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.
• When and how do you evaluate hybrid alternatives that are mixed and dedicated? The Study Team has developed travel time estimates for segments of the alignment where transit could operate in shared use or dedicated lanes. What we found is that dedicated lanes would result in a faster travel time of 20 to 30 seconds. This travel time difference would not result in a significant difference in ridership.
• Streetcar is smaller than LRT, so is it cheaper? No. It can be more expensive because of economies of scale of a smaller fleet order. For example, Charlotte, NC, purchased six streetcar vehicles recently that cost $6M-$6.5M per vehicle. If streetcars were purchased for Riverview, our order would be larger than this so the cost could potentially be less.
• Dedicated BRT compared to Arterial BRT has a modest increase in ridership but a significantly higher capital cost. How about dismissing Dedicated BRT alternatives now? These are the kind of discussions we will be having at upcoming meetings.
• Slide 18, fourth and last rows. Is there a reason the mode is described differently? Yes. Alternatives to the Ford Site will operate in shared lanes on 46th St., so Streetcar is identified as the only rail alternative. LRT is assumed to operate in 100% dedicated guideway.
• Provide additional information regarding the economic development potential of Arterial BRT, Dedicated BRT and rail alternatives.
• Is there any benefit to looking at immediate ridership? What confidence do you have in these estimates since Blue Line and Green Line have significantly exceeded their original forecasts? There is benefit to developing current year ridership. This is done for projects in the existing FTA New Starts program. Such projects have identified a Locally Preferred Alternative.
• What is the frequency of service? Every 10 minutes during the day and every 15-30 minutes at night.
• Provide alternatives analysis-level Green Line and Blue Line ridership estimates as well as actual ridership numbers from recent years
6. Transportation Evaluation
Project staff presented the draft results of the Transportation detailed evaluation criteria for the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives.
Requested PAC Action: None
Discussion:
Travel Time • Explain the difference in travel time between rail and ABRT. Rail cannot navigate the turns in the road as easily as a bus.
• Why are we not seeing a savings in time for dedicated transit? There are two reasons for this: First, there is not a significant amount of congestion on W. 7th St. Second, Route 54 is already operating as a limited-stop service, with a similar number of stops as the proposed dedicated transit alternatives on W. 7th St. 4 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Use of Existing Infrastructure • Why is the river crossing not a differentiator (slide 22)? There are challenges to both crossings, including tying in with the Blue Line. From a bridge perspective alone, crossing at Ford Pkwy would be cheaper. But tying the route into the Blue Line add additional expense.
• What is the assumption of routing Riverview into the Blue Line? Existing Blue Line track and Riverview would meet at the 46th St. Station.
Ridership • What is the total population along each route and what number are transit dependent? This information can be found in the Appendix.
• Does 10,700 daily ridership in 2040 suffice for the need? [Yes.] The 10,700 is the project 2040 ridership on Route 54. This demand would require improvements to the existing Route 54
• Regarding the concept of a tunnel under Historic Fort Snelling: Do we know if all third parties are onboard, and we can build a new bridge, tunnel, and station? The Study continues to engage stakeholders such as MnDOT, MN Department of Natural Resources, National Park Service, Hennepin County and Mn Historical Society. These agencies are part of ongoing discussions of the various concepts including a tunnel under Historic Fort Snelling.
• What are the expected costs of a new transit [and pedestrian and bike] bridge and reconstructing the existing Hwy 5 Bridge to accommodate general traffic, transit, pedestrians, and bikes? The former would cost approximately $180M, while the latter would cost an additional $200M to $300M.
Freight Rail • Recommend talking to Soo Line about the potential abandonment of the line south of 42nd Street. Project staff will look in to this. Note: Canadian Pacific currently does not have any plans to abandon this section of their rail network.
7. Cost Evaluation
Project staff presented the draft results of the Cost detailed evaluation criteria for the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives.
Requested PAC Action: None
Discussion:
• The Arterial BRT and Dedicated BRT alternatives would not require improvements to River crossings, correct? Correct. Both modes would travel in shared lanes with traffic across the bridge.
• Alternatives 5 and 7 are the same cost (slide 25)? Is the cost of acquiring the CP Spur not included? Yes, the cost estimates include acquisition of the CP Spur. However, alternatives on W. 7th St. require street reconstruction which generally offsets the cost to acquire the CP Spur.
8. Community Evaluation
Project staff presented the draft results of the Community Evaluation for the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives.
Requested PAC Action: None
5 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Discussion:
Parking Impacts • Downtown Saint Paul has 80 metered parking spaces along potential Riverview routes. Where are these parking spaces located, 5th/6th St. or 7th/8th St. to Broadway?
• Do we have an estimate for the potential parking revenue the City of Saint Paul may lose if the metered parking spaces were impacted? Staff will look in to this.
• How many parking spaces would be lost per station along W. 7th Street? The draft estimates assume that 12 parking spaces would be affected at each BRT station; and 24 spaces at each rail station.
• Will Riverview require an extended LRT platform [300’ long like Green Line]? No. One-car trains meet ridership projections, but platforms will likely be designed to accommodate two-car trains.
Right-of-Way Impacts: • Are we going to have any information about the likelihood of acquiring the CP Spur? We will not know any additional information as part of this Study. Instead, we are accounting for some risk in by assuming that the cost to purchase the CP Spur that is similar to the cost of acquiring freight railroad property for the Southwest Light Rail Project.
o The cost could be zero if the owner is not willing to selling.
th o If CP Rail does not sell, then we would look at another path. Yes, such as W. 7 St. and St. Paul Ave.
o If CP Rail is not willing to sell, at least we are looking at other alternatives. There are ongoing risks.
Visual and Construction Impacts • Highlight to the public that W. 7th St. will be resurfaced regardless of the Riverview project. This could be viewed as an opportunity to coordinate projects if needed.
9. Next PAC Meeting: July 13, 2017
10. Public Comment
Commissioner Ortega opened the meeting to the public.
Wade Johnson, a Hiawatha neighborhood resident in Minneapolis, expressed concerns with the streetcar Ford Site alternative. He noted the streetcar to the Ford Site is the most expensive and has the second longest travel time. Yet, this alternative is not projected to have the highest ridership. What criteria were used to keep this option moving forward? Why has it not been discarded?
Jason Craig, a Hiawatha neighborhood resident in Minneapolis, thanked Kevin Roggenbuck for his professionalism and responding to his concerns via email. He asked about the viability and the safety of a streetcar entering a tunnel from 46th Street.
12. Adjourn
Chair Ortega thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 10:59 a.m.
6 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Policy Advisory Committee Meeting – May 11, 2017
Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
PAC Attendance Sheet First Name Last Name Title Representing
X Kristin Beckmann Deputy Mayor City of Saint Paul X Tim Busse Councilmember City of Bloomington X Jon Commers Councilmember Metropolitan Council Pat Harris Commissioner Metropolitan Airports Commission
Nancy Homans Policy Director City of Saint Paul (Alternate)
Sheila Kauppi Metro District Minnesota Department of Transportation (Alternate) Pat Mancini Owner, Mancini's Char Riverview Corridor Business X House Representative Scott McBride Metro District Engineer Minnesota Department of X Transportation Peter McLaughlin Commissioner Hennepin County Regional X Railroad Authority X Rebecca Noecker Councilmember - Ward 2 City of Saint Paul Rafael Ortega Commissioner Ramsey County Regional Railroad X Authority John Regal Board Member Saint Paul Area Chamber of X Commerce Bridget Rief Airport Development Metropolitan Airports Commission Director (Alternate) Laurel Severson Citizen Riverview Corridor Citizen X Representative X Chris Tolbert Councilmember - Ward 3 City of Saint Paul X Peter Wagenius Policy Director City of Minneapolis Staff and Consultants Tim Mayasich Director Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority Heather Worthington Ramsey County Regional Railroad
Authority Mike Rogers Project Manager Ramsey County Regional Railroad X Authority Kevin Roggenbuck Deputy Project Manager Ramsey County Regional Railroad X Authority X April Manlapaz Project Manager AECOM Team Nancy Stavish Technical Staff AECOM Team
X Amy Canfield Technical Staff AECOM Team X Gavin Poindexter Technical Staff AECOM Team X Pat Coleman Technical Staff AECOM Team X Joy Miciano Public Engagement AECOM Team X Rebecca Lieser Pubic Engagement AECOM Team X Ted Davis Strategic Communications Davis Team X Mike Zipko Strategic Communications Davis Team
7 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
ATTENDANCE SHEET Policy Advisory Committee Meeting – May 11, 2017 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study
Other Attendees First Name Last Name Organization Tim Burkhardt HDR
Jason Craig Mpls-Hiawatha resident
Rachel Dammel Kimley-Horn
Mark Finken City of St. Paul Public Works
Ken Iosso Ramsey County
Jerry Johnson Resident
Wade Johnson Mpls-Hiawatha resident
Jane McClure Villager
Gina Mitteco MnDOT
Howard Ornstein Hennepin County
Emma Pachutz SPST-TLC
Andrea Perzichilli Allina Health W. 7th Street Business Association and Community Kent Petterson Reporter
Alan Robbins-Fenger National Park Service
Joseph Scala Hennepin County
Heidi Schallberg Metropolitan Council
Jim Schoettler Self
Scott Reed HDR
Attendee (did not sign in)
8 Riverview Pre-Project Development Study
Policy Advisory Committee July 13, 2017
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 1 Agenda
1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of May PAC Meeting Summary 4. June PAC Update 5. Meeting Objective 6. Study Overview 7. TAC Recommendations for Public Review 8. PAC Approval of Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives for Public Review 9. Next Steps 10. Public Comment
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 2 2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 3 3. APPROVAL OF THE MAY PAC MEETING SUMMARY
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 4 4. JUNE PAC UPDATE
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 5 June PAC Update
• Draft Results: Station Area Evaluation • Draft Results: Six Additional BRT Alternatives and TAC Recommendation
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 6 Summary: Station Area Evaluation
Route • Ford Pkwy alternatives total more people and jobs due to its additional length (~5.5 mi) and more stations (~7) • Ford Pkwy alternatives serve future development at the Ford Site (1,500 jobs CONNECTIONS TO KEY and 4,000 residential units) ACTIVITY CENTERS
PROXIMITY TO • Ford Pkwy alternatives do not serve the Shepard/Davern area AFFORDABLE HOUSING Mode EMPLOYMENT • Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) includes more permanent infrastructure which DEVELOPMENT has been associated with higher development potential POTENTIAL
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Operating Environment:
BICYCLE ACCESS • Dedicated lanes have higher development potential than shared lanes POPULATION • Dedicated lanes have greater potential to impact sidewalks
PROXIMITY TO ZERO- CAR HOUSEHOLDS
FTA New Starts / Small Starts Criteria PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 7 Summary: Additional BRT Alternatives via Hwy 5
• Compared to Rail equivalent – Still cost significantly less – But significantly longer travel time (9 min) and lower ridership (6,400/day)
• Compared to BRT equivalent – Costs more ($10M capital; $2M O&M/year) – Fewer ridership (600/day) – Higher cost/rider = Lower likelihood of successfully competing for federal funding
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 8 Summary: Additional BRT Alternatives via Ford Pkwy
• Compared to Rail equivalent – Still cost significantly less – But significantly longer travel time (11 min) and lower ridership (6,800/day)
• Compared to BRT equivalent – Costs more ($20M capital; $2M O&M/year) – Fewer ridership (500/day) – Higher cost/rider = Lower likelihood of successfully competing for federal funding
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 9 Other Meetings
• PAC member updates • June TAC meeting
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 10 5. MEETING OBJECTIVE
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 11 Meeting Objective
• Approve the release of the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives to the public – Alignments – Modes – Additional 6 BRT alternatives
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 12 TAC Recommendations: Alignment
Carry Forward
• Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 River Crossings
• City Streets (W. 7th and St. Paul Ave) and CP Spur
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 13 TAC Recommendations: Mode
Carry Forward • No-Build • Arterial BRT • Modern Streetcar
Dismiss • Dedicated BRT • LRT • Additional 6 BRT alternatives
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 14 6. STUDY OVERVIEW
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 15 Project Development and Implementation
Summer 2014 EARLY OUTREACH
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 16 LPA = 1 Mode + 1 Alignment
Bus/BRT Rail (Modern Streetcar or LRT)
Mode or
Alignment = From Union Depot to Mall of America
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 17 February 2016
October 2016
January 2017
February 2017
July 2017
LPA December 2017
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 18 Riverview Corridor Study Timeline
PAC approved Technical Screening October 2016 July 2017 PAC APPROVE Draft Results for Public Review December 2017 Summer 2014 PAC approved PAC APPROVE Initial Screening LPA EARLYStart of Study OUTREACH February 2016 July 2014
2014 2015 2016 2017 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
PAC approved PAC approved November 2017: Purpose & Need PAC approved 10 Most Promising PAC APPROVE Universe of Alternatives Detailed Criteria Alternatives Draft LPA for August 2015 December 2016 January 2017 Public Hearing
CORRIDOR VISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LPA
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 19 7. TAC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 20 TAC Recommendation: BRT
Requested PAC Action Dismiss Dedicated BRT alternatives from further analysis for the following reasons: • Higher capital and O&M costs than Arterial BRT are not commensurate with incremental benefits such as ridership • Cost per rider is $3 to $6 more than Arterial BRT • Development potential is greater than Arterial BRT, but substantial differences are limited due to ~50% of the corridor not being dedicated
Dedicated BRT Alternatives (Alternatives 3, 5, 7, 9)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 21 TAC Recommendation: Rail
Requested PAC Action Dismiss LRT alternatives (100% of route in dedicated lanes) from further analysis for the following reasons: • Greater traffic impact due to dedicated lanes • Greater parking and/or sidewalk impacts due to dedicated lanes • Greater construction impacts due to dedicated lanes
LRT Alternatives (Alternatives 4a and 10a)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 22 TAC Recommendation: 6 Additional BRT Alternatives
Requested PAC Action Dismiss the 6 Additional BRT Alternatives from further analysis for the following reasons: • Longer Travel Time • Lower Ridership • Higher Capital Cost • Higher Operating and Maintenance Cost • Higher Cost Per Rider
6 Additional BRT Alternatives (Alternatives 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 23 TAC Recommendation
Bus
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 24 TAC Recommendation
BRT
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 25 TAC Recommendation
Modern Streetcar
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 26 TAC Recommendation
Modern Streetcar
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 27 TAC Recommendation
Modern Streetcar
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 28 TAC Recommendation
Modern Streetcar
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 29 Characteristics of Alternatives Carried Forward
Key Characteristics #1 #2 #4 #6 #8 #10 No-Build Arterial BRT Modern Modern Modern Modern (Route 54) Streetcar: Streetcar: Streetcar: Streetcar: th th th W. 7 W. 7 - W. 7 - W. 7 th-CP Spur Ford Site CP Spur- Ford Site
River Crossing Hwy 5 Hwy 5 Hwy 5 Ford Pkwy Ford Pkwy Hwy 5 Length 12.4 miles 12.4 miles 11.7 miles 15.7 miles 15.8 miles 11.9 miles
Number of Stations 26 26 20 27 27 20
Travel Time 41 min 39 min 44 min 56 min 54 min 43 min (Union Depot-Mall of America)
2040 Daily Ridership Total 10,700 11,100 20,400 19,000 18,400 19,600 Transit-Dependent N/A 3,200 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,500 New Riders N/A 200 2,700 1,800 1,500 2,200 Capital Cost (2015$) N/A $75M $1.0B $1.2B $1.2B $1.1B O&M Cost (2015$) N/A $10M $24M $28M $28M $24M Cost per Rider N/A $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 30 What do we Analyze after LPA Selection?
