Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study

Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Thursday July 13 2017 900 AM - 1200 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 Public Review

Approval

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

Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Summary ndash May 11 2017

Participants See sign-in sheet at the end of this document for a list of attendees

Summary Meeting handouts included

bull Agenda bull PAC Meeting Summary ndash April 13 2017 bull Presentation bull Technical Appendix bull Public Comments Received ndash April 1 - April 30 2017

Action Items

bull Chair Ortega requested PAC members receive information to review in June in order to make upcoming decisions at the July PAC meeting

bull Supply PAC members with information regarding the economic development potential of ABRT DBRT and rail alternatives

bull Provide alternatives analysis-level Green Line and Blue Line ridership estimates as well as actual ridership numbers from recent years

bull Quantify the potential revenue loss from metered parking in Saint Paul that would be potentially impacted by the proposed alternatives

bull 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 907 am 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 todayrsquos 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

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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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 ndash 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

bull 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 6000 to 7000 trips per day

bull 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

bull If Riverview goes to the Ford Site why not have a ldquobus spurrdquo 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull Do the capital cost estimates include bridge improvements Wouldnrsquot rail cost more Yes The

draft capital cost estimates include an allowance for the river crossing Rail is more expensive than BRT

Discussion ndash BusBRT 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

bull Have you estimated construction time yet No but generally construction is 3-4 years for rail and 3 years for Dedicated BRT

bull Is there data behind the numbers or are they from regional experience They are based on experience in the region

Discussion ndash 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

bull 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

bull 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 ndash Summary of Ridership and Cost

bull 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

bull Are these numbers for ridership on top of concurrent bus service numbers Yes

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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-$65M per vehicle If streetcars were purchased for Riverview our order would be larger than this so the cost could potentially be less

bull 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

bull 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

bull Provide additional information regarding the economic development potential of Arterial BRT Dedicated BRT and rail alternatives

bull 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

bull What is the frequency of service Every 10 minutes during the day and every 15-30 minutes at night

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

bull Explain the difference in travel time between rail and ABRT Rail cannot navigate the turns in the road as easily as a bus

bull 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

Use of Existing Infrastructure

bull 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

bull 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 bull What is the total population along each route and what number are transit dependent This

information can be found in the Appendix

bull Does 10700 daily ridership in 2040 suffice for the need [Yes] The 10700 is the project 2040 ridership on Route 54 This demand would require improvements to the existing Route 54

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

bull 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

Discussion Parking Impacts

bull Downtown Saint Paul has 80 metered parking spaces along potential Riverview routes Where are these parking spaces located 5th6th St or 7th8th St to Broadway

bull 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 bull 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

bull Will Riverview require an extended LRT platform [300rsquo 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

bull 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 o If CP Rail does not sell then we would look at another path Yes such as W 7th 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

bull 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 1059 am

Policy Advisory Committee Meeting ndash May 11 2017

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)

X Pat Mancini Owner Mancinis Char House

Riverview Corridor Business Representative

X Scott McBride Metro District Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation

X Peter McLaughlin Commissioner Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority

X Rebecca Noecker Councilmember - Ward 2 City of Saint Paul

X Rafael Ortega Commissioner Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority

X John Regal Board Member Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce

Bridget Rief Airport Development

Director Metropolitan Airports Commission (Alternate)

X Laurel Severson Citizen Riverview Corridor Citizen 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

X Mike Rogers Project Manager Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority

X Kevin Roggenbuck Deputy Project Manager Ramsey County Regional Railroad 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

ATTENDANCE SHEET Policy Advisory Committee Meeting ndash 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

Kent Petterson

W 7th Street Business Association and Community 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)

PAC Draft Work In Progress Subject To Change Without Notice

Policy Advisory Committee July 13 2017

Riverview Pre-Project Development Study

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

2 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

3 APPROVAL OF THE MAY PAC MEETING SUMMARY

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

bull Draft Results Station Area Evaluation bull Draft Results Six Additional BRT Alternatives

and TAC Recommendation

CONNECTIONS TO KEY ACTIVITY CENTERS

PROXIMITY TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EMPLOYMENT

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

PROXIMITY TO ZERO-CAR HOUSEHOLDS

Summary Station Area Evaluation

Route bull Ford Pkwy alternatives total more people and jobs due to its additional length

(~55 mi) and more stations (~7) bull Ford Pkwy alternatives serve future development at the Ford Site (1500 jobs

and 4000 residential units) bull Ford Pkwy alternatives do not serve the ShepardDavern area

Mode bull Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) includes more permanent infrastructure which

has been associated with higher development potential

Operating Environment bull Dedicated lanes have higher development potential than shared lanes bull Dedicated lanes have greater potential to impact sidewalks

FTA New Starts Small Starts Criteria

Summary Additional BRT Alternatives via Hwy 5

bull Compared to Rail equivalent ndash Still cost significantly less ndash But significantly longer travel time

(9 min) and lower ridership (6400day)

bull Compared to BRT equivalent ndash Costs more ($10M capital

$2M OampMyear) ndash Fewer ridership (600day) ndash Higher costrider = Lower likelihood of

successfully competing for federal funding

Summary Additional BRT Alternatives via Ford Pkwy

bull Compared to BRT equivalent

ndash Costs more ($20M capital $2M OampMyear)

ndash Fewer ridership (500day) ndash Higher costrider = Lower likelihood

of successfully competing for federal funding

Other Meetings

bull PAC member updates bull June TAC meeting

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

bull Approve the release of the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives to the public ndash Alignments

ndash Modes ndash Additional 6 BRT alternatives

TAC Recommendations Alignment

Carry Forward

bull Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 River Crossings

bull City Streets (W 7th and St Paul Ave) and CP Spur

TAC Recommendations Mode

Carry Forward bull No-Build bull Arterial BRT bull Modern Streetcar

Dismiss bull Dedicated BRT bull LRT bull Additional 6 BRT alternatives

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

PAC Draft Work In Progress Subject To Change Without Notice 16

Summer 2014 EARLY OUTREACH

Project Development and Implementation

LPA = 1 Mode + 1 Alignment

BusBRT Rail (Modern Streetcar or LRT)

Alignment = From Union Depot to Mall of America

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

Riverview Corridor Study Timeline

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

CORRIDOR VISION ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS LPA

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

PAC approvedDetailed CriteriaDecember 2016

July 2017PAC APPROVEDraft Results for Public Review

Start of StudyJuly 2014

PAC approved10 Most Promising

AlternativesJanuary 2017

PAC approvedInitial Screening

February 2016

PAC approvedPurpose amp Need

Universe of AlternativesAugust 2015

PAC approvedTechnical Screening

October 2016

December 2017 PAC APPROVE

November 2017PAC APPROVE

Draft LPA for Public Hearing

7 TAC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

TAC Recommendation BRT Requested PAC Action Dismiss Dedicated BRT alternatives from further analysis for the following reasons bull Higher capital and OampM costs than Arterial BRT are not commensurate with incremental

benefits such as ridership bull Cost per rider is $3 to $6 more than Arterial BRT bull 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)

TAC Recommendation Rail

LRT Alternatives (Alternatives 4a and 10a)

Requested PAC Action Dismiss LRT alternatives (100 of route in dedicated lanes) from further analysis for the following reasons bull Greater traffic impact due to dedicated lanes bull Greater parking andor sidewalk impacts due to dedicated lanes bull Greater construction impacts due to dedicated lanes

TAC Recommendation 6 Additional BRT Alternatives

6 Additional BRT Alternatives (Alternatives 11 12 13 14 15 and 16)

Requested PAC Action Dismiss the 6 Additional BRT Alternatives from further analysis for the following reasons bull Longer Travel Time bull Lower Ridership bull Higher Capital Cost bull Higher Operating and Maintenance Cost bull Higher Cost Per Rider

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

Characteristics of Alternatives Carried Forward

Key Characteristics 1 No-Build

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-CP Spur

River Crossing Hwy 5 Hwy 5 Hwy 5 Ford Pkwy Ford Pkwy Hwy 5

Length 124 miles 124 miles 117 miles 157 miles 158 miles 119 miles

Number of Stations 26 26 20 27 27 20

Travel Time (Union Depot-Mall of America) 41 min 39 min 44 min 56 min 54 min 43 min

2040 Daily Ridership

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

Transit-Dependent NA 3200 4600 4400 4200 4500

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Capital Cost (2015$) NA $75M $10B $12B $12B $11B

OampM Cost (2015$) NA $10M $24M $28M $28M $24M

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

What do we Analyze after LPA Selection

These criteria require further analysis during future environmental and designengineering

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

CULTURAL HISTORIC RESOURCES

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

Require further analysis during future environmental review and designengineering

The following decisions will be made after the Riverview Study bull W 7th St St Paul Ave vs CP Spur

bull Side-running vs center-running

bull Dedicated vs shared use segments

8 PAC APPROVAL OF DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

PAC Approval of TAC Recommendations

1 No-Build (Route 54) 11 Arterial BRT W7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

2 Arterial BRT (via Hwy 5) 12 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

3 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 13 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

4a Light Rail W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 14 Arterial BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site

4b Modern Streetcar W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 15 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site

5 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site 16 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site

6 Modern Streetcar W 7th ndash Ford Site

7 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site

8 Modern Streetcar W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site

9 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

10a Light Rail W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

10b Modern Streetcar W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

bull Public Meetings ndash Pending PAC approval of TAC recommendations

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 HOUSEPUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER

Locally Preferred Alternative Nov-Dec 2017 PAC ACTION APPROVE LPA DEC 14TH

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

When Commenting Pleasehellip bull Be respectful bull Be brief - Speak for 3 or fewer minutes to give

others an opportunity to speak bull Visitor comments will be included in the PAC

meeting summary

The Chair reserves the right to limit an individualrsquos presentation if it becomes redundant disrespectful

or is not relevant to the Riverview Corridor

TECHNICAL APPENDIX Policy Advisory Committee

July 13 2017

Table of Contents Overview

Detailed Definition of Alternatives 6

Elements of Most Promising Alternatives 7

Draft Service Plans 20

Draft Operating Environment Maps 26

TAC Recommendations Alternatives for Public Review (June 2017)

Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives 50

Six Additional BRT Alternatives 161

Table of Contents Detailed Evaluation Results

Category Page

Environmental 51

CulturalHistoric Resources 52

Parklands 54

WetlandsFloodplains 56

Mississippi River 58

Transportation Evaluation 62

Travel Time 63

2040 Daily Ridership 65

Traffic 69

Safety 76

LocalRegional Connectivity 80

Freight Rail Assessment 81

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

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

DETAILED DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES

Technical Appendix July 2017 PAC

ELEMENTS OF MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVES

Technical Appendix April 2017 PAC

PAC Draft Work In Progress Subject To Change Without Notice A-8

1 No Build (Route 54) Description Route Length 124 miles Total Stops 26 Travel Time 41 minutes Alternative 1 Key Elements Guideway

bull Existing Route 54 bull Operates in shared use lanes

Vehicles bull 14 40rsquo diesel buses

Service bull No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site bull Uses existing Hwy 5 bridge

Construction bull Includes future reconstruction of W 7th Street and

sidewalks

2 Arterial BRT Description Route Length 124 miles Total Stops 26 Travel Time 40 minutes Alternative 2 Key Elements Guideway

bull Would operate in shared use lanes Station

bull Scope and cost similar to A Line Vehicles

bull Arterial BRT vehicles 14 60rsquo hybrid articulated buses bull Storage and maintenance of Arterial BRT vehicles

Systems bull Transit Signal Priority fare collection

Service bull No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site bull Use existing Hwy 5 bridge

Construction bull Project construction is confined to station areas bull Includes future reconstruction of W 7th Street and

sidewalks

3 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling Description Route Length 124 miles Total Stops 20 Travel Time 40 minutes Alternative 3 Key Elements Guideway

bull Dedicated BRT lanes (downtown W 7th St and Bloomington South Loop)

bull Shared use lanes (TH 5 bridge through MSP Airport and TH 5 and I-494)

Stations bull Platforms and amenities for two articulated buses

Vehicles bull 14 60rsquo hybrid articulated buses including spares bull Storage and maintenance of BRT vehicles

Systems bull Traffic signals communication fare collection

Right-of-way bull Operations and Maintenance facility

Service bull No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling or the Ford Site

Construction bull Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W 7th St

utility relocation bull Use existing Hwy 5 bridge

4a Light Rail W 7th ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling Description Route Length 117 miles Total Stops 20 Travel Time 44 minutes Alternative 4a Light Rail Key Elements Guideway

bull Light rail operates in a dedicated lane bull Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling bull Green Line tie-in at Cedar5th St and Cedar6th St

Stations bull Scoped as LRT stations for three-car consists (subject to

change with ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) bull At-grade station at Historic Fort Snelling and MOA

Vehicles bull 15 rail vehicles including spares bull Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles

Right-of-way bull Operations and Maintenance Facility

Service bull No direct service to the Ford Site

utility relocation bull New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across

Mississippi River adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge

4b Modern Streetcar W 7th ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling Description Route Length 117 miles Total Stops 20 Travel Time 44 minutes Alternative 4b Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway

bull Modern Streetcar could operate in either dedicated lane or mixed traffic depending on location and policy decisions

bull Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling bull Green Line tie-in at Cedar5th St and Cedar6th St

Construction bull Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W 7th St utility

relocation bull New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across Mississippi

River adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge

5 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 180 miles Total Stops 28 Travel Time 59 minutes Alternative 5 Key Elements Guideway

bull Dedicated BRT lanes (between downtown and Ford Site) bull Shared use lanes (Ford Pkwy and 46th St) bull Dedicated lanes (bus on shoulders) on TH 55 generally

between 46th St and 54th St and Bloomington South Loop bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur

right-of-way Stations

bull Platforms and amenities for two articulated buses Vehicles

bull 17 60rsquo hybrid articulated buses including spares bull Storage and maintenance of BRT vehicles

Right-of-way bull Operations and Maintenance Facility bull CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site)

Service bull No direct service to Historic Fort Snelling

utility relocation bull Use existing Ford Pkwy bridge

6 Modern Streetcar W 7th ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 157 miles Total Stops 27 Travel Time 56 minutes

Alternative 6 Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway

bull Blue Line tie-in at 43rd St rail tunnel under TH 55 and SOO line bull Blue Line and Riverview rail alternative tie in at existing 46th St Station bull Green Line tie-in at Cedar5th St and Cedar6th St bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way

Stations bull Scoped as LRT stations for three-car consists (subject to change with

ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) Vehicles

bull 17 rail vehicles including spares bull Storage and maintenance of rail vehicles

Construction bull Full roadway and sidewalk reconstruction on W 7th St utility relocation bull Retrofit of Ford Pkwy bridge bull Tunnel under Hiawatha and SOO line tracks bull Reconstruction of Blue Line tracks south of 42nd St

7 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 181 miles Total Stops 28 Travel Time 59 minutes Alternative 7 Key Elements Guideway

bull Dedicated BRT lanes (downtown and Ford Site) bull Shared use lanes (Ford Pkwy and 46th St) bull Dedicated lanes (bus on shoulders) on TH 55 generally

between 46th St and 54th St and Bloomington South Loop bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-

way bull New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-

35E Stations

relocation bull Use existing Ford Pkwy bridge

8 Streetcar W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 158 miles Total Stops 27 Travel Time 54 minutes Alternative 8 Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway

bull Blue Line tie-in at 43rd St rail tunnel under TH 55 and SOO line tracks bull Blue Line and Riverview rail alternative tie in at existing 46th St Station bull Green Line tie-in at Cedar5th St and Cedar6th St bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way

Right-of-way bull Operations and maintenance facility bull CP Spur right-of-way (excluding yard south of Ford Site)

relocation bull New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E bull Retrofit of Ford Pkwy bridge bull Tunnel under Hiawatha and SOO line tracks bull Reconstruction of Blue Line tracks south of 42nd St

9 BRT W 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5 Fort Snelling Description Route Length 126 miles Total Stops 20 Travel Time 40 minutes Alternative 9 Key Elements Guideway

bull Dedicated BRT lanes (downtown W 7th St CP Spur and Bloomington South Loop)

bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way

relocation bull New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E bull Use existing Hwy 5 bridge

10a Light Rail W 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

Description Route Length 119 miles Total Stops 20 Travel Time 43 minutes Alternative 10a Light Rail Key Elements Guideway

bull Light rail operates in a dedicated lane bull Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling bull Green Line tie-in at Cedar5th St and Cedar6th St bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way

ridership equilibration and vehicle choice) bull At-grade station at Historic Fort Snelling and MOA

relocation bull New land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave over I-35E bull New bridge with pedestrian and bike facility across Mississippi River

adjacent to existing TH 5 bridge or replace existing TH 5 bridge

10b Modern Streetcar W 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

Description Route Length 119 miles Total Stops 20 Travel Time 43 minutes Alternative 10b Modern Streetcar Key Elements Guideway

bull Blue Line tie-in at Fort Snelling bull Green Line tie-in at Cedar5th St and Cedar6th St bull Multi-use trail adjacent to transit facility within CP Spur right-of-way

DRAFT SERVICE PLANS ndash CONNECTING BUS SERVICE

No Build (Route 54)

Alternatives 2 3 amp 4 W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

Alternatives 5 amp 6 W 7th ndash Ford Site

Alternatives 7 amp 8 W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site

Alternatives 9 amp 10 W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

DRAFT OPERATING ENVIRONMENT MAPS June 2017 PAC Update

Dedicated BRT Where could the alignment be dedicated or shared use

Upon selection of a ldquobuildrdquo LPA environmental and engineering phases would refine locations of dedicated and shared use

guideway

FTA New Starts requires at least 50 of Dedicated BRT guideway to be dedicated during peak periods

Only dedicated in peak period

Rail Where could the alignment be dedicated shared use or either

guideway

JUNE TAC RECOMMENDATIONS June 2017 TAC Presentation

TAC Recommendation River Crossing

Carry forward alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 for public review for these reasons

bull They serve distinct travel markets bull 2040 weekday ridership are comparable (~18k-20k) bull Draft results require refinement and discussion

Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 River Crossings (Alternatives 4b 6 8 and 10b)

Ridership Hwy 5 bull 600-2000 more daily trips bull 400-1200 more daily new riders

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Travel Time Hwy 5 bull 11 minutes faster from Union Depot to Mall of America 44 min 55 min

Capital Cost Hwy 5 bull Routes are $100M to $200M less expensive due to length $10-11B $12B

Operating Cost Hwy 5 bull Routes are $4M less expensive per year $24M $28M

Cost Per Rider Hwy 5 bull Routes are ~$2-$3 less expensive per rider $10 $12-$13

Mississippi River Ford Pkwy bull Route does not consider new bridge

Population Employment

Ford Pkwy bull Routes have more people (13900 [2010]23500 [2040]) more jobs (10200

[2010] 12700) [2040] and more zero-car households (500-700) within a frac12 mile station buffer

bull Routes have more people within frac12 mile walkshed (8900) and 3-mile bikeshed (33200)

Development Potential

Hwy 5 bull Directly serves ShepardDavern

Ford Pkwy bull Directly serves Ford Site

Affordable Housing Ford Pkwy bull Directly connects existing affordable housing at VA 3800 4100

Activity Centers Ford Pkwy bull Routes have 5 more activity centers 45 50

Differentiators River Crossing Ford Pkwy Hwy 5 vs

River Crossing Decision Other Considerations

1 Travel Market ndash How do Ford Site trips differ from W 7th St trips

2 Ridership ndash How do ridership forecasts for Ford Pkwy alternatives

differ from Hwy 5 alternatives

3 Cost ndash Why do Ford Pkwy alternatives cost more than

Hwy 5 alternatives

Q1 Travel Market Comparison Ford Pkwy vs Hwy 5

bull How do Ford Site trips differ from W 7th St trips ndash Where are people coming fromgoing to

bull Reference Technical Memorandum 2 Transit Travel Demand Market Analysis August 2015

Reference httpriverviewcorridorcomwp-contentuploads201508RV_FINAL-TM-2-Travel-Market_Aug-20154pdf

Ford Site 850 6

Downtown 230 2 Minneapolis

3800 27

MSPFort Snelling 180 1

Bloomington South Loop 320 2

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site Travel Market 2040 Daily Person-Trips = 14k

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

W 7th Travel Market 2040 Daily Person-Trips = 64k

bull River crossings have distinct travel markets

bull Ford Pkwy crossingFord Site travel market ndash 27 Minneapolis ndash 6 Ford ndash 2 Downtown ndash 5 Rest of Riverview Corridor

bull Hwy 5 crossingW 7th travel market ndash 9 Minneapolis ndash lt1 Ford ndash 10 Downtown ndash 13 Rest of Riverview Corridor

bull The proportion of trips tofrom MSP and Bloomington South Loop

are similar

Q2 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs Hwy 5

bull How do Ford Pkwy and Hwy 5 ridership forecasts differ ndash Premium service that would replace Route 54 ndash Connecting bus routes

bull Based on districts defined in Technical Memorandum 2 Travel Market Analysis August 2015

