DOCSLIB.ORG

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Thursday, July 13, 2017; 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Red Cap Room, Union Depot* 214 E. Fourth Street, Saint Paul AGENDA Discussion Leader Item Action Requested Chair Rafael Ortega 1. Welcome and Introductions Chair Rafael Ortega 2. Approval of the Agenda Approval Chair Rafael Ortega 3. Approval of the May PAC Meeting Summary Approval Mike Rogers 4. June PAC Update Information Mike Rogers 5. Meeting Objective Information Mike Rogers 6. Study Overview Information April Manlapaz 7. TAC Recommendation for Public Review Information April Manlapaz 8. PAC Approval of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives for Approval Public Review Mike Rogers 9. Next Steps Information Chair Rafael Ortega 10. Public Comment Information *The Red Cap Room is located on the second floor. It can be reached from Elevator #6. Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Summary – May 11, 2017 Participants See sign-in sheet at the end of this document for a list of attendees. Summary Meeting handouts included: • Agenda • PAC Meeting Summary – April 13, 2017 • Presentation • Technical Appendix • Public Comments Received – April 1 - April 30, 2017 Action Items • Chair Ortega requested PAC members receive information to review in June in order to make upcoming decisions at the July PAC meeting. • Supply PAC members with information regarding the economic development potential of ABRT, DBRT and rail alternatives. • Provide alternatives analysis-level Green Line and Blue Line ridership estimates as well as actual ridership numbers from recent years • Quantify the potential revenue loss from metered parking in Saint Paul that would be potentially impacted by the proposed alternatives. • Show draft 2040 ridership forecasts for related bus routes such as Routes 46 and 84. 1. Welcome and Introductions Chair Ortega convened the meeting at 9:07 a.m. and led introductions. 2. Approval of the Agenda Action: The PAC unanimously approved the meeting agenda (K. Beckmann motion; R. Noecker second). 3. Approval of the April 13, 2017 Meeting Summary Action: The PAC unanimously approved the April meeting summary (T. Busse motion; R. Noecker second). 4. PAC Meeting Summary RCRRA staff recapped the actions taken and key discussion topics from the April 13, 2017 PAC meeting, including: a service planning presentation by Metro Transit, draft results of the Environmental criteria applied to the original 10 alternatives, and a refresher of FTA New Starts criteria. Staff also discussed feedback from Riverview Study presentations at the Midway Chamber of Commerce and the Minneapolis Park Board during the month of April, as well as the April TAC meeting. The agenda for today’s PAC meeting includes a high-level review of the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives and the results from the Community, Transportation, and Cost detailed evaluation criteria. 1 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study These results will help the PAC make three key upcoming decisions regarding mode, route, and the location of the Mississippi River crossing. In June, the TAC is anticipated to recommend that the PAC release the detailed analysis results on the 16 Most Promising Alternatives to the public for review and comment, including a recommendation on which alternatives to carry forward. The PAC canceled its June meeting, but directed staff to provide the information that would have been provided in the June agenda packet in early June so that they would have time to review it prior to the July agenda packet being distributed. At the July meeting, the PAC will review the detailed evaluation results of the 16 Most Promising Alternatives and take action on the anticipated TAC recommendation to release the results of the detail analysis to the public for review and comment including any recommendations on which alternatives to carry forward. Discussion: • Can you provide us with more information on the July 13th PAC meeting? At the July PAC meeting, the PAC will be asked to take action on the release of the detail analysis on the 16 Most Promising Alternatives for public review and comment as well as any TAC recommendation on alternatives to carry forward. • Will there be a June PAC meeting? No. The June meeting has been canceled. Project staff will be available to answer PAC member questions in June and July prior to the July 13th PAC meeting. • Chair Ortega requested PAC members receive information to review in June in order to make upcoming decisions at the July PAC meeting. 5. Initial Results Summary Project staff shared initial results regarding differentiators among mode, route, and river crossing. Discussion – Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5: Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 are two potential options for crossing the Mississippi River. Technical analysis shows that a route crossing at Hwy 5 will have higher ridership and a faster end-to-end travel time compared to a route crossing at Ford Pkwy. Initial capital costs indicate Ford Pkwy routes are more expensive than Hwy 5 routes because of their additional length. Ongoing operating costs are also more expensive for Ford Pkwy routes. • Why would we still need Route 54 if a premium transit service is constructed? If Riverview crosses on Ford Pkwy, there will still need to be a robust bus service traveling directly to the airport. The estimated 2040 ridership for the route via Hwy 5 is 6,000 to 7,000 trips per day. • If Riverview is on West 7th St., would there still be a need for Route 54? Yes. If the river crossing is at Hwy 5, the service needed would be less frequent and have fewer hours of service than what exists today. We would also need Route 54 if Riverview uses the CP Spur. These buses were included as part of the ridership projections. • If Riverview goes to the Ford Site, why not have a “bus spur” between Sibley Plaza and the airport and Mall of America rather than a full bus route? It seems like it would be duplicating service that already exists. A short bus spur was not looked at. A connecting bus spur would result in more transfers, which is not ideal for riders. 