These criteria require further analysis during future environmental and design/engineering:
CULTURAL / HISTORIC RESOURCES PARKING IMPACTS PARKLAND RIGHT-OF-WAY MISSISSIPPI RIVER VISUAL
WETLAND / FLOODPLAIN NOISE / VIBRATION
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Require further analysis during future environmental review and design/engineering
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 31 What do we Analyze after LPA Selection?
The following decisions will be made after the Riverview Study: • W. 7 th St / St. Paul Ave vs. CP Spur • Side-running vs. center-running • Dedicated vs. shared use segments
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 32 8. PAC APPROVAL OF DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 33 PAC Approval of TAC Recommendations
Arterial BRT: W.7th – Hwy 5/Fort 1 No-Build (Route 54) 11 Snelling 2 Arterial BRT (via Hwy 5) 12 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort 3 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 13 Snelling Light Rail: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort 4a 14 Arterial BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site Snelling Modern Streetcar: W. 7th – Hwy 4b 15 BRT: W. 7 th – Ford Site 5/Fort Snelling 5 BRT: W. 7 th – Ford Site 16 BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Ford Site 6 Modern Streetcar: W. 7th – Ford Site 7 BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Ford Site Modern Streetcar: W. 7th – CP Spur – 8 Ford Site BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort 9 Snelling Light Rail: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/ 10a Fort Snelling Modern Streetcar: W. 7th – CP Spur – 10b Hwy 5/ Fort Snelling
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 34 9. NEXT STEPS
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 35 Next Steps
• Public Meetings – Pending PAC approval of TAC recommendations
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 36 Next Steps
Draft Detailed Evaluation Results Mar-Jul 2017 PAC ACTION: APPROVE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW JULY 13TH PUBLIC REVIEW JULY-AUGUST Draft Locally Preferred Alternative Sept-Oct 2017
OPEN HOUSE/PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER Locally Preferred Alternative Nov-Dec 2017 PAC ACTION: APPROVE LPA DEC 14TH
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 37 10. PUBLIC COMMENT
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 38 Public Comment
When Commenting, Please… • Be respectful • Be brief - Speak for 3 or fewer minutes to give others an opportunity to speak • Visitor comments will be included in the PAC meeting summary
The Chair reserves the right to limit an individual’s presentation if it becomes redundant, disrespectful, or is not relevant to the Riverview Corridor.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 39 Riverview Pre-Project Development Study
TECHNICAL APPENDIX Policy Advisory Committee July 13, 2017
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-1 Table of Contents Overview
Page Detailed Definition of Alternatives 6 Elements of Most Promising Alternatives 7 Draft Service Plans 20 Draft Operating Environment Maps 26 TAC Recommendations 29 Alternatives for Public Review (June 2017)
Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives 50
Six Additional BRT Alternatives 161
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-2 Table of Contents Detailed Evaluation Results
Category Page Environmental 51 Cultural/Historic Resources 52 Parklands 54 Wetlands/Floodplains 56 Mississippi River 58 Transportation Evaluation 62 Travel Time 63 2040 Daily Ridership 65 Traffic 69 Safety 76 Local/Regional Connectivity 80 Freight Rail Assessment 81
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-3 Table of Contents Detailed Evaluation Results
Detailed Evaluation Category Page Cost 82 Capital Cost 83 Operating and Maintenance Cost 106 Cost per Rider 109 Community 110 Parking 111 Right-of-Way 123 Visual 131 Noise and Vibration 134 Construction Considerations 139
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-4 Table of Contents Detailed Evaluation Results
Detailed Evaluation Category Page Station Areas Evaluation 144 Station Area Demographics Sources 145 Population 146 Employment 148 Pedestrian Access 150 Bicycle Access 152 Development Potential 154 Activity Centers 155 Affordable Housing 157 Zero-Car Households 159 6 Additional BRT Alternatives 161
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-5 Technical Appendix July 2017 PAC DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-6 Technical Appendix April 2017 PAC ELEMENTS OF MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVES
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-7 1 No Build (Route 54) Description Route Length 12.4 miles Total # Stops 26 Travel Time 41 minutes
Alternative 1 Key Elements Guideway • Existing Route 54 • Operates in shared use lanes Vehicles • 14, 40’ diesel buses Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site • Uses existing Hwy 5 bridge Construction • Includes future reconstruction of W. 7th Street and sidewalks
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-8 2 Arterial BRT Description Route Length 12.4 miles Total # Stops 26 Travel Time 40 minutes
Alternative 2 Key Elements Guideway • Would operate in shared use lanes Station • Scope and cost similar to A Line Vehicles • Arterial BRT vehicles: 14, 60’ hybrid articulated buses • Storage and maintenance of Arterial BRT vehicles Systems • Transit Signal Priority, fare collection Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site • Use existing Hwy 5 bridge Construction • Project construction is confined to station areas • Includes future reconstruction of W. 7th Street and sidewalks
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-9 3 BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling Description Route Length 12.4 miles Total # Stops 20 Travel Time 40 minutes
Alternative 3 Key Elements Guideway • Dedicated BRT lanes (downtown, W. 7th St and Bloomington South Loop) • Shared use lanes (TH 5 bridge, through MSP Airport and TH 5 and I-494) Stations • Platforms and amenities for two articulated buses Vehicles • 14, 60’ hybrid articulated buses, including spares • Storage and maintenance of BRT vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance facility Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • Use existing Hwy 5 bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-10 4a Light Rail: W. 7th – Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling Description Route Length 11.7 miles Total # Stops 20 Travel Time 44 minutes
Alternative 4a Light Rail Key Elements Guideway • Light rail operates in a dedicated lane • Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling • Green Line tie-in at Cedar/5th St and Cedar/6th St Stations • Scoped as LRT stations, for three-car consists (subject to change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) • At-grade station at Historic Fort Snelling and MOA Vehicles • 15 rail vehicles, including spares • Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility Service • No direct service to the Ford Site Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across Mississippi River, adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-11
4b Modern Streetcar: W. 7th – Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling Description Route Length 11.7 miles Total # Stops 20 Travel Time 44 minutes
Alternative 4b Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway • Modern Streetcar could operate in either dedicated lane or mixed traffic depending on location and policy decisions • Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling • Green Line tie-in at Cedar/5th St and Cedar/6th St Stations • Scoped as LRT stations, for three-car consists (subject to change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) • At -grade station at Historic Fort Snelling and MOA Vehicles • 15 rail vehicles, including spares • Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility Service • No direct service to the Ford Site Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St., utility relocation • New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across Mississippi River, adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge PAC Draft
Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-12
5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site Description Route Length 18.0 miles Total # Stops 28 Travel Time 59 minutes
Alternative 5 Key Elements Guideway • Dedicated BRT lanes (between downtown and Ford Site) • Shared use lanes (Ford Pkwy and 46th St) • Dedicated lanes (bus on shoulders) on TH 55 generally between 46th St and 54th St, and Bloomington South Loop • Multi -use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way Stations • Platforms and amenities for two articulated buses Vehicles • 17, 60’ hybrid articulated buses, including spares • Storage and maintenance of BRT vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling Construction •Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St., utility relocation • Use existing Ford Pkwy bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-13
6 Modern Streetcar: W. 7th – Ford Site Description Route Length 15.7 miles Total # Stops 27 Travel Time 56 minutes
Alternative 6 Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway • Modern Streetcar could operate in either dedicated lane or mixed traffic depending on location and policy decisions • Blue Line tie-in at 43rd St: rail tunnel under TH 55 and SOO line • Blue Line and Riverview rail alternative tie in at existing 46th St Station • Green Line tie-in at Cedar/5th St and Cedar/6th St • Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way Stations • Scoped as LRT stations, for three-car consists (subject to change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) Vehicles • 17 rail vehicles, including spares • Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • Retrofit of Ford Pkwy bridge • Tunnel under Hiawatha and SOO line tracks • Reconstruction of Blue Line tracks south of 42nd St
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-14 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site Description Route Length 18.1 miles Total # Stops 28 Travel Time 59 minutes
Alternative 7 Key Elements Guideway • Dedicated BRT lanes (downtown and Ford Site) • Shared use lanes (Ford Pkwy and 46th St) • Dedicated lanes (bus on shoulders) on TH 55 generally between 46th St and 54th St, and Bloomington South Loop • Multi -use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of- way • New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I- 35E Stations • Platforms and amenities for two articulated buses Vehicles • 17, 60’ hybrid articulated buses, including spares • Storage and maintenance of BRT vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • Use existing Ford Pkwy bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-15 8 Modern Streetcar: Streetcar W. 7th :– W.CP 7 Spurth – CP – FordSpur Site– Ford Site Description Route Length 15.8 miles Total # Stops 27 Travel Time 54 minutes
Alternative 8 Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway • Modern Streetcar could operate in either dedicated lane or mixed traffic depending on location and policy decisions • Blue Line tie-in at 43rd St: rail tunnel under TH 55 and SOO line tracks • Blue Line and Riverview rail alternative tie in at existing 46th St Station • Green Line tie-in at Cedar/5th St and Cedar/6th St • Multi -use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way Stations • Scoped as LRT stations, for three-car consists (subject to change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) Vehicles • 17 rail vehicles, including spares • Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • O perations and maintenance facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E • Retrofit of Ford Pkwy bridge • Tunnel under Hiawatha and SOO line tracks • Reconstruction of Blue Line tracks south of 42nd St
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-16 9 BRT: W. 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling Description Route Length 12.6 miles Total # Stops 20 Travel Time 40 minutes
Alternative 9 Key Elements Guideway • Dedicated BRT lanes (downtown, W. 7th St, CP Spur and Bloomington South Loop) • Shared use lanes (TH 5 bridge, through MSP Airport and TH 5 and I-494) • Multi -use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of- way Stations • Platforms and amenities for two articulated buses Vehicles • 14, 60’ hybrid articulated buses, including spares • Storage and maintenance of BRT vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E • Use existing Hwy 5 bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-17
10a Light Rail: W. 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5/ Fort Snelling Description Route Length 11.9 miles Total # Stops 20 Travel Time 43 minutes
Alternative 10a Light Rail Key Elements Guideway • Light rail operates in a dedicated lane • Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling • Green Line tie-in at Cedar/5th St and Cedar/6th St • Multi -use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way Stations • Scoped as LRT stations, for three-car consists (subject to change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) • At -grade station at Historic Fort Snelling and MOA Vehicles • 15 rail vehicles, including spares • Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to the Ford Site Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E • New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across Mississippi River, adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-18 10b Modern Streetcar: W. 7th-CP Spur- Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling Description Route Length 11.9 miles Total # Stops 20 Travel Time 43 minutes
Alternative 10b Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway • Modern Streetcar could operate in either dedicated lane or mixed traffic depending on location and policy decisions • Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling • Green Line tie-in at Cedar/5th St and Cedar/6th St • Multi -use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way Stations • Scoped as LRT stations, for three-car consists (subject to change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) • At -grade station at Historic Fort Snelling and MOA Vehicles • 15 rail vehicles, including spares • Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles Systems • Traffic signals, communication, fare collection Right-of-way • Operations and Maintenance Facility • CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site) Service • No direct service to the Ford Site Construction • Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W. 7th St, utility relocation • New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E • New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across Mississippi River, adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-19 Technical Appendix April 2017 PAC DRAFT SERVICE PLANS – CONNECTING BUS SERVICE
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-20 No Build (Route 54)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-21 Alternatives 2, 3 & 4: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-22 Alternatives 5 & 6: W. 7th – Ford Site
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-23 Alternatives 7 & 8: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-24 Alternatives 9 & 10: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-25 June 2017 PAC Update DRAFT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT MAPS
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-26 Dedicated BRT: Where could the alignment be dedicated or shared use?
