Dakota County East-West Transit Study FINAL REPORT

March 2017

Acknowledgements

TAC Committee Members Aaron Bartling, MVTA Jen Lehmann, MVTA

Kathy Bodmer, City of Apple Valley Kim Lindquist, City of Rosemount

Ben Boike, City of West St. Paul Tom Link, City of Inver Grove Heights

Kurt Chatfield, Dakota County John Mazzitello, City of Mendota Heights

Heidi Corcoran, Dakota County John Mertens, Dakota County

Pam Dudziak, City of Eagan Cameron Muhic, MnDOT

Jenni Faulkner, City of Burnsville David Olson, City of Lakeville

Lisa Freese, Scott County Molly Park, City of Sunfish Lake

Ryan Garcia, City of South St. Paul Amy Patnode, City of Eagan

Joe Gladke, Hennepin County Joseph Scala, Hennepin County

Andy Gitzlaff, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Connor Schaefer, Washington County Authority Angie Stenson, Scott County Peter Hellegers, City of South St. Paul Sarah Thomas, City of Eagan Cole Hiniker, Metropolitan Council Scott Thompson, Metro Transit Neal Hildebrandt, Dakota County Community Development Agency Hally Turner, Washington County

John Hinzman, City of Hastings Tony Wippler, City of Farmington

Jarrett Hubbard, Scott County Katie White, Metropolitan Council

Emily Jorgensen, Washington County Courtney Whited, DARTS

Carl Jensen, MnDOT

Kyle Klatt, City of Rosemount Steering Committee Members Cyndi Harper, Metro Transit Amy Vennewitz, Metropolitan Council

Jane Kansier, MVTA Katie White, Metropolitan Council

Mark Krebsbach, Dakota County Luther Wynder, MVTA

Jen Lehmann, MVTA

i Policymaker Work Group Ann Bailey, DARTS Tom Lawell, City of Apple Valley

Karla Bigham, Washington County Matt Little, City of Lakeville

Karen Bremer, Nininger Township Mark Lofthus, Dakota County

Steven Chavez, Metropolitan Council Tim Mayasich, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority William Droste, City of Rosemount Scott McBride, MnDOT Maggie Dykes, Dakota County Bruce Nordquist, City of Apple Valley Chris Gerlach, Dakota County Dave Osberg, City of Eagan Jenny Halverson, West St. Paul Matt Parent, Dakota County Mary Hamann-Roland, City of Apple Valley Nancy Schouweiler, Dakota County Gary Hansen, City of Eagan Mary Schultz, City of Lilydale Steve Haschig, DARTS Michael Slavik, Dakota County Clint Hooppaw, MVTA Tom Taylor, City of Burnsville Elizabeth Kautz, City of Burnsville George Tourville, Inver Grove Heights Ed Kearney, City of Apple Valley Liz Workman, Dakota County Sandra Krebsbach, Mendota Heights

Dakota County Staff Kristine Elwood, Dakota County Joe Morneau, Dakota County

Consultant Team Chelsey Hendrickson, Kimley-Horn Steven Ruegg, Parsons Brinkerhoff

Anna Potter, Kimley-Horn Brian Smalkoski, Kimley-Horn

ii Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... ES-1

CHAPTER 1 Background and Context...... 1

CHAPTER 2 Related Projects and Plans...... 7

CHAPTER 3 Study Area Characteristics...... 13

CHAPTER 4 Stakeholder Engagement...... 21

CHAPTER 5 Evaluation Framework...... 29

CHAPTER 6 Travel Demand Analysis...... 33

CHAPTER 7 Corridor Evaulation...... 37

CHAPTER 8 Recommendations...... 41

iii

Executive Summary

East-west transit connectivity has come up Stakeholder Engagement Strategies frequently as an important topic as each transitway is studied in Dakota County. Regional agencies, counties, and local As one nears the center of the Twin Cities entities have completed a total of 34 Metropolitan Area, the range of transit plans, studies, and projects that have service options and coverage is much greater or may have an influence on transit than it is within and through Dakota County. service in the study area. Most projects With the primarily north-south orientation and plans reviewed are supportive of expanding transit service in Dakota of the METRO Red, Orange, and Blue Lines County. as well as the north-south orientation of the planned Robert Street and Red Rock Corridors, all existing and planned transitway service in the area is largely designed to Study Area provide frequent service into the downtown cores of Minneapolis or Saint Paul. However, Characteristics many residents lack reliable options to The study area included the cities of Mendota connect to transit centers, major destinations, Heights, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, and employment opportunities within and Mendota, Lilydale, Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove surrounding Dakota County. Developing Heights, Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley, improved east-west service to provide a Rosemount, Coates, Hastings, Lakeville, and more comprehensive network for Dakota Farmington and the townships of Nininger, County, its cities, and the surrounding Marshan, Vermillion, Ravenna, and Empire. counties is critical to support these growing The East-West Transit Study also considered communities. transit options that extended outside the study area or the county if there were logical Purpose of Study or compelling destinations or connections. The Dakota County East-West Transit Study Study area characteristics were reviewed and (East-West Transit Study) was needed to analyzed in order to better understand the address existing and emerging needs for east- demographics, travel patterns, development west oriented transit in the county. The East- patterns, and infrastructure within the study West Transit Study looked for opportunities area that may inform the need for transit. to improve the quality of fixed route transit service in Dakota County and improve Demographics connections to the regional transit system by The highest concentrations of minority identifying and evaluating potential transit residents live in the northern and western corridors. Recommendations were developed parts of the study area. The areas with to improve connections to employment, the highest percentage of people with low improve mobility to and from areas adjacent incomes (living under 185 percent of the to the county, and expand the range of travel poverty line) are in South St. Paul, West St. options for transit-dependent populations. Paul, and Burnsville. Most of those living in the study area have access to a personal vehicle, and most speak English very well.

ES-1 Figure 0.1: Composite Map of Study Area Characteristics

Travel and Development Patterns operate 35 local and express transit routes throughout the study area. The western and northern parts of the study area include a variety of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses and Stakeholder Engagement have higher population and employment density than the largely agricultural eastern The goal of the public engagement efforts for and southern parts of the study area. the East-West Transit Study was to engage Important destinations and regional job and the public and stakeholders in identifying activity centers are more common in the and evaluating existing and future east-west northern and western part of the study area. oriented transit needs. A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was developed to clarify the goals Infrastructure and objectives for public outreach and engagement. Some study area communities, such as Hastings, South St. Paul, and West St. Paul, feature traditional street grid patterns with connected sidewalk systems. Other communities within the study area, such as Apple Valley, Burnsville, and Eagan, feature more suburban style street patterns that are supplemented with a fairly consistent network of shared-use trails, approximately one-mile apart along major thoroughfares.

Interstate 35E, as well as Highway 52, MN-13, MN-77, MN-55 are key regional corridors that serve the study area. Metro Transit and the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA)

ES-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-3 ). Lone Oak Road (CSAH 26) Doodle Road (CSAHYankee 28) Diffley (CSAHRoad 30) Cliff(CSAHRoad 32) McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) 140th Street/Connemara Trail County Road 42 County Road 46 Streets (CSAH185th/195th 60/64) Streets (CSAH 70/50)215th/212th MN-13 MN-55 Maximize regional transit connectivity Maximize transit ridership Respond present to and future travel patterns are supported by existing and planned use land Improve access employment, to institutions, and services Incorporate safe, convenient, and multimodal access and facilities Butler Avenue (CSAH 4) Wentworth Avenue (CSAH 8) MN-110 Figure 0.2Figure After reviewing the initial corridor evaluation results, members and project TAC staff suggested evaluating revised extents for several corridors that served both transit- supportive and non-transit-supportive areas. 25 unique corridor segments were evaluated ( Corridor Evaluation Corridor identifiedThe TAC the followingcorridors for assessment usingthe goals and measures developedthe in evaluation framework: Are cost-effective and efficient Improve mobility for transit dependent populations Evaluation Framework A set of project goals and evaluation measures was created assess to and prioritize the east-west corridors identified Advisoryby a Technical Committee (TAC) comprised local of government agencies and transit service operators. Goals and corresponding measures were developed based on previous county transportation plans and studies and refined based inputon from the policymaker workgroup (PWG), the the Steering Committee,TAC, and the public. The goals for the Study East-West Transit were identify to east-west corridors that: Travel Demand Analysis Evaluation the of travel demand potential for east-west corridors in Dakota County was performed using a variety survey of and GPS- based data sources in order assess to current travel patterns within the study area. fourUsing distinct datasets based on current, observed Cities travel the in Twin region, the Study East-West determined Transit the number of potential transit trips by corridor residents, workers, and visitors as well as the number of transit trips beginning and ending withina half-mile of each corridor. TheStudy East-West engaged Transit stakeholders through communications materials, public and stakeholder meetings, and committee workshops. Stakeholder input helped determine corridor extents, was used evaluateto corridors, and influenced the corridor recommendations. themesKey identified multiple times in the engagement process included the desire for transit service along County Road 42, a direct connection the to METRO Blue Line, connections colleges to and other educational institutions, and existing transit service modifications. W

0 A OUNT COUNTY ROAD C E

0 C Y O D C W BAYPORT N R N A ST N

S ROBBINSDALE1 ST. LITTLE H

9 E N MEDINA CRYSTAL R H 7T Y E 6 BAYPORT 6 LOWRY AVE N HIGHWNORTHAY 3 4

D I ANTHONY ROSEVILLE CANADA A HIGHWAY 36 W

1 D

N NEW HOPE V TH ST N N 40 N

S ST. PAUL L

Y G

W B L S BAYTOWNN

A T

A R

A T R PLYMOUTH H H

L MAPLEWOOD E S

FROST AVE E LAUDERDALEH T O

I 34TH ST N A T W N

AD 6 G G S ILLW TWP. T V G U O H O NTY R MEDICINE I I C N

H H G

A U H T

GOLDEN N T

PENNAVE N N W N H LAKE 6 E

G 2

A C

O FALCON C

LAKEY I E

A N V

E N

ORONO 5 VALLEY V W GENEVAN AVE D A

5 E H R E A V ELMO

H WINNETKAAVE N HEIGHTS D

A E O O N A INE ST

H I E WEST V YLAND AV E R Y

W G MAR

G DALEST N G I AY1 R C I S H 2 X N

2 E A

H T N

E RICE ST LAKELAND T

V 8

E OD

L G

W D

R E WAYZATA 0

A L B A

R O

10TH ST N V TWP. A L RAMSEY T

H E

X S OAKG

N Y

IA W N 0 T OAKDALE

L N I

1 W S N 0 ST. PAUL LAKELAND

S A

N 6 A H

WOODLAND I A ST. LOUIS T L LANDFALL 9 ARN E K

Y SHORES

T E W T MINNEAPOLIS S W R A

D R N P

S A H R R

MIN LVD PARK G B D

KA A D LAKELAND O N N E

E W O

Figure 0.2:TO Corridor Segments Evaluated H R SH C

H A

DEEPHAVEN P H I O A

G I

V T O

G E I H D D

H LAKE ST.

S W A

Y RANDOLPH AVE

H A S R S AVE

YNDALES AVE G

HOPKINS I

7 R

O CROIX E D Y C MINNETONKA LV N H

7 A W

B 6 K T Y R BEACH

A K 35ET LILYDALE R 1 55 S C H L G W CEDA HI O H A L AV

I R D S M S T WEST A L D HENNEPIN 7 R WOODBURY AFTON EX C E E SHOREWOOD D 2 ST. N

D HWAY 6 IG D FRANCEAVE R H 62 BPAUL EDINA O BAILEY RD 40TH ST S R S D H SOUTH M E FORT IL E MENDOTA I D G I K T

R V 110 ST. PAUL AR Y H Y A SNELLING E

A C I

S R H

O WASHINGTON B RICHFIELD MENDOTA W

R SUNFISH D

I E I N (UNORG.) R G 5

A A V

N CHANHASSEN S HEIGHTS

E LAKE

H Y WOODBURYDR

K A NEWPORT R W E

T E P W

S 5 78T H D P 494

V 2 S

5 R A

N H 169 A 65TH ST S E

Y A E

E S

K T ST. PAULS V D 7 T V EDEN E

9 A E

A 312 E 70TH ST S L L I

V 6 L 7 N

PARK MANNINGAVE S 35W B S 1 L D-2 G PRAIRIE A D-1 H

S T

S Y L O D A A TR N INVER

A R U C V R GREY CLOUD E E I E E B O

77 K

W BLOOMINGTON GROVE O T O N 212 N E-1 E-2 ISLAND TWP. I H N-1 C P D S CARVER R G HEIGHTS N F D R L IG EAGAN N O FLYIN UD I 90TH ST S D G CLO C R H COTTAGE N A W X R IC T

D E O DENMARK O R L H 55 I E X R E GROVE I OLD SHAKOP V T Y A

A TWP. O GREY CLOUD T L V F R N L

O COUNTY E E ISLAND TWP. C U Y N R 3 T O O 1 F R 110TH ST S C CLIF D 110TH ST W B N

A I N M Y 32 D A G-2 G-1 L 61 I V A SHAKOPEE 1 HW A

101 01 IG D S R N-2 WAY 13 W H D H HIGHWA 5 S EA R Y 3

JACKSONC G G

E I LE B H C N-3 S

V R H DR TWP. E L O E L A K BURNSVILLE A BLVD CO L H-1 C H C D R R ST L M N O IG CEDA E I T

L SAVAGE K AKRONAVE U H A 2ND ST 10 E R 3 E W KOEPER AVE 1 N 18 A

M T I O JACKSONR T T V H Y L H-2 R 1 D O

O O 0 A NININGER TWP. APPLE L E U N S 140TH ST NE N B ROSEMOUNT

S S

A G PI E

BL N

J-3 TWP. T W I VD T O D H VALLEY E 55 A L O 145TH ST STINGS TRL 3 R O E LOUISVILLE O I T E 1 P J-1 N 42 L

35TH A V K 50TH ST W A HASTINGS 1 L

Y A D T TWP. A D I RA A V

W J-2 H E

H ST PRIORNW H M N 154T L N

IG R LAKE H B E A SPRING 160TH ST W RA 160TH ST E E R T 2ND R V R LVD 16 ST W K-2 46 NCOATESD K-1 D L B D EL LAKE TWP. E C

K O RED WING BLVD A 170TH ST W A SPRING L T D JORGENAVE Y BASELINEAVE LV K E B LAKE TWP. H E S

E D LANGFOR D P N C V RAVENNA

V B R EMPIRE L L W

A A U L B SAND V TWP. TWP. Y E M O D D X N CREDIT C T V L CREEK R OLAKEVILLE 52 A MARSHAN E AVE ON IE 190TH ST E D

W VERMILLION D E O RIVERTR L R F I E A SCOTTR D I V

TWP.N E W H TWP. L 195TH ST

T H R DAKOTA T E

N TWP. R R R

V I SPRING V B L 200TH ST E C O

V A W L S A V FI

A N I 2 JOANAVE E F D 02ND ST W VERMILLION LAKE TWP. O 205TH ST E ST W E N 205TH

E TWP. H

V NICOLAIAVE

210TH ST W 210TH ST E E

S N

A L

212TH ST W E

U R L I

215TH ST W FARMINGTONV D

E M L M

V 61

220 ST E ASH ST 220TH ST W K

O T H F 225TH ST E R

G 35 N

OODWINAVE 230TH ST E

DAR AVE

AAVE A

P N AVEE L NEW G

V I

L 235TH ST W E CE HAMPTON

L D NEW MARKET ING

S A MIESVILLE

Z L 240TH ST E HIGHWAY 61 BLVD

B W V E TRIER TWP. V BLAIN U L E

H 245TH ST E

HELENA E R B D

E V

CEDAR C

NO V

V Y T EUREKA A CASTLE HAMPTON D L

250TH ST E 250TH ST W E

A G

TWP. LAKE A A R V D E V TWP.A O DOUGLAS

S ROCK TWP. TWP.

