The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-02-05 PACKET 04.D.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # � � DATE 2/5/14 ' , PREPARED BY: Community Development Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ***************************�****�*************** COUNCI� ACTION REQUEST Consider authorizing the submission of a letter to the Red Rock Corridor Commission with the City's official response to the draft Alternative Analysis Update (AAU) prepared in 2013 for the Red Rock Corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Authorize the submission of the Red Rock Corridor AAU comment letter. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: � MEMO/LETTER:Memo from John M. Burbank dated 1/27/14 Draft AAU Comment Letter ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: AAU summary document Red Rock Corridor draft AAU Article from Twincities.com regarding the Red Rock Corridor ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS � �? `:� _ �� , # ��' � r� f' _ . �, , �' City Administrator � � c�5' �( Date *�***************************�****************** COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Cottage ./ Grove � P�ide ana prosPerity Meet TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: John M. Burbank, Senior Planner DATE: January 27, 2013 RE: Red Rock Corridor Alternative Analysis Update Public Comment Discussion In 2013, the City of Cottage Grove participated in the Red Rock Corridor Alternative Analysis Update (AAU) process, which was conducted by the Red Rock Corridor Commission. The study was completed by Stantec and managed by Washington County Transportation planners. The attached comment letter was prepared based on review of the draft AAU. Recommendation Authorize the submission of the Red Rock Corridor AAU comment letter. Cottage J Grove � Pride and PcOSPerity Meet February 6, 2014 Red Rock Corridor Commission Attention: Autumn Lehrke, Chair 11660 Myeron Rd Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Draft Red Rock AAU Public Comment — Cottage Grove The City Cottage Grove Council is supportive of the Commission's efforts to continue planning for future transit options that will meet the needs of the Red Rock Corridor and specifically Cottage Grove. As the City continues to grow and create housing and job opportunities, increased transit opportunities are envisioned as a key commponent of the future fabric of the community. The preferred Landon Village Transit site, which links the community to the corridor, is located adjacent to one of our prominent commercial districts and the City's business park. The current and previous comprehensive plans have recognized that the Red Rock Corridor will be a component of the City's future. The City of Cottage Grove had the opportunity to monitor and participate in the current Red Rock Corridor Alternatives Analysis Update (AAU) planning process. A similar participatory review was completed by the City when the original Alternatives Analysis (AA) was completed in 2007. The completion of the AAU is prudent because many things have changed related to the corridor since the completion of the original AA. The City of Cottage Grove would concur with the following statement found in the draft AAU report: "Based on technical information, current land use, growth projections, and the goals and objectives evaluation, it has been concluded that BRT is the alternative that is best aligned with the Red Rock Corridor Commission's approved objectives." The promotion of BRT as the preferred transit option clearly aligns with the Commission's goals and objectives that were used to guide the Alternative Analysis Update and can be found in the report and are included below: CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE • 12800 Ravine Parkway • Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 www.cottage-grove.org • 651-458-2800 • Fax 651-458-2897 • Equal Opportunity Employer Red Rock Corridor Commission Draft AAU Public Comment — Cottage Grove February 6, 2014 Page 2 of 4 � = � �� . . � �r � MOBILITY Goal: D'ieet the demou- strnted + forecnsted need of Corridor Com- nuuuties 1. Trausit ti�ue that is couipetirive to the piiv�te automoUile. 2. Relir�Ule sei�rice 3. Improve moUilin> for tvork/non-work. 4. r4u�n�izes riderslup for evei;��one. 5. Couuect to other trlu- sit/pedestiia►i/Uil:e �v1,y � COST Goal: Cost effecrivelv nddress h�vispoi�tntiou proUleuis ui Corizdor � +2. Keep these h�flnsit route costs and clpitfll costs compm�able to sitni- lnr systeuis witl�in regiou. 3. Keep cost effective ness iudependent of oflier trinsportatiou uieaus. � �' .'.' �Tpi1tTB�@ ECOi4�,�t.�iiC; �)EVEL�Pf=;1EC�! i Goz►I: Iucrense opporhmiries f01' L.'011llllilllll�' � ECO110ll11C. Development iu Corridor �. Support local initiatives to cre<1te livel�*, pedestrilu-fi7encllS� Trausit-Oiieuted Developmeuts. 2. Support Uusiness conuiiwiiq� Uv increasing access U�� workers and customeis «�ithiu corridor. 3. Iucre�se generll comiectiv- ity� vid lccess to � from �vhere people li��e £� �vorl:. -1- � ENVIRONIvIENT Gonl: Impro��e qunlih� Of N7itlil't11 RIl(1 Bi11�Y E' IlVll'O11I11Qllt � . L'uuit uegative iui- pacts to nariu•�1, culhu•- nl, � other resources. 2. Reduce emissious. 3. Pro�zde a flir f� equi- t�ble distiibutiov of iui- plcts �nd benefits across various popiilations. 4. Adch•ess existing nnd fitture safety issues nloug flie corridor. Support of the report's findings can be clarified by reviewing the following graphs and tables found in the draft AAU: w 0 C w � N V ¢ � T � �E N N C '3 � ' s. � � o o � ug � O a 3 No Suild Ehpress Btis BRT Couiuiuter Rttil Ssoa $700 $600 $500 $40p $300 $200 $100 -- ---- �--- — _ . _ _ — �otnmut�r Rail So � _ , 0 50 _ _ - -- No Build _ - ' _� _ ----- - -- - � �Express Bus , - - �-- — �-- -- — , - ----, 0 1,OQ0 1,500 2,040 2,500 3,000 203a Daily Ridership $8,�40,000 $ii,69o,000 $4�,S1o,aoo $5g4,59o,000 R'a Buil� Express Bus BRT Connmute� Rai� � o0 �i,85o,aoa ��,y$1QsQ00 Red Rock Corridor Commission Draft AAU Public Comment — Cottage Grove February 6, 2014 Page 3 of 4 To improve transit opportunities for the general public within the corridor and region and increase ridership numbers, the City also supports the completion of activities related to the following ongoing strategies that are found in the report and listed below: 1. Advocate for integrated multi-modal investments including pedesfrian and bicycle facilities, rail, freight, highway and transit improvements fhat support mobility throughout the Red Rock Corridor. 2. Advocate for funding for mobility improvements along the corridor. This includes advocating for sustainable local and regional funding sources, as well as supporting and applying for funding at the Federal level. 3. Continue to monitor peak period capacity needs in the corridor to determine the timing for implementation of additional transit services, alternative modes, or capital improvements. The AAU currently identifies two options for the BRT transit station. The detail below identifies the two sites referenced in the draft AAU. :F :. � — • __ __ � t �� ' � � � .i '�' � ,�' 'A� _ t t 6 �1. T F� T - �„ �k� 3 a i � t � 5 � t `�� / �L��:Cf Li1��iij.i��lrlJ�d4 i' z �. `` - . - _ ,. - 4 ��: ' b _� »A � � �_� ��:��:��, � . . .,,+''' � , �! � ` . ��4' .s '� _�4 . � I: � ! . � t � � x � � �•��1 'e � .'1 r� N,rt��I�ru�t�i�l �;�f y � ,�� 2 's _. _- � - r .�f : �.. � � f ?;''� .. - ° �E � �i `� a�#j 1i �1n�eh•r.•-;in�i - N f � �Li;� Fr�J 3) �=�.a.�nii��.�;• �. . ��tt{u�1 _ �� i. � � _ t� . at * � i ,.,� ` - ,. -, F � � .� ,�„i...E �� F �enc;arl�r F�amr�f��rfp�� t� , _�i .� �� y ' ..} ' . ,'� � � �f�A� 'f�TG.4� Y ��.i. '-• , �.�T � "' , I '# 'a�`r�. �� • - �'�d ��f�'F.fa.♦ � �� - � #�'� .1��h s ♦� � �� _ �°4 � � �� 'dri, b 8t��t La1 r �' .� r.��:' I��> �; +1- , ' , ,.► ' ; . ,.. -� 'Y� ` f� �� ■ � 4 i .. � `� �. • e ..x � �`•„ �� ' 's � I�� .` t�.� �= i`•��'��` �11h1i ul u1�.!itl;j li - 1i�'—'i T i. F 7i' �� `� � �, � ,�` 'R� • � a �' � y � � .� � � _ ��ttaye:��u��tatic�:n+ �� 4 � ,�., �'� :�: � . •� �=�-�_t� .sv... �'`_ -. L _ 0 �'�ii�' '� . , : ; , ; r� ` , ticouihbo��t�d Sllp Rarn�� F • :it�le�Stati�n; __._ Based on the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan and existing land acquisition efforts completed in the Langdon Village neighborhood, the City strongly encourages any additional transit station planning for any mode of transit to occur in the Langdon area. The Station Area Planning Final Report, adopted by the Commission in 2012, identifies Langdon Village as the future transit station location in the Corridor. The City would expect the AAU to stay the course and recognize and reference that report. �4 (� �� __. •r . f �h +� {�i � F ' 1 r� F'F.�rnp: r hh�titi� � Crl � 1 y (z x J� f .�= I� ��--� . °`� � A( ��,� z '�.'; �� ' � ,�� „��'�" �,aulliti�nd� a �4s$. � 41:ci{ To summarize, the conclusions in the AAU finding that BRT is the alternative that is best aligned with the Red Rock Corridor Commission's approved objectives appear to be valid and the transit choice to promote in the near future. Red Rock Corridor Commission Draft AAU Public Comment — Cottage Grove February 6, 2014 Page 4 of 4 As time passes, the City encourages that additional studies be completed to review existing and future conditions. Building ridership is going to be a key factor in having commuter rail as the viable transit choice within the Red Rock Corridor. The City of Cottage Grove encourages the Commission and neighboring communities served by the Corridor to continue to complete the identified goals and objectives. These efforts will be crucial to building ridership and closing the identified capital and operating cost gap between BRT and commuter rail service options. Thank you for your efforts in the completion of this study. Sincerely, Myron Bailey Mayor �� K r �"rO RR1pOR � c��,r��in.� ,Qu.r � • � r�e� �.-� � � � Alternati�e Analysis Vpdate , Due to additional relevant information, the Alternative Analysis is being updated since it was first completed in 200�. ower Afton Road The REp ROCK CORRIpOR will be a 30-mile transitway that connects the � ��:�� .�� <:,� - ,r�� with MPLS/S*P � � `�'X� u �o,000+ ZO rears ewport .. � �� Cottage Grove This corridor is needed because the [Park n Ride/Langdon Village] SouthEast n��etro [� ; ; �� :� �€; � . ��t;�,�-_: - these people will need more choices to access employment opportunities Z Hastings = Prairie Island _ Red Wing �: [Possible extension] � AL1'ERNATIYE ANALYSIS is a process that helps narrow down the best options for this transportation connection. The goals and objectives that guide decision malcing: � i - �, ,_� ��. �� a, � � �—� �� ; �� : �e:i t: `" � ` '_ � i � MOBILITY Goal: Meet the demon- strated + forecasted need of Corridor Com- munides 1. Transit time that is competitive to the private automobile. 2. Reliable service 3. Improve mobility for worlc/non-work. 4. Ma�cimizes ridership for everyone. 5. Connect to other tran sit/pedestrian/bilce ways COST Goal: Cost effectively address transportation problems in Corridor � +2. Keep these transit route costs and capital costs comparable to simi- lar systems within region. 3. Keep cost effective- ness independent of other transportation means. ECONOMIC ��Vk!-��I'I��1f-:N I Goal: Increase opportunities for Community + Economic Development in Corridor �. Support local initiatives to create lively, pedestrian-friendly Transit-Oriented Developments. 2. Support business community by increasing access by worlcers and customers within corridor. 3. Increase general connectiv- ity and access to & from where people live & worlc. -1- ENVIRONMENT Goal: Improve quality of Natural and Built Environment � . Limit negative im- pacts to natural, cultur- al, & other resources. 2. Reduce emissions. 3. Provide a fair & equi- table distribution of im- pacts and benefits across various populations. 4. Address existing and future safety issues along the corridor. �� . CO RRI p0 R Alternative Analysis OP*IONS YNpER CONSIpERAT10N !�'- �-- ,/ NO BUILD Current conditions remain in place. Future changes assumed are that frequency of service would increase as ridership grows and that priority bus shoulder lanes would be added de- pending on traffic levels. ,� ,� , ;. , , ��.r S.�_suburbs Update = O EXPRESS BUS Bus routes maintained and peak-only express bus is added that would serve stations in Red Wing, Prairie Island, Hastings, & Newport. Priority bus shoulder lanes would be added de- pending on traffic levels � � � �:. ,' �� BUS RAPID TRANSIT Bus routes are maintained and a peak-only and mid- day service is provided via a BRT route from Hast- ings to St. Paul via the Union Depot. This alternative would include highway and station enhancements to improve ve- hicle speeds, reliability, and customer experience. REn �ti�"C a000 � 8 COMMUTER RAIL Replaces the current bus routes with peak-only cominuter rail ser- vice with stops at all existing and currently proposed stations. S E R V I C E L E V E L R ES U LTS of proposed alternatives with respect to stop location & frequency. NO BUILD EXPRESS BUS BRT COMMUTER 361 364 365 361 364 365 Overlay 361 364 365 BRT RAIL Downtown � Minneapolis ' Downtown St. Paul � � i (Union Depot) ' ' � Lower Afton Road ' � ' � � � i i � Newport � ♦ � � 30/-- � Cottage Grove ♦ : (Park n Ride) 30/-- 15/-- Cottage Grove (Langdon Village) Hastings Prairie Island Red Wing � � __ t I � i 1 � 30/-- � � 1 � � � �i � T � � ♦ i 30/-- � � 15/-- � � __ � 1 i � 1 � 1 1 � � 1 � � 1 1 � 30/-- � � � � i 1 � � 30, � 30/-- � � � 1 � i � � _ i 1•- �.;� __ .'._.._.�. � —.•--� -- � __- _._ . - _.r_��i� ! , --. _, _ - ----;�=-� � ... . _� � : - .-�1,��..._. � 15/15 � � . .e�-: , �� . _._..__ � � �'�/-- � Stations/Stops !? Potential Station/Stop p Stations/Stops with Highway Access Enhancements �� Peak Period Only Route � Route with Midday Service 15/30 Peak/Midday Headways -2- �� OCK CORRIpOR :;� ';: � ou S.E su.byrbs .� f��"`�`'f . . . Alternative Analysis Update EYALVA*ION RESYL*S Through a detailed evaluation, each goal and objective was analyzed. Here is the summary: � �.� �.� � Express Bus (Pealc Only) .e.., � f Current Conditions _ 1 RED �ti�"C� � O � O lower moderate higher performance performance performance TOTAL wlth Mobility Cost f>c- veloF.�r n��r� i Environment 40/40/10/10 �� . i Bus Rapid I• I� O Transit (BRT) f❑ /_ welghting I _ � �� Commuter „ • • o � � O ! O Rail (Peak �� Only) The column on the far right is a weighted composite of the four goals and indicates overall performance. RIDERSHIP vs 25-YEAR COST RESULTS Transportation investments need to be analyzed by the up front costs to construct them as well as the ongoing dollars needed to operate and maintain them. Comparing costs over 25 years is a way to test the economy of various transportation alternatives, telling us how much they might be able to serve us (ridership) and cost us (capital costs plus 25 years) during their lifetime. $soo o $�� N � � o $600 N � $500 � � a � $400 o � $300 � � $200 � � $1W V � 0 -3- 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2030 Daily Ridership �,��O,��K CORRIpOR , �,�,. - � o sub.ur�s �Alternative Analysis Update RED �tQ"C� RECOMMENpAT10NS Based on technical information, current land use, growth projections, and the goals and objectives evaluation, it has been concluded that BRT is the alternative that is best aligned with the Red Rocic Corridor Commission's approved objectives. This conclusion has been made in consultation with repre- sentatives on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and presented to the public in a variety of forums and media. As BRT is further evaluated for implementation, below are other broad and ongoing strate- gies that will be pursured by the Red Rocic Corridor Commission: � . Advocate for integrated multi-modal investments including pedestrian and bicycle facilities, rail, freight, highway and transit improvements that support mobility throughout the Red Rocic Corridor. 