FTA New Starts requires at least 50% of Dedicated BRT guideway to be dedicated during peak periods
Upon selection of a “build” LPA, environmental and engineering phases would refine locations of dedicated and shared use guideway
Only dedicated in peak period
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-27 Rail: Where could the alignment be dedicated, shared use, or either?
Upon selection of a “build” LPA, environmental and engineering phases would refine locations of dedicated and shared use guideway
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-28 June 2017 TAC Presentation JUNE TAC RECOMMENDATIONS
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-29 TAC Recommendation: River Crossing
Carry forward alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 for public review for these reasons: • They serve distinct travel markets • 2040 weekday ridership are comparable (~18k-20k) • Draft results require refinement and discussion
Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 River Crossings (Alternatives 4b, 6, 8, and 10b)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-30 Differentiators: River Crossing Hwy 5 vs. Ford Pkwy
Hwy 5 19k-20k 18k-19k • 600-2,000 more daily trips Ridership 1.5k-2.5k 1k-2k • 400-1,200 more daily new riders Hwy 5 44 min 55 min Travel Time • 11 minutes faster from Union Depot to Mall of America
Hwy 5 $1.0-1.1B $1.2B Capital Cost • Routes are $100M to $200M less expensive due to length
Hwy 5 $24M $28M Operating Cost • Routes are $4M less expensive per year
Hwy 5 $10 $12-$13 Cost Per Rider • Routes are ~$2-$3 less expensive per rider
Ford Pkwy Mississippi River • Route does not consider new bridge
Ford Pkwy • Routes have more people (13,900 [2010]/23,500 [2040]), more jobs (10,200 Population [2010] /12,700) [2040], and more zero-car households (500-700) within a ½ mile Employment station buffer • Routes have more people within ½ mile walkshed (8,900) and 3-mile bikeshed (33,200)
Hwy 5 Development • Directly serves Shepard/Davern Potential Ford Pkwy • Directly serves Ford Site
Ford Pkwy 3,800 4,100 Affordable Housing • Directly connects existing affordable housing at VA
Ford Pkwy 45 50 Activity Centers • Routes have 5 more activity centers
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-31 River Crossing Decision: Other Considerations
1. Travel Market – How do Ford Site trips differ from W. 7th St trips?
2. Ridership – How do ridership forecasts for Ford Pkwy alternatives differ from Hwy 5 alternatives?
3. Cost – Why do Ford Pkwy alternatives cost more than Hwy 5 alternatives?
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-32 Q1. Travel Market Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5
• How do Ford Site trips differ from W. 7th St trips? – Where are people coming from/going to?
• Reference: Technical Memorandum #2, Transit Travel Demand Market Analysis, August 2015*
*Reference: http://riverviewcorridor.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RV_FINAL-TM-2-Travel-Market_Aug- 20154.pdf
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-33 Ford Site Travel Market 2040 Daily Person-Trips = 14k
Downtown 230 Minneapolis 2% 3,800 27% W. 7th 320 2%
Ford Site 850 6%
MSP/Fort Snelling 180 1%
Bloomington South Loop 320 2%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-34 W. 7 th Travel Market 2040 Daily Person-Trips = 64k
Downtown 6,400 Minneapolis 10% 5,900 9%
W. 7th 6,300 10% Ford Site 320 <1%
MSP/Fort Snelling 670 1%
Bloomington South Loop 1,100 2%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-35 Q1. Travel Market Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5
• River crossings have distinct travel markets
• Ford Pkwy crossing/Ford Site travel market: – 27% Minneapolis – 6 % Ford – 2% Downtown – 5 % Rest of Riverview Corridor
• Hwy 5 crossing/W. 7th travel market – 9% Minneapolis – <1% Ford – 10% Downtown – 13% Rest of Riverview Corridor
• The proportion of trips to/from MSP and Bloomington South Loop are similar
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-36 Q2. Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5
• How do Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 ridership forecasts differ? – Premium service that would replace Route 54 – Connecting bus routes
• Based on districts defined in Technical Memorandum #2, Travel Market Analysis, August 2015
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-37 2040 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5
11,300 8,600
5,600 2,300
3,800 3,400
Total: 20,400 Total: 19,000 3,000 1,400
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-38 2040 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5 – Connecting Bus Routes
#84: 600
#84: 900
#46: 4,100 #46: 6,300
#74: 2,100 #74: 1,300
#54 (UD-MOA): 1,400 #54 (UD-MOA): 5,300
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-39 Q2. 2040 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5
• Two distinct travel markets
• Airport ridership is generally unaffected by river crossing
• Crossing at Ford Pkwy would: – Add 3,300 boardings between Davern and Fort Snelling park-and- ride
– Decrease boardings by 4,700* along the rest of the alignment • 1,600 in Bloomington South Loop • 2,700 along W. 7th and Downtown *Includes 400 along Airport segment
– Decrease ridership in Routes 46, 74, and 84
– Require Route 54 service between Downtown and MOA (5,300 trips/day)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-40 Q3. Cost Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5
• Why do Ford Pkwy alternatives cost more than Hwy 5 alternatives?
• Compared Alternatives 4 and 6
• Identified features and costs from where the alignments diverge in Saint Paul to the Blue Line tie-in
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-41 Cost Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5 Rail Crossing via Hwy 5 Ford Pkwy
From W. 7th @ Alton St W. 7th @ Alton St To Fort Snelling 46th St Blue Line Station Blue Line Station Length 2.0 mi 3.6 mi
Number of Stations 2 6
Travel Time 9 min 14 min
Capital Cost1 $470M-$790M $600M-$850M
River Crossing $170M $60M3 Tunnel under Historic $170M2 N/A Fort Snelling Blue Line Tie-In1 $180M-$330M $180M-$430M Vehicles 15 17 Track & Systems $100M $200M
Site Preparation <$5M $90M
Stations $15M $50M Annual Operating and $24M $28M Maintenance Cost4 Notes 1 In year 2015 dollars; do not include inflation. Range of costs account for conceptual Blue Line tie-in options. 2 Base cost ($470 million) does not include a tunnel under Historic Fort Snelling. 3 Presumes retrofit of Ford Pkwy Bridge for rail infrastructure. 4 In year 2015 dollars; annual cost to operate and maintain of Riverview rail alternative.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-42 Q3. Cost Comparison Ford Pkwy vs. Hwy 5 Crossing at Ford Pkwy costs slightly more than at Hwy 5 for these reasons:
• Capital cost – Longer alignment: 3.6 mi vs. 2.0 mi – More stations: 6 vs. 2 – Site preparation: $90M vs. less than $5M – More transit vehicles: 17 vs. 15
• Blue Line tie-ins have similar costs and are both complex
• Rail tunnel under Historic Fort Snelling is a significant capital element
• O&M cost: $28M vs. $24M
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-43 Mode: Approach
• Compare – BRT options: Arterial vs. Dedicated1 – Rail options: Modern Streetcar vs. LRT2
• Present mode options that perform best against evaluation criteria
1 Dedicated BRT: FTA requires a minimum of 50% dedicated guideway during peak periods. 2 LRT = 100% dedicated
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-44 Differentiators: BRT Arterial vs. Dedicated BRT BRT Dedicated BRT 11k- Ridership • 2,200 -3,000 more daily trips 10-11k/day 14k/day • 1,700-2,100 more daily new riders Arterial BRT ~$450- Capital Cost ~$75M • $75M vs. $450M-$650M 650M
Arterial BRT ~$11M- O&M Cost ~$10M • Costs $1M less per year $14M
Arterial BRT Cost Per Rider $4-$6 $6-$10 • Costs up to $3 less per rider
Arterial BRT Traffic • Potential for lessening traffic impact using shared use lanes • Shared use lanes could also narrow lane widths
Arterial BRT Parking • Has fewer parking impacts on W. 7th St
Development Dedicated BRT • More permanent infrastructure has been associated Potential with higher development potential
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-45 Differentiators: Rail Modern vs. Light Rail Streetcar 100% Dedicated Shared or Dedicated Modern Streetcar Traffic • Potential for lessening traffic impact using shared use lanes • Shared use lanes could also narrow lane widths Modern Streetcar Parking Impacts • Modern Streetcar could decrease parking impact using shared use lanes Modern Streetcar • Modern Streetcar has more flexibility to accommodate adjoining uses Construction • Modern Streetcar may be better able to preserve pedestrian access to businesses during construction Modern Streetcar Right-of-way • Modern Streetcar could require less right-of-way to accommodate various users
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-46 TAC Recommendation: W. 7 th St / St. Paul Ave vs. CP Spur
Carry forward W. 7 th St, St. Paul Ave, and CP Spur alignment options into future environmental review and engineering for the following reasons: • Some criteria do not differentiate as part of the Study, could in the next phase of work – Traffic impacts – Utility impacts – Right-of-way impacts and requirements – Parking impacts – Noise and vibration • Resolution of these unknowns will define these segments of the alignment
W. 7 th St / St. Paul Ave vs. CP Spur (Alternatives 4, 6, 8 and 10)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-47 Summary of Differentiators
th W. 7 St vs. CP Spur
CAPITAL COST • CP Spur is ~$40M (Bus/BRT) - $80M (Rail) more expensive
RIGHT-OF-WAY • CP Spur requires ~$40M property acquisition (excludes CP Yard)
PARKING • CP Spur would not remove parking
• CP Spur has fewer construction impacts ONSTRUCTION C • W. 7 th St will have road and sidewalk construction regardless of Riverview project
W. 7th Alternatives: 1, 2, 4, 6 CP Spur Alternatives: 8, 10 *Refer to Most Promising Alternatives booklet PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-48 Summary of Differentiators
St. Paul Ave vs. CP Spur
• Staying within roadway right-of-way to the Ford Site is cheaper APITAL OST C C (W. 7 th St + St. Paul Ave)
RIGHT-OF-WAY • CP Spur requires ~$40M property acquisition (excludes CP Yard)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-49 Technical Appendix July 2017 PAC DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-50 CULTURAL / HISTORIC RESOURCES PARKLAND MISSISSIPPI RIVER WETLAND / April 2017 PAC Presentation FLOODPLAIN 6. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-51 Cultural/Historic Resources
UESTION GOAL: Q : Improve transit connections to Are cultural/historic resources and destinations served within jobs, education, healthcare, activity centers, cultural the corridor and what would be the potential impacts? resources, and to the regional and national transit network ANALYSIS: • Identify the number of known nearby historic sites and districts within 350 feet* of each alternative’s alignment
• Known historic sites and districts are those that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
*For this phase of the study, an area of 350 feet on either side of each proposed alternative’s alignment was used to identify known cultural resources. An Area of Potential Effect (APE) would be determined during a future environmental review for the locally preferred alternative.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-52 Cultural/Historic Resources
INITIAL FINDINGS: • All alternatives are within 350’ of 7 to 10 historic districts and 25 to 28 individual historic properties • All alternatives are within 350’ of 1 significant Native American Area • All alternatives have the potential to cause impacts WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE STUDY? • Does not differentiate among alternatives • Focus on the desire to serve cultural/historic destinations • Assessing potential impacts requires a historic properties regulatory review during a future environmental review DISCUSSION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-53
Parklands
GOAL: Support, protect and enhance QUESTION: high-quality connections of corridor resources, How many parklands are potentially impacted by each neighborhoods, businesses, alternative? and the Mississippi River
ANALYSIS: • Estimate number of parklands potentially impacted; defined as use of parkland or parkland within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA)
• Identified parklands using city, county and regional plans.