N L SB A E L ELKO NEW O 255TH ST W AVE C L

TWP. A A H D Y TWP.L

X No corridors scoredMARKET high260TH acrossST E all goals. D There are severalE best practices in land use, A E

E S ORLANDOAVE

I F

E V

N T T E A E R C ELKO NEW A

N L

NELL O

267TH ST W P U

V N

B E EMERYAVE P

N O

HOGAN AVE

However, based on an averageMARKET of all goals,E the I policy and design that can be employed by L T V A

O N

Y H

PANAMAAVE D

N 7

C BISCAYNEAVE A B C IC

280TH ST E 280TH ST W L

following corridors scored medium-high: developers, cities, and counties throughoutM V ZACHARYAVE WATERFORD SCIOTA RANDOLPH TWP. GREENVALE TWP. D TWP. the TWP.studyRANDOLPH area to better support transit in a ¼¼ Butler Avenue suburban context, including: November 2016 ¼¼ Yankee0 Doodle2.5 Road5 between MN-13 N Review planned land uses in transit and Lone Oak RoadMiles Evaluated Corridors corridors ¼¼ Cliff Road between I-35W and I-35E Promote corridor transit-supportive ¼¼ County Road 42 between MN-13 development policy and DCTC Promote corridor transit-supportive site Recommendations design Create inviting streetscapes and travel Recommendations for ways All Corridors Cultivate and leverage partnerships in reviewing and approving development Successful transit routes are typically those plans which serve regions with higher employment, residential, and commercial density, with a variety of destinations and land uses, Corridor Recommendations connected by robust pedestrian and bicycle Overview network that provides comfortable and convenient access to and from transit After reviewing the corridor evaluation stations. These considerations are especially results and considering local knowledge critical in a suburban context where decades and input from the public, the TAC, the of designing for automobiles has made PWG, and the Steering Committee all made connections by bike and walking more recommendations as to which corridors challenging. should be considered further by the service

ES-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-5 Miles 5.5 316 2017 January 10 2.75 £ ¤ ! 61 £ ¤ 94 ! § ¨¦ 0 ! 55 ! 61 £ ¤ ! 694 § ¨¦ 494 § ¨¦ ! ! 52 £ ¤ ! is recommended is for further 61 £ ¤ CliffRoad recommended is for further consideration provide to a new connection between the future Orange Line and the Red Line stations and MN-110 consideration in coordination with the implementation the of Red Rock, Gold Line, or Robert Street transitways Doodle Road is recommendedYankee for further consideration directly to connect the many regional and local destinations and attractions throughout the corridor 35E § ¨¦ CSAH8 MN-110/CSAH14 CSAH(to28 IHCC) 35E § ¨¦ 5 280 62 77 CSAH(TH13-DCTC)42 35W § ¨¦ CSAH(to32 PilotKnob) 35W 35 § ¨¦ § ¨¦ 62 13 is recommended Blue Line Red Line Buffersv3 High Low OrangeLine OrangeLine Extension Red LineExtension OrangeLine Robert Red Rock OrangeLine Red Line- Future Stages Blue / Red Line Blue Line Red Line AlternativeRed Rock Stations 100 394 § ¨¦ ! ! ! ! ! ! Buffersv3 RasterComposite Value Planned Transitways Planned Name Transitways Existing route Planned Transitway Stations Transitway Planned Transitway Stations Transitway Transitway Name High Low 55

5 Corridors Recommended for Further for Recommended Consideration Corridors 212 £ ¤

169 £ ¤ 7 12 £ ¤ Wentworth Avenue for further consideration additional of frequency along existing parallel routes 312

N providers for new or improved local, fixed- route bus service or flexroute service. Based on the recommendations the of committees, fivecorridors were categorized as currently warranting further consideration and ten were categorized as not warranting further consideration at this time. The fivecorridors recommended for further consideration include: Figure 0.3: to serve the existing population and employment density within the corridor. County Road 42 is recommended for further consideration to serve the local destinations and respond to public feedback

More-so than other corridors considered in this study, these five corridors are conducive to transit or fill a mobility need by making transitway connections, serving local destinations, and having regional destinations or movements. In addition, these corridors also have intermittent transit-supportive land-uses and at least moderate walkability.

All other corridors considered in this study were either predominately low-density residential, undeveloped, or heavily auto- oriented. These features are key barriers to the successful implementation of transit service at this time. Should these corridors shift and take on more transit-supportive development patterns, transit service could be considered at that time.

ES-6 CHAPTER 1 Background and Context

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 1 Background and Context

Purpose and Need for the Study Purpose and Need East-west connectivity has come up frequently as an important topic as each regional transitway is studied in Dakota County. As one nears the center of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, the range of transit service options and coverage is much greater than it is within and through Dakota County. With the primarily north-south orientation of the METRO Red, Orange, and Blue Lines as well as the north-south orientation of the planned Robert Street, Riverview, and Red Rock corridors, all existing and planned transitway service in the area is largely designed to provide frequent service into the downtown cores of Minneapolis or Saint Paul. However, many residents lack reliable options to connect to transit centers, major destinations, and employment opportunities within and surrounding Dakota County. Developing improved east-west service to provide a more comprehensive network for Dakota County, its cities, and the surrounding counties is critical to support these growing communities. Study Area The Dakota County East-West Transit Study (East-West Transit Study) was needed to The study area (Figure 1.1) included the cities address existing and emerging needs for of Mendota Heights, West St. Paul, South St. east-west oriented transit in the county. Paul, Mendota, Lilydale, Sunfish Lake, Inver The East-West Transit Study looked for Grove Heights, Eagan, Burnsville, Apple Valley, opportunities to improve the quality of fixed Rosemount, Coates, Hastings, Lakeville, and route transit service in Dakota County and Farmington and the townships of Nininger, improve connections to the regional transit Marshan, Vermillion, Ravenna, and Empire. system. Recommendations were developed The East-West Transit Study also considered to improve connections to employment, transit options that extended outside the improve mobility to and from areas adjacent study area or the county if there are logical or to the county, and expand the range of travel compelling destinations or connections. options for transit-dependent populations.

1 Figure 1.1: The Study Area of the Dakota County East-West Transit Study

2 CHAPTER 1 — BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 3 Project Team Metropolitan Council Dakota CountyDakota and recommendations and from the TAC project team were brought the to Steering Committee. meetings were TAC held every two four to weeks throughout the project. Steering Committee Steering The Steering Committee consisted of senior staff fromCounty,Dakota MVTA, andMetro Metropolitan Transit, Council. The Steering Committee supervised the development the of studygoals and processes, addressed policy considerations related the to study, and assisted county staff in providing direction on project management. Feedback from the Steering Committee was brought the to PWG. Steering Committee meetings were held every other month. Policymaker Work Group The PWG consisted elected of officials in the study area and adjacent jurisdictions and regional stakeholders including chambers of commerce, educational institutions, and groups representing citizen interests. The work group aided forming in study goals, identifying needs service for improvements, and reviewing the evaluation and recommendations. Feedback from the PWG, along with the input from other committees, brought was forward Dakota to County, MVTA, for further and Metro Transit consideration. Three PWG meetings were held during theproject. Policy Group Work Steering Committee . TAC MVTA Figure 1.2 Figure

Project Management and Organizational Structure

Stakeholders Public and Other Other and Public Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisted technical of The TAC staff from Dakota County Physical Development and Community Services divisions, Minnesota Authority Transit Valley (MVTA), Metro Transit, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Metropolitan Council, study area municipalities and townships, and adjacent counties. aided the in The TAC technical analysis including, but not limited developmentto, and execution an of evaluation process, review evaluation of results and deliverables, and review of project team recommendations. Information Project Committee Committee Project Structure The StudyEast-West was Transit commissioned and funded by Dakota County. Project committees included the AdvisoryTechnical Committee (TAC), Steering Committee, and Policymaker Work Group and(PWG). SteeringCommittee The TAC met regularly discuss to project progress and to ensure a consistent project implementation. The project team used these opportunities furtherto communicate with project stakeholders, both share information to and gather input. The project management and organizational structure illustrated is in Figure 1.2: Schedule The East-West Transit Study occurred over approximately one year from April 2016 – February 2017 and can generally be described in three phases.

PHASE 1: Background and Study Area Characteristics

In the first phase of the project, the committees were formed, the purpose and need for the study was defined, related plans and projects were reviewed, and the study area characteristics were analyzed.

PHASE 2: Goals, Measures, Evaluation, Corridors, and Results

In the second phase of the project, goals and measures were generated and corridors were identified and evaluated.

PHASE 3: Recommendations

In the third phase of the project, recommendations were made for each corridor based on the findings from the other phases.

Committee input and public engagement occurred throughout the project.

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB

4 CHAPTER 1 — BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 5

Summary of Related Projectand

Plans Technical Memo Technical Plans

– D. Evaluation Framework Technical Memo Evaluation Framework Technical D. Memo Demand Analysis Technical Travel E. CorridorF. Evaluation Results Technical Memo B. Study Area Characteristics Memo Technical

Technical AppendixTechnical C. Engagement Materials Documentation Materials Engagement C. – A. 1 9 15 41 31 37 35 23 Page Number

Engagement Framework Analysis Evaluation Context Plans and Characteristics

7. Corridor 7. 6. Travel Demand6. Travel 8. Recommendations 1. Background1. and 2. Related Projects 4. Stakeholder 3. Study Area 5. Evaluation Chapter 3 2 1 All Project Phase of Report Outline and Appendices and Appendices Outline Report This report documents the information gathered, analyzed, and produced for the East-West The Study. reportTransit split is into eight chapters with six supporting technical appendices. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 2 Related Projects and Plans

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 2 Related Projects and Plans

Introduction Plans and Projects Reviewed Most projects and plans reviewed are Regional agencies, counties, and local supportive of expanding transit service in entities have completed a total of 34 plans, Dakota County. In numerous instances, the studies, and projects that have or may have documents provided information on specified an influence on transit service in the study planned transit routes. area. For each project or plan reviewed, the following is summarized: Table 2.1 lists the projects and plans that were reviewed, as well as a summary of the Purpose and background impact of each on the East-West Transit Study. Findings Impact on the East-West Transit Study

Table 2.1: Summary of Impacts of Related Projects and Plans on the East-West Transit Study

Project/Plan Year Published Impact on the East-West Transit Service Study

Cedar Avenue 2015 Recommended stations that would provide more Transitway options for connections with east-west transit Implementation Plan service. Update Policymaker workshops suggested that east-west transit and bicycle/pedestrian connections are desired.

Robert Street 2015 East-west connector route was eliminated from Transitway Alternatives consideration because ridership forecasts showed Analysis it produced too little ridership to implement. If the Robert Street Transitway is constructed, it would provide additional opportunities for connections with east-west transit service.

Orange Line Bus Rapid 2014 The METRO Orange Line is planned to end in Transit Project Plan Burnsville; an east-west transit corridor could Update connect to the Orange Line at this location.

METRO Orange 2015 An east-west transit corridor could connect to the Line Planning and Orange Line at either of the stations proposed as Implementation part of the extension.

Red Rock Alternatives 2014 The recommended BRT alignment would serve Analysis Update Hastings; an east-west transit corridor could connect to the Red Rock Corridor at this location.

7 Project/Plan Year Published Impact on the East-West Transit Service Study

Red Rock 2016 The recommended BRT alignment would serve Implementation Plan Hastings, and express service to Hastings was included as a potential interim recommendation. An east-west transit corridor could connect to the Red Rock Corridor and/or express service in Hastings.

Metro Transit Service 2015 The Service Improvement Plan evaluated the Improvement Plan 2015- following in the study area: 2030 A new express route (Route 367) with weekday peak period service from Hastings to downtown Minneapolis via the Newport Transit Station New suburban limited stop route (Route 419) along the I-494 Corridor from Woodbury Theater to the Northern Dakota County Service Center, stopping at Woodwinds Health Campus, Newport Transit Station, and 5th Avenue S in South St. Paul Add Route 68 to the Hi-Frequency Network from 14th Street & Jackson in Saint Paul to 5th Avenue & South Street in Inver Grove Heights New local route (Route 412) between the Northern Dakota County Service Center and Inver Hills Community College New local route (Route 418) between the Northern Dakota County Service Center and the METRO Blue Line Fort Snelling Station New express route (Route 451) from the West St. Paul Sports Center Park & Ride to downtown Saint Paul New express route (Route 453) from Inver Grove Heights to downtown Saint Paul via Route 68 routing in Inver Grove Heights to Upper 55th to Highway 52; establish a new park-and-ride lot at Highway 53 and Upper 55th New express route (Route 455) between Kenrick Avenue Park & Ride in Lakeville and downtown Saint Paul

Thrive MSP 2040 2014 East-west transit service in Dakota County is not specifically mentioned. Many of the plan’s goals are supportive of maintaining and expanding transit service throughout the Twin Cities region.

Highway Transitway 2014 One corridor evaluated, the I-35E South Corridor, Corridor Study is in the study area for the East-West Transit Study and would extend from Lakeville to downtown Saint Paul.

8 CHAPTER 2 — RELATED PROJECTS AND PLANS 9 mentioned in the survey summaries, but the Dakota County Transportation Coordinating Collaborative’s efforts are supportive of expanding transit transportation and access. considered when identifying existing and emerging needs for transit service in Dakota County. Rosemount Station Transit and to areas not currently served, aswell as connections to the METRO Red Line. Dakota County for transit service enhancements for Title VI impacts as part of MVTA’s existing route processes.planning in the study, but the recommended actions are supportive of expanding transit service in the county. mentioned, but the barriers to efficiency that were identified should be considered when identifying potential corridors for east-west transit service. improvements identified in DakotaCounty under the Current Revenue Scenario or the Increased Scenario.Revenue Orange Line, both of which provide north-south service to Dakota County, are included in the Current RevenueScenario. and performance which may affect the service implementation and planning east-west of transit service in Dakota County. further for recommended neither was study. the service standards and policies outlined in the Metropolitan Title Council’s VI Program. establishing an east-west connection south of the Minnesota River that links Burnsville to Northern Scott County, either on County Road 42 or McColl Road. East-west connectivity was not specifically MVTA’s planned improvements should be be should improvements planned MVTA’s The plan includes expansion of local routes to MVTA will analyze any corridors identified by East-west connectivity is not specifically mentioned East-west connections were not specifically There were not any east-westtransit The METRO Red Line Stage 2 and the METRO The TPP developed guidelines for service design east-westTwo corridors were evaluated, but Any new transit corridors would need to meet included recommendation near-term One Impact on the East-WestService Transit Study 2012 2013 2015 2015 2014 2014 2014 2008 Ongoing Year PublishedYear MVTA Title VI Plan CountyDakota Human Services Research and Transportation Planning: Strategic Action Plan An Analysis of Client Transportation Efficiency CountyDakota Transportation Coordinating Collaborative 2030 Master Transit Study Metropolitan Council Title VI Program Northern Scott County AnalysisTransit MVTA Service Projects Improvement Project/Plan 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) Project/Plan Year Published Impact on the East-West Transit Service Study

Scott County Unified 2005 The plan does not propose specific east-west Transit Management connections but identifies improved east-west Plan connections between Scott and Dakota Counties as a longer-term need.

Apple Valley 2030 2009 East-west transit service in Dakota County is not Comprehensive Plan specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

Burnsville 2030 2015 One strategy outlined for the city council to Comprehensive Plan consider when implementing the transportation Update plan is to work with cities and counties south of the Minnesota River to lobby for transportation funding for south of the river projects including east-west improvements between the counties.

Eagan 2030 2010 East-west transit service in Dakota County is not Comprehensive Plan specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, Update but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

Farmington 2030 2011 East-west transit service in Dakota County is not Comprehensive Plan specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

Hastings 2030 2010 East-west transit service in Dakota County is not Comprehensive Plan specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

Inver Grove Heights 2010 East-west transit service on MN-110 and Yankee 2030 Comprehensive Doodle Road (CSAH 28) is specifically identified as Plan a goal. Other plan goals also are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

Lakeville 2008 2008 East-west transit service in Dakota County is not Comprehensive Land specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, Use Plan but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

Lilydale 2008 2008 Other than adding a connection to the existing Comprehensive Plan MVTA route along MN-110, east-west transit service in Dakota County is not specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan. The plan’s goals are generally supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs.

10 CHAPTER 2 — RELATED PROJECTS AND PLANS 11

specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs. any plans for fixed-route transit service. in this area would need to be reviewed with township staff and officials. any plans for fixed-route transit service. in this area would need to be reviewed with township and city staff and officials. specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan. connections to existing service rather than developing new transit routes. CSAH 42 as desired by residents. to serve growing community needs. improve transit service with Dakota County and cities.other transit service, particularlyserve to existing and planned transitways. specifically mentioned in the comprehensive plan, but the plan’s goals are supportive of expanding transit service to serve growing community needs. East-west transit service in Dakota County is not The conclusions of this plan do not acknowledge Any recommendations for additional transit service The conclusions of this plan do not acknowledge Any recommendations for additional transit service East-west transit service in Dakota County is not Mendota’s focused improving are on goals Specifically identified east-west transit service on The plan is supportive of expanding transit service The plan specifically mentions working on new or The plan’s goals are supportive of expanding East-west transit service in Dakota County is not . Impact on the East-WestService Transit Study 2010 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2008 Year PublishedYear Ravenna Township Comprehensive Plan CountyDakota CollaborativeRural Comprehensive Plan Rosemount Transit Plan Rosemount Transit South St. Paul 2030 Comprehensive Plan West St. Paul Comprehensive Plan Empire 2030 Township Comprehensive Plan Project/Plan Mendota 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update Additional information onthe plans, studies, and projects described found is the in Related Plans and Projects Memo Technical This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 3 Study Area Characteristics

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 3 Study Area Characteristics

Introduction Study area characteristics were reviewed and The study area characteristics provided a analyzed in order to better understand the basis for evaluating corridors within the study demographics, travel patterns, development area and making recommendations for these patterns, and infrastructure within the study corridors. area that may inform the need for transit. Specifically, the geographic datasets below For more on the study area characteristics, were used to understand and summarize refer to the Study Area Characteristics study area characteristics. Memo.

