and severe injury crashes, resulting in 2 deaths and 15 severe injuries on Richfield streets. More crashes occur at intersections – Intersections account for 90% of crashes 90.5 percent of crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists occurred at intersections or driveway crossings. This finding supports the need to pursue actions that address intersection safety. In a ten-year period between 2013-2022: Source: MnDOT Crash Data (MnCMAT), 2022, 10-year summary Pedestrian Crashes: Driver and Pedestrian Age Bicycle Crashes: Driver and Bicyclist Age 22%12%15%11%22%16%3% 12.6%20.8%13.3%12.6%10.8%21.5%8.2% 18 and under 19-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 No Age Value Crashes do not affect all age groups equally Younger (under 18) and adults over the age of 50 (including drivers’ age) are most represented in pedestrian crashes while adults under 29 and over the age of 60 (including drivers’ age) are most represented in crashes involving cyclists. This finding supports the need to pursue actions that address safety for younger and older populations. People Involved in Pedestrian/Bicycle Crashes by Age (2013-2022) BY THE NUMBERS How Are We Moving Today? ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN44 How Does the Built Environment Support Active Trips? Facility Type Existing Mileage Sidewalks 43.7 mi. Separated Bike Facilities (separated bike lanes adjacent to roadways, shared use paths and bollard separated shared use paths) 12.3 mi. On-Street Bike Lanes (painted, unseparated) 9 mi. Regional Trails 5.5 mi. Park Trails 10.2 mi. Total Street Lane Miles (not including highway and interstate) 284 mi. Distance Avg. Walk Avg. Bike ¼ mi 5 min.1.5 min. ½ mi 10 min.3 min. 1 mi.20 min.6 min. 3 mi.60 min.18 min. FACILITIES TRAVEL TIMES The existing mileage of sidewalks, trails and bikeways in Richfield. City of Richfield, 2023 The average time it takes to walk or bike places within a ¼ mile to 3 mile distance. Time based on average walking speed of 3 mph; average biking speed of 10 mph. CategoryMeasurement Avg. percent income spent on housing and transportation costs* 37% (21% housing; 16% transportation) Avg. number of grocery stores within ½ mile walking distance of neighborhoods** 1.4 AARP Livability Index**65/100 Walk Score***58/100 Bike Score***67/100 LIVABILITY INDEX Factors of livability in Richfield. *H+T Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) **AARP Livability Index (livabilityindex.aarp.org) ***Walkscore.com Area accessible within a 20-minute bike from Richfield City Hall. Walkscore.com ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN45 Building the Network SECTION 4 Photo: Alta Planning ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN46 EXISTING NETWORK Bike and Pedestrian Routes ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN47 PRIORITY NETWORK Bike and Pedestrian Routes ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN48 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentPrioritize and complete 73rd Street as a key East-West bicycle and walking route. Apply for relevant local, state and/or federal grant opportunities to fund this project. Begin conversations with MnDOT to explore feasibility of changing access at Diagonal Boulevard and new ped/bike bridge over I-35W Incorporate ped/bike priority crossing of Nicollet Avenue and 73rd Street in Hennepin County’s reconstruction of Nicollet. Develop a corridor vision or concept plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety conditions along the corridor, focusing on a low-stress, All Ages and Abilities Route. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN49 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentDefine residential streets as “Neighborho od Greenways” (or bicycle boulevards) with traffic calming and management tools. Develop design guidance to define residential streets as shared streets or “Neighborhood Greenways” that create low stress, East- West and North-South priority walking and biking routes. Identify a demonstration project to test and refine ideas with the neighborhood; consider 63rd Street to further refine and implement 2011 Greenway Concept Plan. Neighborhood Greenway candidates: •63rd Street between Taft Park and Veterans Memorial Park •64th Street between Veterans Memorial Park and Richfield Lake Park •68th Street between Cedar Avenue & Wood Lake Nature Center •73rd Street between Lyndale Avenue to Adams Park •Logan Avenue between 62nd Street and Donaldson Park •Chicago Avenue between Veterans Memorial Park and [future] 494 pedestrian/bike bridge Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN50 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentWork with Hennepin County to make Portland Avenue an All Ages and Abilities Route, and ensure the City’s target speed of 25 mph is achieved. Identify sidewalk maintenance needs between 62nd and 66th Streets. Lower corridor posted speed limit and target speed to 25-30 mph (currently posted at 35 mph). Reconstruct on-street bike lanes to separated bike lanes. Address concerns with motorists’ speeds and bikeway design on 69th Street between Penn and Xerxes. Refine design and test traffic calming tools, such as neighborhood traffic circles. This stretch is identified in the 2026-2027 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN51 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentCenter active transportation users in the Nicollet Avenue redesign, prioritizing people walking, rolling, biking and using transit, followed by other vehicles in design decisions. Coordinate closely with Hennepin County on all aspects of the project from scoping to construction. Create the next Complete and Green Streets model for the city and county by incorporating national best practices in bikeway, pedestrian, transit and green infrastructure, including separated bike lanes (or multi-use trails) and intersection (roundabout and/or signalized) design. Review and update, as needed, city lighting standards to ensure pedestrian and bicycle scale (human scale) lighting. Center people’s lived experience walking, biking and rolling along and across Nicollet in design and engagement process, including corridor walk and rolls, bike audits, front lawn conversations, bus stop interviews and more. Coordinate with City of Minneapolis, Metro Transit and Hennepin County if/when the Minneapolis section of Nicollet is redesigned.Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN52 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentAddress high motorists’ speeds, lack of marked crossings and other challenges along Penn Avenue. Work with Hennepin County to prioritize and seek funding for a full street redesign of Penn Avenue to achieve a design that allows Richfield School District to remove “walk hazard boundary” designation between 62nd and 66th Streets. Review 2021 Penn Avenue Corridor Study for low cost, high impact interim projects to evaluate and implement. Potential funding source include: Hennepin County’s Cost Share Program and Highway Safety Improvement Program. In partnership with Hennepin County, right-size Penn Avenue to ensure people of all ages and abilities walking, biking and rolling are provided safe, comfortable and convenient paths, crossings and connections to businesses. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN53 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentSupport and Sustain Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program Work with Richfield Public School District to fund a permanent SRTS position to ensure the sustainability of the program. Discuss and identify a collaborative funding approach with SRTS Coordinator, School District and City. Develop a “School Street” pilot, to encourage walking and biking to school. Identify location(s) to pilot School Street(s). In coordination with SRTS Coordinator and School District, pilot a School Street. Consider a one-month demonstration, pairing the event with International Walk to School Month (October) or National Bike Month (May) to support goals to increase participation in walk and bike to school days. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN54 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentSupport and Sustain Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program, Continued Continue implementing quick-build demonstration projects near schools and along key routes to school. Identify opportunities, including potential sources of funding, for the City to make quick build projects at and near schools a permeant program and practice. Work with the City Transportation Committee and City Council to identify funding approaches. Continue to serve as a local match for SRTS grants. Create a city funding mechanism for SRTS projects. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN55 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentPlan Documents Create a plan document framework aligned with the City’s Equity Plan. Establish a plan framework to dovetail the City’s Equity Plan and implementation of the Active Transportation Action Plan, established plans and policies (noted below) Update Bicycle Master Plan. Identify approach to updating the 2012 Bicycle Master Plan. Update SRTS Master Plan.Coordinate with SRTS Coordinator and School District on approach for a Plan update. Update Pedestrian Plan.Identify approach to updating the 2018 Pedestrian Plan. Update Complete Streets Policy. Review and revise Complete Streets Policy to ensure it is up-to-date. Review Guiding Principles.Review Guiding Principles to ensure the document meets needs of community. If revisions are needed, establish a process for the update. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN56 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentImprove the Comfort and Safety for People Walking & Bicycling at Intersections and Mid-block Crossings Provide regular crossing opportunities on collector and arterial streets, especially at unsignalized crossings or mid-block locations. Review and update policies and practices, as needed, to establish best practices and a consistent process for reviewing, prioritizing and maintaining pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Identify highest need crossing locations and seek funding to address crossing challenges from safety to maintenance. Give priority to people walking and biking on collector and arterial streets when crossing driveways and side streets. Update design guidance to include tools such as raised table crossings to keep sidewalk or bikeway at grade (doesn’t dip down) across side streets and driveway crossings. This also creates a gateway and traffic calming effect into the neighborhoods, signifying to people they have entered the “home zone.” Consider this approach in Nicollet redesign and take steps needed to address State Aid Rules.Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN57 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentImprove the Comfort and Safety for People Walking & Bicycling at Intersections and Mid-block Crossings, Continued Work with Hennepin County to evaluate and modify traffic signal operation and improve safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists crossings at signalized intersections. Based on street context, identify signalized intersections that would benefit in signal modification (e.g. 76th Street and Knox to improve pedestrian connections to BRT station) to better support people walking and biking. Evaluate pedestrian signal tools such as: •Automatic recall of pedestrian walk signal. This way pedestrians do not have to press a button except where doing so would provide greater benefit (e.g. longer walk phase). Indicate whether the button needs to be pressed for the walk phase or a longer walk phase with sign modifications. Note: ADA requires pedestrian push buttons be installed to provide audio and tactile text (Braille) information to pedestrians when activated, but does not preclude pedestrian recall function. •Adjust and restrict vehicle turns at intersections with measures like “No Turn on Red,” leading pedestrian intervals, left turn restrictions and lagging left turns. This includes a policy review. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN58 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentImprove the Comfort and Safety for People Walking & Bicycling at Intersections and Mid-block Crossings, Continued Continue to prioritize the safety and comfort of people walking and biking in existing and future roundabout designs. Evaluate entry and exit speeds of motorists at existing roundabouts to identify where additional tools or geometric modifications might be needed to improve motorist yielding behavior. Ensure speeds are no more than 20-23 mph. Apply best practices for roundabouts that create more of a protected intersection for people biking from national and international best practices. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN59 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentImprove the Comfort and Safety for People Walking & Bicycling at Intersections and Mid-block Crossings, Continued Work with MnDOT to address active transportation barriers created by the highway system. Advocate for MnDOT to fund and build ADA compliant pedestrian and bike bridges across Highway 62, 35W and 494 as part of the City’s legislative agenda. Advocate for and support an update to MnDOT State Aid rules. Continue to identify, coordinate and leverage opportunities to improve the active transportation facilities during highway capital projects with MnDOT and neighboring cities. Lower Speed Limits to Support Traffic Safety Goals Lower the default posted speed for streets citywide (25 mph or less). Work with City Council to pass citywide speed limit reductions. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN60 Strategic Projects to Advance Active Transportation Network Action Incremental Steps Timeline Type Near TermLong TermPolicyProgramPracticeCapital InvestmentLower Speed Limits to Support Traffic Safety Goals, Continued Ensure lower speeds on residential streets. Work with City Council to ensure citywide speed limit reductions reflect the character and slower speed environment of residential streets. Best practice: Residential streets should achieve a target speed of 15-20 mph. Utilize Traffic Calming Approaches to Ensure Lower Speeds by Design Create a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Begin conversations with Transportation Committee and City Council to find/allocate dedicated funding to pursue traffic calming tools to ensure lower speeds by design. Develop a go-to traffic calming design toolbox using the city’s typical street sections. Continue to seek funds for demonstration projects to model new traffic calming tools such as neighborhood traffic circles. Identify a process for community groups to engage and propose traffic calming and demonstration projects. Near Term = 0-3 years | Long Term = 4-7 years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN61 Best Practices SECTION 5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN62 Photos by: Samantha Lorenz About Best Practices Section The recommendations presented in this Plan are based on evidence-based best practices in active transportation design. This section provides a high- level overview on several key concepts that can be further explored and referenced in design guides such as the MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual and Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide. Bicycle Facility Design Manual Minnesota Depart of Transportation (MnDOT), 2020 Minnesota’s Best Practices for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety MnDOT, 2021 Urban Street Design Guide National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN63 10-Foot Travel Lanes As Richfield continues to right-size streets to better support active transportation users and achieve slower, safer motorists’ speeds (25 mph or less), narrower travel lanes are an important tool to consider. Narrowing travel lanes can reduce the operating speed of traffic while also providing the additional space needed for bikeways. To support pedestrians and bicyclists streets should maximize buffer space between active transportation users and motorists and work to manage safe speeds by design for all. This often means setting the default lane width to 10-feet, with permission to go up to 11-feet, and using remaining street width to mark buffer space. Wider buffers reduce side-swipe risks or allow large vehicle operating space (e.g. bus, fire truck, snow plow) without increasing design speeds. Ten-feet-wide lanes have a positive impact on a street’s safety without impacting traffic operations. (NACTO.org) Travel lanes could be as narrow as 10 feet. Narrower lanes and narrower street width are associated with fewer crashes.” (MnDOT Technical Memorandum No. 17-12-TS-05 and No. 18-09-TS-06) CORE CONCEPTS Context Sensitive: AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, commonly referred to as the “Green Book,” provides flexibility to use 10-foot-wide travel lanes in a variety of situations depending on operating speeds, volumes, traffic mix, design vehicle, horizontal curvature, use of on-street parking and street context. Minnesota State Aid Standards (Part 8820.9941) note minimum lane width of 10 feet may be allowed on streets with bike lanes when design speeds are less than 35 mph and when all street factors are taken into account (e.g. bus route, traffic mix, land use, right of way constraints, truck volume). It also notes engineering judgment should be used. “Ten-foot lanes do not result in an increase in crashes or reduce vehicle capacity on roads with speeds of 45 mph or less. Narrower lane widths can contribute to lower vehicle operating speeds, which can increase safety for all roadway users.” (FHWA Bicycle Selection Guide, 2019) ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN64 Modern Roundabouts CORE CONCEPTS Modern roundabouts, including mini-roundabouts, are a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) "Proven Safety Counter-Measure," creating a safer intersection for all users: •90% reduction in fatal crashes •75% reduction in injury crashes •30-40% reduction in pedestrian crashes •10% reduction in bicycle crashes •30-50% increase in traffic capacity A single-lane modern roundabout can handle up to 25,000 vehicles per day (a mini-roundabout slightly less); a double-lane roundabout can handle up to 43,000 vehicles per day. When designed properly, roundabouts ensure motorists speeds of 15-23 mph, which increases drivers' ability to judge and react to other people driving, walking and biking. Roundabouts also create gateway treatments, providing space for local art and signage. Given the safety benefits, many communities consider roundabouts first during intersection improvements. A SAFER CHOICE BY DESIGN Massachusetts DOT diagram showing guidance for roundabouts with protected (separated) bike lanes and crossings based on best practices from the Netherlands (https://www.mass.gov/doc/chapter-4-intersection-design-0/download). Richfield is proving the power of the roundabout for its traffic management, flow and safety capabilities. Roundabout 2.0: The City should continue to advance roundabout design (new and current) by applying best practices to prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist crossings and better integrate protected bike lanes. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN65 Protected Intersections CORE CONCEPTS Protected intersections provide dedicated space for each mode of travel: walking, biking and driving. They can be implemented at stop-controlled or signalized intersections and are most often used with separated bike lanes, but may be used with conventional bike lanes, paved shoulders, or even shared lanes. A variation on the standard protected intersection can also be designed for two-way bicycle traffic on one side of the road. Benefits include: •Provide clear right-of-way assignment between modes •Maintain physical separation between bicyclists and motor vehicles through an intersection •Place queued bicyclists in front of and in clear view of drivers •Improve visibility of bicyclists for motorists’ while turning •Clearly define pedestrian and bicycle operating spaces •Reduce pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance •Reduce motor vehicle turning speed Source: MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual, 5-37 and 5-38. DEDICATED SPACE FOR EACH MODE Alternative design for two-way bicycle traffic on one side of the road. Source: NACTO, “Don’t Give Up at the Intersection” Variations | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org) Key features include a corner island, forward bicycle queueing area, driver yield zone and pedestrian refuge median. Source: MnDOT Bicycle Facility Design Manual ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN66 Crossings CORE CONCEPTS High visibility marked crossings are needed to help mark potential conflict zones and ensure all users understand how to safely yield and stop for each other. There are different levels of treatments depending on the crossing context and complexity (e.g. motorist speeds, volume of traffic, number of lanes, signal control, geometric characteristics). Where bicyclists need to stop, providing a lean bar is a helpful amenity. Raised table crosswalks work well at side streets or driveways to give people walking or biking priority, reinforce motorist stop location, slow motorist turning speeds and increase motorist yielding behavior. Z-crossing median refuges break complex crossings into two simpler crossings as people only need to navigate one direction of traffic at a time. An angle in the median positions people to face oncoming traffic before crossing. It also provides storage space for bikes. Image credit: Global Designing Cities Initiative ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN67 Traffic Calming CORE CONCEPTS Community created wayfinding in neighborhood traffic circle. Seattle, WA Quick build neighborhood traffic circles. Top image: Richmond, CA Bottom image: Edgerwater, CO Neighborhood traffic circle with street tree and mountable curb. Seattle, WA Chicanes are curb extensions that create a serpentine, horizontal shifting, effect. Minneapolis, MN Pinchpoints narrow a street to one lane, drivers slow down and yield to other drivers. Seattle WA Traffic calming adds street treatments such as neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, pinchpoints and more to improve safety and livability of neighborhood streets by reducing cut- through traffic, motorists’ speeds and improve the street environment for people walking (especially when no sidewalks exist), rolling and cycling. Richfield’s neighborhood residential streets are low-volume and provide the opportunity for the City and residents to create a fine-grain, low-stress shared street environment for people to walk, bike, play and get to know their neighbors through the addition of traffic calming measures. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN68 TRAFFIC CALMING Mini Circle Traffic Calming Program Program Purpose Program Highlights Seattle’s Traffic Calming Program has been in place for more than 50 years. Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), in partnership with residents has installed 1,000s of neighborhood traffic circles (also known as mini-circles) and other traffic calming devices. Reduce collisions and speeds on neighborhood streets, creating safer and more pleasant neighborhoods. •2015 SDOT piloted 20 mph zones in five areas citywide to guide focus of limited traffic calming dollars on streets where speeds are high or high accident intersections and other prioritization factors such as near schools, parks or other pedestrian generators •Potential projects are identified through community requests or the city’s identified high accident or high speed streets •To maximize annual traffic safety funding, the city uses a ranking criteria •Residents must submit a petition with signatures representing 60% of households within a one-block radius of proposed traffic circle •Traffic circles cost $15,000-25,000 LEARNING FROM Seattle, WA Strong Support from Residents •100 requests for new traffic circles and 400 signatures are received annually •80-90% of residents feel traffic circles have been effective and want to keep them permanently Traffic Calming Program Program Purpose Program Highlights In 2022, Minneapolis approved a new process for neighborhood traffic calming to ensure a more fair, equitable, transparent and efficient process to supporting more effective safety improvements in neighborhoods. The City is committed to adding more traffic calming across the city in support of the changes in citywide speed limits and Vision Zero traffic safety goals, Complete Streets and the Active Transportation Plan. Improve access to livable, efficient and pleasant streets. •Anyone can apply for neighborhood traffic calming, including residents, property owners, business owners and neighborhood or business organizations •No funding is required from the applicants and/or the neighborhood. This traffic calming process is annually funded by the Minneapolis Department of Public Works •Public Works screens and scores traffic calming applications based on a defined set of criteria •Public Works collects data and produces design recommendations for final scoring and design •The selected neighborhood stays involved as Public Works implements •Annual application and implementation process LEARNING FROM Minneapolis, MN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN69 Home Zone CORE CONCEPTS In 2019, Seattle launched a “Home Zone” Program focused on residential streets without curbs and sidewalks (26% of all Seattle streets) to work with residents to design safer, more cost effective walkable streets by using traffic calming measures, low-cost walkway markings and neighborhood street activation, art and beautification. Seattle found that drivers travel 6% faster on neighborhood streets without curbs, parked cars and sidewalks. The City of Seattle works collaboratively with neighborhoods to create a home zone plan. The entire neighborhood works together to prioritize traffic calming, pedestrian mobility and neighborhood livability improvements. •Create safe and walkable neighborhoods for people of all ages and abilities. •Create holistic plans that address traffic calming and maintaining local access. •Improve resident's quality of life and strengthen community.Resource: Home Zone Toolkit ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN70 School Streets CORE CONCEPTS School Streets are temporary car-free zones adjacent to or leading up to a school that are strategically closed to vehicle traffic and opened to children walking, biking and rolling. School Streets help manage traffic and improve safety during school arrival and dismissal by eliminating vehicle congestion in front of schools and creating an environment where children can safely walk, bike, roll, play and learn before, during and after school. Resource: MnDOT School Streets Guide Child Health Initiative School Streets: Putting Children and the Planet First ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN71 PRIORITIZE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST TRAVEL TRAFFIC REDUCTION WAYFINDING PAVEMENT MARKINGS & SIGNAGE INTERSECTION CROSSING TREATMENTS TRAFFIC CALMING A MIX OF DESIGN ELEMENTS Neighborhood Greenways (or bicycle boulevards) are low- volume and low-speed neighborhood residential streets that prioritize people walking and bicycling, and discourage motor vehicle through traffic.Street design elements are mixed and matched along the corridor to: •Reduce or maintain low motor vehicle volumes •Reduce or maintain low motor vehicle speeds •Create a direct, coherent (logical) and continuous route •Create access to key community destinations •Create comfortable and safe intersection crossings •Give priority to people walking and cycling, reducing delay