2024-08-07 TC Agenda_combinedAGENDA
RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
BARTHOLOMEW ROOM, CITY HALL
Wednesday, August 7th, 2024, 7:00 PM
Attachment
1. Call meeting to order
2. Review & approve agenda
3. Review & approve minutes for June 5th, 2024 meeting #1
4. Local Sales Tax Referendum
Presenter: Kate Aitchison, Communications & Engagement Manager
5. 73rd Street SRTS Trail Project
Presenter: Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
6. Project Updates
a) I-494 Construction
b) 71st Street Sidewalk
c) 66th and Richfield Parkway Pedestrian Infrastructure
d) Highway 62 Noise Wall
e) 73rd Street SRTS Trail
f) 70th Street SRTS Project
g) 2024 Concrete Repairs
h) CC Liaison/Other Commissions/Bike Advocates
7. Other Business
8. Upcoming events/meeting(s)
a) Wed, August 21st, 4:30pm: 70th Street SRTS Project Open House #1
b) Wed, September 5th, 7:00pm: Transportation Commission Meeting
c) Thu, September 12th, 6:00pm: 73rd Street SRTS Project Open House #2
(subject to change)
9. Adjournment
MINUTES
RICHFIELD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL
BARTHOLOMEW ROOM, CITY HALL
Wednesday, June 5th, 2024, 7:00 PM
Councilmembers in attendance: Sean Hayford Oleary, Mary Supple
Commission Members in attendance: Husniyah Bradley (Chair), Jim Mahoney, McKenzie
Burke, David Gepner, Eli Straub, Adam Knosalla, Lou Dzierzak, Stacey Fuentes, Jaz Warren
Alex Valle-Osornio
Councilmembers not in Attendance: Ben Whalen, Sharon Christensen, Simon Trautmann
Commission Members not in Attendance: Jan Matheus, Michael Devane, Tim Brackett
City Staff: Joe Powers, Matt Hardegger, Olivia Wycklendt, Katie Rodriguez, Kristin Asher
Nicollet Avenue Project Staff: Tyler McLeete, Miranda Swanson, Matt Huggins, Dan
Edgerton
1. Call meeting to order
Chair Bradley called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM
2. Review & approve agenda
Motion by Commissioner Mahoney to approve agenda. Second by Commissioner
Gepner. Motion carried.
3. Review & approve minutes for April 3rd, 2024 meeting
Motion by Commissioner Mahoney to approve previous meeting minutes. Second by
Commissioner Dzierzak. Motion carried.
4. Nicollet Avenue Discussion
Hennepin County Project Manager Matt Huggins kicked off the Nicollet Avenue
discussion by providing an overview of the scope of the project, and collaboration
with the City and the Transportation Commission thus far.
Dan Edgerton from ZAN Associates followed Huggins in the presentation, reviewing
the ways project staff has pursued public engagement through open houses, virtual
open houses, and pop-up events.
He highlighted key findings from Phase I and Phase II of the public engagement
process which indicated a desire from the public to improve pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, managing vehicle speeds, and the overall look and feel of the Nicollet Ave
corridor.
In Phase III of public engagement key findings were determining a preferred corridor
layout, support for roundabouts, desire for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and
improvements with pedestrian crossings, as well as a desire for green space through
boulevards. He also touched on how the decisions for the project have been made,
which he clarified that the project layout is determined not only just by Hennepin
County, but also the desire of general public as well as City policies.
MINUTES
Tyler McLeete from Stantec followed Edgerton with additional project updates from a
technical standpoint. He stated that Nicollet Avenue was currently identified as a
potential bus rapid transit (BRT) service in the future, and that the current layout has
taken that into consideration. For example, McLeete mentioned that in-line bus stops
have been modeled with the proposed layout and have shown not to provide a
significant impact to the corridor.
Commissioner Jim Mahoney asked whose policy it was for the bus stops to be in-lane.
McLeete responded that it was Metro Transit’s, and that in-line bus stops provide a
higher value of service.
Mayor Supple mentioned that with in-lane stops it helps to occasionally stop traffic
and give pedestrians an opportunity to cross the street.
McLeete summarized that the preliminary layout consists of a 3-lane layout for the
corridor, in addition to one-way cycle tracks on each side of the street in addition to
sidewalks. Currently the layout also has roundabouts proposed at 67th, 70th, 73rd and
76th St, as well as right-in right out intersections at 69th St, 71st, and 74th St.
Commissioner Jaz Warren asked if there are tabled crossings for pedestrian facilities
along the layout. McLeete confirmed there are tabled crossings on the city owned
local legs off the corridor. Warren also inquired if buses and large trucks are able to
navigate the roundabouts on the corridor, which McLeete confirmed.
Councilmember Sean Hayford Oleary asked project staff if the layout currently shows
all the medians as concrete. Huggins responded that the project hasn’t quite reached
that level of detail where that has been decided, however it could be possibly added
to the design in the future.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked if two-phase crossings were considered for the
design. Huggins answered that based on crossing data collected for the corridor, the
current layout meets county standards, but is open to discussion.
McLeete said that no shoulders are included along the corridor as a means of
narrowing the corridor and helping to control vehicle speeds.
Commissioner Gepner asked if the City was financially participating in this project and
to what degree. Huggins answered that cost participation percentages had not yet
been negotiated. Huggins did add that the City will have a significant investment but
does not anticipate the City’s participation being 50% or greater. Gepner asked if
negotiations from the City are honored, and Huggins said they could be and that
overall, the project will not move forward without municipal consent.
Commissioner Mahoney asked who would be responsible and what the impacts would
be for the boulevard space between the sidewalk and the roadway. Transportation
Engineer responded that the residents would be responsible for maintaining the
boulevard per city policy. He added that if the project impacts other areas of private
property such as a fence, more discussions would be had with the property owner
about the impact. City Engineer Joe Powers stated that in general these acquisitions
or impacts are done in a way that avoids disadvantaging homeowners to the best of
the projects’ ability.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked why parking bays or a narrow boulevard could
not be added between 70th and 71st St. Huggins said that if the City would like to
make a request to add street parking in this area, the cost of the added parking lane
MINUTES
and any right-of-way acquisition would be 100% the City’s responsibility. Huggins
and Edgerton both mentioned that the demand for parking has not been evident
based on data collected and public input.
Commissioner Lou Dzierzak asked who would be parking in these areas anyways,
which Councilmember Hayford Oleary answered residents and some businesses,
particularly near 77th St.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary made an additional comment stating that his
preference is to allow for wider driveways as well along the corridor for those that are
existing to allow for easier turning movements with the addition of center medians,
which Huggins stated the county was allowing for wider driveways for these specific
circumstances.
Commissioner Mahoney asked if there were specific items that project staff was
looking for feedback on.
Hardegger clarified that one of the discussion points staff would like to go over is if
there is a preference for the location of the centerline, and whether it should be
equally between the property lines versus the equal distance of space between the
public sidewalk and their home.
