Dakota Rail Regional Trail to Luce Line State Trail Connection Study

Appendix D:

January 29, 2009

Appendix D inWayzata

Prepared for the City of Wayzata and Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit January 29, 2009 Appendix D Appendix D 2 Table of Contents Acknowledgements

I. Project Background & History ...... 4 VIII. Appendices The City of Wayzata Project Intent...... 4 Appendix A: Wayzata Sidewalk & Trail Plan...... 18 Brian Gadow, City Planner Appendix B: Wayzata ADT Volumes...... 19 Project History...... 4 Mike Kelly, City Engineer Appendix C: Luce Line Trail Map...... 20 II. Process & Tasks ...... 5 Hennepin County Appendix D: Dakota Rail Trail Map...... 21 Project Outcomes...... 5 Appendix E: Wayzata Wayfi nding Plan...... 22 Patricia Fitzgerald, Senior Planning Analyst Project Schedule...... 5 Appendix F: Detailed Cost Estimates ...... 24 Three Rivers Park District Participants...... 5 Appendix G: Open House Survey Forms...... 25 Stakeholder Involvement...... 5 Kelly Grissman, Planner Project Time Line...... 5 Minnesota DNR Martha Reger, Area Trails & Waterway Supervisor III. Existing Conditions Analysis ...... 6 List of Figures City of Wayzata...... 6 Figure 1: Eastern End of Luce Line Trail...... 4 Existing Corridor Conditions...... 7 Figure 2: Regional Trail Map...... 4 IV. Alternative Evaluation ...... 8 Figure 3: Dakota Rail Trail through Hennepin County...... 4 Trail Route Evaluation Criteria...... 8 Figure 4: Wayzata Trail Connections Project Schedule ...... 5 V. Preferred Corridor...... 10 Figure 5: Wayzata Context and Issues Map...... 6 Preferred Corridor Selection...... 10 Figure 6: Existing Corridor Conditions...... 7 Ferndale Road South...... 11 Figure 7: Trail Route Alternatives...... 8 Wayfi nding Plan...... 11 Figure 8: Trail Route Alternative Evaluation...... 9 VI. Recommendations...... 12 Figure 9: Trail Route Alternatives A, B, C,...... 10 Segment 1...... 13 Figure 10: Proposed Trail Route and Wayfi nding Segment 2...... 14 Signage Locations...... 10 Segment 3...... 15 Figure 11: Wayfi nding Sign Types...... 11 This document was prepared by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Segment 4...... 16 Figure 12: Wayfi nding Sign Placement: Phase I...... 11 for the City of Wayzata and Hennepin County Department of VII. Implementation...... 17 Figure 13: Proposed Trail Route and Crossings...... 12 Housing, Community Works and Transit. Cost Estimate Summary...... 17 Figure 14: Segment 1 Recommendations...... 13 SRF Job No. 6595 Suggested Phasing...... 17 Figure 15: Segment 2 Recommendations...... 14 Related Projects to Be Coordinated...... 17 Figure 16: Segment 3 Recommendations...... 15 Potential Funding Sources...... 17 Figure 17: Segment 4 Recommendations...... 16

Appendix D 3 I. Project Background and History

Project Intent it is natural (mowed grass). The Three Rivers Park District also The intent of the Wayzata Trail Connections project is to develop controls a section of the Luce Line State Trail from Vicksburg a schematic design plan to provide pedestrian and bicycle Lane in Plymouth east to Theodore Wirth Park in Golden Valley, connections between the Dakota Rail Regional Trail and Luce with connections to the Minneapolis Grand Rounds trail system. Line State Trail through Wayzata. Some small sections are under construction and are due to be fi nished in 2009. The plan identifi es alternate routes including suggested amenities and wayfi nding recommendations. The City of Wayzata, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are agency Dakota Rail Trail stakeholders in this collaborative planning effort. The Dakota Rail Trail Corridor in Hennepin County extends