2. Advocate for funding for mobility improvements along the corridor. This includes advocating for sustainable local and regional funding sources, as well as supporting and applying for funding at the Federal level. COMMYNITY ENGAGEMEN* PER10p 3. Continue to monitor pealc period capacity needs in the corridor to determine the timing for implementation of addition- al transit services, alternative modes, or capital improve- ments. The Red Rocic Corridor Commission has released a draft AAU report and implementation plan based on the recommendation above. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU I I I Please provide your thoughts, comments, and questions by February 14, 2014. A public hearing on the AAU report/recommendation will be held at the beginning of the Red Rocic Corridor Commission meeting for people to express their thoughts in person. The meeting is scheduled: January 23rd, 2014 // Starting at 4:OOpm Cottage Grove City Hall [1280o Ravine Parlcway S, Cottage Grove, MN 55016] FOR MORE INFORMAI'ION PERSON Lyssa Leitner ph: 651-430-4300 email: lyssa.leitner@ co.washington.mn.us The Commission will reuiew all written and verbal com- ments before a final recom- mendation is approved. ONLINE • � � http://wwwxedrociccorridor.org/ � https://www.faceboolc. com/RedRocicCorridor -4- u � c � .� � ;J For Red Rock Coi�ridor, buses now favored over rail for Hastings-to-St. Paul route - Twin... Page 1 of 1 For Red Rock Corridor, buses now favored over rail for Hastings-to-St. Paul route ByElizabeth Mohremohr@pioneerpress.com TwinCities.com-PioneerPress Posted: TWIIlCIf12S.00171 It looks like commuters between Hastings and St. Paul may be riding buses, not trains, according to the latest study of the Red Rock Corridor. The updated alternatives analysis, completed this year and recently posted for public comment, examined the needs of commuters along the 30- mile transitway and the expected costs of various transit options. A 2007 analysis identified commuter rail as a front-runner for the area, based on projected ridership numbers and hope of a high-speed rail line from Chicago that might connect to the Twin Cities via Red Rock Corridor. But there have been a lot of changes since the last study, including recent ridership data from the Northstar commuter rail and a recent East Metro Rail Capacity Study, which indicated rail lines in the corridor were already constrained. With new data in hand, planners now say bus rapid transit is the way to go for the Red Rock Corridor. And with a capital cost of about $45 million, iYs significantly cheaper than the $584 million commuter rail option. The updated alternatives analysis is available for public comment, and there wiil be a public hearing Jan. 23. For more information, go to redrockrail.org. Talk of a commuter rail in the Red Rock Corridor began around the same time as planning for the Northstar line between Big Lake and Minneapolis. Red Rock was eyed as a potential second commuter line, but Northstar, which opened in 2009, remains the state's only commuter rail service, and the ridership numbers have been sluggish. The line currently averages about 2,700 weekday rides, not quite hitting the 3,400 daily rides that officials had hoped for by the one-year mark, and remains heavily subsidized. By comparison, the latest Red Rock Corridor analysis projects 1,640 daily rides for commuter rail or 2,420 daily rides for bus rapid transit. The annual operating costs for a commuter rail line would be about $5.7 miilion, versus $3.8 million for BRT. After the 2007 Red Rock study, efforts were taken to develop the Red Rock Corridor with an eye to future commuter rail service. Three express bus lines now shuttle commuters between Hastings and St. Paul/Minneapolis, and transit stations are being built. Though ridership numbers look unlikely to support a commuter rail -- for now -- a transit alternative is definitely needed for the corridor, according to the study. "The Metropolitan Council projects that by 2030, neariy the entire length of (U.S.) 61 in the Red Rock Corridor will be congested and operating at a Level of Service (LOS) F during the morning and evening commute periods," the updated study said. "As population and employment increase, demand for transportation increases and congestion will onlyget worse unless a transit solution is pursued." The latest study, which also considered commuters from Red Wing and Prairie Island, looked at four possible options: no build (current conditions), express bus, BRT and commuter rail. BRT was identified as the preferred option because it has the highest projected ridership numbers, high reliability, improved travel time (compared with current options), and lower construction costs than rail. Looking forward, the study recommends that the Red Rock Corridor Commission work to increase daily trips for existing bus services; make and advocate for transit and mobility improvements, like bike trails, along the corridor; continue to seek funding sources; and monitor commuter needs. A citizen advisory committee has been formed to help guide the corridor development process, and anyone who Iives or works along the corridor is encouraged to participate. The upcoming public hearing wili be at 4 p.m. Jan. 23 at Cottage Grove City Hall, 8020 SOth St. S. Elizabeth Mohr can be reached at 651-228-5162. Follow her at twitter.comlLizMohr. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_24791285/buses-not-commuter-rail-urged-study 1/23/2014 DRAFT REPORT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT PREPARED FOR: THE RED ROCK CORRIDOR COMMISSION (� 5tantec RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE �er 16, 2013 � � � S C� �t�C �� Prepared for: Red Rock Corridor Commission RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE 1 .� Funding Partners [Insert list of funding partners with logos] �`; Stantec RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Acknowledgements Red Rock Corridor Commission . . . . . . �� Q'.'r'+� Autumn Lehrke, Chair; Washington County Regional Railroad Authority Commissioner Jen Peterson, Vice-Chair; City of Cottage Grove Council Member Amy Brendmoen, City of St. Paul Council Member Keith Franke, City of St. Paul Park Mayor Steve Gallagher, City of Newport Council Member Cam Gordon, City of Minneapolis Council Member Linda Higgins, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Commissioner Barb Hollenbeck, City of Hastings Council Member Jim Keller, Denmark Township Town Board Supervisor Janice Rettman, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority Commissioner Mike Slavik, Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority Commissioner Ex-Officio Members: Goodhue County, Prairie Island Indian Community, City of Red Wing, Canadian Pacific Railway Project Management Team � • Stephen Baisden, Metro Transit • Lynne Bly, MnDOT • John Burbank, City of Cottage Grove • Chuck Darnell, Hennepin County • Bill Dermody, City of St. Paul • Andy Gitzlaff, Washington County • Jess Greenwood, Goodhue County • Deb Hill, City of Newport • John Hinzman, City of Hastings • Lyssa Leitner, Washington County • Marc Mogan, Prairie Island Tribal Community • Joe Morneau, Dakota County • Josh Olson, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority • Jay Owens, City of Red Wing • Melissa Taphorn, Washington County HRA • Scott Thompson, Metro Transit • Katie Walker, Hennepin County • Kevin Walsh, City of St. Paul Park • Katie White. Met Council � _ � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Citizens Advisory Committee • Skip Soleim • Mary Ann Newman • Emily White • Betsy Leach • Gregory Hanson • Ronald Toppin • Jonathan Jordan • Christy Edman • David Erickson • Shauna Klug • Julie Wickard • Mark Vaughan • Joe Chouinard • Jesse Warden • Linda Lehrke • Tom Mohr �� • Chris Simonson • Jerry Dooley • Commissioner Mike Slavik (liaison to Commission) • Commissioner Autumn Lehrke (liaison to Commission) Consulting Team Stantec Consulting Services Inc. • Cordelia Crockett • Jay Demma • Stuart Krahn • Marcus Kusuma • William Lambert • Graeme Masterton • David Schellinger • Tom Wolf Community Design Group • Theresa Nelson • Antonio Rosell • Benjamin Waldo • Kevin White �, `�� "'� �r .;�� Q'.'r'+� � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE 1 .� Supporting Documentation (available under separate cover and on the project website) l. Technical Memorandum #l: Background Review 2. Technical Memorandum #2: Vehicle Technologies 3. Technical Memorandum #3: Operating and Maintenance Cost Evaluation 4. Technical Memorandum #4: Capital Cost Evaluation a. Appendix A: Commuter Rail Cost Estimates for South of Hastings b. Appendix B: Bus Only Shoulder Lane Estimates for Highway 61 c. Appendix C: BRT Cost Estimates for Red Rock Corridor 5. Technical Memorandum #5: Ridership Evaluation 6. Technical Memorandum #6: Option Evaluation 7. Public Involvement Documentation �" Stante� iv RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Table of Contents �� Q'.'r'+� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1 1.l PURPOSE OF REPORT ..................................................................................................... 1.l 1.2 PROJECT HISTORY .......................................................................................................... 1.2 1.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................. 1.3 1.3.1 Project Management Team (PMT) ............................................................ 1.3 1.3.2 Red Rock Corridor Commission ................................................................. 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 � SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................2.3 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2.3 ROLEAND PURPOSE ...................................................................................................... 2.3 2013 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES ....................................................................... 2.4 2.3.1 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) .........................................................2.4 2.3.2 Listening sessions / Focus group meetings ...............................................2.4 2.3.3 Open house meetings ................................................................................ 2.5 2.3.4 Park and Ride Engagement ...................................................................... 2.5 2.3.5 Online Questionnaires ................................................................................. 2.5 2.3.6 Other web and online engagement ........................................................ 2.7 3.0 STUDY AREA BACKGROUND .......................................................................................3.8 3.1 OVERALL ......................................................................................................................... 3.8 3.2 DEMOGRAPHICS ............................................................................................................3.8 3.3 TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................ 3.10 3.4 TRANSIT .......................................................................................................................... 3.10 4.0 REGIONAL SYSTEM ....................................................................................................4.11 4.1 REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT ................................................................................4.1 1 4.1.1 Technical Memorandum #1 Background Review ...............................4.12 4.1.2 2012 - East Metro Rail Capacity Study .................................................... 4.12 4.1.3 2012 - Regional Transitway Guidelines .................................................... 4.12 4.1.4 2012 - Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis .....................................4.13 4.1.5 Transportation Policy Plan ........................................................................ 4.13 4.2 STATUS OF AREA PROJECTS ........................................................................................ 4.13 4.3 SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY ................................................................................................4.13 5.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ..........................................................................5.14 5.1 NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS .........................................................5.14 5.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................5.14 5.2.1 2013 Alternative Analysis Update Problem Statement ........................ 5.14 5.2.2 2013 Alternatives Analysis Update Goals and Objectives ...................5.14 6.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ...........................................................6.16 6.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ...............................................................................................6.16 � "°: RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE 1 .� 6.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................... 6.16 6.2.1 Express Bus Alternative .............................................................................. 6.16 6.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative .......................................................... 6.16 6.2.3 Commuter Rail Alternative ....................................................................... 6.17 6.3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES BY SERVICE LEVEL AND STATION COVERAGE........ 6.17 7.0 PROJECT RIDERSHIP AND TRAVEL TIME ANALYSIS ..................................................J.22 7.1.1 Corridor Districts, Characteristics, and Data Sets .................................. 7.22 7.1.2 Modeled Scenarios ................................................................................... 7.22 7.1.3 2030 Estimated Weekday Ridership ........................................................7.23 8.0 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS ......................................................................................8.24 9.0 ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS .................................................................................9.25 10.0 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PROCESS ...................................................................10.26 10.1 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................... 10.27 10.2 MOBILITY EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 10.28 10.2.1 Travel Time ................................................................................................ 10.29 10.2.2 Reliability ...................................................................................................10.29 10.2.3 Service Hours ............................................................................................ 10.29 10.2.4 Daily Ridership .......................................................................................... 10.29 10.2.5 Coverage ................................................................................................. 10.29 10.3 COST EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 10.30 10.3.1 Capital Cost ............................................................................................. 10.31 10.3.2 Annual OandM Cost ............................................................................... 10.31 10.3.3 Ability to Fund .......................................................................................... 10.31 10.4 DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION .................................................................................... 