Commissioner Mahoney asked how many parcels would be impacted with acquisition
to accommodate the sidewalk should. Huggins answered that likely 80 parcels would
be impacted by strip taking.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary stated that he doesn’t want to acquire strips of land
for the sake of perceived right-of-way rather than purely out of project necessity.
Commissioner Dzierak stated that since the corridor does have some curves in it
rather than a straight run, how perceptive will that be to those traveling on the
corridor. McLeete responded that the corridor is still linear and that any curves will be
felt, however, should not be drastic from a driver’s experience.
Hardegger summarized that the Commission and the Council would prefer to
maximize the use of the existing right-of-way, except in cases where easements
would be acquired for serious project modifiers or conflicts like the relocation of a gas
main, to which both the council and commission agreed.
Hardegger asked the Council and the Commission if they were supportive of the right-
in right-out intersections at several points throughout the corridor. Several of these
intersections would also have raised crossings, but not all of them.
The areas where right-in, right-out were not implemented like 68th, 72nd, and 70th St
are due to the east-west connection from Lyndale across the railroad, added Huggins.
Huggins stated that there is a roundabout located within 1 block either north or south
of the intersections that would be right-in right-out.
Hardegger refocused the discussion, asking the Commission and Council if they
support the feature of raised crossings on local non-municipal state aid intersections
and the benefits it could provide from a traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle facility
standpoint.
MINUTES
Commissioner Straub voiced his support, followed by the rest of the Commissions
agreement.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary turned the discussion to a designated left turn lane
with a median rather than a center turn lane, voicing his support for that type of
crossing.
Commissioner Straub added that if there is room for the center turn lanes, having left
turn lanes and having a center median to aid in pedestrian crossing would be
desirable.
McLeete and Huggins pulled out a layout showing what would be required for a two-
stage crossing. Huggins summarized that if there is a desire to two-stage crossing it
is feasible however it would widen the overall width of the roadway to allow for those
turn lanes and appropriate site lines for turning vehicles.
Jaz mentioned that the 72nd crossing of Nicollet could be a candidate for either a
raised crossing or rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs). McLeete stated that a
raised crossing on Nicollet Avenue is not feasible due to state aid standards. As for
RRFBs, those are a feasible consideration but have not been included in the layout as
of yet.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary asked if the road is designed for a speed of 35 mph,
to which Huggins responded that the design and intent of the corridor is changing to
ideally lower speeds, yes, however the road is not specifically designed to have a
roadway with a posted speed of 35 mph in mind.
Mayor Supple expressed her concerns of emergency vehicles being able to navigate
the corridor with right-in right-outs. Public Works Director Asher responded that
emergency vehicles tend to find a way to get to their destination and that they know
which routes are most efficient to get to their destination best and that emergency
vehicles are factored into the design.
Hardegger summarized that the Commission and Council felt that the applications
and locations of the right-in right outs and the tabled crossings are acceptable,
however that there is a desire to see more pedestrian-focused infrastructure at 68th
St, 72nd and 75th St, and potentially restricting left-turns going southbound on at
72nd.
Hardegger asked the Commission and Council for direction regarding RRFBs, and that
for any areas that aren’t warranted by the County the City would incur 100% of those
costs.
Commissioner Dzierzak stated that 70th St is one of the busiest intersections for
pedestrians, and that RRFBs would be desired at this location.
There was some discussion from the Commission and the Council about creating a
two-lane section near Augsburg Park with a shift in alignment to make it safer for
pedestrians, however it seems that the shift in alignment would not be the most
beneficial for pedestrians due to sight-line issues.
Mayor Supple inquired if the changes to the Hennepin County Library near Augsburg
Park would happen in coordination to this project. Huggins replied that the library’s
project is further ahead of schedule than the Nicollet project and will be constructed
prior to the Nicollet Avenue Reconstruction project breaking ground.
MINUTES
There was discussion from multiple members of the council and commission regarding
a type of slip ramps on the local roadways for pedestrians or bicyclists to travel north
or southbound on the corridor. City and County Staff indicated that this could be
looked into further.
Commissioner Straub mentioned that any infrastructure like lights to make things
safer to cross as a pedestrian or a bicyclist is ideal. Huggins stated that anything
above and beyond county warrants can possibly be added at the request of the City,
but further discussion is needed regarding cost and maintenance with the City.
Councilmember Hayford Oleary commented that other than a few items, he is
supportive of the current layout and is appreciative of the work that project staff has
done so far.
Hardegger relayed to the commission that if any councilmembers or commission
members that they are welcome to e-mail him with additional feedback.
Commissioner Gepner expressed his concern as to why Nicollet Avenue is being
reconstructed before Penn Avenue despite its condition. Huggins responded that the
County’s CIP comes out later this year in fall and is expected to include a Penn
Avenue project.
5. External Grant Funding Update
Transportation Engineer Hardegger reported to the Commission and the Council that
the City has submitted 26.4 million dollars in grant applications to various federal and
state agencies, including a 10-million-dollar request to the state legislature.
Hardegger provided an overview of the different grant applications the City has
submitted for external funding, and the status of those applications.
The City’s Reconnecting Communities application was not successful, but will be
resubmitted in the next round with a slightly smaller scope, as the amount of funding
available will decrease next year.
The City submitted five projects to the Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation in
December, which will be announced in July. Hardegger said staff are optimistic about
potentially receiving multiple grants through this, but nothing will be final until July.
Commissioner Mahoney notified Hardegger that all the bollards near the STEM school
are gone, and asked if it was a pilot project. Hardegger confirmed it was a pilot
project, however those changes will be permanent in 2025 as the City did just receive
funding in the form of a $586,000 grant to move forward with the project.
The City also received a design assistance grant to examine intersections and
roadways around Sheridan Hills, Richfield Middle School, and Richfield High School.
The school district also received grant funding for planning assistance, so the Safe
Routes to School Plan for the district will be updated over the next year, Hardegger
mentioned.
MINUTES
Hardegger stated that the 73rd St Bridge project was submitted through
Representative Omar’s office for community project funding for design and
engineering costs, and that the Congresswoman selected the project to submit to the
Appropriations Committee.
Overall Hardegger told the Commission and Council that the City is currently
projecting 5-6 million dollars in state and federal grant funding, with a City match of
1.4 million dollars, for projects submitted in 2023.
City Manager Katie Rodriguez expressed her gratitude to City staff and acknowledged
the difficulty that comes with securing outside funding for infrastructure projects.
6. Project Updates
Hardegger provided an update on the sidewalk construction on 71st St outside of
STEM/RDLS will be beginning construction in mid-June.
Following that, construction is expected to begin on the pedestrian ramps at Richfield
Parkway and 66th St.
Civil Engineer Olivia Wycklendt provided a brief project update on 65th St, stating that
striping for 65th St has been completed and that only landscaping restoration
remains.
7. Other Business
There was no other business.
8. Upcoming events/meeting(s)
Motion to move to cancel the July 3rd meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner
Mahoney. Seconded by Commissioner Dzierzak. Motion carried.
The next regularly scheduled Transportation Commission Meeting is on Wednesday,
August 7th.
9. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 PM.
Our Legacy, Our Future.
REINVESTING IN RICHFIELD
PARKS AND RECREATION
Preserving the Legacy of Our
Parks and Recreation System
The City of Richfield is putting forward an $80 million investment plan to address critical
infrastructure issues, support additional programs and provide recreational opportunities at the
Richfield Community Center, Wood Lake Nature Center and Veterans Park.
Wood Lake Nature Center is a
150-acre natural area dedicated to
environmental education, wildlife
observation and outdoor
recreation.
Whether it is swimming, skating,
attending the farmers market,
walking the trails or playing put-put,
the complex serves Richfield
residents and surrounding
community members alike.
The Richfield Community Center
attracts visitors from across the
city and around the region, hosting
wellness, fitness, tax programs as
well as other activities.
Wood Lake Nature Center Veterans Park Richfield Community Center
2
OUR CHALLENGES
Richfield Community Center
Originally built as a public library, the 63-year-old building lacks the
space and updated equipment to support the community programs and
activities our residents say they want.
Critical problems with the aging building include:
•Small and outdated kitchen
•Minimal community gathering spaces
•Lack of separate space for fitness activities and sports
•Electrical issues with the elevator
•Inadequate space for storing equipment and supplies
•Insufficient space for staff
•Eroding foundation that leads to water seeping into the building
when it rains
3
OUR CHALLENGES
Wood Lake Nature Center
The building at Wood Lake Nature Center is 50+ years old and has aged
past its useful life. The facility is plagued with critical infrastructure
problems that cannot be resolved with maintenance and repairs.
Problems at the Wood Lake Nature Center building include:
•Outdated, non-ADA accessible bathrooms
•Rodent and other wildlife infestation due to foundational erosion
•Insufficient space for staff to collaborate and gather
•Aging HVAC system and air quality issues
•Insufficient space for growing demand for educational classes
and community events
•Inadequate and cramped storage for equipment, supplies and
educational materials
4
OUR CHALLENGES
Veterans Park
Despite regular maintenance, many amenities throughout the park
require significant upgrades and renovations to maintain the safety
and health of patrons.
Major challenges at Veterans Park include:
•The 63-year-old pool liner and basin is deteriorating
and needs to be replaced to avoid permanently closing the pool
•Outdated pool filtration and heating systems
•Lack of ADA accessibility at the 53-year-old ice arena
•Deteriorating trail system
•Safety concerns with the aging metal roof at the pavilion
•Infrastructure and grounds issues at the mini golf course/building
and other parts of the park
5
Developing a Plan to Invest in Richfield
The investment plan was driven by feedback from
residents and facility assessments.
We listened to you.Richfield residents played a key role in
shaping these projects. Residents have shared their ideas and
priorities through surveys and at meetings, community events
and other engagement activities.
The city has conducted several facility assessments, worked
with experts and engineers and focused on the city’s strategic
plans and goals to form recommendations for parks and
recreation improvements.
6
This November, Richfield voters will decide whether to support a half-percent local
sales tax to provide $65 million, plus financing costs, to support the three projects.
The Plan
A New Richfield Community Center
The city is proposing to collect $45 million through a local sales tax to help fund a new community center, designed to support more activities for residents of all ages.
Potential amenities:
•Additional space allowing for more multipurpose programs,
events and health and wellness groups
•Designated spaces for community meetings and gatherings
•Modern kitchen to support community events
•Gyms and courts
•Indoor walking track
•Efficient workspaces for staff
•Additional areas for senior, adult, youth and family programs
•Increased storage space for equipment and supplies
7
The Plan
Wood Lake Nature Center
The city is proposing to invest $26 million to replace the current building with a new facility that would provide a more accessible
and inspiring setting for residents and visitors to gather and reconnect with nature for many years to come.
Key features of the new building would include:
•Fully accessible facilities and restrooms
•New and expanded exhibits and displays
•Meeting space to host classes and larger events such as family
gatherings or weddings
•Hands-on-learning spaces
•Capacity to support additional animal ambassadors
•Reinvestment in nearby grounds and trails
8
The Plan
Veterans Park
To maintain and improve current offerings that serve thousands of visitors each year, the city is proposing $9 million in critical upgrades and investments to the complex.
Key improvements at Veterans Park would include:
•Pool: new pool liner and basin, concession area upgrades and new
pool filtration and heating systems
•Ice Arena: accessibility upgrades, replacement of roofing and HVAC
updates for Rink #2
•Trails: resurfacing trails, vegetation improvements, removal of invasive
species,wildlife viewing platform and new park signage
•Bandshell: irrigation and gutter repair
•Pavilion: structural repairs to the metal roof, grading and surfacing,
landscaping and extending the patio area
•Mini Golf: roof and fascia improvements to the adjacent building
9
Financing the Investment Plan
•A half-percent local sales tax: The MN Legislature
authorized the city to seek voter approval of a half-percent
local sales tax to generate $65 million, plus interest and bond
costs, to help finance the three projects.
•State funding: To support the pre-design and construction of
a new educational facility at Wood Lake Nature Center, the
city has already secured $12 million in state funding.
•Federal funding: An additional $3 million in federal funds has
been awarded to the Wood Lake Nature Center project.
10
The city has put forward an $80 million investment plan for the Richfield Community Center, Wood
Lake Nature Center and Veterans Park. The city will finance the projects through three primary
funding sources:
•A local sales tax spreads the cost of the project among residents and nonresidents who purchase
goods and services in Richfield and often use our public amenities.
•A local sales tax follows the same exemptions and applications as the state sales tax.
•If the projects were funded through a property tax increase, the cost burden would fall solely on
property owners in Richfield.
Why a Local Sales Tax
⎻According to research by the University of
Minnesota Extension Center, 55% of the sales tax
would be paid by nonresidents when they make
purchases in the city.⎻That means approximately $35.75 million of the
$65 million collected through sales tax would be
paid by nonresidents.
55%
Nonresidents
($35.75 million)
45%
Residents
($29.25 million)
11
•Richfield residents would only pay about one-third of
the total cost of the projects when factoring in nonresident
contributions from the sales tax and state and federal funding.⎼The average cost of the local sales tax per Richfield
resident would be $3.92 per month, or $46.99 per year,
according to a study by the University of Minnesota.
How the Sales Tax Would Work
•The local sales tax is not permanent and would expire
within 20 years or when the total cost of the approved
projects has been repaid, whichever happens sooner.
•The city cannot use the sales tax for anything other than
the approved projects.
•The amount collected cannot change without approval from local voters.
•The local sales tax includes exemptions for essential goods, including
clothing, groceries, baby products, and feminine hygiene products.
12
=
A half-percent sales tax amounts to
one penny for every $2 spent, or five
cents for a $10 purchase.
Your Voice Matters
Voters will have the final say:The City of Richfield has proposed this community investment plan,
and residents will have the final say when they decide on Tuesday, November 5, whether to approve
a half-percent local sales tax to fund this investment to improve our parks and recreation offerings.
