DOCSLIB.ORG

Metropolitan Area Transit Finance Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metropolitan Area Transit Finance Report This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT FINANCE REPORT October 2018 The Council’s mission is to foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous metropolitan region Metropolitan Council Members Alene Tchourumoff Chair Edward Reynoso District 9 Katie Rodriguez District 1 Marie McCarthy District 10 Lona Schreiber District 2 Sandy Rummel District 11 Jennifer Munt District 3 Harry Melander District 12 Deb Barber District 4 Richard Kramer District 13 Steve Elkins District 5 Jon Commers District 14 Gail Dorfman District 6 Steven T. Chávez District 15 Gary L. Cunningham District 7 Wendy Wulff District 16 Cara Letofsky District 8 The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning organization for the seven-county Twin Cities area. The Council operates the regional bus and rail system, collects and treats wastewater, coordinates regional water resources, plans and helps fund regional parks, and administers federal funds that provide housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and families. The 17-member Council board is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the governor. On request, this publication will be made available in alternative formats to people with disabilities. Call Metropolitan Council information at 651-602-1140 or TTY 651- 291-0904. Report Cost: The cost of preparing the report elements required by 2016 Minn. Stat. 174.93 is approximately $230,000 for Metropolitan Council, MnDOT transit agency and county staff to compile and analyze data, write and produce the report. Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Transit’s value in a growing region ............................................................................................ 1 Transit funding to meet growth projections ............................................................................... 1 The Regional Transit System ........................................................................................................ 3 Transit services ......................................................................................................................... 4 Transit ridership ......................................................................................................................... 5 Capacity Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 7 Existing transit system ............................................................................................................... 7 New dedicated transitways ........................................................................................................ 7 Arterial Bus Rapid Transitways ................................................................................................. 7 Other transit ............................................................................................................................... 8 Revenue and expenditure assumptions .................................................................................... 8 Capacity analysis summary ..................................................................................................... 11 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 29 Route Performance ..................................................................................................................... 30 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 30 Performance standards ........................................................................................................... 30 Performance measures ........................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A – Legislative Request .............................................................................................. 42 Appendix B – Summaries: Projects in Operation, Construction or Development ....................... 45 METRO Blue Line (Hiawatha Light Rail Transit) ..................................................................... 45 Northstar Commuter Rail ......................................................................................................... 50 METRO Red Line Highway Bus Rapid Transit (Cedar Avenue Transitway) ........................... 55 METRO Green Line (Central Corridor) Light Rail Transit ..................................................... 59 A Line (Snelling Avenue Arterial Bus Rapid Transit) ............................................................... 64 C Line (Penn Avenue Arterial Bus Rapid Transit) ................................................................... 68 METRO Orange Line (I-35W South Highway Bus Rapid Transit) ........................................... 