DOCSLIB.ORG

Report #8: Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report #8: Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Report #8: Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study FINAL February 2018 This page is intentionally left blank. Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Table of Contents Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................................v List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ S-1 Document Purpose ............................................................................................................................... S-1 Overview of the Project ......................................................................................................................... S-1 Decision-Making Process ...................................................................................................................... S-2 Advisory Committees ................................................................................................................. S-3 Public Engagement .................................................................................................................... S-3 Technical Work ........................................................................................................................... S-3 Stages of the Study ............................................................................................................................... S-3 Timeline of Decisions ............................................................................................................................ S-4 Summary: Corridor Vision ..................................................................................................................... S-6 Summary: Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................... S-6 Summary: LPA and Next Steps ............................................................................................................ S-7 1.0 CORRIDOR VISION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Need.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Universe of Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 6 3.0 INITIAL SCREENING: RESULTS .................................................................................... 7 4.0 TECHNICAL SCREENING: RESULTS ...........................................................................12 4.1 Modes Carried Forward .............................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Alignments Carried Forward ....................................................................................................... 13 5.0 DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES ...............................................................15 6.0 DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................19 6.1 Criteria ......................................................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Decisions: What Modes? ............................................................................................................ 21 6.3 Decisions: What Alignments? ..................................................................................................... 23 Street vs. CP Spur ........................................................................................................................ 23 Hwy 5 vs. Ford Pkwy .................................................................................................................... 24 Report #8: Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study | FINAL February 2018 i Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study 6.4 Focused Evaluation of Rail Alternatives by River Crossing ........................................................ 25 Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 26 6.5 Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................. 27 7.0 RIVERVIEW LPA AND FORD CORRIDOR ....................................................................31 7.1 Riverview LPA ............................................................................................................................. 31 7.2 Ford Corridor ............................................................................................................................... 34 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .............................................................................................35 8.1 Riverview LPA ............................................................................................................................. 35 8.2 Ford Corridor ............................................................................................................................... 36 9.0 LIST OF STUDY DOCUMENTS UNDER SEPARATE COVER ......................................38 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Riverview Corridor .............................................................................................................. S-1 Exhibit 2: Riverview Decision Making Process .................................................................................. S-2 Exhibit 3: Relationship between Policy, Technical, and Public Input ................................................ S-3 Exhibit 4: Study Stages ...................................................................................................................... S-4 Exhibit 5: Timeline of Key PAC Decisions ......................................................................................... S-5 Exhibit 6: Riverview Corridor Needs .................................................................................................. S-6 Exhibit 7: Alternatives Analysis Sub-Stages ...................................................................................... S-6 Exhibit 8: Alternatives Analysis Stage, Decisions and Timeline ........................................................ S-7 Exhibit 9: Riverview Locally Preferred Alternative ............................................................................. S-9 Exhibit 10: Ford Corridor Potential Study Area................................................................................ S-10 Exhibit 11: Project Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................. 3 Exhibit 12: Universe of Alternatives (Modes) ......................................................................................... 4 Exhibit 13: Universe of Alternatives (Alignments) ................................................................................. 5 Exhibit 14: Alternatives Analysis Sub-Stages ........................................................................................ 6 Exhibit 15: Alternatives Analysis vs. Timeline of PAC Decisions .......................................................... 6 Exhibit 16: Modes Carried Forward from Initial Screening .................................................................... 7 Exhibit 17: Trunk Alignments Carried Forward from Initial Screening................................................... 8 Exhibit 18: Downtown Saint Paul Alignments Carried Forward from Initial Screening ......................... 9 Exhibit 19: Ford Site Alignments Carried Forward from Initial Screening ........................................... 10 Exhibit 20: River Crossing Alignments Carried Forward from Initial Screening .................................. 11 Exhibit 21: Modes Carried Forward from Technical Screening ........................................................... 12 Exhibit 22: Alignments Carried Forward from Technical Screening .................................................... 14 Exhibit 23: Alignment Alternative Sub-Areas ....................................................................................... 16 Exhibit 24: Detailed Evaluation Criteria by Project Goal ..................................................................... 20 Exhibit 25: Differentiating Criteria for Most Promising Alternatives ..................................................... 21 Exhibit 26: Differentiating Criteria: BRT ............................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 27: Differentiating Criteria: Rail ................................................................................................ 23 Report #8: Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study | FINAL February 2018 ii Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Exhibit 28: Differentiating
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2019 Annual Regional Park-And-Ride System
    2019 ANNUAL REGIONAL PARK & RIDE SYSTEM REPORT JANUARY 2020 Prepared for: Metropolitan Council Metro Transit Minnesota Valley Transit Authority SouthWest Transit Maple Grove Transit Plymouth Metrolink Northstar Link Minnesota Department of Transportation Prepared by: Ari Del Rosario Metro Transit Engineering and Facilities, Planning and Urban Design Table of Contents Overview ......................................................................................................................................................3 Capacity Changes........................................................................................................................................6 System Capacity and Usage by Travel Corridor .........................................................................................7 Planned Capacity Expansion .......................................................................................................................8 About the System Survey ............................................................................................................................9 Appendix A: Facility Utilization Data .......................................................................................................10 Park & Ride System Data .....................................................................................................................10 Park & Pool System Data .....................................................................................................................14 Bike & Ride
    [Show full text]
  • Bonding Request Update Sept. 2020
    Twin Cities-Milwaukee-Chicago BONDING REQUEST Intercity Passenger Rail Service Project UPDATE SEPT. 2020 TCMC SECOND TRAIN RECEIVES $31.8 MILLION FEDERAL CAPITAL GRANT On Sept. 23, 2020, the US Secretary of Transportation announced a $31.8 million grant through the Federal Railroad Administration for Wisconsin and Minnesota to be used for final design and construction of freight rail track and signal improvements in and around Winona MN, La Crescent MN, and La Crosse WI. The improvements will accommodate the Twin Cities-Milwaukee-Chicago (TCMC) Second Train, a daily round trip passenger train between the Twin Cities and Chicago along the existing Amtrak Empire Builder route. This leaves the state of Minnesota as the only uncommitted partner in making the project a reality. TCMC CAPITAL BUDGET - MN TCMC CAPITAL BUDGET - WI TOTAL $26.9M Federal (COMMITTED) $4.9M Federal (COMMITTED) $31.8M Federal $10M Minnesota (NOT COMMITTED) $6.2M Wisconsin (COMMITTED) $16.2M Local $3.8M Amtrak (COMMITTED) $1.2M Amtrak (COMMITTED) $5M Amtrak $40.7M Minnesota Project Cost $12.3M Wisconsin Project Cost $53M Total Additional support: Federal Railroad Administration awarded $12.569 million to the project for startup operating costs, Amtrak has committed to capital upgrade of the Winona station platform, Canadian Pacific Railway fully supported the federal grant application for rail infrastructure improvements. Legislative Bonding Request $10 million is requested of the Minnesota Legislature. The state will receive, in return, more than $40 million in track and signal improvements in Winona and La Crescent, Minnesota that will benefit both freight and passenger rail. This request is urgent as the FRA expects Second Train project managers to secure matching funds and execute the grant agreement by September 30, 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of Its Railroad Annual Reports
    PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT Railroad Annual Reports (“R” Files). Box list p. 1 Note to Researchers: To request materials, please note both the location and box numbers shown below. These files comprise boxes 754-858 (years 1871-1969) of a large set of Public Service Commission files transferred to the State Archives in 1976; and boxes 1-4 of subsequent transfers. The list for boxes 754-858 was taken from the original transfer list; the files have not been inspected. Location Box 104.H.11.2F 754 1871-1881. 104.H.11.3B 755 1882-1889. 104.H.11.4F 756 1889-1897. 104.H.11.5B 757 1891-1893. 104.H.11.6F 758 1893-1895. 104.H.11.7B 759 1895-1897. 104.H.11.8F 760 1897-1898. 104.H.11.9B 761 1898-1899. 104.H.11.10F 762 1900-1901. 104.H.12.1B 763 1901-1902. 104.H.12.2F 764 1902-1903. 104.H.12.3B 765 1903-1904. 104.H.12.4F 766 1904-1905. 104.H.12.5B 767 1905-1906. 104.H.12.6F 768 1906-1907. 104.H.12.7B 769 1907. 104.H.12.8F 770 1908. 104.H.12.9B 771 1908-1909. 104.H.12.10F 772 1909. 104.H.13.1B 773 1910. 104.H.13.2F 774 1910-1911. 104.H.13.3B 775 1911. 104.H.13.4F 776 1912. 104.H.13.5B 777 1912-1913. 104.H.13.6F 778 1913-1914. 104.H.13.7B 779 1914. 104.H.13.8F 780 1914-1915.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront
    RAPIDS, REINS, RAILS: TRANSPORTATION ON THE MINNEAPOLIS RIVERFRONT Mississippi River near Stone Arch Bridge, July 1, 1925 Minnesota Historical Society Collections Prepared by Prepared for The Saint Anthony Falls Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D. Heritage Board Principal Investigator Minnesota Historical Society Penny A. Petersen 704 South Second Street Researcher Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Hess, Roise and Company 100 North First Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 May 2009 612-338-1987 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1 RAPID, REINS, RAILS: A SUMMARY OF RIVERFRONT TRANSPORTATION ......................................... 3 THE RAPIDS: WATER TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS .............................................. 8 THE REINS: ANIMAL-POWERED TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ............................ 25 THE RAILS: RAILROADS BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ..................................................................... 42 The Early Period of Railroads—1850 to 1880 ......................................................................... 42 The First Railroad: the Saint Paul and Pacific ...................................................................... 44 Minnesota Central, later the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railroad (CM and StP), also called The Milwaukee Road .......................................................................................... 55 Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation
    TRANSPORTATION RAMSEY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 45 TRANSPORTATION KEY THEMES: ROADS AND HIGHWAYS Implement the county’s “All Abilities Transportation Network” Policy. Transportation and land use planning should be linked to ensure development that encourages transit ridership. Collaborate with municipalities on service delivery, right of way and access management issues. Planned capacity expansion of I-94, I-35W and Highway 36 by MnDOT. Reclassify Lexington Parkway to a Class A Minor Arterial and extend to Shepard Road in partnership with the City of Saint Paul. TRANSIT, BIKING AND WALKING Riverview Corridor, a modern streetcar line between Mall of America, the Airport and Downtown Saint Paul, will be in operation. Rush Line, a bus rapid transit line between Downtown Saint Paul and White Bear Lake, will be in operation. Gold Line, a bus rapid transit line between Downtown Saint Paul and Woodbury, will be in operation. The B Line, an arterial rapid bus line, between Saint Paul’s Midway and Minneapolis’ Uptown neighborhoods will be in operation. Add additional service at the Union Depot, including a second daily Amtrak trip to Chicago. Prioritize multi-modal transportation, including bicycling and walking. Trails will be coordinated at municipal, local, regional and state levels in order to form a comprehensive, All-Abilities system. RAMSEY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 46 TRANSPORTATION VISION Transportation decisions will be guided by the county’s All Abilities Transportation Network Policy. The Ramsey County Board of Commissioners is committed to creating and maintaining a transportation system that provides equitable access for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual preference, health, education, abilities, and economics.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Minnesota for 1879. 427 Chapter Cccxviii. an Act
    OF MINNESOTA FOR 1879. 427 CHAPTER CCCXVIII. AN ACT RELATING TO THE ST. PAUL UNION DEPOT COMPANY. Be U enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota: SECTIOX 1. The said The St. Paul Union Depot Company, (a railroad corporation incorporated and organized under and in accordance with the general laws of this state,) may obtain the right of way over and across any lands needed for the construction of its railroad or tracks, and may obtain all necessary sites and grounds or land for its Union Passenger Depot or other buildings or appurtenances requisite for the proper carrying on of its busi- ness, in the manner and as provided in title one of chapter ihirty- fclir of the general statutes of the State of Minnesota as amended by an act of the Legislature of this State, entitled ''an act to amend title one of chapter thirty-four of the general statutes relating to corporations," approved March 1st, J872, being chapter fifty-three of the general laws of 1872, or as otherwise may be provided by law in such cases. Provided, that nothing herein contained shall pre- vent said corporation from purchasing, holding or disposing of any real estate which it may deem needtul or convenient for carrying on its business. And if it becomes necessary in the location or construction of the road or tracks of the above named corporation, or in the location or construction of its said Union Depot, or in other needful buildings or appurtenances, to occupy or use any depot or depot grounds or other land or any part of the railroad, or tracks of.