Combined, these treatments create an attractive, convenient and comfortable shared street environment that is welcoming to people of all ages and abilities walking and bicycling. Adapted from Portland Bicycle Boulevard Guide: PortlandBicycleBoulevardGuidebook.pdf Neighborhood Greenways CORE CONCEPTS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN72 Neighborhood Greenways CORE CONCEPTS Example of neighborhood greenway with no motor vehicle access for 1-2 blocks. Example of a neighborhood greenway with 1-side multi-use trail, 1- way traffic and 1-side parking. Example of a two-lane neighborhood greenway or bicycle boulevard. Source: Minneapolis Street Design Guide ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN73 Street Trees CORE CONCEPTS Street trees greatly improve active transportation users level of quality. They also provide traffic calming and environmental benefit: •Improve Safety: A well developed tree canopy can reduce traffic speeds by 5 to 15 mph •Reduce storm water runoff: Trees absorb 30% of precipitation through their leaves and another 30% through their roots •Cool Environment: Pavement can increase temperatures by 3 to 7 degrees, which increases energy costs and urban heat gain. Tree shade can reduce energy bills by up to 35% Planting street trees requires careful consideration of tree species and placement to ensure benefits, maintenance and long-term health of trees are achieved. (Street Trees | A Livability Fact Sheet. AARP, 2014. https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/info- 2014/street-trees-fact-sheet.html) ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN74 Green Infrastructure CORE CONCEPTS The surface of the Jackson Street (St. Paul, MN) two-way grade- separated bikeway (or two-way cycle track) is a porous asphalt that helps with stormwater management, winter maintenance and rideability. The landscaped buffers are bio-filtration basin and tree trench systems to provide filtration of stormwater run- off and snow storage in the winter. Curb extensions (or bump-outs) provide space for rain gardens, native plants and snow storage while reducing crossing distances for people on foot. Minneapolis Parks Department has started tree nurseries to meet city climate and street tree planting goals. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN75 Placemaking CORE CONCEPTS Great public spaces are places where people of all ages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds not only access and enjoy, but also play a key role in creating. Placemaking is both an overarching idea and a hands-on approach to actively ignite the creativity and leadership of the community. To activate parks, plazas, trails and downtown communities are adding moveable chairs, games and other pop-up events. They are testing wayfinding through low- cost temporary signs and much more. Learn more about placemaking at Project for Public Spaces (pps.org). ACTIVATING PUBLIC SPACES ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN76 Bicycle Parking CORE CONCEPTS High-quality, abundant bike parking is an essential element to a bike-friendly city. Continue to ensure there is ample bike parking located right up front (near entrances) to key destinations and businesses and, ideally, protected from the weather (pictured top right). Where people need to park their bikes longer, such as transit stops, provide more secure bike storage options like bike lockers, shelters or cages (pictured bottom right). PROVIDE SAFE, SECURE, CONVENIENT PLACES TO PARK BICYCLES Bike parking in Amsterdam. Getty Images King County, WA Portland, OR RTD, Denver CO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN77 The design and maintenance of streets and pedestrian and bike facilities directly impact people’s decision to walk or bike, especially in winter. People biking, walking or using a mobility aid device are susceptible to the negative impacts of delayed maintenance. They are discouraged from venturing outdoors when snow and ice impede their ability to access their destination. Winter maintenance is a factor for the design of active transportation improvements throughout Richfield. Richfield should continue to innovate and improve its active transportation infrastructure clearing programs, especially at corners, transit locations and intersections. Being a winter city calls for the City to continue to work with other road partners, residents and business owners in creative solutions to addressing winter maintenance challenges. Resource: Winter Maintenance, Toole Design (2019) The separated bikeway (pictured) in Edmonton, Canada provides space for snow storage while increasing the sense of comfort for people biking. Photo source: globalnews.ca Winter Maintenance CORE CONCEPTS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN78 Moving Forward SECTION 6 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN79 Conclusion This Action Plan is a living guide. It is intended to be used, refined, and adjusted as the City and Public Works team take steps in continuing to implement street projects that center and advance active transportation. There is much to celebrate in Richfield’s Complete Streets and active transportation journey: •Implementation of road diets or 4-to 3-lane conversions on main arterial roads, which include separated bike lanes and safer intersection treatments like roundabouts •Multiple quick-build demonstration projects in partnership with Richfield Public Schools •Dedicated winter maintenance program to clear trails, bikeways and sidewalks citywide after snowfall •Strong advocacy with MnDOT and other partners to ensure transportation justice as seen with the new pedestrian and bicycle bridge over I-494 (at Chicago Ave) •And more! ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN80 Next Steps Based on community input from this planning process, there is a need to address concerns around traffic speed and safety.As a first step, the City is working to lower speed limits citywide. This plan lays out action steps to further achieve safer streets by design to maximize opportunities for people to walk, roll and bike to school, parks, shops and neighboring cities. Keep the momentum going! Broaden community education and engagement through bike rides, Open Street events, Adult Learn to Ride bike education and other Walk! Bike! Fun! advocacy events in partnership with Bike Walk Richfield,BikeMN and other community organizations. Leverage these partnerships in the next steps to: 1)Create a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and design toolbox 2)Seek funds to pilot Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program and continue quick-build projects aligned with the City’s Equity Plan (forthcoming) 3)Collaborate with Hennepin County on the Nicollet Avenue project to create the next model Complete and Green Street 4)Use this Action Plan as a guide, updating it every 5-years ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN81 State and Federal Funding for Active Transportation In addition to local Capital Improvement Program funds, local jurisdictions may seek state and federal funding to assist with development of the active transportation network. Most programs involve applying through one of these agencies: •Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) •Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) •Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) •Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission (GMRPTC) •Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) Grants are sometimes also available through organizations that support economic development and tourism, public health, and conservation and the natural environment. Private donations are popular for projects that support community recreation and well- being. Source Funds Purpose FHWA Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)Low-cost infrastructure; education; monitoring and evaluation FHWA Reconnecting Communities Pilot Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP)Creating connections across highways MnDOT Active Transportation Program Infrastructure Grants, Planning Assistance, Quick Build/Demonstration Projects Support active transportation capacity building and facilities MnDOT Safe Routes to School Planning Assistance and Boost grants Support current SRTS plans and programs MnDOT Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Funds Construct sidewalks; improve crossings MnDOT (Federal funding)Transportation Alternatives (TAP)New pedestrian and bike facilities MnDOT State Aid for Local Transportation (SALT) Highway projects Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Multi-modal infrastructure projects that focus on outcomes like moving people more effectively, managing congestion, safer streets for people walking and biking and improving air quality MN DNR Regional Trail Grant Motorized, non-motorized and joint trail usage MN DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Matching grant for the cost of acquisition, development, and/or redevelopment of local parks and recreation area MN DNR Local Trail Connections Program Supports acquisition and development of trail linkages MN DNR (Federal funding)Federal Recreational Trail Program New trails, trail maintenance and trailhead construction Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission Parks and Trails