City leaders would reengage residents about
whether they still want to move forward with an
investment in the three project areas. However,
future investments would be more modest in
scale, spread over a longer period of time and
likely cost more in the long run.
The City of Richfield will move forward
with engagement, planning and designs for the
approved projects in 2025.Upgrades and
construction would take place in
phases from 2026-2031 to allow some
new amenities to be enjoyed while others are
being planned or under construction.
If the Referendum Passes If the Referendum Fails
13
Visit OurLegacyOurFuture.org
Learn more about:
The challenges of our outdated parks and rec facilities
The plan to enhance our parks and rec offerings
The cost and tax impact
Voting information
Answers to frequently asked questions
Important dates:
•Early voting begins Friday, Sept. 20 , 2024
•Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024
We encourage everyone to learn more at OurLegacyOurFuture.org
and make their voice heard on Election Day.
14
Thank You
QUESTIONS?
73rd Street SRTS Trail
Transportation Commission Matt Hardegger (he/him)
August 7th, 2024 Transportation Engineer
Overview
•73rd Street – Bloomington to Cedar Ave
•2022 Regional Solicitation Project
–Safe Routes to School Category
History
•2009
–Gap first identified in SRTS Plan
•2014
–Project identified as long term goal in SRTS Plan Update
•2022
–MnDOT Active Transportation grant for demo project awarded
–Project selected for Regional Solicitation funding
•2023
–Demo project installed
–Street identified as key neighborhood route in Active Transportation Action Plan
•2025
–Construction
Problem Statement & Goals
•Problem Statement
–There is an identified gap in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 73rd Street between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue.
–This gap in the Safe Routes to School network forces pedestrians, especially children and families walking to and from Centennial Elementary School, to walk in the street east of the school.
–Additionally, there is a desire for improved pedestrian crossings to cross 73rd Street, as well as to lower vehicle speeds in the neighborhood.
•Project Goals
–Safer Travel for all modes and users
–Improve trail connectivity to Centennial Elementary School
–Minimize impacts to existing parking and trees
–Increase the number of trips taken using transit, carpools, bicycling, and walking
–Increase bicycle and pedestrian facility connections
–Balance the comfort and safety of pedestrians with vehicle traffic needs
–Lower vehicle speeds
–Improve pedestrian crossings across 73rd Street
North Option
North Option
•Pros
–Better existing
connectivity to
Regional Trail
–Easier to clear in
winter
•Better sun angle
–Parking lane provides
additional buffer
•Cons
–More tree impacts
–More driveway
crossings
–Requires trail users to
cross 73rd for school
access
South Option
South Option
•Pros
–Better connectivity to
the school
–Fewer tree impacts
–Fewer driveway
crossings
–Continues
demonstration project
–More space between
curb and right of way
•Cons
–Requires additional
crossing to access trail
at Cedar Avenue
–Less intuitive crossing
at 16th Ave
–Potential minor to
moderate watermain
impacts
Proposed Dimensions
•60’ right of way
•28’ curb to curb width
–24’ min at bumpouts
•6’ minimum boulevard
•8’ shared use path
•Intent is to only move
one curb line
Crossing Improvements
•Attendees & survey
respondents asked
about:
–Crosswalk markings
–Crosswalk signage
–Bumpouts
–Raised Crossings
Engagement Activities
•In Person Open House: July 16th at Centennial
–8 attendees
•Online survey: Open through 8/3
–20 responses
•Door Knocking/Letter:
–Mailed letter to all apartment units on 73rd
–Door knocked at all houses on 73rd
•Meeting with School District staff
–Centennial Principal & Facilities Director
Common Survey Themes
•70% of respondents agreed with problem
statement
•Supportive of trail connection to school
•No side preference
–Residents with street frontage wanted the trail
on the opposite side
•“Bring back parking”
Common Survey Themes
•Crosswalk markings
–Preferred everywhere
•Crosswalk signage
–Preferred for N/S crossings and Cedar Ave E/W crossing
•Bumpouts
–Preferred for E/W crossings and Bloomington/Cedar N/S crossings
•Raised Crossings
–Preferred for Bloomington, 16th, Cedar N/S crossings
Staff Recommendation
•South Option
•Raised Crossing:
–16th Ave
•Bumpouts:
–All E/W crossings along the trail
•Excluding Cedar
–N/S crossings at Bloomington, 16th, and Cedar
•Marked crossings:
–All E/W crossings along the trail
•Including Cedar
–N/S crossings at Bloomington, 16th, and Cedar
•Signed crossings:
–N/S crossings at Bloomington and 16th
–E/W crossing at Cedar
73 rd S treet t rail r econ S truction P roject
Proyecto de reconStrucción del camino de la calle 73
Project Summary
The City of Richfield has received a federal Safe Routes to School infrastructure grant to construct
a shared use trail to fill a pedestrian/bicycle facility gap on 73rd Street between Bloomington
Avenue and Cedar Avenue. This project Provides an opportunity to improve crossing
infrastructure across 73rd Street to create a safer and more comfortable pedestrian experience.
The City has identified this as a unique opportunity to revisit the design of this key neighborhood
street to ensure that it fully supports the needs to the neighborhood and the school.
Resumen del proyecto
La ciudad de Richfield ha recibido una subvención de infraestructura de la iniciativa de “Rutas
Seguras a la Escuela” (“Safe Routes to School” – SRTS) para construir un camino compartido
que cubra la interrupción que existe actualmente entre las Avenidas Bloomington y Cedar
y afecta a peatones y ciclistas. Este proyecto proveerá una oportunidad para mejorar la
infraestructura para cruzar la calle 73 y creará una experiencia más segura y cómoda para los
peatones. La ciudad ha identificado este proyecto como una oportunidad de revisar el diseño
de esta calle clave para asegurar que apoye las necesidades del vecindario y la escuela.
Welcome to the 73rd Street trail reconStruction Project oPen houSe
BienvenidoS a la caSa aBierta Para la reconStrucción del camino en la calle 73
Project Contact
Matt Hardegger, Transportation Engineer
mhardegger@richfieldmn.gov | 612.861.9792
Contacto del proyecto
Matt Hardegger, Ingeniero de Transporte
mhardegger@richfieldmn.gov | 612.861.9792 Bloomington Ave16th Ave S73rd St 17th Ave S18th Ave SCedar Ave S77
Centennial
Elementary
School
73 rd S treet t rail r econ S truction P roject
Proyecto de reconStrucción del camino de la calle 73
Safer travel for all modes and users
Aumentar la seguridad para todos los modos de transporte y sus usuarios
Improve trail connectivity to Centennial Elementary School
Mejorar las conexiones entre caminos hacia la escuela primaria Centennial
Minimize impacts to existing parking and trees
Minimizar el impacto a los árboles y los puestos para estacionar en el área
Increase the number of trips taken using transit, carpools, bicycling, and walking
Aumentar el número de desplazamientos a pie, en bicicleta o transporte
público, o compartiendo automóvil
Increase bicycle and pedestrian facility connections
Expandir la red de senderos interconectados para bicicletas y peatones
Problem Statement
There is an identified gap in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 73rd
Street between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue. This gap in the
Safe Routes to School network forces pedestrians, especially children and
families walking to and from Centennial Elementary School, to walk in
the street east of the school. Additionally, there is a desire for improved
pedestrian crossings to cross 73rd Street, as well as to lower vehicle speeds
in the neighborhood.