Geographic Datasets

Current and Planned (2030) Land Uses The cities’ comprehensive plans detail the current and forecasted land use in the study area

Current and Forecasted (2040) Population and Employment Regional forecasts were analyzed in the study area

Income and Economic Characteristics Income and economic characteristics provide indicators of potential transit demand

Demographic Information Demographic data provides indicators of potential transit demand

Travel Patterns and Destinations Where are people currently traveling and could they make these trips via transit?

Transportation Facilities What facilities exist in the study area today to support transit?

13 Land Use The western and A northern parts of the study area include a variety of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses (A). Additional commercial, institutional, and medium and high density residential uses are forecasted for this area by 2030 (B).

The eastern and southern parts of the study area, except in and around Hastings, are largely comprised of agricultural uses. These land use patterns are forecasted to remain through 2030.

14 CHAPTER 3 — STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 15 C G D F E ), particularlyin the far northern parts of ). The more densely populated parts of the D C study area expected increase to through 2040 ( the study area and Eagan, in and Apple Valley, Hastings. densityEmployment tracks closely population density in the study area. The highest employment density exists in Burnsville, Population and and Population Density Employment Consistent with study area land use characteristics, population densityhigher is in the western and northern parts of the study area, while the eastern and southern parts of the study area are more sparsely populated ( northern Eagan, West St. Paul, and South St. H Paul along the primary transportation corridors (E). While most of the study area currently has employment densities of less than 2.5 jobs per acre, the pockets of higher employment density in Eagan and Burnsville are forecasted to increase in density through 2040 (F).

Low wage jobs are concentrated near Cedar Avenue and County Road 42 in Burnsville, along the 35E Corridor, and in West St. Paul and South St. Paul (G).

Income and Economic Characteristics According to data I from the American Community Survey, the areas with the highest percentage of people with low incomes are in South St. Paul, West St. Paul, and Burnsville (H).

The median household income across the study area is approximately $80,000, with the largest concentration of lower median income households in South St. Paul, West St. Paul, and Burnsville (I). This pattern is consistent with the prevalence of people with low incomes in these areas.

16 CHAPTER 3 — STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 17 J L N ). L ). J K). are in Inver Grove Heights ies are in Inver Grove K M Most of those living the in study area speak English very well. some There are, however, concentrations of people with limited English proficiencyin Burnsville, WestEagan, St. Paul, and Inver Grove Heights ( and South St. Paul ( and South St. Paul Demographic Information Demographic Thehighest concentrations of minority residents live the in northern and western parts of the study area ( Rates of people with disabilitiesacross the study area are generally withlow, most census blocks having rates of less than 10 rates of those living percent. The highest with disabilit Most of those living in the study area have access to a personal vehicle. Only two census O block groups within the study area (one in West St. Paul and one in South St. Paul) have more than 1.5 driving aged adults per vehicle (M).

Higher concentrations of youth (under age 18) live in Lakeville, Rosemount, Apple Valley, Eagan, West St. Paul, South St. Paul, and Inver Grove Heights (N), while higher concentrations of residents over the age of 65 are found in western Inver Grove Heights, Hastings, Mendota, and Lilydale (O).

Travel Patterns and Destinations Residents of the study area work across the Twin Cities region. Additionally, the study area attracts employees and visitors P from other parts of the Twin Cities. Nearly 130,000 Dakota County residents commute to other counties for employment, while more than 86,000 people from other counties commute to Dakota County for employment (P). A significant number of Dakota County residents (slightly more than 72,000) also work within the county, and over half of those working in Dakota County have a commute that is less than 10 miles (Q). Common places of employment for Dakota County residents include downtown Saint Paul, downtown Minneapolis, Edina, Bloomington, Eagan, and MSP Airport (R).

Q R

18 CHAPTER 3 — STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 19 S T U ). Other T ). Several higher S ). U Brown College Minnesota WorkForce Center Saint Mary’s University Minnesota of Argosy University Rasmussen College Inver Hills Community College Dakota County College Technical Transportation Facilities Interstate 35E, as well as Highway 52, Minnesota MinnesotaMinnesota 55 77, 13, regionalare key corridors that serve the study area. Some study area communities, such as Hastings, South St. and Paul, West St. featurePaul, traditional street grid patterns with connected sidewalk systems ( communities within the study area, such as Burnsville,Apple Valley, and Eagan, feature more suburban style street patterns that are supplemented with a fairly consistent network shared-use of trails, approximately one-mile apart along major thoroughfares. and the MinnesotaMetro Transit Transit Valley Authority (MVTA) operate 35 transit routes throughout the study area. The METRO Red Line a bus is rapid transit (BRT) line that between Avenue operates MN-77/Cedar on the Mall of America in Bloomington and the Station.Apple The Transit Valley METRO Orange line another is BRT line planned within the study area and will operate on Interstate 35W between downtown Minneapolis and Burnsville with a possible extension to Lakeville. An extension of the METRO RedLine Lakevilleto also is planned. Other planned transitways in the study area include the Robert Street Corridor in the northern part of the study area and the Red Rock Corridor between Hastings and downtown Saint Paul ( along Highway 61 Important destinations and regional job and activity centers are more commons the in northern and western part of the study area. percentApproximately of the total number 15 of regional job and activity centers identified by the Metropolitan Council are located withinthe study area ( education or training institutions also are locatedin the study area including: This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 4 Stakeholder Engagement

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 4 Stakeholder Engagement

Purpose and Approach Stakeholder Engagement The East-West Transit Study involved outreach Strategies and coordination with the public (including those that travel within the county for The East-West Transit Study used a wide range work, residence, or play), businesses, civic of strategies to engage the public and gather organizations, and others interested in the input. The specific techniques that were used project. for the East-West Transit Study fall into three primary categories: communications, public A detailed decision-making process, and stakeholder discussions, and committee communication strategy, and potential meetings. All three strategies were utilized stakeholder list was created at the onset throughout the project. of the project. It can be found in the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) within Item 1 of Table 4.1: Public Engagement Strategies Appendix C. The implementation of that plan is detailed below. Stakeholder Engagement Strategies

The goal of the public engagement efforts for 1 Communications the East-West Transit Study was to engage Online engagement (website, email updates) the public and stakeholders in identifying Comment database and evaluating existing and future east- Flyers and handouts west oriented transit needs. The East-West Transit Study catalogued all comments and Public and Stakeholder 2 suggestions and incorporated these into Discussions the project in many ways. Stakeholder input Open houses helped determine corridor extents, was used High activity bus stop outreach to evaluate corridors, and influenced the Targeted outreach meetings corridor recommendations. 3 Committee Meetings Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Policymaker Work Group (PWG)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 2016 2017 APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB

Communications Public and Stakeholders Meetings TAC

Steering Committee Committee Workshops Policymaker Workshop

21 Communications The study employed the following methods DAKOTA COUNTY to facilitate and maintain communications East-West Transit Service Study throughout the course of the project.

Online Engagement Joe Morneau WEBSITE [email protected] (952) 891-7986 The project website was the central location for all project documentation, news, and updates. The website was available in eight DAKOTA COUNTY East-West Transit Service Study languages: English, Spanish, Somali, Hmong, www.dakotaeastwesttransit.com Lao, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Russian. The East-West Transit Study used the project Figure 4.1: East-West Transit Study business website to disseminate information about the cards were distributed to promote the website project, gather feedback, and to host project and inform passerby about the projects documentation. The website was periodically updated throughout the project and utilized Handouts were made throughout the project during public meetings. to inform the public and stakeholders about the project in a concise, graphical PROJECT CONTACT DATABASE AND manner. Handouts were distributed at public EMAIL UPDATES and stakeholder meetings, policymaker Contact information was collected throughout workshops, during bus stop outreach, and at the project from those interested in getting policymaker workshops. updates on the East-West Transit Study. Email addresses were collected on the project DAKOTA COUNTY website and at public events. Email updates East-West Transit Study FACT SHEET were periodically sent to project stakeholders BACKGROUND STUDY OVERVIEW Dakota County currently has Dakota County’s East-West Transit Study to keep them updated on project progress limited transit options on east- will evaluate transportation and transit west corridors throughout the needs and trends within Dakota County county. This makes east-west and adjacent areas. Since there has been travel to and from neighborhoods significant focus on north-south transit and upcoming meetings and events. and activity centers challenging investments in the county, the examination for those traveling via transit. of potential transit improvements on east- Dakota County is undertaking west corridors is a priority of the Dakota the Dakota County East- County Commission. The purpose of West Transit Study to develop this study is to identify and evaluate improved transit options for improved transit options for east-west Comment Database east-west corridors. corridors across Dakota County. DAKOTA COUNTY All comments received through the website, East-West Transit Study

by email, by phone, or at public events were SCHEDULE STUDY AREA recorded and categorized in a comment Review of Develop Analyze Facility Study Area Evaluation and Operations The Study Area is generally the Characteristics Framework Needs east-west corridors in Dakota database that was shared with project team County between 220th Street and northern Dakota County border. The boundaries are Judicial Road on Review and th Analyze Travel the west, 220 Street on the south, Summary of Create Final and Transit members. All comments received throughout the Mississippi River on the east, Related Projects Recommendations Report Demand and Annapolis Street on the north. and Plans The study area is home to many the projects are available in Item 8 of employers, educational and medical institutions, and a mix of residential Launch Public Public and commercial uses. Website: Meetings: Meetings: Appendix C. June 2016 July 2016 October 2016 CONTINUED PUBLIC FEEDBACK PERIOD

www.dakotaeastwesttransit.com Business Cards and Handouts STAY CONNECTEDRevised: 6/9/2016

Dakota County Department Project Website of Transportation www.dakotaeastwesttransit.com Business cards were created for the project 14955 Galaxie Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 /Dakota-County-MN www.co.dakota.mn.us to direct people to the project website to Joseph Morneau Project Manager [email protected] provide input and learn more about the (952) 891-7986 project. These were especially effective while interacting with the public at transit centers Revised: 6/9/2016 or bus stops, where people had limited time available to talk or learn about the project. Project staff distributed 1,000 business cards Figure 4.2: Project handouts were used to throughout the duration of the project. communicate project findings in a concise manner

22 CHAPTER 4 — STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 23 Receive input on the evaluation results for all corridors Understand which corridor(s) interest the public most for and/or which they would pursue to like more transit options. Receive input onstudy goals Solicit public feedback study on key area characteristics Understand existing transit challenges and opportunities OPEN HOUSE ROUND TWO A second round open of houses were held in the middle phase of the study. The purpose of this round engagement of was to: Open House Round 2 had three interactive stations where participants could provide their reactions evaluation to results and indicate which corridors they would ride transit along. Project staff were availableto guide activities and answer questions. The website saw an increase in activity surrounding Open House Round Two. Open House Round had 1 three interactive stations at which participants could learn about the study and provide comments and recommendations. Project staff were available guide to activities and answer questions. An online interactive map was available for people provide to information regarding destinations which to they would travel to like via transit and challenges that currently accessing make transit difficult. . Appendix C OPEN HOUSE ROUND ONE The firstround of open houses were heldin the beginning phases of the East-West Transit TheStudy. purpose of this firstround of Open Houses to: was Open Houses Open Houses The Study East-West conducted Transit two rounds of open houses. The meetings advertisedwere press through releases distributed by Dakota County TAC staff, members, flyers, email notifications, city websites, announcements and media, social at transit stations and on buses. Each round of open houses had both in-person meetings and opportunities for online engagement that mirrored the in-person activities. A full summary the of open house activities, comments, and findingsis available in Item 2 and 3 of Public & Stakeholder Meetings Meetings & Stakeholder Public A primary component of engagement in the StudyEast-West was discussions Transit with the public. All were welcome give to input throughout the study. Approximately 70 people visited the website Higher education institutions in the during the week of the open houses and county expressed that inadequate spent an average of six minutes on the transportation options affect student website, reviewing and understanding the attendance and retention project materials. Most of the discussions from these meetings HIGH-ACTIVITY BUS STOP OUTREACH concurred that extending the geographic reach of transit, including along east-west corridors in the county, would be beneficial to their employees, clients, or students.

Meeting notes from these targeted meetings are available in Item 5 of Appendix C.

Table 4.2: Agencies or Organizations Reached through Targeted Outreach Meetings

Agency or Event

Dakota County Transportation Coordinating The project team conducted additional Collaborative outreach with transit users at four of the Hastings Transportation Option Advisory Board highest-activity bus stops in West St. Paul and South St. Paul during one morning rush hour Inver Hills Community College following the second round of open houses. Independent School District 191 Senior Center The purpose of this activity was to spatially Apple Valley Senior Center Education and balance the results from Open House Round Service Committee 2 and to receive additional feedback on the Living Longer and Stronger Committee evaluated corridors and corridor travel needs. Eagan MarketFest The notes taken by staff from these meetings is available in Item 4 of Appendix C. Rosemount Leprechaun Days Responsible Owners and Managers Association Targeted Outreach Meetings Dakota County Technical College Project staff met with specific stakeholders throughout the county that either requested Uponor a meeting, serve people who are transit Dakota County Employment and Economic dependent, or are a regional destination or Assistance job center (see Table 2 for a complete list). United Technologies Corporation These meetings were conducted to Inver Hills Community College* understand people’s specific needs and how the East-West Transit Study could potentially Dakota County Technical College* (DCTC) address those needs. Through 16 of these Thomson Reuters meetings, the project team learned that there is a wide variation of transit needs throughout *In addition to a discussion on general the county: transportation needs and challenges, the Inver Hills Community College and Dakota County Technical Large corporate campuses with set College targeted stakeholder meetings included schedules desire circulators or express the map activity from Open House Round 1 where service students identified origins, destinations, and Organizations that work with seniors challenges related to transit. These results have discussed the benefit of circulator services been combined with the map results from the other activities as shown in . for these populations Figure 4.3

24 CHAPTER 4 — STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 25 The input provided this in by the TAC workshop was used generate to corridors for evaluation the in next phase of the Study. POLICYMAKER WORKSHOP #2: CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS At the secondpolicymaker workshop, policymakers react to were asked the to corridor evaluation results initial and make to recommendations regarding corridors for further consideration. In conjunction with the in input from the TAC their second workshop, the input provided by the PWG in this workshop was used to generate recommendations for corridors and identify which corridors should be considered further by the service providers. TAC WORKSHOP #2: CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS workshop,At the second membersTAC generated land use and infrastructure recommendations by corridor based on the corridor evaluation results, the results of second round open of houses, and the suggestions from the PWG. In conjunction with the inputfrom the PWG in their second workshop, the input provided this in workshopby the TAC was used to generate recommendations for corridors and identify which corridors should be considered further by the service providers. . The study characteristics area Their local knowledge The findings from previous engagement efforts(open houses,dateto online targetedengagement, stakeholder meetings, and the policymaker workshop) The input provided by the PWG in this workshop was used identify to goals, measures, destinations and key guide to corridor evaluation the in next phase of the Study. TAC WORKSHOP #1: CORRIDOR IDENTIFICATION providedThe input TAC further to the project from both a technical and a local-knowledge standpoint. Although regular meetings occurred them keep to with updated the TAC on the project, there were two workshop- style meetings in which they provided formal input the to project. The first workshop occurredTAC within the mid-August following the firstround of open houses and the first policymaker workshop. In this members workshop, were split TAC into small groups mark-up to a county map with potential corridors for evaluation based on: Committee Workshops Committee In addition public to meetingsand targeted outreachmeetings, regularly scheduled meetings with the projectcommittees were held gather to input from staff and policymakers from municipalities, counties, and transit service providers in and around the study the area (see Background and Context chapter for more details on the committees). project WORKSHOP #1: POLICYMAKER AND TRANSIT NEED GOALSETTING IDENTIFICATION The purpose of the first workshop held with policymakers was discuss to potential project and identifygoals transit needs throughout the county. Summariesthe of policymaker workshops are available in Item 6 and 7 of Appendix C While many of these themes and ideas What We Heard: Themes have been incorporated into the project and Overall Findings and recommendations, some of these themes are applicable outside of this The engagement process for the East-West project. Comprehensive plan updates, other Transit Study was cumulative. Results and transit studies, service improvement plans, findings from each engagement effort station area plans, and other land use or informed the next phase of the project. transportation-related plans can use the Therefore, most of the findings from this information gathered from this study to engagement process have already been create recommendations relative to their discussed and utilized. In addition to helping scope. the project move from one stop to the next, the engagement process resulted in a A compilation of all the destinations and significant collection of comments and ideas challenges noted throughout the project is on which to base recommendations for this shown in Figure 4.3. This figures shows the study and future projects. concentration of locations noted at Open Houses, via the interactive online map, and This section summarizes the key themes by policymakers or at targeted stakeholder heard from all the engagement activities meetings. throughout the duration of the project.