Legacy Grant Program “Regionally Designated” parks and trails can be funded Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR) Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) Activities that protect, conserve, preserve and enhances Minnesota's air, water, land, fish, wildlife and other natural resources ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLANRichfield, MN82 A Call to Action The City of Richfield is working to be the most walkable, bikeable and livable city in Minnesota. The time is now to take bold action towards a street network that puts people and place first. Car trips will continue to be part of the mix, including how freight is moved, but more walking, biking and transit are critical to making sure we reach climate, equity, community health and safety goals. The City cannot reach these goals without the support of you, the residents of Richfield. It takes everyone to make streets safe and inviting for our youngest and oldest, and everyone in between. Whether it means driving safer speeds, walking your child to school, rolling to a doctor’s appointment or bicycling to pick up your groceries, our streets are public spaces that should be safe, comfortable and inviting for all. COMMUNITY CHARGE AGENDA SECTION: OTHER BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # 6. STAFF REPORT NO. 16 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/23/2024 REPORT PREPARED BY:Chris Swanson, Management Analyst DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REVIEW: OTHER DEPARTMENT REVIEW: CITY MANAGER REVIEW: Katie Rodriguez, City Manager 1/17/2024 ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Consider amending the city's 2024 Legislative platform to include the NorthSTAR Bill. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The NorthSTAR Bill ("the Bill") is a state legislative act which separates Minnesota government resources from civil immigration enforcement. The Bill takes the constitutional position that immigration enforcement is a federal matter and state and local resources should be focused on their own responsibilities. By doing so, local governments can build trust with all residents and remove barriers to access local services. These values are discussed in the the Bill's preamble. (State Statute 629.80 Subd.2 found on page 2-3 of the Bill) At the December 12, 2023 work session, a Council Member suggested including support for the Bill in the City's 2024 Legislative platform. Given the short turn around time to get the 2024 Legislative platform adopted before the Legislative Breakfast, Council directed staff to review the Bill and schedule a final discussion at the next possible work session. Staff has since had time to read the Bill, as well as meeting with supporters of the proposed law. Staff is comfortable adding support for the Bill to the platform. However, there are concerns with some of the details of the language and believe this legislation will have a better chance of success if the authors/supporters work with the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, LMC and other organizations early in the legislative process. Staff recommend the Council amend the City's 2024 Legislative platform to add the following language under Public Safety: Support for the goals of the NorthSTAR Act which clearly separates all Minnesota government resources from civil immigration enforcement as it is a federal responsibility. This clarity helps build trust with Richfield’s immigrant community and removes barriers to provide important public safety, public health and other services. We encourage the bill’s authors and supporters to work with the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities on the specific language. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Council amend the City's 2024 Legislative platform to include the following addition to the platform under Public Safety: Support for the goals of the NorthSTAR Act which clearly separates all Minnesota government resources from civil immigration enforcement as it is a federal responsibility. This clarity helps build trust with Richfield’s immigrant community and removes barriers to provide important public safety, public health and other services. We encourage the bill’s authors and supporters to work with the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, Minnesota Sheriff’s Association, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities on the specific language. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: A.HISTORICAL CONTEXT B.EQUITABLE OR STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS OR IMPACTS Equity Considerations The NorthSTAR Bill, if passed at the state level, will help local governments build trust with all residents and remove barriers to access local services. Connecting all residents to opportunities for success helps build an equitable and integrated society. Strategic Considerations none C.POLICIES (resolutions, ordinances, regulations, statutes, exc): D.CRITICAL TIMING ISSUES: This decision needs to be made as soon as possible as the 2024 legislative will begin soon. E.FINANCIAL IMPACT: F.LEGAL CONSIDERATION: Staff will have to review any final bill language to determine any legal impacts. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S): N/A PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING: ATTACHMENTS: Description Type What does the NorthSTAR Bill- Community Comment Backup Material DRAFT Bill Language Backup Material NorthSTAR Act Flyer Backup Material What does the NorthSTAR Bill do?: A Primer for Lawyers The NorthSTAR Bill is a state legislative act which “separates” or divests any and all Minnesota government resources from civil immigration enforcement. The Bill takes the Constitutional claim that immigration enforcement is a federal matter at face value and not only preserves its own resources for state related business, but by doing so , seeks to engender trust and reliance on state institutions which are centrally important for public safety, public health and an equitable and integrated society. These values are expounded upon in the Preamble to the Bill. (629.80 Subd.2 found on page 2 -3 of the Act) State Resources Used for Immigration Enforcement is a Recent Phenomenon1 Starting in the 1980s and ramping up in the 1990s, federal immigration enforcement began to turn towards state and localities to increase the capacity for immigration enforcement- especially in the interior of the country. This took on two major forms: use of county jails for immigration detention and data processing. Immigration detention, which had existed in some form or another since the Founding, was on a much smaller scale in the 1990s, with an average detained population of 6785 in 1994. But after 2002 this number grew to over 20,251 on a daily basis. In 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence and Terrorism Prevention Act which mandated an increase of detention capacity of 8,000 beds from 2006-2010. By 2011 the average daily immigration detention population grew to over 32,000 people. This growth was made possible not only through the creation and building of private detention centers, but by converting contracts with county jails from U.S. marshalls contracts- designed to hold people in pre-trial detention for federal crimes, into immigration detention contracts. In Minnesota, Sherburne County Jail began immigration detention in earnest when it converted its IGSA contracts with the U.S. Marshalls into an ICE contract. (A contract with a 30! Year term!). By 2020, the average daily ICE population grew to over 50,000, with Minnesota housing nearly 400-600 people in detention. In the 1990s with a change from the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, for the first time immigration violators would be entered into the FBI fingerprint database, and 287(g) programs which allowed the federal government to deputize state and local law enforcement to act as immigration officers came into being. In 2008, the newly formed DHS rolled out the Secure Communities program, which among other directives began to directly collect fingerprint data from states and fed them into a larger database. The “intelligence” apparatus of ICE began to grow to epic proportions, with ICE establishing 1 We acknowledge that States were the primary enforcers of immigration enforcement in the antebellum period before the Supreme Court began to describe immigration as an exclusive federal power. Nonetheless, the recruitment and usage by the federal government of state resources for immigration enforcement is a modern and recent shift. several “Intelligence” processing centers that processes enormous amounts of data that the federal government uses to conduct ICE enforcement.2 This data has many different sources, but one main source has been state agencies, not only data collected through criminal enforcement such as fingerprints, but also vehicle registration, drivers license data, and public utility information. In fact, ICE purchased Minnesota Vehicle registration data in 2006.3 ICE has also begun to purchase data from data brokers such as LEXIS NEXUS. Data sharing and cooperation with federal immigration officials happen in smaller, more inconspicuous means as well. In 1995, the DOJ began a program that in exchange for information about undocumented incarcerated by the state, would