2040 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs Hwy 5

Total 20400 Total 19000

2040 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs Hwy 5 ndash Connecting Bus Routes

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

bull Two distinct travel markets

bull Airport ridership is generally unaffected by river crossing

bull Crossing at Ford Pkwy would ndash Add 3300 boardings between Davern and Fort Snelling park-and-

ndash Decrease boardings by 4700 along the rest of the alignment bull 1600 in Bloomington South Loop bull 2700 along W 7th and Downtown Includes 400 along Airport segment

ndash Decrease ridership in Routes 46 74 and 84

ndash Require Route 54 service between Downtown and MOA

(5300 tripsday)

Q2 2040 Ridership Comparison Ford Pkwy vs Hwy 5

Q3 Cost Comparison Ford Pkwy vs Hwy 5

bull Why do Ford Pkwy alternatives cost more than Hwy 5 alternatives

bull Compared Alternatives 4 and 6

bull Identified features and costs from where the alignments diverge in Saint Paul to the Blue Line tie-in

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 Blue Line Station

46th St Blue Line Station

Length 20 mi 36 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 Fort Snelling

$170M2 NA

Blue Line Tie-In1 $180M-$330M $180M-$430M

Vehicles 15 17

Track amp Systems $100M $200M

Site Preparation lt$5M $90M

Stations $15M $50M

Annual Operating and 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

Crossing at Ford Pkwy costs slightly more than at Hwy 5 for these reasons bull Capital cost

ndash Longer alignment 36 mi vs 20 mi ndash More stations 6 vs 2 ndash Site preparation $90M vs less than $5M ndash More transit vehicles 17 vs 15

bull Blue Line tie-ins have similar costs and are both complex

bull Rail tunnel under Historic Fort Snelling is a significant capital element

bull OampM cost $28M vs $24M

Mode Approach

bull Compare ndash BRT options Arterial vs Dedicated1

ndash Rail options Modern Streetcar vs LRT2

bull 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

Ridership Dedicated BRT bull 2200-3000 more daily trips bull 1700-2100 more daily new riders

10-11kday 11k-14kday

Capital Cost Arterial BRT bull $75M vs $450M-$650M ~$75M ~$450-

OampM Cost Arterial BRT bull Costs $1M less per year ~$10M ~$11M-

Cost Per Rider Arterial BRT bull Costs up to $3 less per rider $4-$6 $6-$10

Traffic Arterial BRT bull Potential for lessening traffic impact using shared use lanes bull Shared use lanes could also narrow lane widths

Parking Arterial BRT bull Has fewer parking impacts on W 7th St

Dedicated BRT bull More permanent infrastructure has been associated

with higher development potential

Differentiators BRT Dedicated

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Traffic Modern Streetcar bull Potential for lessening traffic impact using shared use lanes bull Shared use lanes could also narrow lane widths

Parking Impacts Modern Streetcar bull Modern Streetcar could decrease parking impact using shared use

Construction

Modern Streetcar bull Modern Streetcar has more flexibility to accommodate adjoining uses bull Modern Streetcar may be better able to preserve pedestrian access to

businesses during construction

Right-of-way Modern Streetcar bull Modern Streetcar could require less right-of-way to accommodate

various users

Differentiators Rail Modern

Streetcar Shared or Dedicated

Light Rail 100 Dedicated

TAC Recommendation W 7th St St Paul Ave vs CP Spur

Carry forward W 7th St St Paul Ave and CP Spur alignment options into future environmental review and engineering for the following reasons

bull Some criteria do not differentiate as part of the Study could in the next phase of work

ndash Traffic impacts

ndash Utility impacts

ndash Right-of-way impacts and requirements

ndash Parking impacts

ndash Noise and vibration

bull Resolution of these unknowns will define these segments of the alignment

W 7th St St Paul Ave vs CP Spur (Alternatives 4 6 8 and 10)

Summary of Differentiators

Alternatives 1 2 4 6 CP Spur Alternatives 8 10 Refer to Most Promising Alternatives booklet

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

bull CP Spur is ~$40M (BusBRT) - $80M (Rail) more expensive

bull CP Spur requires ~$40M property acquisition (excludes CP Yard)

bull CP Spur would not remove parking

bull CP Spur has fewer construction impacts bull W 7th St will have road and sidewalk construction regardless of Riverview

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

St Paul Ave vs CP Spur

bull Staying within roadway right-of-way to the Ford Site is cheaper (W 7th St + St Paul Ave)

DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

CULTURAL HISTORIC RESOURCES PARKLAND MISSISSIPPI RIVER WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

6 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

April 2017 PAC Presentation

For this phase of the study an area of 350 feet on either side of each proposed alternativersquos 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

CulturalHistoric Resources GOAL

Improve transit connections to jobs education healthcare

activity centers cultural resources and to the regional and national transit network

QUESTION Are culturalhistoric resources and destinations served within the corridor and what would be the potential impacts

ANALYSIS bull Identify the number of known nearby historic sites and districts within 350

feet of each alternativersquos alignment

bull Known historic sites and districts are those that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places

CulturalHistoric Resources INITIAL FINDINGS bull All alternatives are within 350rsquo of 7 to 10 historic districts and 25 to 28

individual historic properties bull All alternatives are within 350rsquo of 1 significant Native American Area bull All alternatives have the potential to cause impacts

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE STUDY bull Does not differentiate among alternatives bull Focus on the desire to serve culturalhistoric destinations bull Assessing potential impacts requires a historic properties regulatory review

during a future environmental review

DISCUSSION

Parklands

QUESTION How many parklands are potentially impacted by each alternative

ANALYSIS bull Estimate number of parklands potentially impacted defined as use of parkland or

parkland within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA)

bull Identified parklands using city county and regional plans

GOAL Support protect and enhance

high-quality connections of corridor resources

neighborhoods businesses and the Mississippi River

Sources Ramsey County 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Saint Paul Comprehensive Plan Hennepin County 2040 Comprehensive Plan Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth Minneapolis Park amp Recreation Board Comprehensive Plan 2007 ndash 2020 City of Bloomington 2008 Comprehensive Plan Great River Passage Master Plan and Metropolitan Council online mapping tool

Parklands INITIAL FINDINGS bull All alternatives traverse Mississippi National River amp Recreation Area

(MNRRA) bull All alternatives have potential to impact parkland bull Range is from 1 to 7 parklands potentially impacted

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE STUDY bull Does not differentiate among alternatives number of parklands potentially

impacted does not equate to magnitude of impact bull Coordination with agencies having jurisdiction over parkland would inform

the locally preferred alternativersquos environmental review process to avoid minimizemitigate impacts

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

QUESTION Are there potential impacts to wetlandfloodplains

ANALYSIS bull Estimated number of acres of wetlandsfloodplains potentially impacted by the

proposed alignments

bull Identified water resources using National Wetlands Inventory Minnesota Public Waters Inventory Metropolitan Council and Ramsey County online mapping tools

WetlandsFloodplains INITIAL FINDINGS Wetlands bull End-to-end alternatives range from 0 to approximately 3 acres of potential wetland

impacts Floodplains bull End-to-end alternatives range from 0 to approximately 1 acre of potential floodplain

impacts

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE STUDY bull Potential impacts do not differentiate among alternatives bull Specific impacts and mitigation determined during a future environmental review

and engineering for locally preferred alternative minus Steps will be taken to avoid minimize or mitigate water resource impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River GOAL

Support protect and enhance high-quality connections of

corridor resources neighborhoods businesses

and the Mississippi River

QUESTION How does the travel market served and mode impact the crossing of the Mississippi River

ANALYSIS bull Qualitative assessment based on use of existing infrastructure bull National Park Service (NPS) sequencing guidance (focus on existing crossing locations) bull Other related criteria Visual Cultural Parkland and Water Resources and Capital Cost

Ford Pkwy Bridge Hwy 5 Bridge

Mississippi River INITIAL FINDINGS bull Ford Parkway Bridge

ndash BRT Use existing

ndash Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) Presumes retrofit of existing bridge

Source National Park Service Great River Passage Plan January 2017 Preliminary Concepts Booklet

Mississippi River

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Hwy 5Fort Snelling

minus BRT Use existing

minus Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar)

Presumes New Bridge for transit pedestrians and bikes adjacent to existing TH 5 Bridge

Replace TH 5 bridge at current location to accommodate traffic transit pedestrians and bikes OR

Existing

Mississippi River

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Differentiates by mode

ndash BRT alternatives crossing on Ford Parkway Bridge or Hwy 5 Bridge would have less impact to river crossings

bull Need to comply with state rules regulating the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) ndash MRCCA shares a boundary with the MNRRA a unit of the NPS ndash Cooperatively managed by local state regional agencies and NPS

DISCUSSION

TRANSPORTATION EVALUATION

Technical Appendix May 2017 PAC

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

LOCALREGIONAL CONNECTIVITY

USE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

FREIGHT

GOAL Improve transit connections to

jobs education healthcare activity centers cultural

resources and to the regional and national transit network

Travel Time

QUESTION How long does it take each alternative to travel from Union Depot to Mall of America

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Differentiates alternatives by route

ndash Hwy 5 is 12-16 minutes faster than Ford Pkwy because it is a shorter route and has fewer stations

bull Operating Environment

ndash Dedicated lanes are more reliable than shared lanes ndash Dedicated lanes are ~20 seconds faster than shared lanes

bull Although dedicated lanes are faster and more reliable the travel time savings is minimal

ANALYSIS bull Modeled transit travel times using existing published Metro Transit schedules

and conceptual alignments and station locations

Travel Time

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

QUESTION How many people are projected to ride each alternative on an average weekday in 2040

ndash Ford Pkwy routes serve more people but have lower ridership than Hwy 5 routes

ndash Hwy 5 provides for more direct service to MSP Airport and the Mall of America

bull Differentiates alternatives by mode ndash Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) has higher ridership than BusBRT ndash 1 car trains needed for anticipated 2040 ridership demand ndash ridership is

consistent throughout the day ndash LRT has a higher ridership capacity than Modern Streetcar

GOAL Develop and select an implementable project with local and regional

support

2040 Ridership Forecasts ANALYSIS bull Twin Cities model validated to

Riverview Corridor ndash Travel time ndash Trips (auto and transit) ndash MSP trips ndash MOA survey ndash Fare card data (Route 54 transfers)

bull Other Inputs ndash 2040 population and employment ndash Conceptual service plans