13.5 miles from the County line southwest of St. Bonifacius to Existing Regional Project History just west of downtown Wayzata (Appendix D). The Wayzata Trail System The City of Wayzata was awarded funds from Hennepin County terminus is located where the Dakota Rail Trail Corridor meets to conduct a planning effort to identify a potential bike and the BNSF Railroad. pedestrian trail connection through downtown Wayzata, linking the Dakota Rail Regional Trail and Luce Line State Trail. This The Dakota Rail Regional Trail originates at Shaver Park in Project Area planning effort was one of 10 Hennepin County Community Wayzata and follows the former Dakota Rail corridor through Works Corridor Planning grants awarded through a competitive Wayzata, Orono, Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park, Mound, Figure 2: Regional Trail Map (Three Rivers Park District) process to communities in 2008. The City of Wayzata, Hennepin Minnetrista, and St. Bonifacius. While the terminus for the County, and TRPD partnered to conduct this collaborative Three Rivers Park District portion of the trail is at the Hennepin planning effort. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. was retained to County border, the trail itself is planned to be extended 31.5 lead this effort and engage the community in the process. miles to Hutchinson through Carver and MacLeod Counties.

Luce Line Trail The Luce Line State Trail is a 63-mile-long former railroad grade which wa developed for biking, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, snowmobiling, and skiing (Appendix C). The limestone surfaced trail runs from Plymouth 30 miles west to Winsted, with a parallel tread way for horseback riding. From Winsted to Hutchinson, the trail is gravel. From Hutchinson to Cedar Mills, it is crushed granite. From Cedar Mills to Cosmos, Figure 1: Eastern end of Luce Line Trail (Minnesota DNR) Figure 3: Dakota Rail Trail route in Hennepin County

Appendix D 4 II. Process and Tasks

The Wayzata Trail Connections Project followed a process in Participants Stakeholder Involvement which key stakeholders were engaged and involved in order to achieve the desired project outcomes. The City of Wayzata Throughout the process, key stakeholders were engaged, Brian Gadow, City Planner including: Project Outcomes Mike Kelly, City Engineer • Local and regional agencies include Hennepin • Screening of prudent trail alternatives Hennepin County County, City of Wayzata, Three Rivers Park District, • Preferred route identifi cation Patricia Fitzgerald, Senior Planning Analyst and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Business community benefi ts Three Rivers Park District • Elected policy-makers • Design recommendations for neighborhood sensitivity Kelly Grissman, Planner • Local businesses, including the Wayzata Chamber • Recommended amenities and wayfi nding Minnesota DNR of Commerce • Preliminary estimate of construction costs Martha Reger, Area Trails & Waterway Supervisor • Private property owners and residents • Roles and responsibilities for implementation • Trail user groups • Supporting graphics and illustrations

Project Schedule

2/4/2009

Figure 4: Wayzata Trail Connections Project Schedule Appendix D 5 III. Existing Conditions Analysis

City of Wayzata There are multiple existing pedestrian routes that connect the Luce Line State Trail and Dakota Rail Regional Trail through the City of Wayzata via the network of City sidewalks (Appendix A). However, none of the existing sidewalks are of a width that is safe or efﬁ cient for use as a multi-use trail for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other recreational users. The possible routes are further restricted by the presence of the Highway 12 freeway, which has three roadway bridge crossings and one pedestrian-only overpass crossing (Figure 5).

The route traverses a mix of land uses ranging from residential to institutional (Wayzata Middle School and several churches), park/open space, commercial, and ofﬁ ce. The trail should accommodate these uses and make connections between public open space and various other uses and also maintain consistent and logical wayﬁ nding objectives.

Existing Corridor Conditions Initially, eight alternative trail routes were identifi ed to connect the Luce Line State Trail to the Dakota Rail Regional Trail through Wayzata, lettered A through H (Figures 7 and 8). Each alternative was further divided into segments, numbered 1-3, so that the physical condition of each segment could be surveyed and compared to the others. The selected alternatives vary in the existing street width, right-of-way width, the amount of traffi c, the classifi cation of the street, whether on-street parking is provided, and whether sidewalks Figure 5: Wayzata Context and Issues Map currently exist. All of these physical characteristics were considered in choosing the best alternative for the proposed trail connection.