then reimburse the law enforcement agencies the costs of detention for incarceration. This would result in county jails and prisons asking about immigration and citizenship status on booking forms and sharing such information to the federal government for reimbursement. In 2022 alone counties in Minnesota received 3.7Million dollars in SCAAP funding, with counties as disparate as Blue Earth, Olmed and Ramsey County. The confusion over detainers has also caused havoc, especially for people who would otherwise be eligible for work-release, or the DOC’s Challenge program being denied simply because of an ICE detainer had been filed. Minnesota DOC since 2008 mandated inquiries into any inmate convicted of a felony or found to be mentally ill and confined to DOC facility, county jail or facility required the reporting of the person’s immigration status and share information about the person’s immigration status including date of arrival in the United States.4 And by state law courts must give certified copies of criminal records at no cost to immigration officials.5 How does NorthSTAR Bill separate Minnesota from Immigration enforcement The drafters of the Bill all used definitions and language from other states that have passed similar legislation. In fact, as of this writing at least nine other states have passed bills with a similar purpose, California, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, I llinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York and Vermont. Other states such as Maryland and New Mexico had legislation passed only to have it vetoed by their respective governors. Where we could we took language from these other statutes as part of our own, being particularly influenced by Illinois, Washington, Oregon and California. The Bill separates Minnesota from immigration enforcement in four ways. First, it bans the involvement of state agencies, employees and especially law enforcement in investigating, arresting, or cooperating with federal immigration officials unless ordered 2 For a quick primer on such intelligence centers, see https://www.flipsnack.com/justfutures/ice - intelligence-centers/full-view.html 3 American Dragnet, https://americandragnet.org/ 4 MN Stat. 631.50 5 MN Stat. 631.51 to do so by a state or federal judge. The provisions can be found at 629.80 subd.4 (a)(1)-(6), (8) and (11). The provisions all address direct involvement by any public safety agencies in either investigating, detention or arrest based on immigration statu s. It also forbids cooperation with ICE or CBP when investigating, questioning or detaining or transfer of people for civil immigration enforcement. While some language should be broad enough to encompass a variety of levels of cooperation, pains were take n to give specific language when addressing known examples of cooperation to provide clear guidance for state and local officials. These provisions cover any form of law enforcement in Minnesota, from police, sheriffs, to correctional facilities, including security provided to public hospitals and schools.6 Second, it prevents information gathering of immigration or citizenship status unless necessary for reasons other than immigration enforcement7 (such as eligibility for benefits or to provide legal representation to non-citizens) and the sharing of data or information with federal immigration officials.8 It also cuts off the ability of data brokers from selling data to federal immigration officials as a workaround.9 It also prevents giving access to federal immigration officials access to state databases directly,10 a practice found to have happened in Illinois after it passed its statute. These provisions are actively undergoing revision and amendments as we continue to learn how Minnesota shares its data into national databases and other agencies. As detailed below, tremendous effort is given to prevent interference or prevention of data sharing for purposes that are not related to immigration enforcement, such as providing benefits, and criminal investigations. Third, the Bill bans any new IGSA contracts or amendments that would allow county jails to house or detain people for immigration enforcement purposes.11 The Bill also forces the termination of any IGSA contracts currently being used, as well as provisions of IGSA contracts that authorize the detention of non -citizens.12 This termination date need not occur when the Bill becomes effective, and the lag of sunsetting of detention contracts can be used to address concerns about transfers out of state for current detainees. Fourth, the Bill also tries to address equity concerns, by opening up state programs to people regardless of immigration status and prevents denial of release from incarceration through work release or early release based on immigration detainers or holds.13 6 See definition of public safety agencies in 629.80 Subd.1 (b). 7 629.80 subd.3(a)(2), 629.80subd.4(a)(9). 8 629.80 subd.3(a)(1) 9 629.80 subd.3(b)(2), (b)(3). 10 629.80 subd.4(a)(7). 11 629.80 subd.3(a)(4). 12 629.80 subd.3(b)(1). 13 629.80 subd.3(a)(4)(ii), 629.80 subd.4(a)(10) 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to public safety; ensuring appropriate use of state and local resources by 1.3 limiting state and local government participation in federal civil immigration 1.4 enforcement efforts; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 1.5 629; repealing Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 631.50; 631.51. 1.6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.7 Section 1. [629.80] CIVIL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT; ACTIVITIES 1.8 PROHIBITED; POLICIES REQUIRED. 1.9 Subdivision 1.Definitions.(a) As used in this section, the following terms have the 1.10 meanings given. 1.11 (b) "Civil immigration enforcement" means all efforts to investigate, detect, apprehend, 1.12 or detain an individual with the purpose of enforcing or executing federal immigration 1.13 statutes relating to removal, exclusion, or deportation proceedings, deportation or removal 1.14 orders, or removal from the United States; or to assist in the investigation of, or civil arrest 1.15 of, any persons for the purposes of enforcing federal civil immigration law, including but 1.16 not limited to violations of United States Code, title 8, sections 1182 and 1227. This definition 1.17 does not apply to efforts to assist individuals in applying for immigration benefits or efforts 1.18 to prevent deportation or removal from the United States. This definition does not include 1.19 the enforcement of criminal law. 1.20 (c) "Civil immigration warrant" means a document that is not approved or ordered by a 1.21 judge that can form the basis for an individual's arrest or detention for a civil immigration 1.22 enforcement purpose. Civil immigration warrant includes Form I-200 Warrant for the Arrest 1.23 of Alien, Form I-203 Order to Detain or Release Alien, Form I-205 Warrant of 1Section 1. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 2.1 Removal/Deportation, Form I-286 Notice of Custody Determination, any predecessor or 2.2 successor form, and all warrants, hits, or requests contained in the Immigration Violator 2.3 File of the FBI's National Crime Information Center database. 2.4 (d) "Federal immigration authority" means an officer, employee, personnel, or agent of 2.5 a federal agency that is charged with civil immigration enforcement, including but not 2.6 limited to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the United States 2.7 Customs and Border Protection. 2.8 (e) "Government personnel" means a person employed by a government unit. 2.9 (f) "Government unit" means a state department, agency, commission, council, board, 2.10 task force, or committee; a constitutional office; a court entity; the Minnesota State Colleges 2.11 and Universities; a county, statutory, or home rule charter city, or town; a school district; 2.12 a special district; or any other board, commission, district, or authority created under law, 2.13 local ordinance, or charter provision. 2.14 (g) "Judicial warrant" means a warrant based upon probable cause issued by a state or 2.15 federal judge or federal magistrate judge. 2.16 (h) "Public safety agency" means: 2.17 (1) a law enforcement agency as defined in section 626.84, subdivision 1, paragraph (f); 2.18 (2) a correctional facility as defined in section 241.021, subdivision 1i, including juvenile 2.19 facilities governed by the commissioner of human services and provided for under section 2.20 241.021, subdivision 2; 2.21 (3) an agency providing probation services provided for under section 244.19, subdivision 2.22 3; and 2.23 (4) a public or private entity that provides security services to any of the following 2.24 entities if the entity is controlled by the state of Minnesota, including but not limited to 2.25 public schools, public universities, health care facilities, drug rehabilitation facilities, and 2.26 hospitals. 2.27 (i) "Public safety personnel" means a person employed by a public safety agency. 2.28 Subd. 2.Purpose.(a) The purpose of this section is to direct the state of Minnesota's 2.29 limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local government, and to protect 2.30 the safety, well-being, and privacy rights of the people of Minnesota. 