The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06C Bus Rapid Transit Draft Implementation Plan Presentation by Washington County • z o o a e rove . . z ounCz . � . � . • . - - . . - October 19, 2016 The Goal ■ Implementation Plan that Outlines : ■ Detailed technical elements ■ Service plan, stations, vehicles, etc. ■ Station area plans ■ Schedule and costs of staged investments ■ Partner responsibilities through 2040 ■ Stakeholder buy-in and detailed resolutions of support � RED ROCK 2 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... Im lementation Pla n - P Commzffee Sfrucfure TAC B-CAC RRCC . , . - . - . ' - . ' . � � • • � • � � • • - - • • � - - Staff from MnDOT, the Staff and leaders from Staff and elected officials Metropolitan Council, Metro businesses and civic from the cities and counties Transit, and the cities and organizations along the along the corridor counties along the corridor corridor � RED ROCK 3 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... Bus Ra i d Tra ns it P A�� Mounds Boulevard 9 Et�a S«eet Earl - 'Union Street - I' � Depot �I 1I 'T_ Lower Afton 4 '? � L ��t \''' � , � MErRO � -- I � � � � ;��,'/_++� � �� . � -� - ,�� - � � - � _ ; ; • b� i �-- .4--.� � �� 1 � � � iC • , , U" ��-� 1� � � �.� � Newport a:. :� '�— _ ��7t;.;_i - !� �—`�s;��`-.y � � � ��^ �\ .. � .- { �',:. i. � � � � '� ) �. 1 ;.� � 'F.. �� ul , . 1 + �`p � 4c' ' - — - � � i _ _ . � �---,,.�� \ � �' St.Paul Park � 1e '0i��g. _ . . � ' _ _.. . _. _ . ..—'—_ _ � ��` l i = I � ' 80th Street i l � � � I 61 jamaica Avenue �� I r� .i �'��., --., . __ - . � •� .i � i_ '� � . � � I h._ � �_� �\ Hastings Depot Hastings#3 --- — Ha�stings#� � RED ROCK 4 *o�,H��s, ��oo� ...................................................................... ................................................................................... Potential BRT Phases ■ F req u e n cy: 15 m i n utes (30 Mo�ndsBou�e�ard i ' - ,- � Etna Street � minutes 7pm-12am) �� SLaeet � Depot Lower Afton t'�`} ' - ` 'J ■ Span : 5am-12am ' , - � _ � ,, - - � , � � , ■ 6 RT sta t i o n a m e n i t i e s -� ; NeWp°r� __ � � �. ■ Potential Phases : ' S�.Pa°�Pa�k ,,� 8oth 5treet 1. To Cottage Grove w/o Gateway , �, � 61 Jamaica Avenue Stations j�� 2. Add Gateway Stations '� � 3. To Hastings Depot � , - 4. Add last two Hastin s Stations � � Hast,�gsoePa� � � Hastings#3 � — � Q�� Hastings#2 � RED ROCK *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... Evaluation of BRT Phases , . . . , _ , . . . : . . . . • • BRT Phase 1 2024 92 1,070 12 114% (To Cottage Grove) 2040 92 1,240 14 �25 85% BRT Phase 2 2024 96 1,550 16 55�/ (add Gateway >_25 Stations) 2040 96 1,800 19 33% BRT Phase 3 2040 114 2,000 18 >_25 43% (to Hastings) BRT Phase 4 (final 2040 135 2,200 16 >_25 54% Hastings stations) Red Line 2040 73 4, 700 65 >25 ----- *Passengers per In-Service Hour = daily boardings divided by in-service � RED ROCK hours 6 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... Ridershi Increase Needed to Meet P Re ional Tar et 9 9 � + Gateway Stations', ■ BRT Phase 2 (to Cottage Grove "n'°" , � � Depot Lower Afton ' with Gateway Stations) is the best - J , � � , performing option in 2040 Im lementation Plan Summar P Y ■ Operating and maintenance costs are not in line with other regional transit systems ■ Unclear funding path for capital costs and therefore no set evaluation process - need creative funding options ■ Passenger Per In-Service Hour (PPISH) should be used to evaluate when BRT could be implemented ■ Best performing BRT phase by 2040 is to Cottage Grove with Gateway Stations — this phase misses PPISH target by 33% ■ Utilize regular routetransit as a wayto monitorforwhen BRTcould be implemented � RED ROCK $ *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... � m emen a ion . as � n . eCommen a � ons . , . � . • . - - . . - Pre- 2020 ■ Work with Metro Transit to implement all-day 30-minute local service to Cottage Grove ( Route 363) ■ Work with Metro Transit to maintain existing express service ■ Work with Metro Transit and Hastings to determine if express bus service (such as Route 367) or local service within Hastings is a viable option ■ Work with Corridor cities and counties to update Comprehensive Plans, consideration should be given to increasing population density and employment within station areas � RE D ROC K 10 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... 2020 to 2040 ■ Implement comprehensive plans by focusing development within and around station areas ■ If Route 363 is implemented, monitor ridership; work with Metro Transit to identify potential service improvements to reach 1,200 passengers per day ■ Assess comprehensive plan updates, demographic changes, and performance of Route 363 to determine if the Implementation Plan could be updated ■ Replace Route 363 with BRT service when estimated BRT PPISH reaches 25 passengers per in-service hour (timing subject to reevaluation with updated ridership model) ■ Explore extensions of BRT to Hastings and within Hastings when forecasted Hastings ridership exceeds 450 passengers per day � RED ROCK 11 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... Schedule ■ September 22: Red Rock Corridor Commission released draft final report for public comment ■ September 22-October 26: 30+ day public comment period ■ October 26: Open house and public hearing on draft final plan ■ late October or November: Red Rock Corridor Commission approves final report based on public comment ■ November and December: Resolutions of Support from Commission members � RED ROCK 12 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... uestions? Facebook . com Red RockCorridor www. Red RockCorridor. com HallyTurner Planner, Washington County 651-430-4300 Ha I Iy.Tu rnerC�co.wash i n�ton . m n . us � RED ROCK 13 *o�,H��s, ��oo� .......................................................................................................................................................... � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � .................................................................................................................. . j —' — -- - — — Mounds Boulevard • � ,EtnalStreet �� What is the � EarL ' � Union, � Street i _--- i i'Depot i Red Rock � � ��Lower Afton • '� -- �\ I : Corridor . ; - � - � � _ :, � � G --� rt - , , � 1 � The Red Rock Corridor �— Newport� is a proposed 30-mile ��° ` TRANSITWAY � i �I connecting the Twin Cities' i southeastern suburbs ' st.Pau�Park with Union Depot in Saint Paul. A previous study identified a 80thStreet : preferred route for � j ` l) 61 " [ : Jamaica Avenue BUS RAPID TRANSIT � service along Highway 61 . � This route serves _ existing destinations, residences, and businesses that are best suited , to support all-day transit service. �I \ � Hastings Depot�€ � �" ��— Hastings#3 Hastings#2 " I If : '1� -L' � � ,� � . � � . ' • • • -• '• • •• .�, M� i: _ ,. _ _ - , � � �,. .:: BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) IS AN ALL-DAY TRANSIT SERVICE THAT: ��,�/' `� �,.� azsz . '` . �;�,• ��: �,' ,..... ; ' ;� BRT Vehicle Features: � ; •All door entry and exit ,.... ,....r� -` :••: • : ; ° •.� ... • ' • On-board announcements ; Goes in Works with the Arrives every Provides and display B O T H E X I S T I N G 10 TD �5 G011SISt@11t • Low floors for easy boarding express bus S E RV I C E • Improved seat configuration D'IreCtlons system M I N U T E S between stations • Specialized branding : Kimley>>>Horn : � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ....................... � � � � � � � �0 � ! � �0 �0 i • < The Implementation Plan The plan builds upon The plan establishes the The plan establishes the is a phased approach to the previous studies near-term (2016-2020) long-term (2020-2040) providing transit service to create financial, goal of building new local goal of developing bus along the corridor. development, and bus service. rapid transit. service plans. : We want to How can I provide hear from you! my comments? The Red Rock Corridor Commission Attend an open house has released the Implementation and public hearing: Plan for public comment. We are looking for your input: DATE Wednesday, October 26 Does expanding local bus service TIME Open House 5:30 -6:30 p.m. � Public Hearing starts at 6:30 p.m. suit your transportation needs? LOCATION Newport City Hall • 25 years from now, how do you 596 7th Avenue think your transportation needs Newport, MN 55055 will change? Contact us at your convenience: • How would a high-frequency and phone• 651-430-4314 all-day bus service impact how � you would get to work or run Email:redrockcorridor@gmail.com daily errands? Mail:Lyssa Leitner,AICP—Project Manager Washington County Public Works • What kind of goods and services 11660 Myeron Rd North would you like to be able to walk Stillwater, MN 55082 to from a future transit station? All comments are due bynoon on October26,2016. , . . � � . . . . . � . � . : ; ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Kimley>>>Horn : �-.r. - _��_�`�� II�� i��. � J� ti��/� :�1 �,�.�-�:.�., � � � 1 � �� 1��. - ~ - � , , � �L�� .�� M� ' � �� ' � � � J - _ — � . � � y\� w r�ii/ ' ,� � - -�::�i� �I `a� • � - � : ;.,. ��Mi�� ---_ � �-- � - _ _�. . I,i��A■ -- � �� _'Q'� ►��,- °..�.� � � ----�Q. - ��. `,� j `` �I � `,� 4252 - . � - __ . _—_. •�.��o . .�� a � � � / • ..................................................................................................................................................................................... • • ' • ' • � . � � • � RED R�CK • _ • - � SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR • " - " • � PREPAREDFOR .............................................................................. ......................................................................... Red Rock Corridor Commission ......................................................................... PREPARED SY .............................................................................. Kimle >>>Horn PaRsoNs y BRINCKERHOFF � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Contact List WASHINGTON COUNTY Lyssa Leitner I yssa.leitner@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-4314 Hally Turner hall y.turner@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-4307 CONSULTANT TEAM Brian Smalkoski,Project Manager brian.smalkoski@kimley-horn.com 651-643-0472 William Reynolds,Deputy Project Manager william.reynol ds @kiml ey-horn.com 651-643-0462 Steve Ruegg,Forecast Report Preparation ruegg@pbworld.com 612-840-5530 Jielin Sun, Travel Forecast Support sunj2@pbworld.com 714-564-2793 Kimley>>>Horn : AuguStzo�6 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a List of Acronyms ACS American Community Survey BRT Bus Rapid Transit CBD Central Business District CTPP Census Transportation Planning Products CRT Commuter Rail Transit FTA Federal Transit Administration HBW Homed-Based Work HIS 2010 Twin Cities Home Interview Survey KNR Kiss-and-Ride LEHD Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics OD Origin-Destination PNR Park-and-Ride VHT Vehicle Hours Traveled VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled WCRRA Washington County Regional Railroad Authority Kimley>>>Horn : AuguStzo�6 � �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Contents ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................2 Service Assumptions and Modeling Methodology....................................................................................................................................6 RegionalForecast Summary......................................................................................................................................................................9 CorridorForecast Summary.....................................................................................................................................................................12 ProjectForecast Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................17 Interim Year(2024) Forecast Summary...................................................................................................................................................22 SensitivityTesting....................................................................................................................................................................................25 BRTFactor............................................................................................................................................................................................25 GatewayStations.................................................................................................................................................................................25 HastingsStations..................................................................................................................................................................................28 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................................29 AppendixA.............................................................................................................................................................................................A-1 Kimley>>>Horn : AuguStzo�6 � �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Executive Summary The purpose of this Travel Demand Forecast Report is to document the ridership demand for the Red Rock Corridor alternatives.The forecasts are based on socioeconomic and network assumptions for the year 2040,as developed by the Metropolitan Council,as well as estimated socioeconomic and network assumptions for the year 2024.The report includes the following major sections: ■ Service Assumptions and Modeling Methodology ■ Regional Forecast Summary ■ Corridor Forecast Summary ■ Project Forecast Summary ■ Interim Year(2024) Forecast Summary ■ Sensitivity Testing Key ridership information from all full model runs is summarized below in Table 1.These values were used within the Alternative Evaluation Technical Memorandum to compare alternatives and evaluate potential phasing options for the corridor. Table 1:Summary of Red Rock Corridor Transit Ridership by Year and Alternative � � � � No Build Existing Routes Only 1,350 - - - 1,350 RT 367 Peak Hour Commuter Express Service from 1,310 100 - - 1,410 Hastings to Minneapolis via Newport 2024 RT 367/363 Route 367 plus All-Day 30-Minute Local Service 1,270 110 540 - 1,920 between Cottage Grove and Saint Paul Alternative 2B BRT Along Highway 61 to Cottage Grove Park& (Interim) Ride 1,270 - - 1,550 2,820 No Build Existing Routes Only 1,650 - - - 1,660 BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings with a Highway Alternative 1 1,500 - - 1,250 2,750 Orientation 2040 BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings with a Alternative 2A Community Orientation (via 95th Street) 1,600 - - 2,150 3,750 BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings with a Alternative 2B Community Orientation (via Jamaica Avenue) 1,600 - - 2,200 3,800 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 1 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Introduction The Red Rock Corridor is a proposed 30-mile transitway,connecting the Twin Cities'southeastern suburbs to downtown Saint Paul. Figure 1 shows the general study area for this project. Previous studies have assessed the feasibility of transit service between Minneapolis and Red Wing, but BRT service would be between Saint Paul and Hastings for the purposes of this Implementation Plan. The corridor has national,statewide,and regional significance as a transportation route for automobile,truck,freight,and passenger rail travel. `�<.ti�,��r� .,r � ..�'.:`!i_.... =��iS �� •f•••��' SUnionD pot ��'�� iAll'r...i ii��.1: � .,��`� � ° � � � - � � � �61+ ^ � �Y Hastings � �� ) ��1L�.