Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis: Final Report

MIDTOWN CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS FINAL REPORT APRIL 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1

Study Area Existing Conditions 7

Project Goals 11

Initial Alternatives 15

Concept Development 21

Results & Evaluation 30

Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation 37

Next Steps 41

For additional project information, please see online project library

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis throughout the AA process to guide the project. meets these needs. The following five broad goals (AA) evaluated the benefits, costs, and impacts Besides the formal committee structure, the were established to guide the project process: of implementing a transitway in the Midtown process also included a multitude of public out- Corridor – a corridor located in the City of Min- reach and events all designed to meet people 1. Increase transit use among the growing neapolis, Minnesota. The study was initiated to ‘where they were’ (i.e., at community events and number of corridor residents, employees, and identify a transit alternative that best meets the neighborhood gatherings) instead of insisting the visitors. transportation needs of the local community in public come to the project. terms of technical feasibility, costs, and benefits. 2. Improve corridor equity with better mobility and access to jobs and activities. Project Purpose and Goals Project Process and Public 3. Catalyze and support housing and economic Involvement The purpose of the Midtown Corridor Transitway development along the corridor. Project is to provide transit service that meets cur- The AA was an 18 month collaborative effort rent and future travel needs, attracts new riders, 4. Develop a cost-effective transitway that is between Metro Transit, the City of Minneapo- connects users with job centers and key desti- well-positioned for implementation. lis, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council nations, and supports environmentally sustain- and multiple community businesses, groups able growth and development. The AA sought to 5. Build upon the vibrancy and diversity of the and stakeholders. Stakeholders from these determine the type of transit investment that best corridor by supporting healthy, active com- groups staffed four project committees that met munities and the environment.

) n o i Study Area s n e Blue Line LRT t x Lake of the Isles E e n i Hennepin Ave L Bloomington Bloomington Lyndale Ave Lyndale Ave Nicollet Chicago Ave Ave Cedar n I-35W Ave Portland e re (G Midtown Greenway T LR W S

Lake Street

Lake Calhoun

= Transit Center 0 0.25 miles 0.5

Executive Summary i Determining the Alternatives Also, an enhanced bus extension was designed analysis demonstrated that the dual alternative, and studied in response to stakeholder feedback. with the enhanced bus extension, was the stron- The project initially considered ten transitway The enhanced bus extension extended transit gest alternative. Public feedback from a series of alternatives. Each one combined an alignment service from the project study area into Saint Paul public meetings and an online survey supported within the corridor –Lake Street, the Midtown to connect with the METRO Green Line LRT. this conclusions. Greenway, or both – with a transit mode. The 10 initial combinations are shown below. Analyzing the Alternatives Project Outcome: Locally Alternatives Initially Under Consider- Preferred Alternative ation The study analyzed the benefits, costs, and impacts of the three most promising alternatives Recommendation and the enhanced bus extension. The cost esti- Lake Street After reviewing the technical results and listening mate and ridership projections are highlighted 1. Enhanced Bus to feedback from the project committees and the on the next page. 2. Streetcar public, the project’s Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) unanimously recommended the dual alter- 3. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Evaluating the Alternatives native, with the enhanced bus extension to Saint 4. Dedicated Busway Paul, as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) for The results of each alternative’s benefits, costs, and the Midtown Corridor. Midtown Greenway impacts were comparatively evaluated against 5. Double/Single-Track Rail each other. The results of the technical 6. Full Double-Track Rail 7. Dedicated Busway 8. Personal Rapid Transit 9. Commuter Rail 10. Streetcar Lake Street/Greenway Loop

A collaborative, iterative process, based on dis- cussions with stakeholders, was used to narrow down the initial set of alternatives down to the three most promising alternatives within the corridor. Those alternatives were: • Enhanced bus on Lake Street • Double/single-track rail in the Greenway • Dual alternative (i..e , a combination of enhanced bus on Lake Street and rail in the Greenway) Midtown Corridor Lake Street ii Executive Summary Cost Estimates Next Steps Capital Operating The Metropolitan Council is in the process of Alternative Costs Costs (annual) updating the region’s Transportation Policy Plan, which guides the development of the region’s Enhanced Bus $50 million $7 million transportation system. The Midtown Corridor LPA will be incorporated into the Transportation Pol- Rail $185 - 220 million $8 million icy Plan during this planning process. Due to the funding constraints facing the region, the corridor Dual $215 - 250 million $15 million will mostly likely appear as an unfunded corridor in the 2014 Transportation Policy Plan update. Ridership Projections (Year 2030) However, it is possible that the project will move forward in phases. Considering the funding situa- Local Enhanced Bus Corridor Alternative Rail tion, it is likely that the enhanced bus alignment, Bus Study Extended Total the less expensive portion of the project, will be Area Corridor implemented first. Existing (2012) 14,600 – – – 14,600 Also, as one of the earlier steps on the way towards 394 DOWNTOWN Enhanced Bus 8,500 – 11,000 3,000 MINNEAPOLIS22,500 the implementation of a transitway, the AA process is designed to study a corridor at a relatively Rail 9,500 11,000 – – W FRANKLIN AVE 20,500 GREEN LINE LRT high-level.94 Future phases of study will addressUniversity/ the project in greater detail. Spruce Tree Dual Alignment394 6,000 9,500 8,500 8,000 32,000 SOUTHWEST LRT DOWNTOWN th W 26TH ST (GREEN LINE EXTENSION) Calhoun Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet 5 Chicago Bloomington Minnehaha MINNEAPOLISBeach Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Cleveland 31st Ave 44th Ave Otis Ave Ave Fry Street

The Dual Alternative + Enhanced Bus Extension LAKE STREET W FRANKLIN AVE GREEN LINE LRT Portland Bloomington Cedar West Lake Hennepin Nicollet 94 36th Ave E 32ND ST Cretin Ave Fairview Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave University/ Station Ave S Spruce Tree Dupont Lyndale I-35 Chicago Midtown 1/2-MILE BUFFER SUMMIT AVE LAKE Ave Ave S (Stevens/2nd) Ave Station

CALHOUN R

SOUTHWEST LRT E

th ORANGE LINE BRT W 36TH ST W 26TH ST V

(GREEN LINE EXTENSION) Calhoun Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet 5 Chicago Bloomington Minnehaha I

Beach EXCELSIOR BLVDAve Ave Ave Ave Ave I

Ave S Ave P

P ClevelandI

35W S S

31st Ave 44th Ave Otis Ave I Ave Fry Street S SNELLING AVE

55 BLUE LINE M HENNEPIN AVE LAKE STREET

LRT LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO NICOLLET AVE NICOLLET BLOOMINGTON AVE BLOOMINGTON

Hennepin Nicollet Portland Bloomington Cedar E 32ND ST West Lake Ave Ave Ave 36th Ave Cretin Ave Fairview Ave Station Ave S Ave Dupont Lyndale I-35 Chicago Midtown 1/2-MILE BUFFER SUMMIT AVE LAKE Ave Ave S (Stevens/2nd) Ave Station

CALHOUN R E

ORANGE LINE BRT W 36TH ST

EXCELSIOR BLVD I

Legend P

P I

35W S S

Double/SingleI Track and Station S SNELLING AVE

S EnhancedI Bus Alternative 55 BLUE LINE M HENNEPIN AVE Intermodal 0 1500 3000 6000 LRT LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO NICOLLET AVE NICOLLET Enhanced Bus Extension Station BLOOMINGTON AVE BLOOMINGTON Executive Summary iii

Legend Double/Single Track and Station Enhanced Bus Alternative

0 1500 3000 6000 Intermodal Enhanced Bus Extension Station This page left intentionally blank.

iv INTRODUCTION

Metro Transit, in partnership with Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis, conducted an 18-month alternatives analysis (AA) to identify possible transit improvements in the Midtown Corridor. The study was initiated to identify a transit alternative that best meets the transportation needs of the local community in terms of technical feasibility, costs, and benefits. The project study area is shown in Figure 1.

The AA was collaborative effort between Metro Transit, the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and multiple community businesses, groups and stakeholders.

