Supplement to remarks made to Transportation Committee

7/27/2019 Supplement to remarks made to Transportation Committee

1/4

-1-

To: Members of the Transportation Commission

From: Steve Timmer, 5348 Oaklawn Avenue

Date: October 26, 2013

Dear Chairman Nelson and Commissioners:

This is a supplement to my remarks at the meeting on October 24th

and the 54th Street neighbors

principles and design, sent earlier.

MNDOT Rule 8820.9941

First, I want to provide a citation to the MNDOT rule that we were provided on the morning of the 24th

:

Minn. Rule 8820.9941(2013). As I mentioned at the meeting, since its own earlier proposal for a

sharrow(I understand that term originally meant a graphic of a bike rider with arrows, but it has

become short hand for a shared bicycle and vehicle lane) showed 13.5 foot lanes, this rule was not only

a surprise to the homeowners, it was apparently recent news to the engineering department, too.

In August, I requested a citation to the law(s) that governed state aid roads from both SEH and Director

Houle. It was Anne Carroll from SEH, I recall, who responded and said that she would see what they

could find. I heard nothing after that; I am not, and have never been, a transportation lawyer.

Regrettably, I had to spend some time at the hearing clearing up Mr. Muses misstatement that the rule

recommended a 14 so-called wide outside lane.(The terminology is artless, because outside

implies the existence of inside, but that is not true here, in case you are trying to parse the rule and

the chart therein.) The state not merely recommends it; it requires it, absent a variance.

I wish Mr. Muse had been correct. But in order to make the street like our model, West 44th Street west

of Browndale, or even slightly narrower, a variance from MNDOT will be required. And I think theCommission should recommend that, for the reasons set forth below, and just as a matter of common

equity. West 44th

Street has 20% more traffic than 54th

Street, and it is a primary bicycle route (it crosses

under Highway 100), while 54th

is a secondary bicycle route. The total footprint of 44th

Street is 33.5

from back of curb to edge of sidewalk, and the face-of-curb to face-of-curb width is 26.5.

The existence of Minn. Rule 8821.9941 does not change the desirability of any of the points made in the

Principles and Design.

The Variance

Quoting now from the MNDOT rule:

Engineering judgment should be used to choose a lane-width, on-road bicycle facility, or shoulder

width dimension other than the widths indicated in the chart. Factors to consider include safety,

speed, population/land use, benefit/cost analysis, traffic mix, peak hourly traffic, farm

equipment, environmental impacts, terrain limitations, bicycle traffic, pedestrian traffic, on-

street parking, intersection and driveway spacing, rights-of-way constraints, vehicle turn lane

configuration, sight distance, sight lines, bus routes, other nonmotorized uses, functional
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8820.9941https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8820.9941http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_markinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_markinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_markinghttps://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=8820.9941


2/4

-2-

classification, or other factors. Dimensions less than those indicated in the chart require a

variance in accordance with parts 8820.3300 and 8820.3400.

Safety and speed: It is axiomatic that wider is faster for motorized traffic. In fact, at the meeting,

Director Houle said that one of the design goals was to reduce speeds on the street.

Population and land use: 54th Street is right in the middle of a historic, pastoral, and desirable Edina

residential neighborhood. South Harriet Park was platted by Earl Brown in 1922. The houses along the

street have side lot, not front lot, setbacks, making the road, and a sidewalk, much closer to the street.

Benefit/Cost analysis: Extra pavement equals extra money to construct and maintain the road and to

plow it, and more salt for Minnehaha Creek. The designers plan for the bridge could likewise be a

money pit, as I explain in the next section.

Environmental impact: Both ends of the project have steep downhill sections to Minnehaha Creek.

Because of the slope, the road cannot be crowned sufficiently to move all of the water to the side of the

road and into storm sewers before it gets to the bottom to the grade of the bridge. (Ive lived on 54th

for

33 years; Ive stood and watched sheets of storm water run down the street and into the creek.) There is

even a convenient little pour spout next to the bridge to speed storm runoff, and the sediment and

thermal load it bears, right into the creek.)