\ ro„rr�k�r��. �, ,'6t�'�, �* . _. . ._ � -. Figure 1:Project5tudyArea A single BRT alternative was analyzed as part of the Red Rock Alternatives Analysis Update(AAU).As part of the Implementation Plan process, however,commuter rail was not advanced for further analysis,and the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) recommended exploring additional BRT alignments within the BRT corridor. For the Implementation Plan,three build alternatives were analyzed in the Red Rock Corridor from Hastings to the Union Depot in St. Paul.These are described as follows: • Alternative 1: BRT with stops at the Union Depot, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,70th Street Station, Langdon Village Station,and the Hastings Depot. Parking is assumed at all stations,with the exception of the 70th Street Station.This is the alternative that resulted from the AAU.This is shown in Figure 2. • Alternative 2A: BRT via 95th Street with stops at the Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station,95th Street Station,the Hastings Depot, Lions Park Station,and the Dakota County Offices Station.The Mounds Boulevard, Earl Street, and Etna Street Stations are shared with the Gateway Corridor and utilize the transit-only guideway being developed for that corridor.This is shown in Figure 3. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 2 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR l � � � • Alternative 2B: BRT via Jamaica Avenue with the same stops as Alternative 2A with two modifications: elimination of the 95th Street Station and alternative routing along the east side of Highway 61 in Cottage Grove to serve a station at Jamaica Avenue.This is also shown in Figure 3. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 3 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a 3 _ j ; ; � `4 � z M�'nn �pe urx�annoxxo z �..�.urouao r Lower Affon Park 8 Ride �$ � � �.u..�....o i ...�Fw .�,,...,.. � "s �1 A°y � z ...�w�.�.,,..E „�.,�,o�,«�a�e�. �,.�.. - L ��.�_ � W z ,��,..�e,,.�o ^ a � \ �.:: �,�,E�ao .��..� � � Newport Transit Station u��,..�, �� "o e'� � . .. ..... '�-? I I :o��ty � � l� *�., �,.,,. � �mn, _ � ; 701h Tation L '� � �.,,� .�w N�.n. , � , � � f�� ,� ::�{�.��.:. a o..,., _ 8Y�5 `"t ..!,'.i': >rt�� / I � 61 � I � ��, m.,,, ^� ��- , Langdon Village Station ``� , .ii�::::.�� _ ,o:,��E V� L . `g �,..... o : �w a5 �3auoue a ` ewxe[ro.x� m tl 4.q��o ryry�9� Stdt1011 '�''.�!..'`�' �\�.m' ��:.. Alternative 1: Proposed Route �*E�=RocK Y�n�ke<<o�,e SoutheastMetro. 0 0.75 1.5 �MIIeS September 2015 Kimley»>Horn Figure 2:Red RockAlternative 1 Alignment and Stations KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 4 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a Et z � � � - , s u s s � � �>.o�.�,�,.o ` �� { �...H., n��..,,,. 7 .o....�a..ao .l � I �^e 5 y 3 w...�.�.�.w.� .,_„M�.«�o..� u.��.. - q � .�Q o ; a : - �':�'•: . m�m�r...�o ^ a �..:. �,��E..o ��.�� M.u��,..�E � • t Transit Station ��`��' �„� 0 62 . . . ` \ , � „tY � F �t �� c �y� ��.,�. C� �,.,.: � s d x:. p ,��.:�s �� ::=_;' a....E � ;� ; 80th Sireet \ �/,� �` � :��k� � _ `- � aico " .--.�Station :.Y'. Q� ` ,�....� �� \ �� ' . ...951h aTreeT ai.. �1J�oP :� o n '.i}:.•i�'.'...'��i ii�i'.}j{.':f"i: . � ..,.�,. o a x,�a a .oxHa�rnwe � °k's.y . ! . �3v,�,�. � hN�D �"& b a �.�f�_:......'._..�..�..�..:''� `. .�,�:.w � Alternative 2: Proposed Route ��o.,RocK Y��a Southeast Metro. 0 0.75 1.5 �Miles September 2015 Kimley»>Horn Figure 3:Red Rock Alternative 2A and 28 Alignment and Stations KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 5 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Service Assumptions and Modeling Methodology Table 2 shows the travel times assumed between stations for each alternative. Headways for all alternatives are assumed to be 15 minutes for the peak and midday time periods and 30 minutes for night and weekend service. Buses would run in both directions all day.Within the model, headways were modeled at 15 minutes for both peak and off-peak time periods, including night service. Service frequencies were therefore modeled at a greater rate than the assumed service headways from 7 pm to midnight; however, this small discrepancy should have a very little impact on total ridership.Weekend service was not modeled. Table 2:Red Rock Build Alternatives, Travel Time between Stations(in minutes) � � � • i � - � � � � � Union Depot Walk-up - - - Mounds Boulevard Walk-up - 3:03 3:03 Earl Street Walk-up - 2:20 2:20 Etna Street Walk-up - 2:04 2:04 Lower Afton Park& park-and-ride 9:24 3:28 3:28 Ride Newport Transit park-and-ride 5:20 5:20 5:20 Station 70th Street Walk-up �:12 - - St. Paul Park Walk-up _ 9:55 9:55 80th Street Park-and-ride - 5:47 5:47 95th Street Walk-up - 7:31 - Jamaica Avenue Walk-up - - 9:12 Langdon Village Park-and-ride 7:32 - - Hastings Depot Park-and-ride 13:36 11:56 11:56 Lions Park Walk-up - 8:33 8:33 Dakota County Offices Park-and-ride - 3:56 3:56 Total Time 43:04 63:53 65:34 Park-and-ride access was modeled using the"AUTOCON" process in the CUBE PT transit path builder.Other key parameters include a maximum backtracking distance of two miles and 25 percent of the distance to the Saint Paul Central Business District(CBD). Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 6 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR l � � � Table 3 shows connector and demographic information for each station including drive access connections modeled,the number of zones connected to each station by drive access,and the population and number of households in those zones. Figure 4 shows the modeled drive access travel sheds for each zone.The maximum actual drive access distance can be longer than that specified in the AUTOCON program due to the necessity to include other logical zones to serve a particular station.All other model application procedures are consistent with those outlined in the Red Rock Model Methodology Report. Table 3:Red Rnck Autn Access Connector Summary and.4utn Acce.t.t Travel Shed nemngraphics . , . , � � . , . / ' „ . � � i Lower Afton 4.7 5.0 6.0 22 62,960 25,610 Newport 8.1 8.0 8.4 32 89,920 35,890 80th Street 12.3 9.0 6.2 15 55,790 21,360 Langdon 14.9 9.0 8.6 7 21,900 8,290 Village Hastings 21.7 17.0 18.0 15 43,856 17,980 Depot Dakota 25.0 17.0 18.5 10 44,081 18,138 County Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 , � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a � 61 � ��x-�-ce�.F j � , _ � �I � � � � � �� :�;�� a_ �� , � — � � �� ; �- -�. ;;;; ��' i. 61~� i / I . ...... ..... i:��--_ .. .. ......... �.:i::::�.. --- . ...:�; . .:� �=' � 3 /i _:� / i__ �.. i\ � .. :: :.: �`.�. �:� :::�'�,..—•-. ..::: � ....... . :.........,_.. ��:::::::......�. ::�:::::.:::::::::::-:.. :�: �i:i�i�i:�i:ii:: 61 ::i:i:i::iiiiiiiii�:iiiiii:: :ii:::i Travel Sheds Dakota County Offices Station � Hastings Depot Station Langdon Village Station �80th Street Station Newport Transit Station = Lower Afton Park & Ride � � �`"`' 0 1.75 3.5 Red Rock Drive Access Travel Sheds �r.rn Koc�: Y�^�4;;�,;�'. Miles Kimley�»Horn Figure 4:Red Rock Drive Access Travel5heds KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 g � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Regional Forecast Summary The 2040 regional network is consistent with the future year network assumed within the Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan. Key transit infrastructure includes a full METRO Green Line between downtown Saint Paul and Eden Prairie and a full METRO Blue Line between Mall of America and Brooklyn Park. Highway BRT lines include the METRO Red Line,the METRO Orange Line,and the dedicated BRT METRO Gold Line (Gateway Corridor).Arterial BRT lines are also included for the A Line(Snelling Avenue) in Saint Paul,the C Line(Penn Avenue)and the Chicago-Freemont arterial BRT line in Minneapolis. Figure 5 shows a map of the major transitways planned in the region. In the Red Rock Corridor, Routes 361,364,and 365(peak only) remain.Table 4 shows a regional summary of the population, households,and employment for 2040,and the percent growth for the total region from 2010 to 2040. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 9 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a Current Revenue Scenario Transitways and CTIB Phase I Program of Projects � � �:; ;,� ,;r.:, . .__ __. � -- �; �� ,1� 1' Reference Items � �i Principal Nrteriai Hig�ways . � ��OlherTrunkHig�ways - Lakes antl R�rvers � , QyBountlary I � -� _ co��yeo�oean � .. ._-_ zoao u�na�sa.�wA nrea MPOArea �� I-,-_ * � _: �.�� ' — ; � � �� { ,,, °R�' = i � r _ n � �.. o ` , � � �, I \ 'I �� ,`! \. ., :�....�—.-�.. .-, � '�� ... - �� I. �� "' SCOiS ;`�� _ _ ��= � _-- V� Dakota � - � --� 6�-- -io -- -zolti�cs �� Novzola I I I � �Northstar Line ��Red Line �` Arterial BRT ��Blue Line Orange Line CTIB Phase I Program of Projects under study mode and alignment not yet specified ��Green Line Gold Line * Regional Multimodal Hub i� METROPOLITAN C O U N C I L Figure 5:Regional Transitways Plan from the 2040 Policy Plan KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 10 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Tnhlo d•Rod Rock 20an no.,�,.,n,--�-�-�-- . � � � � � ' • 1 Population 3,672,888 1,073,255 4,746,143 37% Households 1,508,756 384,777 1,893,533 41% Retail Employment 384,923 - - - Non-retail Employment 1,717,249 - - - Total Employment 2,102,172 401,726 2,503,898 42% Table 5 shows the change in regional linked transit trips. From 2010 to 2040 there is a 57 percent increase in regional transit trips. This increase reflects the change in population and households and significant service improvements with new fixed-guideway and BRT service. The Red Rock alternatives create 900 new transit trips for Alternative 1 and between 1,500 and 1,600 new transit trips for Alternatives 2A and 2B.These new trips account for between 71 and 75 percent of the Red Rock BRT project trips.VMT savings is 10,100 vehicle-miles per day for Alternative 1 and about 19,000 vehicle-miles per day for Alternative 2A and 2B.VHT savings range from 300 vehicle-hours per day for Alternative 1 and 500 vehicle-hours per day for Alternatives 2A and 2B. TQble S.Red ROCk RPfllllll/7I I IIIIlPfi QI/PY/7fIP I/��PPICfi/71/TY/71lCIY TYII�C Rn�inrlarl tn rhp nipry,-p�r�nn r,-�n�pucept for BRT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • / Local Bus 133,800 164,800 164,800 164,700 164,700 Express Bus 36,600 57,300 57,000 56,800 56,800 Light Rail 21,900 73,800 73,800 73,700 73,700 BRT-Red Rock 0 0 1,250 2,150 2,200 Commuter Rail 1,400 8,800 8,800 8,800 8,800 Total 193,700 304,700 305,500 306,200 306,200 New Transit Trips - - 900 1,500 1,600 VMT Saved - - 10,100 18,900 19,200 VHT Saved - - 300 500 500 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 11 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Corridor Forecast Summary For the purposes of summarizing trips in the corridor,the aggregated zones are summarized into a limited number of districts,as shown in Figure 6.The Red Rock Corridor includes the Woodbury, Newport,Cottage Grove,and Hastings districts.The most common destinations are the Minneapolis and Saint Paul CBDs(for work trips)and the Midway area between the CBDs,which serves as the attraction for University of Minnesota trips and the home end of reverse-commuter trips. Tables 6 through 10 show transit trips and transit mode shares between selected districts for the 2010,2040 No Build,and 2040 Build Alternatives.The row headings in these tables represent the home end of the trip,and the column headings represent the non-home end.These tables show that the majority of new transit trips occur between Hastings or Cottage Grove and the Minneapolis and Saint Paul CBDs and the Midway area. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 12 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a North River � Wisconsin Ramsey Co � � Washington Co Mpls CBD StPaul CBD � Midway Hennepin Co Woodbury � Bloomington Newport � � � Cottage Grove Pierce Co Hastings Dakota Co �,i South Suburb Red Wing RCI� ROCK �vin�skiNen`oe 0 1.75 3.5 Red Rock District Definitions �* Miles Kimley>»Horn Figure 6:Red Rock District Definitions KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 13 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Table 6:Red R��n��1 Corridor Transit Trips and r---_:,.�A_�_.-�__.__ • � . � � . � � : � : � • • • � Minneapolis 3,080 5% 170 22% 1,450 5% 0 0% 0 2% 0 1% 0 3% 4,700 5% CBD Saint Paul 210 38% 750 4% 930 3% 0 0% 0 1% 0 2% 30 4% 1,920 4% CBD Midway 8,420 19% 3,650 7% 16,560 3% 0 0% 10 1% 20 1% 50 2% 28,710 4% Hastings no 13i so si zo si o oi o oi o oi o oi �o oi Cottage 220 18% 160 4% 180 1% 0 0% 20 0% 20 0% 10 0% 610 0% Grove Newport 50 19% 80 5% 90 2% 0 0% 10 0% 20 0% 10 1% 260 1% Woodbury 200 22% 350 6% 370 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 70 1% 990 3% Total 12,230 11% 5,170 6% 19,600 3% 0 0% 50 0% 70 0% 160 1% 37,270 3% *Trips rounded to the nearest 10 Table 7:Red Rock Year 2040 No-Build Corridor Transit Trips and Transit Mode Share • • ' � � • • � �• • � Min,neapolis 4,720 4% 520 37% 2,880 6% 0 0% 0 3% 0 2% 0 4% 8,120 5% CBD Saint Paul 460 40% 830 2% 1,370 3% 0 0% 0 1% 0 1% 40 3% 2,700 3% CBD Midway 12,780 22% 6,620 11% 21,120 3% 0 0% 20 1% 30 2% 70 2% 40,640 5% Hastings 120 19% 60 3% 50 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 230 0% Cottage 33o zzi 3zo 6i sso si o oi zo oi zo oi o oi s�o si Grove Newport 130 19% 200 6% 130 2% 0 0% 10 0% 20 0% 10 0% 500 1% Woodbury 390 30% 770 9% 510 3% 0 0% 0 0% 10 0% 90 1% 1,770 4% Total 18,930 10% 9,330 8% 26,230 3% 0 0% 50 0% 80 0% 210 1% 54,820 4% *Trips rounded to the nearest 10 KIIT�Ie,I��HOCI7 : August 2016 14 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Table 8:Red R��v�nr2040Alternative 1 CorridorT-��_:,.r._:.____�r.____:,.�A_�_.-�__.__ • � . � � . � � :� :� • • • � Minneapolis CBD 4,720 4% 520 37% 2,880 6% 0 8% 0 4% 0 2% 0 4% 8,130 5% Saint Paul CBD 460 40% 830 2% 1,370 3% 0 0% 10 6% 0 2% 40 3% 2,710 3% Midway 12,780 22% 6620 11% 21,120 3% 0 1% 30 2% 30 2% 70 2% 40,670 5% Hastings 130 22% 110 5% 90 2% 10 0% 10 0% 0 0% 0 0% 360 0% Cottage Grove 370 25% 420 7% 240 2% 10 0% 50 0% 20 0% 10 0% 1,120 1% Newport sno zoi zno �i sso zi o oi zo oi zo oi so oi s�o si Woodbury noo 3oi soo ioi sno ni o oi io oi io oi ioo ii i,sno ni Total 19,000 10% 9,540 8% 26,380 3% 30 0% 130 0% 90 0% 220 1% 55,400 4% *Trips rounded to the nearest 10 Table 9:Red Rock Year 2040 Alternative 2A(via 95ih Street)Corridor Transit Trips and Transit Mode Share • • ' � � • • � �• • � Min,neapolis CBD 4,720 4% 520 37% 2,880 6% 0 15% 0 4% 0 2% 0 4% 8,130 5% Saint Paul CBD 460 40% 830 2% 1,370 3% 0 1% 20 7% 0 2% 40 3% 2,720 3% Midway 12,780 22% 6,620 11% 21,120 3% 10 2% 40 2% 30 2% 70 2% 40,680 5% Hastings 150 24% 120 6% 100 2% 80 0% 30 0% 0 0% 0 0% 480 0% Cottage Grove 390 26% 440 8% 260 2% 20 0% 90 0% 30 0% 10 0% 1,240 1% Newport sno zoi z3o �i sso zi o oi zo oi zo oi so oi s�o si Woodbury noo 3oi soo ioi sno ni o oi io oi io oi ioo ii i,sso ni Total 19,040 10% 9,560 8% 26,410 3% 120 0% 200 0% 100 0% 230 1% 55,650 4% *Trips rounded to the nearest 10 KIIT�Ie,I��HOCI7 : August 2016 15 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Table 10:Re�R^��v��rr2040Alternative 28(viaJr-__:__ �..__.._��__._:�_._r.____:,.r._:.