    [Show full text]
  • Locally Preferred Alternative
    Locally Preferred Alternative Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 1 Riverview Corridor Study Area • 12 mile study area between Saint Paul and Bloomington. • Connects major destinations, neighborhoods and job concentrations. • Serves growing and diverse population and employment areas. • 50,600 residents and 123,900 jobs. • Provides regional and local connectivity. Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 2 Study Process Completed August 2015 Completed August 2017 December, 2017 CORRIDOR VISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE • Current and future • Initial Screening. • Vehicle and route conditions. (completed February 2016) of Locally Preferred • Review of relevant work. • Detailed Definition. Alternative. • Purpose and need. • Detailed Evaluation. • Implementation Plan. March – August 2017 • Goals and objectives. Public Engagement • Examined 60 different alternatives. • Engaged over 4,600 people via nearly 100 events responding to nearly individual 650 comments. Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 3 Community Engagement More than 4,600 people participated in the Riverview Study through community events including open houses, business outreach, presentations, pop-up events, social media, and online engagement forms. Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 4 What We Heard • Rail transit’s ease of use is preferred. • Transit system connectivity, e.g. to airport. • Transit saves employees cost of parking • Concern about business and neighborhood impacts. • Keep Ford Site in mind throughout the study. • Route 54: Good service frequency, but crowded. • Improve transit service – frequent, fast, reliable. Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 5 Community Input has Shaped the Process • Purpose and need for transit improvements. • Goals and objectives. • Routes and vehicles to study • Potential station locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Passenger Rail Community Engagement
    Passenger Rail Community Engagement Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis August 10, 2017 Prepared for: Prepared by: Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis August 2017 | i Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Passenger Rail Community Engagement Report Overview ............................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Existing Conditions and Policy Analysis.................................................................................................. 1 Existing Conditions and Peer Comparison......................................................................................................................... 1 Process and Implementation Timeline ............................................................................................................................. 6 Stakeholder Input ............................................................................................................................................................ 7 List of Tables Table 1: Passenger Rail Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 1 Table 2: Household Density .............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Watertown Express and the 'Hog and Human': Passenger Service In
    Copyright © 1973 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved. Copyright © 1973 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved. The WATERTOWN EXPRESS and the "Hog and Human": M & StL Passenger Service in South Dakota 1884-1960 DONOVAN L. HOFSOMMER In mid-July of 1960 editors of the Minneapolis Tribune found much on the regional scene that they judged to be newsworthy: Minnesotans were heavily engaged in political debate anticipating the general elections of the coming fall; the Hill Lines were rebuffed in their attempts to consummate a huge railroad merger: the speeding AFTERNOON HIAWATHA was derailed near Saint Paul, resulting in injury to several persons; Minneapolitans were enjoying the annual Aquatennial Celebration; and it was hot. One important event was overlooked by the Minneapolis journalists, however. On 21 July passenger service by the Minneapolis & Saint Louis Railway between Minneapolis and Watertown, South Dakota, ended forever. At 10:30 P. M. on 20 July train number thirteen quietly slipped out of the trainsheds at the Great Northern depot in Minneapolis for the last time; its counterpart number fourteen had made its final departure from Watertown an hour and one-half earlier. Without hoopla and almost without notice, a seventy-six year tradition of service ended when these two trains reached their respective terminals in the misty morning hours of 21 July.' 1. Minneapolis Tribune, 9-22 July 1960; Watertown Public Opinion, 21 July 1960; Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway, Time Table No. 15, 6 December 1959 pp. 1-2, 11-12. Copyright © 1973 by the South Dakota State Historical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Post Flats Affordable Housing, Fort Snelling State Park
    July 2013 version (EQB Form) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET This Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and EAW Guidelines are available at the Environmental Quality Board’s website at: http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm. The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW Guidelines provide additional detail and resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item, or can be addresses collectively under EAW Item 19. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project Title Upper Post Flats Affordable Housing, Fort Snelling State Park 2. Proposer: Minnesota Department of Natural 3. RGU: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Parks and Trails Division Resources, Ecological and Water Resources Contact person: Diane K. Anderson Contact person: Lisa Fay Title: Principal Planner Title: Planner Principal / EAW Project Manager Address: 500 Lafayette Road Address: 500 Lafayette Road City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-259-5614 Phone: 651-259-5110 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 4. Required: Discretionary: ☐ EIS Scoping ☐ Citizen petition ☒ Mandatory EAW ☐ RGU discretion ☐Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 19 (residential development).