72 METRO Green Line Extension (Southwest Light Rail Transit) .............................................. 77 METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau Light Rail Transit) ................................................... 82 METRO Gold Line (Gateway Corridor Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit) ..................................... 87 Rush Line Corridor Dedicated Bus Rapid Transit ................................................................... 90 Riverview Corridor Modern Streetcar ...................................................................................... 94 Appendix C – Summaries: Corridors with Study Recommendations – Incomplete Funding Plan .................................................................................................................................................... 98 D Line (Chicago-Emerson-Fremont Arterial Bus Rapid Transit) ............................................. 98 B Line (Lake Street – Marshall Avenue Arterial Bus Rapid Transit) ...................................... 102 E Line (Hennepin Avenue Arterial Bus Rapid Transit) .......................................................... 106 Nicollet-Central Modern Streetcar ......................................................................................... 109 METRO Red Line Highway Bus Rapid Transit (Cedar Avenue Transitway) – Future Stages .............................................................................................................................................. 113 Midtown Corridor Rail ........................................................................................................... 117 Red Rock Corridor Highway Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................... 120 West Broadway Modern Streetcar ........................................................................................ 124 Highway 169 Mobility Study (Highway Bus Rapid Transit).................................................... 127 Appendix D – Summaries: Corridors without Study Recommendations ................................... 130 Robert Street Corridor ........................................................................................................... 130 METRO Orange Line Extension ............................................................................................ 135 I-35W North ........................................................................................................................... 138 Ford Corridor ......................................................................................................................... 139 Appendix E – Intercity Passenger Rail Corridors ...................................................................... 141 Northern Lights Express (NLX) - Minneapolis to Duluth High Speed Passenger Rail .......... 141 Twin Cities-Milwaukee-Chicago Intercity Passenger Rail Service Phase 1 Study ................ 145 Twin Cities to Milwaukee Portion - High Speed Rail Corridor to Chicago .......................... 148 Appendix F – Other Transit ....................................................................................................... 151 University of Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 151 Minnesota Department of Transportation – Team Transit ..................................................... 152 Appendix G – Transit System Financial Summary ................................................................... 154 Appendix H – Regional Route Performance Data Summaries ................................................. 155 2015 Route Performance Detail ............................................................................................ 155 2016 Route Performance Detail ............................................................................................ 170 2017 Route Performance Detail ............................................................................................ 184 Introduction In 2010 the Minnesota Legislature adopted Minn. Stat. 174.93, which required the Minnesota Department of Transportation to prepare, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Council, a biennial report on the status of “guideway” projects in the state, with an emphasis on funding sources and project progress. MnDOT, with the Council’s assistance, produced
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]
  • 147Th Street Station Area Sustainability Master Plan Acknowledgements