*Sources: Ramsey County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, City of Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan, Hennepin County 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Comprehensive Plan 2007 – 2020, City of Bloomington 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Great River Passage Master Plan and Metropolitan Council online mapping tool.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-54 Parklands
INITIAL FINDINGS: • All alternatives traverse Mississippi National River & Recreation Area (MNRRA) • All alternatives have potential to impact parkland • Range is from 1 to 7 parklands potentially impacted WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE STUDY: • Does not differentiate among alternatives; number of parklands potentially impacted does not equate to magnitude of impact. • Coordination with agencies having jurisdiction over parkland would inform the locally preferred alternative’s environmental review process to avoid/ minimize/mitigate impacts. DISCUSSION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-55
Wetlands/Floodplains
GOAL: Support, protect and enhance QUESTION: high-quality connections of corridor resources, Are there potential impacts to wetland/floodplains? neighborhoods, businesses, and the Mississippi River ANALYSIS: • Estimated number of acres of wetlands/floodplains potentially impacted by the proposed alignments
• Identified water resources using National Wetlands Inventory, Minnesota Public Waters Inventory, Metropolitan Council and Ramsey County online mapping tools
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-56 Wetlands/Floodplains
INITIAL FINDINGS: Wetlands • End -to-end alternatives range from 0 to approximately 3 acres of potential wetland impacts Floodplains • End-to-end alternatives range from 0 to approximately 1 acre of potential floodplain impacts WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE STUDY: • Potential impacts do not differentiate among alternatives • Specific impacts and mitigation determined during a future environmental review and engineering for locally preferred alternative − Steps will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate water resource impacts DISCUSSION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-57
Mississippi River
GOAL: Support, protect and enhance QUESTION: high-quality connections of corridor resources, How does the travel market served and mode impact the crossing neighborhoods, businesses, of the Mississippi River? and the Mississippi River
ANALYSIS: • Qualitative assessment based on use of existing infrastructure • National Park Service (NPS) sequencing guidance (focus on existing crossing locations) • Other related criteria: Visual, Cultural, Parkland and Water Resources, and Capital Cost.
Ford Pkwy Bridge Hwy 5 Bridge
or
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-58 Mississippi River
INITIAL FINDINGS:
• Ford Parkway Bridge – BRT: Use existing – Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): Presumes retrofit of existing bridge
Source: National Park Service; Great River Passage Plan; January 2017 Preliminary Concepts Booklet
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-59 Mississippi River Existing
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Hwy 5/Fort Snelling − BRT : Use existing − Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar):
Presumes New Bridge for transit, pedestrians, Replace TH 5 bridge at current location to and bikes adjacent to existing TH 5 Bridge OR accommodate traffic, transit, pedestrians, and bikes
Source: National Park Service; Great River Passage Plan; January 2017 Preliminary Concepts Booklet PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-60 Mississippi River
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Differentiates by mode – BRT alternatives crossing on Ford Parkway Bridge or Hwy 5 Bridge would have less impact to river crossings • Need to comply with state rules regulating the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) – MRCCA shares a boundary with the MNRRA, a unit of the NPS – Cooperatively managed by local, state, regional agencies and NPS
DISCUSSION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-61 TRAVEL TIME SAFETY TRAFFIC RIDERSHIP LOCAL/REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY USE OF EXISTING Technical Appendix INFRASTRUCTURE May 2017 PAC FREIGHT
TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-62 Travel Time
GOAL: QUESTION: Improve transit connections to jobs, education, healthcare, How long does it take each alternative to travel from Union activity centers, cultural Depot to Mall of America? resources, and to the regional and national transit network WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Differentiates alternatives by route – Hwy 5 is 12-16 minutes faster than Ford Pkwy because it is a shorter route and has fewer stations
• Operating Environment: – Dedicated lanes are more reliable than shared lanes – Dedicated lanes are ~20 seconds faster than shared lanes • Although dedicated lanes are faster and more reliable, the travel time savings is minimal PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-63 Travel Time
ANALYSIS: • Modeled transit travel times using existing published Metro Transit schedules and conceptual alignments and station locations INITIAL FINDINGS:
1 Assumes two-minute travel time savings between No-Build and Arterial BRT on W. 7th St between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Centre. Reference: Metro Transit, 2012 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study. PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-64 2040 Daily Ridership QUESTION: How many people are projected to ride each alternative on an GOAL: Develop and select an average weekday in 2040? implementable project with local and regional support WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Differentiates alternatives by route: – Ford Pkwy routes serve more people, but have lower ridership than Hwy 5 routes – Hwy 5 provides for more direct service to MSP Airport and the Mall of America • Differentiates alternatives by mode: – Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) has higher ridership than Bus/BRT – 1 car trains needed for anticipated 2040 ridership demand – ridership is consistent throughout the day – LRT has a higher ridership capacity than Modern Streetcar PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-65 2040 Ridership Forecasts
ANALYSIS: • Twin Cities model validated to Riverview Corridor – Travel time – Trips (auto and transit) – MSP trips – MOA survey – Fare card data (Route 54 transfers)
• Other Inputs – 2040 population and employment – Conceptual service plans
Period Time Frequency Early 4:00 a.m. – 5:30 a.m. 15 min Daytime 5:30 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. 10 min Evening 8:00 p.m. – 10:15 p.m. 15 min Late 10:15 p.m. – 2:00 a.m. 30 min
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-66 2040 Ridership Forecasts
INITIAL FINDINGS: Alternative 2040 Daily Ridership 1. No Build 10,700
2. Arterial BRT 11,100
3. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 14,100
4. Rail: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 20,400
5. BRT: W. 7 th – Ford Site 12,400
6. Rail: W. 7th – Ford Site 19,000
7. BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Ford Site 11,100
8. Rail: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Ford Site 18,400
9. BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 13,300
10. Rail: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 19,600
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-67 2040 Ridership Forecasts
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Hwy 5 vs. Ford Pkwy – Hwy 5 has 1,200-2,200 more trips than Ford Pkwy – Hwy 5 has 700-900 more new riders than Ford Pkwy – Hwy 5 = 200-700 more trips for transit-dependent users than Ford Pkwy • Rail vs. BRT – Rail = 6,300-7,300 more trips than BRT – Rail = 300-500 more new riders than BRT – Rail = 900-1,300 more trips for transit-dependent persons than BRT – BRT facilities could be used by other routes – providing benefits to riders of those routes
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-68
Traffic
QUESTION: How is traffic congestion at key intersections impacted by? • Dedicated vs. Shared Lanes; Side vs. Center running? • Bus/BRT vs. Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar)?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Does not significantly differentiate alternatives by route: – Most traffic impacts are in common segments • Differentiates by mode: – Arterial BRT has the least impact due to no dedicated guideway • Differentiates alternatives by Operating Environment: – Dedicated lanes have higher traffic impacts than shared lanes • Requires further analysis during the environmental phase of the project. – Only key intersections were analyzed as part of this phase of the study, not the entirety of the routes proposed PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-69 Traffic W. 7 th St & ANALYSIS: Kellogg Blvd • Considered how W. 7 th St & th the proposed Hwy 55 & 46 St Chestnut St typical section I-35E Ramps W. 7 th St & would affect traffic Smith Ave operations at these W. 7 th St & key intersections Randolph Ave
W. 7 th St & Montreal Ave / Lexington Pkwy 34th Ave & W. 7 th St & American Blvd Davern St
24th Ave & Killebrew Dr
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-70 Traffic
INITIAL FINDINGS:
th W. 7 St. Travel through the Montreal/Lexington intersection • Dedicated lanes for transit = requires multiple signal cycles resulting in queues that impact adjacent intersections • Side running Same level of traffic Center running congestion
• Transit in dedicated lanes Same travel Transit in shared lanes time
• Transit in dedicated lanes = more reliable travel time • Shared lanes = less traffic congestion than dedicated lanes
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-71 Traffic – Existing Operations W. 7th St. Level of Service (LOS)
Existing operations
AM Peak PM Peak LOS at signalized intersections: Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Kellogg C 23 C 25 LOS A = Less than 10 seconds of delay Chestnut C 28 D 39 LOS B = 10 - 20 seconds of delay Smith B 18 F 84 LOS C = 20 - 35 seconds of delay Randolph C 25 D 36 LOS D = 35 - 55 seconds of delay I-35E NB Ramps A 9 A 7 LOS E = 55 - 80 seconds of delay I-35E SB Ramps B 16 B 19 Montreal/Lex. D 51 D 36 LOS F = More than 80 seconds of delay
Davern B 16 B 15
Source: Synchro software analysis, traffic data from City of St. Paul
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-72 Traffic – Alternative Operations W. 7th St. Level of Service (LOS)
Side Running
Dedicated Lane Shared Lane
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Kellogg E 77 D 36 Kellogg C 33 C 31 Chestnut F 90 D 41 Chestnut C 28 C 23 Smith C 21 E 59 Smith B 15 D 44 Randolph C 26 D 38 Randolph C 25 C 33 I-35E NB Ramps A 9 B 15 I-35E NB Ramps A 9 A 7 I-35E SB Ramps D 46 F 89 I-35E SB Ramps B 17 B 19 Montreal/Lex. F 176 F 144 Montreal/Lex. D 55 D 39 Davern F 88 F 84 Davern B 16 B 15
Source: Synchro software analysis, traffic data from City of St. Paul
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-73 Traffic – Alternative Operations W. 7th St. Level of Service (LOS)
Center Running
Dedicated Lane Shared Lane
AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Intersection LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) Kellogg E 73 C 35 Kellogg C 24 C 28 Chestnut E 68 E 67 Chestnut C 25 C 21 Smith B 19 F 218 Smith B 15 D 44 Randolph C 27 D 45 Randolph C 23 C 28 I-35E NB Ramps A 6 A 11 I-35E NB Ramps A 8 A 8 I-35E SB Ramps E 78 F 162 I-35E SB Ramps B 17 B 16 Montreal/Lex. F 176 F 144 Montreal/Lex. D 55 D 39 Davern E 78 F 221 Davern B 14 C 32
Source: Synchro software analysis, traffic data from City of St. Paul
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-74 Traffic
INITIAL FINDINGS: South Minneapolis • Hwy 55 & 46th St. Intersection • BRT has no impact on traffic operations • Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) results in more Blue Line crossings of 46th St. resulting in more congestion • Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) crosses Hwy 55 via a bridge or tunnel • No impact on traffic operations on Hwy 55 or 46th St due to shared lanes • No measureable impact on 46th Street as all alternatives operate in shared lanes Bloomington South Loop • Intersections operated acceptably today • BRT has no impact on traffic operations • Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) results in more trains and more potential for congestion • A grade separation of 24th Ave. should be explored to access Mall of America
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-75 Safety
QUESTIONS: GOAL: Support, protect and enhance 1. Which intersections have the most crashes? high-quality connections of corridor resources, 2. How does the number of access points differ between neighborhoods, businesses, routes? and the Mississippi River 3. What analysis will be completed during a future environmental phase of the project?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Not a differentiating criteria • Requires further analysis during the environmental phase of project
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-76 Safety
ANALYSIS: • Vehicles • Reviewed 5-year (2011 – 2015) crash statistics for W. 7th St. using MnDOT’s Crash Mapping Analysis Tool. Reviewed City of St. Paul’s Top 100 list for intersection crashes. • Compared W. 7th St. statistics to averages for the City of St. Paul • Counted the number of access points along each route • LPA would require additional analysis to identify potential mitigation measures • Bicycle/Pedestrian • Analysis to be completed during a future environmental phase of the project, after a route and mode are selected
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-77 Safety
INITIAL FINDINGS: #78. W. 7th & • Intersections with a high number Chestnut St
of crashes #60. Hwy 55 & 46th St* #38. W. 7th & – Most along W. 7th St. #100. W. 7th St. Kellogg & St. Paul • All access points are inherently a #80. W. 7th & Smith safety concern – W. 7 th has 108 access points vs. #15. W. 7th & Montreal/ 24 on the CP Spur Lexington
– St. Paul Ave. has 110 access #46. W. 7th & points vs. 6 on the CP Spur Davern # = Rank in St. Paul’s Top 100 crash list for intersections *Rank based on St. Paul metrics – this intersection is not in the St.