___nd Trar-�`""-- � • � . � � . � � :� :� • • • i Minneapolis CBD 4,720 4% 520 37% 2,880 6% 0 15% 0 4% 0 2% 0 4% 8,130 5% Saint Paul CBD 460 40% 830 2% 1,370 3% 0 1% 20 7% 0 2% 40 3% 2,720 3% Midway 12,780 22% 6,620 11% 21,120 3% 10 2% 40 2% 30 2% 70 2% 40,680 5% Hastings 150 24% 120 5% 100 2% 80 0% 30 0% 0 0% 0 0% 480 0% Cottage Grove 390 26% 450 8% 260 2% 20 0% 90 0% 30 0% 10 0% 1,260 1% Newport sno zoi z3o �i sso zi o oi zo oi zo oi so oi s�o si Woodbury noo 3oi soo ioi sno ni o oi io oi io oi ioo ii i,sso ni Total 19,040 10% 9,560 8% 26,410 3% 120 0% 210 0% 100 0% 230 1% 55,670 4% *Trips rounded to the nearest 10 KIIT�Ie,I��HOCI7 : August 2016 16 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Project Forecast Summary This chapter addresses the characteristics of the project trips—that is,those trips that use the BRT line for each build alternative. Table 11 summarizes key project ridership characteristics.The primary observations are listed below: ■ The BRT alternatives 2A and 2B draw significantly greater ridership than Alternative 1.This is due to greater accessibility to walk-access trips and more accessibility to destinations.The reverse-commute trip share for Alternatives 2A and 2B is also greater as a result of better destination accessibility. ■ There is little difference between Alternative 2A and 2B in terms of ridership.There are about 60 more home-end trips using the Jamaica Avenue station than using the 95th Street station. ■ The greater accessibility offered by the Alternative 2 BRT alternatives attracts a greater share of transit riders from low income and households without a car when compared with Alternative 1. ■ About two-thirds of the trips for all alternatives are work trips. ■ The estimated peak vehicle load can be accommodated by standard BRT buses as a seated capacity. ■ Drive-access trips account for more than half of the Alternative 1 BRT ridership,whereas the demand on the Alternative 2 BRT alternatives is more evenly split between walk and drive access and transfers from other transit routes. ■ Virtually all of the bus/rail access for all alternatives occurs at the Union Depot and Mounds Boulevard Station. ■ The park-and-ride station with the largest demand is at the Newport Transit Station,followed by the Lower Afton Park& Ride.These stations offer relatively quick access from freeways and the stations are relatively close to the Saint Paul CBD. The remaining park-and-ride stations show a demand of 50 or fewer vehicles. Park-and-ride vehicle demand assumes a 10% turnover ratio,average vehicle occupancy of 1.1 people,and a 10%additional space allowance. The latter allowance is a design consideration to account for fluctuation in demand and spaces that may become unusable during the day.This demand includes only the BRT line demand and does not include any demand from other lines sharing the same park-and- ride lots. ■ The park-and-ride attractiveness of the Dakota County Offices Station in Hastings may be less attractive due to a relatively slow connection to the Hastings Depot,where drivers could access directly. ■ The existing Routes 361,364,and 365 show stable ridership with each build alternative.They offer good travel times and accessibility and some serve other geographic markets, including direct,one-seat trips to the University of Minnesota and the Minneapolis CBD. Only about 100 to 200 riders are diverted from these routes to the BRT alternatives. ■ A build-up analysis indicates that about 65 percent of the 2040 Alternative 1 increase in ridership over the 2010 no-build alternative is attributable to the increased service and accessibility provided in the build alternative,with most of the remainder of the demand attributable to growth from 2010 to 2040.A similar analysis shows that about 63/60 percent of the 2040 Alternative 2A/2B ridership increase over the 2010 no-build alternative, respectively, is attributable to the increased service and accessibility provided by the increased service in the build alternatives,with most of the remainder of the demand attributable to growth from 2010 to 2040.Appendix A shows the station ridership for a 2010"build"condition compared with 2040 totals. ■ The distribution of boardings and alightings at the three potential stations in Hastings for the Alternative 2 scenarios is not well-defined by the model results due to the adjacent zone sizes, placement and arrangement of the access connectors. While the model results favor the station near Highway 55 and Westview Drive,a re-distribution of trips to the Hastings Depot and the Dakota County Services Center station could be justified.The combined magnitude of trips at the Hastings stations is, however, reasonable. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 17 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Tnhlo 11•Rofl ROCIC Pl"Of2ff Trin("--�---�-�-�-��-- � � � � � � � � � � � Boardings 1,250 2,150 2,200 Reverse Commute 250(18%) 500(24%) 500(23%) Trips from 0-Auto Households 300(25%) 750(34%) 750(35%) Home-Based Work Low Income 150(20%) 300(23%) 300(23%) Work Share 900(70%) 1,350(64%) 1,400(65%) Peak Vehicle Load 32/Bus 32/Bus 33/Bus Walk Access 350(26%) 700(33%) 750(34%) Bus Access 200(15%) 620(29%) 650(29%) Park-and-ride 700(56%) 750(35%) 750(34%) Kiss-and-ride 32 (2%) 65 (3%) 70(3%) Parking Spaces 330 330 320 Lower Afton 90 80 80 Newport 150 140 140 80th Street - 40 40 Langdon Village 30 - - Hastings Depot 60 50 40 Dakota County Offices - 20 20 Routes 361/364/365 1,500 1,600 1,600 Figures 7 through 12 show boarding,alighting,and segment passenger loads(i.e., bus riders on the bus)for each alternative for Year 2040 weekday conditions.Also included in these figures are charts showing the distribution of access modes by station. Note that the acronyms"PNR"and "KNR" represent park-and-ride and drop-off(i.e., kiss-and-ride)access to a station.All values are presented in Production/Attraction format,which means that boarding values represent the home end of a trip and attraction values represent the non-home end of a trip (e.g.,workplace,shopping,etc.)These figures show a strong commute pattern with the Union Depot Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 18 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR l � � � being the primary alighting location for morning trips. From here,travelers proceed to downtown St. Paul destinations or transfer to bus and rail modes for destinations in Minneapolis,the University of Minnesota,or other Midway area destinations. �Boardings �Alightings f Passenger Loads 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 - ■ Union Depot Lower Afton Newport 70th Street Langdon Village Hastings Figure 7:Red RockAlternative 1 Boardings and Alightings and Link Loads--Year 2040 Average Weekday Trips. 400 350 300 250 ■KNR 200 ■PNR ■Bus 150 — ■Walk 100 50 — 0 _ _ � Union Depot Lower Afton Newport 70th Street Langdon Village Hastings Figure 8:Red RockAlternative 1 Boardings byAccess Mode--Year 2040 Average Weekday Trips. KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 19 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � �Boardings �Alightings f Passenger Loads 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Union Mounds Earl St Etna St Lower Newport St. Paul 80th St 95th St Hastings Lions Dakota Depot Blvd Afton Park Park Co Figure 9:Red Rock Alternative 2A(via 95th Street)Boardings and Alightings and Link Loads--Year 2040 Average Weekday Trips. 400 350 300 250 ■KNR 200 ■PNR 150 ■Bus ■Walk 100 50 0 Union Mounds Earl St Etna St Lower Newport St. Paul 80th St 95th St Hastings Lions Dakota Depot Blvd Afton Park Park Co Figure 10:Red Rock Alternative 2A(via 95th Street)Boardings by Access Mode--Year 2040 Average Weekday Trips. KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 20 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � �Boardings �Alightings f Passenger Loads 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Union Mounds Earl St Etna St Lower Newport St. Paul 80th St Jamaica Hastings Lions Dakota Depot Blvd Afton Park Ave Park Co Figure 11:Red Rock Alternative 28(via Jamaica Ave)Boardings and Alightings and Link Loads--Year 2040 Average Weekday Trips. 400 350 300 250 ■KNR 200 ■PNR 150 ■Bus ■Walk 100 50 0 Union Mounds Earl St Etna St Lower Newport St. Paul 80th St Jamaica Hastings Lions Dakota Depot Blvd Afton Park Ave Park Co Figure 12:Red Rock Alternative 28(via Jamaica Ave)Boardings by Access Mode--Year 2040 Average Weekday Trips KII�T�Ie,I��HOrI1 : August 2016 21 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Interim Year (2024) Forecast Summary 2024 was selected as an interim year to evaluate additional local and express service within the corridor,as well as an interim build option for the Full Build BRT.Given the lack of all-day local bus service in the corridor, initial implementation of all-day service and additional express bus service was proposed as an initial step in building ridership towards full BRT.Year 2024 represents a reasonable estimate for the time needed to secure funding, implement interim service,and maintain operations for two to three years.This type of service, in 2024, provides better understanding of the performance of interim stages of the Red Rock Implementation Plan,specifically how well transit service and demand are matched in the years between now and full BRT implementation. A No-Build and three build alternatives were tested for year 2024.The Build alternatives include: 1. Route 367—Route 367 is a peak-only express service with 30 minute headways,serving Hastings, Newport Transit Station, and the Minneapolis CBD. 2. Route 363 with Route 367—Route 363 is an all-day local service with 30 minute headways,connecting the Cottage Grove Park and Ride Station with the Union Depot in downtown St. Paul. Other stations served include Jamaica Avenue,8ptn Street(East),St. Paul Park, Newport Transit Station,and Lower Afton. Cottage Grove, Newport Transit Station,and Lower Afton were modeled as park-and-ride stations. Route 367 as described above is also included. 3. Alternative 2B(Interim BRT)—As a benchmark comparison to Alternative 2B, interim BRT service with 15 minute headways was modeled,with the same stops as Route 363, but also serving the Gateway(Gold Line)stations at Etna Street, Earl Street,and Mounds Blvd. Table 12 shows a comparison of existing and No-Build scenarios for current and all future years.The year 2024 socioeconomic data was interpolated between the Metropolitan Council's current 2020 and 2030 forecasts,and the highway and transit networks were represented according to the regional development plan.Table 12 shows that 2024 represents approximately a midpoint in terms of corridor transit ridership between 2010 and 2040,with a total of 1,350 riders in the No-Build scenario. Table 12:No-Build Red Rock Corridor Ridership by Year(all numbers rounded to the nearest 10 trips) , ,, � , Observed 2010 270 40 500 810 2010 310 50 700 1,060 Modeled 2024 270 150 930 1,350 2040 360 220 1,080 1,660 Table 13 shows projected year 2024 boardings by route in the corridor for the No-Build and each build scenario. Route 367 shows 100 to 110 boardings,depending on the scenario. Route 363 has approximately 540 boardings. Finally,Alternative 2B(Interim BRT) service including the Gold Line stations shows a 1,550 boardings,which is about 70 percent of the 2040 Alternative 2B ridership. Note that this interim BRT terminates at the Cottage Grove Park& Ride and does not include service to Hastings,which is included in the Full Build BRT Alternative 2B modeled in 2040. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 22 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Table 13: Year 2024 Daily Boardings by Route and Scenario(all values rounded to the nearest 10 trips) � • • .� • � No-Build 270 150 930 1,350 Route 367 270 130 910 100 1,410 Route 363/367 240 100 930 540 110 1,920 Alternative 2B (Interim BRT) 200 80 990 1,550 2,820 Table 14 shows the parking lot demand for each route. Table 14: Year 2024 Projected New Parking Space Demand � • • � • � • • � • • • • � • • � Route 367 16 25 41 Route 363/367 17 24 78 41 160 Alternative 2B(Interim BRT) 23 99 72 194 Note: All values are the parking spaces required for new service only, not including demand from existing bus routes. The estimated parking space demand assumes 1.1 persons/vehicle occupancy,a 10%turnover ratio and a 10%spare allowance. Figures 13 through 15 show the boardings,alightings,and loads for each scenario.These values are presented in production/attraction format. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 23 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � �On �Off Load 120 100 80 �� 60 40 20 0 ' - � I . � I - ■ � 5�. 5'�. ,�r 5'� ��. 5'� 5'�. 5�. 5�. 5'� 5�. 5'� �'�. 5�. c�'� 5'�. 5'� 5'�. c��. 5�. �. 5 a�Q �'`,� 1'`,� .�� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� 1'`,� �'`,� h'`,� s'Q� y'`�� Q- J�\,�\��Q a\�e\o\\��.\�e�,\e�,�e\P,�\P,�\P,e\P,�\�a�,\��aQ�.�.\a�o\P,�\P,�\P�e\ Q,�\ P�\ �e �a ti�a ti�a `�'e �a ��aio'Je�taJ�'�a ''�a 0�'�r �''`Qo�'��Q°� G'��0�.r'y0�.r'y,�''�'r ,�'ti'�r,�",yr � Figure 13: Year 2024 Route 367 Boardings,Alightings, and Loads �On �Off Load 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Union Depot LowerAfton Newport St. Paul Park 80th St East Jamaica Ave CottageGrove Figure 14: Year 2024 Route 363 Boardings,Alightings, and Loads Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 24 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � �On �Off Load 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Union Mounds Earl St Etna St Lower Newport St. Paul 80th St Jamaica Cottage Depot Blvd Afton Park Ave Grove P&R Figure 15: Year 20241nterim BRT with Gold Line Stations Boardings,Alightings, and Loads Sensitivity Testing In order to facilitate a comparison of various interim scenarios,as described in the Alternative Evaluation Technical Memo,a series of sensitivity tests were performed using the primary Build alternatives described in this memo.These factors and ridership adjustments can be applied to interim scenarios in order to estimate ridership without performing a full model run. BRT Factor Conversion of a local bus service to a BRT service assumes a variety of improvements including new buses, level or near-level boarding,station enhancements and amenities,off-board fare collection,and real time arrival information. BRT service typically also assumes increased frequency,so a ridership increase associated with changing from local to BRT service is related to both factors (BRT amenities that increase the attractiveness of the services as well as an increase in frequency). In order to test the relative significance of the BRT factor—that is,the ridership increase associated with BRT amenities only with no increase in frequency—a model run was completed using the Route 363 service plan modeled as BRT service. In the year 2024, ridership on the route increased by around 10 percent(600 trips compared to 540 trips on Route 363).This factor can therefore reasonably be applied to other scenarios within the corridor to determine what ridership increase could be expected purely from BRT enhancements and no changes to the service plan. Gateway Stations A separate analysis was conducted using the Year 2040 Alternative 2A to evaluate the impact of the shared Gateway stations (Mounds Blvd., Earl Street,and Etna St.)on the Alternative 2A ridership.The approach was to examine a selected station assignment for these stations and to produce a model run for Alternative 2A without these stations.This allows us to understand where the trips that use these stations are coming from and going to,as well as showing the ridership impact of not having these stations. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 25 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR l � � � Table 15 shows the station to station flows for Alternative 2A,with the Gateway stations highlighted. Most of the activity occurs at the Mounds Boulevard Station. Note that 200 trips board and alight at the Gateway stations from the Red Rock stations to the south. Most, if not all of these trips would likely be lost from the Red Rock line if the Gateway stations are removed.Additionally, 410 trips board and alight at Union Depot,and these trips would be either lost or would shift to the Gateway Line if the Gateway stations are removed.Some increase in Red Rock trips would also be expected due to the reduction in travel time,but with the Gateway stations adding less than three minutes of overall travel time,this effect can be assumed to be small for the various interim scenarios.A ridership increase of 5 percent was assumed.The test model using Alternative 2A confirmed these assumptions. Table 16 shows the station to station flows for Alternative 2B,although no comparison model run was completed with the Gateway stations for this alternative. Based on this analysis and a review of Gateway station boardings and alightings for the various scenarios,the following trips can be assumed to be subtracted from total corridor ridership if the Gateway connection is not included as part of the scenario. Following the removal of these trips,a ridership increase of 5 percent may be assumed to take into account the travel time savings. • Alternative 2A—Year 2040 0 600 trips(25 to 30 percent of total ridership) • Alternative 2B—Year 2040 0 600 trips(25 to 30 percent of total ridership) • Interim BRT(to Cottage Grove)—Year 2024 0 500 trips(30 to 35 percent of total ridership) Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 26 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Table 15:Year 2040 Alternative 2A Station To Station Flows(Trip Totals Rounded,blank cells are non-zero,less than 5) � � o > � � 0 N m � ++ a � � U � � +� +' a � � c�n c�'n c a ° o � `i' c�o °' � a t t '� � Y �o � c� tLo +�+ O � ++ O in to O to p � G W W J Z (n OO 01 S J � Union Depot 0 60 0 20 20 60 30 30 5 40 265 Mounds Blvd 320 0 0 0 0 320 Earl St 20 0 0 0 5 5 0 30 Etna St 10 0 0 10 5 20 10 10 5 0 70 Lower Afton 240 10 20 0 5 10 0 285 Newport 250 10 20 0 5 40 0 325 St. Paul Park 70 10 0 20 5 5 0 110 80th St 180 5 20 20 0 30 5 10 270 95th St 50 10 5 40 0 5 0 110 Hastings 60 5 5 5 30 5 0 10 10 130 Lions Park g0 5 10 5 60 10 10 0 10 190 Dakota Co 0 0 0 0 0 10 40 0 50 Total 1,280 95 0 95 30 30 130 240 90 30 115 20 2,155 Table 16:Year 2040 Alternative 28 Station To Station Flows(Trip Totals Rounded,blank cells are non-zero,less than 5) � � Y a� o > � � > 0 Q- m +� co a � o o �, a L a � �, L � � -a � ++ L p � ++ U h.0 d to C C � � � Q �p � '� C � +' O 7 _ (6 ?