Period Time Frequency

Early 400 am ndash 530 am 15 min

Daytime 530 am ndash 800 pm 10 min

Evening 800 pm ndash 1015 pm 15 min

Late 1015 pm ndash 200 am 30 min

2040 Ridership Forecasts INITIAL FINDINGS

Alternative 2040 Daily Ridership

1 No Build 10700

2 Arterial BRT 11100

3 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 14100

4 Rail W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 20400

5 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site 12400

6 Rail W 7th ndash Ford Site 19000

7 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 11100

8 Rail W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 18400

9 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 13300

10 Rail W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 19600

2040 Ridership Forecasts INITIAL FINDINGS bull Hwy 5 vs Ford Pkwy

ndash Hwy 5 has 1200-2200 more trips than Ford Pkwy ndash Hwy 5 has 700-900 more new riders than Ford Pkwy ndash Hwy 5 = 200-700 more trips for transit-dependent

users than Ford Pkwy

bull Rail vs BRT ndash Rail = 6300-7300 more trips than BRT ndash Rail = 300-500 more new riders than BRT ndash Rail = 900-1300 more trips for transit-dependent

persons than BRT ndash BRT facilities could be used by other routes ndash

providing benefits to riders of those routes

QUESTION How is traffic congestion at key intersections impacted by

bull Dedicated vs Shared Lanes Side vs Center running bull BusBRT vs Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar)

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Does not significantly differentiate alternatives by route

ndash Most traffic impacts are in common segments

bull Differentiates by mode ndash Arterial BRT has the least impact due to no dedicated guideway

bull Differentiates alternatives by Operating Environment ndash Dedicated lanes have higher traffic impacts than shared lanes

bull Requires further analysis during the environmental phase of the project ndash Only key intersections were analyzed as part of this phase of the study not the entirety of the routes

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

W 7th St amp Montreal Ave Lexington Pkwy

W 7th St amp Randolph Ave

W 7th St amp Smith Ave

W 7th St amp Chestnut St

34th Ave amp American Blvd

24th Ave amp Killebrew Dr

W 7th St amp Davern St

W 7th St amp Kellogg Blvd ANALYSIS

bull Considered how the proposed typical section would affect traffic operations at these key intersections

I-35E Ramps

Traffic INITIAL FINDINGS

W 7th St bull Dedicated lanes for transit = bull Side running Center running bull Transit in dedicated lanes Transit in shared lanes bull Transit in dedicated lanes = more reliable travel time bull Shared lanes = less traffic congestion than dedicated lanes

Same level of traffic congestion

Same travel time

Travel through the MontrealLexington intersection requires multiple signal cycles resulting in queues that impact adjacent intersections

Traffic ndash Existing Operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s)

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

I-35E NB Ramps A 9 A 7

I-35E SB Ramps B 16 B 19

MontrealLex D 51 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

W 7th St Level of Service (LOS)

LOS at signalized intersections LOS A = Less than 10 seconds of delay

LOS B = 10 - 20 seconds of delay

LOS C = 20 - 35 seconds of delay

LOS D = 35 - 55 seconds of delay

LOS E = 55 - 80 seconds of delay

LOS F = More than 80 seconds of delay

Source Synchro software analysis traffic data from City of St Paul

Traffic ndash Alternative Operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

I-35E NB Ramps A 9 B 15

I-35E SB Ramps D 46 F 89

MontrealLex F 176 F 144

Davern F 88 F 84

Shared Lane Dedicated Lane

Side Running

Traffic ndash Alternative Operations W 7th St Level of Service (LOS)

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

I-35E SB Ramps E 78 F 162

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Traffic INITIAL FINDINGS South Minneapolis bull Hwy 55 amp 46th St Intersection

bull BRT has no impact on traffic operations bull Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) results in more Blue Line crossings of 46th St resulting in

more congestion bull Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) crosses Hwy 55 via a bridge or tunnel

bull No impact on traffic operations on Hwy 55 or 46th St due to shared lanes bull No measureable impact on 46th Street as all alternatives operate in shared lanes

Bloomington South Loop bull Intersections operated acceptably today bull BRT has no impact on traffic operations bull Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) results in more trains and more potential for congestion

bull A grade separation of 24th Ave should be explored to access Mall of America

QUESTIONS 1 Which intersections have the most crashes 2 How does the number of access points differ between

routes 3 What analysis will be completed during a future

environmental phase of the project

Safety GOAL

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Not a differentiating criteria bull Requires further analysis during the environmental phase of project

ANALYSIS bull Vehicles

bull Reviewed 5-year (2011 ndash 2015) crash statistics for W 7th St using MnDOTrsquos Crash Mapping Analysis Tool Reviewed City of St Paulrsquos Top 100 list for intersection crashes

bull Compared W 7th St statistics to averages for the City of St Paul bull Counted the number of access points along each route bull LPA would require additional analysis to identify potential mitigation measures

bull BicyclePedestrian bull Analysis to be completed during a future environmental phase of the project

after a route and mode are selected

Safety

Safety INITIAL FINDINGS bull Intersections with a high number

of crashes ndash Most along W 7th St

bull All access points are inherently a safety concern ndash W 7th has 108 access points vs

24 on the CP Spur ndash St Paul Ave has 110 access

points vs 6 on the CP Spur

15 W 7th amp Montreal Lexington

80 W 7th amp Smith

78 W 7th amp Chestnut St

38 W 7th amp Kellogg

46 W 7th amp Davern

= Rank in St Paulrsquos Top 100 crash list for intersections

100 W 7th St amp St Paul

60 Hwy 55 amp 46th St

Rank based on St Paul metrics ndash this intersection is not in the St Paul city limits

Safety INITIAL FINDINGS bull Pedestrian and Bicycle safety

bull Hwy 5 crossing for Rail alternatives would include a new bridge with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations

bull Noted areas of concern Seven Corners near Excel Energy Center crosswalks along railroad tracks adjacent to residential properties

bull Higher transit use means a greater number of pedestrians on the road which makes drivers more attentive

Rapid Flashing Beacon

Median Island

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Not a differentiating criteria

QUESTION How do the alternatives connect to the existing transit network

LocalRegional Connectivity

ANALYSIS bull Qualitative assessment of connections to existing bus lines major roadways existing

transit bull Based on Metro Transit schedules and service plan

INITIAL FINDINGS bull 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

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Differentiates alternatives by alignment and mode

ndash All alternatives that use the CP Spur have the same impacts whether BRT or Rail

bull Alternatives using CP Spur depend on its availability for purchase bull Rail (Modern Streetcar) alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy require grade-

separated crossing of Soo Line tracks near 46th St

GOAL Provide additional

transportation choices in the corridor to support

community health and regional sustainability goals

QUESTION How do the alternatives impact freight operations

Freight Rail Assessment

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

OPERATING amp MAINTENANCE COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

Capital Cost Assumptions

bull Order-of-magnitude estimates bull In Base Year dollars Year 2015 without inflation bull Not the cost to deliver any one of these alternatives as none

of them will be open for service today bull Cost to deliver is the base year cost estimate inflated by 35

compounded annually to the year of expenditure ndash A $500M project in todayrsquos dollars (2017) would cost approximately

$750M to open in year 2025 ndash A $1B project in todayrsquos dollars would cost approximately $15B to

open in year 2025

Capital Cost Methodology

bull Based on conceptual illustrations ndash Most Promising Alternatives January 2017 ndash Preliminary Concepts January 2017

bull Developed for purposes of comparison ndash Many items are allowances at concept-level

bull References ndash Unit costs Local and relevant national projects ndash Riverview Capital Cost Methodology February 2016 ndash Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

bull Use cost categories to facilitate comparison

Cost Categories (Basis FTA)

bull Construction Elements ndash Guideway and Track ndash BridgesStructures ndash StationsStops ndash Support Facilities ndash Demolition and

Clearing ndash Utilities ndash Roadways ndash PedBikeLandscaping ndash Systems

bull Other Elements ndash Right-of-way ndash Vehicles ndash Soft CostsProfessional

Services ndash Contingency

Construction Elements (Basis FTA)

bull Guideway and Track ndash BRT lanes or tracks ndash Guideway drainage ndash Guideway structures

bull StationsStops ndash Platforms ndash Canopies fixtures ndash Elevators escalators stairs

bull Support Facilities ndash Storage and maintenance of transit

vehicles ndash Operations and administration buildings

bull Sitework and Special Conditions ndash Elements not directly related to transit improvement ndash Roadway ndash Utilities ndash Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations ndash Environmental mitigation including

handlingdisposal of hazardous or contaminated materials

ndash Streetscaping landscaping

bull Systems ndash Fare collection ndash Traffic signals ndash Train control signals ndash Communication ndash Traction power substations ndash Train electrification

Other Capital Elements (Basis FTA)

bull Right-of-Way ndash Acquisition ndash Easements

bull Vehicles ndash Buses ndash Rail vehicles (LRTModern Streetcar)

bull Professional Services ndash Engineering and design ndash Project management ndash Construction administration and management ndash Insurance legal permits review fees ndash Surveys testing investigation inspection ndash Agency force account work

bull Contingency ndash Applied to Construction ROW Vehicles Professional Services

bull Finance Charges ndash Assumed $25Mfor Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) alternatives (longer construction duration than

Assumptions bull Most Promising Alternatives

ndash Draft capital cost estimates for Alternatives 2 through 10 (Arterial BRT BRT and Rail ndash LRT or Modern Streetcar)

ndash No-Build assumed to incur no additional capital cost

bull Common segment by mode Downtown bull Options within sub-areas

ndash Seven Corners ndash Trunk between Randolph and Alton ndash Ford Site ndash TH 5Fort Snelling ndash Bloomington South Loop

bull Base alternative defined ndash Present incremental cost of options within a sub-area relative to

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

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 35 compounded annually to the year of expenditure bull A $500M project opening today will cost approximately $750M to open in 2025 bull A $1B project opening today will cost approximately $15B to open in 2025

Alternative Capital Cost (2015 $)

1 No-Build (Route 54) NA

2 Arterial BRT $75 M

3 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling $420 M

4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling $10 B

5 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site $620 M

6 Rail (Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash Ford Site $12 B

7 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site $620 M

8 Rail (Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site $12 B

9 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling $450 M

10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling $11 B

1 No Build (Route 54) Description Route Length 124 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 41 min Total Stops 26 Estimated Capital Cost (current year $) Not applicable Allocation by Cost Category bull Not applicable

2 Arterial BRT Description Route Length 124 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

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

3 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling Description Route Length 124 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