How to Use this Document This report provides a high level overview of the AA process. Detailed technical documenta- tion and technical results are contained in the project’s technical memorandums and appen- dices. These documents are referenced with hyperlinks throughout the document. Click- ing a hyperlink will download a PDF of the referenced material. All project documenta- tion can also be found at the project website: www.midtowntransitway.org

A view of the Midtown Exchange Building and surrounding neighborhood in the Midtown Corridor

Introduction 1 Figure 1: Study Area

2 Introduction What Is an Alternatives Analysis (AA)? An AA is a planning study that follows Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines to develop and evaluate transit alternatives. An AA analyzes the benefits, cost and impacts associated with various transit alternatives and is the first step towards federal funding of a transitway project.

AA Study Process: The 18 month AA study process fell into four main stages:

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4

Screening Locally Problem Goals and Universe of Level Conceptual Evaluation of Final Preferred Statement Objectives Alternatives Evaluation Alternatives Alternatives Screening Alternative Criteria

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Stage 1: Identification of a problem statement The last step in stage one is to narrow the uni- Stage 3: Refinement and detailed evaluation of and creation of a set of goals and objectives to verse of alternatives down to the most promis- the most promising alternatives. evaluate potential solutions to the problem. ing alternatives. Stage 4: Final assessment of alternatives and Also, an initial ‘universe of alternatives,’ (a list of Stage 2: Conceptual development of the most development of recommendations. all potential alternatives in the study area) is promising alternatives. identified.

Introduction 3 Public Involvement Technical Advisory Committee organizations, business organizations, non-profit groups, institutions, and major employers. The The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) con- Public involvement and outreach occurred CAC reviewed goals and objectives, discussed sisted of staff representatives from a wider group throughout every stage in the Midtown Corridor project alternatives, identified concerns, and made of public agencies with interest in the project. The AA. The outreach strategies included a formal recommendations to the PAC. committee structure as well as a multitude of TAC gave technical input to the project team and events, meetings and public relations designed to assisted in the resolution of technical issues in meet people where they were (i.e., at community their field. The TAC provided guidance to the PAC Policy Advisory Committee to inform the LPA recommendation. events and neighborhood gatherings). The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consisted of policymakers and elected and appointed officials. Project Committee Structure Community Advisory Committee The PAC participated in the overall direction and guidance of the study process, discussed project The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Four project committees met throughout the AA alternatives, and made the final recommendation consisted of representatives from key stakeholder process. The committees were staffed by elected on the LPA. and appointed officials and staff from Metro Tran- groups in the community including neighborhood sit, City of Minneapolis, City of Saint Paul, Hennepin County, and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Figure 2: Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis Formal Decision Making Process Board. Committee members were also tapped from local community groups and businesses. For a full list of committee members, see Appendix A: Metropolitan Stakeholder Engagement Plan. Council

The overall decision making process is shown in Figure 2. The Technical Advisory Committee, Com- munity Advisory Committee, and Project Manage- Policy Advisory ment Team informed the Policy Advisory Com- Committe mittee, whom in turn passed along the locally preferred alternative (LPA) recommendation to the Community Metropolitan Council. Outreach Project The committee structure was organized as follows: Management Team Project Management Team The Project Management Team (PMT) led the day- to-day management of the AA and coordinated Technical Community activities among the partner agencies, consultant Advisory Advisory team, FTA, and other project partners. Committee Committee

4 Introduction Public Outreach Techniques A variety of techniques were used to get stakeholders involved in the AA.

Partnerships with Meetings with Local Midtown Community and Neighborhood Meetings Onboard Outreach Business Owners Business Groups The project team fostered The project team presented the The project team met with a The project team handed out partnerships with multiple technical results of the project diverse group of business owners surveys and engaged in one- Midtown community and to 16 neighborhood association in the corridor, including several on-one conversations with business groups by inviting and community groups in the meetings with Latino business riders on the Route 21 – the group members to participate study area to present the results owners at Mercado Central. existing local bus route on Lake in the Community Advisory of the technical analysis. The Street to inform them about the Committee (CAC). Along with project team presented to 11 of project. The team also set up an representatives from most of the the 14 neighborhoods that line information table at the Uptown neighborhood associations, the the corridor. Transit Center to engage with group also included members of other transit users. the Lake Street Council, Midtown Greenway Coalition, and Midtown Business Association.

National Night Out Public Meetings Online Survey Project Website The project team visited multiple The project team held three The project team created an The project team maintained a National Night Out parties rounds of public meetings online survey to garner feedback project website throughout the in the study area to inform during different stages of the on the project’s technical results AA process. Meeting minutes, community members about AA process. The following from community members who technical memorandums and the project. National Night Out attendance was recorded at each did not or could not attend other project updates were is an annual nationwide event round of meetings: the public meeting. The team posted on the site. The site that encourages residents to January 2013: 121 attendees received 223 responses. attracted approximately 15,000 hold block parties and get to visitors over the course of the May 2013: 103 attendees know their neighbors as a way to study. November 2013: 144 attendees encourage crime prevention. www.midtowntransitway.org

Introduction 5 This page left intentionally blank.

6 STUDY AREA EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Midtown Corridor study area is located entirely within the City of Minneapolis and Hen- nepin County. The map shown in Figure 1 shows the two study alignments: Lake Street and the Midtown Greenway. The alignments have connections with three existing or planned METRO transitway stations: • Lake Street/Midtown Station of the Blue Line (Hiawatha) light rail transit (LRT)

• Future location Green Line (Southwest LRT) West Lake Station

• Future Orange Line (I-35W) bus rapid transit (BRT) intersects the corridor at I-35W Lake Street at Hennepin Avenue This study area covers 60 percent of Route 21 ridership. It is a multimodal transportation corridor that includes transit, other motor-vehicle traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians. These modes all compete for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in the corridor.

The two alignments are described in further detail in the following sections. For a more in- depth description of the study area, see Appen- dix B: Purpose and Need Statement.

Midtown Greenway at 10th Avenue South

Study Area Existing Conditions 7 Lake Street Since 2000, the corridor has been transformed into a bicycle and pedestrian facility. It is now one A former streetcar corridor and current high-fre- of the region’s most active bicycle routes and an quency bus corridor, Lake Street is the primary important community asset that combines mobil- east-west commercial corridor in south Minneap- ity with open space. The Midtown Greenway is olis. The corridor contains a mix of retail and resi- one of the busiest bicycle corridors in the region, dential uses and borders 14 diverse Minneapolis carrying up to 3,500 cyclists per day according to neighborhoods. City of Minneapolis bicycle traffic counts. In addition to high traffic counts, the Midtown Corridor has high levels of pedestrian traffic found Existing Transit Network in the in activity centers (Uptown and Lyn-Lake) and major transit connections (Chicago Lake Transit Study Area Center and Hiawatha Avenue). Pedestrian counts The Midtown Corridor is rich with transit service, as are comparable to the densest parts of Minne- shown in Figure 3. Metro Transit currently operates apolis; daily pedestrian counts on Lake Street are two bus routes along Lake Street: Route 21 that more than 3,000 per day in Uptown, 3,700 per day provides frequent, all-day local service and Route Midtown Greenway around Lake Calhoun, and 4,900 per day near the 53 that offers peak-period limited-stop service. Blue Line LRT. Both routes continue into Saint Paul past the eastern boundary of the Midtown Corridor study area.

The Midtown Greenway Route 21 has the third-highest average daily rid- Owned by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad ership of all Metro Transit routes, providing over Authority (HCRRA), the Midtown Greenway is a for- 8,000 rides within the study area alone. mer Canadian Pacific Railway/Soo Line freight rail Key destinations served by these routes within facility. The property was purchased by HCRRA in the study area include the Uptown Transit Station, 1993 for the purpose of constructing LRT or other the Uptown commercial district, Calhoun Square, transportation systems and associated facilities. Kmart at Nicollet Avenue, the I-35W/Lake Street The Greenway is located approximately one block stop, the Chicago Lake Transit Center and Mid- north of Lake Street within most of the study area. town Exchange (east of Chicago Avenue), South One of the unique features of the Greenway is that High School, Hi-Lake Shopping Center, and the it is grade-separated from and passes under the Lake Street/Midtown Station on the Blue Line LRT. street grid between Hennepin and Cedar avenues (with one at-grade crossing at 5th Avenue). The right of way in the corridor is generally 100 feet Lake Street wide between France Avenue and Hiawatha Ave- nue, but the width between the embankments varies.