The designers answer to this is to feed storm sewer runoff into small settling ponds on both sides of the

creek on the north side of 54th

. (I am trying to find out what the designers plans for water from the

storm sewers on the south side are.) They are at a higher elevation than the current bridge, so they

wouldnt catch the water running down the middle of the street, which as I say, can be considerable.

The designers response to this concern is to raise the bridge by three feet or so (and people can walk

under the bridge, too, killing two birds with a single stone). This creates another set of problems.

There is also the cost of building the bridge and the approaches, which might probably would also

increase the grade at the intersection with Minnehaha Avenue enough so that Minnehaha would have

to be built up. Its the house that Jack built, and an expensive one at that. Clearly, raising the bridge is

much more expensive that leaving it at current grade.


3/4

-3-

I harbor serious doubt about the adequacy of the ponds to contain the runoff, especially if additional

impervious surface is added to the footprint of the road. Ive asked for volumetric figures on this from

the designers, but none has been forthcoming.

Because I dont think that the storm water runoff is truly manageable, it is another reason to select

the smallest footprint possible for the project.

Terrain limitations: I have mentioned before that houses have side lot setbacks on 54th Street, putting

them close to the street and proposed sidewalk. Houses on the downslope on the north side of the

street on the west side of the project already have driveways with substantial slope. These driveways

will have to be reworked if the project is too wide. Retaining walls will be required for the sidewalk on

the same downslope, and the more the sidewalk alters the terrain, the higher the retaining walls will

have to be. More expense. These things also affect me directly.

The designers have also said that no trees will be removed on the north side. There is, of course, a

difference between removing a tree, and killing it for later removal. This also affects me directly, since

there is a majestic oak on the corner of our lot that we are told dates back to before Edina was

incorporated.

Road, sidewalk, and retaining wall intrusion are all threats to this tree, and others on the north side, too.

Oaks are especially susceptible to root cutting and compression.

Other general considerations

Mr. Muse said at the meeting that the road on the west side of the creek was between 29 and 35 wide.

When it was originally designed, it was 32 wide, 16 on either side of the right of way centerline. 32 is


4/4

-4-

its standard width. It is mostly wider in spots on the north side of the street because of erosion and

breakup of the road surface.

The response to the breakup of the road surface by the city has always been just to pave over the

problem, making the street wider in spots. But not really. It is 32 to which any new design must be

compared. The current proposal on the table from the city is 35 wide with all of the increase to beallocated to the north side. But we dont know where the designers start measuring; three feet is one

thing and five or six feet is another. Director Houle was vague about that at the meeting, too, you will

recall.

Ive asked the designers to come out and just put a stick or two in the ground where they think the

footprint would be. Since there are iron monuments all over, this shouldnt be that hard, really. But I

have never gotten a response to this request, even just to tell me no.

One other item that ought to be mentioned is the discussion by Director Houle of changing or removing

the grade structure in the creek at 54th

, called somewhat more pastorally by some people as the

rapids. In one proposal in the initial stages, the structure was proposed to be removed in order to

assist less-experienced canoeists; I pointed out that it would also bring canoeing or tubing of any sort,

or full immersion baptisms at St. Stephens, to a halt, because it would be like pulling the plug on the

bathtub. There would almost never be any water in the creek stretch from the old mill dam site

downstream to the bridge.

This is a project, if it is one, for stream hydrologists, not civil engineers.

54th

Street is a state-aid road. That doesnt mean its free. The city (and the people assessed) still bear

part of the cost, and for every dollar spent on a grandiose bridge or unnecessary pavement, it is a dollar

less from the gas tax allocation to Edina to spend on other state-aid road projects.

For the cost, and for the creek, especially, please give your serious consideration to recommending the

variance Ive described.

Thank you, Steve

/sjt

Documents

Supplement to remarks made to Transportation Committee