Paul city limits PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-78
Safety
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Pedestrian and Bicycle safety • Hwy 5 crossing for Rail alternatives would include a new bridge with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Rapid Flashing Beacon • Noted areas of concern: Seven Corners, near Excel Energy Center, crosswalks, along railroad tracks adjacent to residential properties • Higher transit use means a greater number of pedestrians on the road, which makes drivers more attentive. Median Island
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-79
Local/Regional Connectivity
GOAL: QUESTION: Improve transit connections to jobs, education, healthcare, How do the alternatives connect to the existing transit network? activity centers, cultural resources, and to the regional and national transit network WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Not a differentiating criteria
ANALYSIS: • Qualitative assessment of connections to existing bus lines, major roadways, existing transit • Based on Metro Transit schedules and service plan
INITIAL FINDINGS: • All alternatives serve Union Depot, MSP Airport Transit Center, Mall of America Transit Center and connect to Green Line and Blue Line. Ford Pkwy alternatives directly connect to A Line. PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-80
Freight Rail Assessment
GOAL: QUESTION: Provide additional transportation choices in the How do the alternatives impact freight operations? corridor to support community health and regional sustainability goals
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Differentiates alternatives by alignment and mode – All alternatives that use the CP Spur have the same impacts whether BRT or Rail • Alternatives using CP Spur depend on its availability for purchase • Rail (Modern Streetcar) alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy require grade- separated crossing of Soo Line tracks near 46th St
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-81 CAPITAL COST OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COST COST- EFFECTIVENESS
Technical Appendix May 2017 PAC COST EVALUATION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-82 Capital Cost Assumptions
• Order -of-magnitude estimates • In Base Year dollars: Year 2015, without inflation • N ot the cost to deliver any one of these alternatives as none of them will be open for service today • Cost to deliver is the base year cost estimate inflated by 3.5% compounded annually to the year of expenditure – A $500M project in today’s dollars (2017) would cost approximately $750M to open in year 2025 – A $1B project in today’s dollars would cost approximately $1.5B to open in year 2025
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-83 Capital Cost Methodology
• Based on conceptual illustrations – Most Promising Alternatives, January 2017 – Preliminary Concepts, January 2017
• Developed for purposes of comparison – Many items are allowances at concept-level
• References – Unit costs: Local and relevant national projects – Riverview Capital Cost Methodology, February 2016 – Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Use cost categories to facilitate comparison
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-84 Cost Categories (Basis: FTA)
• Construction Elements • Other Elements – Guideway and Track – Right -of-way – Bridges/Structures – Vehicles – Stations/Stops – Soft Costs/Professional – Support Facilities Services – Demolition and – Contingency Clearing – Utilities – Roadways – Ped/Bike/Landscaping – Systems
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-85 Construction Elements (Basis: FTA)
• Guideway and Track • Sitework and Special Conditions – – BRT lanes or tracks Elements not directly related to transit – Guideway drainage improvement – Guideway structures – Roadway – Utilities Stations/Stops – Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations • – Environmental mitigation, including Platforms – handling/disposal of hazardous or Canopies, fixtures – contaminated materials – Elevators, escalators, stairs – Streetscaping, landscaping
• Support Facilities • Systems – Storage and maintenance of transit – Fare collection vehicles – Traffic signals – Operations and administration buildings – Train control signals – Communication – Traction power substations – Train electrification
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-86 Other Capital Elements (Basis: FTA)
• Rightf -o -Way – Acquisition – Easements • Vehicles – Buses – Rail vehicles (LRT/Modern Streetcar) • Professional Services – Engineering and design – Project management – Construction administration and management – Insurance, legal, permits review fees – Surveys, testing, investigation, inspection – Agency force account work • Contingency – Applied to Construction, ROW, Vehicles, Professional Services • Finance Charges – Assumed $25Mfor Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) alternatives (longer construction duration than BRT)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-87 Assumptions
• Most Promising Alternatives – Draft capital cost estimates for Alternatives 2 through 10 (Arterial BRT, BRT, and Rail – LRT or Modern Streetcar) – No-Build assumed to incur no additional capital cost
• Common segment by mode: Downtown
• Options within sub-areas – Seven Corners – Trunk, between Randolph and Alton – Ford Site – TH 5/Fort Snelling – Bloomington South Loop
• Base alternative defined – Present incremental cost of options within a sub-area relative to base alternative
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-88 Capital Cost1
INITIAL FINDINGS: Alternative Capital Cost (2015 $) 1. No-Build (Route 54) N/A
2. Arterial BRT $75 M
3. BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling $420 M
4. Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling $1.0 B
5. BRT: W. 7 th – Ford Site $620 M
6. Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site $1.2 B
7. BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Ford Site $620 M
8. Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site $1.2 B
9. BRT: W. 7 th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling $450 M
10. Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling $1.1 B
1 These are not the cost to deliver any one of these alternatives as none of them will be open today. For example, the cost to deliver is the base year cost estimate inflated by 3.5% compounded annually to the year of expenditure: • A $500M project opening today will cost approximately $750M to open in 2025. • A $1B project opening today will cost approximately $1.5B to open in 2025.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-89 1 No Build (Route 54)
Description Route Length 12.4 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 41 min Total # Stops 26 Estimated Capital Cost (current year $) Not applicable
Allocation by Cost Category • Not applicable
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-90 2 Arterial BRT
Description Route Length 12.4 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 39 min Total # Stops 26 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $75M
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 16%
49% Vehicles
Soft Costs 26% Contingencies
0%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-91 3 BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling
Description Route Length 12.4 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 40 min Total # Stops 20 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $420M
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 23% Vehicles
63% 5% Soft Costs
0% Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-92 4 Rail: W. 7th – Hwy 5 / Fort Snelling
Description Route Length 11.7 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 44 min Total # Stops 20 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $1.0B
Allocation by Cost Category
Construction 9%
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
62% 8% Soft Costs
0% Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-93 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site
Description Route Length 18.0 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 59 min Total # Stops 28 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $620M
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
60% 4% Soft Costs 6%
Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-94 6 Rail: W. 7th – Ford Site
Description Route Length 15.7 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 56 min Total # Stops 27 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $1.2 B
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
60% 7% Soft Costs
3% Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-95 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site
Description Route Length 18.1 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 59 min Total # Stations 28 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $620M
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
60% 4% Soft Costs 6%
Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-96 8 Rail: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site
Description Route Length 15.8 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 54 min Total # Stops 27 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $1.2B
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
60% 7% Soft Costs
3% Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-97 9 BRT: W. 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5/ Fort Snelling Description Route Length 12.6 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 40 min Total # Stops 20 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $450M
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
57% 5% Soft Costs 8% Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-98 10 Rail: W. 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5/ Fort Snelling Description Route Length 11.9 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 43 min Total # Stops 20 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $1.1B
Allocation by Cost Category
9% Construction
Right-of-way 21%
Vehicles
60% 7% Soft Costs
3% Contingencies
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-99 BRT Capital Cost1 By Travel Market
BRT via Ford Pkwy: $260M2 BRT via Hwy 5: $110M
1 In 2015 dollars. 2 Does not include potential cost of acquiring the CP Spur ROW or CP Yard PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-100 Rail Capital Cost1 By Travel Market
Rail via Ford Pkwy: $600M2 Rail via Hwy 5: $470M
1 In 2015 dollars. 2 Does not include potential cost of acquiring the CP Spur ROW or CP Yard PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice 101 Capital Cost of BRT Sub-Options1 In 2015 Dollars2
• W. 7th St (Base): $90M-$100M • Smith Ave Mall: ~+$10M • St. Paul Ave (base): ~$20M • W. 7th/Smith Ave One-way Pair: +$25M-$30M • CP Spur: ~+$40M (This cost is not necessary if CP Spur has already been purchased for trunk) • W. 7 th (Base): ~$135M • CP Spur: ~+$40M (Cost includes infrastructure required and CP Spur ROW acquisition)
1 The capital cost of the base options are included in the total capital cost for each alternative between Downtown Saint Paul and Bloomington South Loop. 2 These costs do not include inflation. PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-102 Capital Cost of Rail Sub-Options1 In 2015 Dollars2
• W. 7th St (Base): $145M • Smith Ave Mall: +$15M-20M • W . 7th – Smith Ave One-way Pair: +$25M-$30M
• W. 7th (Base): $200M • CP Spur: +$80M (Cost of infrastructure+CP Spur ROW)
1 The capital cost of the base options are included in the total capital cost for each alternative between Downtown Saint Paul and Bloomington South Loop. 2 These costs do not include inflation. PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-103 Capital Cost of Rail Sub-Options1 In 2015 Dollars2
• CP Spur (Base): $110M • St. Paul Ave: +$0
• New bridge for transit + ped + bike (Base): $170M • N ew bridge for traffic + transit + ped + bike: +$300M
• At -Grade Station at Historic Fort Snelling (Base): $180M • Under Historic Fort Snelling: +$170M • Via Bloomington Rd: ~+$75M-150M+
1 The capital cost of the base options are included in the total capital cost for each alternative between Downtown Saint Paul and Bloomington South Loop. 2 These costs do not include inflation. PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-104 Capital Cost of Rail Sub-Options1 In 2015 Dollars2
1 The capital cost of the base options are included in the total capital cost for each Allowance to retrofit alternative between Downtown Saint Paul existing bridge: $40M and Bloomington South Loop. 2 These costs do not include inflation.