8 Study Area Existing Conditions Figure 3: Midtown Corridor Existing Transit Routes

Study Area Existing Conditions 9 This page left intentionally blank.

10 PROJECT GOALS

Project Purpose and Need Figure 4: Delay factors for Route 21 In an AA, the project’s problem statement, called 6% Route 21 ‘the purpose and need,’ clearly communicates the 5% UPTOWN TRANSIT STATION transportation problem the project is attempting TO LAKE/MIDTOWN LRT to address. The problem statement is a key factor 25% in determining the range of project alternatives. In Motion Alternatives that do not meet the purpose and 18% Dwell Time need are dismissed from the analysis. Signal Key Elements of the Purpose and 46% Traﬃc Need Hold/Other • Purpose – Clear and succinct statement of the fundamental reasons the project is being proposed ports environmentally sustainable growth and A need for reliable and attractive transit • Needs – The current transportation problems development. service in the corridor in the corridor that the project is intended to address Route 21, the corridor’s main local bus route has Need for the Transitway an average speed of six miles per hour on Lake • Goals/objectives – Broader vision and Street in the Midtown Corridor, and for an aver- desired outcomes for the project The Midtown Corridor is an important part of the age trip the bus is in motion for only 25 percent regional multimodal transportation network; how- • Evaluation criteria – Help compare and con- of the time, as shown in Figure 4. A high number ever, there are several unmet transportation needs trast alternatives based on a set of identified of customer boardings and frequent bus stops that constrain the area’s potential development. criteria contribute to significant boarding delay and an Key destinations for employment, recreation, For a detailed discussion of the issues driving the extend trip travel time. Additionally, Lake Street commerce, and high-density residential housing has many signalized intersections, and buses oper- project’s purpose and need statement, see Appen- are located along many of the major north-south dix B: Purpose and Need Statement. ate in mixed traffic. Together these factors result in streets intersecting Lake Street and the Midtown a slow speed of service. For example, via transit it Greenway. These are the types of features that takes approximately 29-35 minutes to travel from Project Purpose could support a transitway; however, today’s tran- the Uptown Transit Center to the Lake Street/Mid- sit experience is not competitive with other trans- town Station on the Blue Line LRT, a distance of The purpose of the Midtown Corridor AA is to pro- portation modes, including the automobile. The roughly three miles, with no unscheduled delays. vide transit service that meets current and future following factors contribute to a need for a transit- The same trip by car takes about 11 minutes, and travel needs, attracts new riders, connects users way investment in the Midtown Corridor. by bicycle using the Midtown Greenway it takes with job centers and key destinations, and sup-

Project Goals 11 15 minutes. Lower transit travel speeds lead to Currently, there are approximately 33,500 daily the east by the Blue Line (Hiawatha LRT). A lack of decreased service attractiveness. commuters traveling to the corridor. Approxi- fast and efficient connections to the regional tran- mately 20 percent of these commuters originate sitway system limits access to opportunities inside Improvements to transit service and passenger facili- from residences that are within a ½ mile of a and outside the corridor. ties are needed to provide a transportation alterna- planned or current regional transitway that con- tive that is competitive with the automobile and nects to the Midtown Corridor. Approximately Therefore, improved access to job centers both encourages more people to use transit for both 2,600 residents both live and work within the Mid- inside and outside the corridor is needed. As the commuting trips and other travel. town Corridor. region’s travel patterns continue to decentralize, transit must be more attractive to attract riders In addition to containing multiple job centers and to growing non-downtown travel markets. Better A need for improved access to job key destinations, the Midtown Corridor is located east-west connections to existing and planned centers and key destinations in a vital location. It is anchored on the west by the transitways will increase accessibility for transit The Midtown Corridor is a major non-downtown planned Green Line (Southwest LRT), bisected in users and create synergy between our growing center of professional employment in the region. the middle by the Orange Line (I-35W BRT), and on network of high-frequency, high-capacity transitways in the region.

Figure 8: Percentage of households that do not own a car in the Midtown Corridor

12 Project Goals A need to serve the large number both population and employment are forecasted The five project goals are as follows: of people who rely on transit in the to grow significantly through 2030 in the Mid- corridor town Corridor. This projected growth will result in 1. Increase transit use among the growing num- increased travel demand within the Midtown Cor- ber of corridor residents, employees, and visi- The Midtown Corridor study area has a large num- ridor, demand which cannot be accommodated tors ber of people whom do not own cars and whom with the existing transportation system in the rely on transit as their main means of transporta- corridor. Lake Street has limited right-of-way and 2. Improve corridor equity with better mobility tion, as shown in Figure 5. A demographic analysis already high volumes of vehicular traffic. Existing and access to jobs and activities of the study area shows that residents in the corri- transit service is at or near capacity and will not be dor own 30 percent fewer cars per driver the rest of able to accommodate growth in population and 3. Catalyze and support housing and economic the metropolitan area. This characteristic indicates employment forecasted for the corridor. development along the corridor that more of the people in the corridor rely on transit. Improved transit in the corridor is needed 4. Develop a cost-effective transitway that is to better serve these people. Project Goals well-positioned for implementation Five broad goals for the desired outcomes asso- 5. Build upon the vibrancy and diversity of the A need to support city and regional ciated with a transitway investment were devel- corridor by supporting healthy, active com- policies encouraging growth and oped to address the purpose and need for tran- munities and the environment sit improvements in the Midtown Corridor. More development in the corridor The goals served as a framework to compare and specific objectives were also developed for each evaluate the project’s alternatives. The project’s The Midtown Corridor is targeted for growth and goal. For a full list of the objectives, see Appendix evaluation process and measures (discussed later investment which is supportive of enhanced tran- B: Purpose and Need Statement. sit and increased densities. As shown in Table 1, in the document) tie directly back to the project goals.

Table 1: Midtown Corridor Population and Employment Forecasts 2010-2030 Percentage 2010 2030 Growth Growth Population 103,653 114,779 11,126 10.7% Households 47,653 54,374 6,748 14.2% Retail Employment 9,051 10,913 1,862 20.6% Non-Retail 39,976 47,970 7,994 20.0% Employment

Project Goals 13 This page left intentionally blank.

14 INITIAL ALTERNATIVES

Initial Screening Analysis level of detail. For an in-depth discussion of the initial screening process, see Appendix C: Initial Alternatives Initially Under Consider- After defining the goals and objectives of the ation Screening Analysis. desired transitway investment, the next step in the Lake Street AA process was to establish the full range of potential alternatives, called the “universe of alternatives,” Initial Alternatives 1. Enhanced Bus within the study area. This full set of alternatives is The initially considered alternatives all combined 2. Streetcar screened at a high level to determine if they meet an alignment –Lake Street, the Midtown Green- 3. Light Rail Transit (LRT) the project’s purpose and need. For example, if an way, or both – with a transit mode. The 10 initial 4. Dedicated Busway alternative did not catalyze and support economic combinations are listed at right. Of the 10 initially Midtown Greenway development along the corridor it was dropped considered alternatives, two alternatives, com- from the analysis. muter rail on the Greenway and PRT on the Gre- 5. Double/Single-Track Rail enway, were not consistent the purpose and need, 6. Full Double-Track Rail Only those alternatives that meet the purpose and and were dropped from the screening process. 7. Dedicated Busway need were advanced to the next level of analy- The remaining transit modes and alignments are sis where the costs, benefits and impacts of the 8. Personal Rapid Transit described in the next section. alternatives were estimated. This allows the most 9. Commuter Rail promising alternatives to be analyzed at a greater 10. Streetcar Lake Street/Greenway Loop