Lake ElmoWest Lakeland Twp. MINNETONKA BLVD INTERSTATE 94 ¨¦§35E INTERSTATE 94 LAKE ST W HIGHWAY 52 694 94 LAKE ST E 36 RAMSEY ¨¦§ ¨¦§ St. Louis Park HIGHWAY 3 7 Minneapolis 37 Public InputLakeland HIGHWAY 7 PARK AVE PARK Maplewood Hopkins 55 Lake St. Croix Beach CONCORD ST N Darker blue indicates a higher 5 St. Paul ¨¦§494

100 S AVE LYNDALE 7TH ST W

50TH ST W St. Marys Point SNELLING AVE S AVE SNELLING

CLEVELAND AVE S AVE CLEVELAND concentration of destinations CEDAR AVE S AVE CEDAR

Lilydale DR WOODBURY MCKNIGHT RD S RD MCKNIGHT

INTERSTATE 35W INTERSTATE Woodbury or challengesS AVE NEAL noted HIGHWAY 169 HIGHWAY 62 HIGHWAYMendota 55 HIGHWAY 61 40TH ST S

BAILEY RD F ROAD COUNTY HIGHWAY 62 62 HIGHWAY 62 DODD RD South St. Paul WASHINGTON HIGHWAY 110 212 66TH ST W 110 Afton ¤£ Edina Newport Richfield 5 Sunfish Lake MILITARY RD

HIGHWAY 77 HIGHWAY

HENNEPIN 100 HIGHWAY 55 INTERSTATE 494 INTERSTATE 494 COUNTY ROAD M 65TH ST S BABCOCK TRL HIGHWAY 61 Eden Prairie Bloomington LONE OAK RD 70TH ST S

INTERSTATE 35W INTERSTATE St. Paul Park 55

YANKEE DOODLE RD 80TH ST E HIGHWAY 52 HIGHWAY

PENN AVE S AVE PENN BARNES AVE 98TH ST W 77

KEATS AVE S AVE KEATS FRANCE AVE S FRANCE AVE ¨¦§35E Inver Grove Heights 169 ¤£61 90TH ST S ¤£ BLVD NORMANDALE ¨¦§35W HIGHWAY 61 OLD SHAKOPEE RD W HIGHWAY 13 E RICH VALLEY BLVD DIFFLEY RD Grey Cloud Island Twp. S AVE MANNING Denmark Twp. Eagan SAINT CROIX TRL S Cottage Grove COUNTY ROAD MM 32 CLIFF RD 110TH ST W 110TH ST S 101 13 HIGHWAY 35 HIGHWAY 13 W 125TH ST W 18 COURTHOUSE BLVD HIGHWAY 10 Burnsville INTERSTATE 35E CEDAR ST COUNTY ROAD 38 132ND ST E ¤£10 Savage 138TH ST E AVE AKRON 140TH ST NE EGAN DR Nininger Twp.

Apple Valley 2ND ST W QQ ROAD COUNTY ROBERT TRL S Rosemount 145TH ST E 55 HIGHWAY 55 Hastings 150TH ST W

42 AVE CLAYTON Prior Lake 18TH ST E HIGHWAY 35 DAKOTA RAVENNA TRL

160TH ST SE 160TH ST W PATH DIAMOND 160TH ST E 160TH ST E RED WING BLVD 162ND ST W Coates SCOTT Vermillion Twp. COATES BLVD

CEDAR AVE CEDAR 170TH ST W

Credit River Twp. Lakeville Ravenna Twp.

LILLEHEI AVE LILLEHEI 316 REVERE WAY AVE TEXAS 185TH ST E 190TH ST E 35 Empire Twp. Vermillion 190TH ST E ¨¦§ RD KNOB PILOT COUNTY 18 BLVD 195TH ST W £52 ¤ ¤£61 200TH ST WFarmington 200TH ST W 200TH ST E NORTHFIELD BLVD Marshan Twp.

210TH ST W AVE GOODWIN

DODD BLVD

212TH ST W AVE JOAN MUSHTOWNRD 215TH ST W

217TH ST E AVE VERNON

ASH ST 220TH ST W 220TH ST E AVE POLK

INTERSTATE 35 NICOLAI AVE NICOLAI 225TH ST E Douglas Twp. New Market Twp. Eureka Twp. Castle Rock Twp. AVE BLAINE Hampton Twp. 230TH ST E 235TH ST W Hampton INGA AVE INGA January 2017 0 52.5 N Miles

Figure 4.3: Destinations and challenges noted through public engagement efforts of the project occur throughout the study area, with the highest concentrations along Yankee Doodle Road and County Road 42.

26 CHAPTER 4 — STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 27 “We could sure use later routes, more weekend accessibility and east-west Several comments were received during Open House Round One regarding traveling within West St. and Inver Paul Grove Heights without downtown to going Saint Paul Online comments during Open House noted that thereRound are few Two options travel to betweenEagan and Inver Grove Heights without travelling through downtown Saint Paul UTC noted that several employees dozen are enrolled at the University of Minnesota for continuing education or express Improved degrees. advanced service Minneapolis to Orange and/or Line extension the to Burnsville Center would be a benefitto them “Thanks for considering a much-needed service for DCTC students and possibly staff” “Need bus service from Eagan High to Station”Cedar Grove Transit “I currently work at Dakota County Our College. studentsTechnical desperately need have to public transportation options out our to site. This really impacts their educational success.” Several people requested increased frequency weekend and/or service for existing routes. Existing Transit Service Modifications East-west cross-town transit service as a compliment existing to service desired is in the north-central part of Dakota County withoutrequiring a transfer in downtown Saint Paul. Academic Connections Academic Colleges and other educational institutions were frequently cited as transit destinations.

During multiple meetings and workshops, and the PWG notedthe that TAC the Fort Snelling Park & Ride a frequent is destination their of constituents During the engagement effort at high- activity bus stops, many people noted that traveling between West St. or Paul South St. and Bloomington Paul time- is The Mall America of consuming today. and the airport were commondestinations for these Route 62, Route 68, and Route 75 transit riders Several online comments mentioned increasing the density or adding transit along County Road 42 “County Road service 42 would facilitate my access Fairview to Clinic in Rosemount, Risen Savior Church, Unwind Yarn Shop, Roasted Restaurant, Pear and Great Harvest Bakery. Thanks for your consideration!” The TAC identifiedTheCounty TAC Road 42 for further Workshop consideration #2 TAC in DCTC students and staff noted transit service highly is desired The public voted for County Road as a 42 corridor they would utilize transit along from Open House Round Two Policymakers identifiedCounty Road 42 for further consideration Policymaker in Workshop #2 Thepublic identified 36 transit destinations along County Round in 42 Open House Round One A need for a direct connection the to METRO Blue Line, and the regional transit connections that it provides, was noted as a process. throughout the engagement desire Connection to the METRO Connection to the METRO Blue Line County Road 42 Road County County Road was 42 identified multiple times in the engagement process. [transit] on Cliff as far as Lexington or at least Pilot Knob, even across on the Red Appendix Items Line. Diffley further too!” Item 1: Public Involvement Plan “I would like to think that at some point Item 2: Public Engagement Round 1 in time a return to more frequent 420 Summary availability and, perhaps, weekend service Item 3: Public Engagement Round 2 may be justified to some extent.” Summary “I need weekend busing on weekends for Item 4: Meeting Notes and Comment route 442 from Apple Valley to the FedEx Forms from High-Activity Bus Stop on Aldrich near Burnsville Center” Outreach Item 5: Meeting Notes and Takeaway Summary from Targeted Stakeholder Outreach Meetings Item 6: Policymaker Workshop 1 Summary Item 7: Policymaker Workshop 2 Summary Item 8: Comment Database

28 CHAPTER 5 Evaluation Framework

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 5 Evaluation Framework

Goals and measures were developed based Introduction on previous county transportation plans and studies and refined based on input from the A set of project goals and evaluation policymaker workgroup (PWG), the TAC, the measures was created to assess and prioritize Steering Committee, and the public. the east-west corridors identified by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The evaluation measures defined are quantitative Goals and Measures and provide direction on which corridors may The goals and measures for the East-West be best suited for further consideration of Transit Study are presented in Table 5.1. new or improved transit service.

Table 5.1: East-West Transit Study Goals and Measures

Measures Datasets

Goal 1: Identify east-west corridors that improve mobility for transit 1 dependent populations

Low-income population prevalence 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Vehicle availability estimates Low-wage job proximity 2014 ACS 5-year estimates Disabled population prevalence 2010 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Data (compiled by the Metropolitan Council 2014 ACS 5-year estimates

Goal 2: Identify east-west corridors that are cost-effective and 2 efficient

Operational costs This goal was deferred in this study and will be Capital costs measured by service providers for the corridors given further consideration

Goal 3: Identify east-west corridors that maximize regional transit 3 connectivity

Transitway connections 2040 Transportation Policy Plan Current Revenue Local transit route connections Transitways Metro Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) route data

29 Measures Datasets

4 Goal 4: Identify east-west corridors that maximize transit ridership

Existing population density (2010) 2010 Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) data Forecasted population density 2040 TAZ projections (2040) 2010 TAZ data Existing job density (2010) 2040 TAZ projection Forecasted job density (2040) NCompass Technologies Street Centerline data Intersection density

Goal 5: Identify east-west corridors that respond to present and 5 future travel patterns

Daily trips by all modes INRIX travel data Daily trips by transit On-Board Survey Potential daily transit trips by INRIX, Home Interview Survey corridor residents Potential daily transit trips by corridor workers and visitors

Goal 6: Identify east-west corridors that are supported by existing 6 and planned land use

Current transit-supportive land use 2010 Generalized Land Use from the Metropolitan prevalence Council Planned transit-supportive land use 2030 Generalized Planned Land Use from the prevalence (2030) Metropolitan Council Current building-to-parcel ratio 2015 Dakota County, Hennepin County, and Scott County parcel data

Goal 7: Identify east-west corridors that improve access to 7 employment, institutions, and services

Regional activity and job center Activity centers defined by the Metropolitan Council connections Institutions identified by engagement findings and local Key institution connections research Opportunities for last-mile Activity centers defined by the Metropolitan Council connections

30 CHAPTER 5 — EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 31 County sidewalk and/or trail data Aerial images Dakota County,2016 Hennepin County, and Scott Datasets Goal 8: Identify east-west corridors that incorporate safe, convenient, safe, convenient, 8: IdentifyGoal incorporate east-west that corridors and multimodal access and facilities Sidewalk and trail density coverage trail and Sidewalk Crossing opportunities per mile 8 Measures For more detailed information on the evaluation framework, includingthe specific ways in which each the of evaluation measures were calculated, please see the Evaluation Memo.Framework This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 6 Travel Demand Analysis

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 6 Travel Demand Analysis

Year 2014 Longitudinal Employer- Introduction Household Dynamics (LEHD) Evaluation of the travel demand potential for ¼¼ Includes 1,743,166 home to work trips east-west corridors in Dakota County was ¼¼ Organized by census block group performed using a variety of survey and GPS- based data sources in order to assess current Additional Data Sources Information travel patterns within the study area. The intent of the travel demand analysis was to The Year 2010 Home Interview Survey and understand at a high level the travel market Year 2010 Transit On-Board Survey are in each corridor as a basis for comparison, conducted by the Metropolitan Council and not to establish ridership forecasts for future cover the Twin Cities region. transit service as that was beyond the scope The Home Interview Survey is a of this study. consolidated set of trip diaries collected from a sample of the Twin Cities Data Sources population. The selected datasets are based on current, The 2010 Transit On-Board Survey includes observed travel in the Twin Cities region. a sample of trips taken on fixed-route transit in the region. The datasets have some significant overlap regarding the types of trips being described. The Year 2015 INRIX data is a third party This allows the analysis to include more dataset purchased by MnDOT and includes than one independent data source, which full path information for trips. strengthens the confidence in the results. The data sources used include: Analysis Methodology Year 2010 Home Interview Survey (HIS) The evaluation was conducted per the ¼¼ Includes 79,236 observed trips within following procedure: the region Preliminary investigations were conducted ¼¼ Data includes trip purpose, mode, and related to workers by work location, time worker trip flows, desire lines related to Year 2015 INRIX Trip Data home-based work trip flows and total trip flows, location of trip origins, transit trip ¼¼ Includes 2,596,977 passenger vehicle trip observations within the region desire lines, major auto trip desire lines, and desire lines to the rest of the region ¼¼ Information was collected from GPS- enabled devices Flow maps and several other measures were used as inputs into the selection of Year 2010 Transit On-Board Survey an initial set of 16 east-west corridors ¼¼ Survey of approximately 9 percent of all Trip ends were defined for each corridor, transit trips taken as part of the Travel as well as for trips ends with one mile of Behavior Inventory existing transit service (the transit service ¼¼ Data includes information about area) using trip end information from the boarding and alighting locations, trip INRIX, HIS, and on-board survey data purpose, and other trip details such as ingress and egress modes

33 Trip observations and expanded trips Potential transit trips by corridor residents (where available) were summed to (corridor productions) represent the following travel markets: Including minor adjustments using INRIX ¼¼ Trips entirely within each corridor data ¼¼ Trips starting in each corridor and Potential transit trips by corridor workers destined for an area that is within the and visitors (corridor attractions) regional transit service area Including minor adjustments using INRIX ¼¼ Trips starting in each corridor and data destined to the entire region (all trips from each corridor) Year 2015 INRIX Data ¼¼ Trips starting in the regional transit In the fall of 2015, MnDOT purchased a large service area and destined for each dataset from INRIX—a third party supplier corridor of travel data. This data is collected from a ¼¼ Trips destined for each corridor, sample of GPS-enabled devices on vehicles. regardless of origin (all trips to each The dataset was collected from all sampled corridor) vehicles for a three-month timeframe that included September-November of 2015. Data Application The sample is much larger than HIS data and Year 2010 Home Interview Survey includes approximately 288,000 observations The HIS dataset was summarized for all of trips that started within the study area home-based trips, including trips made by and 286,000 observations of trips that ended corridor residents (productions) as well as within the study area. Although the dataset trips made to the corridor from residents includes a large number of observations, living outside the corridor (attractions). the data can only be used to make relative Productions from each corridor draw on comparison because no expansion factors data from 1,032 surveyed households within are available to convert observations to total the study area. Attractions to the corridor trip estimates. are based on data from 10,362 surveyed households around the entire region. For the purposes of this study, absolute trip numbers are not necessary, and the INRIX Given the small sample size for a regional data provides a method to estimate the database (the survey covers 0.75 percent of relative number of trips that currently begin the region’s population), for very small areas and end within each corridor. INRIX data was the sample may not be representative of the therefore used for the following evaluation population. For all home-based trips, each measure: corridor typically included several hundred observations, allowing for a reasonable Daily trips per day beginning and ending estimate for corridor trip productions and within a half-mile of each corridor (relative attractions. For trips to and from transit- comparison) accessible destinations (trip end within the transit service area), some corridors included Year 2010 Transit On-Board Survey less than one hundred observations. Given this sample size, INRIX data was used to The on-board survey included 963 observed perform small corrections to the percentage origins and 644 observed destinations within of all home-based trips to and from transit- the study area. Although expansion factors accessible areas. The HIS data was therefore can be used to estimate total trips based on used for the following evaluation measures: observations, most corridors included very few observations (less than 10) of the number of intra-corridor transit trips (transit trips that

34 CHAPTER 6 — TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS 35 Transit trips per day beginningTransit and ending withina half-mile of the corridor Year 2014 Longitudinal Employer- Year 2014 Longitudinal Household Dynamics The LEHD dataset not is a sample, but rather an inventory all of workers in the region. At the level, zone it therefore is relatively accurate with regard location to both of home and work. It does not include mode and focusesinformation, exclusively however, on work trips. For this analysis, LEHD data was not used as an evaluation measure, but was used as an input the to development of initial desire line maps that were used assistto with corridor initial corridor identification. begin and end within each corridor). Given this limited number of observations, using the data the in studyarea has a high degree of uncertainty. Although trips are reported per the acre intra-corridor for eachcorridor, transit tripsshould be used for relative comparison only given the high degree of uncertainty. The On-Board survey was used for the following evaluation measure: This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 7 Corridor Evaluation