Appendix D 6 Figure 6: Existing Conditions - Route Alternatives Appendix D 7 IV. Alternative Evaluation

Each trail route was evaluated according to criteria that were chosen to measure the physical constraints, safety, connectivity, and impacts to parking and other land uses of A1/B1/C1 each alternative. These criteria are presented below. H1

Trail Route Evaluation Criteria

• Implementation costs • Convenience D1 - Grading - Grades and ability to navigate E1/F1 - Right of way A2 C2 • Safety • Required right of way - Public ownership • TH 12 bridge accommodations - Private ownership - Bridge reconstruction/renovation B2 D2 E2 F2 • Impact to private parcels • Parking impacts (on street) - Grading impacts - Loss of parking (one side) - Views - Loss of parking (both sides) H2 A3 B3/C3 • Ability to make logical and direct connections D3 E3 F3 • Consistency with wayfi nding objectives G1 • Traffi c confl icts G2 - Intersections G3 - Vehicle speeds and volume H3

• Access to retail, entertainment, and service Wayzata Trail Connections businesses Route Alternatives - Trail proximity to businesses A FERNDALE ROAD • Open space connections B FERNDALE ROAD-WAYZATA - Proximity to parks and civic areas BOULEVARD-BARRY AVENUE C FERNDALE ROAD-BARRY AVENUE • Consistency with local and regional planning D RIDGEVIEW DRIVE-MINNETONKA AVENUE

• Response to physical constraints and limitations E BROADWAY AVENUE-WALKER AVENUE - Adjacent buildings or infrastructure F BROADWAY AVENUE - Impacts to vegetation G LAKE STREET

H CENTRAL AVENUE Figure 7: Trail Route Alternatives Appendix D 8 1 = most suitable 3= least suitable TRAIL ROUTE ALTERNATIVE RANKINGS* A1 B1 C1 A SCORE = 63 A2 A3

B2 B SCORE = 56 C2

B3 C3 C SCORE = 66 D1 D2

D3 D SCORE = 87 E1 F1 E2

E3 E SCORE = 87 F2

F3 F SCORE = 81 G1 G2

G3 G SCORE = 81 H1 H2

H3 H SCORE = 98 Figure 8: Trail Route Alternative Evaluation * Note: the lowest total scores are the most suitable alternatives Appendix D 9 V. Preferred Corridor and Proposed Cross-Sections

Existingg Cross-Section ProposedPPdCSiPdCStiropposed CCross-Sectionross-Sectiion Preferred Corridor Selection D WAYFINDING LEGEND D ADADDAADDITIONALDDD WAYWWAWAYFINDINGAY SIGNS The trail alternatives that received the best scores in the LUCE LINE TRAIL 1 A SIGNSSIGSIS PER CITY evaluation scoring were A, B, and C (Figure 9). These three WAYFINDINGWAYWWAAY PLAN Segment 1: routes were further evaluated to determine which best met Off-Street

the needs of the City and the community. The preferred ERNDALE RD Trail F route is alternative B, which follows segments of Ferndale Note:Not May Require FERNDALE ROAD UtilityUtil Relocation Road, Wayzata Boulevard, and Barry Avenue and connects A FROM LUCE LINE to the Dakota Rail Regional Trail through the parking lot at TO WAYZATA BLVD the intersection of Lake Street and Barry Avenue. HWY 12

Alternative B was identiﬁ ed as the preferred route based on OFF STREET 2 several qualities: TRAIL Segment 2: • Ease of implementation Off-Street • Minimal impact to adjacent properties Trail • Logical connections WAYZATA BLVD FROM FERNDALE • Facilities located within existing public right-of -way D TO BARRY AVE OFF STREET TRAIL Alternative A was less attractive due to changes in grade and WAYZATA BLVD the impacts to proper ties along Ferndale Avenue South. 3 B Alternative C was less attractive due to the need for Segment 3: signiﬁ cant grading required to reach the Ferndale bridge Bike Lanes over TH 12 and the need to acquire right-of-way. BARRY AVE FROM BIKE WAYZATA BLVD TO LANES LAKE STREET

FERNDALE RD Wayzata Trail Connections BARRY AVE Route Alternatives

A FERNDALE ROAD

B FERNDALE ROAD- 4 WAYZATA BLVD- C BARRY AVENUE B LAKE ST SHARE THE E Segment 4: C FERNDALE ROAD- ROAD BARRY AVENUE D Share the Road A GROVE LN D GROVE LANE DAKOTA RAIL PARKING LOT TRAIL START CONNECTION TO DAKOTA TRAIL D WAYZATA BAY Figure 9: Trail Route Alternatives A, B, C Figure 10: Proposed Trail Route and Wayfi nding Signage Locations (see signage types in Figure 11) Appendix D 10 Ferndale Road South The plan identifi es Ferndale Road south of Wayzata Blvd. as an alternate route that may be used by “Class A” or “Club” riders who are comfortable biking on the road with traffi c. The plan recommends that minimal signage be provided along Ferndale Road south to aid these trail users in making the connection between the regional trails.