10.32 10.4.1 Service to Support TOD ........................................................................... 10.32 10.4.2 Increase in Access to Businesses ........................................................... 10.33 10.4.3 Increase in Access to Population Centers ........................................... 10.33 10.5 ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION .................................................................................... 10.34 10.5.1 Historic and Natural Environment Impacts .......................................... 10.34 10.5.2 Reduction in Emission .............................................................................. 10.34 10.5.3 Equitable Distribution of Impacts ........................................................... 10.35 10.5.4 Infrastructure Impacts to Address Safety ............................................. 10.35 10.6 SUMMARY SCORES .................................................................................................... 10.35 11.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ..........................................................................................11.37 1 1.l STAGE ONE ................................................................................................................. 1 1.38 1 1.2 STAGE TWO ................................................................................................................. 1 1.39 1 1.3 STAGE THREE ............................................................................................................... 1 1.39 LIST OF TABLES Table 2: 2030 Estimated Ridership Summary ........................................................................ 7.23 Table 3: Capital Cost SummarY ($2013) ...............................................................................8.24 � _ � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Table 4: Operations and Maintenance Cost Summary ($2013) .... Table 8: Criteria for Cost Goal ............................................................ Table 9: Cost Criteria Scores ............................................................... Table 10: Criteria for Development Goal .......................................... Table 1 1: Development Criteria Scores ............................................. Table 12: Criteria for Environment Goal ............................................ Table 13: Environment Criteria Scores ............................................... Table 14: Summary Scores ................................................................... �� Q'.'r'+� ........ 9.25 ...... 10.30 ...... 10.31 ...... 10.32 ...... 10.33 ...... 10.34 ...... 10.35 ...... 10.36 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Questionnaire Result: Current Travel Needs ........................................................... 2.7 Figure 2: Questionnaire Result: Usefulness of All-Day Service .............................................. 2.7 Figure 3: Evaluation Summary of Red Rock Corridor Alternatives .................................. 10.36 Figure 4: Cost versus Ridership of Red Rock Corridor Alternatives .................................. 10.37 �" Stantec � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE 1 .� Executive Summary Introduction The results of the Alternati� Anal��sis Update (AAU) stud�� indicate that eatending bus ser��ice to Dalcota Count�-, proinoting inore dense de� around transit stations, ��-orking to��-ard more all-da�- ser«ce options, further e� of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternati�-e, and continued ad��ocacti� for inobilit� in��estments in rail capacit3� to support all-dati� transit ser��ice are the needed steps for building a stronger transit Uase in the Corridor to ser��e a gro��ing transit marlcet. This recommendation reflects a staged approach to building transit ser�-ices in the Red Rock Corridor. The process that led to this conclusion is detailed in this AAU. Purpose of Report This Alternatiee Analti�sis Update (AAU) project builds upon the pre«ous 200� Alternatives Analysis (AA) b�� updating pertinent sections and pro� ne�� anal�-sis of BRT as an alternati� The purpose is not to start froin scratch, but to carefully re� incorporate, and update in light of inore recent census and ridership data in order to create a current and uniform basis for the analti-sis. Ultimatelti the goal of the AAU is to position the Red Rocl: Corridor for the neat steps, including potential funding through the FTA Ne�� Starts or Small Starts and identif��ing the path to��-ard implementation. Project History In the i99os, commuter rail ser��ice began being planned for the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and the Red Rock Corridor ��-as included in this earlti� planning �� ork as a potential commuter rail corridor. Subsequentlj�, high-speed rail �vas being considered for the region �ti�th potential ser� through the Red Rock Corridor en route to Chicago. In 200�, the Red Rocic Corridor Alternati��es Analti�sis (AA) ��as de��eloped as an initial phase in attaining federal funding for future cominuter rail ser�-ice. This anal��sis concluded that coinmuter rail ��-as appropriate for the long term, especiall�� in the e�-ent that high speed rail ��as introduced into the corridor and pro�-ided a potential mechanism for reducing capital costs. The anal� recommended that coinmuter bus ser� Ue de� in tlie sliort-term to build transit deinand. The results of the alternati��es anal�-sis led to the stud�� of cominuter bus ser� in the Corridor and station area planning ��-ork based around a long-term plan for commuter rail ser��ice. Ho�-4-e��er, other regional planning �� led b� the Metropolitan Council, such as the 2008 Transit Master Stud�- and the 2oio Parlc-and-Ride Studti�, and ongoing de�-elopments in the corridor reopened the door for additional studj� to ree��aluate ��-hether commuter rail is the appropriate in��estment for the corridor, ��iewing the potential ridership as lo�� for the potential costs, unless those costs ��-ere shared ��-ith another capital in�-estinent, such as high speed raiL In addition, the East Metro Rail Capacit5- Stud� identified existing � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE 1 .� capacit3 constraints ��-ithin the rail sti �vhich �vould Ue further strained if commuter rail ser��ice �vas added to the corridor. Finallti�, the Transportation Policti� Plan adopted in No� 2oio and amended in Ma�� 2oi3 identifies the Red Rock Corridor as Ueing ser� U�� BRT, LRT, or commuter rail. Therefore, in light of the ongoing con� in the Region as to the future transit ser«ces in the Red Rocic Corridor, an update to the pre� completed Alternati� Anal��sis �-�-as undertalcen. Project Management Management of the AAU process �ti�as o��erseen b5- se��eral committees. A project management team consisting of staff from cities and counties along the Corridor, the Metropolitan Council, Metro Transit, MnDOT, and the Prairie Island Indian Cominunitti inet inonthl�� to re��ie�� progress and pro�-ide technical guidance. A Citizens Ad� Committee made up of representati� of communities along the Corridor met at lce�- inilestones during the studj and ser� as liaisons to their respecti� comrnunities. The Red Rock Corridor Commission, an ii-inember committee of elected officials from each cit�- and count�- along the Corridor, pro��ided o��ersight and direction of the studti�. Study Area Background The bacicground component of the AAU focused on updated data for tra��el, population, emplo�ment, and transportation ser� in a Corridor that has been eatended south from Hastings to Red Wing, including a potential stop in the Prairie Island Indian Communit� In the � since the 200� AA, there also ha� been updates to the regional population and emplo5 forecasts, and actual data is a� on the pei-formance of coinmuter rail in the Region «a Northstar. BRT planning in the Region has also progressed such that a BRT line began operation in the METRO Red Line BRT (Cedar A� corridor in 2oi3. Regional System While a background re� is important for an�- major transportation stud�� to establish a foundation for analti it ��-as particularl� important for the Red Rock Alternati� Anal��sis Update (AAU). This is because se� studies ��ith similar purposes ha�-e alread� been completed, including the original Red Rocl: Cori~idor Alternatives Anal�-sis that �vas coinpleted in 200�. To a�-oid an�� re��-orlc, the inforination these documents contain and the frame�h orlc theti� created for the AAU had to Ue full� understood. In addition, inan�- compleinentar� studies and transportation initiati� ha� occurred since the 200� AA so these ��-ere incorporated into the AAU as ��-e11. Keti studies include the Station Area Planning Reports �-4-hich �-4-ere coinpleted in 2oi2, the transportation sections of comprehensi� plans for communities in the stud� area including Hastings, Ne��port, Cottage Gro�-e, Saint Paul Park, Woodburti-, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, man�- of ��hich ��ere completed in 2010, and planning and anal��sis ��-orlc related to passenger rail and freight rail in the East Metro Area. Ke3- projects that ha�-e been completed since the 200� AA that impact the AAU include Northstar Coininuter Rail, the METRO Red Line BRT (Cedar A� the Green Line LRT (Central Corridor) that ��ill begin ser� in 2oi4, the reno�-ated Union Depot, the ne�� Hastings bridge, and the Ne��-port Transit Station and parlc and ride facilitti- �� Ue completed in 2oi4. � ,_ dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Purpose and Need for Project �� Q'.'r'+� The 200� Red Rocic Alternati�-es Anal� focused hea� on issues related to peal: hour mobilit� to the St. Paul and Minneapolis do��ito��is. Additional analti is needed to better understand historical, current and future transit inarlcets in the corridor, including off-pealc and re��erse coinmute ser��ice demand, local access demand, railroad access, ne�v station locations, connections to ne�1� transit ser� le��el of ser«ce, and efficient use of transportation infrastructure. Cominunities in the Red Rocic corridor bet�4�een St. Paul and Cottage Gro� do not currentl� ha��e all-da� fixed route transit ser� �� ser� limited to peak period express bus and dial-a-ride ser� Coininunit�- ineinbers and the Coininission expressed a desire for more off-pealc/all dati- transit service ��ith more access. Based on the needs of the Corridor that ��-ere identified and discussed through the public in� and o�-erall stud�- process, the Red Rock Corridor Commission's goals for the project are to: • Pro«de mode choice and ser��ce plan that meets the demonstrated and forecasted needs of Corridor communities • Cost effecti� address transpoi~tation needs in the Corridor �� • Increase opportunities for communit�- and economic de� throughout the Corridor • Impro�Te qualit� of natural and Uuilt en«ronment Public Involvement � � � Public engagement is a critical component of the Red Rock Corridor AAU. Numerous engagement acti�-ities �h-ere completed as part of this �� the goal of maximizing the opportunit� for members of the general public, for ci� organizations, and for current transit riders to offer their opinions and guidance to the Corridor Commission and the project team. Se� methods for engageinent ��ere used to pro«de multiple a��enues for recei� public guidance. Specific acti��ities included the con��ening of a Citizens Ad� Committee (CAC), listening sessions with ke�- stakeholder groups, open house meetings ��ith the public, targeted engagement of parlc and ride users, and online questionnaires. A suinmar�- of all the public in��ol��ernent �vork done for the AAU is attached to this document. � �I ��,� , _ � _. ti. �' I , � � -- .� � �� . � �� . _ ,- � �� _ _ _Q _��_ ,� _ , � - . r �-- � � �� - � � i. � �� , � { F � �-, ,� � , - „�,, � � I �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx III RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE 1 .� Description of Alternatives Evaluated Based on an initial screening anal� the technolog�- and alignment alternati�-es identified for further e��aluation �ti�ere coinbined into se� build alternati��es. These build alternati�-es ��-ere subjected to inore detailed quantitati� anal��sis (ridership, capital costs and operational costs) to help identifti a preferred alternati��e. For purposes of comparison, a No-Build Alternati� �vas also de� Each of the alternati�-es is described belo�� follo��-ed b�- a graphic that illustrates their station co�-erage and ser� le�-e1. • Tlie No-Build Alteruative is based on the Metropolitan Council's 203o Plan. It consists of existing Uus routes and also contains the follo��-ing major projects: Northstar Commuter Rail, Green Line LRT (Central Corridor), and South��-est Corridor LRT. In this alternati� Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are maintained as the primar3- transit ser� in the Red Rock Corridor. • In the Express Bus Alternative, Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are maintained and the corridor is ser� b� an additional peak period limited stop express bus route that stops in Red Wing, Prairie Island, Hastings, and Ne`� Uefore continuing to Union Depot and Miimeapolis. This route � pro«des 3o-minute head�hratis during the peak periods. Reliabilit�- enhancements are offered in the forin of bus-onl� shoulder lanes in congested areas. • For the BRT Alternative, Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are maintained and the corridor is ser� b�- a BRT route using special BRT Uuses and stations. The BRT route operates largele on High�� 61 � bet��-een Hastings and Union Depot It operates at i5-minute head��a3 throughout the da5�; froin about 6am to iopm. Passengers ��shing to tra� to Mimleapolis can use eaisting express bus routes or transfer to the Green Line or other bus routes at Union Depot. Travel time and reliabilit� enhancements are pro� in the form of bus-onl� shoulder lanes and direct access infrastructure to the Cottage Gro� and Lo��-er Afton Road Park and Rides. • In the Commuter Rail Alternative, Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are discontinued and the corridor is sereed bti coinmuter rail. This route operates on eaisting rail rights of �ti�a5- bet�n-een Red Wing and Do�ti�ito�� Minneapolis. There are 3o-minute head��-a� during the peak periods. �, `� �`,�� « ; � _� g dj v:\ 1938\active\ 193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx I V RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Summary of Alternatives by Service Level and Station Coverage No Build Express Bus BRT Commuter Station Name 361 364 365 361 364 365 Overlay 361 364 365 BRT Rail Downtown • Minneapolis ' T Downtown St. Paul � � � (Union Depot) � 1 1 � — 1--�—�— LowerAfton Road ; � * 1 1 1 � 1 7 � Newport � ♦ � 1 � 1 30/ � � 1 Cottage Grove • � (Park n Ride) 30/-- 15/-- Cottage Grove (Langdon Vlllage) Hastings Prairie Island Red Wing � � � � 1 �' j • 1 1 � 1 �1'—'1 �� 1 1 1 * 1 1 1 � 1 T T � 7 1 � � � 1 30/-- .