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 7 Corridor Evaluation

on the length of the route or area contained Introduction within the buffer to compare corridors of varying lengths more effectively. The goals and measures for this study were developed based on previous county For each measure, corridors received a score transportation plans and studies and of one, two, three, four, or five. This score was refined based on input from Dakota County determined based upon the best and worst staff, policymakers, the Technical Advisory performing corridors for the measure, with Committee (TAC), the Steering Committee, four equal breakpoints established within this and the public. Additional information on the range. The score for the remaining corridors study goals and measures can be found in the for each measure were then determined Evaluation Framework Technical Memo. based upon their performance compared to these breakpoints. The TAC identified the following corridors for evaluation: The measures for each goal were then averaged into a single goal score, assuming Butler Avenue (CSAH 4) equal weighting for each measure. The scores Wentworth Avenue (CSAH 8) for each of the goals were then combined into MN-110 an overall score for each corridor. Lone Oak Road (CSAH 26) Upon review of the initial scoring system, Yankee Doodle Road (CSAH 28) members of the TAC determined that Butler Avenue (CSAH 4) and Wentworth Avenue Diffley Road (CSAH 30) (CSAH 8)—two corridors that are more urban Cliff Road (CSAH 32) in nature as compared to the suburban McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) development pattern that prevails in the other corridors—were often outliers and 140th Street/Connemara Trail tended to skew the evaluation results. To County Road 42 address this, the TAC decided to disallow County Road 46 either of these corridors from setting the high or low scores for the scoring range. 185th/195th Streets (CSAH 60/64) 215th/212th Streets (CSAH 70/50) Corridor Segmentation MN-13 After reviewing the initial corridor evaluation results, TAC members and project staff MN-55 suggested evaluating revised extents for several corridors that served both transit- Scoring supportive and non-transit-supportive areas. In some cases, it was anticipated that The corridors identified by the TAC were shortened corridors with more concentrated evaluated using the evaluation measures service in higher density areas may perform documented in the Evaluation Framework better than longer corridors that extend Memo. A buffer area of ½ mile around each into low density areas. 25 unique corridor proposed route was assumed for evaluation, segments were evaluated. These segments since service planning of an exact route was included: not included in this study. Additionally, results for each measure were normalized based

37 A: Butler Avenue between Delaware I: 140th Street/Connemara Trail between Avenue and Concord Street Cedar Avenue and Akron Avenue B: Wentworth Avenue between Dodd J-1: County Road 42 between MN-13 and Road and Southview Boulevard Vermillion Street C: MN-110 between Fort Snelling Station J-2: County Road 42 between MN-13 and and Concord Street Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) D-1: Lone Oak Road between MN-13 and J-3: County Road 42 between Mystic Lake Concord Street Drive and DCTC D-2: Lone Oak Road between MN-13 and K-1: County Road 46 between Kenwood Argenta Trail Trail and Vermillion Street E-1: Yankee Doodle Road between MN-13 K-2: County Road 46 between Kenwood and Lone Oak Road Trail and Robert Trail E-2: Yankee Doodle Road between MN-13 L: 185th/195 Streets between I-35 and and Inver Hills Community College (IHCC) Chippendale Avenue F: Diffley Road between MN-13 and M: 215th/212th Streets between I-35 and Robert Trail Chippendale Avenue G-1: Cliff Road between I-35W and MN-55 N-1: MN-13 between Country Road 42 and G-2: Cliff Road between I-35W and Pilot MN-110 Knob Road N-2: MN-13 between the Marschall Road G-3: Cliff Road between I-35W and I-35E Park & Ride and MN-110

0 A OUNT COUNTY ROAD C E

0 C Y O D C W BAYPORT N R N A ST N

S ROBBINSDALE1 ST. LITTLE MN-13 between Country RoadH 42 and 9 N-3: E N MEDINA CRYSTAL R H 7T Y E 6 BAYPORT 6 LOWRY AVE N HIGHWNORTHAY 3 4

McAndrews D Road betweenI ANTHONY CountyROSEVILLE CANADA A HIGHWAY 36 W

H-1: 1 D

N NEW HOPE V TH ST N N 40 N

S ST. PAUL L

Y G

W B L S BAYTOWNN

A T

A R

A T R PLYMOUTH H H

L MAPLEWOODCedar Avenue E S

FROST AVE E LAUDERDALEH T O

I 34TH ST N A T W N

AD 6 G G S ILLW TWP. T V G U O H ORoadNTY R 5 andMEDICINE Akron I Avenue I C N

H H G

A U H T

GOLDEN N T

PENNAVE N N W N H LAKE 6 E

G 2

A C

O FALCON C

LAKEY I E

A N V

E N

ORONO 5 VALLEY V W GENEVAN AVE D A

5 E H R E A V ELMO

H WINNETKAAVE N HEIGHTS D

A E O O N O: MN-55 betweenA Fort Snelling StationIN E ST

H I E WEST V YLAND AV E R Y

W G MAR

G DALEST N G I AY1 R C I S H 2 X

McAndrews Road between CountyN

H-2: 2

E A

H T N

E RICE ST LAKELAND T

V 8

E OD

L G

W D

R E WAYZATA 0

A L B A

R O

10TH ST N V TWP. A L RAMSEY T

E and Vermillion Street H

X S OAKG

N Y

IA W N Road 5 and Pilot Knob0 Road T OAKDALE

L N I

1 W S N 0 ST. PAUL LAKELAND

S A

N 6 A H

WOODLAND I A ST. LOUIS T L LANDFALL 9 ARN E K

Y SHORES

T E W T MINNEAPOLIS S W R A

D R N P

S A H R R

MIN LVD PARK G B D

KA A D LAKELAND O N N E

E W O

TO H R SH C

H A

DEEPHAVEN P H I O A

G I

V T O

G E I H D D

H LAKE ST.

S W A

Y RANDOLPH AVE

H A S R S AVE

YNDALES AVE G

HOPKINS I

7 R

O CROIX E D Y C MINNETONKA LV N H

7 A W

B 6 K T Y R BEACH

A K 35ET LILYDALE R 1 55 S C H L G W CEDA HI O H A L AV

I R D S M S T WEST A L D HENNEPIN 7 R WOODBURY AFTON EX C E E SHOREWOOD D 2 ST. N

D HWAY 6 IG D FRANCEAVE R H 62 BPAUL EDINA O BAILEY RD 40TH ST S R S D H SOUTH M E FORT IL E MENDOTA I D G I K T

R V 110 ST. PAUL AR Y H Y A SNELLING E

A C I

S R H

O WASHINGTON B RICHFIELD MENDOTA W

R SUNFISH D

I E I N (UNORG.) R G 5

A A V

N CHANHASSEN S HEIGHTS

E LAKE

H Y WOODBURYDR

K A NEWPORT R W E

T E P W

S 5 78T H D P 494

V 2 S

5 R A

N H 169 A 65TH ST S E

Y A E

E S

K T ST. PAULS V D 7 T V EDEN E

9 A E

A 312 E 70TH ST S L L I

V 6 L 7 N

PARK MANNINGAVE S 35W B S 1 L D-2 G PRAIRIE A D-1 H

S T

S Y L O D A A TR N INVER

A R U C V R GREY CLOUD E E I E E B O

77 K

W BLOOMINGTON GROVE O T O N 212 N E-1 E-2 ISLAND TWP. I H N-1 C P D S CARVER R G HEIGHTS N F D R L IG EAGAN N O FLYIN UD I 90TH ST S D G CLO C R H COTTAGE N A W X R IC T

D E O DENMARK O R L H 55 I E X R E GROVE I OLD SHAKOP V T Y A

A TWP. O GREY CLOUD T L V F R N L

O COUNTY E E ISLAND TWP. C U Y N R 3 T O O 1 F R 110TH ST S C CLIF D 110TH ST W B N

A I N M Y 32 D A G-2 G-1 L 61 I V A SHAKOPEE 1 HW A

101 01 IG D S R N-2 WAY 13 W H D H HIGHWA 5 S EA R Y 3

JACKSONC G G

E I LE B H C N-3 S

V R H DR TWP. E L O E L A K BURNSVILLE A BLVD CO L H-1 C H C D R R ST L M N O IG CEDA E I T

L SAVAGE K AKRONAVE U A ND S 10H E R 32 T E W KOEPER AVE 1 N 18 A

M T I O JACKSONR T T V H Y L H-2 R 1 D O

O O 0 A NININGER TWP. APPLE L E U N S 140TH ST NE N B ROSEMOUNT

S S

A G PI E

BL N

J-3 TWP. T W I VD T O D H VALLEY E 55 A L O 145TH ST STINGS TRL 3 R O E LOUISVILLE O I T E 1 P J-1 N 42 L

35TH A V K 50TH ST W A HASTINGS 1 L

Y A D T TWP. A D I RA A V

W J-2 H E

H ST PRIORNW H M N 154T L N

IG R LAKE H B E A SPRING 160TH ST W RA 160TH ST E E R T 2ND R V R LVD 16 ST W K-2 46 NCOATESD K-1 D L B D EL LAKE TWP. E C

K O RED WING BLVD A 170TH ST W A SPRING L T D JORGENAVE Y BASELINEAVE LV K E B LAKE TWP. H E S

E D LANGFOR D P N C V RAVENNA

V B R EMPIRE L L W

A A U L B SAND V TWP. TWP. Y E M O D D X N CREDIT C T V L CREEK R OLAKEVILLE 52 A MARSHAN E AVE ON IE 190TH ST E D

W VERMILLION D E O RIVERTR L R F I E A SCOTTR D I V

TWP.N E W H TWP. L 195TH ST

T H R DAKOTA T E

N TWP. R R R

V I SPRING V B L 200TH ST E C O

V A W L S A V FI

A N I 2 JOANAVE E F D 02ND ST W VERMILLION LAKE TWP. O 205TH ST E ST W E N 205TH

E TWP. H

V NICOLAIAVE

210TH ST W 210TH ST E E

S N

A L

212TH ST W E

U R L I

215TH ST W FARMINGTONV D

E M L M

V 61

220 ST E ASH ST 220TH ST W K

O T H F 225TH ST E R

G 35 N

OODWINAVE 230TH ST E

DAR AVE

AAVE A

P N AVEE L NEW G

V I

L 235TH ST W E CE HAMPTON

L D NEW MARKET ING

S A MIESVILLE

Z L 240TH ST E HIGHWAY 61 BLVD

B W V E TRIER TWP. V BLAIN U L E

H 245TH ST E

HELENA E R B D

E V

CEDAR C

NO V

V Y T EUREKA A CASTLE HAMPTON D L

250TH ST E 250TH ST W E

A G

TWP. LAKE A A R E Corridor Segments Evaluated V Figure 7.1: D V TWP.A O DOUGLAS

S ROCK TWP. TWP.

N L SB A E L ELKO NEW O 255TH ST W AVE C L

TWP. A A H D Y TWP.L

X MARKET 260TH ST E D E A E

E S ORLANDOAVE

I F

E V

N T T E A E R C ELKO NEW A

N L

NELL O

267TH ST W P U

V N

B E EMERYAVE P

N O

HOGAN AVE

MARKET E I L T V A

O N

Y H

PANAMAAVE D

N 7

C BISCAYNEAVE A B C IC

280TH ST E 280TH ST W L

M V ZACHARYAVE WATERFORD SCIOTA RANDOLPH TWP. GREENVALE TWP. D 38 TWP. TWP. RANDOLPH November 2016 N 0 2.5 5 Miles Evaluated Corridors CHAPTER 7 — CORRIDOR EVALUATION 39 Identify east-west corridors that improve access to employment, institutions, and services Identify east-west corridors Identify east-west to travel that respond patterns Identify east-west corridors that are supported by existing and planned land use

7 5 6 Goal Goal Goal Several corridors scored high on Goal 6, Doodle Roadincluding between Yankee and Lone Oak Road, County RoadMN-13 42 DCTC,and betweenCliff Road betweenMN-13 I-35W Doodle and Road I-35E, Yankee and and IHCC, CliffbetweenRoad MN-13 between I-35W and Pilot Knob Road. These corridors scored well on all three measures for Goal 6. The percent of land planned to be transit-supportive and the building-to- parcel ratio were the primary differentiators between the remaining corridors. LoneNo corridor Oak scored high on Goal 7. and andRoad Argenta between Trail MN-13 Doodle and Road betweenYankee MN-13 Lone Oak Road performed well on regional activity and job centers per acre and key institutions per acre, achieving a medium- high rating for Goal 7. serve either areas with high job density or areas with high population density, but not both. Corridors that scored highest were typically those that are well-connected and scored well on intersection density addition in eitherto job density orpopulation density. The County Road corridor 42 between MN- and DCTC was the13 only corridor score to high on Goal 5, performing well on all four measures. For the remaining corridors, potential transit trips by corridor residents per acre and potential transit trips by corridor visitors and workers per acre were typically the differentiators. key . Identify east-west corridors that maximize transit ridership Identify east-west corridors Identify east-west corridors that maximize regional transit connectivity Identify east-west corridors Identify east-west corridors that are cost-effective and efficient Identify east-west corridors Identify east-west mobility for that improve populations transit dependent

4 3 2 1 Goal Goal Goal Goal No corridor scored high on Goal 4. Results suggest that the selected corridors tend to The CliffRoad corridor between andI-35W I-35E and the Butler Avenue corridor scored high on Goal 3. Overall, the number of transit trip connections per mile served as the key differentiator within this Goal as verylittle variation was observed the in number of transitway connections between the various corridors. Without planning-level transit service plans, cost estimates and ridership forecasts cannot be reliably estimated. Efficiency of service and cost-effectives will be measured by transit service providers in the future, using, in part, the results of this analysis identify to the post promising corridors. The MN-110 and Wentworth Avenue corridorsThe MN-110 Bothscored high corridors on Goal 1. performed well on all four Goal 1 measures. Corridors that performed the in medium tendedrange score to well on the measures for people with low incomes per acre and people with disabilities per acre but often had higher vehicle availability and serve fewer low-wage job concentrations. Goal Summaries Goal Brief summaries of the evaluation results by goal are provided For below. more details on the corridor evaluation results and how corridors performed oneach evaluation measure, refer the to Corridor Evaluation Memo Technical Identify east-west corridors Corridor Evaluation Summary Goal 8 that incorporate safe, No corridors scored high across all goals. convenient, and multimodal However, based on an average of all goals, the access and facilities following corridors scored medium-high:

The 140th Street/Connemara Trail corridor Butler Avenue scored well on all three measures for Goal Yankee Doodle Road between MN-13 and 8. The measures with the most variability Lone Oak Road among corridors were sidewalk and trail density and sidewalk and trail coverage. Cliff Road between I-35W and I-35E The corridors that had very few crossing County Road 42 between MN-13 and opportunities per mile typically scored the DCTC lowest for this goal. The scores for each of the corridor segments by goal and the overall score for each corridor are shown in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2: Corridor Evaluation Results by Corridor Segment

40 CHAPTER 8 Recommendations

Dakota County East-West Transit Study

CHAPTER 8 Recommendations

Introduction With the results of the corridor evaluation, the project team held two workshops to begin making recommendations for the east-west corridors studied as part of the project. One workshop was held with policymakers, and another was with the project Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). This chapter includes an overview of the recommendations developed and discussed by these project team members.

In general, many corridors would benefit from additional transit-supportive land use and development patterns. To make east- west corridors more transit-supportive, it is recommended that jurisdictions promote development adjacent to the roadway that incorporates both transit- supportive residences and destinations. These developments could include higher density residential as well as institutional and commercial developments that provide employment, shopping, education, and commerce.

Several corridors would also benefit use patterns already in place, and therefore from additional or improved pedestrian warrant further consideration for new or infrastructure to allow for safe and modified transit service in the near term. convenient access to transit. New or improved pedestrian crossings, additional sidewalk Recommendations for coverage along key corridors, and improved All Corridors sidewalk coverage connecting to existing or proposed transit stops are needed in many Successful transit routes are typically those areas to improve pedestrian access. which serve regions with higher employment, residential, and commercial density, with Each corridor has a unique set of a variety of destinations and land uses, opportunities and challenges with regard connected by robust pedestrian and bicycle to transit potential. Corridor-specific network that provides comfortable and recommendations therefore focus on convenient access to and from transit land use, development, and infrastructure stations. These considerations are especially improvements that would benefit each critical in a suburban context where decades individual corridor. Based on a planning-level of designing for automobiles has made evaluation process, several corridors have connections by bike and walking more many transit-supportive features or land challenging.