• Tunnel under Hwy 55 at 43rd St (Base): $180M • Tunnel under Hwy 55 at 44th/45th St: +$50M-10MM • Tunnel under Hwy 55 bypassing 46th St Station: +$100M-250M+ • Use existing Blue Line facility (Base): $10M-$15M • Elevate track and MOA Station @ 24th/Killebrew: +$80M • 82nd St-24th Ave o At -grade MOA Station: +$60M o Elevated MOA Station: +$85M
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-105 Operating & Maintenance Cost In 2015 Dollars
Methodology and Assumptions • Unit prices are mode specific cost drivers from Metro Transit • Cost drivers include – Peak vehicles – Revenue hours – Revenue miles – Track/guideway miles – Stations – Maintenance facilities • Use of cost categories to facilitate comparisons
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-106 Operating and Maintenance Cost1 in 2015 Dollars INITIAL FINDINGS:
1. Cost of improved service. Does not include inflation costs or fare revenue. 2. ABRT has the same frequency as Route 54, 2 min travel time savings due to signal priority, and additional costs due to signal and station operations.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-107 Operating and Maintenance Cost In 2015 Dollars
INITIAL FINDINGS: Mode • Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) is ~$13M - $14M more per year than BRT • ABRT and BRT cost the same to operate per year. Route • Ford Pkwy is ~$3-$4M more per year than Hwy 5 • Ford Pkwy route has 7-8 more stations than Hwy 5 • Ford Pkwy is ~5.5 miles longer than Hwy 5 • Ford Pkwy has a longer travel time require more vehicles and operators than Hwy 5 Operating Environment • No difference in operating and maintenance cost between dedicated lanes and shared lanes
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-108 Cost per Rider
FTA New Starts Riverview Study Cost-Effectiveness
Annualized capital cost + Annual Annualized capital cost + Annual operating cost operating cost Annual trips on project 2040 annual ridership
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-109 PARKING IMPACTS RIGHT-OF-WAY VISUAL NOISE / VIBRATION CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Technical Appendix May 2017 PAC COMMUNITY EVALUATION
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-110 Parking
QUESTION: GOAL: Support development and What percent of on-street parking spaces would be removed by employment in the corridor each alternative? and Twin Cities region
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY? • Parking does not substantially differentiate alternatives – PAC decisions regarding the design and operating environment will determine the parking impact not alternative • Lowest impact: Shared Use Center-Running • Medium impact: Dedicated Center-Running or Shared Use Side-Running – Depends on location (refer to Preliminary Concepts booklet for parking lane locations) • Highest impact: Dedicated Side-Running – Mode could slightly differentiate • Smaller vehicle – shorter platform – reduced parking impacts • Any “build” alternative would impact parking spaces
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-111
Parking ANALYSIS: • Estimated number of existing on-street parking spaces along alignment, side streets are not included in the analysis. • Some spaces my have time restrictions on parking • Calculated impacted spaces for each alternative based on typical sections in Preliminary Concepts booklet • Defined “high demand” parking spaces as those that are metered • Counted existing downtown on-street parking spaces using City of Saint Paul metered parking map • Estimated existing on-street parking spaces by block on W. 7th St south of Grand Ave • Some spaces my have time restrictions on parking Downtown (5th St & 6th St) – Metered Parking Spaces
Source: City of Saint Paul Metered Parking Map PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-112 Parking ANALYSIS (CONTINUED): • Preliminary Concepts booklet Dedicated Side Running Shared Use Side Running informs parking impact estimates by geographic segment – Parking impacts analyzed by dedicated vs. shared use and side- running and center-running options – No impacts east of Wabasha for BRT alternatives – No impacts east of Cedar St for rail Dedicated Center Running Shared Use Center Running alternatives – LRT and Modern Streetcar stations (~300’) would remove 24 parking spaces – BRT stations (~150’) would remove 12 parking spaces – Reducing station length could reduce parking impacts – Maintaining sidewalk width would reduce parking
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-113 Parking Estimated % range of on-street parking spaces potentially removed
80 on-street spaces today 90 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT: 40% (26% high demand) Arterial BRT: 69% 190 on-street spaces today BRT: 26% to 100% (26-67% high demand) BRT: 31% to 64% Arterial BRT: 6% Rail: 53% to 100% (34-67% high demand) Rail: 31% to 64% BRT: 3% to 100% Rail: 6% to 100%
60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: 21% BRT: 11% to 100% Rail: 21% to 100%
200 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: 12% BRT: 3% to 100% Rail: 6% to 100%
70 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: 0% BRT: 9% to 100% Rail: 17% to 100%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-114 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Dedicated Side-Running
80 on-street spaces today 90 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT: N/A Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 100% (67% high demand) BRT: 64% 190 on-street spaces today Rail: 100% (67% high demand) Rail: 64% Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 100% Rail: 100%
60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 100% Rail: 100%
200 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 100% Rail: 100%
70 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 100% Rail: 100%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-115 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Dedicated Center-Running 80 on-street spaces today 90 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT: N/A Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 47% (34% high demand) BRT: center-running not proposed here 190 on-street spaces today Rail: 60% (34% high demand) Rail: center-running not proposed here Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 57% Rail: 60%
60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 74% Rail: 84%
200 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 56% Rail: 59%
70 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 57% Rail: 66%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-116 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Shared Use Side-Running 80 on-street spaces today All high demand 90 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT :69% Arterial BRT: 40% (26% high demand) (ABRT has more downtown stations) BRT: 59% (26% high demand) BRT: 31% 190 on-street spaces today Rail: 86% (26% high demand) Rail: 31% Arterial BRT: 6% BRT: 3% Rail: 6%
60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: 21% BRT: 11% Rail: 21%
200 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: 12% BRT: 3% Rail: 6%
70 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: 0% BRT: 9% Rail: 17%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-117 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Shared Use Center-Running 80 on-street spaces today 90 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT: N/A Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 26% (All impacted high demand) BRT: center-running not proposed here 190 on-street spaces today Rail: 53% (All impacted high demand) Rail: center-running not proposed here Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 6% Rail: 13%
60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 21% Rail: 42%
200 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 6% Rail: 12%
70 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 17% Rail: 34%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-118 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Dedicated Side-Running • Alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy – No anticipated impact
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-119 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Dedicated Center-Running • Alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy – No anticipated impact
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-120 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Shared Use Side-Running
10 spaces today Ford Pkwy 150 spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A Minnehaha Ave and 43rd St BRT: 0% Arterial BRT: N/A Rail: 54% BRT: N/A Rail: 34%
80 spaces today 46th St Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: 0% Rail: 30%
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-121 Parking % on-street parking spaces potentially removed Shared Use Center-Running
10 spaces today Ford Pkwy 150 spaces today Arterial BRT: N/A Minnehaha Ave and 43rd St BRT: 0% Arterial BRT: N/A Rail: 54% BRT: N/A Rail: 34%
80 spaces today 46th St Arterial BRT: N/A BRT: N/A Rail: N/A
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-122 Right-of-Way
QUESTION: GOAL: Support development and How many parcels are potentially impacted by each alternative? employment in the corridor What “type” of property owners may be involved? and Twin Cities region
ANALYSIS: • Overlaid proposed alignments onto GIS-based parcel maps – Source of parcel data: Ramsey and Hennepin County parcel data and aerial imagery – Preliminary concepts assume transit lanes and stations generally fit within existing public or transportation right-of-way • Looked at entire Corridor and sub-areas
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-123 Right-of-Way Segments with anticipated Right-of-way impacts
Dedicated transit on north side of W. 7th St between Montreal and St. Paul Ave (purchase of City of St. Paul property)
Purchase of the CP Purchase of the Spur property CP Spur property
Rail alternatives via Hwy 5/Fort Snelling (3-6 publicly owned parcels & 4-9 privately owned parcels)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-124 Right-of-Way Downtown, Seven Corners, and W. 7th to Toronto St
INITIAL FINDINGS: • All transit alternatives would fit within existing public right-of-way
Source: Ramsey County & Hennepin County Parcel Data
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-125 Right-of-Way Toronto to St. Paul Ave
INITIAL FINDINGS: Anticipated right-of-way impacts: • W. 7th, Montreal-St. Paul Ave ‒ Dedicated transit could affect part of 3 parcels owned by Saint Paul • CP Spur ‒ Requires acquisition of entire length of existing privately owned transportation corridor; excludes CP Yard
Source: Ramsey County & Hennepin County Parcel Data
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-126 Right-of-Way Ford Site INITIAL FINDINGS:
• CP Spur (St. Paul Ave-Ford Site) – Would entail acquisition of CP Spur right-of-way from private owner; excludes CP Yard
• St. Paul Ave – No anticipated right-of- way acquisition
• Presumed transit right-of-way– Reserved as part of Ford Site redevelopment ‒ CP rail yard south of Ford Site ‒ Right-way -ofthrough the Ford Site
Source: Ramsey County & Hennepin County Parcel Data
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-127 Right-of-Way Hwy 5/Fort Snelling
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Bus/BRT alternatives – No anticipated right-of- way impact • Rail alternatives – Depending on routing, could affect 9-12 parcels • 3- 6 publicly owned parcels • 4- 9 privately owned parcels
Source: Ramsey County & Hennepin County Parcel Data
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-128 Right-of-Way Ford Pkwy Bridge – 46th St Station
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Bus/BRT – None anticipated • Rail (Modern Streetcar) – Would depend on refined alignment, including Blue Line tie-in (after Study)
Source: Ramsey County & Hennepin County Parcel Data
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-129 Right-of-Way 46th St/Fort Snelling Station– Bloomington South Loop
INITIAL FINDINGS: • All transit alternatives would fit within existing public right-of- way ‒ Bus/BRT Use existing roadways ‒ Rail alternatives: Tie into the Blue Line
Source: Ramsey County & Hennepin County Parcel Data
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-130 Visual
QUESTION: GOAL: Support, protect and enhance Where are the areas with the highest potential for visual high-quality connections of impacts? corridor resources, neighborhoods, businesses, and the Mississippi River ANALYSIS: • Qualitative assessment of potential visual impacts. Determine important views and then assess potential impacts.
*Sources: Ramsey County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, City of Saint Comprehensive Plan, Hennepin County 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Comprehensive Plan 2007 - 2020, City of Bloomington 2008 Comprehensive Plan, Visual Resource Protection Plan Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, Great River Passage Master Plan
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-131 Visual
RANKING Non-sensitive areas Sensitive areas Important Viewsheds METHODOLOGY Similar transit mode (rail or bus) Low Low Medium currently operates in segment
New transit type operates in Low Medium High segment
Requires grade-separated elements Low High High
• Non-sensitive areas (e.g., industrial, airport, transportation) • Sensitive areas (e.g., residential, parkland, historic resources) • Important viewsheds and scenic overlooks identified using: − MNRRA Visual Resource Protection Plan − Great River Passage Master Plan − County and City Comprehensive Plans
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-132 Visual
INITIAL FINDINGS: Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) has more potential for visual impacts than BRT Rail = More areas with Medium or High potential for visual impacts BRT Rail
Key: Key: Low Low Potential for visual impacts: Medium Potential for visual impacts: Medium High High
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-133 Noise/Vibration
QUESTION: GOAL:
Support, protect and enhance How many noise/vibration-sensitive parcels are potentially high-quality connections of
corridor resources, impacted by each alternative? neighborhoods, businesses, and the Mississippi River
ANALYSIS: • Overlaid proposed alignments onto GIS-based parcel maps – Source of parcel data: Ramsey and Hennepin County parcel data and aerial imagery • Estimated number of potentially sensitive land uses within 350 feet of proposed alignment – Source: FTA Noise Impact Criteria thresholds determine land use categories
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-134 Noise/Vibration
ANALYSIS: • FTA Noise Impact Criteria thresholds determine sensitive land use categories
• FTA defines noise-sensitive land uses as tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose, residences and buildings where people sleep, and institutional land use with primarily daytime and evening use.
• Parcels considered noise/vibration sensitive: – Residential properties – Hotels/motels – Hospitals/nursing homes – Churches/Public Worship – Schools/Libraries – Cultural & Nature Exhibits/Theaters – Cemeteries/Funeral Homes – Recreational Facilities – Parks
• Majority of parcels within 350’ buffer are residential
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-135 Noise/Vibration Number of Sensitive Land Use Parcels 40 parcels 320 parcels 20 parcels 470 parcels 420 parcels
330 parcels 290 parcels
320 parcels
2 parcels
210 parcels 110 parcels
8 parcels Note: This assessment identifies the number of parcels only. For example, a multi-family residential structure is counted as 10 parcels one parcel
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-136 Noise/Vibration Sensitive Land Use Parcels within 350’ of Alignment
Alternative Description Number of Sensitive Land Use Parcels 1 No-Build (Route 54) N/A 2 Arterial BRT 1,000 3 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 1,000 4 Rail: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 1,000 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 1,800 6 Rail: W. 7th – Ford Site 1,800 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 1,600 8 Rail: 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 1,600 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 800 10 Rail: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 800
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-137 Noise/Vibration
WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY?
• Majority of sensitive parcels within 350’ buffer are residential • Noise/vibration impacts will be identified during a future environmental
review
– Specific impacts and mitigation determined during a future environmental review and engineering for locally preferred alternative – Noise/vibration modeling will be conducted – Steps will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate noise and vibration impacts • Example mitigation: – Placing switches and crossovers outside of sensitive areas – Limiting nighttime operations – Vibration dampening materials
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-138 Construction Considerations QUESTION: What are the potential construction impacts to properties? GOAL: Develop and select an implementable project with local and regional support
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-139 Construction Considerations ANALYSIS: • Qualitative assessment of potential construction impacts to businesses • Consideration for all areas: − On-street parking − Parkland − Noise − Historic and cultural resources − Vibration − Staging and laydown areas − Access − Traffic and transit operations − Safety and security − Water quality − Residential − Hazardous and contaminated materials − Business impacts − Proximity to existing structures
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-140 Construction Considerations
ANALYSIS: • Business impacts • Pedestrian safety • Bus volumes on 5th during special events and 6th St • Hospitals
• Property values • Mississippi River (view, access to)
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-141 Construction Considerations
ANALYSIS:
• Hwy 55/46th St/Blue • Retrofit of historic Line operations bridge for rail transit • Access to park • Natural resources
• Hwy 55/46th St/Blue • Adjacent residences Line operations • Business impacts • Access to park • Ford Site redevelopment • Natural resources • Hospital
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-142 Construction Considerations
• Park ANALYSIS: • Access to transit by transit- dependent population
MSP Airport • Historic Fort Snelling • Employment and • Mississippi River development • National park • Transportation choices • Airport access • Runway protection zone • Safety and security
• Access to businesses • Business and economic development
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-143 POPULATION
EMPLOYMENT
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
BICYCLE ACCESS
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Technical Appendix CONNECTIONS TO KEY June 2017 PAC Update ACTIVITY CENTERS PROXIMITY TO AFFORDABLE STATION AREAS EVALUATION HOUSING PROXIMITY TO ZERO- CAR HOUSEHOLDS
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-144 Station Area Demographics
• Data sources – 2010 data – Census – 2040 forecasts – Local comprehensive plans • One-half mile around transit stops – “Transit zone” defined by FTA – Distance considered “walkable” • Short distance between adjacent stops could result in overlapping transit zones – No double-counting
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-145 Population
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of 2010 and 2040 total population within ½ mile of each potential station location.
