Agenda - Public Works Committee - 04/21/2009

Home

1 If speed limit issues in consultation with local government. The major elements of the study were to in'elude answers to the following questions: . Are the definitions of urban ciistrict, rural residential district and residential roadwa.y appropriate? . Is 30 J.\IfPH in urban districts appropriate? . Are there locations where 25 1v.tPH is appropriate? . Is 30 MPH in rural residential districtsa.pprcpriite? . Is S5 tvrPH in rural residential districts within a city appropriate? . Axe there rural residential district locations within cities where 30 N!PH is appropdate?" . . Although HF 1909 was not enacted, .tv1n!DOT committed to conducting a study similar in scope to the study outlined in HF 1909. To facilitate the study process, in particular with regards to the requirement that local governments be consulted, Mn!DOT worked with the City Engineers Association of Minnesota and the County Engineers Association to solicit member participation in the study process. While this study was being carried out, the 2008 Legislature enacted Laws of Minnesota 2008, Chapter 287, Section 119 (see Appendix AA), which directed MnlDOT to complete a study with the same parameters as outlined in the proposed 2007 House File. This study fulfills the requirements of that legislation. 1.3 Work Plan and Conduct of the Study The goal of this study was to develop recommendations for possible changes to Minnesota Statute 169.14 that address the areas of concern raised in the Legislative direction to J\.1n/DOT. To reach this goal, MnlDOT conducted a process that included the following maj or .tasks: . Conducting research and gathering information (through various methods) . Refining the definitions found in speed limit statutes , . Developing potential alternatives for speed limit statutes . 1\nalyzing and evaluating the alternatives . Selecting recommended alternatives Throughout this process, Mn/DOT utilized a Task Force to direct the work of the study and to serve as a resource base for MnlDOT. The Task Force membership was selected to provide broad and varied engineering representation. At the city level, the Task Force included four representatives spanning from central core (St. Paul) to suburban (Minnetonka and Chanhassen) to cities with both rural and urban components (Andover). At the county level, two Task Force members provided perspective from both the metro/urban viewpoint (Dakota County) and the outstate/rural viewpoint (Houston County). It should be noted that Dakota County has areas of rural character as well. The county engineering representatives were also able to provide infol1nation on township perspectives due to their periodic interaction with township representatives. The local Page 2 29