41 There are several land use, policy, and design Promote Corridor Transit-Supportive best practices that can be employed by Development Policy developers, cities, and counties throughout the study area to better support transit in a Once sites have been identified and suburban context. prescribed for specific land uses, there are policy mechanisms that cities can employ to Review Planned Land Uses in promote transit-supportive development. Transit Corridors Examples of such policies include: One of the most important steps that cities Prescribe maximum lot sizes to increase can take to support transit is to review land density uses planned for existing and planned transit Reduce or eliminate off-street parking corridors. The upcoming required updates to requirements local comprehensive plans within the study area offers communities the opportunity Encourage shared parking arrangements to evaluate and, if needed, modify planned between land uses, especially when the future land uses along specific corridors peak parking demand times between in order to guide transit-supportive adjacent land uses are offset development patterns. Create zoning overlay districts to require density or other transit-supportive While corridor land uses will be driven characteristics in part by site constraints and market dynamics, communities desiring improved Implement form-based zoning along transit service should strive for clusters of transit corridors to establish a cohesive development that blend residential, retail, built environment and physical form that commercial, and industrial destinations supports convenient access to transit that offer a variety of employment, housing, Offer financial, schedule, or other cultural, and other amenities. incentives such as increased density allowances in exchange for additional affordable housing, investments in public space improvements or pedestrian and bicycle amenities, or the protection of environmental and historical resources

Figure 8.2: Shared parking at Heart of the City in Burnsville

Figure 8.1: Future land use map, Central Park Commons, Eagan

42 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 43

Building entrances adjacent the to On-street bicycle facilities, such as bike lanes, or off-street shared-use paths Wide sidewalks of at least 8-feet with a landscaped buffer between pedestrians and traffic Street trees, benches, trash cans, transit stops and shelters, and other amenities to travelingmake on foot more comfortable High visibility marked crosswalks, signage, and signals draw to attention to pedestrians at crossing locations Pedestrian refuge islands, curb extensions, reduced turning radii, and other features that shorten crossing distances and moderate traffic speeds at intersectionkey and crossing locations Create Inviting Streetscapes Create Inviting Streetscapes Orientation buildings of and relocating parking lots can create a more inviting streetscape for pedestrians and bicyclists connecting and to from transit service. Additional elements that may improve multimodal access transit to include: Figure 8.4: Figure street allows pedestrian convenient for access, shown here at Heart of the City in Burnsville and Travelways Large surface parking lots result in Require ample bicycleRequire parking near entrances building Provide direct and comfortable walkways from the street building to entrances, includingsafe and highly visible facilities to cross access driveways and parkingareas Restricting off-street parkingin front yard setback areas, thereby directing parking beto placed behind or on the side of buildings and improving the aesthetic streetscape experience for pedestrians Creating building entrances that are visible and oriented toward the street, permitting pedestrians and bicyclists access convenient Figure 8.3: long, building entrances to access meandering as shown along County Road 42 in Burnsville Promote Corridor Transit-Supportive Transit-Supportive Corridor Promote Site Design Guiding transit-supportive land uses on a given site only is part the of process. Designing buildings, parking, circulation, and access that prioritize pedestrians essentialis for transit be to successful. Communities should work with developers and transit service providers on a thorough and comprehensive site planning and design review process configure to buildings and parking a manner in that prioritizes access. pedestrian Some examples of site-specific design include: guidance Cultivate and Leverage Partnerships Figure 8.5: Mid-block crossing in Oregon in Reviewing and Approving Development Plans Cities and counties should collaborate with developers, residents, neighborhood and business organizations, and transit providers to review and collaborate on development proposals. Collaboration leads to creative co.washington.or.us solutions and stakeholder support and buy- in, increasing the likelihood of project success. Figure 8.6: Site planning and positioning of land uses Implementation Responsibility Each agency typically has the authority to at least one component of these recommendations, but partnerships will be necessary to achieve these goals. Each high- level recommendation is shown in Table 8.1 with a check mark indicating the agency (or agencies) that must be involved to implement the recommendation.

Table 8.1: Recommendation implementation by responsible agency

Service Recommendation For All Corridors City County MnDOT Provider

Review Planned Land Uses in Transit Corridors ✓

Promote Corridor Transit-Supportive ✓ Development Policy

Promote Corridor Transit-Supportive Site Design ✓

Create Inviting Streetscapes and Travelways ✓ ✓

Cultivate and Leverage Partnerships in Reviewing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ and Approving Development Plans

44 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 45 ↪

Cliff Road County Road 42 County Road 46 Streets 185th/195th Streets 215th/212th MN-55 MN-13 ␡ Categorizationof corridor Connemara Trail Connemara Wentworth Avenue MN-110 Road Doodle Yankee Butler Avenue Lone Oak Road Diffley Road McAndrews Road Street/ 140th Further Consideration Further Consideration Not This at Time Table 8.2:Table recommendations . Corridors recommended for for recommended Corridors Corridor Recommendations Recommendations Corridor Overview After reviewing the corridor evaluation results the(see Corridor Evaluation and Memo) considering local knowledge and input from the public, the PWG, the TAC, and the Steering Committee all made recommendations as to which corridors should be consideredfurther by the service providers for new local, fixed- route bus service or flexroute service. Based on the recommendations the of committees, the corridors were placed into two categories 8.2 as shown Table in Figure 8.7: further consideration Development Of Recommendations Performance on Evaluation Measures. Did the corridor perform well based No single characteristic determined whether on the project goals and evaluation a corridor was recommended to advance for measures? further consideration. Instead, several factors were considered including: Public Input. Did the public indicate a desire for more transit along this corridor? Key Destinations. Are there many Did any of the formal committees (TAC, local, regional, or transit-supportive Steering Committee, or PWG) request destinations in the corridor today? Are further consideration? there significant transit-supportive Transit Constraints or Issues. Are there developments confirmed for the corridor? land use or infrastructure constraints that Existing Transit and Transitway may pose significant challenges moving Service. What transit exists along the forward? corridor today? Is this service adequate for the land uses, destinations, and travel patterns observed? Are there existing or future transitways that the corridor would connect?

Key If few destinations, Destinations then not at this time

Existing Transit If adequate service, and Transit then not at this time Service

Performance If poor score, on Evaluation then not at this time Measures

If no need described, Public Input then not at this time

Transit If land use/infrastructure Constraints or constraints issues exist, Issues then not at this time

46 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 47 ↪ ↪ Regional Destinations Arethere large, regional employers or destinations in the corridor that warrant east-west transit? ↪ ↪ ↪ ↪ Local Local Destinations Arethere many employers,smaller a mix of land uses, and other transit- supportive local destinations? In addition these to three characteristics, key the fivecorridors recommended for further consideration also have intermittent transit- supportive land-uses andat least moderate walkability. The corridors all scored well on the evaluation measures, indicating that they may be among the strongest candidates for transit service the of The evaluated corridor. specifics of eachcorridor relative to itskey destinations, current service patterns, land use and infrastructure recommendations are detailed on the following pages. It should be noted that these recommendations are based on an evaluation amongst the candidate corridors in Dakota County without budget, operating, or capital constraints. Corridors recommended for further consideration will be evaluated through each transit agency’s established review process which will be a system- wide comparison and may include different evaluation measures. ↪ ↪ ↪ Transitway Connections Does the corridor create a connection with a current or planned transitway? CliffRoad County Road 42 Wentworth Avenue MN-110 Doodle Road Yankee 4 5 1 2 3 Make transitwayMake connections Serve local destinations Have regional destinations or movements County Road 42 Yankee Doodle Road Doodle Yankee Cliff Road CORRIDOR Wentworth Avenue MN-110 Both the Policymaker Work Group (PWG) Advisoryand the Technical Committee (TAC) indicated that these corridors should be considered further because more-so they, than other corridors considered in this study, have many of the following characteristics that are conducive transit to or fill a mobility need: Corridors Recommended for Further Consideration for Further Recommended Corridors Five corridors are recommended for further consideration: This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 49

this Who Public identified identified Committees Committees (Open House) (Open Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? . ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Smaller employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. Local Destination travels Thompson on between Avenue Robert covering Avenue, Street and 12th travels on Thompson Avenue between Robert of Street and Wentworth Avenue, Route 68Route 1.3 miles over 31 trips per day 75Route tripscovering 1 mile per over 15 day RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED Target West St. Paul Sports Complex Wentworth Library Southview Mall South St. Paul Farmers Market Downtown South St. businesses Paul Dodge Nature Center ↪ Key Destinations Several other routes intersect Wentworth Avenue and 8.8 are shown Figure in Existing Transit Along Corridor There are two transit routes that provide service near Wentworth Avenue today. Wentworth Avenue (CSAH 8) (CSAH Avenue Wentworth Criteria Scoring Evaluation The Wentworth Avenuecorridor scored medium overall, ranking 5th 25 of evaluated corridor segments. Its worst scorewas on Goal 7 (improve access employment, to institutions, and services). Figure 8.8: Existing local transit routes on or near Wentworth Avenue

Land Use and Development Recommendations The Wentworth Avenue corridor is largely residential, with retail and commercial concentrations at Robert Street, which bisects the corridor. Any future development along this corridor is likely to occur at Robert Street. Consider multifamily or another more intense development at this intersection in order to increase density and potentially improve its access to employment, institutions, or services.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Mendota Heights use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of West St. Paul for more specifics on implementation. These ¼¼ City of South St. Paul recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

50 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 51 Dakota County Cities Metro Transit ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION development plans development travelwaysand infrastructure Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transit supportive Many transit-dependent residents Severaltransit connections Existing and forecasted population density High intersection density CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Further Consideration The corridor served is today by transit routes on Thompson Avenue. Further consideration is recommended for increasing the frequency those of routes. The corridor has several transit- supportive characteristics, including: Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Thecities along the Wentworth Avenue corridor could improve conditions for transit users by extending sidewalks on both sides of Wentworth Avenue along the length the of Constructingcorridor. complete a sidewalk network around the corridor and adding crossing opportunities would also improve access transit, to especially on the westernend the of corridor. The City Westof St. has indicated Paul that trail a being is built between Delaware Avenue and Livingston Avenue. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 53 this Who House) over 15 identified identified Committees Committees Public (Open Public (Open Committees, Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? . The METRO Blue 1.0 mile 1.0 2.0 miles over 2 trips per day ✓ ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Smaller employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. Local Destination travels between MN-55 and Dodd Road, covering travels between and Dodd Delaware Avenue Road, covering Route 446Route Route 68 travels on Southview Boulevard between Avenue and Oakdale 2nd Avenue S, covering nearly 2 miles over 104 trips per day 75Route trips per day RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED Mendota Plaza Neighbors, Inc. Fort Snelling Park & Ride (with connection via the METRO Blue Line to the airport and the Mall of America) Retail government & & offices near MN-110 Mendota Road Southview Mall South St. Paul Farmer’s Market Dodge Nature Center ↪ Key Destinations Line’s Fort Snelling Station located is at the western end the of corridor and provides a direct connection downtown to Minneapolis. Several other local routes intersect the corridor and 8.9 are shown Figure in The local transit routes operating on MN-110 include: The local transit routes operating on MN-110 Existing Transit Along Corridor MN-110 Criteria Scoring Evaluation corridor scored medium overall, ranking 9thThe 25 of total MN-110 corridor segments. Its best score was on Goal 1 (transit dependency), and it scored lowest on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity) and Goal 5 (travel patterns). Figure 8.9: Existing local transit routes on or near MN-110

Land Use and Development Recommendations MN-110 passes through several regional destinations, local attractions, and employment centers. It connects the Fort Snelling Park-and-Ride with several government centers and local destinations on the eastern side of Dakota County. It is an efficient and direct route across the County. While the corridor is largely built-out, as redevelopment occurs, it should follow the recommendations from West St. Paul’s Robert Street Renaissance Plan.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Minneapolis use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Mendota for more specifics on implementation. These ¼¼ City of Mendota Heights recommendations include: ¼¼ City of Sunfish Lake Review planned land uses in transit ¼¼ City of West St. Paul corridors ¼ Promote corridor transit-supportive ¼ City of South St. Paul development ¼¼ City of Inver Grove Heights

54 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 55 Dakota County CountyHennepin Cities MnDOT Metro Transit MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: MN-110 and Dodd Road Intersection MN-110 and travelwaysand infrastructure plans development Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transit supportive Partnerships reviewing in and approving CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure The corridorlargely limits highway-oriented access businesses to nature of the MN-110 and creates pedestrian crossing challenges. Crossing distances along the corridor are long feet Pedestrian in some areas). (nearly 150 crossing improvements, such ascrossing refuges and signal timing enhancement for pedestrians are recommended crossing at key locations atDodd Roadby the A tunnel parksalong currently is the corridor. planned under MN-110 department. This and tunnel will greatly will connect regional trails on both sides of MN-110 improve pedestrian access the in area. 8.10: Figure Further Consideration This corridor connects many existing and future transitways (such as the Blue Line, the Robert Street Corridor, the Red Rock Corridor, and the Gold Line). Further consideration is recommended for the MN-110 corridor due to these transitway connections and the following characteristics:

Many transit-dependent residents and workers Several signalized crossing opportunities per mile Density of surrounding sidewalks

There are two caveats to this recommendation:

Further consideration is not recommended prior to the implementation of at least one of the eastern transitways (Red Rock or Gold Line) Due to the highway nature of the corridor, this corridor would likely only be a transfer point for riders. Thus, further consideration is only recommended for peak-period or limited stop service

56 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 57 this Who identified identified Committees Committees Committees Committees & Committees & Committees & Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED Blue Cross and Blue Shield Offices Argosy University Inver Grove Heights Community Center Thomson Reuters Inver Hills Community Hills Inver College Rasmussen College UPS Campus Retail areas at I-35E & DoodleYankee Road (Eagan Center & Town Eagan Promenade) ↪ Key Destinations Yankee Doodle Road (CSAH 28) Road (CSAH Doodle Yankee Criteria Scoring Evaluation DoodleThe Road corridor Yankee scored medium-high overall, ranking 2nd 25 of total corridor segments. Its best score was on Goal 6 (existing and planned land and use), its lowest score was on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity). Existing Transit Along Corridor The local transit routes operating on Yankee Doodle Road include:

Route 437 travels between MN-13 and Pilot Knob Road, covering 1.2 miles over 10 trips per day Route 445 travels between Blue Cross Road and Dodd Road, covering 3.5 miles over 37 trips per day Route 446 travels between Pilot Knob Road and Lexington Avenue, covering 1.0 miles over 35 trips per day Route 484 travels between Blue Cross Road and Pilot Knob Road 1.0 miles over 9 trips per day

Several other routes travel near or intersect the corridor and are shown in Figure 8.11.

Figure 8.11: Existing local transit routes on or near Yankee Doodle Road

58 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 59 City Eagan of City Inver of Grove Heights ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: This cluster of retail Doodle at Yankee Road and Lexington Avenue highlights how development corridors Promote corridor transit-supportivePromote Review planned land uses intransit CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: land corridor-wide several are There use recommendations as well. See the section All Corridors Recommendations for for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Anarea withhigh development potential in the corridor the is ten acres of undeveloped property at the existing UPS site. When this land redevelops, a mixed-use development with a well-connected pedestrian environment could improve the effectiveness of transit-service in the corridor. Figure 8.12: far the buildings are set back from the roadways Doodle This in the Yankee Road Corridor. development pattern creates pedestrian an unwelcoming environment transit for users, because they are required walk to through large parking lots get to their to destination. Land Use and Development Recommendations Development Use and Land DoodleTheRoad corridorYankee serves several regionaldestinations and contains a relatively consistent stretch residential of and commercial land. The corridor provides access Blue to Cross and Blue Shield on the west Thomson end the of corridor, Reuters, and UPS the in and Invermiddle Hills the of Community corridor, on College the east Many end the of corridor. of the students of Inver Hills Community work College at the Mall America of Cities or the Twin Premium Outlets. while the diversityHowever, land of uses beneficial is for efficient transit service, the development patterns are very auto-oriented, with large parking lots that set the buildings Doodleback far Road. from This Yankee creates an unwelcoming pedestrian environment and accessmakes fixed-route to transit service challenging. Adjusting auto-oriented development patterns with decreased set-backs, shared parking, and encouraging mixed-use buildings will start the corridor make to more transit-oriented. Infrastructure Recommendations There is a break in sidewalk connectivity at the Argenta Trail/Yankee Doodle/MN-55 interchange today. As this interchange is reconstructed, it is recommended that sidewalks are included in the design and that the sidewalks connect to the existing infrastructure on both sides of the interchange. If, as the interchange moves forward, there is additional development in the area, ensure that pedestrian connectivity is maintained throughout these new developments.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide infrastructure ¼¼ Dakota County recommendations as well. See the Recommendations For All Corridors section ¼¼ Cities for more specifics on implementation. These ¼¼ MnDOT recommendations include: ¼¼ MVTA Promote corridor transit supportive infrastructure Partnerships in reviewing and approving development plans Create interesting and inviting streetscapes and travelways

Further Consideration Further consideration is recommended for new or improved transit service on Yankee Doodle Road for the following reasons:

Many regional and local destinations and employers throughout the corridor Many transit-dependent workers and residents Current and planned transit-supportive land uses Realistic opportunities for incremental improvements to the pedestrian environment

60 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 61 over this Who identified identified Committees Committees Committees Committees & Public (Online) destination? 2.0 miles . ✓ ✓ Figure 8.13 Figure Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. travels between Nicols Road and Thomas Lake Road, covering e 438 24 trips per day RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED Heart of the City (Burnsville) Flint Resources Hills Lebanon Hills Lebanon Hills Park Regional 360 Communities (Food Shelf) Rout

↪ Key Destinations Several other routesintersect the corridor and are shown in The local transit routes operating on CliffRoad include: Existing Transit Along Corridor Cliff Road (CSAH 32) Road (CSAH Cliff Criteria Scoring Evaluation The CliffRoad corridor scored medium-high overall, ranking 4thof total 25 corridor segments. It scored wellon Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity) and Goal 6 (existing and planned land anduse), its lowest score was on Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services). Figure 8.13: Existing local transit routes on or near Cliff Road

Land Use and Development Recommendations The western end of the Cliff Road corridor in Burnsville is largely industrial, with a few other uses and destinations, such as a retail area (near Heart of the City and the Burnsville Transit Station) at MN-13 and at I-35W. Moving east through Eagan, the corridor transitions to more commercial and residential uses until it reaches the 1.5 miles of Lebanon Hills Regional Park. East of the park, through Inver Grove Heights, the corridor is primarily low-density residential or undeveloped until it reaches Flint Hills Resources near US-52.