    147th Street Station Area Sustainability Master Plan Acknowledgements Humphrey School of Public Affairs Master of Urban and Regional Planning Capstone Project in cooperation with The City of Apple Valley, Minnesota May 13, 2011 Special Thanks to City of Apple Valley Staff: PA 8081 -- Sustainability Capstone Project Bruce Nordquist -- Community Development Director Tom Lovelace -- City Planner Henry Stroud, Justin Svingen, Jill Townley, and Katie Young Kathy Bodmer -- Associate City Planner with the support of Assistant Professor Carissa Schively Margaret Dykes -- Associate City Planner Slotterback, PhD Barbara Wolff -- Department Assistant Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 7 PLANNING PROCESS 7 CHAPTER 2 : VISION AND MASTER PLAN 11 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONTRAINTS 12 VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS 12 PROPOSED LAND USE CONCEPT 13 CHAPTER 3 : ECONOMICS 21 CHAPTER 4 : LIVABILITY 33 CHAPTER 5 : SOCIAL EQUITY 49 CHAPTER 6 : THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 63 CHAPTER 7 : SUMMARY 81 PHASING 82 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY TABLE 83 APPENDIX 87 Endnotes 88 Works Cited 90 147th STREET STATION AREA SUSTAINABILITY MASTER PLAN i 147th STREET STATION AREA SUSTAINABILITY MASTER PLAN Executive Summary Background Station Area Context The City of Apple Valley is planning for change along the Cedar This plan focuses specifically on the walk-up station that will be Avenue corridor with the introduction of the State of Minnesota’s located just north of the intersection of 147th Street and Cedar first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. BRT is an enhanced bus Avenue. The Station Area is defined as a ½ mile radius, with its system that combines the advantages often associated with light origin at the intersection of 147th Street and Cedar Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Station Area Plan
    Brooklyn Park Station Area Plan Brooklyn Park, Minnesota | July 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS HENNEPIN COUNTY, DEPT OF COMMU- COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP Jennifer Schultz Brooklyn Park Station NITY WORKS AND DEPT OF PLANNING Commissioner Mike Opat Sherry Anderson Albert Smith Darlene Walser Hennepin County, District 1 Cherno Bah Area Plan Bottineau Community Works Ben Stein Mayor Jeffrey Lunde Program Manager Susan Blood * Robert Timperley City of Brooklyn Park Denise Butler * Robin Turner Andrew Gillett Kimberly Carpenter Tonja West-Hafner Peter Crema Principal Planning Analyst Reva Chamblis Council Member, City of Brooklyn Jim White PREPARED FOR Denise Engen Park, East District Daniel Couture Jane Wilson City of Brooklyn Park Principal Planning Analyst Rebecca Dougherty Carol Woehrer Hennepin County Rich Gates Council Member, City of Brooklyn Brent Rusco Janet Durbin Yaomee Xiong * Park, Central District Administrative Engineer Michael Fowler FUNDED BY Kathy Fraser HEALTH EQUITY & ENGAGEMENT Hennepin County John Jordan Karen Nikolai COHORT Teferi Fufa Council Member, City of Brooklyn Administrative Manager African American Leadership Park, West District Jeffrey Gagnon Forum (AALF) CONSULTANT TEAM Joseph Gladke Larry Glover African Career & Education Urban Design Associates Terry Parks Assistant Department Director Resources (ACER) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Council Member, City of Brooklyn Edmond Gray SB Friedman Development Advisors Park, East District Dan Hall Alliance for Metropolitan Stability CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK (AMS) ZAN Associates Heidi Heinzel Mike Trepanier Kim Berggren Asamblea de Derechos Civiles Westly Henrickson Council Member, City of Brooklyn Director of Community CAPI USA Park, Central District Development Shaquonica Johnson LAO Assistance Center of Michael Kisch Bob Mata Cindy Sherman Minnesota (LAC) Council Member, City of Brooklyn Planning Director Tim Korby Minnesota African Women’s Park, West District Chris Kurle Association (MAWA) Todd A.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Ticket Andy Gitzla! of Washington County 651-430-4338 Or by E-Mail to the Southeast Metro [email protected] Planning Future Stations
    RED ROCK PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE CORRIDOR The Red Rock Corridor has seen population growth at a rate more than twice the state’s average. In the next 20 years, the southeast suburbs of the COMMISSION metropolitan area are projected to add more than 100,000 new residents. is a Joint Powers Commission of the following county rail PART OF A SYSTEM The Red Rock Corridor connects the southeastern suburbs with the entire authorities, corridor communities Twin Cities metro. Originating in Hastings, the corridor spans through and stakeholders: downtown St. Paul and on to downtown Minneapolis. Dakota County With a stop at the Union Depot in St. Paul, the Red Rock Corridor will seamlessly connect with Metro Transit buses, taxis, intercity buses, Central Hennepin County Corridor LRT, high-speed passenger rail from Chicago, Amtrak’s Empire Ramsey County Builder and future connections to both the Gateway and Rush Line