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Alternatives along W. 7th have more people within a ½ mile station buffer than the CP Spur – 9,900 vs. 8,100 (2010) and 12,900 vs. 11,400 (2040) • Alternatives along the Ford Pkwy route have more people within a ½ mile station buffer than Hwy 5 – 18,000 vs. 3,200 (2010) and 28,600 vs. 4,200 (2040) – The Ford Pkwy alternatives have higher population totals due to ~7 more stations and an additional ~5.5 mi. – More stations/more people does not equal higher ridership
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-146 Population
# Alternative 2040 Daily 2010 2040 Ridership Population Population
1 No-Build (Route 54) 10,700 27,700 44,300 2 Arterial BRT 11,100 27,700 44,300 3 BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 14,100 27,700 44,300 4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort 20,400 28,300 45,400 Snelling 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 12,400 41,200 67,200 6 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site 19,000 42,700 69,200 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 11,100 39,900 66,400 8 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 18,400 41,400 68,400 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 13,300 26,200 43,200 10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/ 19,600 27,100 44,500 Fort Snelling
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-147 Employment
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of 2010 and 2040 number of jobs within ½ mile of each potential station location.
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Alternatives along W. 7th have a similar number of jobs within a ½ mile station buffer as CP Spur alternatives today, however, the CP Spur is projected to have 600 more jobs within a ½ mile station buffer in 2040. • Alternatives along the Ford Pkwy route have more jobs within a ½ mile station buffer than Hwy 5 – 20,100 vs. 10,700 (2010) and 24,100 vs. 12,000 (2040) – The Ford Pkwy alternatives have more jobs within a ½ mile station buffer due to ~7 more stations and an additional ~5.5 mi. – More stations/more jobs does not equal higher ridership PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-148
Employment
# Alternative 2040 Daily 2010 2040 Ridership Employment Employment
1 No-Build (Route 54) 10,700 84,000 112,600 2 Arterial BRT 11,100 84,000 112,600 3 BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 14,100 84,000 112,600 4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort 20,400 86,900 115,400 Snelling 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 12,400 94,900 125,800 6 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site 19,000 96,200 127,400 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 11,100 95,000 126,600 8 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 18,400 96,300 128,200 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 13,300 83,800 113,100 10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/ 19,600 87,000 116,200 Fort Snelling
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-149 Pedestrian Access
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of population within a ½-mile walkshed
INITIAL FINDINGS: • W. 7 th has more people within a ½ mile walkshed than CP Spur (10,800 vs. 7,800)
• Ford Pkwy alternatives have more people within a ½ mile walkshed than Hwy 5 alternatives (13,000-14,000 vs. 4,200) • 7 more stations and an additional ~5.5 mile alignment = more people within ½ mile of stations
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-150 Pedestrian Access
I NITIAL FINDINGS:
# Alternative 2010 Walkshed Population 1 No-Build (Route 54) 25,080 2 Arterial BRT 25,080 3 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 24,360 4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 23,830 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 33,220 6 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site 33,900 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 32,260 8 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 32,940 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 23,420 10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 23,420
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-151 Bicycle Access
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of population within a 3-mile bikeshed
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Ford Pkwy alternatives have more people within a 3-mile bikeshed than Hwy 5 alternatives (41,000-41,900 vs. 8,800-8,900) • 7 more stations and an additional ~5.5 mile alignment = more people within 3 miles of stations
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-152 Bicycle Access
INITIAL FINDINGS:
# Alternative 2010 Bikeshed Population 1 No-Build (Route 54) 29,990 2 Arterial BRT 29,990 3 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 29,400 4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 27,560 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 62,960 6 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site 61,860 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 62,810 8 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 61,710 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 29,250 10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 28,400
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-153 Development Potential
ANALYSIS: • Qualitative assessment of transit supportive development potential within ½-mile of potential station locations
INITIAL FINDINGS: • All alternatives serve downtown Saint Paul and the Bloomington South Loop which have the largest concentration of future development in the study area • Ford Site alternatives serve Ford Site and 46th St/Blue Line TOD in Minneapolis • Hwy 5/Fort Snelling alternatives serve Davern/Norfolk/Stewart TOD
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-154 Activity Centers
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of an alternative’s connectivity to activity centers identified in the Purpose and Need
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Ford Pkwy alternatives are proximate to up to 10 more activity centers than Hwy 5 alternatives – Ford Pkwy BRT alternatives are proximate to 45 activity centers compared to 40 activity centers for Hwy 5 BRT alternatives – Ford Pkwy Modern Streetcar alternatives are proximate to 50 activity centers compared to 45 activity centers for Hwy 5 Modern Streetcar/LRT alternatives • No differentiation in the number of activity centers served between dedicated or shared lanes
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-155 Activity Centers
Transit Hubs/Major Destinations Healthcare Arts and Entertainment • Union Depot • United Hospital • Ordway Center for the Performing Arts • Smith Avenue Transit Center • Children’s Hospital • Minnesota Children’s Museum • MSP International Airport Terminal 1 • Health East Saint Joseph's Hospital • Landmark Center • MSP International Airport Terminal 2 • Landmark Surgery Center • Roy Wilkins Auditorium • Mall of America • Hazelden in Saint Paul • Saint Paul River Centre Minneapolis VA Health Care System • Xcel Energy Center Nodes/Districts • Science Museum • Office Core/Green Line Residential • Lowertown • Upper Landing Educational • Saint Paul Riverfront • Victoria Park Development • Minnesota State College and • Seven Corners Gateway • Veterans Housing at Fort Snelling Universities • Seven Corners • Upper Post at Fort Snelling • Randolph/W. 7th node Minnesota Veterans Home Government/Services • Sibley Plaza Veterans East • Ramsey County Social Services • Shepard/ Davern node • Saint Paul City Hall • South Loop District Parks and Recreation • Social Security Office Ford Site Historic Fort Snelling • Dorothy Day Center Highland Village • W. 7 th Community Center • Juvenile and Family Justice Center • St. Paul Downtown YMCA • General Services Administration • CHS Field • Rice Park Office/Industrial Minnehaha Park • River Bend Business Park Activity Centers not reached via Hwy 5 alternatives • Pearson’s Candy/Van Paper Industrial Activity Centers not reached via Ford Pkwy alternatives Area PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-156
Affordable Housing
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of the legally binding housing units within ½ mile of potential station locations
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Ford Pkwy alternatives have approximately 400 more affordable housing units compared to Hwy 5 alternatives
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-157 Affordable Housing
INITIAL FINDINGS:
# Alternative # Affordable Housing Units
1 No-Build (Route 54) 3,800 2 Arterial BRT 3,800 3 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800 4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 4,100 6 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site 4,100 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 4,100 8 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 4,100 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800 10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-158 Zero-Car Households
ANALYSIS: • Quantitative assessment of zero-car households within ½ mile of potential station locations
INITIAL FINDINGS: • Ford Pkwy alternatives total more zero-car households (500-700) than Hwy 5 alternatives due to 7 additional stations and ~5.5 mile longer alignment
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-159 Zero-Car Households
INITIAL FINDINGS:
# Alternative # Zero-Car Households
1 No-Build (Route 54) 3,800 2 Arterial BRT 3,800 3 BRT: W. 7 th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800 4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,900 5 BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 4,400 6 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – Ford Site 4,500 7 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 4,300 8 Rail (Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 4,400 9 BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800 10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar): W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3,800
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-160 Technical Appendix June 2017 PAC Update 6 ADDITIONAL BRT ALTERNATIVES
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-161 New Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet Original Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet
Most Promising Alternatives1 # of Travel 2040 Daily 2040 New Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost Per Add’l Time 2 Ridership Transit Riders (2015$) (2015$) Rider3 Stops
11. Arterial BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3 50 min 10,200 (-500) $80M $12M $5-$6
2. Arterial BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling - 39 min4 11,100 200 $75M $10M $4-$6
1 Additional BRT alternatives requested by the PAC in February 2017 are shown paired with the alternative from the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives with the most similar route. 2 Travel time between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Station. 3 Cost per Rider = (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O&M Cost) / 2040 Ridership 4 oAssumes tw -minute travel time savings between No-Build and Arterial BRT on W. 7th St between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Center. Reference: Metro Transit, 2012 Arterial Transitway Corridors Study.