�. � � � i � + 1 30/-- 15/-- � I 1 1 � 1 � � � 1 1 � 30/— Projected Ridership and Travel Time Analysis � � �' �'— ••i � 1 1 � 1 — 1 — 1" � 1 * � 1 1 � 1 1 I` j 1 � j � 1 30/ � I, � 1 I • + 1 30/ 15/ � 1 � 15,15 � 1 � � 1 1 � 30/-- � �� Q'.'r'+� � Stations/Stops O Stations/StopswithHighway Access Enhancements � PotentialStatlon/Stop --- PeakPeriodOnlyRoute � RoutewithMiddayService 15�30 Peal</MiddayHeadways � Tra� demand is an integral part in anal� ridership and tra� times. An automated method of ridership calculation, using the T�ti-in Cities Regional Tra� Demand Model, ��-as used to de�-elop forecasts for an initial set of transit ser«ce scenarios, and a manual inethod of ridership calculation �vas used to de�-elop forecasts for the four alternati�-es carried for�vard in the AAU. These forecasts are inclusi� of all ser� The 203o dai1�- �veekda�- ridership results for the four e� alternati� are summarized as follo��s: No Build Express Bus BRT Commuter Rail i,310 1,560 2�420 1,640 �" Stantec dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx v RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Estimated Capital Costs �� Q'.'r'+� Cost information �vas gathered from recent and rele�-ant studies, such as the Gate��-a� Corridor AA and the 200� Red Rocic Corridor AA. Original opinions of probaUle cost ��ere de�-eloped ��here there ��-ere gaps, and details of these estimates are pro��ided in Technical memorandum #4 and the appendices to that memo. A 3.5% amival escalation rate �1�as used to estimate costs in 2013 dollars. The follo��-ing table summarizes the capital cost estimates of the four alternati� cari�ed foi-��ard in the AAU. The capital costs associated ��ith the No Build alternati��e include the purchase of additional ��ehicles to pro��ide more frequent ser��ice on t��-o of the three routes ser� the corridor and the construction of bus-oniti� shoulder lanes. No Build $8,540,000 Express Bus $11,690,000 BRT $45,8io,000 � � Commuter Rail $5 f /r � Ir Estimated Operating Costs � � Operating cost information �� gathered from recent and rele��ant studies, such as the Gate�� Corridor AA, the inost recentlti completed AA in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. It should be emphasized that these estimates on1�- reflect �� ser� for the sal:e of comparabilit� among the alternati�-es. A 3•5 � annual escalation rate ��-as used to estimate costs in 2oi3 dollars. The follo��-ing table suimnarizes the OandM cost estimates of the four alternati��es e�-aluated in the AAU. No Build Express Bus BRT Commuter Rail Alternatives Evaluation Process $1,340,000 $1,850,000 $3�810,000 $ -rj�']00�000 A set of e� criteria ��-ere de�-eloped to reflect the appro� goals and objecti� of the AAU. The criteria fall into four categories related to mobilit�-, cost, de��elopment, and en«ronment, ��hich are summarized as follo��-s: � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\ 1938\active\ 193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx V I RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE �� Q'.'r'+� • Mobilit� has fi��e criteria: tra�-e1 time, reliability�, ser��ice hours, dail� ridership, and co�-erage. Dail�� ridership ��as considered the most important of the criteria and ��-eighted the highest. • The Cost goal has three criteria: capital costs, operating and maintenance (OandM) costs, and abilitti� to fund. The capital and OandM cost criteria �� gi��en equal iinportance, �tihereas the aUilit� to fund �vas `veighted the lo`vest. • The De�-elopment goal has three criteria: ser«ce to support transit-oriented de� (TOD), create and expand emplo5-ment opportunities, and increase in access to population centers. Supporting TOD �n�as gi��en the highest weight of the three criteria. • En«ronment has four criteria: historic and natural impacts, reduction in emissions, equitable distribution of irnpacts, and safet� All four criteria ��-ere weighted similarlj�. Once the criteria ��-ere defined for each goal, then the four alternati�-es ��-ere e� against the criteria. The No Build alternati�-e �vas the highest rated in the Cost categor��, but faired inore poorl5 in the Mobilit�� and De��elopment categories. The Express Bus rated �-�-ell in the Cost and En��ironment categories, but performed more poorl� in the Mobilit� and De� categories. The BRT alternati� achie� the highest scores o�-era11 based on strong scoi�ng in each of the four categories. The Commuter Rail alternati��e o�-era11 performed the most poorly due to �-erp lo�v scores in the Cost categories. � Belo�h is a summar� of the o� score for each alternati� and ho�� it performed `�-ithin each goal categor5�. The inore filled in the pie the higher the le� of performance. �YA.LWA�Tl+DI� FrESL�IL�� : E�':�=ra _i��_ti r-r._ �� ,� � � � � �C � c , 1 � _ - tv4Q�11!�V _ a:1 I � � � � � � � �.�'J � � � � r�,u.,,� +wtwi�atw -«� � � � � � � � � � � � « . ,. _ . y -.��:1 � : ; . ,�,�r,,,,..� � � � � � �_�� I I � 3�1-�� '4vl�AA:_ W�'YS �4 3�.1. .tl.� ._ � � b al.'='w L�r � _ � ��. �h� fca� g�� n�dicat� c�� p�es�rzr�c�, �" Stantec dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx vii RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Implementation Plan and Recommendations �� Q'.'r'+� Based on technical information, current land use and gro�� projections, and the goals and objecti� e��aluation from the AAU, it has been concluded that BRT is the alternati��e that is best aligned ��-ith the Red Rock Corridor Commission's approved objectives. This conclusion has been made in consultation �n-ith representati� on the Citizens Ad��isor�- Committee (CAC) and presented to the public in a� of forums and media. In mo��ing for��ard `tiith the de� of BRT, the Red Rocic Corridor Commission `tiill pursue a staged implementation plan. These stages are such that actions and impro�-ements for Stage i��ill need to be iinpleinented before Stage 2 actions and iinpro��ements begin and, lilce��se, Stage 2 actions and iinpro��einents �-�-i11 need to be impleinented before Stage 3 actions and impro��ements begin. In conjunction ��-ith the actions and impro� in each of the three stages, there are other broad and ongoing strategies that ��ill be pursued b�� the Red Rocic Corridor Commission. The�� are: i. Ad� for integrated multi-modal in�-estments including pedestrian and bic��cle facilities, rail, freight, highway and transit iinpro�-ements that support inobility throughout the Red Rocic Corridor. Ad� for funding for mobilit� impro� along the corridor. This includes ad� for sustainable local and regional funding sources, as well as supporting and appl��ing for funding at � the Federal le� 3. Continue to monitor pealc period c�pacit3� needs in the corridor to deterinine the timing for iinplementation of additional transit ser� alternati��e modes, or capital irnpro��einents. � . dj v:\ 1938\active\ 193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx V I I I RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Introduction December 16, 2013 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT As the T��-in Cities Metropolitan Area continues to gro��- and e� so do the transportation needs of its residents. Since the pre�-ious Red Rocic Corridor Alternati� Aual�-sis (AA) �ti�as completed in 200�, this region has had the benefit of additional information «a the 2oio Census and a ne�� tra� beha� in� sur� It has also experienced economic and demographic adjustments. O��er the past fi� ��ears, the T��in Cities Metropolitan Area has begun implementing a��ariet�- of transit impro� including the Northstar Corridor cominuter rail and the METRO Red Line BRT (Cedar A�-enue) projects. Through these projects, the region has gained � insight into ho�h- these t��es of transit ser� perform. A re� of the 200� AA and suUsequent planning docuinents suggests that the areas that need to be focused on for the Alternati��es Anal�Tsis Update include: • Exploring BRT / Express Bus concepts for the Red Rocic Corridor that use bus-oniti shoulders and other transit "advantages" given work done since ?oo� on TH 6i and else`vhere • Verifti-ing the tra�-e1 demand that is ser��ing as the basis for the ridership estiinates gi� ne�v census information, a ne�v discussion of the proposed catchinent areas, economic data, and the affirming of station locations • Greater understanding of rail capacit�� needs in light of the East Metro Rail Studti� • Updating forecasts and cost estimates based on Noi~thstar Commuter Rail ser�-ice and planning ��-ork done to date on the METRO Red Line BRT (Cedar A��enue) • Explore ne��- federal requirements related to funding and safet�� • Explore other potential funding sources • Updated information related to Union Depot • Updated information from recent Comprehensi��e Plans � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx �. � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Introduction December 16, 2013 This Alternati��e Analti�sis Update (AAU) project Uuilds upon the pre��ious AA bti� updating pertinent sections and pro� ne�h� analti�sis of BRT as an alternati� The purpose is not to start from scratch, but to carefull�- re«e�n-, incorporate, and update in light of more recent census and ridership data in order to create a current and uniform basis for the anal� Ultimatel��, the goal of the AAU is to position the Red Rock Corridor for the ne�t steps, including potential funding through the FTA Ne��- Starts, Small Starts, or Ver� Small Starts programs, and identif5�ng the path to��ard implementation. 1.2 PROJECT HISTORY In the i99os, there ��as a push in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area for cominuter rail ser�ice, and MnDOT became the lead agenc�� for commuter rail planning efforts. This resulted in earl�� planning for a commuter rail net�-�-orlc and led to the e� creation of the Northstar Coinmuter Rail ser��ice. The Red Rocic Corridor �ti�as included in this ear13- planning �1-ork as another potential commuter rail corridor. Mean��-hile, high-speed rail ��-as being considered for the greater Mid�vest region. The proposed net��-ork of high speed lines included a linl: bet�� Chicago and St. Paul. An initial stud3- assumed that this linl: would tra�-e1 through Rochester, but gi� the potential s� bet�n�een high-speed rail in�-estinents and coinmuter rail in� the high-speed rail ser��ice ��as soon assumed to be using the Red Rocic Corridor. In 200�, the Red Rocl: Corridor Alternati� Analysis �� de��eloped as an initial phase in attaining federal funding for future coininuter rail ser��ice. This anal� concluded that commuter rail �� appropriate for the long term, especiall5� in the e� ent that high speed rail was introduced into the corridor �nd provided a mechanism for reducing capit�l costs. The anal��sis recommended that commuter bus ser� be de� in the short-term to build transit demand. The results of the alternati� anal�-sis led to the stud�- of commuter bus ser� in the Corridor and station area planning ��-ork based around a long-term plan for commuter rail ser«ce. Ho��-e� other regional planning �vorlc led Uti� the Metropolitan Council, such as the 2008 Transit Master Stud�� and the 2oio Parlc-and-Ride Studti�, and ongoing de��elopments in the corridor reopened the door for additional studj to ree�-aluate �� coinmuter rail is the appropriate in�-estment for the corridor, � the potential ridership as lo�� for the potential costs, unless those costs ��-ere shared ��zth another capital in��estinent, such as high speed rail. In addition, the East Metro Rail Capacit5 Studti identified eaisting capacit3- constraints �n-ithin the rail s�-stein ��-hich ��-ould be further strained if commuter rail ser� ��-as added to the cori~idor. Finallti�, the Transportation Polic�� Plan adopted in No��einber 2oio and amended in Ma�- 2oi3 identifies the Red Rocic Corridor as being ser�-ed b�- BRT, LRT, or commuter rail. Therefore, in light of the ongoing con� in the Region as to the future transit ser� in the Red Rocic Corridor, an update to the pre�-iousl� coinpleted Alternati� Anal�-sis ��as undertalcen. � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx �.2 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Summary of Public Involvement December 16, 2013 1.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.3.1 Project Management Team (PMT) �a �+4�:�:� At the outset of the AAU process, a Project Manageinent Team ��-as established to pro��ide an opportunit5 for input bj local and regional staff into the planning process. This group met on a monthlj- basis. Citizens Ad«sor� Coinmittee (CAC) The Citizens Ad� Committee (CAC) includes representati� frorn all of the comrnunities `tiithin the corridor. CAC members ha� �� to transmit information back-and-foi~th bet��-een the project team, the Project Manageinent Teain (PMT), the Red Rocic Corridor Cominission, and their respecti�-e coinmunities. T��o meetings ha��e alread� been held �� the CAC, �-�-ith a third and final meeting to be scheduled to discuss final project results and recei��e CAC guidance. 1.3.2 Red Rock Corridor Commission The Red Rocl: Corridor Commission is coinprised of ii memUers representing the counties and cominunities within the corridor. In addition to the 1i memUers, representati� from Goodhue Count�-, the citj of Red Wing, Prairie Island Indian Communit� and the Canadian Pacific Rail�� ser� as ex- officio members. �� 2.1 Summary of Public Involvement INTRODUCTION � r � Public engageinent is an iinportant component of the Red Rocic Corridor Alternati��es Anal� Update (AAU). Numerous engagement acti��ities ha�-e been coinpleted as part of this ��-orlc, ��-ith the goal of m�imizing the opportunit3- for members of the general puUlic, for ci«c organizations, and for current transit riders to offer their opinions and guidance to the Corridor Coinmission and the project teain. Se�-era1 methods for engagement, including use of in-person and online engagement, ha�-e been used to pro«de multiple a� for recei� public guidance. This follo��zng pro��ides an outline of the eleinents, approach and timeline for partner and coimnunit�- engageinent that ha� been included and implemented as part of the Red Rocic Corridor AAU. 2.2 ROLE AND PURPOSE The purpose of engagement acti��ities included in this project is to: . Foster communitti� understanding of the transit alternati�-es being considered, . Disco� the characteristics of transit ser��ice that are iinportant to participants, . Gain information that ��ill help update the «sion and direction for the project, and . Pro��ide a foundation for project recommendations. � "'�;��: �„� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 2.3 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Summary of Public Involvement December 16, 2013 2.3 2013 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES �a �+4�:�:� Se� tools and forums for cominunit�� engagement ha�-e been set up and implemented for this project. A listing, ��ith a brief description of each, is pro«ded belo��. 2.3.1 Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) The Citizens Ad� Committee (CAC) includes representati�-es from all of the communities ��ithin the corridor. CAC meinbers ha�-e �h-orked to transinit information bacic-and-forth bet�n�een the project team, the Project Management Team (PMT), the Red Rocic Corridor Commission, and their respecti� coinmunities. T��-o ineetings ha�-e alreadti- been held ��ith the CAC, ��ith a third and final ineeting to be scheduled to discuss final project results and recei��e CAC guidance. 2.3.2 Listening sessions / Focus group meetings Listening Sessions are focused meetings that allo��- the project teain to host deeper con� ��ith a smaller group of participants, and recei� detailed information froin stakeholders with a common interest or affiliation (for example, members of a cultural or communit�- group, inembers of a local chamber of comrnerce or a civic group ��%ith an interest in the project). Four listening sessions �� held during April 2013. These sessions �� set up to engage ci� groups and organizations �ti-orlcing along the Corridor. Session hosts `��ere: . Red Wing 20/20 (held Apri13, 2oi3) . Prairie Island Tribal Council (held April io, 2013) . Ne`vport Planning Commission (held April ii, 2oi3) . Hastings Chamber of Commerce (held April i6, 2oi3) �� _ � _ �� ` �� q t�,u+,��r"� :; .�. � f f�M � 4�. .�.