Outside of these existing land use patterns, there is limited development potential in the currently undeveloped areas of this corridor as most of that area is protected river, park, or wetlands.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Burnsville use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Eagan for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

62 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 63 Dakota County Cities MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: Intersection of Cliff RoadCliff & Lake/Rahncliff Road infrastructure plans development travelwaysand Promote corridor transit supportive Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Figure 8.14: Figure Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Thetrail along coverage CliffRoad alternates between the north and southsides of theroad, and, outside of the stretch between I-35E and Cedar Avenue, there rarely is a trail on both sides of the The roadway. main north-south roadways have a one-sided sidewalk connection with CliffRoad, but very fewof the neighborhoods havesidewalks that provide pedestrian connectivity Cliffto Road. Completing this network, both along Cliff Road toand the adjacent neighborhoods, would improve transit viability this in corridor. Additionally, ensuring that all legs at the intersections key have sidewalk connections to destinations will help transit users. For example, the intersection Cliff of Road and Cliff Lake/RahncliffRoad hasretail destinations at all corners,four but thereis only one direct pedestrian connection the southeast (on corner). Pedestrians getting off the bus at either of the other three corners would have either to walk a block out of their way reach to their destination through a parking lot, or cut through the snow) grass more to directly (or reach their destination. Adding pedestrian connections between the major intersections and the surrounding developmentsmore a will pleasant make and viable transit experience. Further Consideration While both ends of corridor have strong transit termini, the physical barrier of Lebanon Park in the center poses a challenge to transit through the entire corridor. Further consideration for transit on the west-end of the corridor is recommended given the unique opportunity to connect the Orange Line (and the Red Line at a future Cliff Road station).

In addition to these transitway connections, transit along Cliff Road would serve:

Transit-dependent workers Local and regional destinations A mix of current and planned transit-supportive land uses

64 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 65 this Who House) identified identified Committees Committees Committees Committees Committees Public (Open Public (Open Committees, Committees, Open House) Open House) Open House) Open Public (Online Public (Online Public (Online Public (Online Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? & Open House), & Open House), Public (Online & & Public (Online & Public (Online & Public (Online ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED Burnsville Center Dakota County Workforce Center (Burnsville) MRCI Worksource (Rosemount) Dakota County Western Service Center Wings Financial Dakota County Judicial Center (Hastings) Fairview Health Campus (Burnsville) Dakota County College Technical Cap Agency (Rosemount) Retail and commercial concentrationnear I-35E & I-35W UTC Aerospace Systems Retail and commercial concentrationnear Avenue Cedar South of the River Education Center ↪ Key Destinations County Road 42 (CSAH 42) 42 (CSAH Road County Criteria Scoring Evaluation The County Road corridor 42 scored medium-high overall, ranking 3rd 25 of total corridor segments. It scored well on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity) and Goal 6 (existing and planned land and use), its lowest score was on Goal (employment, 7 institutions, and services). Existing Transit Along Corridor The local transit routes operating on County Road 42 include:

Route 421 travels between Huntington Avenue and Vernon Avenue, covering 1.0 miles over 12 trips per day Route 444 travels between Huntington Avenue and Aldrich Avenue, covering 2.1 miles over 39 trips per day

Several other routes intersect the corridor (Figure 8.15), including the Red Line on Cedar Avenue. Route 420 and Route 442 provide service parallel to Route 420. Route 420 travels along County Road 42, but it does not make stops on County Road 42.

Figure 8.15: Existing local transit routes on or near County Road 42

66 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 67 City Prior of Lake City Rosemount of City Apple of Valley City Burnsville of City Savage of ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: corridors development Review planned land uses intransit corridor transit-supportivePromote Construct bus pull-out lanes or dedicated transit lanes ensure to that automobiles and transit vehicles operate together smoothly while passengers board and alight Construct large, visible shelters and waiting areas at stops so that riders have the space and facilities they need wait to for the bus safely Signal PriorityConsider Transit (TSP) at minor intersections so that the bus can remain on schedule without causing delay the to other automobiles using County Road 42 The Kelley Park/Legacy Park area along Galaxie Avenue approximately one-half mile east of Stationthe Apple presents Transit Valley another redevelopment opportunity The Fischer Mine development will include a new mixed-use business campus along the corridor Mystic Lake in Scott County intensifying is development and has shown a willingness to support transit via a circulator the to Station Marschall Road Transit Burnsville Center a potentialis redevelopment opportunity When it the in does corridor. redevelop, it recommended is that theredirect is access transit to facilities for pedestrians and consistent pedestrian and bicycle connections throughout the site CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE land corridor-wide several are There use recommendations as well. See the section All Corridors Recommendations for for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Whileseveral segments of County Road have 42 trails on both ensuring sides of the corridor, that this pedestrian and bicycle network fully is connected where there transit is service is important. For instance, the segment between I-35E and Cedar Avenue missing is a trail on either side of the Completing roadway. the trail network along the corridor and improving pedestrian crossings in this area will improve pedestrian access transit. to Infrastructure Recommendations As Burnsville Center redevelops, it recommended is that the redevelopment integrate transit operations, specifically space for buslayover and driver facilities,to allow for efficient transit service surrounding to areas. This area will be a critical connection point between local transit service and the future Orange Line Extension. County Road a high-volume is 42 road, and several transit-specific infrastructure recommended: improvements are Land Use and Development Recommendations Development Use and Land TheCounty Road corridor 42 passes through a variety transit-supportive of land uses and higher-density areas and has several potential redevelopment opportunities. CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide infrastructure ¼¼ Dakota County recommendations as well. See the Recommendations For All Corridors section ¼¼ Scott County for more specifics on implementation. These ¼¼ Cities recommendations include: ¼¼ MVTA Promote corridor transit supportive infrastructure Partnerships in reviewing and approving development plans Create interesting and inviting streetscapes and travelways

Further Consideration County Road 42 is recommended for further consideration for east-west transit service due to several factors, including:

Many local and regional destinations throughout corridor Some existing high-density areas Connections to the Red Line and Orange Line Extension The public and the technical committees identified County Road 42 as a high potential transit corridor at several points during engagement

Due to the contiguous development patterns, the corridor from TH 13 to Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) is recommended for further consideration in the near term. In the longer term, extensions of the corridor may warrant further consideration as the undeveloped land between Mystic Lake and TH 13 as well as between DCTC and Hastings develops.

68 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 69 ␡ ␡ ␡ ␡ Infrastructure Constraint following major land use or infrastructure changes, and at thattime, they could then be considered for transit operations. ␡ ␡ ␡ ␡ ␡ ␡ Land Use Constraint MN-55 MN-13 McAndrews Road County Road 46 185th/195th Streets 185th/195th Streets 215th/212th Diffley Road Street/ 140th Trail Connemara Butler Avenue Butler Avenue Lone Oak Road CORRIDOR Corridors Not Recommended for for Recommended Not Corridors Consideration Further Thecorridors that are not recommended for further consideration at this time have at leastone feature that extremely is challenging for fixed-route transit. Thesecorridors could perhaps become more transit-supportive This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 71 this Who identified identified Committees Committees Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? . Figure 8.16 Figure Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Community of Saints Church Commercial Commercial concentrationat Dodd Road & Smith Avenue Signal Shopping Hills Center ␡ Key Destinations Existing Transit Along Corridor Route the is 75 only local transit route operating on Butler Avenue, and it operates on Butler Avenue for less than a half mile. No existing local transit service operates directly along the corridor for a more significant length. Thompson(approximatelyAvenue However, mile 3/4th south Butler of has parallel Avenue) service via Routes 68 and 75. Several other routes intersect the corridor and are shown in Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The Butler Avenue corridor scored medium-high overall, of 25 ranking total 1st corridor segments. It scored well on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity), and its lowest scores were on Goal 5 (travel patterns), Goal 6 (existing and planned land and use), Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services). Butler Avenue (CSAH 4) Avenue Butler TheButler Avenue corridor not is recommended for further consideration because of the low-density of prevalence land. residential Figure 8.16: Existing local transit routes on or near Butler Avenue

Land Use and Development Recommendations The Butler Avenue corridor runs through a primarily residential area in an established neighborhood of West St. Paul. A market study completed in 2014 (which included the areas of both the Butler Avenue and the Wentworth Avenue Corridors) concluded that adding office and retail land uses will be challenging without market intervention. If new retail development is to occur, it is most viable at the intersection of Wentworth Avenue and Robert Street, which is outside of the Butler Avenue corridor. Some multi-family development on Robert Street was deemed viable in the short-term due to low vacancies, favorable demographics, and rising rents. The Signal Hills Shopping Center at Butler Avenue and Robert Street is likely the highest opportunity location to add density to this corridor. Higher density development, such as multi-family housing, is a key need to allow for cost-effective transit service within the corridor.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of West St. Paul use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

72 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 73 Dakota County Cities Metro Transit ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: development plans development travelwaysand infrastructure Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transit supportive CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Further Consideration Further consideration not is recommended for the Butler Avenue corridor at this time. One of the most significantconstraints for east-west transit service along ButlerAvenue is that the corridor consists primarily single-family of residential land uses. the Since area largely is residential, there a lack is local of or regional destinations that generate transit demand. The service that exists on Thompson Avenue, and that intersects this corridor in the north-south direction at several points, likely is adequate for those living, working, or visiting within this corridor at this time. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Increasing the number of crossing opportunities and completing the sidewalk network are the primary infrastructure recommendations this in corridor. Crosswalks across Butler Avenue are missing westSmith of Avenue. Adding a safe crossing would provide improved access those to living near Dodd Street. Most of the intersections north and of adjacent Signal to Hills lack marked crossings or signals. Adding an additional crossing at Humboldt Avenue, Gorman Avenue, or Livingston Avenue when the site redevelops would help provide safer andimproved access from Butler Avenue. The north side of Butler Avenue currently has a more complete sidewalk network than the south side of the street. Completing the pedestrian network between Sperl Street the to eastern end the of corridor on the south the of Butler Avenue transit would make more viable for those users. Adding sidewalks on Butler Avenue west of Smith Avenue where they are absent today will also help improve transit access. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 75 this Who identified identified Committees Committees Committees Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? 0.8 miles over 2 0.8 miles over 6 . ✓ ✓ ✓ Figure 8.17 Figure Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. travels between MN-55 and Ames Crossing Road, covering Route 436Route Route 489 travels between MN-55 and Ames Crossing Road, covering trips per day trips per day NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Commercial Commercial concentrationand higher-density apartments east of I-35E Unisys New Vikings training facility to be located off Interstate494 at Dodd Road & Lone ParkwayOak Delta Airlines offices ␡ Key Destinations Several other routes intersect the corridor and are shown in The local transit routes operating on Lone Oak Road include: Existing Transit Along Corridor Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The Lone Oak Road corridor scored medium-low25 of overall, total ranking corridor 17th segments. It scored well on Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services), and its lowest score was on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity) and Goal 5 (travel patterns). Lone Oak Road (CSAH 26) (CSAH Oak Road Lone TheLone Oak Road corridor not is recommended for further consideration because of the low-density of prevalence land. residential Figure 8.17: Existing transit service on or near Lone Oak Road

Land Use and Development Recommendations The Lone Oak corridor is bookended on either end by low-density residential land use (Eagan on the west and Inver Grove Heights on the east). There is a manufactured home park that likely houses a transit dependent population on the east side of the corridor. Between these termini of single and multi-family homes are two distinct development patterns: big-box warehousing and other services dominates between I-35E and MN-55, and approximately 3 miles of largely undeveloped land prevails between MN-55 and the Inver Grove Heights border. Developing this large expanse of undeveloped land will be key to allow for cost-effective fixed- route transit service to operate in the corridor.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Eagan use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Inver Grove Heights for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

76 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 77 Dakota County Cities MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION infrastructure plans development travelwaysand Promote corridor transitsupportive Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes There are several corridor-wide infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE Further Consideration Further consideration not is recommended for the Lone Oak Road corridor at this time. Although both residential ends of the corridor are transit-supportive, particularly the manufactured home area on the eastern edge of the corridor in Inver Grove Heights, there are not enough destinations throughout the corridor warrant to transit service in a solely east-west direction. Additionally, the destinations on the west side of the corridor are already served by transit. In the future, additional connections from the higher-density or low-income housing regional to destinations may justifyfurther consideration. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure There sidewalk is on the northern sideLone of Oak Road Inver in Grove Heights. Adding sidewalk on the southern side of the corridor wouldimprove access those to living along the corridor. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 79 ). this Who House) identified identified Committees Public (Open Public (Open Public (Online) Public (Online) 0.6 miles over Public (Online), Public (Online), destination? Figure 8.18 Figure ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. travels between Lexington covering and Braddock Avenue Trail, 32 trips per day Route 446Route NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Commercial Commercial concentrationat I-35E Commercial Commercial concentrationeast of Pilot Knob Road Twin Cities Premium Twin Outlets ␡ Key Destinations Many routes intersect most the corridor, prominently the Red Line on Cedar Avenue. Several routes operate for less than one-half mile on the western end Diffley of Road ( Existing Transit Along Corridor The local transit routes operating on Diffley Road include: Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The Lone 25 of Oak total Road corridor corridor scored medium overall, ranking 11th segments. It scored well on Goal transit 4 (maximize ridership), and its lowest score was on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity). Diffley Road (CSAH 30) Road Diffley TheDiffley Road corridor is not recommended forfurther consideration because of the low-density of prevalence land. residential Figure 8.18: Existing local transit routes on or near Diffley Road

Land Use and Development Recommendations The Diffley Road corridor currently primarily serves single-family residential areas. The key non-residential regional destinations (the Twin Cities Premium Outlets and an industrial job center) are on the west end of the corridor. Increasing the diversity of land uses by adding additional destinations in the residential area would make transit more viable in this east-west corridor.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Eagan use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

80 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 81 Dakota County City Eagan of MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION infrastructure plans development travelwaysand Promote corridor transit supportive Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Further Consideration Further consideration not is recommended for Diffley Road at this time. The current service the to Cedar Grove Station and adjacent areas along Diffley Road appears adequate for this largely residentialcorridor. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure TheCedar Alternative High School, a multi-family residential development, and single family homes are located betweenNicols Road and Rahn Road. This segment of Diffley Road has intermittent sidewalks, alternating between the north and south side of the road. Constructing a complete sidewalk length on both sides of the road this in area, separate fromthe frontage road, will improve the pedestrian environment for transit users The along Diffley this corridor. Road corridor generally has good trail along coverage the roadway all in other areas. There little is sidewalk connectivity between the trail that runs along the length Diffley of Road and the adjacent neighborhoods. Adding sidewalks these to neighborhoods will improve pedestrian access the to corridor. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 83 ). 1.8 this Who Online, identified identified Committees Committees Committees Open HouseOpen Figure 8.19 Figure Committees, Public (Online) Public (Online), Public (Online), Public (Online), Public (Online), destination? 0.8 miles over 65 ✓ ✓ Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. Regional Destination ✓ ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. travels between Ridge Road, and Johnny Pennock covering Avenue Cake miles over 22 trips per day Route 440Route Route 444 travels between County Road 5 and Aldrich Avenue, covering trips per day NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Fairview Health Campus (Burnsville) CAP Agency Dakota County College Technical Burnsville Center Minnesota Zoo ␡ Key Destinations The Red Line intersects the corridor but does not have a station at McAndrews Road. The Route and Route426 442 each operate for less than one-half mile through the corridor ( The local transit routes operating on McAndrews Road include: Existing Transit Along Corridor Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The McAndrews Road corridor scored medium overall, ranking 7th 25 of total corridor segments. It scored well on Goal 4(maximize transit ridership), Goal 6 (existing and planned land and use), Goal 8 (multimodal facilities). Its lowest score was on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity) and Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services). McAndrews Road (CSAH 38) (CSAH Road McAndrews TheMcAndrews Road corridor not is recommended for further consideration because its of orientation. automobile prevalent Figure 8.19: Existing transit service on or near McAndrews Road

Land Use and Development Recommendations The McAndrews Road corridor terminates on the western end in Burnsville in the Burnsville Center area. Travelling east towards Apple Valley, the corridor passes through multiple office developments and a large area of residential homes, including a low-income population near Palomino Drive and Cedar Avenue. In Rosemount, the corridor passes through more single- family homes and undeveloped land, terminating on the east near Dakota County Technical College.