Planteamiento del problema
Hay una interrupción en la infraestructura para peatones y
bicicletas en la calle 73 entre las avenidas Bloomington y Cedar. Esta
interrupción hace que los peatones, en particular los niños y familias
que caminan al este de la escuela Centennial, tengan que usar la
calle en lugar de una acera. Así mismo, se desea mejorar los cruces
peatonales en la calle 73, y bajar las velocidades de los vehículos que
transitan el vecindario.
Project GoalS — oBjetivoS del Proyecto
Balance the comfort and safety of pedestrians with
vehicle traffic needs
Crear un corredor de transporte que tome en cuenta
las necesidades de los niños que van a la escuela, sea
a pie o bicicleta, así como de los vehículos que los
dejan y recogen
Lower vehicle speeds
Bajar las velocidades de los vehículos que transitan
el vecindario
Improve pedestrian crossings across 73rd St
Mejorar los cruces peatonales en la calle 73
73 rd S treet t rail r econ S truction P roject
Proyecto de reconStrucción del camino de la calle 73
Project hiStory — hiStoria del Proyecto
2009: Lack of sidewalks east of the school property identified in Safe Routes to School Study.
“The lack of traffic control at intersections, lack of crosswalks and lack of trail/sidewalk connectivity were identified as the main issues for this school.”
El estudio de “Rutas Seguras a la Escuela” identifica una falta de aceras al este de la escuela:
“Los problemas principales que se identificaron para esta escuela fueron: falta de control de tránsito en las intersecciones, falta de cruces peatonales,
y falta de conectividad entre caminos y aceras”
2014: Sidewalk project identified as long term project in Safe Routes to School Comprehensive Plan
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
El plan completo de “Rutas Seguras a la Escuela” identifica un proyecto a largo plazo para agregar y mejorar las aceras:
Construir una acera en la calle 73 o asignar una ruta peatonal en la calle al este de la escuela primaria Centennial. Actualmente existe una interrupción
en las aceras al este de la escuela y esta ruta conectará la vía regional interurbana en el futuro. Líder de implementación: La ciudad de Richfield
2022: City awarded grant for Active Transportation Demonstration Project funding from MnDOT
El Departamento de Transporte de Minnesota (MnDOT) le asigna a la ciudad de Richfield una subvención para un proyecto de demostración
de transporte activo
2023: City awarded federal Safe Routes to School funding through Metropolitan Council’s biannual Regional Solicitation
A través de la solicitación semestral regional del concejo metropolitano (Metropolitan Council) la ciudad recibe fondos del gobierno federal para
una iniciativa de “Rutas Seguras a la Escuela”
2023: Street identified as key neighborhood route for improvement during Active Transportation Action Plan development
Durante el desarrollo del plan de transporte activo, Se identifica la calle 73 como una ruta clave para recibir mejoras
2023: City constructs temporary on-street shared use path using MnDOT Active Transportation grant
Con una subvención para transporte activo del Departamento de Transporte de Minnesota (MnDOT), la ciudad construye un camino compartido temporal
2024: Public Input and Final design of improvements
La ciudad involucra el público y finaliza los diseños de las mejoras
2025: Permanent Construction
Construcción permanente
73 rd S treet t rail r econ S truction P roject
Proyecto de reconStrucción del camino de la calle 73
73RD TRAIL NORTH ALTERNATIVEBloomington Ave16th Ave S73rd St 17th Ave S18th Ave SCedar Ave SParking Carril de estacionar
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Thru Lane Carril de circulación Thru Lane Carril de circulaciónThru Lane Carril de circulación Thru Lane Carril de circulación
Trail_______
Camino
Existing Trees__________
Arboles existentes
Existing Trees__________
Arboles existentes
New Planted Trees__________
Arboles remplazados
Parking _______
Carril de estaci-onar
Through Lane _______
Carril de circu-lación
Through Lane _______
Carril de circu-lación
Boule- vard_______
Paseo arbol-eado
Right of Way_____
Der-echo de paso
Right-of-Way_______
Derecho de paso
north alternative — oPción Para el lado norte
Alternative Considerations
Pros
• Better connectivity to Regional Trail
• Easier to clear in winter (better sun angle)
• Parking lane provides additional separation
between trail users and moving vehicles
Ventajas
• Mejora las conexiones al camino interurbano
• Facilita la recogida de la nieve en el invierno
(por el ángulo del sol)
• Carril para estacionar provee una separación
entre los usuarios del camino y los carros
Cons
• More tree impacts (would be replaced)
• More driveway crossings
• Still have to cross street to access school
Desvantajas
• Sera necesario sacar un mayor numero
de arboles (serán remplazados)
• Los peatones y ciclistas deberán cruzar
mas entradas para vehículos
• Aun habría que cruzar la calle para
llegar a la escuela
Consideraciones para esta opción
73RD TRAIL SOUTH ALTERNATIVE
Roadway Calzada
Driveway Entrada de vehículo
Concrete Roadway and Sidewalk Calzada y acera de concreto
Trail Camino/Sendero
Boulevard Paseo arbolado
Legend — Leyenda
73 rd S treet t rail r econ S truction P roject
Proyecto de reconStrucción del camino de la calle 73
South alternative — oPción Para el lado Sur
Existing Trees__________
Arboles existentes
Existing Trees__________
Arboles existentes
New Planted Trees__________
Arboles remplazados
Trail_______
Camino
Right of Way_______
Derecho de paso
Right of Way_______
Derecho de paso
Parking _______
Carril de estaci-onar
Through Lane _______
Carril de circu-lación
Through Lane _______
Carril de circu-lación
Boule- vard_______
Paseo arbol-eado
73RD TRAIL SOUTH ALTERNATIVEBloomington Ave16th Ave S73rd St 17th Ave S18th Ave SCedar Ave SAlternative Considerations
Pros
• Better connectivity to school
• Fewer tree impacts
• Fewer driveway crossings
• Continues demonstration project location,
which is familiar for drivers
Ventajas
• Acceso más fácil a la escuela
• Menor impactos para los arboles
• Los peatones y ciclistas deberán cruzar menos entradas
para vehículos
• Mantiene la ubicación del proyecto de demostración que existe
actualmente, al cual los motoristas ya están acostumbrados
Cons
• May require relocating
a city watermain
• Requires additional crossing
to access trail at Cedar Avenue
Desvantajas
• Podría requerir la
reubicación de tuberías
municipales
• Los peatones y ciclistas
deberán cruzar para tener
acceso a el camino en la
Avenida Cedar
Consideraciones para esta opción
Parking Carril de estacionar
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Potential Intersection
Safety Measures
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Medidas potenciales de
seguridad para la intersección
Thru Lane Carril de circulación Thru Lane Carril de circulaciónThru Lane Carril de circulación Thru Lane Carril de circulación
73RD TRAIL SOUTH ALTERNATIVE
Roadway Calzada
Driveway Entrada de vehículo
Concrete Roadway and Sidewalk Calzada y acera de concreto
Trail Camino/Sendero
Boulevard Paseo arbolado
Legend — Leyenda
73 rd S treet t rail r econ S truction P roject
Proyecto de reconStrucción del camino de la calle 73
Safety meaSureS — medidaS de SeGuridad
Signing
Improves visibility
of the crossing
Señalización
Mejora la visibilidad
del cruce
Crosswalk Striping
Clearly delineates and improves
visibility of the crossing
Líneas de cruce de peatones
Delinea claramente el cruce
y mejora su visibilidad
Raised Crossing
Clearly delineates and improves
visibility of the crossing while
slowing vehicular traffic
Cruce peatonal elevado
Delinea claramente el cruce y lo
hace más visible al tiempo que
reduce la velocidad del trafico
Bumpout
Reduces crossing length
and improves visibility
of pedestrian
Extensiones de las aceras
Reduce la distancia del
cruce y hace mas visibles
a los peatones
73rd Street Survey
1 / 17
80.00%16
20.00%4
Q1 Do you or your children walk or bike on 73rd Street between
Bloomington Ave and Cedar Ave?