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

4 Rail W 7th ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling Description Route Length 117 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 44 min Total Stops 20 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $10B Allocation by Cost Category

5 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 180 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

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

6 Rail W 7th ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 157 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 56 min Total Stops 27 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $12 B Allocation by Cost Category

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

7 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 181 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

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

8 Rail W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site Description Route Length 158 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 54 min Total Stops 27 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $12B Allocation by Cost Category

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 BRT W 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

Description Route Length 126 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

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

10 Rail W 7th-CP Spur-Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

Description Route Length 119 miles Travel Time (Union Depot to MOA) 43 min Total Stops 20 Estimated Capital Cost ($2015) $11B Allocation by Cost Category

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT Capital Cost1 By Travel Market

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

BRT via Ford Pkwy $260M2

1 In 2015 dollars 2 Does not include potential cost of acquiring the CP Spur ROW or CP Yard

Rail Capital Cost1 By Travel Market

Rail via Hwy 5 $470M

Rail via Ford Pkwy $600M2

Capital Cost of BRT Sub-Options1 In 2015 Dollars2

bull W 7th St (Base) $90M-$100M bull Smith Ave Mall ~+$10M bull W 7thSmith Ave One-way Pair +$25M-$30M

bull W 7th (Base) ~$135M bull CP Spur ~+$40M

(Cost includes infrastructure required and CP Spur ROW acquisition)

bull St Paul Ave (base) ~$20M bull CP Spur ~+$40M

(This cost is not necessary if CP Spur has already been purchased for trunk)

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

Capital Cost of Rail Sub-Options1 In 2015 Dollars2

bull W 7th St (Base) $145M bull Smith Ave Mall +$15M-20M bull W 7th ndash Smith Ave One-way Pair +$25M-$30M

bull W 7th (Base) $200M bull CP Spur +$80M

(Cost of infrastructure+CP Spur ROW)

bull CP Spur (Base) $110M bull St Paul Ave +$0

bull New bridge for transit + ped + bike (Base) $170M bull New bridge for traffic + transit + ped + bike +$300M

bull At-Grade Station at Historic Fort Snelling (Base) $180M

bull Under Historic Fort Snelling +$170M bull Via Bloomington Rd ~+$75M-150M+

Allowance to retrofit existing bridge $40M

bull Tunnel under Hwy 55 at 43rd St (Base) $180M

bull Tunnel under Hwy 55 at 44th45th St +$50M-10MM

bull Tunnel under Hwy 55 bypassing 46th St Station +$100M-250M+ bull Use existing Blue Line facility (Base) $10M-$15M

bull Elevate track and MOA Station 24thKillebrew +$80M

bull 82nd St-24th Ave o At-grade MOA Station +$60M o Elevated MOA Station +$85M

Operating amp Maintenance Cost In 2015 Dollars

Methodology and Assumptions bull Unit prices are mode specific cost drivers from Metro Transit bull Cost drivers include

ndash Peak vehicles ndash Revenue hours ndash Revenue miles ndash Trackguideway miles ndash Stations ndash Maintenance facilities

bull Use of cost categories to facilitate comparisons

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

INITIAL FINDINGS

Operating and Maintenance Cost1

in 2015 Dollars

Operating and Maintenance Cost In 2015 Dollars

INITIAL FINDINGS Mode

bull Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) is ~$13M - $14M more per year than BRT bull ABRT and BRT cost the same to operate per year

Route bull Ford Pkwy is ~$3-$4M more per year than Hwy 5 bull Ford Pkwy route has 7-8 more stations than Hwy 5 bull Ford Pkwy is ~55 miles longer than Hwy 5 bull Ford Pkwy has a longer travel time require more vehicles and operators than

Operating Environment bull No difference in operating and maintenance cost between dedicated lanes and

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Annualized capital cost + Annual operating cost

2040 annual ridership

Riverview Study

Annual trips on project

FTA New Starts Cost-Effectiveness

COMMUNITY EVALUATION

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

QUESTION What percent of on-street parking spaces would be removed by each alternative

GOAL Support development and

employment in the corridor and Twin Cities region

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Parking does not substantially differentiate alternatives

ndash PAC decisions regarding the design and operating environment will determine the parking impact not alternative bull Lowest impact Shared Use Center-Running bull Medium impact Dedicated Center-Running or Shared Use Side-Running

ndash Depends on location (refer to Preliminary Concepts booklet for parking lane locations)

bull Highest impact Dedicated Side-Running ndash Mode could slightly differentiate

bull Smaller vehicle ndash shorter platform ndash reduced parking impacts bull Any ldquobuildrdquo alternative would impact parking spaces

ANALYSIS bull Estimated number of existing on-street parking spaces along alignment side streets are

not included in the analysis bull Some spaces my have time restrictions on parking bull Calculated impacted spaces for each alternative based on typical sections in Preliminary

Concepts booklet bull Defined ldquohigh demandrdquo parking spaces as those that are metered

Downtown (5th St amp 6th St) ndash Metered Parking Spaces

Source City of Saint Paul Metered Parking Map

bull Counted existing downtown on-street parking spaces using City of Saint Paul metered parking map

bull Estimated existing on-street parking spaces by block on W 7th St south of Grand Ave

bull Some spaces my have time restrictions on parking

Parking

Parking ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) bull Preliminary Concepts booklet

informs parking impact estimates by geographic segment ndash Parking impacts analyzed by

dedicated vs shared use and side-running and center-running options

ndash No impacts east of Wabasha for BRT alternatives

ndash No impacts east of Cedar St for rail alternatives

ndash LRT and Modern Streetcar stations (~300rsquo) would remove 24 parking spaces

ndash BRT stations (~150rsquo) would remove 12 parking spaces

ndash Reducing station length could reduce parking impacts

ndash Maintaining sidewalk width would reduce parking

Dedicated Side Running

Dedicated Center Running

Shared Use Side Running

Shared Use Center Running

Parking Estimated range of on-street parking spaces potentially removed

80 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT 69 BRT 31 to 64 Rail 31 to 64

90 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT 40 (26 high demand) BRT 26 to 100 (26-67 high demand) Rail 53 to 100 (34-67 high demand)

190 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT 6 BRT 3 to 100 Rail 6 to 100

Parking on-street parking spaces potentially removed

Dedicated Side-Running

90 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT NA BRT 100 (67 high demand) Rail 100 (67 high demand) 190 on-street spaces today

Arterial BRT NA BRT 100 Rail 100

60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT NA BRT 100 Rail 100

80 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT NA BRT 64 Rail 64

80 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT NA BRT center-running not proposed here Rail center-running not proposed here

Dedicated Center-Running

Shared Use Side-Running

90 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT 40 (26 high demand) BRT 59 (26 high demand) Rail 86 (26 high demand) 190 on-street spaces today

Arterial BRT 6 BRT 3 Rail 6

60 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT 21 BRT 11 Rail 21

80 on-street spaces today All high demand Arterial BRT 69 (ABRT has more downtown stations) BRT 31 Rail 31

Shared Use Center-Running

90 on-street spaces today Arterial BRT NA BRT 26 (All impacted high demand) Rail 53 (All impacted high demand) 190 on-street spaces today

bull Alternatives crossing at Ford Pkwy ndash No anticipated impact

10 spaces today Ford Pkwy Arterial BRT NA BRT 0 Rail 54

80 spaces today 46th St Arterial BRT NA BRT 0 Rail 30

150 spaces today Minnehaha Ave and 43rd St Arterial BRT NA BRT NA Rail 34

80 spaces today 46th St Arterial BRT NA BRT NA Rail NA

Right-of-Way

QUESTION How many parcels are potentially impacted by each alternative What ldquotyperdquo of property owners may be involved

ANALYSIS bull Overlaid proposed alignments onto GIS-based parcel maps

ndash Source of parcel data Ramsey and Hennepin County parcel data and aerial imagery

ndash Preliminary concepts assume transit lanes and stations generally fit within existing public or transportation right-of-way

bull Looked at entire Corridor and sub-areas

Right-of-Way

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 Spur property Purchase of the

CP Spur property

Rail alternatives via Hwy 5Fort Snelling (3-6 publicly owned parcels amp 4-9

privately owned parcels)

Segments with anticipated Right-of-way impacts

Right-of-Way Downtown Seven Corners and W 7th to Toronto St

INITIAL FINDINGS bull All transit alternatives would fit within

existing public right-of-way

Source Ramsey County amp Hennepin County Parcel Data

Right-of-Way Toronto to St Paul Ave

INITIAL FINDINGS Anticipated right-of-way impacts bull W 7th Montreal-St Paul Ave

‒ Dedicated transit could affect part of 3 parcels owned by Saint Paul

bull CP Spur ‒ Requires acquisition of entire

length of existing privately owned transportation corridor excludes CP Yard

Right-of-Way Ford Site

INITIAL FINDINGS

bull CP Spur (St Paul Ave-Ford Site) ndash Would entail acquisition of CP Spur right-of-way from private owner excludes CP Yard

bull St Paul Ave ndash No anticipated right-of-way acquisition

bull Presumed transit right-of-wayndash Reserved as part of Ford Site redevelopment ‒ CP rail yard south of Ford Site ‒ Right-of-way through the Ford Site

Right-of-Way Hwy 5Fort Snelling

INITIAL FINDINGS bull BusBRT alternatives ndash No anticipated right-of-

way impact bull Rail alternatives ndash Depending on routing could

affect 9-12 parcels bull 3-6 publicly owned parcels bull 4-9 privately owned parcels

Right-of-Way Ford Pkwy Bridge ndash 46th St Station

INITIAL FINDINGS bull BusBRT ndash None anticipated bull Rail (Modern Streetcar) ndash Would

depend on refined alignment including Blue Line tie-in (after Study)

Right-of-Way 46th StFort Snelling Stationndash Bloomington South Loop

INITIAL FINDINGS bull All transit alternatives would fit

within existing public right-of-way ‒ BusBRT Use existing

roadways ‒ Rail alternatives Tie into the

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

QUESTION Where are the areas with the highest potential for visual impacts

ANALYSIS bull 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 amp 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

bull Non-sensitive areas (eg industrial airport transportation) bull Sensitive areas (eg residential parkland historic resources) bull Important viewsheds and scenic overlooks identified using

minus MNRRA Visual Resource Protection Plan minus Great River Passage Master Plan minus County and City Comprehensive Plans

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Non-sensitive areas Sensitive areas Important Viewsheds