    [Show full text]
  • Transitway Branding Transportation Committee January 23, 2012 Northstar Line Continued
    Transitway Branding Transportation Committee January 23, 2012 Northstar Line continued 94 94 35W 35E 694 94 694 Northstar Line 694 94 35W 35E Minneapolis 694 394 Green Line St. Paul 94 494 extension Blue Line Green Line 494 494 Orange Line Orange 35W 35E 77 METRO system Red Line June 2014 Downtown Minneapolis Inset Blue Line (LRT) 94 Green Line (LRT) 35W Orange Line (BRT) 55 Red Line (BRT) Transit Stations Northstar Line (commuter rail) 94 Regional Multimodal Hub 35W Miles 0 1 2 4 6 Metropolitan Council Regional Transit Services Branding Service Type Name Logo LRT & Hwy BRT METRO Local, Limited, Express Bus Metro Transit Commuter Rail Metro Transit Northstar Regional ADA Metro Mobility Regional Dial-a-Ride Transit Link Regional Vanpool Metro Vanpool Metro Street side back Curb side front NOTE: KIOSK 1 - ALL STAINLESS STEEL SHEET IS 316L W/ #6 BRUSH FINISH. ILLUMINATED D/F CABINET W/ - ALL STAINLESS STEEL TO BE ADHERED WITH 3M4950 VHB TAPE. ILLUMINATED S/F HEADER - ALL DISSIMILAR METALS TO BE TREATED WITH ECK (ELECTROLYSIS CORROSION KONTROL) TO PROHIBIT DISSIMILAR METALS FROM ELECTROLYSIS AND GALVANIC CORROSION.A HEADER - FABRICATED ALUMINUM W/ STAINLESS STEEL EXTERIOR SHEETING 3 2 - SIDE A TO HAVE CLEAR LEXAN FACE WITH 2ND SURFACE VINYL GRAPHICS - ONLY “INFORMATION” COPY IS TO ILLUMINATE WHITE - SIDE B TO BE BLANK FACE B CABINET - FABRICATED ALUMINUM W/ STAINLESS STEEL EXTERIOR SHEETING - TWO GILL STYLE LOUVERED VENTS ON EACH END 3 - SIDE A TO HAVE DIGITAL PRINT INSERT SUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY OTHERS - SIDE B TO HAVE VINYL GRAPHICS APPLIED TO DIFFUSER C CABINET DOOR - FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL SQ.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation, Urban Design, and the Environment 2003
    Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. CTS 03-04 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Transportation, Urban Design and the Environment: January 18, 2003 Highway 61/Red Rock Corridor 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Lance M. Neckar 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Department of Landscape Architecture University of Minnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 1425 University Ave S.E. Room 115 Minneapolis, MN 55414 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail Stop 330 14. Sponsoring Agency Code St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) This report is a combination of two reports (Task 1 and Task 2 and 3) on the Highway 61/Red Rock Commuter Rail Corridor. The Task 1 portion describes the baseline conditions related to subdivision-scaled growth in the corridor, with particular concentration on Cottage Grove, one of the station sites. Also considered are current plans for the downtown St. Paul Union Depot. The Task 2 and 3 portion focuses on issues relating to the relationship between transportation and the environment. An important issue in this study, therefore, is the design and institutional integration of objectives across investments in transit services at a regional scale, public space, and the long-term value of developed private space, especially in suburbia. The report offers designs for new, alternative patterns of regional growth, both urban and suburban, in broad corridors served by commuter rail service.
    [Show full text]