STUDY PROCESS Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

Locally Initial Universe Set of Conceptual Most Promising of Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Preferred Alternative

LOW LEVEL OF DETAIL HIGH

Initial Alternatives 15 Initial Alignments analyzed four remaining modes: enhanced bus, to travel in opposite direction without any hin- streetcar, dedicated busway and LRT. The charac- drance) and sections of single track (one track The initially considered alignments along Lake teristics of each mode are shown in Figure 7. The that is used by both eastbound and westbound Street and the Midtown Greenway are shown in figure splits the modes into two types: modes rail vehicles). The full double track rail alternative Figure 6. Both alignments ran from the proposed that travel in a dedicated guideway (i.e., in a space assumed the entire alignment used double track. Green Line West Lake station to the Blue Line Lake- reserved only for transit vehicles) and modes that The main difference between these two alterna- Street Midtown Station. One initially considered travel on the street in mixed-traffic. tives was that the full double track alternative was alternative, the streetcar Lake Street/Greenway assumed to need greater amounts of right-of-way loop, travelled counterclockwise along both align- for operations. ments. For maps of each initially considered align- Double/Single-Track Rail versus Full Double ment, see Appendix: C: Initial Screening Analysis. Track Rail in the Greenway Two configurations of rail in the Greenway were Initial Modes analyzed in the initial screening process. Double/ single-track rail consisted of sections of double With the removal of commuter rail and PRT from track (two parallel tracks allowing two rail vehicles the screening process, the initial screening process

Figure 6: Initial Alignments

) n o i s n e Blue Line LRT t x Lake of the Isles E e n i Hennepin Ave L Bloomington Bloomington Lyndale Ave Lyndale Ave Nicollet Chicago Ave Ave Cedar n I-35W Ave Portland e re (G Midtown Greenway T LR W S

Lake Street

Lake Calhoun

= Transit Center 0 0.25 miles 0.5

16 Initial Alternatives Figure 7: Initially Considered Modes DEDICATED GUIDEWAY MIXED TRAFFIC Dedicated Busway Light Rail (LRT) Streetcar Enhanced Bus

Runningway Vehicles operate in right-of-way Operates in right-of-way exclusively Typically operates in mixed-traffic Enhanced bus vehicles operate in exclusively for buses. Sometimes a for the LRT vehicles lanes, but can also be in right-of-way mixed traffic mixed-traffic lanes is used for short exclusively for streetcar vehicles distances

Station Spacing In exclusive right-of-way corridors, Station located every ½ to one mile Station located every ¼ to ¼ mile Stations can be located every ¼ to stations are located every ½ to one ½ mile mile

Station Amenities Distinct shelters with passenger Distinct shelters with passenger Stations can range from basic stops Stations can range from basic stops amenities like real-time information, amenities like real-time information, with minimal passenger amenities to with minimal passenger amenities to fare-collection, and security features fare-collection, and security LRT-like stations LRT like stations features Vehicle Type Diesel or diesel-electric hybrid Electrically powered vehicles with Electrically powered vehicles with Diesel or diesel-electric hybrid vehicles. Some vehicles testing battery overhead wires. overhead wires. Some vehicles are vehicles. Some vehicles testing electric-only operation. testing on-board batteries for short battery electric-only operation. distances Passenger Capacity Between 60 and 105 passengers per Between 200 passengers per Between 115 and 160 passengers per Between 60 and 105 passengers vehicle. vehicle. LRT vehicles are coupled vehicle. Unlike LRT, vehicles operate per vehicle. together to increase passenger as single units. capacity Cost per Mile $10-50 million per mile $80-125 million per mile $30-60 million per mile $2-6 million per mile

Example Operating Boston, Cleveland, Los Angeles Minneapolis, Dallas, San Diego Portland, Seattle, Toronto Kansas City, Oakland, Seattle Locations

Initial Alternatives 17 Initial Screening Analysis Methodology Screening Criteria Screening Requirements

Screening Criteria Consistency with regional Mode characteristics are consistent with Metropolitan Council The initial screening analysis used six screening and local plans recommendations stated in the Transportation Policy Plan and criteria, summarized in Table 2, to evaluate the Regional Transitway Guidelines. project’s initial alternatives. The screening criteria Mode characteristics are consistent with local and other plans reflect different aspects of the project’s purpose and policies. and need statement. For a full description of the initial screening criteria and requirements, see Level of access provided to Mode station spacing guidelines provide sufficient numbers Appendix C: Initial Screening Analysis. jobs and residents of stations within the study area to adequately serve major destination and activity centers.

Scoring the Initial Alternatives Ability to provide desired Mode design characteristics allow for transit speed increases. Alternatives were given a score of Poor, Fair, Good transit capacity and speed Mode is appropriate scale current ridership levels but also or Best depending on how well they fulfilled each increases provides room for growth. criterion. Alternatives with the highest overall score were advanced to the next phase of the Compatibility with existing Mode integrates well with existing transportation study for further in-depth technical analysis. transportation modes and infrastructure and systems. infrastructure The results of the initial screening analysis are shown in Figure 13 . The detailed analysis and scor- Potential ROW impacts Mode requires minimal right-of-way. ing of each alternative is included in Appendix C: Initial Screening Analysis. Community and Mode is compatible with the following five sentiments stakeholder sentiment consistently expressed by the public and the project advisory and stakeholder committees: Advanced Alternatives Does not require reconstruction of Lake Street. As shown in Figure 8, enhanced bus on Lake Street Does not remove a travel lane or greatly impact parking on and double/single-track rail had the highest over- Lake Street. all scores and were advanced for further in-depth analysis. Minimizes impacts to Greenway historic and cultural resources. Minimizes impacts to Greenway bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Mode is felt to have potential to spur economic development.

18 Initial Alternatives Figure 8: Initial Screening Results

Initial Alternatives 19 An Iterative Process: Adding Alternatives The initial screening analysis was an iterative process. The initial screening results were shared with the public, and their feedback was then presented to the project’s committees. This feedback lead to the inclusion of a dual alternative and an enhanced bus extension.

Dual Alternative The dual alternative combines the two highest scoring initial alternatives: an enhanced bus on Lake Street combined with a double/single-track rail in the Greenway. The end points (the proposed Green Line West Lake LRT Station and the existing Blue Line Midtown-Lake Street LRT Station) remain the same for this alternative; however some of the station locations for each mode were changed. These changes are discussed in the next section.

Enhanced Bus Extension The enhanced bus extension was included to respond to stakeholder interest in providing The initial screening results were shaped by feedback gathered at public outreach events and other meetings transitway improvements on Lake Street east of Hiawatha Avenue. The extension of the enhanced bus alignment travels east of the Hiawatha LRT station and into Saint Paul to connect with the Green Line’s Snelling Avenue Station.

20 Initial Alternatives CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

Designing the Alternatives The next step in the AA process was to design the three alternatives advanced for more detailed analysis (enhanced bus on Lake Street, double/single-track rail in the Greenway, and the dual alternative). Some of the features addressed included:

• Station platform and design • Station siting • Guideway design (e.g., curb extensions for LEGENDthe enhanced bus alternative, retaining walls for the rail alternatives, etc.) SHELTER PLATFORM AREA• Operation and maintenance facilities CURB EXTENSTION/ Conceptual layout of enhanced station on Lake at Hennepin 0 15 30 60 WIDENED SIDEWALK• Power systems AREA NORTH DRAFT SCALE IN FEET FOR DISCUSSION • Service planning ONLY 10/4/2013 MIDTOWN CORRIDOR SHEET NO. These designs were conceptual and were used to ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 8 LAKE STREET ALTERNATIVE 19 develop an approximate cost estimate for each LTK HENNEPIN AVE STATION - EASTBOUND alternative. They were also used to compare the relative benefits and impacts of each alternative. For an in-depth discussion of the details of each alternative, see Appendix D: Detailed Definition of Alternatives.

A map and an overview of the characteristics of each alternative are discussed in the next section.