Similar transit mode (rail or bus) currently operates in segment Low Low Medium

New transit type operates in segment Low Medium High

Requires grade-separated elements Low High High

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

INITIAL FINDINGS Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) has more potential for visual impacts than BRT

Key Low Medium High

Potential for visual impacts Potential for visual impacts

Rail = More areas with Medium or High potential for visual impacts

Visual

bull Estimated number of potentially sensitive land uses within 350 feet of proposed alignment ndash Source FTA Noise Impact Criteria thresholds determine land use categories

QUESTION How many noisevibration-sensitive parcels are potentially impacted by each alternative

NoiseVibration

ANALYSIS bull FTA Noise Impact Criteria thresholds determine sensitive land use categories

bull 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

bull Parcels considered noisevibration sensitive ndash Residential properties ndash Hotelsmotels ndash Hospitalsnursing homes ndash ChurchesPublic Worship ndash SchoolsLibraries ndash Cultural amp Nature ExhibitsTheaters ndash CemeteriesFuneral Homes ndash Recreational Facilities ndash Parks

bull Majority of parcels within 350rsquo buffer are residential

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration Number of Sensitive Land Use Parcels

20 parcels 40 parcels 320 parcels 470 parcels

290 parcels 330 parcels

320 parcels

420 parcels

Note This assessment identifies the number of parcels only For example a multi-family residential structure is counted as one parcel

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

NoiseVibration Sensitive Land Use Parcels within 350rsquo of Alignment

Alternative Description Number of Sensitive Land

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

3 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 1000

8 Rail 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 1600

NoiseVibration WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THIS STUDY bull Majority of sensitive parcels within 350rsquo buffer are residential bull Noisevibration impacts will be identified during a future environmental

review ndash Specific impacts and mitigation determined during a future environmental

review and engineering for locally preferred alternative ndash Noisevibration modeling will be conducted ndash Steps will be taken to avoid minimize or mitigate noise and vibration impacts

bull Example mitigation

ndash Placing switches and crossovers outside of sensitive areas

ndash Limiting nighttime operations

ndash Vibration dampening materials

Construction Considerations QUESTION What are the potential construction impacts to properties GOAL

Develop and select an implementable project with local and regional support

Construction Considerations ANALYSIS bull Qualitative assessment of potential construction impacts to businesses bull Consideration for all areas

minus On-street parking minus Noise minus Vibration minus Access minus Safety and security minus Residential minus Business impacts

minus Parkland minus Historic and cultural resources minus Staging and laydown areas minus Traffic and transit operations minus Water quality minus Hazardous and contaminated materials minus Proximity to existing structures

Construction Considerations bull Business impacts bull Pedestrian safety

during special events bull Hospitals

bull Bus volumes on 5th and 6th St

ANALYSIS

bull Property values bull Mississippi River (view access to)

Construction Considerations ANALYSIS

bull Adjacent residences bull Business impacts bull Ford Site redevelopment

bull Hwy 5546th StBlue Line operations

bull Access to park bull Natural resources

bull Retrofit of historic bridge for rail transit

bull Access to park bull Natural resources bull Hospital

Construction Considerations

MSP Airport bull Employment and

development bull Transportation choices bull Runway protection zone bull Safety and security

bull Historic Fort Snelling bull Mississippi River bull National park bull Airport access

bull Park bull Access to transit by transit-

dependent population

ANALYSIS

bull Access to businesses bull Business and economic

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

STATION AREAS EVALUATION

Technical Appendix June 2017 PAC Update

Station Area Demographics

bull Data sources ndash 2010 data ndash Census ndash 2040 forecasts ndash Local comprehensive plans

bull One-half mile around transit stops ndash ldquoTransit zonerdquo defined by FTA ndash Distance considered ldquowalkablerdquo

bull Short distance between adjacent stops could result in overlapping transit zones ndash No double-counting

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of 2010 and 2040 total population within frac12

mile of each potential station location

Population

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Alternatives along W 7th have more people within a frac12 mile station

buffer than the CP Spur ndash 9900 vs 8100 (2010) and 12900 vs 11400 (2040)

bull Alternatives along the Ford Pkwy route have more people within a frac12 mile station buffer than Hwy 5 ndash 18000 vs 3200 (2010) and 28600 vs 4200 (2040) ndash The Ford Pkwy alternatives have higher population totals due to ~7

more stations and an additional ~55 mi ndash More stationsmore people does not equal higher ridership

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

3 BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 14100 27700 44300

4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling

20400 28300 45400

5 BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site 12400 41200 67200

6 Rail (Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash Ford Site 19000 42700 69200

7 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 11100 39900 66400

8 Rail (Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 18400 41400 68400

9 BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 13300 26200 43200

10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5 Fort Snelling

19600 27100 44500

Population

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of 2010 and 2040 number of jobs within frac12 mile

of each potential station location

Employment

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Alternatives along W 7th have a similar number of jobs within a frac12 mile

station buffer as CP Spur alternatives today however the CP Spur is projected to have 600 more jobs within a frac12 mile station buffer in 2040

bull Alternatives along the Ford Pkwy route have more jobs within a frac12 mile station buffer than Hwy 5 ndash 20100 vs 10700 (2010) and 24100 vs 12000 (2040) ndash The Ford Pkwy alternatives have more jobs within a frac12 mile station buffer

due to ~7 more stations and an additional ~55 mi ndash More stationsmore jobs does not equal higher ridership

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

INITIAL FINDINGS bull W 7th has more people within a frac12 mile walkshed than CP Spur (10800 vs

bull Ford Pkwy alternatives have more people within a frac12 mile walkshed than Hwy 5 alternatives (13000-14000 vs 4200)

bull 7 more stations and an additional ~55 mile alignment = more people within frac12 mile of stations

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of population within a frac12-mile walkshed

Pedestrian Access

INITIAL FINDINGS Alternative 2010 Walkshed

Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 25080

4 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 23830

6 Rail (Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash Ford Site 33900

8 Rail (Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 32940

10 Rail (LRT or Modern Streetcar) W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 23420

Bicycle Access

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Ford Pkwy alternatives have more people within a 3-mile bikeshed than

Hwy 5 alternatives (41000-41900 vs 8800-8900) bull 7 more stations and an additional ~55 mile alignment = more people within 3 miles of

stations

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of population within a 3-mile bikeshed

Bicycle Access

INITIAL FINDINGS Alternative 2010 Bikeshed

Population

ANALYSIS bull Qualitative assessment of transit supportive development potential

within frac12-mile of potential station locations

INITIAL FINDINGS bull All alternatives serve downtown Saint Paul and the Bloomington South

Loop which have the largest concentration of future development in the study area

bull Ford Site alternatives serve Ford Site and 46th StBlue Line TOD in Minneapolis

bull Hwy 5Fort Snelling alternatives serve DavernNorfolkStewart TOD

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of an alternativersquos connectivity to activity

centers identified in the Purpose and Need

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Ford Pkwy alternatives are proximate to up to 10 more activity centers

than Hwy 5 alternatives ndash Ford Pkwy BRT alternatives are proximate to 45 activity centers compared to 40

activity centers for Hwy 5 BRT alternatives ndash Ford Pkwy Modern Streetcar alternatives are proximate to 50 activity centers

compared to 45 activity centers for Hwy 5 Modern StreetcarLRT alternatives bull No differentiation in the number of activity centers served between

dedicated or shared lanes

Activity Centers

Activity Centers Transit HubsMajor Destinations bull Union Depot bull Smith Avenue Transit Center bull MSP International Airport Terminal 1 bull MSP International Airport Terminal 2 bull Mall of America NodesDistricts bull Office CoreGreen Line bull Lowertown bull Saint Paul Riverfront bull Seven Corners Gateway bull Seven Corners bull RandolphW 7th node bull Sibley Plaza bull ShepardDavern node bull South Loop District Ford Site Highland Village

Healthcare bull United Hospital bull Childrenrsquos Hospital bull Health East Saint Josephs Hospital bull Landmark Surgery Center bull Hazelden in Saint Paul Minneapolis VA Health Care System Residential bull Upper Landing bull Victoria Park Development bull Veterans Housing at Fort Snelling bull Upper Post at Fort Snelling Minnesota Veterans Home Veterans East Parks and Recreation Historic Fort Snelling bull W 7th Community Center bull St Paul Downtown YMCA bull CHS Field bull Rice Park Minnehaha Park

Arts and Entertainment bull Ordway Center for the Performing Arts bull Minnesota Childrenrsquos Museum bull Landmark Center bull Roy Wilkins Auditorium bull Saint Paul River Centre bull Xcel Energy Center bull Science Museum Educational bull Minnesota State College and

Universities GovernmentServices bull Ramsey County Social Services bull Saint Paul City Hall bull Social Security Office bull Dorothy Day Center bull Juvenile and Family Justice Center bull General Services Administration OfficeIndustrial bull River Bend Business Park bull Pearsonrsquos CandyVan Paper Industrial

Activity Centers not reached via Hwy 5 alternatives Activity Centers not reached via Ford Pkwy alternatives

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of the legally binding housing units within frac12

mile of potential station locations

Affordable Housing

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Ford Pkwy alternatives have approximately 400 more affordable

housing units compared to Hwy 5 alternatives

Affordable Housing

INITIAL FINDINGS Alternative Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

ANALYSIS bull Quantitative assessment of zero-car households within frac12 mile of

potential station locations

Zero-Car Households

INITIAL FINDINGS bull Ford Pkwy alternatives total more zero-car households (500-700) than

Hwy 5 alternatives due to 7 additional stations and ~55 mile longer alignment

Zero-Car Households

INITIAL FINDINGS Alternative Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

6 ADDITIONAL BRT ALTERNATIVES

Most Promising Alternatives1 of Addrsquol Stops

Travel Time 2

2040 New Transit Riders

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

(2015$) Cost Per Rider3

11 Arterial BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 3 50 min 10200 (-500) $80M $12M $5-$6

2 Arterial BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling - 39 min4 11100 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 OampM Cost) 2040 Ridership 4 Assumes two-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

Original Alternative Note Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet

New Alternative Note Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet

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 OampM Cost) 2040 Ridership

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

12 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 3 52 min 14100 1800 $430M $13M $6-$7

4 Rail W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling - 44 min 20400 2700 $10B $24M $10

3 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling - 40 min 14100 2300 $420M $11M $6-$7

Note Downtown stations listed in MPA booklet

Original Alternative

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

13 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling 3 52 min 13200 1300 $460M $13M $7-$8

10 Rail W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling - 43 min 19600 2200 $11B $24M $10

9 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Hwy 5Fort Snelling - 40 min 13300 1900 $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 OampM 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