Answered: 20 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 20
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
73rd Street Survey
2 / 17
50.00%8
25.00%4
0.00%0
68.75%11
Q2 If yes to #1, where are you typically walking or biking?
Answered: 16 Skipped: 4
Total Respondents: 16
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
To/From
Centennial
Elementary...
To/From the
trail on Cedar
Avenue
To/From the
sidewalk on
Bloomington Ave
Around the
neighborhood
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
To/From Centennial Elementary School
To/From the trail on Cedar Avenue
To/From the sidewalk on Bloomington Ave
Around the neighborhood
73rd Street Survey
3 / 17
80.00%12
20.00%3
Q3 If yes to #1, have you found the temporary on-street path useful?
Answered: 15 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 15
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
73rd Street Survey
4 / 17
60.00%12
40.00%8
Q4 Do you park on 73rd Street?
Answered: 20 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 20
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
73rd Street Survey
5 / 17
46.15%6
53.85%7
Q5 If yes to #4, is it typically short term (pick-up/drop-off) or
extended/overnight use?
Answered: 13 Skipped: 7
TOTAL 13
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Short-term use
Extended use
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Short-term use
Extended use
73rd Street Survey
6 / 17
Q6 Are there any specific spots within the project area that you think could
be made safer?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 8
•The intersections
•No
•A stop sign at 16th and 17th avenue on 73rd st
•I believe a stop sign on 16th and 17th Ave on 73rd street would be ideal! People come
speeding down 73rd and with the school and children in the area it is not safe
•No, it was never unsafe!
•Get rid of the corridor. What was the need or point? Stupid
•Speed control between Bloomington and 17th Avenues is an issue. I'm not sure what the
best remediation strategy is but cars drive at accelerated speeds through the uncontrolled
intersections at 16th and 17th Avenues. That hasn't improved since the temporary trail
was installed. If anything, it's become more concerning because of increased pedestrian
traffic from other streets.
•Please add stop sign to 16th and 17th Ave along 73rd. This would (in addition to sho
other school crossing agenda) would help with traffic and keep people safer
•Traffic during pick up and drop off gets so chaotic. Anything that can be done to slow
traffic would be great.
•Get rid of the jut out curbs on 73rd. This makes it too narrow to bike or walk along with
cars driving!!!!! Please fix this problem.
•Adding a STOP SIGN on both 16th & 17th Ave (on 73rd running East/West.) This would
be essential given the school /playground and how much traffic comes down 73rd.
•73rd and ceder end section.
•I'd love to see signs and lights at the crosswalk in front of Centennial. At pick up and
drop off times, staff is there to help, but having that extra level of safety would help
outside of those times when families are picking up from after school programs or going to
events.
73rd Street Survey
7 / 17
Q7 Are there any other issues within the project area that you think the city
should address as part of this project?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 9
• You have already addressed it. By bringing back parking
• The negative impact to residents and home-based businesses is unconscionable!
They were not consulted at all before this ridiculous project was forced upon them!
• Fiber optic on 16th/73rd abd water main
• Get rid of it!
• No.
• Fiber optic pole on corner of 16th and 73rd as well as water line to take into
consideration.
• Making crosswalks more obvious would be great.
• Make the path separate from the street as done on the north side of 76th street.
With a sidewalk on the other side.
• Consider being able to park again on either side of street on 73rd. If we add a trail/
sidewalk, I’d suggest the Southside of 73rd (school side) since that’s where people/
kids would be using to get to school
• Parking by my house
• Throw in some useful cool technology. Make a splash.
• More crosswalks and making them more noticeable would be helpful. I'd also love a
reduced "school zone" speed around all of our schools, but hopefully the reduced city
wide speed limit will help with that.
73rd Street Survey
8 / 17
71.43%10
28.57%4
Q8 Problem Statement: There is an identified gap in pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure on 73rd Street between Bloomington Avenue and
Cedar Avenue. This gap in the Safe Routes to School network forces
pedestrians, especially children and families walking to and from
Centennial Elementary School, to walk in the street east of the school.
Additionally, there is a desire for improved pedestrian crossings to cross
73rd Street, as well as to lower vehicle speeds in the neighborhood.Do you
agree with the problem statement above?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 14
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
73rd Street Survey
9 / 17
Q9 Use the comment box below to provide any additional context to your
"Yes" or "No" answer.
Answered: 5 Skipped: 15
• Cars drive too fast on 73rd
• It's not a high traffic area. Kids can and should be taught how to safely
navigate the streets (walking against traffic, not with traffic, for example). Kids
and adults are given a false sense of safety, without taking responsibility for
their own actions.
• Stop signs works be essential in helping with traffic and speed especially at a
school front. The trail works great on the school side (south) of the street
• Stupid. Pedestrians n cyclists need to pay attention to traffic as well as drivers
• See comment from #6. Too, the lion's share of pedestrian traffic is from the
main entrance doors to awaiting vehicles on both the South and North side of
73rd. In addition to this trail system, I'd hope some thought goes into moving
the primary drop off/pickup zone to within the parking lot (perhaps on the
southside of the building). I realize that the school busses predominantly stage
in the lot, but, in my opinion, busses on the street provide a greater barrier to
catastrophe than unprotected pedestrians on a trail.
• Helping add safety measures to and from school. By path and/or stop signs
73rd Street Survey
10 / 17
Q10 Rank the following project goals in order of importance to you, with 1
being "Most Important" and 7 being "Least Important".