� �„ +�/��A 1�� t�°� � F�: � >>�, �� _ � :�� k � � � � �/. � �� dj v:V 938\activeV 93801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 2.4 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Summary of Public Involvement December 16, 2013 2.3.3 Open house meetings �a �+4�:�:� Open house meetings pro�ide an opportunit3 for members of the public to recei�-e project information, express preferences, and aslc questions froin the project team. One public open house meeting �h�as held on March i9, 2oi3 at the St. Paul Parl: Citti Ha1L The ineeting �-vas open to the general public, and ��-as also attended bj project staff, elected officials, a member of the Red Rock Corridor Commission, and se� ineinbers of the local inedia. One additional public open house meeting, to serve as a public hearing for the project's results, is en�isioned at the conclusion of the AAU. 2.3.4 Park and Ride Engagement One of the best ��-a�-s to solicit ideas and opinions for impro�-ing a s3-stem is to aslc current users of that s��stem. To pro��ide additional opportunit�� to gather comments from members of the public, and to recei� guidance from current s� users on the issue of enhanced transit ser«ce in the Red Rocic Corridor, a total of four "tabling" sessions were held at the two Metro Transit Park and Ride locations along the U.S. High�� 6i/Red Rocic Corridor bet�� Cottage Gro� and Saint Paul. The sessions �cere held during `� morning and e� hours �� transit riders �1-ere using the facilities. Acti�ities included sur� and Urief conversations at a pop-up inforination station during tiines of Express Bus ser� Approximately 20o persons �� reached ��-ith this engagement Metro Transit Ea�ress Bus routes 36i / 36iB (Cottage Gro� to Do�>�1to��Ti St. Paul), and g65 (Cottage Gro�-e to Do�nTntown Minneapolis), pro�-ide ser��ice to these locations. � 2.3.5 Online Questionnaires O� t�n-o sets of questionnaire t5�pes `vere de� for specific audiences. The first set, deplo5�ed near the Ueginning of the project, sought to recei�-e public guidance on the characteristics of transit that ��-ere inost iinportant to respondents and that ��ould attract thein to becoine users of the sti The second set of questionnaires sought to recei�-e public guidance on ser��ice characteristics and different tradeoffs associated with the alternati��es that had mo� for��-ard in the Technical Anal� portion of this �1-orlc. �'� .`� � � �� ,� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 2.J� RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Summary of Public Involvement December 16, 2013 �a �+4�:�:� A complete set of results from the questionnaires are included as an appendix. The first online sur�-ej� aslced participants to ranlc their top 5 most important transit ser��ice characteristics for the Red Rocic Corridor. A suininarj- of responses is belo��-. Gharacteristics for Red Racl� Gorridrsr Transit Service ta �p io Aggregate scoRe far responses � T�vo ke�� findings from second set of questionnaires are summarized in the follo��ing graphs (note that the sainple sizes ��-ere not large enough for these to Ue considered statisticallj- significant sur� When asked about current travel needs, a majoriry of Park and Ride respondents indicated "peak/direct" service, ��-hich is not surprising gi� that is the oniti t3 of transit ser� currentl� a��ailaUle in the corridor. Nonetheless, a significant percentage also indicated a need for inore frequent ser� throughout the da3�. The on-line respondents �� more in-line in terms of their need for "All-Da�' service whether it was direct to the do��-nto��-ns or connected each cit3� in the corridor. � . _<`_;, � _� �� 5peed of servlce Rvaila6ility thr��ghnut the ca�� Relic.ble sche�,a e Frequenc}� cfi service Automfl6�ie parEcing at staticn. Connectian to other tran�it �er�ice�• Lceatian af vt�ticrrs Vehicle camfo-rtand amenitie�. Walki�g�'t��.ing aceess to statlr•r5s 5ration services and ameritiz� otrz� � r��a��f 4t�t��a dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 2.6 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Summary of Public Involvement December 16, 2013 Figure 1: Questionnaire Result: Current Travel Needs 60% - � 50% c v � O 40 �� 30° � O C 20 v U L a 10° , 0% ■ Park & Ride ■ Online Figure 2: Questionnaire Result: Usefulness of All-Day Service 60% - � 50° � � � � 4p�� _ O Q � � 30% I � O � 20% � U L a 10% 0% Very Useful/convenient Somewhat useful/convenient ■ Park & Ride ■ Online �` Not useful/convenient �a �+4�:�:� � 2.3.6 Other web and online engagement A project ��-ebsite, e-ne�-sletter, and Facebook account �M1 ere acti� maintained b�- Washington Count�- staff to disseminate ne��s, information and project materials to the ��-ider public. � ,_ dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 2.7 All-Day/Direct Peak/Direct Peak/Connecting all cities All-day/connecting all cities RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Study Area Background December 16, 2013 3.0 Study Area Background 3.1 OVERALL The data re��ie��- component of this bacicground re��ie�h was aiined at data for tra�-e1, population, emplo3�nent, and transportation ser� In the � since the 200� Alternati��es Aualti�sis, there ha� been updates to the population and emplo�ment forecasts, and actual data is a�-ailable on the performance of coimnuter rail in the Region. BRT plamling in the Region has also progressed such that the METRO Red Line BRT line began operation in the Cedar A��enue corridor in 2oi3. 3.2 DEMOGRAPHICS The studti� area co��erage for the Red Rocic Alternatiees AnalS-sis Update is sho�n�i in the figure belo�v. It is inade up of the designated Red Rock Corridor and points to the southeast of Hastings to Red Wing. � ��;�`�� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 3.8 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Study Area Background December 16, 2013 Socioeconomic data for the Red Rocic Corridor is summarized in the table below, including the 2030 projections and the coinpounded annual gro�ti�th rate (CAGR). Population Households Employment 39g�99 160,154 373�367 509.098 2i1,66� 515�7g9 1.2 % 1.4 % i.6 % The 2oi1 - Market Assessnzent Keport Ked Rock Corridor Station Area a�zd Site Master Plamzing Shcdy pro«ded emplo5ment, population, and household estimates for 1 /z mile, i-mile and 3-mile catchment areas. These estimates are sho�1�1 in the table belo�v. Tahle 3 Pvpulation, Househald, and Emplayment Forecasts within Stativn Areas {1/2-mile, 1-mile, 3-mile radii) 1 2-Mile 1-Mile 3-h"flla 12-Mile 1-hlile 3-Mile 1 2-htiile 1-Mile 3-�+lile 2010 Le�wer Aftan 575 Newpoi� 485 H�mlet P�rk 1,837 Lanc�cEon Villa�e 1,246 Hastinys 1,580 2020 Lower Afton 580 Newpoit 544 H�ra�let Park 1,926 L�ne�don Village 1,460 H�stlnqs 1,652 2030 Loaver Afton 5�37 Newpnit 591 H�mlet Park 1,876 Linc��on Village 1,675 Has�'ineRs 1,730 2010-2434 Change Lower Afton 22 Newpoit la6 H�rnlet Park 39 Lanc�c9�n Vill�ge 429 HE�stings 15Q Sourc�: Mekropolita�� Gouncil 5,319 ti4,583 2,564 52,7Q4 8,479 32,911 3,47� 22,3fi7 G,GGS 25,234 5,733 b7,a64 2,�725 5{�,573 9,632 43,196 3,766 28,7ft5 8,500 30,634 5,900 69,472 3,289 60,04�i n,580 49,556 3,875 34,838 10,563 34,421 581 5,3t�� 725 7,342 tifl1 16,645 402 12,471 3,898 9,1�7 202 1,979 24,632 199 1,055 21,Q63 697 3,3G9 12,1�9 424 1,1�7G 8,078 G�Q 2,640 9,542 204 2,16U 25,887 225 1,220 23,075 719 3,b33 i6,1E�1 499 1,277 ifl„45�3 7 51 3, 503 12,190 213 2,25G 27,240 2 53 1,421 24, 501 720 3,654 19,157 660 1,378 13,iQ8 830 4,405 14,181 11 277 2,608 54 365 3,43�3 23 285 6,9�8 176 182 S,Q30 140 1,765 4,5&9 �`,; �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 149 547 27,949 1,488 4,583 2Q,OQ�t 601 3,605 7,404 1,293 2,G68 6,461 1,�3Q9 4,729 9,392 180 370 31,461 1,�383 5,762 22,474 �90 4,097 8,894 1,447 3,298 7,716 1,872 5,353 4,890 1�30 391 33,9�1 2,350 C�,732 24,057 720 4,337 9,7�4 1,C13 3,7fl6 8,788 1,953 5,766 iQ,551 41 -156 5,952 $fr2 2,149 4,04� 119 732 �,38a 320 1,038 2,387 144 1,Q37 1,159 3.9 � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Study Area Background December 16, 2013 3.3 TRANSPORTATION In 2oio, a Tra� Beha� In� (TBI) Household Sur� �h-as completed. The "draft uersion" of the TBI sur� data consists of three sets of inforination including: - Person Records, - Household Records, and - Trip Records The data ��-as gathered b�� the Metropolitan Council �-ia t��o different sur� t� GPS Sur� and Home Inter� Sur� This information �n used in calibrating the T�h-in Cities Regional Tra��el Demand Model. 3.4 TRANSIT Three bus routes, Routes 36i, 364, and 365 currentl� pro«de express bus ser��ice to Minneapolis and/or St. Paul. These routes are sho��n in Figure 5.i: No-Build Alternati��e. A transit on-board sur��e�� vas conducted b�� the Metropolitan Council and the results are trip data from 2005 and 2oio that ha� Ueen comUined. Each trip record �ti-as geocoded �vith the traveler's origin zone, destination zone, and Uoarding and alighting zones. The sur��ej- also included some other pertinent trip information such as access and egress modes, number of transfers, and time-of-day. The 2oio sur��e� ��as conducted in four separate time-of-day� periods, including AM Earl� AM Pealc, Midda��, and PM Pealc, while the 2005 sur�-e3 �� conducted onl� for t�vo tiine periods, peak and off-peak. A summarj of oUser� ridership from the 2oi2 sur��eti- is sho�tiTi in the table Uelo��-. �" Stantec dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 3.10 Weekday 280 4 54 Ridership RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Regional System December 16, 2013 4.0 4.1 Regional System REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT �a �+4�:�:� The Red Rocic Corridor is one of a number of corridors ��ithin an o��erall sj�stem of regional transit�va�-s identified in the 203o Transportation Policti� Plan (see image belo�ti� from the 203o Metropolitan Council Transportation Polic�� Plan). While a bacl:ground re� is important for an� major transportation stud�- to establish a foundation for analesis, it �ti-as particularle important for the Red Rocic Alternati� Anal��sis Update (AAU). This is because se� studies ��-ith siinilar purposes ha� alreadti been coinpleted, including the original Red Rocic Corridor Alternati� Aualj that �n-as completed in 200�. To a��oid anj� re��ork, the information these documents contain and the frame��-orlc theti- created for the alternati�-es analti�sis update had to be full� understood. In addition, man� complementar�� studies and transportation initiati��es ha� occurred since the last formal stud5- of transit alternati��es for the Red Rocic Corridor, so these ��-i11 ha�-e to Ue incorporated into the AAU. Kej- studies include the Station Area Planning Repoi~ts ��-hich ��-ere completed in 2oi2, the transportation sections of comprehensi� plans for connnunities in the stud�� area including Hastings, Newport, Cottage Gro� Saint Paul Park, Woodburti-, St. Paul, and Mimieapolis, man� of �� completed in 2oio, and planning and analj �� related to � passenger rail and freight rail in the East Metro Area. - � Transi[ways � :.anplele r car�sLUc ei ia l f7�?sn�n !' PreFm ,� o�e� �s �� r s� � Hi.phweY RRP ! C:s� Aaf Deve?ap a5 Arterial E � �press Bus Carriao wM1Y Tt2nSit Ail V artt3g � ftegw^el�h7uk¢swdalHi � nenrocr Wnase i wg..: Inter � Pasunqex Rai. ; 1 — r.+--,—��,�.R.�...�—_�. � I 4 � . i � �� Ftegwn212L30TRAN5PbRTATIdhkPr�licl' Plar+ . i;•,.;'�'.. .. __ .��,.:..i,-.i �03: .�,ira �' Stantec FJ Q W � � � � tl! � a} � � � � Y'1^ � � , �;� •`�. _�+g. ,, ; �...,,..2tl1'3 � . dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 4.1 1 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Regional System December 16, 2013 4.1.1 Technical Memorandum #1 Background Review Technical Memorandum #i Bacicground Re� contains a s��iopsis of local transportation studies prepared prior to this update. It should be noted that the content of inan�- of the reports is no�� outdated. In manti cases, the conclusions ha��e been superseded b�� the results of other studies, and in some cases, �n-hat �vas once a plan has no��- been implemented. The rele� content of these plans are described as theti- ��Tere ��ritten, although in some cases, updated information is pro�-ided ��here applicaUle. For example, in some of the earlier plans, it ��-as not j�et kno��-n ��-hat mode of transit ��-ould ser��e the Central Corridor (the corridor bet�h�een St. Paul and Minneapolis), and no�- it is lcno`�-n that LRT ��-ill ser� this corridor. In addition to noting information that �vas rele��ant to the planning of transit ser��ices in the Red Rocic Corridor, the background re«e��- made note of an�- ��ision or public in� elements to pro«de a foundation for the ��isioning and outreach elements of this AAU. 4.1.2 2012 - East Metro Rail Capacity Study The East Metro Rail Capacit� Stud� (2oi2) stated that the capacities of existing freight lules in the Red Rocl: Corridor ��ere alreadti� constrained. Adding projected fieight rail gro�n�th, commuter rail, higher speed passenger rail, and additional intercit� passenger rail �n further strain capacit�-. The Ramse�� Count� Regional Railroad Authoritti (RCRRA) and Red Rock Cori�dor Commission (RRCC) commissioned this stud� to in� the existing capacit� constraints around Union Depot and the Red Rock Corridor and to identif� solutions for increasing capacity . The recoinmendations ��-ere to pursue the pacicage of minor iinpro�-einents around St. Paul, except for the Union Depot fl3-o� to address freight ��olume gro��th, then to pursue iinpro��ements such as the ne�-4- third mainline tracic along the TH 6i corridor all the �� south to Hastings. This report proposed pacl:ages that can be constructed as funding becoines a�-ailable. The report indicated that there ��-ere not man3 opportunities for increasing capacit� through operational changes, except in the instances ��-here train cre�v are changed ��-hile through trains are on the mainline. Implementation of cominuter rail on the corridor �h-ould trigger the majorit�� of the capital costs related to capacit��, and there �� be limited abilit�- to offer mid-da�� ser� due to capacit� constraints on the corridor. The report suggested that another e��aluation inati be needed in fi� to ten ��ears, or ��hene� passenger rail is introduced, because conditions might ha� changed. 4.1.3 2012 - Regional Transitway Guidelines This document de� guidelines for four transit��aj modes: (i) commuter rail, (2) LRT, (3) High`�-ay BRT, and (4) Arterial BRT. It does not directl�- address Express Bus or BRT ��-ithin an exclusi�-e guide��ay. High�-�-a5� BRT ser� t5 include station-to-station ser�ice (all-dati� frequent ser�-ice) and express ser� (cominuter express ser� coordinated �� High�va�- BRT station-to-station ser��ice). High��-a3- BRT station-to-station ser� is a coordinated set of routes that stop at most stations in a BRT corridor, ��-hich is defined bti� stations and a running�ti-ati�. It pro�-ides ser�-ice � dati�s a��-eelc, i6 hours a da3�, and at least e��erti� io minutes during pealc periods �vith lo�n�er frequencies during the inid-da�� and e� Weekend frequenc5- is based on demand. High��a� BRT is coordinated �h station-to-station ser� � � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 4.12 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Regional System December 16, 2013 using the same BRT running�va3� and park-and-ride facilities as the station-to-station ser��ice. It pro��ides at least 3o-minute ser��ice in the pealc periods in Transit Marlcet Areas I and II �h�ith at least three pealc pei�od trips in Transit Market Areas III and N. These guidelines require coordination of transit ser� the elimination of competing routes, appropriate route structure, minimum frequencies, miniinum span of ser«ce, tra��el times, producti«tj-, and acceptable loading. They- also address station siting and spacing, vehicle design, and fare collection sti-stein design. 4.1.4 2012 - Gateway Corridor Alternatives Analysis Another significant corridor in the eastern inetropolitan area, the Gate�-�-ati� Corridor, completed the AA process in 2oi2 and entered into the DEIS process in 2oi3. The AA results recommended a Draft EIS be completed b3- anal� both LRT and a dedicated guidewa3- BRT. 4.1.5 Transportation Policy Plan The Regional Transportation Polic� Plan is currentl� being updated, ��th a draft scheduled for release in Spring 2014 and final appro� document expected in Deceinber 2oi4. 