Wayfi nding Plan The proposed route touches on several of the signs proposed in the City of Wayzata Wayfi nding Plan (see Figure 12 and Appendix E). The signs currently shown in the Wayfi nding Plan should be modifi ed to include information to direct trail users along the preferred route. Additional Type D (Figure 11) signs should also be placed at the intersections of • Ferndale Road and Lake Street • Ferndale Road and Wayzata Boulevard • Ferndale Road and Luce Line Trail

The signs will provide additional information for trail users to assist in directing them along the preferred route and to amenities within the City.

Figure 11: Wayzata Wayﬁ nding Sign Types (source: DFA, see Figure 12: Wayﬁ nding Signage Placement, Phase 1 (source: DFA, see Appendix E) Appendix E)

Appendix D 11 VI. Preferred Route Recommendations Trail Route Segments CROSSING LEGEND Existing Condition Proposed Condition B TRUNK HWY 12 CROSSING 1 Segment 1 LUCE LINE TRAIL W WAYZATA BLVD CROSSING Segment 1: Beginning at the Luce Line State Trail, the preferred alternative identiﬁ es L LAKE ST CROSSING Off-Street an off-road trail to the east side of Ferndale Road (Figure 13). It is QZ RAILROAD CROSSING Trail recommended that a 10’ wide bituminous trail be constructed with a 5’ turf

ERNDALE RD FERNDALE ROAD F boulevard separating the trail from the road. An additional 2’ of separation is FROM LUCE LINE TO WAYZATA needed to any vertical obstruction (signs, utilities, etc.). This typical section STEEP BLVD B SLOPE can be accommodated within the 19’ of available right of way but may require relocation of utilities. Alternate approaches to reduce cost include 5 FT. WALK WITH HWY 12 placing the trail at the back of curb and narrowing the trail to 8’ wide. GUARDRAIL 2 Segment 2: Segment 2 POWER Off-Street LINES Recommendations for Segment 2 are similar to those for Segment 1. A 10’ Trail wide independent trail on the north side of Wayzata Boulevard is proposed

POWER LINES WAYZATA BLVD with a boulevard of varying width and an additional 2’ of separation to any FROM FERNDALE BEHIND WALK TO BARRY AVE vertical obstruction outside of the trail. This can be accommodated in the STEEP approximately 19’ of available right-of-way. Construction of the preferred SLOPE section may require utility relocations and the construction of retaining walls WIDE WALK adjacent to the school property. Alternative ways to reduce cost include BEGINS AREA 3 placing the trail at the back of curb and reducing the trail width to 8’. WALK WAYZATA BLVD ENDS W Segment 3: WIDE Segment 3 SHOULDER Bike Lanes STEEP Along Barry Avenue, separate bicycle and pedestrian facilities are SLOPES BARRY AVE FROM WAYZATA recommended. Pedestrians would be accommodated by utilizing the BLVD TO existing walk on the west side of Barry Avenue. Bicyclists are accommodated LAKE STREET

FERNDALE RD by eliminating on-street parking on the east side of Barry Avenue, which CROSSING allows for the addition of 5’ dedicated to bike lanes. This recommendation AT LAKE ST BARRY AVE 4 can be implemented without any physical change to the existing roadway. CROSSING AT RR Segment 4: TRACKS Segment 4 STEEP SLOPE Share the L ADJACENT Segment 4 also requires minimal physical changes to implement. It is LAKELAKLAAAK ST Road TRACKS QZ K GROVE LN GROVE LANE recommended that the existing Grove Lane segment of the marina parking DAKOTA RAIL PARKING LOT lot be signed and a symbol be stenciled on the road to identify a “share-the- CONNECTION TO TRAIL START WAYZATA BAY DAKOTA TRAIL road” situation. Bicyclists and pedestrians would be directed through the lot to the intersection of Barry Avenue. and Lake Street. Figure 13: Proposed Trail Route and Crossings Appendix D 12 LEGEND 1 SEGMENT 1: OFF-STREET TRAIL B Trunk Highway 12 RECOMMENDATIONS Crossing