Answered: 14 Skipped: 6
21.43%
3
14.29%
2
35.71%
5
7.14%
1
0.00%
0
14.29%
2
7.14%
1 14 4.79
35.71%
5
21.43%
3
14.29%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
14.29%
2
14.29%
2 14 4.93
7.14%
1
14.29%
2
7.14%
1
14.29%
2
7.14%
1
14.29%
2
35.71%
5 14 3.14
0.00%
0
14.29%
2
14.29%
2
35.71%
5
28.57%
4
7.14%
1
0.00%
0 14 4.00
14.29%
2
0.00%
0
14.29%
2
42.86%
6
21.43%
3
7.14%
1
0.00%
0 14 4.21
14.29%
2
14.29%
2
14.29%
2
0.00%
0
14.29%
2
28.57%
4
14.29%
2 14 3.71
7.14%
1
21.43%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
28.57%
4
14.29%
2
28.57%
4 14 3.21
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Improve trail
connectivity to
Centennial...
Minimize
impacts to
existing...
Increase the
number of trips
taken using...
Increase
bicycle and
pedestrian...
Balance the
comfort and
safety of...
Lower vehicle
speeds
Improve
pedestrian
crossings...
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TOTAL SCORE
Improve trail connectivity to
Centennial Elementary School
Minimize impacts to existing
parking and trees
Increase the number of trips taken
using transit, carpools, bicycling,
and walking
Increase bicycle and pedestrian
facility connections
Balance the comfort and safety of
pedestrians with vehicle traffic
needs
Lower vehicle speeds
Improve pedestrian crossings
across 73rd St
73rd Street Survey
11 / 17
28.57%4
35.71%5
35.71%5
Q11 Would you prefer the path be constructed on the north or south side
of 73rd Street?
Answered: 14 Skipped: 6
TOTAL 14
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
North side
South side
No preference
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
North side
South side
No preference
73rd Street Survey
12 / 17
Q12 If you answered "North side" or "South side", why do you prefer one
side over the other?
Answered: 8 Skipped: 12
South Side
• Selfishly, happy to give up some of our rigth away (even though it's not "ours").
Like that you wouldn't have to cross 73rd to get to the street to get to the school.
Fewer trees impacted
• South, less impacted driveways and same side as school
• Better connectivity and trees.
• I voted for the South side because I prefer a design that requires less children to
cross the road. No matter what control strategies are implement, drivers can be
lethally distracted or reckless. At least at Cedar there is greater visibility of
oncoming traffic and the intersection is partially controlled.
• Safer for students going to and from school and a better line of vision for school
staff to see kids using the trail.
• Less trees and same side of school
North Side
• Snow plowing better and not impacting the water main.
• While our residence would be directly impacted by the north side, I think if we did
the southside, then the folks biking/ect on the trail would run into school drop off/
pick up kid/traffic and would need to avoid that. Hence why I’m considering North
as better option
• Better
73rd Street Survey
13 / 17
76.92%10
61.54%8
61.54%8
61.54%8
61.54%8
61.54%8
69.23%9
76.92%10
76.92%10
Q13 Crosswalk markings painted onto the pavement to clearly delineate
and improve visibility of the crossing
Answered: 13 Skipped: 7
Total Respondents: 13
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bloomington
Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue
(E/W)
16th Avenue
(N/S)
17th Avenue
(E/W)
17th Avenue
(N/S)
18th Avenue
(E/W)
18th Avenue
(N/S)
Cedar Avenue
(E/W)
Cedar Avenue
(N/S)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Bloomington Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue (E/W)
16th Avenue (N/S)
17th Avenue (E/W)
17th Avenue (N/S)
18th Avenue (E/W)
18th Avenue (N/S)
Cedar Avenue (E/W)
Cedar Avenue (N/S)
73rd Street Survey
14 / 17
72.73%8
9.09%1
54.55%6
9.09%1
54.55%6
9.09%1
63.64%7
90.91%10
9.09%1
Q14 Crosswalk signage to improve visibility of the crossing
Answered: 11 Skipped: 9
Total Respondents: 11
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bloomington
Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue
(E/W)
16th Avenue
(N/S)
17th Avenue
(E/W)
17th Avenue
(N/S)
18th Avenue
(E/W)
18th Avenue
(N/S)
Cedar Avenue
(E/W)
Cedar Avenue
(N/S)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Bloomington Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue (E/W)
16th Avenue (N/S)
17th Avenue (E/W)
17th Avenue (N/S)
18th Avenue (E/W)
18th Avenue (N/S)
Cedar Avenue (E/W)
Cedar Avenue (N/S)
73rd Street Survey
15 / 17
81.82%9
63.64%7
54.55%6
54.55%6
9.09%1
45.45%5
9.09%1
9.09%1
72.73%8
Q15 Curb bump outs at corners to reduce crossing lengths and improve
visibility of pedestrians
Answered: 11 Skipped: 9
Total Respondents: 11
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bloomington
Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue
(E/W)
16th Avenue
(N/S)
17th Avenue
(E/W)
17th Avenue
(N/S)
18th Avenue
(E/W)
18th Avenue
(N/S)
Cedar Avenue
(E/W)
Cedar Avenue
(N/S)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Bloomington Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue (E/W)
16th Avenue (N/S)
17th Avenue (E/W)
17th Avenue (N/S)
18th Avenue (E/W)
18th Avenue (N/S)
Cedar Avenue (E/W)
Cedar Avenue (N/S)
73rd Street Survey
16 / 17
75.00%9
8.33%1
58.33%7
8.33%1
8.33%1
8.33%1
8.33%1
8.33%1
66.67%8
Q16 Raised concrete crossings to improve visibility of crosswalk and slow
vehicular traffic
Answered: 12 Skipped: 8
Total Respondents: 12
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Bloomington
Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue
(E/W)
16th Avenue
(N/S)
17th Avenue
(E/W)
17th Avenue
(N/S)
18th Avenue
(E/W)
18th Avenue
(N/S)
Cedar Avenue
(E/W)
Cedar Avenue
(N/S)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Bloomington Avenue (N/S)
16th Avenue (E/W)
16th Avenue (N/S)
17th Avenue (E/W)
17th Avenue (N/S)
18th Avenue (E/W)
18th Avenue (N/S)
Cedar Avenue (E/W)
Cedar Avenue (N/S)
73rd Street Survey
17 / 17
85.71%12
28.57%4
64.29%9
57.14%8
57.14%8
35.71%5
Q17 What statement best describes you? (Check all that apply)
Answered: 14 Skipped: 6
Total Respondents: 14
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
I live in the
neighborhood
My child
attends/attende
d Centennial...
My family
walks in the
area
My family
bikes in the
area
My family
drives in the
area
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I live in the neighborhood
My child attends/attended Centennial Elementary School
My family walks in the area
My family bikes in the area
My family drives in the area
Other (please specify)
73rd Street trail reconStruction Project — Survey
Corridor Use
1. Do you or your children walk or bike on 73rd Street between Bloomington Ave and Cedar Ave? □Yes □No
2. If yes to #1, where are you typically walking or biking? (Please select 1) □To/From Centennial Elementary School □To/From the trail on Cedar Avenue □To/From the sidewalk on Bloomington Ave □Around the neighborhood
3. If yes to #1, have you found the temporary on-street path useful? □Yes □No
4. Do you park on 73rd Street? □Yes □No
5. If yes to #4, is it typically short term (pick-up/drop-off) or extended/overnight use? □Short-term use □Extended use
6. Are there any specific spots within the project area that you think could be made safer?
7. Are there any other issues within the project area that you think the city should address as part of this
project?