Conceptual layout of a typical rail station in the Greenway

SECTION B-B (LOOKING WEST) Concept Development 21 0 5 10 20 394 DOWNTOWN M IS MINNEAPOLIS SISSI PPI R IV E R 94

W FRANKLIN AVE

CEDAR LAKE LAKE OF THE ISLES 394 DOWNTOWN M IS MINNEAPOLIS SISSI PPI R W 26TH ST IV E R Hennepin 94 Minnehaha West Lake Lyndale Nicollet Portland Chicago Bloomington ST Ave S Ave E RE Station LAK ET Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Enhanced Bus on Lake Street Alternative W FRANKLIN AVE CEDAR LAKE LAKE T EST LR Calhoun OF THE HW ) UT XTENSION Knox HennepinISLES Dupont I-35 Cedar Midtown SO E E Parkway E 32ND ST LIN EN West Ave Ave S Ave (Stevens/ Ave Station RE (G 2nd Ave) W 26TH ST

Hennepin 35W 1/2-MILE BUFFER Minnehaha WestLAKE Lake Ave S Lyndale Nicollet Portland Chicago Bloomington Ave E STR StationCALHOUN EET Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave LAK W 36TH ST 55

ORANGE LINE BRT EXCELSIOR BLVD BLUE LINE LRT T LRT Calhoun WES H ) HENNEPIN AVE UT XTENSION Knox Hennepin Dupont I-35 Cedar Midtown SO E E Parkway E 32ND ST LIN Ave Ave S Ave (Stevens/ Ave Station EEN West (GR 2nd Ave) LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO NICOLLET AVE 35W 1/2-MILE BUFFER LAKE AVE BLOOMINGTON CALHOUN W 36TH ST 55 Legend LAKE ORANGE LINE BRT EXCELSIOR BLVD BLUE LINE LRT HARRIET Enhanced Bus Alternative HENNEPIN AVE The project’s enhanced bus alternative runs Station 0 1500 in mixed3000 traffic 6000similar to a local bus, and it Intermodal Station LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO incorporates limited-stop service, technol- NICOLLET AVE BLOOMINGTON AVE BLOOMINGTON ogy improvements, and branding to differ- entiate the service from regular bus routes. The Key Characteristics Legend primary objective of enhanced bus is to provideLAKE • 4.1-mile long alignment faster and more frequent service as wellHARRIET as an Enhanced Bus Alternative • 14 stations, located approximately improved customer experience. Faster service is Station accomplished by reducing signal and passenger every 1/3 mile 0 1500 3000 6000 Intermodal Station boarding delay, and stopping at fewer locations. • 32 minute one-way travel time An improved passenger experience is achieved through more comfortable vehicles, stations, • Assumes a 60-foot articulated bus. information technology, and improved service • Eliminates 26 parking spaces. reliability.

Enhanced bus in Kansas City, Missouri

22 Concept Development Enhanced Bus on Lake Street Alternative

Station Concept: Enhanced bus shelters are designed with modular shelters that range in size from extra small to large.

Before After

Station Visualization: Before and after enhanced bus station visualization at the corner of Lake Street and Bloomington Avenue.

Concept Development 23 394 M DOWNTOWN IS SISSI MINNEAPOLIS PPI R IV E R

W FRANKLIN AVE

CEDAR LAKE LAKE OF THE ISLES

394 M DOWNTOWN IS W 26TH ST SISSI MINNEAPOLIS PPI R Calhoun IV E Beach Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet Chicago Bloomington R Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave 94

MIDTOWN W FRANKLIN AVE Double/Single-Track Rail in the Greenway AlternativeGREENWAY I-35W 5th Ave T EST LR HW ) CEDAR UT XTENSION LAKE SO E E West Lake LAKE Midtown LIN OF THE EEN Station E 32ND ST (GR Station ISLES 1/2-MILE BUFFER 35W W 26TH ST Calhoun LAKE Beach Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet Chicago Bloomington CALHOUN Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave 55 W 36TH ST BLUE LINE LRT

MIDTOWN

ORANGE LINE BRT EXCELSIOR BLVD GREENWAY I-35W 5th Ave ST LRT

E HENNEPIN AVE HW ) UT XTENSION SO E E West Lake Midtown LIN EN E 32ND ST RE Station Station

G AVE LYNDALE ( AVE CHICAGO NICOLLET AVE

1/2-MILE BUFFER AVE BLOOMINGTON 35W LAKE CALHOUN 55 W 36TH ST Legend BLUE LINE LRT

LAKE ORANGE LINE BRT Greenway Alternative The double/single-trackEXCELSIOR BLVD rail alternativeHARRIET uses rail transit technology operating on tracks within an Station exclusive fixed guideway. The study assumes this alternativeHENNEPIN AVE uses either a single car light rail vehi- 0 1500 3000 6000 cle (LRV) or modern streetcar. The vehicle will be propelled along rails by electricity supplied Intermodal Station LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO through an overhead wire. NICOLLET AVE BLOOMINGTON AVE BLOOMINGTON

Key Characteristics Legend • 4.4-mile long alignment LAKE Greenway Alternative HARRIET • 10 stations, located approximately Station 0every1500 1/2 mile3000 6000 Intermodal Station • 13 min one-way travel time • Assumes a 94-foot single car light rail vehicle (LRV) or modern streetcar • Retains the existing Greenway multiuse path.

Metro Transit Single Car Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Modern Streetcar

24 Concept Development Double/Single-Track Rail in the Greenway Alternative

Station Concept: Rail in the Greenway stations area designed and placed so passengers can easily enter and exit the Greenway.

Before After Station Visualization: Before and after rail in the Greenway station visualization at Bloomington Avenue in the Greenway.

Concept Development 25 394 M DOWNTOWN IS SISSI MINNEAPOLIS PPI R IV ) E T N R LR IO T S S EN E T X 94 W E H T E U IN O L S N E E W FRANKLIN AVE R G ( CEDAR 35W LAKE 394 LAKE M DOWNTOWN IS OF THE SISSI MINNEAPOLIS PPI R ISLES IV ) E T N R LR IO T S S EN E T W 26TH ST X 94 W E Calhoun H T E Dual Alternative U IN Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet Chicago Bloomington Beach O L th S N 5 Ave E Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave E W FRANKLIN AVE R Minnehaha G ( CEDAR 35W Ave LAKE LAKE MIDTOWN OF THE GREENWAY ISLES

West Lake Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet Portland WBloomington 26TH ST Midtown Station Calhoun Ave S Ave S Ave Ave Ave Station E 32ND ST Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet Chicago Bloomington Beach th DupontAve S Ave Ave 5 Ave Ave Ave I-35 Chicago Cedar Minnehaha Ave (Stevens/ Ave Ave 1/2-MILE BUFFER Ave LAKE 2nd Ave) CALHOUN MIDTOWN 55 GREENWAY W 36TH ST BLUE LINE LRT West Lake Lyndale Nicollet Bloomington Midtown Hennepin ORANGE LINE BRT Portland EXCELSIOR BLVD Station Ave S Ave S Ave Ave Ave Station E 32ND ST HENNEPIN AVE Dupont I-35 Chicago Cedar LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE Ave AVE CHICAGO Ave 1/2-MILE BUFFER

NICOLLET AVE NICOLLET (Stevens/ Ave LAKE 2nd Ave) AVE BLOOMINGTON CALHOUN 55 W 36TH ST BLUE LINE LRT Legend

ORANGE LINE BRT EXCELSIOR BLVD Double/Single Track and Enhanced Bus Alternative The dual alternative is a combination of the first HENNEPIN AVE Lagoon Avenue one-way couplet. Hence, the dual LAKE two alternatives: an enhancedHARRIET bus on Lake Street alternative has 10 enhanced bus stations versus Enhanced Bus Extension LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO NICOLLET AVE NICOLLET

and a double/single-track rail in the Greenway, as the 14 stations assumed in the enhanced bus on Station AVE BLOOMINGTON 0 1500 3000 6000 shown above. For the rail portion of the alternative, Lake Street alternative. All other design assump- Intermodal Station the alignment and station locations remain the tions for both alignments remain consistent. Legend same as the original rail alternative. However, the Double/Single Track and Enhanced Bus Alternative alignment and station locations for the enhancedLAKE bus are slightly different in the dual HARRIETalternative Enhanced Bus Extension The dual alternative is a Station than0 what1500 were assumed3000 in the enhanced6000 bus on Lake Street alternative. In that alternative the align- combination of the first two Intermodal Station ment spanned from West Lake Street Station to the alternatives: an enhanced bus on Minnehaha Avenue Station. In the dual alternative, Lake Street and a double/single the western terminus is shifted from West Lake Station to the Uptown Transit Center on Henne- track rail in the Greenway. pin Avenue, located just north of the Lake Street/