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

14 Arterial BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site4 3 64 min 9500 0 $95M $15M $6-$7

5 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site - 59 min 12400 1300 $620M $14M $9-$10

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

15 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash Ford Site 3 68 min 11800 1300 $640M $16M $10-$11

6 Rail W 7th ndash Ford Site - 56 min 19000 1800 $12B $28M $12-$13

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

16 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site 3 67 min 11400 1100 $640M $16M $10-$11

8 Rail W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site - 54 min 18400 1500 $12B $28M $12-$13

7 Dedicated BRT W 7th ndash CP Spur ndash Ford Site - 59 min 11100 1000 $620M $14M $9-$10

Riverview Corridor Transit Study Public Comments Received June 1-June 21 2017

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

NAME COMMENTQUESTION RESPONSE

6122017 Email Jason Craig Mr Roggenbuck I am unable to attend the June 15 TAC meeting but after reviewing the slides and material I wanted to ask the following questions Overall I am very disappointed that you will recommend carrying forward Options 6 and 8 (streetcar via Ford Bridge) as an option moving forward This option is too long a travel time is the most expensive cost per rider and I do not think you have adequately vetted the technical aspects of tunneling under Hwy 55 and the impacts to the Minneapolis neighborhoods In addition I think you are double counting many Minneapolis residents already served well by transit in these numbers Finally I think you are over valueing the Mississippi River impact while not taking into account at all the potential impact of a tunnel on the Minnehaha Creek watershed at 46th Street Options 6 and 8 should not be carried forward when it is crystal clear that Hwy 5 is the better overall route Specifically please address the following questions 1) On slide 24 under Affordable Housing it lists ldquoDirectly connects existing affordable housing at VArdquo Which housing are they referring to At the Vets Hospital or the Vets Home The Vets Hospital already has rail connection and the Vets Home would still be far away from the proposed 46th Street station This seems like a pointless check mark and very misleading 2) On slide 24 under Activity Centers Ford Parkway route is listed with 5 ldquomore activity centersrdquo Many of these centers are already served

Response sent 6152017 Jason Thank you for staying engaged in the Riverview Corridor Transit Study and for send in your questions on the June 15 TAC package I embedded responses to your questions within your original email below Sincerely Kevin 1) The location of the affordable housing near the VA could more accurately be described as on Fort Snelling Upper Post This criterion measures the number of legally-defined affordable housing units that are accessible to the station areas on each Riverview alternative route The results for each alternative route are compared to each other to differentiate among the alternatives

2) This criterion measures the number of activity centers or travel destinations that are within walking distance of the station areas for each alternative route The route through the Ford Site to Minneapolis and Fort Snelling is longer and serves more activity centers

3) This criterion simply counts the number of people within the walkshed and bikeshed of the station areas for each of the Riverview alternative routes The results for each alternative route are compared to each other to differentiate among the alternatives

4) This criterion is measuring the visual impact of a river crossing on or near the Ford Parkway Bridge and Hwy 5 Tunnels near Hwy 55 and Fort Snelling do not affect the viewshed of the river so they are not included in this criterion

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

by rail and transit I am assuming these are Minnehaha Park Ford Plant VA and one or two more Why does this deserve itrsquos own check mark 3) On slide 24 under Population Employment Ford Parkway area is listed with more people within frac12 mile walk shed and 3 mile bike shed but many of these people are already served by the Blue Line Did they double count these people What do the numbers look like when the double counting is eliminated 4) On slide 24 under Mississippi River Ford Parkway is given a check for not considering a bridge but shouldnrsquot Hwy 5 have a check for not including a tunnel under Hwy 55 near Minnehaha Creek watershed Why does the Mississippi River get a check mark while Minnehaha Creek does not 5) Why do you continue to put a station at 43rd Ave in Minneapolis when that is directly adjacent to 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 55hellipWhat 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 itrsquos own lane How would private property be impacted with this process

5) The streetcar alternative on 46th Street shows a station at 43rd Avenue for station spacing purposes simply to provide access to riders in the area between the Mississippi River and the Blue Line station at 46th Street and Hwy 55 The Riverview Study does not assume redevelopment of the area near the 43rd Avenue station

6) The cost of a tunnel under Fort Snelling near Hwy 5 has not been determined yet The Riverview study team thinks that the tunnel and new station at Historic Fort Snelling can be located entirely within the park area with no impacts to private property

7) The exact impacts to properties on 43rd Street and 46th Street to accommodate a tunnel under Hwy 55 is not known At this stage of the study we are only identifying whether properties may be impacted which is part of estimating the right-of-way impacts for each of the alternative routes and transit modes We are aware of the redevelopment plans for the Creative Kidstuff building and the extension of Snelling Avenue and we acknowledge that it does complicate any grade separated crossing of Hwy 55 at 46th Street

DATE METHOD

OF 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 itrsquos 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

6162017 Email Kent Petterson Emailed Ed Johnson Dave Thune Betty Moran Pat Mancini Laurel Severson Dan Kueny Erik Hare Diane Gerth

There seems to be some confusion about the stops for the two Modern Streetcar options proposed for the Riverview Corridor on West 7th St There are four streetcar options proposed but only two fall on W 7th Street full length which is what the Purpose and Need Statement called out as the 1 priority route I have focused on comparing the bus options to these two streetcar options Confusion is partly mine as I was caught unaware of the streetcarLRTstop at Davern when taking a close look at the TAC packet from yesterday I may be wrong but I thought I heard Mike Rogers say that the stops are the same for bus or streetcar They are the same for options 1 and 2 for bus but not

Response sent 6202017

Kent Thanks for the email and the questions you raised Irsquod like to take the opportunity to clarify a couple of questions that you raised

1 The Riverview Corridor Purpose and Need does not call out W 7th Street as the 1 priority route Instead it is focused on providing transit service in the corridor enhances mobility and access to opportunities for residents businesses and the region through connections to employment education and economic development throughout the Twin Cities while

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Tom Brock Ccrsquoed Mike Rogers Paula Faughender Cindy Silkett Louis Garcia Rebecca Noecker Gary Thompson

the same between bus and streetcar They are quite different in fact and here is what I found Please let me know if I have an error This information is from pages 39-44 of the Feb 15 TAC power point slides 1 - The bus alternatives 1 and 2 have 10 stops including at Watson Albion Rankin and Madison All four of these stops do not exist on either of the W7 street car options 2 - All streetcar options have a stop at Davern This stop is not a bus option stop This raises many questions that should be looked at relative to bus stop need at Davern 3 - The current Albion bus stop is moved to Montreal for the streetcar options no doubt to gain width space potentially available on the Riverview School site rather than having to cut into the parkland hillside further 4 - A stop at Historic Ft Snelling is included for all streetcar options This stop is possible based on an expenditure of over a half billion dollars which would include over $150 million to build the actual stop at the Fort where these is no history of ridership That minor ridership need now that may grow in time is currently served by a new circulator off the Blue line just started this spring 5 - Net for the two neighborhoods Highland and the West End and not counting Ft Snelling is a loss of two bus stops or three is you count the one added at Davern for streetcar only There were a great deal of anxious comments from

supporting goals to cultivate economic prosperity and to invest in all neighborhoods in the corridor

2 Station stops for the alternatives vary however their location was selected to serve the same areas A review of the Most Promising Alternatives booklet shows that along W 7th the Dedicated Bus and StreetcarLRT options have eight stops that are the same Arterial BRT and No Build have 10 stops that are the same It is important to note that stations used for this analysis do not automatically become the stations of the Locally Preferred Alternative The LPA only covers a route and a mode and as part of environmental work station locations can move around get added and subtracted as more information is gathered

3 Arterial BRT and No build do not have a Davern station as there is no Davern station on the existing route 54 The lack of a stop is due to the proximity of Davern to the freeway section of Hwy 5 The differences in vehicle speeds makes bus operations and pedestrian access very challenging This is why the stop is located at Maynard Dedicated BRT and StreetcarLRT options assume improvements to address these concerns the intersectionroadway to allow for a station stop

4 The Albion stop was placed closer to Montreal to allow for less impact to businesses in the area However as noted above this location could move as part of future analysis

5 Ft Snelling was served by the Ft Snelling ndash Minnehaha ndash Plymouth line and the Ft Snelling ndash Maria line streetcar lines that converged at the Historic Fort to provide transit service to both Minneapolis and St Paul Additionally ridership projections show that there is a demand for direct service to Ft Snelling that operates all day seven days a week

6 There is a difference to two stops between No BuildArterial BRT and StreetcarLRT when traveling

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Gary Thompson about the Arterial BRT route loss to Highland as voted by the TAC last month I agree with his concern and anticipate that when the reality of the study that it will only pick one LPA alternative results in the route falling on W7thHwy 5 as strongly indicated by ridership cost of operation projections and indicated by the guiding Purpose and Need Statement that concern will only be magnified It seems clear to me that a streetcar option will not be built to cross at both bridges It is in the bus 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

between the Mississippi River and Grand Ave 7 The technical analysis shows that there are two

separate travel markets in the larger Riverview Corridor one crossing at Hwy 5 and the other at Ford Parkway If the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Riverview Corridor is along Hwy 5 a separate transit solution serving the Ford Site must be found The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority is committed to this

Thanks

6212017 Email Christopher Jensen

When will the final decision be made on the route At this point with out any outreach from the committee many of us in MPLS are feeling we have no voice When will we hear the verdict if this is coming through MPLS

Christopher

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

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Authority (RCRRA) will host an open housepublic 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 RCRRArsquos public meetings and other community engagement opportunities will be posted to the project website (wwwriverviewcorridorcom) as soon as they become available

Thanks again for contacting the Riverview Corridor Please continue to send any additional comments or questions to inforiverviewcorridorcom Your email has been added to the project email update list so that you can receive regular updates about the project

RV PAC Agenda Packet - 20170713

Agenda_MayMtgSummary_PublicComments

RV PAC - Agenda - 20170713 v1

RV_PAC_DRAFT_Meeting_Summary_05-11-2017 v2

RV PAC PPT-20170713-v5

Slide Number 1

Agenda

2approval of the agenda

3approval of the may pac meeting summary

4june pac update

June PAC Update


Summary Additional BRT Alternativesvia Hwy 5

Summary Additional BRT Alternativesvia Ford Pkwy

Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18


7tac recommendations for public review

TAC Recommendation BRT



TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation




8pac approval of detailed evaluation of alternatives for public review


9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment

RV PAC PPT-20170713-Appendix-v4-reduced (2)

