Transcript OPEN HOUSE #4 JUNE 2014 AGENDA OPEN HOUSE      6:00 PM Review materials Ask questions Provide feedback Sign up for email list Fill out comment cards PRESENTATION QUESTIONS & ANSWERS OPEN HOUSE 6:30

OPEN HOUSE #4
JUNE 2014
AGENDA
OPEN HOUSE





6:00 PM
Review materials
Ask questions
Provide feedback
Sign up for email list
Fill out comment cards
PRESENTATION
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
OPEN HOUSE
6:30 PM
7:00 PM
2
INTRODUCTIONS
WHO IS ON THE PROJECT TEAM?



Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority
Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority
Consultant Team (led by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.)
3
PURPOSE OF OPEN HOUSE
WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?


Provide information on:
 Project progress since Open House #3
 Final evaluation technical results
 Scoring system
 Key differentiators
 Next Steps
Get your input on:
 Technical evaluation
4
PROJECT UPDATE
We are here
5
PROJECT UPDATE
OCTOBER OPEN HOUSE
 October 17 and October 24
 51 total attendees
 Provided information on:
 Three Alternatives
 Final Evaluation: Goals, Objectives,
Measures
 Activities for Input:
 Downtown Destination Activity
 Station Development Comment
Sheet
 Map Plots
6
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
7
ADVANCED DEFINITION AND FINAL
EVALUATION
ADVANCED DEFINITION INCLUDES:





Runningway alignment
Stations
Service plans
Traffic controls
Operating facilities design
8
ADVANCED DEFINITION AND FINAL
EVALUATION
ADVANCED DEFINITION EVALUATED:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost estimates
Economic development and land use
Environmental and natural resources
Environmental justice
Mobility
Traffic operations
Travel demand
9
ADVANCED DEFINITION AND FINAL
EVALUATION
INFORMED BY:
•
•
•
Purpose and Need local
•
Adopted goals, objectives, and evaluation measures
Metropolitan Council Regional Transitway Guidelines regional
•
Capital Investment Criteria – Section 10.8
FTA New Starts national
•
Project Justification Criteria
10
ALTERNATIVES
Three Alternatives
underwent final
definition and
evaluation:
 Robert St Arterial
BRT
 Robert St
Streetcar
 TH 52 Highway
BRT
11
ALTERNATIVES
Also considered:
 TH 52 Highway
BRT via Cesar
Chavez
12
SCORING SYSTEM
Evaluation
Areas
Mobility &
Accessibility
Benefits
Transit
Benefits
Costs
Opportunities
Impacts
33 Evaluation
Measures
22 Objectives
5 Goals
+
+
+
+
Overall Technical Score
13
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goals
Objectives
1. Improve mobility and
accessibility
• Maximize total transit riders
• Maximize transit access to housing, employment, schools, community services, and
activity centers
• Maximize transportation system linkages and access to multimodal transportation
opportunities
• Improve east-west connections
• Maximize service to people who depend on transit
• Expand reverse commute and off-peak transit service options.
2. Enhance the effectiveness of
transit service within the corridor
• Maximize new transit riders
• Maximize transit operating efficiency
• Maximize traveler time savings
• Maximize access to park and ride facilities
3. Provide cost effective and
financially feasible transit solutions
• Seek competitive project capital and operating costs
• Maximize competitiveness for potential funding sources
4. Support and enhance existing
communities and planned
development
• Maximize consistency with local and regional land use plans
• Maximize proximity to planned development and redevelopment
• Encourage transit-oriented development in areas identified for future development or
redevelopment
5. Support healthy communities
and sound environmental practices
• Minimize need for new right-of-way
• Minimize short- and long-term impacts to property and property access
• Minimize area traffic impacts
• Minimize adverse impacts on community resources (parks, schools, facilities)
• Minimize disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and/or low-income
communities
• Minimize adverse impacts on water resources (wetlands, lakes, floodplains)
14
• Maximize benefits due to decreased vehicle travel
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
GOAL 1: IMPROVE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: TOTAL RIDERS
5
5
2
4Maximize riders
Maximize access
3,000
Maximize linkages &
multimodal access
2,500
Improve east-west
connections
1,000
500
2,300
3,000
2,000
1,500
OBJECTIVE
3,000
3,500
3,100
2030 Average Weekday Boardings
Score
Maximize service to
transit dependents
Expand reverse
commute and offpeak transit
0
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette BRT via Cesar
Chavez
17
GOAL 1: IMPROVE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: ACCESSIBILITY
Score
4
5
1
2Maximize riders
Maximize access
OBJECTIVE
1000
600
426
400
1131
800
962
Acres within 5 Minute
Walkshed from Stations
1200
200
Maximize linkages &
multimodal access
Improve east-west
connections
Maximize service to
transit dependents
Expand reverse
commute and offpeak transit
0
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
18
INFLUENCE
AREAS
Robert St Arterial
BRT
19
INFLUENCE
AREAS
Robert St Streetcar
20
INFLUENCE
AREAS
TH 52 Highway BRT
21
GOAL 1: IMPROVE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: RIDERS FROM ZERO-CAR HOUSEHOLDS
5
4
1
3Maximize riders
2,500
Maximize access
1,000
1,000
1,800
1,500
500
Maximize linkages &
multimodal access
Improve east-west
connections
Maximize service to
transit dependents
1,500
OBJECTIVE
2,000
2,000
2030 Average Daily Riders from Zero-Car
Households
Score
Expand reverse
commute and offpeak transit
0
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette BRT via Cesar
Chavez
22
GOAL 1: IMPROVE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
OVERVIEW
Robert St
Arterial BRT
Robert St
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway
BRT
Maximize total transit riders
100
100
60
Maximize transit access to housing, employment,
schools, community services, and activity centers
100
100
50
Maximize transportation system linkages and
access to multimodal opportunities
100
100
50
Improve east-west connections
20
20
20
Maximize service to people who depend on
transit
100
80
20
Expand reverse commute and off-peak transit
service options.
100
100
60
Objective
23
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
GOAL 2: ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
TRANSIT WITHIN THE CORRIDOR
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: NEW TRANSIT RIDERS
1
1
5
5Maximize new riders
1,200
Maximize transit
operating efficiency
800
800
600
200
400
400
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
Maximize traveler
time savings
Maximize access to
park and ride
facilities
1,000
OBJECTIVE
1,000
400
2030 Average Daily New Transit Riders
Score
0
TH 52 Highway TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette BRT via Cesar
Chavez
26
GOAL 2: ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
TRANSIT WITHIN THE CORRIDOR
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: PASSENGERS PER REVENUE HOUR OF SERVICE
5
5
4
3Maximize new riders
Maximize transit
operating efficiency
OBJECTIVE
50
40
48
30
52
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
20
35
2030 Average Daily Passengers
per Revenue Hour of Service
60
Maximize traveler
time savings
Maximize access to
park and ride
facilities
37
Score
10
0
TH 52 Highway TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette BRT via Cesar
Chavez
27
GOAL 2: ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
TRANSIT WITHIN THE CORRIDOR
OVERVIEW
Robert St
Arterial BRT
Robert St
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway
BRT
Maximize new transit riders
20
20
100
Maximize transit operating efficiency (passengers
per hour of revenue service)
100
100
40
Maximize traveler time savings
20
20
100
Maximize access to park and ride facilities
100
100
100
Objective
28
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
GOAL 3: PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVE AND
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TRANSIT SOLUTIONS
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: CAPITAL COSTS
1
5
-$150,000,000
-$200,000,000
-$250,000,000
OBJECTIVE
-$100,000,000
-$46,089,000
-$50,000,000
-$373,064,000
$0
5
Seek competitive
project capital and
operating costs
Maximize
competitiveness for
potential funding
sources
-$55,079,000
5
-$27,479,000
Total Project Capital Cost (2013$)
Score
-$300,000,000
-$350,000,000
-$400,000,000
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette BRT via Cesar
Chavez
31
GOAL 3: PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVE AND
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TRANSIT SOLUTIONS
KEY DIFFERENTIATOR: COST PER RIDER
4
1
3
-$2.00
-$4.49
-$1.00
-$3.97
-$3.00
-$8.33
O&M Cost per Annual Rider
(2012$/2030 Riders)
$0.00
-$4.00
-$5.00
4
Seek competitive
project capital and
operating costs
Maximize
competitiveness for
potential funding
sources
OBJECTIVE
$0.00
Score
-$6.00
-$7.00
-$8.00
-$9.00
Robert St.
Arterial BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette BRT via Cesar
Chavez
32
GOAL 3: PROVIDE COST EFFECTIVE AND
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TRANSIT SOLUTIONS
OVERVIEW
Robert St
Arterial BRT
Robert St
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway
BRT
Seek competitive project capital and operating
costs
90
20
80
Maximize competitiveness for potential funding
sources
90
60
70
Objective
33
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
GOAL 4: SUPPORT AND ENHANCE EXISTING
COMMUNITIES AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
OVERVIEW
Robert St
Arterial BRT
Robert St
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway
BRT
Maximize consistency with local and regional land
use plans
100
100
100
Maximize proximity to planned development and
redevelopment
100
100
20
Encourage transit-oriented development in areas
identified for future (re)development
100
100
20
Objective
36
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
GOAL 5: SUPPORT HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND
SOUND ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES
OVERVIEW
Robert St
Arterial BRT
Robert St
Streetcar
TH 52 Highway
BRT
Minimize need for new right-of-way
100
20
20
Minimize short- and long-term impacts to
property and property access
20
20
100
Minimize area traffic impacts
60
20
100
Minimize adverse impacts on community
resources (parks, schools, facilities)
20
20
40
Minimize impacts on minority and/or low-income
communities
20
20
20
Minimize adverse impacts on water resources
(wetlands, lakes, floodplains)
80
80
20
Maximize benefits due to decreased vehicle travel
60
60
100
Objective
39
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
EVALUATION RESULTS
TH 52 Highway
BRT via Lafayette
Robert St. Arterial
BRT
Robert St.
Streetcar
85
83
42
60
50
85
90
60
70
100
100
47
51
34
57
77
65
60
Goal 1
Mobility &
Accessibility Benefits
Goal 2
Transit Benefits
Goal 3
Cost
Goal 4
Opportunities
Goal 5
Impacts
TOTAL
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION PROCESS
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
• Cities, Counties, MnDOT, Met Council, service operators
• Provide ongoing review of study process and results
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION
• Formed recommendation to Steering Committee on May 6, 2014
• Attendees: Saint Paul, S. St. Paul, Rosemount, Met Council, Dakota
County, Ramsey County, Metro Transit, MnDOT
42
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION PROCESS
KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
• Inclusion of real estate development analysis into evaluation
• Scale of development benefits to capital costs
• Roughly equal benefits for ridership, transportation objectives
• Recommendations for additional study
• Adoption process
43
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION
PROPOSED LPA
Robert Street Arterial BRT from Union Depot to Northern Service Center
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS – FURTHER STUDY
Robert Street Streetcar (consistent with St. Paul Streetcar Feasibility Study)
TH 52 Express Service
44
NEXT STEPS
June 2014
• Staff recommendation
• Collect public feedback
JulyDecember
2014
• Locally Preferred Alternative
decision/adoption process
• Public comment period
• Final Report
• Implementation Plan
45
QUESTIONS?
46