The most likely opportunity for redevelopment is near Burnsville Center. As this area redevelops, a higher density mix of transit-supportive land uses would improve transit potential in the corridor. As development emerges within the currently undeveloped areas, development patterns with a mix of land uses that are oriented toward the desired stop locations with minimal setbacks would improve the potential for cost-effective transit service.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Apple Valley use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Burnsville for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

84 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 85 Dakota County Cities MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: With a center median and wide shoulders, McAndrews Road operates like a divided and travelwaysand infrastructure plans development Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transit supportive Partnerships reviewing in and approving CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: Figure 8.20: Figure highway with long pedestrian crossing distances and high-speed traffic. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Although there destinations are many key within a half-mile of McAndrews Road, the road itself largely is auto-oriented with two lanes in each direction, turn lanes at most intersections, and high automobile speeds (speed limit of 50). The linear trails of coverage along CSAH 38 is fairly consistent; there are very however, few crossings There along the are also few corridor. connections the to trail fromthe adjacent neighborhoods or noted destinations. Increasing pedestrian crossing opportunities andtrail connections this in corridor needs are key begin to improveto pedestrian connections transit. to Further Consideration Further consideration is not recommended for the McAndrews Road corridor at this time.

Although one terminus of this corridor is transit-supportive, the auto-oriented nature of the McAndrews Road corridor is not conducive to transit. Therefore, further consideration is not recommended at this time. However, there are two specific transit needs in this corridor that remain:

The Palomino area includes a large, transit-dependent population that needs to be connected to the regional transit system. Connecting this area to the future Palomino Red Line Station would provide access to the recommended future service in the County Road 42 corridor and other regional destinations The Burnsville Center area may redevelop and, given the addition of an Orange Line station in the future, warrants further transit consideration from a regional perspective

Further consideration is recommended for service to these two areas.

86 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 87 1.5 miles this Who identified identified Committees Committees ). Public (Online), Public (Online), destination? Figure 8.21Figure ✓ ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. travels between Road, Ridge and Johnny covering Avenue Cake Cedar Route 440Route over 37 trips per day NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Uponor Dakota County College Technical ␡ Key Destinations The Red Line on Cedar Avenue intersects the corridor with a station at 140th Street. The Route provides420 parallel service south the of corridor Street ( via 147th Existing Transit Along Corridor The local transit routes operating on 140th Street/Connemara include: Trail Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The 140th Street/Connemara corridor scored medium-low Trail overall, 25 of ranking total 14th corridor segments. It scored well on Goal (multimodal 8 facilities), and its lowest score was on Goal transit 3 (regional connectivity) and Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services). 140th Street/Connemara Trail Street/Connemara 140th The140th Street/Connemara corridor not is recommended Trail for further consideration because of the prevalence of low-density residential land. Figure 8.21: Existing local transit routes on or near the 140th Street/Connemara Trail

Land Use and Development Recommendations The 140th Street/Connemara Trail corridor is largely residential with several parks and schools throughout. The Apple Valley Par 3 golf course and the intersection of 140th Street and Cedar Avenue are the most likely redevelopment opportunities in the near future.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Apple Valley use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Rosemount for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

88 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 89 Dakota County Cities MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION development plans development travelwaysand infrastructure Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transitsupportive There are several corridor-wide infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE Further Consideration Further consideration not is recommended for the 140th Street/Connemara corridor at Trail this time. While redevelopment could add density it unlikely is occur to thisto in the corridor, short-term. Additional service this to residential area not is warranted at this time. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Due the to well-connected pedestrian network currently available surrounding the 140th no infrastructureStreet/Connemara corridor, Trail recommendations are provided at this time. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 91 this Who ). identified identified Committees Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? Figure 8.22Figure Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region.

✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Commercial Commercial concentrationnorth of PilotKnob Road Multifamily developments between Cedar Galaxie and Avenue Avenue ␡ Key Destinations Existing Transit Along Corridor No local transit routes operate along County Road 46 corridor today ( Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The County Road 46 corridor scored low overall, ranking 24th 25 of total corridor segments. It scored wellon Goal transit 4 (maximize ridership), and its lowest score was on Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services). County Road 46 (CSAH 46) 46 (CSAH Road County TheCounty Road 46 corridor not is recommended for further consideration because of its orientation. automobile prevalent Figure 8.22: Existing local transit routes on or near County Road 46

Land Use and Development Recommendations County Road 46 is surrounded by primarily residential land uses with pockets of small commercial development and undeveloped or agricultural land. Some multi-family residential developments exist in the corridor between Cedar Avenue and Galaxie Avenue, but the area largely has single-family homes. The intersection of Pilot Knob and County Road 46 offers the most promising development opportunity, but higher density development has not been identified as a priority in this area at this time.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Apple Valley use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Lakeville for more specifics on implementation. These ¼¼ City of Rosemount recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

92 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 93 Dakota County Cities MVTA ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION development plans development travelwaysand infrastructure Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transitsupportive There are several corridor-wide infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE Further Consideration Further consideration not is recommended for the County Road 46 corridor at this time. The auto-oriented nature of the County Road 46 corridor with high traffic speeds and little pedestrian infrastructure not is conducive transit, to and, therefore, the corridor not is recommended for further consideration at this time. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Additional pedestrian crossings along County Road 46, east of Cedar Avenue, this would make corridor more inviting for pedestrians. This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 95 this Who identified identified Committees Public (Online), Public (Online), destination? Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Medical clinics and retail area west of I-35 ␡ Key Destinations No existing local transit routes operate along or near the corridor today. Existing Transit Along Corridor Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria Streets corridorThe 185th/195th scored low overall, ranking 25th 25 of total corridor segments. 185th/195th Streets (CSAH 60/64) (CSAH Streets 185th/195th Streets corridorThe185th/195th not is recommended for further consideration, because it is primarily undeveloped land. Land Use and Development Recommendations Much of the 185th/195th Streets corridor is presently undeveloped. As development occurs, transit-oriented patterns are recommended to ensure that the sites are compatible with any transit that may serve the area in the future. In 2015, construction on 400 acres of multi-family residential began within the 185th/195th Streets corridor. A connection is recommended between these higher density residences and the employment at I-35 and 185th Street. Lakeville is considering this undeveloped area for future planned development in its update to their Comprehensive Plan.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Lakeville use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Farmington for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include:

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

Infrastructure Recommendations As the road network develops in this corridor, it is recommended that pedestrian elements are included in the design. A roadway with pedestrian infrastructure is more viable for transit operations in the future.

Promote corridor transit supportive infrastructure Partnerships in reviewing and approving development plans Create interesting and inviting streetscapes and travelways

Further Consideration Further consideration is not recommended for the 185th/195th Streets corridor at this time.

Consideration for transit should be reconsidered when the roadway network is more built out and the area is more fully developed with local and regional destinations and with pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

96 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 97 this Who identified identified Committees Committees Committees destination? ✓

Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓

Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Existing Lakeville Industrial (Air Park Lake) Large Grocers (Hy-Vee) M-O-M Brands Offices (Malt-O-Meal) ␡ Key Destinations Existing Transit Along Corridor No existing local transit routes operate along the corridor today. Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria Streets corridorThe scored 215th/212th low overall, ranking 22nd 25 of total corridor segments. It scored highest on Goal 6 (existing and planned land use). 215th/212th Streets (CSAH 70/50) (CSAH Streets 215th/212th Streets corridorThe not is recommended215th/212th for further consideration, because it is primarily undeveloped land. Land Use and Development Recommendations Much of the 215th/212th Streets corridor is presently undeveloped. As development occurs, transit-oriented development patterns are recommended to ensure that the corridor is compatible with transit service.

The 215th/212th Streets corridor already has a strong office and industrial land use presence. A continued mix of uses along the corridor is recommended to support potential future transit service. As residential development continues, smaller lot sizes, and higher-density development is recommended.

Review planned land uses in transit corridors Promote corridor transit-supportive development

Infrastructure Recommendations The 215th/212th Streets corridor may be a terminus for future Red Line Extension. As such, ensuring that future roadway designs are transit-friendly and pedestrian-friendly will help improve the potential for transit in the corridor. As the road network develops, continuous sidewalks and well-marked crosswalks are recommended.

Promote corridor transit supportive infrastructure Partnerships in reviewing and approving development plans Create interesting and inviting streetscapes and travelways

Further Consideration Further consideration is not recommended for the 215th/212th Streets corridor at this time.

Consideration for transit should be reconsidered when the roadway network is more built out and the area is more fully developed.

98 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 99 this Who House) identified identified Committees Committees Committees Committees Public (Open Public (Open Public (Online) Public (Online) Public (Online), Public (Online), destination? 5.4 miles over ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Regional Destination Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. ✓ ✓ ). Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. Figure 8.23Figure per day. 8 trips per day. Route 436 travels between Hiawatha and Dodd Avenue Road, covering NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT Dakota County Center Judicial (Hastings) MRCI Worksource (Rosemount) Brown College Flint Resources Hills Inver Hills Community Hills Inver College Patterson Companies Inver Grove Heights Community Center ␡ Key Destinations Several other routes travel near or intersect including the the Blue corridor, Line at the Fort Snelling Park & Ride ( Local transit routes operating on MN-55 include: Existing Transit Along Corridor Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria The MN-55 corridor scored low overall, ranking 23rd 25 of total corridor segments. It scored best on Goal 7 (employment, institutions, and services). MN-55 TheMN-55 corridor not is recommended for further consideration becauseof its prevalent automobile orientation. Figure 8.23: Existing local transit routes on or near MN-55

Land Use and Development Recommendations Some key connections in the MN-55 corridor are the Fort Snelling Park & Ride, the new Vikings training facility to be located off Interstate 494 at Dodd Road and Lone Oak Parkway in Eagan, Inver Hills Community College, the manufactured home park in Inver Grove Heights near US-52, and Hastings. North of Lone Oak Road, the MN-55 corridor is a mix of commercial and industrial land. The corridor is largely low-density residential though Inver Grove Heights between Lone Oak Road and Flint Hills Resources. East of Flint Hills, the corridor is mostly undeveloped until it reaches the mix of uses in Hastings. The pockets of undeveloped lands between the regional destinations make transit challenging in this corridor; higher intensity development in the area north of Flint Hills Resources would make transit more viable in this long corridor.

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: There are several corridor-wide land ¼¼ City of Minneapolis use recommendations as well. See the Recommendations for All Corridors section ¼¼ City of Mendota for more specifics on implementation. These ¼¼ City of Mendota Heights recommendations include: ¼¼ City of Eagan Review planned land uses in transit ¼¼ City of Inver Grove Heights corridors ¼ Promote corridor transit-supportive ¼ City of Rosemount development ¼¼ City of Hastings

100 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 101 Dakota County CountyHennepin Cities MVTA Metro Transit MnDOT ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION development plans development travelwaysand infrastructure Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transit supportive There are several corridor-wide infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE Further Consideration Further consideration not is recommended for the MN-55 corridor at this time. While there are many regional destinations the in the MN-55 corridor corridor, itself very is long, and the destinations are spread apart, making transit service between the destinations challenging. A few routes already serve these destinations today. Additionally, the corridor a state is highway with high traffic speeds and little pedestrian infrastructure. Significant pedestrianinfrastructure improvements would be necessaryto connect passengers from transit the to destinations As along the redevelopment corridor. occurs, such as land use changes at Doodle the MN-55 Road interchange, & Yankee this corridor may warrant further consideration. Infrastructure Recommendations Infrastructure Thelargely highway-orientednature of the MN-55 corridor limits access business to and createspedestrian crossingchallenges. For fixed-route local transitroutes to function effectively, bus pull-outlanes or dedicated transitlanes recommended are to ensure that automobiles and transit vehicles operate together smoothly while passengersboard and alight. Pedestrian improvements are also recommended crossing at key locations create to a more welcoming environment for passengers. Partnership with Zip Rail planning efforts in the corridor recommendedis leverage to improvements together improve to the pedestrian environment and access transit. to This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 103 this Who House) identified identified Committees Committees Committees Committees Committees Committees Public (Open Public (Open Public (Online) Public (Online) destination? ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Large, regional employers or destinations the in These corridor. destinations unique are in the region. Regional Destination ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Local Destination employers,Smaller mixed-use area, and other destinations local that define corridor. the These destinations are notnecessarily to unique this corridor. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION: FURTHER FOR RECOMMENDED NOT The Open Door Pantry Eagan Resource Center Heart of the City (Burnsville) Shutterfly Offices Brown College Cities Premium Twin Outlets 360 Communities (Food Shelf) Blue Cross and Blue Shield Offices ␡ Key Destinations Evaluation Criteria Scoring Evaluation Criteria corridor scored medium overall, 25 of The total ranking MN-13 corridor 12th segments. It scored well on Goal 1 (transit dependency) and Goal 6 (existing and planned land and use), its lowest score was on Goal (multimodal 8 facilities). MN-13 corridor not is recommended forThefurther MN-13 consideration because of its prevalent automobile orientation. Existing Transit Along Corridor The local transit routes operating on MN-13 include:

Route 421 travels between County Road 5 and Nicollet Avenue, covering 1.4 miles over 12 trips per day Route 444 travels between County Road 11 and Diffley Roadd, covering1.6 miles over 65 trips per day Route 437 (north of the map in Figure 8.24) operates parallel to MN-13 connecting Cedar Grove Transit Station with Eagan Transit Station

Several other routes intersect the corridor, including the Red Line at the Cedar Grove Transit Station.

Figure 8.24: Existing local transit routes on or near MN-13

104 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 105 MnDOT Dakota County CountyHennepin Scott County Cities MVTA Metro Transit City Mendota of City Mendota of Heights City Eagan of City Burnsville of City Savage of City Shakopee of City Prior of Lake ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY: IMPLEMENTATION infrastructure plans development travelwaysand development corridors Promote corridor transit supportive Partnerships reviewing in and approving Create interesting and inviting streetscapes Promote corridor transit-supportivePromote Review planned land uses intransit Heart of the City Burnsville in expected is increase to in density with improved connectivity a nearbyto Orange Line station Development expected is increase to in the East Cliff BusinessCenter There have been discussions potential of development at the northwestquadrant of MN- Eagan in 77 and MN-13 CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: infrastructure corridor-wide several are There recommendations as the See well. Recommendations section For All Corridors for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: There are several corridor-wide land land corridor-wide several are There use recommendations as well. See the section All Corridors Recommendations for for more specifics on implementation. These recommendations include: CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS: CORRIDOR-WIDE The highway nature of the MN-13 corridorThe limits highway nature access of the business to MN-13 and creates pedestrian crossing challenges. A recommendation study to is from the TAC freight movement through the corridor determine to the primary purpose Understanding of the corridor. this regional purpose should guide how distribute to right-of-way between the conflicting modes. If transit move to is forward, pedestrian improvements are recommended at transit stop locations and connecting passengers destinations to Consider deviating on the corridor. destinations at key thatfrom are more pedestrian MN-13 oriented. For instance, Avenue 12th streetscape improvements between could a this make viable Cliffstop Road and MN-13 location the in future. Infrastructure Recommendations Land Use and Development Recommendations Development Use and Land passes through several regionalMN-13 destinations, local attractions, and employment centers. There are several additional development opportunities including: Further Consideration Further Consideration by service providers is not recommended at this time.

Although true fixed-route transit along the entire corridor does not exist today, several routes do operate on at least portions of MN-13. Further consideration of existing routes is recommended to ensure that all destinations in the corridor are being served.

106 CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDATIONS 107 County Road recommended is 42 for further consideration serve to the local destinations and respond public to feedback MN-110 is recommended is for further consideration in coordinationMN-110 with the implementation of the Red Rock, Riverview, Gold Line, or Robert Street transitways Doodle Road recommended is Yankee for furtherconsideration directly to connect the many regional and local destinations and attractions throughout the corridor CliffRoad recommendedis for furtherconsideration to provide a newconnection between the Orange Line and the Red Line Wentworth Avenue recommended is for additional frequency along existing parallel routes All other corridors considered this in study were either predominately low-density residential, undeveloped, or heavily auto-oriented. These features serve barriers as key the to successful implementation transit of service at this time. Should these corridors shift and take on more transit-supportive development patterns, transit service could be considered at that time. Conclusion Conclusion After taking into account several data inputs, fivecorridors recommended are for further Theseconsideration. corridors include: This page intentionally left blank.