26 Concept Development 394 DOWNTOWN WEST MINNEAPOLIS

W FRANKLIN AVE See eastern portion of alignment below

SOUTHWEST LRT th (GREEN LINE EXTENSION) Calhoun Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet 5 Chicago Bloomington Minnehaha Beach Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave Ave

LAKE STREET

Hennepin Nicollet Portland Bloomington Cedar West Lake Ave Ave Ave Station Ave S Ave 394 DOWNTOWN WEST Dupont Lyndale I-35 ChicagoMINNEAPOLIS Midtown LAKE Ave Ave S (Stevens/2nd) Ave Station CALHOUN ORANGE LINE BRT W 36TH ST

EXCELSIOR BLVD W FRANKLIN AVE

35W See eastern portion of alignment below

394 WEST 0 1500 3000 6000 DOWNTOWN HENNEPIN AVE MINNEAPOLISSOUTHWEST LRT th LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO (GREEN LINE EXTENSION) Calhoun AVE NICOLLET Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet 5 Chicago Bloomington Minnehaha Beach Ave S Ave Ave AVE BLOOMINGTON Ave Ave Ave Ave

Enhanced Bus Extension W FRANKLIN AVE LAKE STREET See eastern portion of alignment below

Legend Portland Bloomington Cedar West Lake Hennepin Nicollet Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave SOUTHWEST LRT Station th (GREEN LINE EXTENSION) Calhoun Hennepin Lyndale Nicollet 5 Chicago Bloomington MinnehahaEAST Ave Ave Ave Ave Beach Ave S Ave Ave Dupont Lyndale I-35Double/Single Chicago Midtown LAKE Ave Ave S (Stevens/2nd)Track and Ave Station CALHOUN GREEN LINE LRT ORANGE LINE BRT W 36TH ST LAKE STREET Enhanced Bus 94 EXCELSIOR BLVD University/ Alternative See western portion of alignment above Spruce Tree Portland Bloomington Cedar 35W West Lake Hennepin Nicollet Enhanced Bus Ave S Ave Ave Ave Ave Extension Station W 26TH ST 0 1500 3000 6000 HENNEPIN AVE Dupont Lyndale I-35 Chicago Midtown LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE

Station AVE CHICAGO Cleveland AVE NICOLLET LAKE Ave Ave S (Stevens/2nd) Ave Station CALHOUN 31st Ave 44th Ave Otis Ave Ave Fry Street AVE BLOOMINGTON ORANGE LINE BRT W 36TH ST Intermodal Station

EXCELSIOR BLVD 35W 36th Ave E 32ND ST Cretin Ave Fairview Ave Legend 0 1500 3000 6000 HENNEPIN AVE As previously mentioned, the enhanced bus extension was analyzed at the request of stakehold- 1/2-MILE BUFFER LYNDALE AVE LYNDALE CHICAGO AVE CHICAGO ers. Because the AVE NICOLLET majority of the extension was outside the project study area, it was onlyEAST evaluated SUMMIT AVE BLOOMINGTON AVE BLOOMINGTON

using a subsetR of evaluation measures. Double/Single

E V

I Track and

Key Characteristics I GREEN LINE LRT

P Enhanced Bus

P I

Provides 4.2 miles of expanded S 94 University/ Alternative

• S I See western portion of alignment above

S Spruce Tree SNELLING AVE

service. S I Legend Enhanced Bus 55 BLUE LINE M • Adds ten stations (21 total). 0 1500 3000 6000 Extension LRT W 26TH ST EAST

• Attracts 8,000 more riders. Double/SingleCleveland Station 31st Ave 44th Ave Otis Ave TrackAve and Fry Street • Provides access to 11,000 more jobs.GREEN LINE LRT Enhanced Bus Intermodal Station 94 University/ Alternative

• See western portion of alignment above Adds $18.9 million of capital costs. Spruce Tree Enhanced Bus • Adds $3.2 million of annual 36th Ave E 32ND ST CretinExtension Ave Fairview Ave operatingW 26TH ST costs. Cleveland 1/2-MILE BUFFER Station SUMMIT AVE 31st Ave 44th Ave Otis Ave Ave Fry Street

E Intermodal Station

S S

E 32ND ST I Concept Development36th Ave Cretin Ave Fairview Ave S 27 SNELLING AVE

55 M BLUE LINE 0 1500 3000 6000 1/2-MILE BUFFER LRT SUMMIT AVE

I S SNELLING AVE

55 M BLUE LINE 0 1500 3000 6000

LRT Schematic Comparison of Alternatives Bloomington Minnehaha Hennepin Midtown Portland Chicago Nicollet Station Lyndale Dupont Cedar 35W 5th Enhanced Bus on Lake Street Midtown Greenway To Snelling Avenue Lake Street

Enhanced Bus Station West Lake WestPkwy Calhoun

Knox Total Travel Time: 32 min.

Double/Single-Track Rail in the Greenway Midtown Greenway

Lake Street

Rail Total Travel Time: 13 min.

Dual Alternative – Combination of Rail and Enhanced Bus To Midtown Greenway Snelling Avenue

Lake Street Total Travel Time: 13 min. Rail Enhanced Bus Note: The Dual Alternative Total Travel Time: 24 min. enhanced bus terminates at the Station West Lake Beach Calhoun Uptown Transit Center Nicollet 35W 5th Portland Chicago Bloomington Cedar Station Midtown Minnehaha Hennepin Dupont Lyndale

Transit Center

28 Concept Development Service Plans Table 3: Route Frequencies (in minutes) All three alternatives would operate from 5 a.m. Local Bus Rail Enhanced Bus until 10 p.m. at the frequencies shown in Table 3. Alternative Peak Midday Peak Midday Peak Midday Changes to Existing Bus Service Enhanced Bus 15 15 – – 7.5 10 on Lake Street Rail 15 15 10 10 – – Overall, all three alternatives retain or improve the current level of bus service on Lake Street. Dual 15 15 10 10 10 10 The implementation of enhanced bus operations would replace the corridor limited-stop service, Route 53. Currently, Route 53 makes three eastbound trips in the morning peak hour to Saint Paul. Enhanced bus would dramatically improve What about the No-Build Alternative? the span and frequency of this service.

No service changes are made to the local Route The no-build alternative is included in The 2030 no-build alternative assumes 21A under any of the alternatives; however the every AA to establish a starting point for that no significant additional transit service local Routes 21D and 21E are eliminated. evaluating the benefits and costs of other changes will be made within the Midtown alternatives, as well as to identify the con- Corridor, representing a fiscally constrained For an in-depth discussion of the service plan and sequences of doing nothing. The 2030 no- plan that is consistent with service poli- changes to the existing bus service on Lake Street, build alternative includes current services cies. However, the 2030 no-build alterna- see Appendix E: Operating and Maintenance as well as planned enhancements to the tive includes several significant improve- Costs. existing transit as stated in the Metropolitan ments to the regional transit system, such Council’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan, as Central Corridor LRT and Southwest LRT as amended in May 2013. These changes (future Green Lines). For a full list of projects are based upon approved funding and are included in the no build alternative, see being built into the operational planning. Appendix D: Detailed Definition of Alter- natives