Problem Statement and Project Goals
Problem Statement: There is an identified gap in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure on 73rd Street
between Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue. This gap in the Safe Routes to School network forces
pedestrians, especially children and families walking to and from Centennial Elementary School, to walk in
the street east of the school. Additionally, there is a desire for improved pedestrian crossings to cross 73rd
Street, as well as to lower vehicle speeds in the neighborhood.
8. Do you agree with the problem statement above? □Yes □No
9. Use the comment box below to provide any additional context to your “Yes” or “No” answer.
10. Rank the following project goals in order of importance to you, with 1 being “Most Important” and 7
being “Least Important”. Θ Improve trail connectivity to Centennial Elementary School
Θ Minimize impacts to existing parking and trees
Θ Increase the number of trips taken using transit, carpools, bicycling, and walking
Θ Increase bicycle and pedestrian facility connections
Θ Balance the comfort and safety of pedestrians with vehicle traffic needs
Θ Lower vehicle speeds
Θ Improve pedestrian crossings across 73rd St
Design Input
The City is planning to construct a permanent shared use path along one side of 73rd Street between
Bloomington Avenue and Cedar Avenue in 2025. We would like your input on the design of the
permanent path.
North Side Option
Pros:
✓Better connectivity to the Regional Trail
✓Easier to clear in winter (better sun angle)
✓Parking lane provides additional separation
between trail users and moving vehicles
Cons:
× More tree impacts (trees would be replaced)
× More driveway crossings
× Still would have to cross the street to access
the school
South Side Option
Pros:
✓Better connectivity to the school
✓Fewer tree impacts
✓Fewer driveway crossings
✓Continues demonstration project location,
which is familiar for drivers
Cons:
× May require relocating a city watermain
× Requires additional crossing to access trail
at Cedar Avenue
11. Would you prefer the path be constructed on the north or south side of 73rd Street? □North side □South side □No preference
12. If you answered “North side” or “South side”, why do you prefer one side over the other?
The City is considering intersection safety improvements to accompany the path construction. Intersection
safety improvements could include the following:
a. Crosswalk markings painted onto the pavement to clearly delineate and improve visibility
of the crossing
b. Crosswalk signage to improve visibility of the crossing
c. Curb bump outs at corners to reduce crossing lengths and improve visibility of pedestrians
d. Raised concrete crossings to improve visibility of crosswalk and slow vehicular traffic
For questions 13-16, select which locations you think would benefit from each intersection safety
improvement. (Select all that apply)
13. Crosswalk markings painted onto the pavement to clearly delineate and improve visibility of the crossing □Bloomington Avenue (N/S) □16th Avenue (E/W) □16th Avenue (N/S) □17th Avenue (E/W) □17th Avenue (N/S) □18th Avenue (E/W) □18th Avenue (N/S) □Cedar Avenue (E/W) □Cedar Avenue (N/S)
14. Crosswalk signage to improve visibility of the crossing □Bloomington Avenue (N/S) □16th Avenue (N/S) □17th Avenue (N/S) □18th Avenue (N/S) □Cedar Avenue (E/W)
15. Curb bump outs at corners to reduce crossing lengths and improve visibility of pedestrians □Bloomington Avenue (N/S) □16th Avenue (E/W) □16th Avenue (N/S) □17th Avenue (E/W) □18th Avenue (E/W) □Cedar Avenue (N/S)
16. Raised concrete crossings to improve visibility of crosswalk and slow vehicular traffic □Bloomington Avenue (N/S) □16th Avenue (N/S) □Cedar Avenue (N/S)
Tell us about yourself
17. What statement best describes you? (Select all that apply) □I live in the neighborhood □My child attends/attended
Centennial Elementary School
□My family walks in the area □My family bikes in the area □My family drives in the area
73RD TRAIL NORTH ALTERNATIVE
Parking
Through Lane
Through LanePotential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Crosswalk Striping (N/S)
-Crosswalk Signage (N/S)
-Curb Bumpout (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (N/S)
-Raised Crossing (N/S)18th Ave SCedar Ave S17th Ave S16th Ave SBloomington Ave73rd St
Through Lane
Through Lane
Roadway Calzada
Driveway Entrada de vehículo
Concrete Roadway and Sidewalk Calzada y acera de concreto
Trail Camino/Sendero
Boulevard Paseo arbolado
Legend — LeyendaPotential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (E/W)
Potential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (E/W)
Potential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Crosswalk Striping (N/S)
-Crosswalk Signage (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (N/S)
-Raised Crossing (N/S)
Potential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (N/S)
-Crosswalk Signage (N/S)
-Curb Bumpout (N/S)
-Raised Crossing (N/S)
Alternative ConsiderationsPros• Better connectivity to Regional Trail• Easier to clear in winter (better sun angle)• Parking lane provides additional separation between trail users and moving vehicles
Cons• More tree impacts (would be replaced) • More driveway crossings• Still have to cross street to access school
73RD TRAIL SOUTH ALTERNATIVE
Roadway Calzada
Driveway Entrada de
Concrete Roadway and Sidewalk Calzada y acera
Trail Camin
Boulevard Paseo arbo
Legend
73RD TRAIL SOUTH ALTERNATIVE
Parking
Through Lane
Through Lane
Parking
Through Lane
Through LanePotential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (N/S)
-Crosswalk Signage (N/S)
-Curb Bumpout (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (N/S)
-Raised Crossing (N/S)18th Ave SCedar Ave S17th Ave S16th Ave SBloomington Ave73rd St
Roadway Calzada
Driveway Entrada de vehículo
Concrete Roadway and Sidewalk Calzada y acera de concreto
Trail Camino/Sendero
Boulevard Paseo arbolado
Legend — LeyendaPotential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (E/W)
Potential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (E/W)
Potential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (E/W)
-Crosswalk Striping (N/S)
-Crosswalk Signage (E/W)
-Curb Bumpout (N/S)
-Raised Crossing (N/S)
Potential Intersection Safety Measures
-Crosswalk Striping (N/S)
-Crosswalk Signage (N/S)
-Curb Bumpout (N/S)
-Raised Crossing (N/S)
Alternative ConsiderationsPros• Better connectivity to school• Fewer tree impacts• Fewer driveway crossings• Continues demonstration project location,
which is familiar for drivers
Cons• May require relocating a city watermain• Requires additional crossing to access trail at Cedar Avenue
Consideraciones para esta opción
73RD TRAIL SOUTH ALTERNATIVE
Roadway Calzada
Driveway Entrada de
Concrete Roadway and Sidewalk Calzada y acera
Trail Camin
Boulevard Paseo arbo
Legend