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-162 New Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet Original Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet
Most Promising Alternatives1 # of Travel 2040 Daily 2040 New Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost Per Add’l Time 2 Ridership Transit Riders (2015$) (2015$) Rider3 Stops 12. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3 52 min 14,100 1,800 $430M $13M $6-$7 4. Rail: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling - 44 min 20,400 2,700 $1.0B $24M $10 3. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling - 40 min 14,100 2,300 $420M $11M $6-$7
1 Additional BRT alternatives requested by the PAC in February 2017 are shown paired with the alternative from the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives with the most similar route. 2 Travel time between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Station. 3 Cost per Rider = (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O&M Cost) / 2040 Ridership
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-163 New Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet Original Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet
Most Promising Alternatives1 # of Travel 2040 Daily 2040 New Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost Per Add’l Time 2 Ridership Transit Riders (2015$) (2015$) Rider3 Stops 13. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 3 52 min 13,200 1,300 $460M $13M $7-$8 10. Rail: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling - 43 min 19,600 2,200 $1.1B $24M $10 9. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Hwy 5/Fort Snelling - 40 min 13,300 1,900 $450M $11M $6-$7
1 Additional BRT alternatives requested by the PAC in February 2017 are shown paired with the alternative from the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives with the most similar route. 2 Travel time between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Station. 3 Cost per Rider = (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O&M Cost) / 2040 Ridership
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-164 New Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet Original Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet
Most Promising Alternatives1 # of Travel 2040 Daily 2040 New Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost Per Add’l Time 2 Ridership Transit Riders (2015$) (2015$) Rider3 Stops 14. Arterial BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site4 3 64 min 9,500 0 $95M $15M $6-$7 5. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site - 59 min 12,400 1,300 $620M $14M $9-$10
1 Additional BRT alternatives requested by the PAC in February 2017 are shown paired with the alternative from the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives with the most similar route. 2 Travel time between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Station. 3 Cost per Rider = (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O&M Cost) / 2040 Ridership 4 There is no original MPA that is comparable to Alternative 14; the closest is Alternative 5, which is dedicated BRT not arterial BRT. PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-165 New Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet Original Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet
Most Promising Alternatives1 # of Travel 2040 Daily 2040 New Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost Per Add’l Time 2 Ridership Transit Riders (2015$) (2015$) Rider3 Stops 15. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site 3 68 min 11,800 1,300 $640M $16M $10-$11 6. Rail: W. 7th – Ford Site - 56 min 19,000 1,800 $1.2B $28M $12-$13 5. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – Ford Site - 59 min 12,400 1,300 $620M $14M $9-$10
1 Additional BRT alternatives requested by the PAC in February 2017 are shown paired with the alternative from the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives with the most similar route. 2 Travel time between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Station. 3 Cost per Rider = (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O&M Cost) / 2040 Ridership
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-166 New Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet Original Alternative
Note: Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet
Most Promising Alternatives1 # of Travel 2040 Daily 2040 New Capital Cost O&M Cost Cost Per Add’l Time 2 Ridership Transit Riders (2015$) (2015$) Rider3 Stops 16. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site 3 67 min 11,400 1,100 $640M $16M $10-$11 8. Rail: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site - 54 min 18,400 1,500 $1.2B $28M $12-$13 7. Dedicated BRT: W. 7th – CP Spur – Ford Site - 59 min 11,100 1,000 $620M $14M $9-$10
1 Additional BRT alternatives requested by the PAC in February 2017 are shown paired with the alternative from the original 10 Most Promising Alternatives with the most similar route. 2 Travel time between Union Depot and Mall of America Transit Station. 3 Cost per Rider = (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual O&M Cost) / 2040 Ridership
PAC Draft Work In Progress; Subject To Change Without Notice A-167 Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received: June 1-June 21, 2017
METHOD DATE OF NAME COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE CONTACT 6/12/2017 Email Jason Craig Mr. Roggenbuck, I am unable to attend the June 15 Response sent: 6/15/2017 TAC meeting, but after reviewing the slides and Jason, material, I wanted to ask the following questions. Thank you for staying engaged in the Riverview Corridor Overall, I am very disappointed that you will Transit Study and for send in your questions on the June 15 recommend carrying forward Options 6 and 8 TAC package. I embedded responses to your questions within (streetcar via Ford Bridge) as an option moving your original email below. forward. This option is too long a travel time, is the most expensive cost per rider, and I do not think Sincerely, you have adequately vetted the technical aspects Kevin of tunneling under Hwy 55 and the impacts to the Minneapolis neighborhoods. In addition, I think you 1) The location of the affordable housing near the VA could are double counting many Minneapolis residents more accurately be described as on Fort Snelling Upper already served well by transit in these numbers. Post. This criterion measures the number of legally-defined Finally, I think you are over valueing the Mississippi affordable housing units that are accessible to the station areas River impact while not taking into account at all the on each Riverview alternative route. The results for each potential impact of a tunnel on the Minnehaha alternative route are compared to each other to differentiate Creek watershed at 46th Street. Options 6 and 8 among the alternatives. should not be carried forward when it is crystal clear that Hwy 5 is the better overall route. 2) This criterion measures the number of activity centers, or travel destinations, that are within walking distance of the Specifically, please address the following station areas for each alternative route. The route through the questions: Ford Site to Minneapolis and Fort Snelling is longer and serves more activity centers. 1) On slide 24, under Affordable Housing, it lists “Directly connects existing affordable housing at 3) This criterion simply counts the number of people within the VA” Which housing are they referring to? At the walkshed and bikeshed of the station areas for each of the Vets Hospital or the Vets Home? The Vets Hospital Riverview alternative routes. The results for each alternative already has rail connection and the Vets Home route are compared to each other to differentiate among the would still be far away from the proposed 46th alternatives. Street station. This seems like a pointless check mark and very misleading. 4) This criterion is measuring the visual impact of a river crossing on or near the Ford Parkway Bridge and Hwy 2) On slide 24, under Activity Centers, Ford 5. Tunnels near Hwy 55 and Fort Snelling do not affect the Parkway route is listed with 5 “more activity viewshed of the river, so they are not included in this criterion. centers” Many of these centers are already served
1
Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received: June 1-June 21, 2017
METHOD DATE OF NAME COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE CONTACT by rail and transit. I am assuming these are 5) The streetcar alternative on 46th Street shows a station at Minnehaha Park, Ford Plant, VA and one or two 43rd Avenue for station spacing purposes, simply to provide more. Why does this deserve it’s own check mark? access to riders in the area between the Mississippi River and the Blue Line station at 46th Street and Hwy 55. The Riverview 3) On slide 24, under Population Employment, Ford Study does not assume redevelopment of the area near the Parkway area is listed with more people within ½ 43rd Avenue station. mile walk shed and 3 mile bike shed, but many of these people are already served by the Blue Line. 6) The cost of a tunnel under Fort Snelling near Hwy 5 has not Did they double count these people? What do the been determined yet. The Riverview study team thinks that the numbers look like when the double counting is tunnel and new station at Historic Fort Snelling can be located eliminated? entirely within the park area, with no impacts to private property. 4) On slide 24, under Mississippi River, Ford Parkway is given a check for not considering a 7) The exact impacts to properties on 43rd Street and 46th bridge, but shouldn’t Hwy 5 have a check for not Street to accommodate a tunnel under Hwy 55 is not known. including a tunnel under Hwy 55 near Minnehaha At this stage of the study, we are only identifying whether Creek watershed? Why does the Mississippi River properties may be impacted, which is part of estimating the get a check mark while Minnehaha Creek does right-of-way impacts for each of the alternative routes and not? transit modes. We are aware of the redevelopment plans for the Creative Kidstuff building and the extension of Snelling 5) Why do you continue to put a station at 43rd Ave Avenue, and we acknowledge that it does complicate any in Minneapolis when that is directly adjacent to grade separated crossing of Hwy 55 at 46th Street. residential housing? Is your intent to redevelop this area or have single family homes right next to a streetcar station?
6) On slide 35, the cost of the river crossing is broken out, but not the cost of the tunnel under Hwy 55…What is the estimated cost of the tunnel under Hwy 55 compared to the bridge over the Mississippi via Hwy 5? Can you add a line for the cost of the tunnel just like the river crossing? Does the cost of the tunnel include widening the road to separate the streetcar from grade in it’s own lane? How would private property be impacted with this process?
2
Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received: June 1-June 21, 2017
METHOD DATE OF NAME COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE CONTACT 7) On slide 9 of the May PAC Follow Up Handout, you indicate a number of private properties could be impacted by the tunnel to get the streetcar under Hwy 55. Could you describe what these impacts could be and how these properties would be impacted? How wide would the street need to be in order to separate out the streetcar from traffic into it’s own dedicated tunnel in each direction? Are you aware that there is a new development going into the Creative Kidstuff building on 46th Street that will have storefronts adjacent to the street and a new Snelling Ave extension? This would make a tunnel virtually impossible to fit onto 46th Street. Similarly, 43rd Street is a narrow typical Minneapolis street and it appears that a significant number of homes would have to be removed in order to fit a tunnel under Hwy 55 or you would have to take down part of the Hiawatha Flats Apartment complex.
Thank you and regards,
Jason Craig 6/16/2017 Email Kent There seems to be some confusion about the stops Response sent: 6/20/2017 Petterson for the two Modern Streetcar options proposed for the Riverview Corridor on West 7th St. There are Kent: Emailed: Ed four streetcar options proposed, but only two fall on Thanks for the email and the questions you raised. I’d like to Johnson; W 7th Street full length which is what the Purpose take the opportunity to clarify a couple of questions that you Dave and Need Statement called out as the #1 priority raised. Thune; Betty route. I have focused on comparing the bus options 1. The Riverview Corridor Purpose and Need does not Moran; Pat to these two streetcar options. Confusion is partly th Mancini; mine as I was caught unaware of the call out W. 7 Street as the #1 priority route. Instead it Laurel streetcar/LRTstop at Davern when taking a close is focused on providing transit service in the corridor Severson; look at the TAC packet from yesterday. I may be enhances mobility and access to opportunities for Dan Kueny; wrong, but I thought I heard Mike Rogers say that residents, businesses, and the region through Erik Hare; the stops are the same for bus or streetcar. They connections to employment, education, and economic Diane Gerth; are the same for options 1 and 2 for bus, but not development throughout the Twin Cities while
3
Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received: June 1-June 21, 2017
METHOD DATE OF NAME COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE CONTACT Tom Brock the same between bus and streetcar. They are supporting goals to cultivate economic prosperity and quite different in fact and here is what I found. to invest in all neighborhoods in the corridor. Cc’ed: Mike Please let me know if I have an error. This 2. Station stops for the alternatives vary, however, their Rogers; information is from pages 39-44 of the Feb. 15 TAC location was selected to serve the same areas. A Paula power point slides. review of the Most Promising Alternatives booklet Faughender shows that along W. 7th the Dedicated Bus and ; Cindy 1 - The bus alternatives #1 and 2 have 10 stops Streetcar/LRT options have eight stops that are the Silkett; Louis including at Watson, Albion, Rankin and same. Arterial BRT and No Build have 10 stops that Garcia; Madison. All four of these stops do not exist on are the same. It is important to note that stations used Rebecca either of the W7 street car options. for this analysis do not automatically become the Noecker; stations of the Locally Preferred Alternative. The LPA Gary 2 - All streetcar options have a stop at Davern. This only covers a route and a mode and as part of Thompson stop is not a bus option stop. This raises many environmental work station locations can move around, questions that should be looked at relative to bus get added and subtracted as more information is stop need at Davern. gathered. 3. Arterial BRT and No build do not have a Davern station 3 - The current Albion bus stop is moved to as there is no Davern station on the existing route 54. Montreal for the streetcar options no doubt to gain The lack of a stop is due to the proximity of Davern to width space potentially available on the Riverview the freeway section of Hwy 5. The differences in School site rather than having to cut into the vehicle speeds makes bus operations and pedestrian parkland hillside further. access very challenging. This is why the stop is located at Maynard. Dedicated BRT and Streetcar/LRT options 4 - A stop at Historic Ft. Snelling is included for all assume improvements to address these concerns the streetcar options. This stop is possible based on an intersection/roadway to allow for a station stop. expenditure of over a half billion dollars which 4. The Albion stop was placed closer to Montreal to allow would include over $150 million to build the actual for less impact to businesses in the area. However, as stop at the Fort where these is no history of noted above, this location could move as part of future ridership. That minor ridership need now, that may analysis. grow in time, is currently served by a new circulator 5. Ft. Snelling was served by the Ft. Snelling – off the Blue line just started this spring. Minnehaha – Plymouth line and the Ft. Snelling – Maria line streetcar lines that converged at the Historic Fort to 5 - Net for the two neighborhoods, Highland and provide transit service to both Minneapolis and St. the West End and not counting Ft. Snelling, is a Paul. Additionally, ridership projections show that there loss of two bus stops or three is you count the one is a demand for direct service to Ft. Snelling that added at Davern for streetcar only. operates all day, seven days a week. 6. There is a difference to two stops between No There were a great deal of anxious comments from Build/Arterial BRT and Streetcar/LRT when traveling
4
Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received: June 1-June 21, 2017
METHOD DATE OF NAME COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE CONTACT Gary Thompson about the Arterial BRT route loss between the Mississippi River and Grand Ave. to Highland as voted by the TAC last month. I 7. The technical analysis shows that there are two agree with his concern and anticipate that when the separate travel markets in the larger Riverview reality of the study, that it will only pick one LPA Corridor; one crossing at Hwy 5 and the other at Ford alternative, results in the route falling on W7th/Hwy Parkway. If the Locally Preferred Alternative for the 5 as strongly indicated by ridership, cost of Riverview Corridor is along Hwy 5, a separate transit operation projections, and indicated by the guiding solution serving the Ford Site must be found. The Purpose and Need Statement, that concern will Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority is only be magnified. committed to this. Thanks It seems clear to me that a streetcar option will not be built to cross at both bridges. It is in the bus Mike options that there is a win for both the West End and Highland. I have attached the letter the West 7th Business Association sent to the Study staff over a year ago and see no reason to change anything. The West 7th Business Association should publicly be confirming this soon. It seems there is one efficient, cost effective and agreeable (at this point in time) solution that meets ridership needs for many years to come and that is the bus. There is a market need for a good connection to Minneapolis through our neighborhoods for BRT like buses such that one could get on the bus on W7 and go to Highland without a change.
Have a nice weekend, Kent Petterson 6/21/2017 Email Christopher When will the final decision be made on the route? Response sent: 6/21/2017 Jensen At this point, with out any outreach from the committee, many of us in MPLS are feeling we Christopher, have no voice. When will we hear the verdict if this is coming through MPLS? Thank you for your email regarding the Riverview Corridor Transit Study. Your question and comments about a final route recommendation have been shared with project staff.
A single route and vehicle is scheduled to be determined by December 2017. The Ramsey County Regional Railroad
5
Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received: June 1-June 21, 2017
METHOD DATE OF NAME COMMENT/QUESTION RESPONSE CONTACT Authority (RCRRA) will host an open house/public hearing tentatively scheduled in November. However, staff are currently evaluating the most promising alternatives and the results of the detailed evaluation.
In late July and early August, RCRRA will be hosting a round of public meetings to collect comments and feedback on the results of the detailed analysis and the most promising alternatives still under consideration. A public meeting will be held in Minneapolis.
Additional details regarding RCRRA’s public meetings and other community engagement opportunities will be posted to the project website, (www.riverviewcorridor.com), as soon as they become available.
Thanks again for contacting the Riverview Corridor. Please continue to send any additional comments or questions to [email protected]. Your email has been added to the project email update list so that you can receive regular updates about the project.
6