Concept Development 29 RESULTS & EVALUATION Goal Evaluation Measures Appendix With the three alternatives defined, the costs, 1 Daily project linked trips Appendix F benefits and impacts of each were estimated and evaluated. The project’s purpose, need, goals and Number of transit reliant riders Appendix F objectives provided the framework for quantita- 2 tive and qualitative evaluation of the alternatives. Travel time savings Appendix E Development potential Appendix G A set of evaluation measures, each one tied back to a project goal, were identified to evaluate the Existing TOD policies Appendix G project alternatives. The evaluation measures are listed on the right along with a link to the appen- Station area population densities (2010) Appendix J dix containing the detailed analysis for each mea- 3 Corridor employment (2010) Appendix J sure. Level of affordable housing Appendix H Results Snapshot Affordable housing policies Appendix H The results for a few of the evaluation measures, Capital costs ($2013) Appendix I capital costs, operating costs and ridership projections, are shown in the next section. Operating and maintenance costs ($2012) Appendix E 4 Annualized capital plus operating costs per trip Appendix J

Passengers per revenue hour Appendix J

Subsidy per passenger Appendix J

Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources Appendix H

Potential impacts to parklands

Potential impacts of noise and vibration

5 Potential right of way impacts

Potential traffic impacts

Potential pedestrian and bicycle impacts

Daily reduction in automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT)

30 Results & Evaluation Range of Capital Costs Cost Estimates The capital costs are presented in ranges for the Capital Operating Alternative rail alternatives to reflect several options still being Costs Costs (annual) considered in the study. These options are the length of the single-track segments and the use Enhanced Bus $50 million $7 million of turf track instead of the more common ballast Rail $185 - 220 million $8 million track. These issues are discussed in more detail on page 40. Dual $215 - 250 million $15 million

Ridership Results The ridership results are broken into two main parts: the number of riders that would choose to Ridership Projections (Year 2030) ride local service (i.e., Route 21) and the riders that Enhanced Bus would choose to ride the new service. The corri- Local Corridor Alternative Rail Study Extended dor total represents the sum of both types of rid- Bus Total Area Corridor ers. Ridership projections by station are shown on page 32. Existing (2012) 14,600 – – – 14,600 Enhanced Bus 8,500 – 11,000 3,000 22,500 Rail 9,500 11,000 – – 20,500 Dual Alignment 6,000 9,500 8,500 8,000 32,000

Results & Evaluation 31 Ridership Projections (2030) by Station

32 Results & Evaluation Evaluating the Results Figure 9: Scoring for Goals 1, 2, & 3 Since the purpose of an AA is to identify a tran- Enhanced Rail in the Dual sit alternative that best meets the transportation Bus Greenway Alternative needs of the local community in terms of techni- Goal 1: Increase transit use among the growing number of corridor residents, employees, & visitors cal feasibility, costs, and benefits, the results associated with each alternative were evaluated and 1 Project Daily Linked Trips scored relatively against each other. Goal 1 sub total Goal 2: Improve corridor equity with better mobility and access to jobs and activities Scoring the Results 2 Number of transit reliant riders The results of each evaluation measure were com- 3 Travel time savings paratively scored on a three point scale by alternative (i.e., a total maximum score of three points per Goal 2 sub total evaluation measure). Goal 3: Catalyze and support housing and economic development along the corridor The scoring for the measures associated with goals 4 Development potential one, two and three are shown in Figure 9 and 5 Existing TOD policies the scoring for goals four and five are shown in 6 Station area population densities (2010) Figure 10. 7 Corridor employment (2010) Please see Appendix J: Evaluation for a detailed 8 Proportion of affordable housing rating discussion of the scoring methodology as well as 9 Affordable housing policies a summary of the quantitative and qualitative data associated with each evaluation measure. Goal 3 sub total KEY TO SYMBOLS: Strongly supports goal Supports goal Does not support goal Interpreting the Results There was little differentiation between the alter- Costs Ridership natives for measures relating to demographic The enhanced bus alternative scored the highest The dual alternative performed the strongest of criteria (i..e , population, employment, afford- on most evaluation measures relating to costs. the three alternatives on evaluation measures able housing, etc.) because the two corridors are However, when costs were combined with rider- relating to projected ridership. It had the highest located are very close together. However, the dif- ship in Measure 14: subsidy per passengers (i.e., a number of project daily linked trips and the high- ferentiation that occurred in the following areas per passenger estimate of the cost of the project est number of transit-reliant riders. drove the results of the final scores. that is not covered by the fare) the enhanced bus and the dual alternative received the same score.

Results & Evaluation 33 Travel Time Savings Figure 10: Scoring for Goals 4 & 5 The rail and the dual alternatives provide markedly Enhanced Rail in the Dual faster trips through the corridor than the enhanced Bus Greenway Alternative bus alternative and consequently received higher Goal 4: Develop a cost-effective transitway that is well-positioned for implementation scores for Measure Three: travel time savings. 10 Capitol costs (2013) 11 Net Operating and maintenance costs (2013) Impacts to Historic and Cultural Resources 12 Annualized capital plus operating costs per trip The rail and dual alternatives scored poorly for 13 Passengers per revenue hour potential impacts to historic resources, because 14 Subsidy per passenger the majority of the Greenway corridor lies within Goal 4 sub total the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Grade Separation Historic District, a listed historic district in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Goal 5: Build upon the vibrancy and diversity of the corridor by supporting healthy, active communities and the environment The district includes the Greenway trench, bridges, and other contributing resources. While there are 15 Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources some historic resources along Lake Street that 16 Potential impacts to parklands could potentially be impacted by the enhanced 17 Potential impacts of noise and vibration bus alternative, the footprint of the alternative is 18 Potential right of way impacts relatively small. Building rail transit in the Green- way has much a higher potential of disturbing the 19 Potential traffic impacts historic district and therefore the alternatives with 20 Pedestrian and bicycle impacts a rail component scored poorly on this measure. 21 Reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Goal 4 sub total

Right of Way Impacts KEY TO SYMBOLS Similarly, the enhanced bus alternative had the Strongly supports goal Supports goal Does not support goal fewest potential right of way impacts due to its small footprint and therefore received the highest score for this measure.

34 Results & Evaluation Overall Scores The total score for all three alternatives are shown below. When the subtotals for all five goals are averaged, the dual alternative receives the highest score.

Enhanced Rail in the Dual Goals Bus Greenway Alternative Increase transit use among the growing Goal 1: number of corridor residents, employees, and visitors Improve corridor equity with better mobility Goal 2: and access to jobs and activities Catalyze and support housing and economic Goal 3: development along the corridor Develop a cost-eﬀective transitway that is Goal 4: well-positioned for implementation Build upon the vibrancy and diversity of the Goal 5: corridor by supporting healthy, active communities and the environment

TOTAL

KEY TO SYMBOLS Strongly supports goal Supports goal Does not support goal

Results & Evaluation 35 This page left intentionally blank.

36 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION

Public Feedback on the Technical Figure 11: Which alternatives best meet the goals outlined in the project’s purpose Results and need statement? 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 The results of the technical analysis were presented to the 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 public at two meetings in November 2013. Public feed- Increase transit use among the growing number of back on the alternatives was collected at both meetings corridor residents, employees, and visitors Increase transit use among the growing number of and via an online survey. corridor residents, employees, and visitors Improve corridor equity with better mobility and access to jobs and activities Comment cards at the public meetings and the online sur- First Improve corridor equity with better vey asked the two following questions: mobility and access to jobs and activities Second First Catalyze and support housing and economic Third Second • Which alternatives best meet the goals outlined in the development along the corridor Fourth Catalyze and support housing and economic Third project’s purpose and need statement? Fifth development along the corridor Fourth Develop a cost-effective transitway that is well- Fifth • Rank the importance of the project goals on a scale of positioned for implementation 1 to 5 (one being the best). Develop a cost-effective transitway that is well- positioned for implementation Build upon the vibrancy and diversity of the corridor by In total, 286 responses to the questions were collected. The supporting healthy, active communities and the summary of the responses are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Build upon the vibrancy and diversity ofe tnhvei rcoonrmrideonrt by supporting healthy, active communities and the environment As shown in Figure 11, the dual alternative was chosen as the alternative that best met project goals one, two and Figure 12: Rank the importance of the project0 goals20 40 on 6a0 scale80 of100 1 to120 5 1(one40 1 6being0 five, and it barely trailed the rail alternative as the best the best). Increase transit use among the growing 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 alternative for goal three. The only goal where it trailed sig- number of corridor residents, employees, and nificantly was in goal four - develop a cost-effective tran- Increase transit use among thev igsirtoowrsing sitway - where the enhanced bus alternative was chosen number of corridor residents, employees, and Improve corridor equity with better mobviilsiittyors as the best alternative. and access to jobs and activities Improve corridor equity with better mobility Enhanced Bus and access to jobs and activities Figure 12 shows that goal one - increase transit use among Catalyze and support housing and economic Rail Enhanced Bus the growing number of corridor residents, employees, and development along the corridor Dual Catalyze and support housing and economic Rail visitors - was ranked as the most important among the development along the corridor five. The dual alternative was chosen as the best alterna- Develop a cost-effective transitway that is Dual well-positioned for implementation tive to meet goal one (Figure 11). Taken together, public Develop a cost-effective transitway that is feedback shows support for the dual alternative. Build uponw theell -vpiobsriatinocnye adn fdo dr iivmeprsleitmy oenf tahtieon corridor by supporting healthy, active Build ucpoomnm thuen ivtiibersa anncdy tahned edniveirrosnitmy oenf the corridor by supporting healthy, active communities and the environment

Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation 37 Locally Preferred Alternative Double versus Single-Track Sections rations mentioned above both include the estimated placement and height of retaining walls Recommendation The AA provided two high-level design concepts in the corridor. These drawings are included in for the rail portion of the corridor in response to The technical results and public feedback were Appendix D: Detailed Definition of Alternatives. community feedback asking for a larger applica- presented to project stakeholders in a joint meet- These concept drawings will be refined in future tion of single-track segments in the Greenway. ing of the CAC, TAC, and PAC. At the end of the study phases. meeting, the PAC unanimously recommended the Carefully designed single-track segments could dual alternative with the enhanced bus extension create cost savings, could reduce the need for to Saint Paul as the LPA for the Midtown Corridor. retaining walls and potentially create fewer overall At-grade Street Crossings Midtown Alternatives Analysis Nextimpacts Steps to the character of the Greenway. How- The complete official LPA recommendation can be Several community members expressed concern ever, double-track segments increase the reliability seen in Appendix K: LPA Recommendation. about noise associated with the traffic control 2013 and flexibility2014 of the system, making it possible to devices (e.g., gate arms equipped with bells that quickly and easily address service disruptions and NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY ring whenFEBRUARY a rail vehicle approaches) that may be maintenance issues. In future phases of study the Topics Requiring Additional necessary to control in intersection of rail, auto- balance between these two needs will continue Analysis mobile, bicycle and pedestrian traffic at the six at- to be studied. Continue outreach to neighborhood and community organizations Summarizegrade crossings created by the railComplete portion of the Selecting an LPA is an important stepFinal Publicon the way 2/12: PAC Public Final towards the implementation of a transitway;Meetings how- dual alternative. The designselects LPA and application of the Collect public feedback via online survey Comment Report ever, it is one of the earlier steps in the overall pro- Retaining Walls in the Greenway necessary traffic control devices will be analyzed in future study phases. Future environmental stud- cess, as shown in Figure 13. Future phases of study The implementation of rail in the Greenway would ies will also identify impacts associated with noise will address greater details for the project. During require additional retaining wall segments in the We are Here and/or vibration. the Midtown Corridor AA process the following Greenway. The placement of retaining walls is tied issues were identified for future analysis: to the application of single versus double-track. The concept drawings of the two track configu- Future Midtown Transitway Development Process Figure 13: Next Steps for the Midtown Corridor

Transitway FTA & Alternatives Draft Environmental Final Environmental Record of Environmental Analysis Impact Statement Impact Statement Decision Engineering Construction Service Process Begins Scoping Draft EIS Hearings Local Decision Meetings Making Locally Preferred Alternative Process: Metro Transit, City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Council

Project Ongoing Public Engagement Activities Community Meetings, Open Houses, Focus Groups, Public Hearings, Committee Meetings, Email Blasts, Web and Social Media

38 Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation Type of Rail Vehicle Metro Transit plans to continue to facilitate a dia- logue with the community and policy leaders in The LPA did not recommend a specific type of rail future phases of study regarding the rail vehicle vehicle for the corridor. Streetcar and light rail vehi- selection process. cles (LRVs) are both under consideration. Streetcar vehicles are slightly shorter than LRVs, as shown in Figure 14, which translates to a slightly shorter Bridge Pier Protection station platform in final design. The Greenway has Bridge pier protection, the practice of reinforc- long been considered a streetcar corridor. How- ing bridge piers with a concrete barrier to protect ever, given the corridor’s geographic context (e.g., against a bridge collapse in the event of a crash, is a grade separated trench), it will function much a modern requirement for all bridges adjacent to more like a light rail system no matter what type transit facilities. An example of a modern Greenway of vehicle is ultimately chosen. Furthermore, a sin- bridge with pier protection is shown in Figure 15. gle-car LRV would be interchangeable with Metro Pier Protection The historic bridges in the Greenway are no longer Transit’s current fleet of LRVs, creating opportuni- consistent with modern safety standards and pier ties for savings on parts, maintenance equipment, protection would need to be added to the major- mechanic expertise and other operating costs. ity of bridges in the corridor. The height, width and Lastly, a slightly larger vehicle would provide a overall design of the necessary pier protection will greater capacity for bicycles and luggage. Consid- continue to be analyzed in future project phases. ering the corridor’s connection to the airport via the Blue Line and its proximity to one of the most Figure 15: Example of pier protection on a modern popular bikeways in the region the extra capacity bridge in the Greenway may be necessary.

FigureFigure 14: 1: Comparison Comparison of a of streetcar a and streetcar a single-car-‐ and a single car light light rail rail vehicle vehicle

Modern Streetcar

Single Light Rail Vehicle

Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation 39 Figure 16: Visualization of ballasted track (left) and turf track (right) in the Greenway

Turf versus Ballasted Track in the Impacts to Historic and Cultural Connection with Southwest LRT Greenway Resources The western end of both the enhanced bus and Community feedback highlighted the desire to The majority of the Greenway corridor lies within the rail alignments are designed to connect to the experiment with turf track in the Greenway. Turf the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Grade planned Green Line (Southwest LRT) West Lake track, the practice of covering the rail bed in grass, Separation Historic District. The district is listed in Station. The West Lake station is a constrained site would maintain the green look of the corridor the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The and careful analysis will be necessary to provide a and potentially dampen noise and heat from the district includes the Greenway trench, bridges, and smooth transition between all three alignments. rail system. However, turf track is untested in the other contributing resources. Introducing a mod- However, Green Line planners are working in tan- Midwest region and there are few examples of turf ern rail system into the corridor, no matter how dem with Metro Transit to ensure the connection track in North America. Ballasted track (i.e., tracks many segments of single-track are implemented, is compatible. placed in a bed of crushed stone) is a proven and has a high potential to impact the historic nature reliable technology with lower costs and fewer of the corridor. Future study phases will analyze maintenance requirements. Metro Transit will con- how to mitigate impacts to the district and its tinue to analyze the cost and benefits of the appli- resources. cation of turf track in the Greenway. A visualization of both ballasted and turf track is shown in Figure 16.

40 Locally Preferred Alternative Recommendation NEXT STEPS

The Metropolitan Council is in the process of updating the region’s Transportation Policy Plan, the plan for guiding the development of the region’s transportation system. The Midtown Corridor LPA will be incorporated into the Trans- portation Policy Plan during this planning process. Due to the funding constraints facing the region the corridor will mostly likely appear as an unfunded corridor in the 2014 Transportation Policy Plan update. However, it is possible that the project will move forward in phases. Considering the funding situation, it is likely that enhanced bus alignment, the less expensive portion of the project, will be implemented first.

When funding is identified in the future, for either a phased approach or full project implementation, Hen- nepin County and the city of Minneapolis would need to provide resolutions of support to move the project forward.

Next Steps 41