�. d t � � Y (6 � � w w � Z ci o�0 � 2 � � O Union Depot 0 60 0 20 20 60 30 30 5 40 265 Mounds Blvd 320 0 0 0 0 320 Earl St 20 0 0 0 5 5 0 30 Etna St 20 0 0 10 5 20 10 10 5 0 80 Lower Afton 240 10 20 0 5 10 0 285 Newport 250 10 20 0 5 40 0 325 St. Paul Park 70 10 0 20 5 5 0 110 80th St 180 5 20 20 0 20 5 10 0 260 Jamaica Ave g0 10 10 60 0 5 0 165 Hastings 50 5 5 5 20 5 0 10 10 110 Lions Park g0 5 10 5 50 10 10 0 10 180 Dakota Co 0 0 0 0 0 10 40 0 50 Total 1,310 95 0 95 30 30 135 240 80 30 115 20 2,180 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 27 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Hastings Stations As noted previously,the distribution of boardings and alightings within Hastings is not well-defined due to the zonal structure in the model.The overall total number of boardings and alightings within all of Hastings, however, is reasonably estimated by the model. In order to estimate the impact of adding or removing Hastings stations to any interim BRT option, productions and attractions at each of the Hastings stations were reviewed for all three primary alternatives.The results indicate that the Hastings Depot alone contributes approximately 200 daily trips to Red Rock ridership(+15 to 20 percent), based on a review of productions and attractions from the 2040 Alternative 1 model. By adding two additional Hastings stops,overall Hastings ridership would be expected to increase to 400 trips per day, including some travel within Hastings(+20 to 25 percent). Based on this review, it was determined that by extending service from Cottage Grove to the Hastings Depot,a 20 percent increase in corridor-wide ridership could be expected. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 28 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR . � a Conclusion Key ridership information from all full model runs is summarized below in Table 17.These values were used within the Alternative Evaluation Technical Memorandum to compare alternatives and evaluate potential phasing options for the corridor. Table 17:Ridership Results Summary No Build Existing Routes Only 1,350 - - - 1,350 RT 367 Peak Hour Commuter Express Service from 1,310 100 - - 1,410 Hastings to Minneapolis via Newport 2024 RT 367/363 Route 367 plus All-Day 30-Minute Local Service 1,270 110 540 - 1,920 between Cottage Grove and Saint Paul Alternative 2B BRT Along Highway 61 to Cottage Grove Park& (Interim) Ride 1,270 - - 1,550 2,820 No Build Existing Routes Only 1,650 - - - 1,660 BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings with a Highway Alternative 1 1,500 - - 1,250 2,750 Orientation 2040 BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings with a Alternative 2A Community Orientation (via 95th Street) 1,600 - - 2,150 3,750 BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings with a Alternative 2B Community Orientation (via Jamaica Avenue) 1,600 - - 2,200 3,800 In addition to the results from these full model runs,a series of sensitivity tests were performed to allow for use of off-model adjustments to estimate ridership from a variety of scenarios.These ridership estimates and correction factors are summarized below: • BRT Factor o Ridership should be increased by 10%compared to traditional bus service with no changes to the service plan • Removal of Gateway Stations o Year 2024:Subtract 500 trips compared to Interim BRT service to Cottage Grove as a consequence of the station removal,and add 5%of the remaining ridership to account for a faster travel time due to the removal of station stops o Year 2040:Subtract 600 trips compared to Full Build BRT(Alternative 2B)service to Hastings as a consequence of the station removal,and add 5%of the remaining ridership to account for faster travel time due to the removal of station stops • Extension to Hastings Depot o Ridership should be increased by 20%compared to service terminating in Cottage Grove Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 29 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Appendix A Year 2010 and 2040 "Build" Boardings and Alightings Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 A-1 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR l � � � Tables A-1 through A-3 show a comparison of the Red Rock ridership by station for 2010 and 2040 conditions.Socioeconomic growth during this period account for about 35 to 40 percent of the 2040 ridership,depending upon the alternative,with Alternative 1 at the low end of this range and Alternative 2B at the high end. Table A-1:Alternative 1 2010 vs.2040 Growth by5tation(rounded to the nearest 10) Year 2010 Year 2040 YR2040-YR2010 Station On Load Off On Load Off On Load Off Union Depot 110 650 180 990 70 340 Lower Afton 250 750 20 290 1,170 20 40 420 0 Newport 170 510 30 360 880 30 190 370 0 70th Street 90 350 70 100 540 120 10 190 50 Langdon Village 130 250 50 180 380 60 50 130 10 Hastings 90 120 20 160 200 40 70 80 20 Total 830 750 830 1,270 1,170 1,270 440 420 440 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 A_2 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Table A-2:Alternative 2A 2010 vs.2040 Growth by5tation(rounded to the nearest 10) Year 2010 Year 2040 YR2040-YR2010 Station On Load Off On Load Off On Load Off Union Depot 130 890 260 1,270 130 380 Mounds Blvd 160 1,020 50 320 1,530 110 160 510 60 Earl St 70 780 10 30 1,000 10 -40* 220 0 Etna St 60 740 10 70 1,000 90 10 260 80 Lower Afton 240 690 20 280 1,110 30 40 420 10 Newport 130 460 20 340 810 30 210 350 10 St. Paul Park 80 340 70 120 560 130 40 220 60 80th St 190 320 100 280 520 240 90 200 140 95th St 70 240 80 110 390 90 40 150 10 Hastings 70 150 20 120 270 40 50 120 20 Lions Park 110 120 70 180 190 120 70 70 50 Dakota Co 30 50 10 40 80 0 10 30 -10 Total 1,350 1,020 1,350 2,140 1,530 2,140 790 510 790 *A decrease in boardings is due to the Gateway BRT being present in 2040, but not in 2010 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 A-3 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � � Table A-3:Alternative 28 2010 vs.2040 Growth by Station(rounded to the nearest 10) Year 2010 Year 2040 YR2040-YR2010 Station On Load Off On Load Off On Load Off Union Depot 120 890 260 0 1,290 140 400 Mounds Blvd 160 1,000 50 320 1,550 110 160 550 60 Earl St 70 780 10 30 1,020 10 -40* 240 0 Etna St 60 740 10 70 1,020 90 10 280 80 Lower Afton 240 690 20 280 1,130 30 40 440 10 Newport 130 460 20 330 830 30 200 370 10 St. Paul Park 80 340 70 120 590 130 40 250 60 80th St 190 320 110 270 540 250 80 220 140 Jamaica Ave 140 250 70 170 440 90 30 190 20 Hastings 70 90 20 120 260 40 50 170 20 Lions Park 30 50 40 180 180 120 150 130 80 Dakota Co 20 20 0 40 80 0 20 60 0 Total 1,300 1,000 1,300 2,180 1,550 2,180 880 550 880 *A decrease in boardings is due to the Gateway BRT being present in 2040, but not in 2010 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 A-4 �-.r. - _��_�`�� II�� i��. � J� ti��/� :�1 �,�.�-�:.�., � � � 1 � �� 1��. - ~ - � , , � �L�� .�� M� ' � �� ' � � � J - _ — � . � � y\� w r�ii/ ' ,� � - -�::�i� �I `a� • � - � : ;.,. ��Mi�� ---_ � �-- � - _ _�. . I,i��A■ -- � �� _'Q'� ►��,- °..�.� � � ----�Q. - ��. `,� j `` �I � `,� 4252 - . � - __ . _—_. •�.��o . .�� a � � � / • ..................................................................................................................................................................................... • � � � � • • � . RED R�CK • _ • - � SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR • " - " • � PREPAREDFOR .............................................................................. ......................................................................... Red Rock Corridor Commission ......................................................................... PREPARED SY .............................................................................. Kimle >>>Horn PaRsoNs y BRINCKERHOFF � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Contents ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................................................................................................1 FullBuild BRT Alternative Analysis.........................................................................................................................................................1 Station-Level Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................................1 PhasedBRT Evaluation...........................................................................................................................................................................1 ImplementationStrategy.......................................................................................................................................................................2 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................3 Development of Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)Alternatives...............................................................................................................................3 Alternativesby Segment........................................................................................................................................................................3 SegmentA..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 SegmentB..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 SegmentC..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 SegmentD..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 Decision-Making Process.....................................................................................................................................................................13 Technical Advisory Committee(TAC)...............................................................................................................................................13 Business and Civic Advisory Committee(B-CAC).............................................................................................................................13 Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC)............................................................................................................................................14 FullBuild BRT Alternative Analysis...........................................................................................................................................................16 FullBuild BRTAIternatives...................................................................................................................................................................16 Alternative 1: BRT With a Highway Orientation ..............................................................................................................................16 Alternative 2: BRT With a Community Orientation..........................................................................................................................16 Project Goals and Full Build BRT Alignment Evaluation Criteria..........................................................................................................16 Full Build BRT Alternative Evaluation Results......................................................................................................................................19 Goal1: Mobility................................................................................................................................................................................19 Goal2:Cost......................................................................................................................................................................................21 Goal3: Development.......................................................................................................................................................................24 Goal4: Environment........................................................................................................................................................................26 Full Build BRT Alternative Evaluation Results Summary......................................................................................................................29 Full Build BRT Alternative Selection Process........................................................................................................................................30 Station-Level Evaluation ..........................................................................................................................................................................31 Overvi ew..............................................................................................................................................................................................31 EvaluationMeasures............................................................................................................................................................................31 DailyBoardings................................................................................................................................................................................31 Operation & Maintenance Cost Effectiveness.................................................................................................................................32 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 � � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a CapitalCost Effectiveness................................................................................................................................................................33 TransitMarket Index(TMI)..............................................................................................................................................................33 Station-Level Evaluation Summary......................................................................................................................................................34 Decision-Making Process.....................................................................................................................................................................34 PhasedBRT Evaluation.............................................................................................................................................................................35 Overvi ew..............................................................................................................................................................................................35 In-Service Hours...............................................................................................................................................................................35 RevenueHours.................................................................................................................................................................................35 Operations and Maintenance Costs per Revenue Hour..................................................................................................................35 PPISH................................................................................................................................................................................................35 ScenarioEvaluation..............................................................................................................................................................................37 Route367.........................................................................................................................................................................................37 