Pedestrian Movement

Bicycle Movement B FERNDALE RD

HWY 12

WAYZATA BLVD

Existing Bridge Cross Section

Existing Roadway Cross Section Proposed Roadway Cross Section Proposed Bridge Cross Section

Figure 14: Segment 1 Recommendations

Appendix D 13 LEGEND 2 SEGMENT 2: OFF-STREET TRAIL W WayzataW Blvd Crossing RECOMMENDATIONS

Pedestrian Movement BARRY AVE

Bicycle Movement

FERNDALE RD WAYZATA BLVD W

Existing Cross Section Proposed Cross Section

Figure 15: Segment 2 Recommendations

Appendix D 14 3 SEGMENT 3: BIKE LANES LEGEND RECOMMENDATIONS W WayzataW Blvd Crossing

GROVE LN GROVE L LakeL St Crossing

QZ RailroadR Crossing

LAKE ST

QZ PedestrianP Movement L W Bicycle Movement BARRY AVE

WAYZATA BLD

Existing Cross Section Proposed Cross Section

Figure 16: Segment 3 Recommendations

Appendix D 15 LEGEND 4 SEGMENT 4: SHARE THE ROAD BARRY AVE L Lake St Crossing RECOMMENDATIONS LAKE ST QZ Railroad Crossing L

Pedestrian Movement

Bicycle Movement

GROVE LN ON-STREET BIKE PATHS END AT DAKOTA RAIL TRAIL

Existing Cross Section Proposed Cross Section Proposed RR Crossing Improvements at Barry Ave./Grove Lane & Lake St (Wayzata Quiet Zone Project)

Figure 17: Segment 4 Recommendations

Appendix D 16 VII. Implementation

Cost Estimate Summary Related Projects to be Coordinated With The estimated cost of the Wayzata Trail Connections project Several City of Wayzata projects within the Wazata Trail Connections was calculated for each segment, based on a conceptual level of Project study area are scheduled to be implemented in the near future. design in 2009 dollars (See detailed Cost Estimate in Appendix Coordination for implementation of the Wayzata Trail Connections F). project is needed with the following projects:

Segment 1A Off-Street Trail (Ferndale Road) $276,600 • Barry Avenue sewer reconstruction Segment 1B Off-Street Trail (Hwy 12 Bridge) $69,300 • Wayzata Boulevard reconstruction Segment 2 Off-Street Trail (Wayzata Boulevard) $297,100 • Wayzata Wayﬁ nding Signage Plan Segment 3 Bike Lanes (Barry Avenue) $7,100

Segment 4 Share the Road (Grove Lane) $2,900 TOTAL $653,000 Potential Funding Sources Suggested Phasing Several funding sources may be available for implentation of the Wayzata Trail Connections trail segments: Due to their limited nature, low cost to implement, and potential to coordinate with City projects that are already planned, Segments • Federal Transportation Enhancement Funds 3 (Barry Avenue) and 4 (Grove Lane) could be initiated in 2009. • Hennepin County

Because of the need to coordinate with the reconstruction of • City of Wayzata funds Wayzata Boulevard and the potential for utility relocation, Segment 2 (Wayzata Boulevard) should be planned for implementation • Wayzata School District when Wayzata Boulevard is reconstructed, which is currently scheduled for 2010. • National Safe Routes to School program A Safe Routes to School program provides communities with the Segment 1 could be constructed concurrently with Segment 2 opportunity to improve conditions for walking and biking to school or as a ﬁ nal phase due to the need for agency coordination and through education and incentives, construction of new trails/ utility relocation. sidewalks, amenities such as bike racks, crosswalks and trafﬁ c control/school signing.

Funding sources such as the Safe Routes to School Program should be pursued to obtain the resources needed to implement the recommended improvements. However, the future of this program is dependant on the outcome of a new transportation bill.