4.2 STATUS OF AREA PROJECTS The follo�� area projects ha� been completed since the 200� Alternatives Anal��sis • Northstar Commuter Rail began ser� in 2009. • The Union Depot �� completed in December 2oi2 • The METRO Red Line BRT (Cedar A��enue) began ser� in 2013. • The Green Line LRT (Central Corridor) is scheduled to begin ser� in 2oi4. • The ne��- Hastings bridge opened in 2oi3, ��-ith construction to be completed in 2014. • The Ne�vport Transit Station and parlc and ride is scheduled for completion in late fa112oi4. 4.3 SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY The Red Rocic Corridor �ti seamlessl�- connect to other transit lines and ser��ices at the stations along the corridor. At the Union Depot in do�n�nto��-n St. Paul, Red Rocic ��-i11 connect ��ith Metro Transit Uuses, taxis, intercit3� buses (Jefferson Lines), the Green Line LRT (Central Corridor) ��ia the Union Depot, high- speed passenger rail from Chicago, Amtrak's Empire Builder, and future connections to Uoth the Gate��-a�- and Rush Line Corridors. At the stations along ,5tn Street in do`ti-nto�tizi Minneapolis and at the Target Field Station, Red Rock (�ia the Green Line or other modes) ��ill connect to buses, taxis, the Blue Line LRT (Hia�-�-atha) and the e� Bottineau e�ension, Northstar commuter rail, and the planned Green Line eatension into the South�n-est Corridor and Bottineau Corridor transit��-aj At the other stations, Red Rocl: �vill pro��de con�-enient connections ��ith local Uus ser��ice. � . dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 4.13 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Purpose and Need for Project December 16, 2013 5.0 Purpose and Need for Project 5.1 NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The Red Rock Corridor has regional, state��-ide, and national significance as a primar3� transportation route for automobile, trucic, and rail tra��el. High�h�a� 6i is a principal arterial and part of the National High`��a5- and National Scenic B«� sj The Metropolitan Council has projected that the Southeast quadrant of the Metro Area ��ill gro�� b�� another ioo,000 people o� the neat 20 ��ears. Despite the gro�-��h in some of the outl��ng areas, 94 percent of the jobs in the stud� area are ��ithin Mimleapolis and St. Paul, and the primary commute pattern is to these t��-o do�tinto��ns. This pattern is expected to continue into 2030. The Metropolitan Council projects that bti- 2030, nearly the entire length of High�v�y 6i in the Red Rock Corridor ��-i11 Ue congested and operating at a Le�-e1 of Ser�-ice (LOS) F during the morning and e�-ening commute periods. As population and emplo��nent increase, demand for transportation increases and congestion ��ill on15- get �� unless a transit solution is pursued. 5.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 5.2.1 2013 Alternative Analysis Update Problem Statement �� The 200� Red Rocic Alternati�-es Anal� focused hea� on issues related to pealc hour inobilit�� to the St. Paul and Minneapolis do��-nto�� Additional anal� is needed to Uetter understand liistorical, current and future transit markets in the corridor, including off-peal: and re�-erse commute ser��ice demand, local access demand, railroad access, ne�v station locations, connections to ne�nT transit ser��ices, level of seraice, and efficient use of transit infrastructure. Coininunities in the Red Rocic corridor bet`�-een St. Paul and Cottage Gro� do not currentl�� ha�-e all-da�� fixed route transit sei-��ice, �n-ith sei-��ice limited to peak period express bus and dial-a-ride ser� Communit�� members and the Commission ha� expressed a desire for more off-peak/all da� transit ser� ��ith more access. 5.2.2 2013 Alternatives Analysis Update Goals and Objectives The goals and objecti�-es la� the frame��-ork for ho�n- each alternati� is e� in the AAU ��-ith measureable data points being anal3-zed for each objecti� The follo��ing goals and objecti� �-�-ere adopted b5 the Red Rocic Corridor Commission on Ma�� 22, 2oi3. i. Goal: Pro�-ide Mode Choice and Ser��ice Plan that Meets the Demonstrated and Forecasted Needs of Corridor Communities Objecti��es a. A transit option ��-hich is time competiti��e to the pri��ate automobile b. Reliable ser«ce c. Iinpro�-e inobilit�- throughout the dati� for both �� and non-�ti�orlc trips by pro��iding flexiUle duration of ser�-ice � - .. _<`° dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 5.14 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Purpose and Need for Project December 16, 2013 d. A transit option that maximizes the number of riders and the transit modal share, among both transit-dependent and non-transit-dependent populations e. Pro��ide connecti��it�� among ea�isting and planned transit/bil:e/pedestrian ser��ices and infrastructure throughout the region, expanding the destinations corridor transit users can access 2. Goal: Cost Effecti��elj� Address Transportation Problems in the Corridor Objecti��es a. Implement a ser� ��-ith operating costs per rider that are consistent �vith other cost effecti�-e transit sti�steins in the region b. Create a transit ser��ice ��ith capital costs that are consistent ��1th other transit sti�stems in the region. c. Implement a transit in� that is coordinated ��ith other transpoi~tation projects in the corridor and region Uut not dependent on them to be cost-effecti� 3. Goal: Increase Opportunities for Communitj and Economic De�-elopment Throughout the Corridor � Objecti� es a. Support local initiatives to create transit oriented de� (TOD) including, higher densit� housing and mixed-use commercial/retail areas ��ithin wall:ing distance of the station areas and throughout the Corridor b. Suppoi~t a vibrant Uusiness communit�� b� increasing �ccess for worlcers and customers to businesses in the corridor. c. Increase connecti�-it�- and access from population centers to einplo3-ment concentrations along the Corridor 4. Goal: Impro� Qualit�- of Natural and Built En�ironment Objecti� a. Limit ad� impacts to natural, cultural, and other resources in the stud� area b. Reduce emissions c. Pro��ide a fair and equitable distribution of impacts and benefits across the ��arious population groups in the stud�� area d. Address eaisting and future safetti issues along corridor �, `ti �<`�°: p �: dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 5.15 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Description of Alternatives Evaluated December 16, 2013 6.0 Description of Alternatives Evaluated �a �+4�:�:� Based on an initial screening anal3-sis, the technolog� and alignment alternati��es identified for further e��aluation ��-ere coinbined into se� build alternati��es. These build alternati�-es ��-ere subjected to inore detailed quantitati�-e analti�sis (ridership, capital costs and operational costs) to help identif3� a preferred alternati�-e. For purposes of comparison, a No-Build Alternati� ��-as also de��eloped. Each of the alternati�-es is described belo��. 6.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE The No-Build Alternati� is Uased on the Metropolitan Council's 203o Plan. It consists of existing bus routes and also contains the follo��-ing major projects: Northstar Commuter Rail, Green Line LRT (Central Corridor), and Soutli��-est Corridor LRT. In this alternati� Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are maintained as the priinar� transit ser� in the Red Rock Corridor. Au additional Uus stop is added to Route 364 to ser�-e tlie ne�v Ne��-port Parlc and Ride, Uut the route structures ��-i11 generall� remain the same. To accommodate modeled increases in deinand in the corridor, the le� of ser� is increased on Uoth Routes 36i and 365. Reliabilit� enhancements are offered in the form of Uus-onlj� shoulder lanes in congested areas. The No-Build Alternati��e is depicted in Figure 5. i. 6.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVES � � � � 6.2.1 Express Bus Alternative In this alternati��e, Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are maintained and the corridor is ser�-ed be an additional peak period limited stop ea�ress bus route that stops in Red Wing, Prairie Island, Hastings, and Ne��-port Uefore continuing to Union Depot and Minneapolis. This route pro� 3o-ininute head�� during the peak periods. Reliabilit�� enhancements are offered in the form of bus-on1��- shoulder lanes in congested areas. The Express Bus Alternati�-e is depicted in Figure 5.2. 6.2.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative In this alternati��e, Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are maintained and the corridor is ser� bti a BRT route using special BRT buses and stations. The BRT route operates largel�- on High�1 61 bet�l-een Hastings and Union Depot It operates at i5-minute head�vati-s throughout the dati�; from about 6am to iopin. Passengers �vishing to tra�-e1 to Minneapolis can use existing express Uus routes or transfer to the Green Line at Union Depot Tra�-e1 time and reliabilit�� enhancements are pro��ided in the form of bus-onl� shoulder lanes and direct access infrastructure to the Cottage Gro� and Lo�-er Afton Road Park and Rides. The BRT Alternati��e is depicted in Figure 5•3• �, `ti �<`�r: . �: dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 6.16 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Description of Alternatives Evaluated December 16, 2013 6.2.3 Commuter Rail Alternative �a �+4�:�:� In this alternati� Routes 36i, 364, and 365 are discontinued and the corridor is ser� b� commuter rail. This route operates on existing rail rights of �h�a�� bet�ti�een Red Wing and Do�n�lto��n Minneapolis. There are 3o-ininute head�-�-a��s during the pealc periods. The Cominuter Rail Alternati��e is depicted in Figure 5•4• 6.3 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES BY SERVICE LEVEL AND STATION COVERAGE Belo�h- is a graphic depiction of the ser� le�-el and station co� of each alternati�-e. No Build Station Name 361 364 365 Downtown . Minneapolis ' 1 Downtown St. Paul � � � (Union Depot) � 1 1 � f 1 � LowerAfton Road � � * 1 1 1 � — 1 1 � Newport � ♦ � 1 � � 30/-- � 1 � Cottage 6rove • � (Park n Ride) 30/— 15/— Cottage Grove (Langdon Village) Hastings Prairie Island Red Wing Express Bus BRT Commuter 361 364 365 Ove rl a y 361 364 365 B RT Ra i I � � r Y � * j • 1 I � I i i i r 1 1 I * I 1 I � I 1 I �� 1 � � � 1 30/-- � 1 1 � 1 • i ; 30/-- 15/-- � I I I 1 1 � l 1 � l— 1 + 30/-- � � � � 1 1 � i r -�- � 1 * 1 1 � 1 f j � � 1 1 � 1 30/-- � . 1 � r • 30/-- 15/-- �; �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx + T � 1 T � 1 T � R � � 15/15 � �— I � � 1 i 30/— � stations/stops O Stations/StopswithHighway Access Enhancemen� 9 PotentialStation/Stop �� PeakPeriodOnlyRoute � Route with MiddayService 15�30 Peak/MiddayHeadways � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Description of Alternatives Evaluated December 16, 2013 Map 1: No-Build Alternative �a �+4�:�:� � Red Rock Corridor � . , � p N � 2 Miles Bus Roule 361 8us Raule 3@4 Bus Rnu1r. 365 AuQust 9 3, 2013 �' SW�4C� ..,��...,.�.,��, ._,� __,.,�..,;��v=..,�a„�� i i No Build (Current Conditians} Alternative RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Description of Alternatives Evaluated December 16, 2013 Map 2: Express Bus Alternative ..., . " � �`'. ------�- i n.,, r -, _._ � '�-�K s� � � • � ��„ a.._ , 4 . � � � _,� I w� i � P q�r , .� . � k.t y, • . ... Ar7 � i f w � ` 4.M ' G�- � i .� ' t J► ; i � � � , � � �noa..., � f � r � � � �, .#St Cr� 1 - � .o � ' i ..�,6H.�� °;� e„�.h, � �a�! E�.w � ` ' .. s oi,��r„i. , � � � � 'r, �„� I a��, (� ,.. a �._. IA,• r � i »r [ � 1 - P �1 r , r �I , � , F � . .,. .:-,�, G ..--- � -- •. � �. sP� ..�_.n„_..�„_..�. � _ ?s..;�. c � ��{ I � � na�.. �.�'_� _ ,f }� oaxP M w* f \ � i � � a'r 'f �� , � ....,., I I � :f` •. � 4.,,s. � _ �� — ! � � l ,a,.w,e , . P.�c1 '; , j y .. � ' _. � I �" ---� ...r � _ ' :� � wx�� .: n � �Y - �+ ��n,t � � Ramszy C. � r � -.: -.. �a o — '�'� � e..�a�o i _ ! _ _ - - ,_ �. E�„� � �-�, � �.__ . ._.._..�.�--- � ��, � Hsi9n4 � �.��_`�� .__'_' _..'_ ._.'_'..�.. �rn.�. . ... �-` ` r- � ��u.:a ! --- -� _ �` � � 4 i � .._.� � p.�� , ,�, � � � � '� • � � � 0 � `a ! � ,�,��„�,atow,a,�o �, . a � 1i . i . �' �.� ; y � ` � ,Jc* � �-a � � ` _ _� `� .t-- - --�-- �- °t�.� � ., � s��' i i st� � �. � � _ =.��tin�: �� (�Ce .�._ o � � � � = ��;,�.�:��,�„� ; , � rt � ��,�� ;. � � f� � ,,� - - -----t:� -._..._..l � �" � �� ' j p� ��p`- ,,.�e _. `�� y ..-..��,� . ' � : . . - T I�{k: ..� _ _. _ _ \ i�i _ _�...� _ � � [� i'•.i �� .�.i • ' � � `' �j � r , 1 �� ; � / � I �� . ° .,.}.�.,. +�;r�..� _. ; "�s ' : J ¢' ..--..-..-�--��--- � .s..�,.,, � i' -; `_..-------.._.._,.4� ..., t_-� l °--°°----'•-'•- .-•-�.. " � .L C�' i '' � s��` i I - �,��p�� .�• i �� \ 4 � �� r ` °°� i �. � S i � o.. f �,��4 j`� �� ti � � �o„� ; Qe��.,�,ow G o..-,�„ r 4� i o�,i � si i � � k w - ,�,a I �--�., � ,�,�, �j �a�. _ �a, ' I ax �` wwoe..,a,,.`� i �v�Kn�as<sxr�•• � ' . I i+ �+e e i rim..ri�rown.niv � ' (�� I I-''' � ...m, I ��v J �' �'J � �", � I s �; - 'r �•, • K.� , — � � •;�, i ; �,2'�' i . ,� _ '• i -,.�.m"na C� � I _ i . •-"-'-_' '-" ---'---'-'--"-' ;,, i � , { �. o _�_ I a � a.�..,,�,ra,m p � `�'� I �� s� ow�,� I � '�► i .,,...,w...,3:�5. _.i t L�: r t s. � i'� .m4�da,�R,�,��.n� i i " i �V w � . i � E `",,�° ' i ^� c � ' F �, . ' i tl � � ��id I j � , -"_"_"__'__' � �v.�.�e� � Q �� '� I . �.0.,�3,�n j � .z a..,,,.�., �� vrt.c��re�v�, e � I� � M:nn.�ro.,, p I ' '�.. � Y '��sRaa j . � I � is C 1 , ,., . . m � � I ? �_5_ } e a a � y � � � I 1 � = I .. w� "s � m � � ; bi ' _..__.. __..�. � :_"_"_"_"_'ti�,�, er�ep:.- ��.s,�,.F�� n ,,�' �s� e-aa� � t��__._- ,�_,�w � ,,.,. - ; Express Bus A�terna#ive Red Rocl� Carridor � � � 2.S SMiles � � Limiied Stop Overlay (daes nat serve Catlage Grove an� LowerAftan stalioms) Bus Route 367 9u� R9ute 364 Avgust 22, ��13 Bus Route 3s5 6.19 Bus-Onfy Shoulder Lanes � �� ..�.i , _ __,,.. RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Description of Alternatives Evaluated December 16, 2013 Map 3: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative �a �+4�:�:� ,� : r�: �: r. ra �i r. r rr r: r.r � '�� 0 �.25 2.5Mi1e5 SRT;5lignmen4 � 6us Only Shoulder Lanes Southbound BRTAhgnment Northbaund BRTAlignmerot Aug�St 2P, 2013 �,,�. , , �,. �I1�EC i � Bus Rapid Transit {BRT} Altern�ti+re RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Description of Alternatives Evaluated December 16, 2013 Map 4: Commuter Rail Alternative �� +4�:�:� � Red Rock Corridor �F�I Minneapolis ta Red W�ng � 0 2.S S Miles N August 22, 2013 6.21 :� St�ttt�t : .<, , _ ,� ,, :_�,.,,, Camrr�uter Rail AlternatiWe RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Project Ridership and Travel Time Analysis December 16, 2013 7.0 7.1.1 Project Ridership and Travel Time Analysis Corridor Districts, Characteristics, and Data Sets �a �+4�:�:� The studj� corridor �ti-as de��eloped to mirnic the 200� Red Rocic Corridor Alternati��es Anal�-sis �vith an extension southward to include Prairie Island and Red Wing, while honoring the regional model's Traffic Aual��sis Zones (TAZ) Uoundaries. For model calibration purposes, the studj corridor �ti�as di� into eight districts / areas: 1 2 3 4 Red Wing Prairie Island Hastings Cottage Gro� / St. Paul Parlc 5. Woodbur�- / Ne��ort 6. St. Paul / Lo��er Afton �. St. Paul Do��lito`��l 8. Minneapolis CBD � ` The transit marl:et along this corridor is primaril� ser��ed U� three express Uus routes, Routes 361, 364, and 365, ��-hicli on1�- operate during pealc periods. These three Uus routes pro��ide ser�-ices for transit patrons from the first six districts listed abo� to do��ito��i St. Paul and Minneapolis, and � � (note that transit patrons from the first three districts listed abo�-e must dri�-e to the Cottage Gro�-e Parlc and Ride to access the express bus ser«ces or other regional facilities). These also pro�-ide local trips to some extent. Considering that do�h�nto��n St. Paul and do�vnto�hn Minneapolis are the t�h-o main destinations of the transit commuters, the transit markets for these t��-o destinations ��ere calibrated to replicate the sur� data. The calibration effort ��as performed for the 2oio inodel �-ear using the 'Ith�in Cities Regional Tra��el Deinand Model, and the obser� data ��as de��eloped using se� a��ailable sur� datasets: • 2oio Tra�-e1 Beha�-ior In�-entor� (Household Sur�-e�-) • 2oio Metro Transit On-Board Sur� Data • 200o Census Journe�� to Worlc (JTW) data (2oio JTW data ��-as not a�-ailable at the time of the calibration), and • 2oio traffic counts. 