2 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study • The Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 bridge crossings are portrayed as an-apples-to-apples comparison, but they are not. There would still need to be additional bus service for either route, but the background bus service for each alternative is different given the different routing. • If Riverview crosses at Hwy 5 and a new bus service from W. 7th St. to the Ford Site were added, would the ridership for the new bus service to the Ford Site decrease the projected Riverview ridership for alternatives along W. 7th St.? No, not significantly because the current ridership assumes that connecting bus service to the Ford Site is part of any Riverview crossing at Hwy 5. • The Ford Site has a higher population and more jobs, so why is there less ridership? Because of travel time? Yes, travel time is one reason. People also want to travel to a variety of end markets. People on W. 7th St. want a direct route to the airport and mall. People at the Ford Site want to travel to several different areas, many outside of the area served by Riverview, and have more transit options already available. The Blue Line and A Line already serve this area. • Concern that slide 13 summarizing the differentiators felt leading and that the $200M cost difference between Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 was marginal compared to the potential $1B cost of the project. • Do the capital cost estimates include bridge improvements? Wouldn’t rail cost more? Yes. The draft capital cost estimates include an allowance for the river crossing. Rail is more expensive than BRT. Discussion – Bus/BRT vs. Rail (LRT or Streetcar): Project staff discussed the differentiators between BRT and rail modes. Rail alternatives have more daily ridership, but rail is more expensive to build and maintain. Rail would negatively impact on-street parking and it has the highest potential construction impact. DBRT has a medium potential construction impact, and ABRT has the lowest potential construction impact. • Have you estimated construction time yet? No, but generally construction is 3-4 years for rail and 3 years for Dedicated BRT. • Is there data behind the numbers or are they from regional experience? They are based on experience in the region. Discussion – W. 7th St. vs. CP Spur and St. Paul Ave. vs. CP Spur: Project staff discussed the differentiators between W. 7th St. and the CP Spur. The CP Spur is more expensive; however, a route along W. 7th St. would remove on-street parking and have more construction impacts than routes using the CP Spur. • Is there a significant difference in ridership between W. 7th St. and the CP Spur? No; the difference between the two routes is approximately 800 trips per day, which is not significant. • Slide 15 makes it seem like all parking would be removed. However, only some will. I think that needs to be clarified for the public. Noted, this slide will be revised for future presentations. Discussion – Summary of Ridership and Cost: • Why does LRT have the highest estimated daily ridership? Is it because of vehicle size or frequency? The increased ridership is because of mode bias in the Met Council travel demand model. This mode bias is based on ridership data from the Blue and Green Lines. • Are these numbers for ridership on top of concurrent bus service numbers? Yes. 3 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study • Is Arterial BRT only on Hwy 5? Yes, for the draft results presented to the PAC this month. In July, the Study Team will present the draft ridership results for the additional 6 BRT alternatives requested by the PAC, including Arterial BRT to the Ford Site.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Gold Line Joint Powers Board Agenda
    GOLD LINE JOINT POWERS BOARD AGENDA Wednesday, April 28, 2021 11:00 A.M. Call: 1-404-397-1516 Access Code: 177 393 4974 Password: GoldLine2021! Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, board members and staff are conducting this meeting electronically. Members of the public who wish to share their comments or concerns may email [email protected] or by telephone at 651-430-4300. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. ACTION ITEMS - a. Meeting Agenda b. March 24, 2021 Meeting Minutes * c. Resolution 2021-04- Approving the Use of Grant Funds for Pre-Award Authority Expenditures for Right-of-Way Acquisition and Relocation * d. Resolution 2021-05 - Approving the Use of Grant Funds for Pre-Award Authority Expenditures for Advanced Utility Relocation (AUR) * e. Resolution 2021-06 - Approval of the Gold Line BRT Cost, Budget, Scope and Schedule at 60% Design * f. Resolution 2021-07 - Approval of Amendment #1 to the Gold Line Joint Powers Agreement * IV. INFORMATION ITEMS - a. METRO Gold Line Update b. Joint Powers Board Financial Update c. Communications and Legislative Update * d. Next Meeting – May 26, 2021, 10:30 AM-12:00 PM, Electronic Meeting V. ADJOURNMENT * Attachments 1 GOLD LINE JOINT POWERS BOARD REQUEST FOR BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM NO. III b. GOLD LINE JOINT POWERS BOARD DRAFT MINUTES Wednesday, March 24, 2021 CALL TO ORDER Chair McDonough called to order the Gold Line Joint Powers Board (JPB) meeting at 10:35 a.m. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, board members and staff conducted the meeting virtually via WebEx.