Appendix D 17 VIII. Appendices Appendix A: Wayzata Sidewalk and Trail Plan

Appendix D 18 Appendix B: Wayzata ADT

Source: SRF Consulting Group and The City of Wayzata

Appendix D 19 Appendix C: Luce Line State Trail Map

671929374451.5 63 MAP EXPLANATION Luce Line 11323 3138 45.5 56 12 22 30 37 44.5 55 Trails Facilities 32.5 43 State Trail 10 18 25 Crushed Limestone Parking 8 15 22.5 33 7 14.5 24.5 Crushed Aggregate Base Picnic / Rest Area Vicksburg Lane Trailhead 7.5 17.5 Location of Duluth Adjacent Horse Trail map area in 10 Campground Hennepin, Carver, McLeod Trail DistancesWakefield in Miles- ConryWatertown Rest Area Minnesota Winsted Stubbs Bay Road Trail Access Undeveloped Minneapolis/ Toilet and Meeker Counties Silver Lake St. Paul Paved (Asphalt) Hutchinson Shorefishing Cedar Mills 012345 NORTH Scale in Miles

Lake Baker 30 Ann L.Emma 17 MAPLE 12 19 Park 24 55 30 16 92 PLAIN 201 Katrina 101 PLYMOUTH Lake Eastern Portion River 90

83 Reserve Lane 13 19 6 6 Lake 8 INDEPENDENCE Wood-Rill Mary Crow 6 S.N.A. 61 6 17 12 Parkers 10 110 SUMMER Long Lake 6 Lake Butler ONLY LONG LAKE

25 Vicksburg Rice Gleason Lake 16 Lake 15 WRIGHT CO. WRIGHT CO. HENNEPIN CO. Lake 103 SUMMER CARVER CO. 19 WINSTED ONLY 10 26 WAYZATA 12 394 Vega Fork Stubbs 15 6 Ave. 20 26 Bay 84 21 WATERTOWN 151 ORONO 20 20 Ox Yoke 135 146 Winsted Lake MINNETRISTA 101 Lake 16 CARVER CO. CARVER MCLEOD CO. Oak 92 494 PROPOSED Lake 51 33 24 15 122 South 110 5 9 85 122 Dutch Lake MOUND West Lake MINNETONKA 21 25 Whaletail Arm 261 South 10 Lake 5 Lake Mud L. Minnetonka

6 Cedar Belle Lake 7 WINSTED 35 15 31 22 Winsted 71 5 Lake 19 33 Lake Fork 4 1 South Hook PROPOSED 2 Thompson CEDAR 20 73 Lake 5 5 9 Lake 10 MILLS 20 7 12 4

7 19 COSMOS Crow (UNDEVELOPED) 61 16 26 SILVER 261 Western Portion 15 7 Swan LAKE Lake 2 76 79 7 HUTCHINSON River 22 12 10 1 Silver

MCLEOD CO. Lake MEEKER CO. 12 14 7 4 RENVILLE CO. Mud Boon Otter Lake LESTER 22 71 24 15 Lake Lake 7 4 2 PRAIRIE Source: Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources

Appendix D 20 Appendix D: Dakota Rail Regional Trail Map

Source: Three Rivers Park District

Appendix D 21 Appendix E: Wayzata Wayﬁ nding Plan Prepared by Damon Farber Associates for the City of Wayzata

Appendix D 22 Appendix D 23 Appendix F: Detailed Cost Estimate

SEGMENT 1A - Off-Street Trail SEGMENT 3 - Bike Lanes Ferndale from Luce Line State Trail to Wayzata Blvd Barry Ave from Wayzata Blvd to Grove Lane Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Notes Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Notes