Route363.........................................................................................................................................................................................39 Route363 Extended.........................................................................................................................................................................40 Interim BRT Option 1: BRT Service to Cottage Grove......................................................................................................................41 Interim BRT Option 2:Add Gateway Stations to Base BRT Service..................................................................................................43 Interim BRT Option 3:Add Service to Hastings Depot.....................................................................................................................45 Full Build BRT Service(Alternative 2B).............................................................................................................................................46 Corridor Evaluation Summary and Discussion.....................................................................................................................................47 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Executive Summary The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority(WCCRA), Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority(DCRRA), Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority(RCRRA),and Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority(HCRRA) have initiated an Implementation Plan for the Red Rock Corridor between Hastings and downtown Saint Paul. The purpose of this report is to define and document the evaluation measures and alternative selection process used to select the final BRT route and corridor recommendations for the Red Rock Implementation Plan.There were three different stages of evaluation conducted to produce an implementation strategy for the corridor:full build BRT alternative analysis,station-level evaluation,and phased BRT evaluation. Full Build BRT Alternative Analysis Initially,two project alternatives were evaluated based on projected cost, ridership,and service: ■ Alternative 1: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Highway Orientation ■ Alternative 2: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Community Orientation Due to many factors, namely higher ridership and economic development potential,the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) recommended Alternative 2 as the alternative for further analysis as part of the Implementation Plan.This included two sub- alternatives(Alternative 2A and 2B)to assess routing options within Cottage Grove.See Figure 1 for the stops included in BRT Alternative 1, BRT Alternative 2A,and BRT Alternative 2B. Station-Level Evaluation The Alternative 2 stations were then evaluated individually in order to ■ Assess incremental costs and benefits of each station ■ Compare the corridor and individual stations to regional standards ■ Provide input to phasing process ■ Provide guidance for station-specific ridership goals and trends Although costs and ridership vary between stations,the elimination of one or more mid-route stations would be insufficient to significantly modify the overall cost-effectiveness of the service. Based on this outcome,the evaluation process advanced to look at corridor-wide performance measures for interim year build scenarios.The purpose of this effort was to identify an implementation plan that could leverage funds from a variety of sources and establish target ridership thresholds to ensure the project is competitive with other regional and national transitway projects. Phased BRT Evaluation One key evaluation measure used regionally to assess the performance of all transit routes is a function of the total number of riders and the number of hours the bus is in operation (called passengers per in-service hour or PPISH).The key to meeting the regional standards for PPISH,which vary by route type, is to create transit routes that maximize ridership while minimizing costs,which in effect creates routes that are as efficient as possible while still achieving other goals.Several transit options with varying frequencies,stations,and corridor lengths were proposed and evaluated for PPISH: ■ Route 367: Peak Hour Commuter Express Service from Hastings to Minneapolis via Newport ■ Route 363:All-Day 30-Minute Local Service between Cottage Grove and Saint Paul ■ Route 363 Extended:All-Day 30-Minute Local Service between Hastings and Saint Paul ■ Interim BRT Option 1: BRT Service to Cottage Grove ■ Interim BRT Option 2:Add Gateway to Base BRT Service to Cottage Grove ■ Interim BRT Option 3:Add BRT Service to Hastings Depot ■ Full Build BRT Service(Also referred to as Alternative 2B): Highway BRT Along Highway 61 to Hastings,with Community-Focused Deviations(via Jamaica Ave) Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 1 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Figure 1 shows the stations included in each of the PPISH evaluations. Interim BRT Option 2 had the highest PPISH, however,even this optimized version of the Full Build BRT Alternative 2 did not hit regional minimums. Ridership would need to increase by 33 percent to meet the 25 PPISH regional threshold. STATIONS ALTERNATIVE .� _ �1 /1 �1 .� ., �i /'1 /'1 /1 �1 �1 •. - •. . •. Figure 1:Stations Assumed in Various Evaluation Iterations Implementation Strategy Outside of adjusting the route length and stops,a key component of increasing PPISH and therefore the efficiency of a route is through station area development,which serves to increase ridership.Achieving transit-supportive densities within station areas is a gradual process that includes land-use planning,the promotion of density in comprehensive plans and zoning code,and implementing transit advantages.These policy changes will be necessary to create a competitive BRT alignment in the Red Rock Corridor.The full implementation strategy is discussed in the Phasing Plan within the Implementation Plan Final Report. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 2 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR i � � l Introduction The purpose of this report is to define and document the evaluation measures and alternative selection process used to select the final BRT route and corridor recommendations for the Red Rock Implementation Plan.An analysis of funding options is not included in this memo but can be found in the Financial Plan and Implementation Strategy Technical Memo. Development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternatives A single BRT alternative was analyzed as part of the Red Rock Alternatives Analysis Update(AAU).As part of the Implementation Plan process, however,commuter rail was not advanced for further analysis,and the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) recommended exploring additional BRT alignments within the BRT corridor. Development of these proposed BRT alternatives was driven by assessing residential densities,employment densities,and activity centers along the corridor.The Red Rock Corridor was then split into four segments between the Union Depot and Hastings(see Figure 2).Segment A includes the portion of the corridor between Union Depot and Newport Transit Station,Segment B includes between Newport Transit Station and the Jamaica Avenue exit of Highway 61,Segment C includes between the Jamaica Avenue exit and the northern border of Hastings,and segment D includes Hastings. Alternatives by Segment SEGMENTA The alternatives explored in Segment A analyze the feasibility of connecting with the Gateway Corridor at the intersection of Interstate 94 and Highway 61.Two options have been developed that would conceptually work with the current plans for the Gateway Corridor which is further along in project development: Figure 3 presents an option that bypasses the Etna Street Station (Gateway Option A),and Figure 4 presents the modifications needed to serve the Etna Street Station (Gateway Option B). SEGMENT B The alternatives explored in Segment B compare service options to activity centers and residential and employment densities in Newport,St. Paul Park,and Cottage Grove.The first alternative(B1)focuses on speed with the stations primarily located immediately adjacent to Highway 61.This includes Newport Transit Station,70th Street Station in St. Paul Park,and Langdon Village Station in Cottage Grove.The second alternative(B2)for Segment B aims to serve more of the core of St. Paul Park and the industrial employment centers in Cottage Grove with stations at the Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station (near the intersection of Broadway and 3�d Street),80th Street Station (on the west side of Highway 61),and 95th Street Station.The third alternative(B3)also focuses on the core of St. Park but serves the retail centers on the east side of Highway 61 with stations at the Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station (on the east side of Highway 61) and Jamaica Avenue Station.The fourth alternative (B4)focused on providing geographic equity to Cottage Grove with one station on each side of Highway 61 with stations at Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station (on the west side of Highway 61)and Jamaica Avenue Station. Figures 5 through 8 depict the alternatives presented for Segment B of the corridor. SEGMENT C Due to the largely rural landscape between Jamaica Avenue and the northern border of Hastings,there were no alternatives analyzed along Segment C,and it is assumed that the Red Rock Corridor will strictly travel on Highway 61 along this segment. SEGMENT D The alternative analyzed in Segment D explored whether to serve areas in Hastings beyond the Hastings Depot.The first alternative (D1)focuses solely on service to the Hastings Depot.The second alternative(D2) in Hastings provides service beyond the Hastings Depot with additional stations at Regina Medical Center Station and the Dakota County Offices Station.The third alternative(D3) in Hastings seeks to serve the population and employment south of Highway 55 in Hastings with stations at the Hastings Depot, Lions Park Station,and the Dakota County Offices Station. Figures 9 through 11 depict the alternatives presented for Segment D of the corridor. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 3 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Union Depot \ Lower Afton Newport . � � St.Paul Park �� 61 � � Cottage Grove OHastings I Figure 2:Red Rock Corridor Segments KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 4 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ' .. ..' 4# _ '_ _ " " _ - . _ I � � R� Su �� j � " 3 r� � ._.—r—_ .� . ��I I,I' � l. .,,�.'� w � " • �t ' ':_.�..:.�� w;...'t-. -,rn...., ..�,. ..�,-I �," �'� .. ..� '� I I ,� , `I "�, `' , - �, •,�, - ` y �1 = t r� '�� '" � I � `�1 �" M ��Mr � a- ' vnteonAve .1A . r # � - � ' �:,:� .., _. _ �� y�a;e�` � � -� �r � � - � .}� ` � ,� '1�*-� '� � ,��1 + � 't. - - ,• 5�� rl� •'_ v��.. f _ � _ -� �' : �'�' FF E � �� _ '/ � � �� -� ,� , }+'� `�, s i --� !!% � L '� � r^ a�, =_ � �>', ,d�c -.Y,t ! � '� P' c . a m� ��y�'. E ,� K r , � .'ts',� 6 �A �1� 'f. ��f•�• �M�� r � .3 W c �� + �. a �� AA'.... - yen -sn� _; � 7:w. S .,I�'�� .. ., �ry� .�- ^ 7,'.:. � . ~ _ �- b5n —� . _ _ . . � _ _� _ _ - _— - _ , - �� - '. �� l 1, —� �' � � __ __ _ _ ' , _ ;� i .� ` � �j . �� }r- . s � --—-- - — ' W��-�"', � '� �'` 1;, £, � = s f p - ta -�_�q� R . .�I ��' � ��G'� XUD,a(x�Nn. � / /' �{�!'� � 1 �•W �; � � ��R�'. � - � �' n t�.1M � • , . , �` �_,�i � � . _ ��k . � - : �, � � � � � % ✓ �' ��' y � t '•��' �` ` � ' � �r � �.� .1 �.� ' �+ "ft� i'� � - � a� i R4G � ,4 � + , — r,K .� `.. �� . § t �'`._F• . ''° o'��`''�' �7• !� " \ _ �o — �v 8 a�� -,. :, r., ; e r :�r�f=�� . � 1 i � r �S� ', � a� w EEr,, � �' RED ROCK � ` e �I�I.])I�C)CIC r T k f�. ., SOUTHEASTCORRIDOR „'��i:«K� � 5„�, ,:��,�.;� �c�,�,�,�,� Kimle ��>>Horn � * GATEWFYCORRIWR�CONNECTIONNLTERNAmlE y�y 2 OPTIONA onrE�.��e�acns Figure 3:Option for Connecting with Two Gateway Corridor Stations KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 5 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � {1..� ,11 .��.� - - -- �, Il_,_,.J� � ��, � �. +� � � ,• I- i;, �i 1 �,. r ' � � �,� . � i ,. - �` i._ � �.'�,j ,i' � '. � ,"�, ^; ,� . . -I �e. , c� � , -� _. ,� , f I I ,J '1 J"_ _ � �;., / I' r�' �, �0 ,;�,. �� • _ � �';' ..��\,;�`� � �; � � -:� ' Mtt 1 �-�- __ � 1 I !` �" ,� �:rT�l ° r ��,��`'�I..I�: :��,��``� .� � t'I� _ ' ' �,4a _� ' , — 1� lu I,� "l �� I �'/ /,, `�c � ,� 'c� �s- . . - - - ° y a ��'�4'!� �,i �'-'��.. _��ry _�'� I �� a� ��:� m;��— . _:�.:w�e -_� , .. ;,�._.. ., � _ �,!fi - � _ a� ��i,, `,� � ��`; �• ; ,r { � �' ��r�. ��'�� — — '7.�—��=�� : ' �..L�-i�j' �— —L.— �.y � `� : �/r� , wnaownve 1A h:. �. .. �_ o�oHuosorao. -�� s << - ., � _�:.► - � � - -,;l � �� Y..- m ,r� ' `� p - � �� ; . �,� s ;J� `�-�`k�g,] ''�':� ✓ ,,r, � � ! � \�� ; f � , �'r=a- � . /' � �� , '�:!`_-T ��{,� , , , � �,K�t �, 1 � I ..i : ' ". l! l�! �; > -r.�. � I '��, �'+ � a .,xR t, �� .. � I' �Y �`�',f��:.�'rt'�„� '� � _�+G. �; .�i,� '��`'�'�`,�,;�, ..�� yti� <.. � _ ; .-... q��, ^ --_�. � � _ -- �,•�:.� , -�� _ - � - - �� i - -� , - � — — - � _ __ _ _ .. _ _ , '_ �}` -_ _ - �{�• — �;�- � °,�i T -. -_ � -,__ �- ,� � ,ti }, . .� ._ .;,+- �� ,�.� � � �;, • ` _�;�,; at�-'w-�`'`,�at';"��+1't�l�r:�.��^ � � \�' ,� • " a ; nuognNao �.� .i, �. � !bt� y�-3 ..'� � �/�`l��x ; Y..�S . . �:.� � a. � r�F L! '� �,��F t � -� � ' �' "` , ,� M � �� F;.-�� ,'� ��;�.� , �. �/�".�RAF�i;' ,� � � ,:; _, '_E � t. T l. I � � 'i..r!a, I a .S ��N F T - � ' � �r A t= i.- � RED ROCK � �RF.1�ROCK � T k�!� ;, SOUTHEASTCORRI�OR ,�`��/��'�� Kimley}��H��n z * GATEWAV CORRIDOR�CONNECTION NLTERNAmlE ~li��UI�I�� 2 OPTION B onrE�.��e�acns Figure 4:Option for Connecting with Three Gateway Corridor Stations KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 6 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � MISSISSIPPI RIVER /� .,.` ii N a.��c..o � e.-,.t, � - ; ,/ RIA LAKE �p,LAKE ��- Newport Transit Station �-•. �� ; '� �,� , �„�..a�,, I � � � ._.�� a.N, �+,�y „�EH x� "y� iims � + F 3-.i r . .sr. �r[s � 1l csrws. 70th Street Station V ,^TMt 'i� � r-»s r 6,�F,, � .r»,,� �- , - MISSISSIPPI RIVER '��V - � �"�'�E _ � �„�.,,E ��M,.�.�,E�.,F 61 � _ J` „��.�,.,. , ,3-�,_ ,«»��M1 F�,��. � b�.�srs � � ,�� ,�� , __ �� i. � `p.Yr igrw nvE �`a: ��H,r F � =Langdon Village Station GREY CLOUD CHANNEL RFD ROCK Y°"rr°kn`°"" Red Rock Routing Alternative B1 '�*• ° ° ,, so°��,r°��^-�,�° 0 1,750 3,500 �Feet Kimley>»Horn Figure 5:Red RockAlignmentAlternative 81 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 � � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � MISSISSIPPI RIVER /� .,,` ,,i N a.��c..o � e.-,.t, � - ,/ RIA LAKE �,q LAKE � ' - ��: �� Newport Transrt Station � '� �,�_, � �,��..a�,, � � � ._.�� a.H. ��.� �y ,��EHx� "y� iims ��arie�.. y r ' E � 3-.� 1 r F _ ,�� '; � � V ,,` m �o, �. ,,�RE ,- 1fl\ �5.�s. St. PaulParkStation �i�j � 3 � ,�,�s _ �-»s r 6,�F�, � ..»,,� ��.v � , - MISSISSIPPI RIVER '��V - � �"�'�E _ � �„�,,,E �„�,,,F 61 � ��M,.�..,E I ` „��."., , ,3--;.._ � F�,��. � b�.�srs J` � SOth Street Station `\ � „� �. � �� ,�� „ i�� i.Yr isrwnvE �M � ��H,r (��.n F � - ��\\ 3iS-sc / _ ��' ■95th Street Station ' ��i 9,-�,-s GREY CLOUD CHANNEL RFD ROCK Y°"rr°kn`°"" Red Rock Routing Alternative B2 �*• ,.. . ,,. so��,r,��n-�,�o 0 1,750 3,500 �Feet Kimley>»Horn Figure 6:Red RockAlignmentAlternative 82 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 $ � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � MISSISSIPPI RIVER /� .,,` ,,i „ a.��c..o � e.-,.t, � - m_, � RIA LAKE �,q LAKE � ' � �� Newport Transit Station iAR+'' � ,� � � � ._.�� a.H. ��.� �y ,��EHx� "y� �ims l��a,�ef.. y r ' E � 3-.� 1 r F _ ,�� '; � � ,,,, m �o; �. ,,�RE ,- 1(\ �5.�s. St. PaulParkStation �i�j � � ,�,�s _ �-»s r ,.�F�_ ..»,,� �- , MISSISSIPPI RIVER '��V - � �"�'�E _ � " � � _ �„�.,,E �„�.,F 6� ,,,„,,, � L° U��,\„E _ „ 80th Street Station � � ,a.,. F�,�s-. b�.�srs � „� ,«»„�� . ._ �,�� P �i� � � p�Y isrw nvE '�M �1H„t l ll^'J t V Jamaica Avenue Station\ � �� GREY CLOUD CHANNEL Red Rock Routin Alternative B3 RFD ROCK Y�rT«kn�� g �,k,,..- so�u,r�.