2.31 (b) The legislature recognizes that the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws 2.32 are the exclusive purview of the federal government and that the state should not play a role 2Section 1. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 3.1 in the enforcement of the federal policies, including but not limited to the use of state, 3.2 county, and local resources in the detention of people not held for criminal or state purposes. 3.3 (c) The legislature finds that the resources of the state are better spent on promoting 3.4 public safety, trust in state government and its institutions, and the privacy of its residents. 3.5 Trust in state government is central to the public safety and well-being of the people of 3.6 Minnesota. Public safety and well-being are eroded when state and local government agencies 3.7 participate in federal civil immigration enforcement efforts, as these actions cause immigrant 3.8 community members to fear approaching law enforcement to report crimes and deter these 3.9 members from accessing basic services, including but not limited to health care and public 3.10 education. 3.11 (d) Nothing in this section is intended to hinder, obstruct, or prevent the cooperation 3.12 between the state and the federal government for purposes of detection, investigation, or 3.13 enforcement of criminal activity. 3.14 Subd. 3.Government restrictions.(a) A government unit, and the unit's personnel, 3.15 shall not: 3.16 (1) disclose, distribute, disseminate, or allow for the disclosure, distribution, or 3.17 dissemination of data or information on any individual to any federal immigration authority 3.18 if the data or information will be used for civil immigration enforcement, except as required 3.19 by state or federal law, a judicial warrant, or other court order; 3.20 (2) inquire of, ask for, or record a person's immigration or citizenship status, lack of 3.21 Social Security number, or type of government identification used, unless the information 3.22 is required to fulfill or administer a state or local program, investigate or prosecute a state 3.23 crime, fulfill consular notification requirements under international treaty, or otherwise 3.24 required by state or federal law; 3.25 (3) apply for funds from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or any program 3.26 that requires increased information sharing for civil immigration enforcement purposes or 3.27 that requires any type of immigration enforcement action on the part of a government agent; 3.28 and 3.29 (4) enter into, amend any provisions of, or renew any contract, or intergovernmental 3.30 service agreement, or any other agreement to house or detain individuals for civil immigration 3.31 enforcement purposes. 3.32 (b) A government unit, and the unit's personnel, shall: 3Section 1. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 4.1 (1) terminate any contract, agreement, or intergovernmental service agreement that is 4.2 utilized to house or detain any person for civil immigration enforcement purposes no later 4.3 than ....... 4.4 (2) terminate any provision of an existing contract, agreement, or intergovernmental 4.5 service agreement that applies to the housing or detention of any person for civil immigration 4.6 enforcement purposes by .......; 4.7 (3) amend contracts, agreements, and policies that allow for the dissemination, 4.8 distribution, and sharing of data and information collected by government units to private 4.9 entities or persons to include restrictions against the reselling, dissemination, or redistribution 4.10 of that data to federal immigration authorities or for the purpose of civil immigration 4.11 enforcement. No data or information may be disseminated, distributed, or shared under any 4.12 agreement that does not contain restrictions as required under this clause; 4.13 (4) ensure that data or information collected by government units may not be shared 4.14 with a person or private entity without a written certification that the information will not 4.15 be used for civil immigration enforcement, or resold or redistributed to federal immigration 4.16 authorities. This clause does not apply to data or information shared with the person who 4.17 is the subject of the data or information; and 4.18 (5) create written policies in coordination with the Office of New Americans to ensure 4.19 that: 4.20 (i) government personnel will comply with the obligations outlined in this section; and 4.21 (ii) access to any state or local programs or benefits will not be unduly restricted based 4.22 on immigration or citizenship status unless required by federal or state law. 4.23 Subd. 4.Public safety agency restrictions.(a) A public safety agency and the agency's 4.24 personnel shall not: 4.25 (1) comply with a detainer, hold, notification, civil immigrant warrant, or transfer request 4.26 from federal immigration authorities; 4.27 (2) make, assist in, or participate in any civil immigration enforcement operations, 4.28 including conducting an arrest or detention of any individual for the purpose of enforcing 4.29 civil immigration law, or the establishment of traffic perimeters or road checkpoints for 4.30 federal immigration authorities; 4.31 (3) apply for or receive federal funds, or participate in a program or effort, with the 4.32 purpose of using government personnel to assist or otherwise participate in civil immigration 4Section 1. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 5.1 enforcement activities, whether pursuant to United States Code, title 8, section 1357(g), or 5.2 any other formal or informal law, regulation, policy, or request; 5.3 (4) investigate, arrest, stop, or detain a person on the basis of a suspected civil 5.4 immigration violation, including but not limited to inquiries into a person's citizenship, 5.5 immigration status, or birth place, unless relevant to the investigation of a state crime, or 5.6 required to fulfill consular notification requirements under treaty obligations; 5.7 (5) ask for or use federal immigration authorities for language assistance during a traffic 5.8 stop or law enforcement encounter; 5.9 (6) provide facilities, personnel, assistance, or other access beyond what is provided to 5.10 the general public to federal immigration authorities to investigate, interview, or question 5.11 for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement a person who is detained or otherwise in 5.12 the care of a public service agency; 5.13 (7) provide access to a database or data that a public safety agency has access to, whether 5.14 or not owned or controlled by a governmental unit. to federal immigration authorities without 5.15 a judicial warrant unless otherwise required by state or federal law; 5.16 (8) transfer care or control of a person within the custody of a public safety agency to 5.17 federal immigration authorities for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement without 5.18 a judicial warrant; 5.19 (9) notify or provide information to federal immigration authorities of an individual's 5.20 pending release from a public safety agency's control, court dates, or any information about 5.21 an individual, including but not limited to address information, vehicle registry information, 5.22 or other data collected by a government unit, unless required by a judicial warrant, or state 5.23 or federal law; this restriction does not apply to a request to complete Form I-918 Supplement 5.24 B, U Nonimmigrant Status Certification, Form I-914 Supplement B, Declaration of Law 5.25 Enforcement Officer for Victim of Trafficking in Persons, Form I-854 Inter-Agency Alien 5.26 Witness and Informant Record, or other request for documentation from a noncitizen victim 5.27 of a crime; 5.28 (10) deny access to a program or benefit relating to work release, including but not 5.29 limited to the challenge program under section 244.17, or any other program that provides 5.30 release from detention, because of the existence of a detainer or civil immigration warrant, 5.31 or other notifications from federal immigration authorities; and 5Section 1. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 6.1 (11) participate in, or provide access or assistance to, a federal immigration authority to 6.2 conduct civil immigration enforcement activities at state courthouses, hospitals, health care 6.3 clinics, churches or other places of worship, or schools, without a judicial warrant. 