Slide Number 1

Table of ContentsOverview

Table of ContentsDetailed Evaluation Results



detailed definition of alternatives

elements of most promising alternatives

Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19

draft service plans ndash connecting bus service

No Build (Route 54)





draft operating environment maps


Slide Number 28

june tac recommendations


Differentiators River Crossing


Q1 Travel Market ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5

Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35


Q2 Ridership ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5

2040 Ridership ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5

2040 Ridership ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5 ndash Connecting Bus Routes

Q2 2040 Ridership ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5

Q3 Cost ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5

Cost ComparisonFord Pkwy vs Hwy 5


Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT

Differentiators Rail




detailed evaluation of alternatives

6environmental evaluation

CulturalHistoric Resources


Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

transportation evaluation

Travel Time

Travel Time


2040 Ridership Forecasts



Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation



Cost Categories(Basis FTA)

Construction Elements(Basis FTA)

Other Capital Elements(Basis FTA)

Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99

BRT Capital Cost1By Travel Market

Rail Capital Cost1By Travel Market

Capital Cost of BRT Sub-Options1In 2015 Dollars2

Capital Cost of Rail Sub-Options1In 2015 Dollars2



Operating amp Maintenance CostIn 2015 Dollars

Operating and Maintenance Cost1in 2015 Dollars

Operating and Maintenance CostIn 2015 Dollars

Cost per Rider

community evaluation

Parking

Parking

Parking

ParkingEstimated range of on-street parking spaces potentially removed

Parking on-street parking spaces potentially removedDedicated Side-Running

Parking on-street parking spaces potentially removedDedicated Center-Running

Parking on-street parking spaces potentially removedShared Use Side-Running

Parking on-street parking spaces potentially removedShared Use Center-Running





Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way

Right-of-WayDowntown Seven Corners and W 7th to Toronto St

Right-of-WayToronto to St Paul Ave

Right-of-WayFord Site

Right-of-WayHwy 5Fort Snelling

Right-of-WayFord Pkwy Bridge ndash 46th St Station

Right-of-Way46th StFort Snelling Stationndash Bloomington South Loop

Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibrationNumber of Sensitive Land Use Parcels

NoiseVibrationSensitive Land Use Parcels within 350rsquo of Alignment

NoiseVibration






station areas evaluation


Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households

6 additional brt alternatives

Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167



2017-06 RV_Public Comments June 2017






RANKING METHODOLOGY

Non-sensitive areas

Sensitive areas

Important Viewsheds

Similar transit mode (rail or bus) currently operates in segment

Low

Medium

New transit type operates in segment

Low

Medium

High

Requires grade-separated elements

Low

High

Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Summary ndash May 11 2017

Participants See sign-in sheet at the end of this document for a list of attendees

Summary Meeting handouts included

bull Agenda bull PAC Meeting Summary ndash April 13 2017 bull Presentation bull Technical Appendix bull Public Comments Received ndash April 1 - April 30 2017

Action Items

bull Chair Ortega requested PAC members receive information to review in June in order to make upcoming decisions at the July PAC meeting

bull Supply PAC members with information regarding the economic development potential of ABRT DBRT and rail alternatives

bull Quantify the potential revenue loss from metered parking in Saint Paul that would be potentially impacted by the proposed alternatives

bull 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 907 am 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 todayrsquos 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

Freight Rail

7 Cost Evaluation

10 Public Comment

12 Adjourn

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Freight Rail

7 Cost Evaluation

10 Public Comment

12 Adjourn

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Freight Rail

7 Cost Evaluation

10 Public Comment

12 Adjourn

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Freight Rail

7 Cost Evaluation

10 Public Comment

12 Adjourn

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Freight Rail

7 Cost Evaluation

10 Public Comment

12 Adjourn

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

10 Public Comment

12 Adjourn

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Authority

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Tim Burkhardt HDR

Gina Mitteco MnDOT

Kent Petterson

Jim Schoettler Self

Scott Reed HDR

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

4 JUNE PAC UPDATE

June PAC Update

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

POPULATION

Other Meetings

5 MEETING OBJECTIVE

Meeting Objective

Carry Forward

6 STUDY OVERVIEW

February 2016

October 2016

January 2017

February 2017

July 2017

December 2017 LPA

2014 2015 2016 2017Q4

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Q4Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

February 2016

October 2016

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

TAC Recommendation

Modern Streetcar

(Route 54)

2 Arterial BRT

4 Modern

Streetcar W 7th

6 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

Ford Site

8 Modern

Streetcar W 7th-

CP Spur- Ford Site

10 Modern

Total 10700 11100 20400 19000 18400 19600

New Riders NA 200 2700 1800 1500 2200

Cost per Rider NA $4-$6 $10 $12-$13 $12-$13 $10

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

PARKLAND

MISSISSIPPI RIVER

WETLAND FLOODPLAIN

9 NEXT STEPS

Next Steps

10 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public Comment

meeting summary

July 13 2017

Category Page

Environmental 51

Parklands 54

Travel Time 63

Traffic 69

Safety 76

Cost 82

Capital Cost 83

Cost per Rider 109

Community 110

Parking 111

Right-of-Way 123

Visual 131

Population 146

Employment 148

Bicycle Access 152

sidewalks

35E Stations

No Build (Route 54)

guideway

19k-20k 15k-25k

18k-19k 1k-2k

Hwy 5 alternatives

Ford Site 850 6

3800 27

W 7th 320 2

Ford Site 320 lt1

5900 9

W 7th 6300 10

are similar

74 2100

54 (UD-MOA) 1400

46 6300

84 900

54 (UD-MOA) 5300

84 600

46 4100

74 1300

(5300 tripsday)

Length 20 mi 36 mi

$170M2 NA

Vehicles 15 17

Stations $15M $50M

Mode Approach

BRT Arterial

BRT vs

Construction

various users

CAPITAL COST

CONSTRUCTION

PARKING

RIGHT-OF-WAY

W 7th St vs CP Spur

project

CAPITAL COST

RIGHT-OF-WAY

DISCUSSION

Parklands

DISCUSSION

WetlandsFloodplains

proposed alignments

impacts

DISCUSSION

Mississippi River

Existing

Mississippi River

DISCUSSION

TRAVEL TIME

SAFETY

TRAFFIC

RIDERSHIP

FREIGHT

Travel Time

INITIAL FINDINGS

support

1 No Build 10700

proposed

Traffic

Hwy 55 amp 46th St

I-35E Ramps

Same travel time

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 23 C 25

Chestnut C 28 D 39

Smith B 18 F 84

Randolph C 25 D 36

Davern B 16 B 15

Existing operations

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 33 C 31

Chestnut C 28 C 23

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 25 C 33

Davern B 16 B 15

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 77 D 36

Chestnut F 90 D 41

Smith C 21 E 59

Randolph C 26 D 38

Davern F 88 F 84

Side Running

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg C 24 C 28

Chestnut C 25 C 21

Smith B 15 D 44

Randolph C 23 C 28

Davern B 14 C 32

Intersection

AM Peak PM Peak

Kellogg E 73 C 35

Chestnut E 68 E 67

Smith B 19 F 218

Randolph C 27 D 45

Davern E 78 F 221

Center Running

Safety GOAL

Safety

80 W 7th amp Smith

46 W 7th amp Davern

Median Island

COST EVALUATION

CAPITAL COST

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

open in year 2025

base alternative

Capital Cost1

INITIAL FINDINGS

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

9 Construction

Right-of-way

Vehicles

Soft Costs

Contingencies

BRT via Hwy 5 $110M

INITIAL FINDINGS

in 2015 Dollars

shared lanes

Cost per Rider

Riverview Study

PARKING IMPACTS

RIGHT-OF-WAY

VISUAL

NOISE VIBRATION

Parking

Right-of-Way

CP Spur property

INITIAL FINDINGS

Blue Line

Visual GOAL

RANKING METHODOLOGY

Visual

Key Low Medium High

BRT Rail

Key Low Medium High

Visual

NoiseVibration

320 parcels

420 parcels

110 parcels

8 parcels

10 parcels

2 parcels

210 parcels

Use Parcels

2 Arterial BRT 1000

ANALYSIS

development

POPULATION

EMPLOYMENT

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

BICYCLE ACCESS

Population

2010 Population

2040 Population

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 27700 44300

2 Arterial BRT 11100 27700 44300

20400 28300 45400

19600 27100 44500

Population

Employment

2010 Employment

2040 Employment

1 No-Build (Route 54) 10700 84000 112600

2 Arterial BRT 11100 84000 112600

20400 86900 115400

19600 87000 116200

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Population

Bicycle Access

stations

Bicycle Access

Population

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Zero-Car Households

2 Arterial BRT 3800

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

Travel Time 2

Capital Cost

(2015$) OampM Cost

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT

Thanks

Christopher

DATE METHOD

OF CONTACT





Slide Number 1

Agenda



4june pac update

June PAC Update




Other Meetings

5meeting objective

Meeting Objective



6study overview

Slide Number 16


Slide Number 18






TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation

TAC Recommendation






9next steps

Next Steps

Next Steps

10public comment

Public Comment


Slide Number 1







Slide Number 8

Slide Number 9

Slide Number 10

Slide Number 11

Slide Number 12

Slide Number 13

Slide Number 14

Slide Number 15

Slide Number 16

Slide Number 17

Slide Number 18

Slide Number 19


No Build (Route 54)







Slide Number 28






Slide Number 34

Slide Number 35









Mode Approach

Differentiators BRT









Parklands

Parklands

WetlandsFloodplains

WetlandsFloodplains

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River

Mississippi River


Travel Time

Travel Time





Traffic

Traffic

Traffic




Traffic

Safety

Safety

Safety

Slide Number 79



cost evaluation






Assumptions

Capital Cost1

Slide Number 90

Slide Number 91

Slide Number 92

Slide Number 93

Slide Number 94

Slide Number 95

Slide Number 96

Slide Number 97

Slide Number 98

Slide Number 99










Cost per Rider


Parking

Parking

Parking










Right-of-Way

Right-of-Way







Slide Number 131

Slide Number 132

Slide Number 133

NoiseVibration

NoiseVibration



NoiseVibration








Population

Population

Employment

Employment

Pedestrian Access

Pedestrian Access

Bicycle Access

Bicycle Access


Activity Centers

Activity Centers

Affordable Housing

Affordable Housing

Zero-Car Households

Zero-Car Households


Slide Number 162

Slide Number 163

Slide Number 164

Slide Number 165

Slide Number 166

Slide Number 167









Sensitive areas

Low

Medium

Low

Medium

High

Low

High

Documents

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study