�ns�,�a. 0 1,750 3,500 �Feet Kimley>»Horn Figure 7:Red RockAlignmentAlternative 83 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 9 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � MISSISSIPPI RIVER /� .,,` ,,i N a.��c..o � e.-,.t, � - m_, � RIA LAKE �,q LAKE � ' � �� Newport Transit Station iAR+'' � ,� � � � ._.�� a.H. ��.� �y ,��EHx� "y� �ims l��a,�ef.. y r ' E � 3-.� 1 r F _ ,�� '; � � ,,,, m �o; �. ,,�RE ,- 1(\ �5.�s. St. PaulParkStation �i�j � � ,�,�s _ �-»s � _F,� �,..E � 6,�F�, ` ..»,,� �- , - MISSISSIPPI RIVER '��V - � �"�'�E _ � �„�.,,E ��M,.�.�,E�.,F 61 � _ ` „��.�,.,. , ,3--;.._ F�,��. � b�.�srs J` SOth Street Station � � „� � � �� ,�� P __ i�� :iry, .. . .. �s.w��e 'ui �rH,. �dr� t � Jamaica Avenue Station �` �� GREY CLOUD CHANNEL RFD ROCK Y°"rr°kn`°"" Red Rock Routing Alternative B4 �*,. ,.. . „= so�,�,r,.�n-�,�� 0 1,750 3,500 �Feet Kimley>»Horn Figure 8:Red Rock Alignment 84 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 10 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � REBECCA LAKE �,� CONLEY LAKE �o s =o�v �'r "9tip JAYCEES PARK � O9� � �qCKSpN �Nr,� ��57�,� F.p MISSISSIPPI RIVER �F LAKE REBECCA PARK � is� z � isr � W ; p 61 VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK � Z iti' o LL LL � � isr � u � v� CRESTVIEW ZNp `� i o rNEO 3RD � LL < J O � 4iN � G _ ► Hastings Depot Station „ 2� - n WILSON PARK � nH `� `'�� 6 � g ,� I N LAKE ISABELLE � 3 LIONS PARK � 6TH p '2 N o I L � nH I m FROM1TAGE _ HIGHWAV55 $iH � fRONIP.GE Q i I m O < MARKtf FRONTAGE � qi�{ 3 qiH T,L N IOTN Il1iH i2iFi o ROADSIDE PARK � TODD FIELD PARI� F BLUEBERRv "� 13TH � IITH ? CONZEMIUS PARK > I �iTH ��`� " � C 12TH �� > a w Q TIERNEV�G > � � � Z z 13T11 I "' � �., Q YIEW ,,; O E SLry� 3 p q«EY HILLSIDE y( 14TH � O - o m � W � w u O a LL � ISTH a V = ZwESEk PIONEERPARK S w Q 3 I6iH O M j I6TH 16iHLL C'�y Z3 Q 17IH y9q � � _ � F < � Z 18TH w VA(lFV � 177H m � ti,�N F q a � ,� i�iri .,. � �N"�� 19TH HASTINGS COUNTRY CLUB I z �, o� 3 �y � 5/ � IBTH A � /y0 m R R��F 40TH �TD 2�Si �kEs� 19iH i a p o �ON AGRA PARK OLD MILL PARK ° � WESTWOOD PARK VERMIILIAN fALLS PARK Red Rock Routing Alternative D1 �kF��Kc�cK YourlYck�te We � O O.1ZS O.2S * .. .- � tio.,.Aeas�M..-n �Miles Kimley>»Horn Figure 9:Red RockAlignmentAlternative D1 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 11 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � REBECCA LAKE �,� CONLEY LAKE �o =o�v �� "9tip JAYCEES PARK O9� � �qCKSpN ��S'!�, �N�c MISSISSIPPI RIVER �� Regina Hospital Station � F LAKE REBECCA PARK is� � i � � W - 0 61 VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK z z isr o LL LL � ut V u � v� CRESTVIEW �� LL o ♦ Q a � IyEO 3RD �� O qrH � G ��j Hastings Depot Station ` � - n WILSON PARK � � � a ° �, srH Dakota County � � 5 ,� I LAKE ISABELLE OffiCes Station LIONS PARK � 6TH o �z N o I p � nH I m FROM1TAGE _ HIGHWAV55 $iH � FRONIP.GE Q i I m O < MARKtf FRONTAGE � qi�{ 3 qiH T,L N IOTN Il1iH i2iFi o ROADSIDE PARK � TODD FIELD PARI� F BLUEBERRv "� 13TH � IITH ? CONZEMIUS PARK > I �iTH ��`� " � C 12TH �� > a w Q TIERNEV�G > � � � Z z 13T11 I "' � �., Q YIEW ,,; O E SLry� 3 p q«EY HILLSIDE y( 14TH � O - o m � W � w u O a LL � ISTH a V = ZwESEk PIONEERPARK S w Q 3 I6iH O M j I6TH 16iHLL C'�y Z3 Q 17IH y9q � � _ � F < � Z 18TH w VA(lFV � 177H m � ti,�N F q a � ,� i�iri .,. � �N"�� 19TH HASTINGS COUNTRY CLUB I z �, o� 3 �y � 5/ � IBTH A � /y0 m R R��F 40TH �TD 2�Si �kEs� 19iH i a p o �ON AGRA PARK OLD MILL PARK ° � WESTWOOD PARK VERMIILIAN fALLS PARK Red Rock Routing Alternative D2 �kF��Kc�cK YourlYck�te We � O O.1ZS O.2S * .. .- � tio.,.Aeas�M..-n �Miles Kimley>»Horn Figure 10:Red RockAlignmentAlternative D2 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 12 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � REBECCA LAKF ,� CONLEY LAKE c° °� s � r9tip JAYCEES PARK �' O9� N �qCKSpN �ry hNr �� Fa MISSISSIPPI RIVER �F LAKE REBECCA PARK � ISi 15i i z � � � o VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK b z �5' O LL LL � � ISi W V u � �n CRESTVIEW 2ND 6� � � < Q LL � a � IyFO :iRD /��►: O v ♦ � � 47H � � _ /�� - n WILSON PARK � Hastings Depot Station � v?'2 d � � rn SfH Dakota County � g -^ LAKE ISABELLE z � � Offices Station LIONS PARK 6TH � d N o . ]iH �^ FROhiAGE 8�H � m NP 2 O MARK? FRONTAGE y Lions Park Station 97H 9iH � io1H ioni i2iH o_ ROADSIDE � � TODD R �irH 5 &UEBERR� j i3iM CONZEMIUS PARK � ��rH c,�"� 6 K � 12iH w �� i Q iIERNEY�G r O � � - 2 �n � 7�. Q VIEW � Q � 13iH I 4¢ O m S�ry 3 p N pQ �q«FY NILLSIOE w �sTH ,"„ � � � O < " � ISfH � U Q= �weaee PIONEER PARK o "�' 3 IfitH O ,y .L � 16TH IM11HLL C�v9A.� C 3 � 1]�H w yR9 - � Z V,y([ � Z' < g i 78TH wY� � = Q � ey N 1I1H m17iH �+ 3 �HA�K � 19iM HASTINGS COUNTRY CLUB � I z � �p�' ; 18TM � O a � .N R�R/�E 20TH y�l� A 2�1� CRE;� wrH i d p o �ON AGRA PARK O�D MILL PARK u � ,�-� WESTWOOD PARK VERMILLIAN FALLS PARK 1 Red Rock Routing Alternative D3 ,Kf;n,KcxK Y°°rTYck�uo.Lc � � �.125 �.25 ,. .. .Yv,�.h.asiMe.o. �Miles Kimley»>Horn Figure 11:Red RockAlignmentAlternative D3 Decision-Making Process TECHNICALADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) The alternatives were shared with the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC).TAC members generally favored alternative B3 more than B2 but recommended advancing an alternative with B2 and B4 as a sub alternative for ridership modeling and service planning (See Figure 12). For the Hastings alternatives,TAC Members also felt strongly that the Regina Medical Center(alternative D2)would be a much stronger ridership generator than the residential and employment centers south of Highway 55 that would utilize Lions Park Station. BUSINESS AND CIVIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (B-CAC) The proposed alternatives and TAC recommendations were then shared with the Business and Civic Advisory Committee(B-CAC). The B-CAC discussed the importance of access to the industrial jobs in Cottage Grove but recommended investigating the difference in ridership generation between the industrial jobs on the west side of Highway 61 and the retail access on the east side.Therefore, the B-CAC agreed with the TAC to advance B2 with sub alternative B4 for ridership modeling and service planning. For the Hastings Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 13 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l alternatives, B-CAC members recommended alternative D3 in order to provide access to a greater percentage of the community, noting that those working at the hospital would have a short walk from the station. RED ROCK CORRIDOR COMMISSION (RRCC) The proposed alternatives,and the corresponding TAC and B-CAC recommendations,were shared with the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC).The Commission agreed with the TAC and B-CAC to advance B2 with sub alternative B4 for ridership modeling and service planning.The Commission's discussion regarding the Hastings alternatives largely focused on the Dakota County Offices Station and its benefit to the community. Considering the benefits of both alternatives,the Commission recommended advancing D3 for further study. Project alternatives advanced for cost, ridership,and service planning evaluation: ■ Alternative 1: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Highway Orientation (A1-B1-C-D1) ■ Alternative 2: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Community Orientation (A2-B2B4-C-D3) Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 14 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � MISSISSIPPI RIVER /�, � � - aR�r�w, � tia,..,� .. - � RIA LAKE �p,�AKE \ ,� _ �2 �C1 /� J // Newport Transit Station ., ,., � � � � i � � ��,F ,<r� - G�fxa� y� �'r� `YY�1 ,�M.�� IIrvSt tl��5� I o- sr.s,;�.. s �� ` k � M � .e.s�rH.. _ � asTMz.z _� �. \ i St. Paul Park Station ��J .,.�. - �.,. \ .��. ,o,�s. , � ,�„�� e = ,.... MISSISSIPPI RIVER � , � 2 ��.�.�. ,,,,r, 61 ��-�a�E ' � „-�.,, � � � ,��,E �.<„w,. � �.�n, � �.�s.. � c 80th Street Station '1 � �� . ,6,.,� ,� '�-k ; � ' �,.=,s � 1 ��<Jamaica Avenue Station A�=-=r= ��, � L i� �_ �95th Street Station _ � •i y_.s s V n � 9hkify � �:)�t�S�5 GREY CLOUD CHANNEL - Red Rock Routing Alternative 6264 �*r.Fn RocK Ya��T,�k�,��,=� �,�,P,,��.,P�-� 0 1,750 3,500 �Feet Kimley>»Horn Figure 12:Red RockAlignmentAlternative 8284 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 15 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Full Build BRT Alternative Analysis Full Build BRT Alternatives Two full build BRT alternatives were advanced for detailed analysis as part of the Implementation Plan: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 � � . , . � ; : ; i . 1 s � I � ' -- - - i ' � , Union De�Sot �'. ... ��.,' ___. -._ � �, ....., , i � Lower Afton Pa <8 Ride I � �_ �� -I ', ��.. ....__ ___. ..__ � i } � - .,.,. 1 ' i i , -- -- ' - ..._..i „� , � _,..,,... �.__ __._. �._ . � I . . ? . 1 ; • ' ' ' . � : ;t . ° _.,_ _... � ' z: ' -- -• , _..... � , Newport Transil Station � -• ' � �_,. � � � , �. . `. -- • _.. i � .. . - 's < ......i �i. Paul Park,Slaliorc -•' '._,.: ;UI PCIf:. � . i \` I '_.. '_... \ � s-� Jamaica <+.-�� ation Lan�don Village Station' % ^ 95��th Streei Stqtio�{"''r' ^ i i _� o �, � N � � . �E �.. ..... � . t .,, \, ' � 'ueC � . � � � : i S _.. \ � � _..... � —_. ` , .__... .,y., a'` . � � S r - ,� .... "'.. _'. --- Hastings D pot - ..... _-_ L= _-------- __ __ _ Figure 13:Maps of Alternatives 1 and 2 ALTERNATIVE 1: BRT WITH A HIGHWAY ORIENTATION Alternative 1(Figure 13, left) includes BRT service along Highway 61 between Union Depot in Saint Paul and Hastings Depot.This alternative includes stations at Union Depot, Lower Afton Park&Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station, Langdon Village Station in Cottage Grove,and Hastings Depot. ALTERNATIVE 2: BRT WITH A COMMUNITY ORIENTATION Alternative 2 (Figure 13, right) includes BRT service along Highway 61 between Union Depot in Saint Paul and Hasting Depot with deviations off Highway 61 in Newport,St. Paul Park,Cottage Grove,and Hastings.The deviations aim to serve existing destinations and densities that are likely to support all-day, bi-directional transit service more than service focused on park-and-ride stations adjacent to Highway 61.This alternative includes stations at Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station,95th Street Station (Alternative 2A)/Jamaica Avenue Station (Alternative 2B), Hastings Depot,and two additional stations in Hastings.This alternative also has the potential to add a station at Langdon Village after that area becomes more developed. Project Goals and Full Build BRT Alignment Evaluation Criteria During the Alternatives Analysis Update(AAU) process,a set of evaluation criteria was developed to reflect the goals and objectives for the project: Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 16 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR i � � ■ Goal 1: Mobility o Provide Mode Choice and Service Plan that Meets the Demonstrated and Forecasted Needs of Corridor Communities ■ Ridership ■ End-to-end travel time (Time competitive with auto) ■ All-day service ■ Station-to-station service ■ Reliability ■ Goal 2: Cost o Cost Effectively Address Transportation Problems in the Corridor ■ Operations&maintenance cost per rider ■ Capital cost per rider ■ Independent from other investments in the region ■ Goal 3: Development o Increase Opportunities for Community and Economic Development Throughout the Corridor ■ Serves Minneapolis ■ Access for workers and customers(All-day service) ■ Supports transit-oriented development(All-day service) ■ Goal 4: Environment o Improve Quality of Natural and Built Environment ■ Safety(Improves Lower Afton crossing) ■ Equitable distribution of impacts ■ Reduce emissions ■ Natural and cultural resource impacts(wetlands, historic properties,and undeveloped areas) Because these evaluation measures were developed to compare different modes(BRT,express bus,and commuter rail),the established thresholds were intentionally broad.Support for transit-oriented development(TOD)and worker access,for example, were evaluated based on whether the alternative included all-day service. The two BRT alternatives considered in the Implementation Plan are more similar than the alternatives evaluated during the AAU and will require new, more refined evaluation criteria. In fact, if the thresholds and scoring system established in the AAU evaluation process were used for the Implementation Plan,the two BRT alternatives would only achieve different scores on two measures: ridership and end-to-end travel time. Given this lack of differentiation,a series of 12 technical evaluation measures were compiled using ridership estimates,cost details, service characteristics,and station area socioeconomic data (Table 1). In many cases,these measures overlap with the AAU evaluation criteria,and no scoring thresholds were established for the BRT comparison.The results for these 12 measures were presented to the public,the TAC, B-CAC,and the RRCC to aid in the decision-making process. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 17 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 1:Full 8uild BRTAlignment Evaluation Measures byAAU Goal - - " •- BRT Boardings Mobility Boardings per Revenue Hour Mobility Average Travel Time Mobility Capital Costs Cost Operations& Maintenance Costs Cost Operations& Maintenance Costs per Revenue Hour Cost Operations& Maintenance Costs per Boarding Cost Acreage Served* Development 2040 Population Served* Development 2040 Jobs Served* Development New Transit Trips Environment Boardings from Households without Access to a Vehicle Environment *Excluding Union Depot Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 18 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Full Build BRT Alternative Evaluation Results GOAL 1: MOBILITY Evaluation Measure:BRT Boardings Figure 14 shows 2040 forecasted corridor-wide boardings for each alternative, including the BRT route ridership and ridership for the three existing express routes in the corridor.The six additional stations proposed in Alternative 2 would be expected to add approximately 900 boardings per day compared to Alternative 1,while also slightly increasing ridership on the express routes. Boardings by station in 2040 are shown in Figure 15. Boardings by Route 2,500 2,150 2,000 1,500 1,600 1,500 1,250 1,000 500 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 ■BRT ■361/364/365 Figure 14:2040 Boardings by Route 2040 Boardings by Alternative 2,500 2,150 2,000 1,500 1,250 1,000 500 0 Alt 1 Alt 2a ■Union Depot ■Mounds ■Earl ■Etna Lower Afton ■Newport ■St.Paul Park ■80th ■95th ■Langdon Village■Hastings Depot ■Hastings#2 ■Hastings#3 Figure 15:2040 Boardings byAlternative KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 19 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Evaluation Measure:BRT Boardings per Revenue Hour Serving six additional stations,the one-way travel time for Alternative 2 is approximately 64 minutes,compared to approximately 43 minutes for Alternative 1. Including the required 15 percent of layover time each trip,Alternative 1 assumes 103 weekday revenue hours,compared to 151 weekday revenue hours for Alternative 2. Figure 16 presents boardings per revenue hour for Alternative 1, Alternative 2,and Metro Transit fleetwide bus and LRT averages.The boarding numbers used for Red Rock Alternatives 1 and 2 are 2040 forecasts.The Metro Transit boarding numbers are 2013 daily averages per the National Transit Database. Boardings per Revenue Hour 70 62 60 50 40 35 30 20 12 14 10 _ - 0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Metro Transit Bus Metro Transit LRT (2040 Boardings) (2040 Boardings) (2013 Boardings) (2013 Boardings) Figure 16: Boardings per Revenue Hour Evaluation Measure:Average Travel Time Although the one-way end-to-end travel time is nearly 50 percent longer for Alternative 2,the additional stations create more opportunities for station-to-station travel within the corridor. For Alternative 1,over 80 percent of all riders from each station within the corridor would be expected to travel to Union Depot. For Alternative 2,typically around 40 to 60 percent of all riders from each station would be expected to travel to Union Depot(higher for Mounds Blvd, Lower Afton,and Newport).These station-to-station rides allow the weighted average travel time per passenger