6.4 (b) A public safety agency shall: 6.5 (1) in coordination with the Office of New Americans, create or amend written policies 6.6 that reflect the policies listed in this section; 6.7 (2) provide written notifications to anyone who is the subject of a data request or other 6.8 inquiry by a federal immigration authority, informing them that they were the subject of an 6.9 inquiry or request and what action if any the public safety agency took in response to the 6.10 request or inquiry; 6.11 (3) submit a report annually to the attorney general and Office of New Americans 6.12 disclosing any requests from the United States Department of Homeland Security, including 6.13 but not limited to Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, with respect to participation, 6.14 support, or assistance in any immigration agent's civil enforcement operation, and any 6.15 documentation regarding how the request was addressed, provided that if an agency does 6.16 not receive a request during a reporting period, the agency shall certify and report that it 6.17 received no requests; 6.18 (4) create policies in coordination with government units to ensure that all state and local 6.19 government offices, public schools, hospitals, and courthouses remain safe and accessible 6.20 to all Minnesota residents, regardless of immigration or citizenship status; and 6.21 (5) ensure compliance with all treaty obligations, including consular notification, and 6.22 state and federal laws, by explaining to any individual committed into the custody or detained 6.23 by the public safety agency in writing, with interpretation into another language if requested: 6.24 (i) the individual's right to refuse to disclose the individual's nationality, citizenship, 6.25 country of birth, or immigration status; and 6.26 (ii) that disclosure of the individual's nationality, citizenship, country of birth, or 6.27 immigration status may result in civil or criminal immigration enforcement, including 6.28 removal from the United States. 6.29 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment. 6.30 Sec. 2. [629.81] VIOLATIONS. 6.31 Subdivision 1.Reporting; investigation.The Office of the Attorney General shall 6.32 establish a system for the public and state and local employees to report alleged violations 6Sec. 2. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 7.1 of section 629.80. At a minimum, the system shall include a telephone hotline, electronic 7.2 complaint portal, and written complaint process that is accessible in multiple languages and 7.3 advertised to communities most likely to be affected by immigration enforcement and 7.4 deportation activities. Upon receiving a report of an alleged violation of section 629.80, the 7.5 office must coordinate the investigation of the alleged violation and notify any individual 7.6 who has been affected by the alleged violation. On a semiannual basis, the office shall issue 7.7 a public report containing aggregate information regarding any alleged violations, including 7.8 but not limited to: 7.9 (1) the number of alleged violations reported; 7.10 (2) the type of alleged violation; 7.11 (3) the agency from which the alleged violation originated; 7.12 (4) the ultimate conclusion as to whether the alleged violation was founded; and 7.13 (5) the remedial and disciplinary actions taken in response to any founded violations. 7.14 Subd. 2.Employment misconduct.A violation of section 629.80 may be considered 7.15 employment misconduct by an employer. 7.16 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment. 7.17 Sec. 3. [629.82] ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. 7.18 Subdivision 1.Entities that may enforce this section.The following people and entities 7.19 may seek relief for a violation of this section and sections 629.80 and 629.81 by starting an 7.20 action in state district court: 7.21 (1) an agency or instrumentality of the state; 7.22 (2) a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or instrumentality of a political 7.23 subdivision of the state; 7.24 (3) an individual who has suffered injury due to a violation of this section and sections 7.25 629.80 and 629.81, or that individual's family member or domestic partner; and 7.26 (4) an organization or other entity in the state which, as a primary part of its mission, 7.27 assists, represents, advocates for, or otherwise serves Minnesota residents who are not 7.28 United States citizens. 7.29 Subd. 2.Definition.For the purposes of this section, "injury" means having an 7.30 individual's information or data shared in violation of section 629.80, subdivisions 3 and 7Sec. 3. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 8.1 4; being subject to civil immigration enforcement after a violation of this section or sections 8.2 629.80 and 629.81; or any other harm suffered as a result of a violation of these sections. 8.3 Subd. 3.Defendants The party bringing the enforcement action may sue any person or 8.4 entity that has violated this section and sections 629.80 and 629.81, including but not limited 8.5 to the certification provisions in section 629.80, subdivision 3. 8.6 Subd. 4.Relief.The court may award the following forms of relief: 8.7 (1) to all enforcing parties: 8.8 (i) preliminary and equitable relief, including injunctions, as the court determines to be 8.9 needed in order to correct or prevent further violations; and 8.10 (ii) reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and 8.11 (2) to the parties identified in subdivision 1, clause (3): 8.12 (i) actual damages, or liquidated damages of $1,000 per violation, whichever is greater; 8.13 and 8.14 (ii) punitive damages upon proof of knowing, or reckless disregard of the law. 8.15 Subd. 5.Nonrestriction of other rights.Nothing in this section restricts the right of a 8.16 person or class of persons to seek enforcement of this section and sections 629.80 and 629.81 8.17 under any other statute or common law, or to seek any other form of relief. 8.18 EFFECTIVE DATE.Subdivision 4, clause (2), is effective August 1, 2024, and applies 8.19 for one year from the date of final enactment or the date on which a written policy has been 8.20 implemented in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 629.80, subdivisions 3, 8.21 paragraph (b), clause (4), and 4, paragraph (b), clause (1), whichever occurs first. 8.22 Sec. 4. REPEALER. 8.23 Minnesota Statutes 2022, sections 631.50; and 631.51, are repealed. 8Sec. 4. REVISOR KLL/BM 24-0596101/08/24 Effective Public Safety Requires Public Trust. North STAR prohibits state and local law enforcement from using state resources for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement. This includes sharing data or accepting federal funds that would require such cooperation. It does not prohibit collaboration the basis of investigating criminal activity. The role of local law enforcement is to provide public safety. Blurring the lines between law enforcement and i mmigration enforceme nt erodes trust within the immigrant community and diverts public safety resources from their intended purpose of keeping us all safe. Immigrants Strengthen Minnesota. There are over 500,000 non-citizen residents in MN, h ailing from every part of the globe. T hey are tax paying, working and contributing members of our society who support families and enrich our state. Immigrants spend over $12.4 billion annually in the state of Minnesota, in addition to contributing more than $22.4 billion to the state’s GDP. Immigrants are essential workers. Employers state- wide continue to seek workers to fill low and medium wage jobs. Many “essential jobs”, in cluding food service workers and health c are workers are staffed by immigrants. Im migrants make up almost 7% of rural farm workers and are vital to agricultural production in the state, feeding their families and yours. 10% of Minnesota’s 5.7 million residents are immigrants. 20% of Minnesota children are part of immigrant families. 75% of all adult immigrants in Minnesota work full time, and contributed $2.9 billion in federal taxes and, $1.5 billion in state taxes in 2018. North STAR ActThe Safety, Trust & Respect We All Benefit. Law Enforcement can use resource s freed up from immigra- tion i nvestigatio n and e nforcement on more appropriat e public safety r elated tasks, leaving immigration violations in the hands of federal agencies. Immigrants will be more likely to engage law enforce- ment and em ergency s ervices without fear of detention or deportation . They will r emain valuable members of the communities they help to create. Employers can expect a more stable workforce since they’ll lose fewer employees to detention and deportation. Workers will continue to pay taxes and support our economy. Minnesotans of all ba ckgrou nds can worry less about being racially profiled and detained by law enforcement because they “look like they might be undocumented”. 63% of those held in ICE detention have no c riminal record. Many more have only minor offenses, i ncluding traffic violations that result in local l aw enforcement h anding them over to ICE. In some cases, people are detained by local enforcment for ICE based on their percie ved ethnicity alone. ICE detention often removes a primary breadwinner from immigrant households, pushing f amilies into financial crisis. Families are safer when parents are at home to care for elders and children. M any immigrants don’t trust law enforcement because they often operate as immigration enforcers , creating a justified fear that they may be detained, deported, or turned over to ICE. B ecause of this, they do ev erything they can to remain under the radar. They d on’t r eport crimes or seek emergency services. In fact, they are more often the v ictims of c rimes that go unreported and u nadressed. This is the opposite of “safety” in our communities. The North STAR Alliance includes dozens of faith-based and social justice organiza- tions representing more than one million Minnesota residents statewide who see this legislation as an urgent moral imperative that will benefit us all. Alliance members believe in the d ignity of every human being, without exception. Enacting this legislation is the moral ly, econom ically and legally right thing to do. This legislation will make our im migrant neighbors feel welcomed and respected. Safer Without Detention.