    [Show full text]
  • January–June 2004 • $10.00 / Don Scott's Museum Chronicles • Light Rail in the Twin Cities
    January–June 2004 • $10.00 / Don Scott’s Museum Chronicles • Light Rail in the Twin Cities 40 headlights | january–june 2004 LIGHT RAIL IN THE TWIN CITIES By Raymond R. t seemed an inglorious end of an era for the citizens of the Twin Berger (ERA #2298) Cities area, back on June 7, 1954. But that was about to change. At left, car 111 waits for time at the temporary southern Exactly 50 years, 19 days since the last streetcar rolled in Minneapolis, terminus, Forth Snelling, passengers were lining up to ride on the city’s new light rail line. on opening day of the Hiawatha Line. It will be ISo many, in fact, that some had to be turned away. The opening of the third in-service train the Hiawatha Line promissed to become one of the most significant northbound. Onlookers are taking pictures and waiting recent events in the history of electric railroading, the culmination for their turn to board. of studies, plans and setbacks spanning over three decades. Most are not old enough to remember when the Twin Cities was last served Opening Day by electric traction, some 50 years previously. Saturday, June 26, 2004 was a perfect day — sunny and mild — certainly befitting the glorious ray berger event that was finally taking place in Minneapolis. People gathered at the Warehouse District/ Hennepin Avenue station for the opening ceremony as soon as the sun had risen. This terminal station, gateway to the city’s entertainment district, was the site of speeches by public officials. It is also the starting point of a new light rail line connecting downtown Minneapolis with the Twin Cities’ most important traffic generators: the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport (MSP) and the Mall of America, the largest shopping center in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum March 3, 2021
    Memorandum March 3, 2021 To Representative Frank Hornstein From Matt Burress, Legislative Analyst Andy Lee, Fiscal Analyst Subject Transitway local funding You had asked for information on transitway finance in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, in the context of questions on a transitway funding provision in Governor Walz’s budget proposal. This memo discusses some of the historical background, provides an overview of requirements in current law, summarizes the Governor’s recommendation, and highlights some implications. I. Historical Context Funding Overview There has been historical variability in the funding structures and sources across the Twin Cities metro area transitway lines (e.g., the Hiawatha/Blue Line light rail transit (LRT), Central Corridor/Green Line LRT, Orange Line bus rapid transit (BRT), Cedar Avenue/Red Line BRT, Gateway/Gold Line dedicated BRT, and Northstar Commuter Rail). Each project either has or is proposed to involve a different mix of federal, state, regional, and local sources. In broad terms, key funding sources have included: . federal grants; . state general obligation (G.O.) bonds; . state General Fund appropriations; . county sales tax revenue, including from each county and from the former Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB); and . property tax revenue from counties and county regional railroad authorities. All transitway projects rely heavily on federal grants, which for most projects have accounted for close to 50% of the capital costs. However, there has been wide variation in non-federal funding across projects. For example, about 40.5% of the capital funding for the Southwest (Green Line extension) LRT project comes from county sales tax sources, whereas the Hiawatha (Blue Line) LRT project predated this county funding stream and relied more heavily on state bonds and other funding partners like the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Guideway Status November 2013