REMOVALS PAVING Remove concrete walk pavement Sq Ft $2 8135 $16,270 Paint striping Lin Ft $2 4100 $6,150 Bike Lane Symbols Each $200 4 $800 PAVING/GRADING Bituminous trail Sq Yd $20 1808 $36,160 Includes subgrade preparation OTHER Way-finding Signage Each $2,500 2 $5,000 Rough grading Lump Sum $100,000 1 $100,000 Regulatory Signage Each $200 12 $2,400 Retaining Wall Sq Ft $20 3222 $64,440 4'-6' height at bridge approaches Subtotal $6,150 Fencing Lin Ft $20 537 $10,740 4' tall atop retaining walls Construction Contingency (15%) $923 SEGMENT 3 Subtotal: $7,073 OTHER Way-finding Signage Each $2,500 3 $7,500 SEGMENT 4 - Share the Road Turf establishment (sod) Sq Yd $6 904 $5,424 Grove Lane from Barry Ave to Dakota Rail Regional Trail Subtotal $240,534 Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Notes Construction Contingency (15%) $36,080 SEGMENT 1A Subtotal: $276,614 Does not include utility relocations PAVING Paint striping Lin Ft $1 100 $100 SEGMENT 1B - Off-Street Trail Share the Road Symbol Each $200 4 $800 Ferndale Road/Hwy 12 Bridge Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Notes OTHER Regulatroy Signage Each $200 8 $1,600 PAVING Subtotal $2,500 Concrete walk (6" thick) Sq ft $6 1830 $10,980 Construction Contingency (15%) $375 Paint striping Lin Ft $1.50 305 $458 SEGMENT 4 Subtotal: $2,875 Fencing Lin Ft $80 610 $48,800 8' tall along bridge Subtotal $60,238 TOTAL $652,891 Construction Contingency (15%) $9,036 SEGMENT 1B Subtotal: $69,273

SEGMENT 2 - Off-Street Trail Wayzata Blvd from Ferndale Road to Barry Ave Item Unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost Notes

REMOVALS Remove concrete walk pavement Sq Ft $2 3670 $7,340 Clear and grub trees Lump Sum $2,500 1 $2,500

PAVING/GRADING Bituminous trail Sq Yd $20 1380 $27,600 Includes subgrade preparation Rough grading Lump Sum $100,000 1 $100,000 Paint striping Lin Ft $1.50 305 $458 Retaining wall Sq Ft $20 4872 $97,440 4'-6' height Fencing Lin Ft $20 812 $16,240 4' tall atop retaining walls

OTHER Way-finding Signage Each $2,500 1 $2,500 Truncated Domes Sq Ft $50 56 $2,800 Turf establishment (sod) Sq Yd $6 239 $1,432 Subtotal $258,310 Construction Contingency (15%) $38,746 SEGMENT 2 Subtotal: $297,056 Does not include utility relocations

Appendix D 24 Appendix G: Open House Survey Forms

Wayzata Trail Connections Wayzata Trail Connections Open House Survey Form Open House Survey Form October 14, 2008 November 19, 2008

Contact Info (optional) Contact Info (optional) Name ______Name ______Address______Address______Phone ______Phone ______Email ______Email ______

1. Do you ______live in Wayzata? ______own a business in Wayzata? 1. Do you ______live in Wayzata? ______own a business in Wayzata?

2. Do you live on one of the route alternatives? ______2. Do you live on one of the route alternatives? ______

3. Do you ______bike ______walk 3. Do you ______bike ______walk ______bike with family ______in-line skate ______bike with family ______in-line skate

4. Please indicate your preferred cross-section: 4. Please rank the top 5 most important criteria for selection of the trail route.

___A ___B ___C ___D Trail Route Evaluation Criteria

5. Please rank your top 3 alternatives (1 being the most-preferred option). _____ Implementation costs _____ Open space connections _____ Required right of way _____ Consistency with local and regional ____A ____B ____C ____D ____E ____F ____G ____H planning _____ Impact to private parcels _____ Response to physical constraints and _____ Ability to make logical and direct limitations 6. Please rank the top 5 most important criteria for selection of the trail route. connections _____ Convenience _____ Consistency with way-finding Trail Route Evaluation Criteria _____ Safety _____ Open space connections objectives _____ TH 12 bridge accommodations _____ Implementation costs _____ Consistency with local and regional _____ Traffic conflicts planning _____ Parking impacts (on street) _____ Required right of way _____ Response to physical constraints and _____ Access to retail, entertainment, and _____ Impact to private parcels limitations service businesses _____ Convenience _____ Ability to make logical and direct connections _____ Safety 5. For the preferred option, please describe what you like most about this alternative. _____ Consistency with way-finding _____ TH 12 bridge accommodations ______objectives _____ Parking impacts (on street) ______Traffic conflicts ______Access to retail, entertainment, and ______service businesses ______7. For your preferred option, please describe why you chose that alternative. ______6. For the preferred option, please describe what you like least about this alternative. ______

8. Please indicate if the there are any options that you definitely would not support, and why. ______

Appendix D 25