7.1.2 Modeled Scenarios Six scenarios ��ere anal�-zed as part of the ridership forecasting effort, three of ��hich ��ere BRT �-ariants. Those scenarios are: � . � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 7.22 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Project Ridership and Travel Time Analysis December 16, 2013 1. No-Build Scenario, in �vhich the ser��ice frequencies for Routes 36i and 365 ��-ere increased, ��-hile ser� le� for Route 364 ��-ere maintained. 2. Ex�ress Bus Scenario, in �n�hich a ne�v express bus route had all-dati� ser��ice and ser�-ed the corridor Uet�tieen Red Wing and Minneapolis, although during the off-pealc period the ser��ice co� ��as limited to the corridor bet�ti�een Hastings and St. Paul. 3. BRT Scenarios, described as follo�vs: a. The Partial In��estment, in ��hich oniti ininor in��estments ��ere inade in the corridor and head�� ti�ere i5 minutes throughout the da�-. b. Full In��estment, in ��-hich major in� �n-ere made in the corridor to enhance tra�-e1 tiine and head�vati ��ere i5 minutes throughout the da��. c. Full In�-estment, in �� major in� �� made in the corridor to enhance tra�-e1 time and head`��a��s �n-ere i5 minutes in the pealc periods Uut onl� 3o ininutes in the off- peal: periods. All BRT scenarios pro��ide ser��ce Uet�veen Hastings and Union Depot on1�-. 4. Commuter Rail Scenario, in ��hich commuter rail operated during the peak periods, �� demand during the off-peal: period ��-as pro�-ided by supplemental bus ser��ice. As part of this alternati� a modified Route 364 operated Uet�� Cottage Grove and Ne�n Stations during the peak periods as a feeder bus to the commuter rail stations and to ser� the local transit marlcet. 7.1.3 2030 Estimated Weekday Ridership The 203o estimated total ridership for each modeled scenario is sho��i in the table belo�h�. The a� ��eel:da� boarding summar� b�- station for each alternati� is presented in the follo�ti subsections. Note that these are not the alternati�-es carried foi��ard in the stud�-; the�� vere a set of scenarios de��eloped at the mid-point of the stud� for discussion. For the most part, the5� ��-ere scenarios that incorporated generous features (i.e., all-daj- ser� inore stations) so that if the decision ��-as made to cut bacl: on the ser� corresponding boardings could be reino�-ed. These forecasts ��ere generated b�- an autoinated method that used the Regional Tra��el Demand Model. Additional detail on boardings Uy� station or parlc and ride location is pro� in Technical Memo #5. A summar� of the ridership forecasts of the four alternati�-es is sho��-n in the follo��-ing table. Table 2: 2030 Estimated Ridership Summary J dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 7.23 Weekday 1,310 1,560 2,420 1,640 Ridership RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Estimated Capital Costs December 16, 2013 8.0 Estimated Capital Costs Technical Meinorandum #4 describes the assuinptions inade and the outcomes of the cost estiination exercise carried out for the Red Rocl: Corridor AAU. Capital cost estimates ��-ere prepared for ��ehicles, infrastructure, and right of ��-a��. Where possible, cost information ��-as gathered from recent and rele��ant studies, such as the Gate�vati� Corridor AA and the 200� Red Rocic Corridor AA. Original opinions of probable cost ��-ere de� ��-here there ��-ere gaps, and details of these estimates are pro�-ided in Technical memorandum #4 and the appendices to that memo. A 3.5% annual escalation rate �ti�as used to estimate costs in 2oi3 dollars. The follo��-ing table summarizes the capital cost estimates of the four alternati��es carried for�vard in the AAU. Total Capital Cost $8,540,000 $11,690,000 $45,810,000 $5g4�59o, � �� " Stantec dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 8.24 Table 3: Capital Cost Summary ($2013) RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Estimated Operating Costs December 16, 2013 9.0 Estimated Operating Costs �a �+4�:�:� This section describes the assumptions made and the outcomes of the OandM cost estimation exercise cari~ied out for the Red Rock Corridor AAU. Where possible, cost information ��as gathered from recent and rele�-ant studies, such as the Gate��-a� Corridor AA, the most recentlj� completed AA in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. Cost estimates `�-ere de��eloped for `veelcda� ser� onl5- in order to pro��ide consistenc� among the different alternati�-es. This does not preclude the possibilit3- of some of the alternati� ha��ing ��-eekend ser«ce. It should also be noted that the aim of estimating OandM costs at this stage of planning is to coinpare alternati��es. Due to the fact that the actual impleinentation of an alternati�-e is still lil:el�� ears a��a5-, the cost estimates, as �� as the schedules the� are based on, should be ��ie�ti�ed as conceptual on1�- and de� on1�- to the extent needed to coinpare the alternati�-es. It is unlikelti� that an�- of the schedules ��-ould be implemented as is. A 3.5% annual escalation rate ��-as used to estimate costs in 2oi3 dollars. The following table summarizes the OandM cost estimates of the four alternatives carried for`��ard in the AAU. It should be emphasized that these estimates on1�- reflect ��-eekda� ser«ce for the salce of comparaUilit� arnong the alternati� Table 4: Operations and Maintenance Cost Summary ($2013) Annual Re��enue Hours Total Auuual Cost io,o2i $1,340,000 13>g54 $1,850,000 32,379 $3,810,000 3,5g3 �" Stantec $5,�00,000 dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 9.25 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.0 Alternatives Evaluation Process �a �+4�:�:� E� criteria �n-ere de� to reflect the Red Rocic Corridor 2oi3 Alternati��es Anal�-sis Update Problein Stateinent, Goals and Objecti��es appro� b�- the Red Rocl: Cominission. The criteria fall into four categories related to moUilitj�, cost, de��elopment, and the en�-ironment This chapter describes the frame��-ork for appl3�ing the criteria to each alternati� in order to score and rank them. The chapter begins ��ith a suinmar�� comparison of each alternati��e, ��-hich is then is follo��-ed b�- a description of ho�� each objecti� is e��aluated and scored. To help ranlc the alternati��es, the scores for each alternati� b5- goal are then summarized into an o� composite score. �" Stantec dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx � , � a � RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.1 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 5 presents a suminarti- comparison of the lce�� ser� attributes of each alternati�-e e� Table 5: Summary Comparison of Alternatives Alternative g: Ke,y Service Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Bus Rapid Transit Alternative 4: Attributes No Build Ex ress Bus (BRT) Couiuiuter Rail Ser� in the midda�- No No Yes No Ser�-ice to No Yes Yes Yes Hastings Ser�-ice to Red Wing � Prairie No Yes No Yes Island Yes (on1�- in the peak Yes (onl� in the peak One-seat ride to periods and from Yes (on1�- in the peak periods and from Yes (onl� in the peak Minneapolis C�ottage Uro� and period) (�ottage Gro� and period) Lo�� Atton) Lo�a Afton) Tra�-e1 time � y (bus-onlv Yes (bus-on1�- shoulder 1 'es (bus-onl�� shoulder yes (no auto reliabilit}� shoulder lanes) lanes) lanes and bus-only� congestion) enhancements rain �s) Do�nntov�n Minneapolis Do��ntown Minneapolis Target Field Station, Doitinto�� (g locations), Do�l-nto�ti (31oca1tions), i7nion Depot, Lov�-er Minneapolis (;3 St Paul (2locations, inc. Do��nto��n St Paul (2 Atton Road Park- locations), L7nion Depot), Lo��er locations, inc. Union and-Ride, Ne�aport Do��nto�nn St Paul Afton Road Park-and- Depot), Lo�ti-er Afton Park-and-Ride, Ke� Stations (i location), Lo��-er Ride, Ne��l�ort P�rl:-and- Road Park-�nd-Ride, Cottage Uro� Park- served Afton Road Park- Ride, Cottage Uro�-e Ne�-tiport Park-and- and-Ride (at and-Ride, Netil�ort Park-and-Ride (at Ride, Cottage Gro� L�u�gdon Village Park-and-Ride, and Langdon Village site), Park-and-Ride (at site), H�stings Park- Cottage Uro�-e Park- Hastings Park-and-Ride, Langdon Village site), and-Ride, Prairie and-Ride Prairie Island, and Red and Hastings Park-and- Island, and Red Wing Ride Wing Trips per �(� (;(, i�o io ��Teekdati Annual v�-eekday re� hours io,ioo i4,000 z8,600 3,600 Weekdati- i,;�� i,,6o z,4zo i,64o boardings ' Boardings per � z � z1 �� re� hour = Cost per mile (excluding $�o,000 $;30,000 $i,,5oo,000 $q,,57o,000 � ( ) and M Costs �er Boarding �' ``�' `��.�� $i3.98 Capital Costs (including $8,�40,000 $ii,�oo,000 $4,5,8io,000 $,584,�90,000 �-ehicles) Annual OandM $i,34o,000 $i,8,5o,000 $3,80�,000 $5,�zo,000 Cc�sts Fare str�ucture Ex �ress local fares Ex �ress local fares Loc<�l fares Distance-based � � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.27 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.2 MOBILITY EVALUATION Goal 1: Pr•ovide Mode Choice and Seruice Plan that Meets the Demonstrated and Forecasted Needs of Corridor Co�nmu�zities Table 6: Criteria for Mobility Goal Objective Criteria Evaluatiou Points Available The scoring for this item is based on the estimated tra��el time bet�h-een Hastings and Union Depot in the morning pealc. With Tiine commuter rail tra��el time being the shortest, at 2� minutes, it coinpetiti��e ��ith Tra� is gi� the ina�iinum point � ��hile the BRT Alternati��e, 1.0 auto Tirne �vhicli pro�-ides some tra�-e1 time enhancements for bus ser��ice, is gi��en o.5 points. Alternati��es that offer no tra��el time ad��antages compared to eaisting express bus ser«ce are gi� a score of o. The scoring for this item is Uased on the pro� of elements that aiin to iinpro� transit ser� reliabilit� Alternatives are Reliable ser«ce Reliabilit� gi� the maxiinuin point value if the� have infrastructure 1.0 in�-estments be��ond bus-onl5 shoulder lanes that impro� reliaUilitj or are able to a� auto congestion. Impro� The scoring for this item is determined b�� the mobilit5 Ser«ce alternati� pro� sei� throughout the da� or just the throughout the houis peal: periods. Full points are a�� to an alternati� that 1.0 da� pro«des all-da� ser� The scoring for this item is based on an estiinate of dailti� ��-eekda� at stations along the route. The alternati� Dailj- ��'ith the highest ridership is gi� a score of 6, �vhile other Number of riders ridership alternati��es are gi�-en scores equal to their ridership �-alues 6.0 relati� to the ridership ��alue of the highest ranlang alternati� inultiplied b�� six and rounded to the nearest half point. The scoring for this item is based on an alternati� abilit� to Expands ser��e ne�1 destinations that are not currentl�� accessible toda� destination Co�-erage Points are a�ti�arded for: i.o options • Access to Hastings, Prairie Island, and Red Wing: 0.,5 • Station to station access: 0.5 Total Score io.o � � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.28 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.2.1 Travel Time �a �+4�:�:� Full points ��ere gi� to the Cominuter Rail Alternati� Uecause it has the shortest expected tra�-e1 time bet��een Hastings and Union Depot. The BRT Alternati� �n-as gi��en a half point because the rainps that ��-ould Ue built at the Lo��-er Afton Road and Cottage Gro� Stations ��-ill pro��ide tra� time ad��antages to buses compared to �vhat is a� todaj-. No points �vere gi� to the Express Bus Alternati� or No Build (Current Conditions) Alternati� due to the fact that there are no tra��el tiine enhanceinents incorporated into either alternati�-e for ser��ice Uet�h een Hastings and Union Depot. 10.2.2 Reliability No points for reliaUilitj- ��ere gi� to the No Build (Current Conditions) Alternati� or the Express Bus Alternati� Full points �1-ere gi� to the BRT Alternati� due to the inclusion of bus-on1�- access ramps that ��ll allo�� buses to b�-pass congestion getting to or fiom parlc and ride facilities. Full points ��-ere also gi��en to the commuter rail alternati�-e because it �vill be able to a��oid auto congestion. 10.2.3 Service Hours Full points �� gi� to the BRT Alternati�-e because it operates throughout the da��. No points were gi��en to the remaining alternati� ��-hich are peal:-period onl� 10.2.4 Daily Ridership The dail� ridership scores are based on the 203o ridership forecasts desci~ibed in more detail in Technical Memorandum #5. The BRT Alternati� pro� the highest ridership forecasts, and so it �ti-as allotted full points. Points �vere gi�-en to other alternati� based on the ratio of their ridership forecasts to the BRT ridership forecast, multiplied b3� six and rounded to the nearest half point. 10.2.5 Coverage No points �vere gi� to the No Build (Current Conditions) Alternati� because it does not expand transit co�-erage in the corridor. Ho��-e� the Express Bus Alternati�-e and the Coininuter Rail Alternati�-e are allocated half points because theti� eatend co�-erage to Hastings, Prairie Island, and Red Wing. The BRT Alternati��e does not extend ser��e to Prairie Island and Red Wing, but it is allocated a half point because it pro�ides station-to-station co� throughout the da�-bet��-een Hastings and Union Depot that does not exist toda� Table � sho�n-s a summar� of the mobilit�- scores. �, ` « ;> � ;� �: � �. �, y dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.29 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 Table 7: Mobility Criteria Scores �a �+4�:�:� Alternative 3: p�ternative 4: Maxiinuin Alternative 1: Alteruative 2: Bus Rapid Criteria Score No Build Express Bus Transit Commuter (BRT) Rail Tra� Tiilie i o.o o.o 0.5 i.o Reliabilit� i o.o o.o i.o i.o Ser«ce Hours i o.o o.o i.o o.o Dai1�- Ridership 6 3.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 Co� i o.o 0.5 0.5 0.5 TOTAL SCORE 10 3• 4•5 9• 6 •5 10.3 COST EVALUATION Goal 2: Cost Effectiuely Address Transportation Problems in the Corridor Table 8: Criteria for Cost Goal � � OUjective Ci�iteria Evaluation Points Available The scoring for this item is based on a planning le�-e1 estimate Capital costs per of the capital cost (in 2oi3 dollars) for implementing the rider are alternati� Points are allocated as follo��s: Capital . Under $i5 million: 4 4 consistent �vith Cost others in the • Bet�n-een $15 million and $75 million: 3 region . Bet�veen $�,5 million and $40o million: 2 • More than $40o million: i The scoring for this item is based on a planning le�-e1 estimate Operating costs (in 2oi3 dollars) of the annual operating and maintenance cost that are Annual Per rider of the alternati��e. Points are allocated as follo��s: consistent ��-ith OandM • Under $5� 4 4 other projects in Cost • Bet��een $5 and $8: 3 the region . Bet��-een $8 and $ii: 2 • O� $ii: 1 Implement a transit ser��ice The scoring for this item is deterinined bti the abilit� for the that is not Abilit� to alternati�-e to be constructed independentl3- from other dependent on in� and if there is a funding model. Alternati�-es that 2 other Fund ha� a funding model are gi� t��-o points and alternati�-es in��estments in that do not ha� a funding model are gi��en zero points. the region Total Score io � u .._. . . . _. �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.30 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.3.1 Capital Cost �a �+4�:�:� The capital cost scores are Uased on the capital cost estimates descriUed in more detail in Teclmical Memoranduin #4. The No Build (Current Conditions) Alternati� and the Express Bus Alternati��e `�-ere allocated four points because the�- both are estimated to cost less than $ i5 inillion. The BRT Alternati� �n-as allocated three points because its cost is estimated to be bet�ti�een $15 million and $75 rnillion. The Commuter Rail Alternati��e ��as allocated one point because its cost is estimated to be more than $400 iliillion. 