    2013 Legislative Report Guideway Status November 2013 Prepared by The Minnesota Department of Transportation 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 Phone: 651-366-3000 Toll-Free: 1-800-657-3774 TTY, Voice or ASCII: 1-800-627-3529 In collaboration with the Metropolitan Council 390 Robert St. North St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 Phone: 651-602-1000 To request this document in an alternative format Please call 651-366-4718 or 1-800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota). You may also send an email to [email protected]. Cover Photos: Northstar commuter rail train Red Line (Cedar BRT) vehicle on at Target Field opening day Source: Metro Council Source: Metro Council Green Line (Central Corridor LRT) Blue Line (Hiawatha LRT) in vehicle on tracks for testing operation Source: Streets MN Source: Metro Council 2 Guideway Status Report November 2013 Contents Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Legislative Request............................................................................................................................................. 5 Statutory Requirement ......................................................................................................................... 5 Cost of Report ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gmetrotransit
    ,G MetroTransit a service ofthe Metropolitan Council 04 - 0544 Hiawatha Light Rail Transit Systern Transportation & Maintenance Operations Plan June 2004 ©Metropolitan Council 2004 HIAWATHA CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT TRANSPORTATION AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS PLAN (TMOP) TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE GLOSSARY i 1.00.00 HIAWATHA CORRiDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT 1-1 1.01.00 Purpose of Plan 1-1 1.02.00 Relationship to Overall Transportation Network 1-1 1.03.00 Organization of the Operations Plan 1-2 2.00.00 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 2-1 2.01.00 Alignment 2-1 Figure 2-1 Alignment of the Hiawatha Line 2-2 2.01.01 Stations 2-3 2.01.02 Yard and Shop 2-3 2.01.03 Special Trackwork 2-3 2.02.00 Interface with Other Transportation Modes 2-4 2.02.01 Sector 5 Reorganization 2-4 Table 2-1 Proposed 2004 Bus Route Connections at Rail Stations 2-6 2.02.02 General Traffic 2-7 Table 2-2 Grade Crossing Locations 2-8 2.03.00 Hours of Operation 2-9 2.04.00 Vehicle Loading Standards 2-9 2.05.00 Travel Times 2-9 2.05.01 Vehicle Performance Characteristics 2-9 2.05.02 Travel Times 2-10 2.06.00 Ridership Projections 2-10 2.06.01 Opening Year (2004) Ridership 2-11 Table 2-3 Hiawatha LRT Estimated Boardings/Alightings for the Year 2004 P.M. 2-12 Peak Hour 2.06.02 Design Year 2020 Ridership 2-13 Table 2-4 Hiwatha LRT Estimated Boardings/Alightings for the Year 2020 P.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Grant Application Form
    Common Grant Application Form Date of application: September 30, 2019 Application submitted to: Wells Foundation Organization Information Name of organization Legal name, if different Move Minnesota St. Paul Transportation Management Organization Address City, State, Zip Employer Identification Number (EIN) 2446 University Avenue W. Suite 170 Saint Paul 41-1906261 Phone Fax Website (651) 767-0298 (651) 789-1001 www.movemn.org Name of top paid staff Title Phone E-mail Linnea House Interim Executive Director (651) 789-1411 [email protected] Name of contact person regarding this Title Phone E-mail application Elissa Schufman Donor & Funder Relations (651) 789-1415 [email protected] Is your organization an IRS 501(c)(3) not-for-profit? X Yes No If no, is your organization a public agency/unit of government? Yes X No If no, check with funder for details on using fiscal agents, and list name and address of fiscal agent: Fiscal agent’s EIN number Proposal Information Please give a 2-3 sentence summary of request: Move Minnesota requests $5,000 in general operating support to continue leading the movement for an equitable transportation system that puts people first. Access to sustainable and public transportation is hugely influential in a host of other connected regional challenges, including housing stability, food security, job access, ability to accumulate wealth, educational attainment, and more. Population served: Geographic area served: MSP metro-area residents, transit-dependent populations, MSP metro area low-income communities, communities of color Funds are being requested for (check one) Note: Please be sure funder provides the type of support you are requesting.
    [Show full text]