Corridors. At the Minneapolis Interchange Station, Red Rock will connect Washington County to buses, taxis, Southwest LRT, Hiawatha LRT, Northstar commuter rail and Goodhue County* other planned future transitways. Newport St. Paul Park Minneapolis Hastings CP Railway* 3-FOR-1 Cottage Grove INVESTMENT The proposed high-speed rail line St. Paul connecting the Twin Cities to Chicago Denmark Twp. will share tracks with the Red Rock Corridor. Improvements to track Red Wing* 1 FREIGHT capacity and safety upgrades, including Prairie Island Indian Community* 2 lights, crossing gates, and additional COMMUTER RAIL tracks for a 3-for-1 investment in the corridor. *Non-voting members 3 HIGH-SPEED RAIL WWW.REDROCKRAIL.ORG Contact: Your Ticket Andy Gitzla! of Washington County 651-430-4338 or by e-mail to the Southeast Metro [email protected] Planning future stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee
    Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee September 26, 2016 The Goal . Implementation Plan that Outlines: . Detailed technical elements . Service plan, stations, vehicles, etc. Station area plans . Schedule and costs of staged investments . Partner responsibilities through 2040 . Stakeholder buy-in and detailed resolutions of support 2 Implementation Plan – Committee Structure TAC B-CAC RRCC Technical Business and Red Rock Advisory Civic Advisory Corridor Committee Committee Commission Staff from MnDOT, the Staff and leaders from Staff and elected officials Metropolitan Council, Metro businesses and civic from the cities and counties Transit, and the cities and organizations along the along the corridor counties along the corridor corridor 3 Bus Rapid Transit Alignment 4 Potential BRT Phases . Frequency: 15 minutes (30 minutes 7pm-12am) . Span: 5am-12am . BRT station amenities . Potential Phases: 1. To Cottage Grove w/o Gateway Stations 2. Add Gateway Stations 3. To Hastings Depot 4. Add last two Hastings Stations Evaluation of BRT Phases Ridership In-Service Daily PPISH Year PPISH* Increase Hours Boardings Target Needed BRT Phase 1 2024 92 1,070 12 114% ≥25 (To Cottage Grove) 2040 92 1,240 14 85% BRT Phase 2 2024 96 1,550 16 55% (add Gateway ≥25 Stations) 2040 96 1,800 19 33% BRT Phase 3 2040 114 2,000 18 ≥25 43% (to Hastings) BRT Phase 4 (final 2040 135 2,200 16 ≥25 54% Hastings stations) Red Line 2040 73 4,700 65 ≥25 ----- *Passengers per In-Service Hour = daily boardings divided by in-service hours 6 Ridership Increase Needed to Meet Regional Target . BRT Phase 2 (to Cottage Grove with Gateway Stations) is the best performing option in 2040 .
    [Show full text]
  • Bass Lake Road Station Area Plan
    Bass Lake Road Station Area Plan Crystal, Minnesota | July 2016 ELECTED OFFICIALS Brent Rusco African Career & Education Jason Zimmerman Michael Mechtenberg Bass Lake Road Station Commissioner Mike Opat Administrative Engineer Resources (ACER) City of Golden Valley Metro Transit Hennepin County, District 1 Karen Nikolai Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Rebecca Farrar Shelley Miller Area Plan (AMS) Mayor Jim Adams Administrative Manager City of Minneapolis Metro Transit City of Crystal Joseph Gladke La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles Beth Grosen Alicia Vap Laura Libby Assistant Department Director CAPI USA City of Minneapolis Metro Transit Council Member, City of Crystal, PREPARED FOR LAO Assistance Center of Ward 1 and 2 Don Pflaum Mike Larson City of Crystal CITY OF CRYSTAL Minnesota (LAC) City of Minneapolis Metropolitan Council Hennepin County Elizabeth Dahl John Sutter Minnesota African Women’s Council Member, City of Crystal, Community Development Director Association (MAWA) Jim Voll Eric Wojchik Ward 1 City of Minneapolis Metropolitan Council FUNDED BY Minnesota Center for Neighborhood Dan Olson Organization (MCNO) Hennepin County Jeff Kolb Rick Pearson Jan Youngquist City Planner Nexus Community Partners Council Member, City of Crystal, City of Robbinsdale Metropolitan Council Northwest Human Services Council CONSULTANT TEAM Ward 2 COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP (NHHSC) Chad Ellos Adam Arvidson Urban Design Associates Olga Parsons Gene Bakke Hennepin County Minneapolis Park and Recreation Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Council Member,
    [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]
  • Community Open House METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Welcome! November 12Th, 2014 5:30-8:00 P.M
    COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE METRO Blue Line extension (Bottineau LRT) Phase 1: Station Area Planning Welcome! November 12th, 2014 5:30-8:00 p.m. Agenda: 5:30 - Refreshments and Visit » Information Displays » Penn Avenue Community Works Open House Map: » METRO Blue Line Extension GOLDEN VAN WHITE VALLEY BLVD. » C-Line Arterial Bus Rapid Transit ROAD STATION DISCUSSION STATION TABLES 6:00 - Welcome FOOD STATION FOOD STATION 6:10 - Open House Introduction PLYMOUTH PENN AVE. AVE. STATION STATION 6:20 - Station Area Exercises PENN AVE. COMMUNITY WORKS 8:00 - Meeting Closes WHAT IS STATION AREA PLANNING? METRO BLUE LINE C-LINE ARTERIAL Rest Rooms BUS RAPID TRANSIT WELCOME EXTENSION Enter Front Here Door Reception Desk Station Area Planning What is a station area plan? » Plan for the area that surrounds a proposed transit station Proposed » ½ mile radius and/or 10 min. walk Station » Community-based » Focus is on maintaining great neighborhoods and high quality transit-oriented development. » Creates a plan that supports Light Rail Transit by looking at: » Land uses and types/character of buildings » Access/circulation (bike, walk, car, bus) » Improvements to public spaces, including streets/trails Plans will make recommendations on: » Future land use alternatives » Housing (preservation and new) » Potential markets for new development » Circulation and access improvements » Strategies for health equity » Implementation measures such as zoning changes, comprehensive plan amendments and other ordinances or policies Implemented by the cities, county and
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3)
    Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan (Engagement Phase 3) Email Comment Topic Comment # The recommendations in this submission expand on this principle and support the overall Transportation Action Plan goals of designing transportation to achieve the aims of Minneapolis 2040, address climate change, reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, and improve racial and economic equity. In line with these goals, our most significant recommendations for the Prospect Park area are to • Invest in the protected bike network: extending the Greenway over the River, and building the Prospect Park Trail along railroad right-of- way • Transform University Avenue and Washington Avenues • Complete the Grand Rounds and use the Granary corridor to redirect truck traffic Priorities for transportation improvements in Prospect Park 1. Improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout the community including safe crossings of University Avenue SE (Bedford, Malcolm, 29th and 27th), Franklin Avenue SE (Bedford, Seymour) and 27th Avenue SE (Essex, Luxton Park to Huron pedestrian overpass). We encourage the city to narrow residential intersections, particularly in Bicycling, the Tower Hill sub-neighborhood where streets do not meet at right Walking, 1 angles, and crossing distances are significantly longer than needed. Additional Planters and plastic delineators could be used to achieve this ahead of Comments reconstruction. Maintenance and improvements should focus on public safety, adequate lighting and landscape upkeep. Throughout the neighborhood residents have cited safety (particularly at night), sidewalk disrepair, narrowness, snow and ice issues, and have expressed support for full ADA compliance. 2. Complete the Minneapolis Grand Rounds and the Granary Corridor (see Map 2) to enhance community access to city and regional parks and trails as well as to adjoining neighborhoods.
    [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]
  • Feasibility Study (Started in January 2000) That Would Evaluate the Constraints and Opportunities of Operating Commuter Rail Service in the Red Rock Corridor
    Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary. E-1 1.0 Introduction . 1-1 1.1 Description of Red Rock Corridor . 1-1 1.2 Management . 1-2 1.3 Study Overview. 1-3 2.0 Public Involvement Program . 2-1 2.1 TAC and RRCC Meetings . 2-1 2.2 Open Houses. 2-1 2.3 Land Use Forum . 2-1 2.4 Station Area Planning Workshops . 2-2 2.5 Newsletters. 2-2 2.6 Web Site . 2-2 3.0 Purpose and Need . 3-1 3.1 Corridor Characteristics and Trends . 3-1 3.2 Project Need . 3-1 3.3 Goals, Objectives, and Criteria. 3-3 4.0 Alternatives Analysis . 4-1 4.1 Screening of Technology Options . 4-1 4.2 Summary of New FTA Rules for Major Capital Investments . 4-6 4.3 Definition of A Baseline Alternative . 4-8 4.4 Definition of a Build Alternative . 4-9 4.5 Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Applications . 4-9 5.0 Station Area Planning . 5-1 5.1 Land Use Forum . 5-1 5.2 Station Area Planning Workshops . 5-2 6.0 Commuter Rail Service Plan . 6-1 6.1 Overview . 6-1 6.2 Initial Train Schedule Timetable . 6-4 6.3 Demand Forecast . 6-5 6.4 Rolling Stock . 6-6 6.5 Maintenance and Layover Facilities . 6-7 6.6 Capacity Improvements . 6-7 7.0 Financial Analysis . 7-1 7.1 Capital Costs . 7-1 7.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs . 7-3 7.3 Comparison to Other Rail Systems.
    [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]