10.3.2 Annual OandM Cost The OandM cost scores are based on the OandM cost estimates described in more detail in Teclmical Memorandum #3. The No Build (Current Conditions) and Express Bus Alternati� �n-ere gi� scores of 4 because their cost per trip ��-as under $5. The BRT Alternati� �M1as gi� a score of 3 because its cost per trip �vas bet�veen $5 and $8. The Commuter Rail Alternati�-e was gi�-en a score of i because its cost per trip �� aUo�-e $ii. 10.3.3 Ability to Fund Full points �� gi� to those alternati� that had a cost model in place for funding. Therefore, the no build alternati� was gi� full points. T�� points ��ere also gi� to the BRT Alternati�-e gi� that there is a potential funding model in place through the Sinall Starts program (although the alternati� competi�-eness in this program has �-�et to Ue determined). Express Uus �>�as not gi� an5� points Uecause there is no funding model to impleinent ser� ice south of Cottage Gro�-e. The Coinmuter Rail Alternati�-e �� also gi� zero points because the project �� not qualif� for Ne�� Starts funding. Table g sho�ti a summarj- of the cost scores. Table 9: Cost Criteria Scores Alteruative 3: p�ternative 4: Maximum Alternative 1: Alteruative 2: Bus Rapid Criteria Score No Build Express Bus Transit Coinmuter (BRT) Rail Capital Costs 4 4.0 4.0 3.o i.o Annual OandM Cost 4 4• 4.0 3.o i.o Abilit�-to Fund 2 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 TOTAL SCORE 10 10.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 � . dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.31 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.4 DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION Goal 3: bicrease Opportunities for Coininuiiity and Economic Deuelopmeiit Throughout the Corridor Table 10: Criteria for Development Goal Objective Criteria Evaluatiou Poiuts Available Because TOD de��elopinent is tied to the le� of in� at transit stations and le� of ser� points for this categor5� Support TOD ha�-e Ueen assigned in the follo�h�ing ��-a5�; t�h�o points are gi��en efforts ��ithin Ser«ce to for all da5 transit sei-� at the corridor stations listed belo��- �� distance Supports and one point is gi��en if there is not all-da3� ser��ice but 6.0 of stations TOD significant in�-estments are made at stations. • Hastings • Cottage Gro� (Langdon Village or existing site) • Ne��-port Increase access The scoring for this goal is based on increasing access that is for �� and Increase in not a� today. Three points are gi�-en to an alternati��e customers in the Access to that pro� all-da�- access to stations and one point is gi�-en 3.0 corridor Businesses to an alternati� that pro��de just peal:-period ser� to stations. Increase access Increase in The population centers in the Corridor are St. Paul and to population Access to Minneapolis. An alternati��e that pro�-ides pealc period ser� ice i.o centers Population to both is gi��en 1 point. Centers Total Score 10.0 10.4.1 Service to Support TOD Full points ��-ere gi�-en to the BRT Alternati�-e gi� the fact that it pro� fr•equent ser�-ice to the stations throughout the da��. While the commuter rail ser«ce only operated in the peak period, it ��as felt that the in� le� in the stations could effecti� stimulate TOD, so it ��-as gi��en three points. The No Build (Current Conditions) and Express Bus Alternati� �ti-ere gi� no points. � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.32 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.4.2 Increase in Access to Businesses The BRT Alternati� ��as gi�-en full points because it pro� all-dati- ser�ice. The Express Bus and Coininuter Rail Alternati� ��ere gi� one point due to the fact that the�� increase ser� in the pealc period. 10.4.3 Increase in Access to Population Centers Full points �h�ere gi��en to the No Build (Current Conditions), Express Bus, and Coinmuter Rail Alternati� because the� offered one-seat rides to both do�tinto��n St. Paul and Minneapolis. No points �vere gi�-en to the BRT Alternative. Table ii sho�vs a summar�- of the de� scores. Table 11: Development Criteria Scores Alteruative 3: p�teruative 4: Maximum Alteruative 1: Alternative 2: Bus Rapid Criteria Connnuter Score No Build Express Bus Transit Rail (BRT) Ser«ce to support 6 0 0 6 TOD 3 Increasein access for Uusinesses 3 0 1 3 1 Increase in access to i i i 1 i population centers TOTAL SCORE 10 1.0 2.0 10.0 5.0 � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.33 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 10.5 ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION Goal 4: Improue Quality ofNatural and Built Eiivironment Table 2: Criteria for Environment Goal �a �+4�:�:� OUjective Criteria Evaluation Points Available Points are pro� based on the: • Lilcelihood to not ha� impacts to historic Historic and properties — i Limit ad�-erse effects Natural • Likelihood to not require significant on natural and En��ironinent infrastructure in unde� areas — i 3•0 cultural resources Im acts � • Likelihood to not ha� significant impact to floodplains — i Reduction in pro«des a lo�M1�-emission transportation alternati� to Reduce emissions Einissions dri��ing for manj trips. Note: full points gi� for all 3.0 alternati� es. Pro«de an equitable Equitable Points are pro�-ided based on the equitable distriUution of impacts Di �riUution of distribution of iinpacts. Note: full points ��-ere gi��en to 2.0 Im acts e� alternati� The largest lrno��n safet� issue in the Corridor is the Address existing safet5� Infrastructure at-grade pedestrian crossing at the Lo��-er Afton that �hill station. T��-o points �h�ere gi��en to alternati��es that 2.0 issues address safetti address this issue. Zero points ��-ere gi� to the alternatives that don't address this issue. Total Score io.o 10.5.1 Historic and Natural Environment Impacts The No Build (Current Conditions) Alternati� recei�-ed full points because it is not ea�ected to have an�� historic or natural en� impacts. The Express Bus and BRT Alternati��es also recei� full points because it �n-as expected that the bus-onlj- shoulder lanes and bus-on1�- ramps and stations �n-ould be creating impacts in an area that ��-as alread�- de�-eloped. The Commuter Rail Alternati�-e ��-as on13- gi� one point because it is expected that its stations and corridor in��estments �vill ha��e some impacts on historic properties and in floodplains. . 10.5.2 Reduction in Emission All of the alternati� recei� a full score due to their abilit� to attract custoiners to transit and encourage a mode shift a��a�- from single occupant dri�-ing. While there are inethods for calculating the emissions iinpacts of the alternati�-es, thee rele on inforination about the �-ehicle-miles of tra� b�� automobile �� . � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.34 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 a� b� an alternati� as �vell as the direct emissions from the operation of an alternati��e. It is felt that there is not enough inforination a� at this stage of anal5-sis to produce results that �h�ould meaningful for this AAU. For one, the emissions profiles of � in 203o are unlaio��n. Secondl� changes in � tra��eled ��ere not directl�� measured in this anal��sis. 10.5.3 Equitable Distribution of Impacts All of the alternati��es recei�-ed a full score because it is felt that the distribution of irnpacts is fairlti- distributed. 10.5.4 Infrastructure Impacts to Address Safety The BRT and Commuter Rail Alternati��es �ti�ere gi� full points because thej� included ne�n- pedestrian crossings at Lo��er Afton Road. Table i3 sho�>-s a summarti of the en«ronment scores. Table 3: Environment Criteria Scores Alteruative 3: p�ternative 4: Maximum Alternative 1: Alteruative 2: Bus Rapid Ci�iteria Score No Build Express Bus Trausit Commuter (BRT) Rail Historic and natural en��ronment impacts 3 3 3 3 1 Reduction in emissions 3 3 3 3 3 EquitaUle distribution of impacts 2 2 2 2 2 Infrastructure in�-estments to address 2 0 0 2 2 safet� TOTAL SCORE 10 8 8 10 8 10.6 SUMMARY SCORES A coinposite of summar�� scores are sho��-n in Table i4. The summarti e��aluation is also depicted in Figure 3. Based on the scoring methodolog3-, the BRT alternati� rates the highest �1�ith an o��erall composite score of 8.8 out of 10. It follo��ed b�� the No Build and Express Bus alternati�-es �vith o�-erall coinposite scores of 6.i and 6.0, respecti�-el5-. The commuter rail alternati��e had an o�-erall composite score of 4.� out of io. � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 10.35 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Alternatives Evaluation Process December 16, 2013 Table 44: Summary Scores �a �+4�:�:� 40/40/10/10 Alteruative Mobility Cost Development Enviroument Weightiug No Build (Current Conditions) 3.o io.o i.o 8.0 6.1 Express Bus 4.5 8.0 ?.0 8.0 6.0 BRT 9.0 8.o io.o io.o 8.8 Coilirnuter Rail 6.5 2.0 5.0 8.0 4.� Figure 3: Evaluation Summary of Red Rock Corridor Alternatives iEYRLY�T'1�►M FIES�IJLTS , _,,-,i �ere � the s!auu�ta�': iMlatr�wty t €�st L�r : - _ . c.� -�� f L.! � � � � � � � � � � • � I � � � . 4��'w�'�.� _� ..... � r':si , - �,➢`. ^.....-x � � I L J f �� :Le ,�.. :Y'i:L [�. °�i.', _: 1'` ".,� l t$� ��ur ga��s and i��dsrahes a��ea�Il perf�rmanc�. _ Figure 4 plots ridership against costs, as defined b�- capital costs plus 25 �-ears of operating and inaintenance costs. According to the figure, the BRT alternati��e has the highest projected 203o ridership and the second highest cost The No Build alternati��e has the lo��-est cost and the lowest le�-e1 of projected ridership. The Express Bus alternati� has the second lo��est cost and second lo��-est le�-e1 of ridership. The coininuter rail alternati�-e has the highest cost and the second highest le� of ridership. � � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx � � � w �[ , . r� � � �. �.. ._M'1R•j.,. _ , - qV4' *..i�� : RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Implementation Plan December 16, 2013 Figure 4: Cost versus Ridership of Red Rock Corridor Alternatives Ssoo _ .Commuter Rail ° S�oo N i .--. fC '� �, .O �6�� N � $500 � =- Q � $400 N N o v $300 U � � O $200 � sloo $o -.- �BRT — I�o Buitd — ♦ �Express Bus 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 2030 Daily Ridership �a �+4�:�:� �` � 11.0 Implementation Plan '� II� , Based on technical information, current land use and gro��h projections, and the goals and objecti�-es evaluation from the AAU, it has been concluded that BRT is the alternati�-e that is best aligned �� the Red Rock Corridor Commission's approved objectives. Tliis conclusion has Ueen inade in consultation ��ith representati� on the Citizens Ad� Coinmittee (CAC) and presented to the public in a� of forums and media. Central to this conclusion �vas public input regarding the need for all-da�- transit ser��ice in the Corridor to kej regional destinations as ��-e11 as bet��-een station areas throughout the Corridor. Nonetheless, this conclusion also talces into consideration the potential need for additional peak-period transit capacit5- iinpro� as the population base continues to gro�� throughout the Corridor. In mo��ing for�-�-ard ��-ith the de� of BRT, the Red Rocic Corridor Cominission ��-i11 pursue a staged implementation plan. These stages are such that actions and impro� for Stage i�1 need to be iinpleinented before Stage 2 actions and impro��einents begin and, lilce��ise, Stage 2 actions and impro��ements �ti�ill need to be implemented before Stage 3 actions and impro�-ements begin. In conjunction ��ith the actions and impro�-ements in each of the three stages, there are other broad and ongoing strategies that ��ill be pursued by the Red Rocic Corridor Commission. The�� are: 1. Ad� for integrated inulti-modal in� including pedestrian and Uicj-cle facilities, rail, freight, high��-a�- and transit iinpro�-einents that support inoUilitj- throughout the Red Rocic Corridor. � . � dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 1 1.37 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE � •� Implementation Plan December 16, 2013 2. Ad�-ocate for funding for mobilitti� impro��ements along the corridor. This includes ad� for sustainable local and regional funding sources, as �� as supporting and appl� for funding at the Federal le� 3. Continue to monitor peak period capacit�� needs in the corridor to determine the timing for impleinentation of additional transit ser� alternati� modes, or capital impro� The three stages include the follo��-ing: 11.1 STAGE ONE Work with Metro Transit to increase express bus service to St. Paul/Minneapolis as demand iucreases withiu the existing Corridor. i.i.i Complete the Ne��ort Transit Station and Parlc and Ride i.i.2 E� the feasibilit� of pro� peak period express ser«ce from Ne�� Transit Station to downto��n Minneapolis. i.i.3 E� the feasibilit� of pro��iding limited mid-dati- and e��ening ser� along the corridor. i.i.4 Worl: ��ith the Metropolitan Council to inonitor parlcing capacity and safety issues at the Lo�ti-er Afton Road Parl: and Ride and make impro� if ��-arranted. i.i.,5 Monitor congestion on High��-a� 6i to determine �� bus shoulder lanes are ��-arranted. i.i.6 Prepare Feasibilitti Stud�� and En� Documentation for BRT, including bus-on1�- shoulder lanes, station impro� and other supporting infrastructure. i.i.� Coordinate the outcomes of this studj �tiith the Metropolitan Council High�vati� BRT stud�� and the update to the regional Transportation Policti� Plan i.i.8 Worlc �n Metro Transit to iinplement all-da�� bus ser� as part of a phased BRT in��estinent. 1.2 Promote laud use changes aud developmeut around station areas to increase deusity to support all-day trausit market. i.2.1 Worlc �� the Cit� of Ne��-poi~t and the Wasliington Count� HRA to de� transit-supporti� uses on the Ne`�-port Transit Station Site and surrounding area. i.2.2 Worlc �� the Cities of Cottage Gro�-e and Hastings to de� transit-supporti��e uses around the station/parlc and ride locations. i.2.3 E� the need to prepare a Corridor In� Frame�h�orlc Plan to prioritize in��estments, siinilar to the plan prepared for the Central Corridor. �� , ��`�� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 1 1.38 RED ROCK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS UPDATE Implementation Plan December 16, 2013 �a �+4�:�:� 1.3 Encourage service extensions to Hastings, which would require the City to join the trausit taxing district. i.3.i E� the feasibilit�� of eatending initial pealc period limited stop express ser� froin Cottage Gro� to Hastings. 11.2 STAGE TWO 2.i Further e��aluate a BRT alternati��e. 2.2 If �varranted, begin phased iinpleinentation of BRT impro�-ements. 2.3 Add BRT/ticicet vending machines/neat Uus technolog� impro��ernents at all stations/parlc and rides. 2.4 Perform Preliminar� Engineering for bus-oniti shoulder lanes. 2.5 Perform Preliminar�- Engineering for direct access infrastructure to the Cottage Gro��e and Lo��-er Afton Road Parlc and Rides. 2.6 Perforin Final Design and Construct Bus On13- Shoulder Lanes 11.3 STAGE THREE � 3.i Design and Construct Infrastructure Improvements at Lower Afton, Cottage Gro�-e, and Hastings and retrofit Ne�� Station to accommodate BRT. 3.2 Procure BRT Veliicles. 3•3 Begin operation of BRT ser«ce. 3•4 Consider additional transit ser� alternati� modes, or capital impro� to meet pealc period capacit�� needs in the corridor as ��arranted. � . _<`_;, � _� �� dj v:\1938\active\193801759\reports\final report documentation\report_draft_20131216.docx 1 1.39