to remain approximately equivalent between the two alternatives (around 20 minutes per passenger).As shown in Figure 17,the very low average travel time from Mounds Station as well as the reduced average travel times within Hastings(associated with passengers using the corridor for local service within Hastings) both contribute to this relatively low average travel time. Average Travel Time 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 1 1 � DCSC Lions Park Hastings Langdon 95th 80th St.Paul Newport Lower Etna Earl Mounds Union Depot Village Park Afton Depot �Alternative 1 �Alternative 2 Alternative 1-Weighted Average Alternative 2-Weighted Average Figure 17:Passenger-Weighted Average Travel Time in Minutes KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 20 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � GOAL 2: COST Evaluation Measure:Capital Costs The capital costs for each alternative can be grouped into three primary categories:station costs,corridor improvements,and vehicle costs.See the Cost Estimation Technical Memorandum for more details about how the capital costs were determined. Including the capital costs required to purchase or construct a BRT operations and maintenance facility(OMF),which were applied as a per-vehicle cost to account for the sharing of OMF costs,vehicle costs represent the single largest capital expenditure. Station costs are the second largest capital cost and can vary widely based on the elements assumed. Minimal station area investments assumed for this Implementation Plan included surface parking(as needed),shelter and platform elements,sidewalk enhancements,and roadway and utility improvements.The approximately$8 to$13 million assumed in station improvements for the two alternatives is significantly lower than the nearly$30 million assumed for the BRT alternative within the AAU.The BRT stations in the AAU included high cost elements such as structured parking and pedestrian overpasses at the Lower Afton and Cottage Grove stations. Corridor improvements, including transit-signal priority treatments and shoulder improvements,are similar between the two alternatives. However,Alternative 2 would require a transit-only connection to the Gateway Corridor,estimated to cost around $5 million (including soft costs and contingencies). Figure 18 shows the primary capital items by alternative. For comparison,the cost estimate for the BRT Alternative defined within the AAU was approximately$46 million.This alternative was very similar to Alternative 1,with significantly more investment assumed at the Lower Afton and Cottage Grove stations. Capital Cast5 �sa,00a,aoo $43.0 M �4 r�,p pp,r�r�r� j'u;G DG;uuu $27.8 M $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $0 ALTERI+lATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2A ■5tation Costs ■Corridor Impr�vements ■Buses&OMF Figure 18:Capital Costs byAlternative(2015 Dollars) KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 21 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Evaluation Measure:Operations and Maintenance(O&MJ Costs O&M costs are the annual costs necessary to operate and maintain the corridor.The methodology used to develop the costs shown in Figure 19 is detailed in the Cost Estimation Technical Memo, including the 11 cost drivers.Although Alternative 2 assumes nearly 50 percent more revenue hours per year compared to Alternative 1,this does not translate to a similar annual O&M increase, in part because the total mileage covered is very similar between the two alternatives.The O&M costs for both alternatives in the Implementation Plan are much higher than the AAU's estimate of approximately$2.5 million. However, much of the difference is due to the difference in annual revenue hours.The Implementation Plan includes a longer span of weekday service, Metro Transit's required layover times,as well as weekend service.The remaining difference can be attributed to the revised and updated cost model. Operations and Maintenance Costs $9,000,000 $s,000,000 7•8 M $�,000,000 $6.1 M � $6,000,000 .� o $5,000,000 U � $4,000,000 +� .Q v $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 ■Service ■Stations Figure 19:Operations and Maintenance Costs byAlternative The O&M cost for each alternative is compared in Table 2 to Metro Transit's approximate 2015 total operation expenditure($390 million).Alternative 2 has the highest percentage,with the O&M cost of that alternative representing about 2 percent of the agency's total 2015 budget.Alternative 1 has the lowest cost and represented the lowest percentage of the agency's total budget, 1.6 percent. Table 2:O&M Cost Comparison as a Percentage of Metro Transit's 2014 Operations Expenditure . .. . � - - � - - Total O&M Cost(2015$) $6,100,000 $7,800,000 Percent of Metro Transit's 2015 Total 16�� 2 0�� Operating Expenses Evaluation Measure:O&M Costs per Revenue Hour With the revised BRT cost model,additional cost drivers contribute to the O&M estimate, including station costs,a constant cost per peak vehicle operated within the corridor,as well as costs per vehicle mile. Figure 20 shows the resultant average O&M costs per Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 22 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l revenue hour based on the revised cost model. Because Alternative 2 assumes nearly 50 percent more annual revenue hours than Alternative 1 without correspondingly higher annual O&M costs,the cost per revenue hour is reduced.The operating costs for the Red Rock Corridor alternatives are in 2015 dollars.As a comparison, Metro Transit's fleetwide bus and LRT1 averages are also shown. These Metro Transit operating costs and revenue hoursZ are 2013 figures from the National Transit Database,adjusted for inflation to 2015 dollars. Operating & Maintenance Costs per Revenue Hour $199 $200 $186 $162 $150 $132 $100 $50 $0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Metro Transit Bus Metro Transit LRT (2015$) (2015$) (2015$) (2015$) Figure 20:Calculated O&M Costs per Revenue Hour byAlternative Alternative 2 has a lower cost per revenue hour than Alternative 1, however this figure is still 22 percent higher than Metro Transit's estimated 2015 cost per revenue hour for buses of$132.There are many reasons why the Red Rock O&M cost per revenue hour is higher than Metro Transit's average bus service: ■ Higher speeds(meaning more miles are covered per revenue hour) ■ Enhanced station amenities cost more to maintain ■ All station maintenance costs are attributed to this single BRT service rather than spread across many routes(as is the case with a systemwide average) Evaluation Measure:O&M Costs per Boarding The calculation of annual O&M costs per boarding incorporates service characteristics,operating costs,as well as forecasted ridership.As shown in Figure 21,despite the higher annual O&M costs,the higher forecasted 2040 ridership for Alternative 2 leads to reduced costs when expressed per boarding. Red Rock O&M costs per boarding are calculated using 2040 forecasted boardings and 2015 O&M costs. Metro Transit's fleetwide averages are presented for comparison;these costs are calculated using 2013 boarding and O&M figures from the National Transit Database. 1 METRO Red Line service began in June 2013,and bus service costs are assumed to include Red Line service costs during the second half of 2013. Z Metro Transit cost per revenue hour was reported as$131.77for local bus and$197.85 for light rail in 2013.Each ofthese costs was multiplied by 1.004to arrive at the numbers in Figure 19. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 23 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Operating & Maintenance Costs per Boarding $16 $15 $14 $12 $11 $10 $$ $6 $4 $4 $3 $2 - $0 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Metro Transit Bus Metro Transit LRT (2040 Boardings) (2040 Boardings) (2013 Boardings) (2013 Boardings) Figure 21:Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs per Boarding GOAL 3: DEVELOPMENT Evaluation Measure:Acreage Served The amount of developable land within a half-mile walk of transit stations is dependent on a variety of factors, including street connectivity and the presence of physical barriers like train tracks.Stations in urbanized areas,with a fully developed street grid and high intersection density,typically serve a larger area within the walkshed of the station compared to a station located adjacent to a freeway with relatively few connecting streets. Figure 22 shows the existing(2015) acreage within a half mile of each station,as measured along the street grid. Union Depot is excluded. Existing (2015) Acerage within Half Mile of Station z,zoo z,oso z,000 i,soo 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 750 800 600 400 200 0 Alt 1 ,,,<« ■Mounds ■Earl ■Etna ■Lower Afton Newport ■St.Paul Park ■80th ■95th ■Langdon Village■Hastings Depot ■Hastings#2 ■Hastings#3 Figure 22:Existing(2015)Acreage within a Half Mile of Stations KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 24 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Evaluation Measure:Forecasted Population Served Ridership forecasts are highly correlated with population and employment forecasts within station areas. However,forecasts are undeveloped at the block level,and only at the larger transportation analysis zone(TAZ) level. Figure 23 shows the estimated 2040 population within each station,developed by applying the average population density of the station area TAZ(s)to the station area acreage served. If the current population and/or future population growth is more heavily concentrated within the walkshed of each station,these values may underestimate the future year population within each station area. Union Depot is excluded. Forecasted Population within a Half Mile of Stations (2040) 12,000 11,600 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 1,900 2,000 0 Alt 1 Alt 2a ■Mounds ■Earl ■Etna ■Lower Afton Newport ■St.Paul Park ■80th ■95th ■Langdon Village■Hastings Depot ■Hastings#2 ■Hastings#3 Figure 23:Forecasted Population within a Half Mile of Stations(2040) Evaluation Measure:Forecasted Jobs Served As with population forecasts,employment forecasts are only available at the TAZ level. Figure 24 shows the estimated 2040 population within each station,developed by applying the average employment density of the station area TAZ(s)to the station area acreage served. Union Depot is excluded. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 25 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Forecasted Jobs within a Half Mile of Stations (2040) 3,500 3,200 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 700 500 0 Alt 1 Alt 2a ■Mounds ■Earl ■Etna ■Lower Afton Newport ■St.Paul Park ■80th ■95th ■Langdon Village■Hastings Depot ■Hastings#2 ■Hastings#3 Figure 24:Forecasted Jobs with Half Mile of Stations(2040) GOAL4: ENVIRONMENT Evaluation Measure:New Transit Trips Total boardings represents the total number of riders on a transit system,including both new transit riders(those that would otherwise travel by a different mode)as well as riders that shift from other routes. Figure 25 shows the total 2040 productions anticipated from each station, meaning all trips are assigned at the home end of the trip. Most stations in the corridor show a relatively high percentage of new transit trips. Alternative 1 400 300 - 200 100 . 0 Union Mounds Earl Etna Lower Newport St.Paul 80th 95th Langdon Hastings Hastings Hastings Depot Afton Park Village Depot #2 #3 ■New Transit Trip Productions ■Other Productions KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 26 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Alternative 2 400 300 � 200 100� � ■ . , . � Union Mounds Earl Etna Lower Newport St.Paul 80th 95th Langdon Hastings Hastings Hastings Depot Afton Park Village Depot #2 #3 ■New Transit Trip Productions ■Other Productions Figure 25:New Transit Trip Productions(2040)byAlternative KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 2� � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Evaluation Measure: Trips from Households withoutAccess to a Vehicle(0-Vehicle HouseholdsJ Serving transit-dependent populations is an important goal of all transitway investments. Figure 26 shows, by alternative,the proportion of productions at each station that occur from zero-vehicle households.Again,showing productions instead of boardings means that trips are assigned at the home end of the trip. Alternative 1 400 300 200 100 . 0 Union Mounds Earl Etna Lower Newport St.Paul 80th 95th Langdon Hastings Hastings Hastings Depot Afton Park Village Depot #2 #3 ■0-Vehicle Productions ■Other Productions Alternative 2 400 300 200 100 o � ■ � ■ � � — ■ Union Mounds Earl Etna �uwe� �vewport ��.rau� o�u� 7�u� �an�uun na�un�� Hastings Hastings Depot Afton Park Village Depot #2 #3 ■0-Vehicle Productions ■Other Productions Figure 26:Productions(2040)from 0-Vehicle Households KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 28 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Full Build BRT Alternative Evaluation Results Summary Each of twelve measures presented above provides a quantitative,objective assessment of one component of each BRT Alternative. No overall "score"was developed,which would require the application of a series of weighting factors(or an implied equal weighting system). Instead the results are presented in Table 3 to serve as a tool for comparison and discussion. Table 3:Evaluation Results Summary - - � - - � - - � � � •- 2040 BRT Boardings 1,250 1 2,150 Mobility 2040 Boardings per Rev. Hour 12 14 Mobility 2040 Average Travel Time 20 r 20 Mobility Capital Costs $27,8 M $43.0 M Cost O&M Costs � $6.1 M $7•8 M Cost O&M Costs per Rev. Hour $186 $162 Cost O&M Costs per Boarding(2040) $15 $11 Cost Acreage Served* 750 2,100 Development 2040 Population Served* 1,900 � 11,600 Development 2040 Jobs Served* 700 3,200 Development 2040 New Transit Trips 900 r 1,600 Environment 2040 Boardings from 0-Veh HHs 300 750 Environment *Excluding Union Depot Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 29 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Full Build BRT Alternative Selection Process The results of the alternative evaluation process were presented to the Technical Advisory Committee(TAC) on November 16,2015. Following a discussion of the various costs and benefits of the"full build"version of each Alternative,the TAC developed a draft recommendation to the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC)to proceed with Alternative 2 as the"full build"option for further analysis as part of the Implementation Plan. On December 2,2015,the RRCC reviewed the evaluation results as well as TAC's draft recommendation, and voted unanimously to advance Alternative 2 for public comment and further evaluation as part of the Implementation Plan. On December 8,2015,the Business and Civic Advisory Committee (B-CAC) also recommended advancing Alternative 2 for public comment and further evaluation. On January 13,2016,the recommendation was presented for public comment at a project open house,where residents and stakeholders shared comments related to the Alternative 2 recommendation as well as thoughts on station prioritization to aid in the development of a phasing plan. On January 19,2016,the TAC confirmed that Alternative 2 is the recommended alternative based on public input. On January 28,2016,the RRCC approved Alternative 2 for further analysis in the Implementation Plan based on public input and the recommendation of the TAC.Stations were selected that reflect Alternative 2B,with the exception of 80th Street Station,which is now proposed on the east side of Highway 61 rather than the west side.The station locations for the proposed BRT alignment now include: ■ Union Depot ■ Mounds Boulevard Station: located on Mounds Boulevard at the end of Conway Street ■ Earl Street Station: located at the intersection of Hudson Road and Earl Street ■ Etna Street Station: located at the intersection of Hudson Road and Etna Street ■ Lower Afton Park& Ride: located the intersection of Highway 61 and Lower Afton Road ■ Newport Transit Station: located on Red Rock Crossing east of Maxwell Avenue ■ St. Paul Park Station: located on Broadway Avenue east of Summit Avenue ■ 80th Street Station: located on East Point Douglas Road south of 80th Street ■ Jamaica Avenue Station: located on East Point Douglas Road west of Inwood Avenue ■ Hastings Depot ■ Hastings#2: located along Highway 55 between Westview Avenue and Vermillion Street(Highway 61) ■ Hastings#3: located in proximity to the Dakota County Services Center Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 30 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR i � � l Station-Level Evaluation Overview Following the selection of Alternative 2,the planning process shifted to focus on station area planning,cost refinement,and station evaluation to inform the phasing of the Implementation Plan.The following section describes the station evaluation measures, which were developed to: ■ Assess incremental costs and benefits of each station ■ Compare the corridor and individual stations to regional standards ■ Provide input to phasing process ■ Provide guidance for station-specific ridership goals and trends Evaluation Measures As shown in Figure 27,the four station-specific evaluation measures correspond to the goals established for the Red Rock Corridor and provide guidance for phasing and funding. .. .: Goal 1: Goal 2: Cost Goal 2: Cost Goal 1: Mobility Mobility Goal 4: Goal 4: Goal 4: Goal 3: Environment Environment Environment Development Goal 4: Environment Figure 27:Relationship between Station-Specific Evaluations and Project Goals DAILY BOARDINGS The number of forecasted boardings by station in 2040 is shown in Figure 28. Because the three Gateway stations(Mounds Boulevard, Etna Street,and Earl Street)would be added to the Red Rock Corridor at the same time,the three individual Gateway stations are combined and shown as one number.Similarly,the Hastings Extension presents the combined ridership from Hastings#2 and Hastings#3. With 100 or more boardings per station,all stations meet the minimum number of daily boardings prescribed in the Regional Transitway Guidelines for Highway BRT Service (Station-to-Station)with the exception of the Hastings Extension station (average of 80 boardings per station). Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 31 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Daily BRT Boardings by Station (2040) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Gateway Stations(3) 310 Lower Afton 160 Newport Transit Station 180 St.Paul Park 120 80th Street 260 Jamaica Avenue 130 Hastings Depot 100 Hasting Extension(2) 160 Regional Transitway Guidelines: Highway BRT Figure 28:Daily BRT Boardings by5tation(2040) OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST EFFECTIVENESS Operation and maintenance costs by station are based on the station delay and, if applicable,the additional time and mileage required to divert from the highway in order to serve the station (not applicable for Lower Afton or the Gateway Stations). For the Hastings Depot,the incremental O&M costs include the full time and distance necessary to reach the station from Jamaica Avenue. Similarly,the Hastings Extension incremental O&M costs include the full time and distance necessary to reach the stations from the Hastings Deport. The same unit costs that were assumed for corridor wide O&M costs(Cost Estimation Technical Memorandum)were applied to the additional time and mileage needed to serve the station.The station-level O&M cost effectiveness evaluation measure(Figure 29) was generated by dividing the annual incremental O&M costs by the forecasted annual boardings at the station. Annualized 0&M Cost per Boarding $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Gateway Stations(3) ■ $0.70 Lower Afton I $0.30 Newport Transit Station � $4.40 St.Paul Park � $5.10 8oth Street � $3.10 lamaica Avenue $8.50 Hastings Depot $47.30 Hasting Extension(2) $19.20 Figure 29:Annualized O&M Cost per Boarding KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 32 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � CAPITAL COST EFFECTIVENESS Station-level capital cost effectiveness(Figure 30)was calculated by dividing annualized station-specific capital costs(over 20 years) by annualized boardings at that station. Only station-specific capital costs,such as station foundations and shelters,were used to generate the station-specific capital cost effectiveness measure; corridor improvements and vehicle costs were excluded.Some capital cost components have remaining capital value beyond 20 year(such as structures and subsurface improvements),and this remaining value was taken into account based on the guidelines in MnDOT's"Benefit-Cost Analysis for Transportation Projects."The Gateway Stations figure includes the cost of infrastructure required to tie-in to the Gateway alignment,and combined station costs and boardings.Similarly,the Hastings Extension includes the combined costs and ridership for both stations. Annualized Capital Cost per Boarding Gateway Stations(3) $2.60 Lower Afton $2.40 Newport Transit Station $1.20 St.Paul Park $2.90 80th Street $1.30 Jamaica Avenue $4.50 Hastings Depot $1.90 Hasting Extension(2) $3.10 $- $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 Figure 30:Annualized Capital Cost per Boarding TRANSIT MARKET INDEX (TMI) The Transit Market Index(TMI) is a measure of expected transit demand based on the following land use and demographic characteristics: ■ Population density ■ Employment density ■ Intersection density(a measure of walkability and the built form) ■ Auto availability After weighting and calibrating these characteristics for the Twin Cities,the Metropolitan Council calculated a TMI for each census block group in the region. For the 2040 TPP,census blocks with similar TMI values were grouped together and weighted based on nearby census blocks to form the Transit Market Areas. Using census block group-level data from the Metropolitan Council,station-area metrics were calculated by estimating population, employment, intersection density,and auto availability within the developed area of each station area. Using the Metropolitan Council's TMI calculation and weighting factors,a single station area TMI value was calculated, using the full walkable area within each station area (including both developed and undeveloped areas).The results are shown in Figure 31.While TMI was not developed to serve as a station-level evaluation tool and is primarily used to show regional trends,the inclusion of population, employment, intersection density,and auto availability within a single measure provides one tool to compare stations at a high level in terms of potential transit demand.These values should be used only for station comparison purposes and should not be compared to regional TMI values because of the application of TMI at a much smaller scale in this evaluation measure. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 33 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Station Area Transit Market Index Values 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Gateway Stations(3) , Lower Afton - 43 297 Newport Transit Station - 34 St.Paul Park 62 80th Street 92 Jamaica Avenue 105 Hastings Depot 123 Hasting Extension(2) 122 Figure 31:Station Area Transit Market Index Values Station-Level Evaluation Summary Each of four station-level evaluation measures provides a quantitative assessment of the station transit readiness.The stations were not ranked,which would require the development and application of weighting factors(or an implied equal weighting system for all four evaluation measures)to produce an overall rank. Instead,the results are presented in Table 4 to serve as a tool for comparison and discussion. Table 4:Station Level Evaluation Comparison �. :.. . � -. •: . � -. . . . . �� .- :.. . . .- :.. . Gateway Stations(3) 310 $0.70 $2.60 297 Lower Afton 160 $0.30 $2.40 42 Newport Transit Station 180 $4.40 � $1.20 � 34 St.Paul Park 120 $5.10 $2.90 62 80th Street 260 $3.10 $1.30 92 Jamaica Avenue 130 $8.50 $4.50 105 Hastings Depot 100 $47.30 $1.90 123 Hasting Extension(2) 160 $19.20 $3.10 122 Decision-Making Process These results were shared with the TAC on March 21,2016 and with the RRCC on March 24,2016.The conclusion from these discussions was that when evaluated at the station-level,many stations score relatively low in terms of cost-effectiveness,and without an increase in forecasted ridership,the full project would likely not be competitive with other national transit projects for limited federal funds. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 34 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Based on these discussions,the evaluation process advanced to look at corridor-wide performance measures for interim year build scenarios in order to identify an implementation plan that could leverage funds from a variety of sources and establish target ridership thresholds to ensure the project is competitive with other regional and national transitway projects. Phased BRT Evaluation Overview As described in the Travel Demand Forecasting Report, ridership results were developed using the regional model for the Full Build BRT model,an interim build scenario to Cottage Grove,as well as Route 367 and Route 363.Additionally,a series of sensitivity tests were performed to allow for ridership estimates of other interim scenarios using off-model adjustments.The following evaluation using corridor-level evaluation measures combines results from fully developed model runs as well as interim scenarios that rely on off-model adjustments. IN-SERVICE HOURS Daily in-service hours is a key input when determining the effectiveness of a transit service. For all scenarios that were described in the Service Plan Technical Memo,the in-service hours simply represents the number of one-way daily trips multiplied by the one- way travel time. For scenarios that do not include a detailed service plan,travel times were estimated using the travel times outlined in the service plans as well as Metro Transit's timetables within the corridor.These travel time estimates were then multiplied by the assumed daily trips to obtain in-service hours. REVENUE HOURS Revenue hours is a key driver of operations and maintenance costs,as the value takes into account travel time as well as layover time. For this analysis, revenue hours were calculated as 115 percent of the in-service hours for all interim scenarios. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS PER REVENUE HOUR As described in the Cost Estimation Technical Memo,a detailed cost model was used to estimate annual O&M costs for the BRT alternatives that takes into account travel time, mileage, number of buses in services,as well as station costs. For all interim scenarios,a planning-level estimate is sufficient to allow for the comparison of options.Therefore,for all BRT alternatives presented in the following discussion,assumed O&M costs were estimated using a value of$159.40 per revenue hour,derived from the full build BRT Alternative cost estimate. For all local and express bus scenarios,assumed O&M costs were estimated using a value of $132.29 per revenue hour,derived from the 2013 National Transit Database and escalated to 2015 dollars. PPISH Metro Transit and the region uses route-(or alignment-) level evaluations to determine the productivity and viability of a route.This measure is a function of the total number of riders and the number of hours the bus is in operation (called passengers per in-service hour or PPISH,Figure 32). Daily Boardings PPISH = Daily In— Service Hours Figure 32:PPISH Calculation As shown in Table 5, Metro Transit has established PPISH averages by route type in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (2040 TPP). and the critical threshold for the Red Rock Corridor is 20 for Local Bus,25 for arterial and highway BRT,and 20 for Commuter Express Bus. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 35 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 5:Published PPISH Guidelines Published in the 2040 TPP •. - .- •. - � - - Core Local Bus >_20 Supporting Local Bus >_ 15 Suburban Local Bus >_ 10 Arterial BRT >_25 Highway BRT >_25 Light Rail >_70 Commuter Express Bus Peak>_ 20;Off-peak>_10 Commuter Rail >_70 General Dial-a-Ride >_2 The key to meeting the regional standards for PPISH is to create transit routes that maximize ridership while minimizing costs,which in effect creates routes that are as efficient as possible while still achieving other goals.With a PPISH of 16,the Full BRT Alternative 2 does not meet the regional standard for arterial or highway BRT(PPISH>_25).Several iterations of the Full BRT Alternative 2 with varying service types,stations,and corridor lengths were proposed and evaluated to test what combination of transit options, if any, would meet regional standards. Each option will be described and results summarized,which a summary table provided in the next section. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 36 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Scenario Evaluation ROUTE 367 Route 367 is a proposed express route serving Hastings Depot, Newport Transit Station,and downtown Minneapolis(Figure 33).As discussed in the Service Plan Technical Memo,this route has four morning northbound trips and four evening southbound trips and has an average travel time of 65 minutes in each direction. Frequency 4 morning trips 4 evening trips � I Span 6am–8am;4pm–6pm _�_ � � _��_; / { 6 . Service Type Express to Minneapolis � "' ' ra `: j..� ; Newport ___'° � _ Daily in-service hours 9 -- –<� � '�::�`t � �`�� \ �� I ��i Daily revenue hours 10 ' i �� , / i, 1 � ��I I , � � '– ' �`_,_ Annualization 255 i � I � � .� I \ �'-1 � I Annual revenue hours 2,550 '� �� ../ .. � 61 I I Target PPISH Peak>_ 20;Off-peak>_ 10 � � � � Assumed O&M Cost per $132.29 � Revenue Hour(2015$) � �, _— \� �Hastings Depot ��F,��,�h � � �.�5 ,.5 . . ..�.::�"C,. �Miies Kimley�»Horn Figure 33:Route 367 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 3� � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l With 100 daily riders in 2024,this route would need to increase its ridership by 70 percent to meet the commuter express bus PPISH threshold (Table 6). Table 6:Route 367 Evaluation Results in 2024 �- . . - -. - � � • - Annual O&M Costs $340,000 Boardings 100 PPISH 12 O&M Cost per Boarding $13 Estimated Population 590 Estimated Jobs 290 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 38 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ROUTE 363 Route 363 is a local bus route that, if implemented by Metro Transit,could act a precursor to BRT Implementation in this corridor.As discussed in the Service Plan Technical Memo,this route has a 30-minute headway and 58 total one-way trips.Two options of the Route 363 were considered (Figures 34 and 35).The first option presented here terminates at the Cottage Grove Park& Ride. Frequency 30 minutes I Union ' Span 6am—8pm Depot i �,Lower Afton � � , Service Type Suburban local bus A, -. e �:,,\ , 'Y ...` ' � '� \� i ' ' Daily in-service hours 40 � -- — � � �� Newport �i � � ' Daily revenue hours 46 i � �- _ �- - , �:� �,St. Paul Park _� Annualization 255 i '�-�--- � � ��;80th Street � ' �.{ ; Annual revenue hours 11,680 Cottage Grove_-� Park& Ride � __,'lamaica Ave i ue 61 Target PPISH suburban local—10; core local bus—20 1 Assumed O&M Cost per $132.29 � Revenue Hour(2015$) --� �i �� _� � 0 o.�s �,s ��r,,�k��K a.-•,�u:.. �Mlies Kimley�»Horn Figure 34:Route 363 terminating at the Cottage Grove Park-and-Ride This option of the Route 363 exceeds the suburban local PPISH of 10 passengers per in-service hour in 2024, but does not meet the target core local bus PPISH of 20 passengers per-service hour(Table 7). Table 7:Route 363 Evaluation Results - •. - . Annual O&M Costs $1,550,000 Boardings 540 PPISH 14 O&M Cost per Boarding $11 Estimated Population 3,780 Estimated Jobs 880 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 39 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ROUTE 363 EXTENDED The second option considered of the Route 363 does not stop at the Cottage Grove Park& Ride. Instead, it continues to the Hastings Depot(Figure 35). Frequency 30 minutes Union Depot �ower Afton i Span 6am—8pm � Service Type Suburban local bus ' 'J^\ � , , � � '{ ^ T� °rs : � � " Y � Daily in-service hours 54 � �1_.—\� ��— l -- � ��J � , I � ��Newport � �� Daily revenue hours 62 � �. � ' St. Paul Park Annualization 255 ---4-I—�._ -_ -- �_� _� �/ ` i � i80th Street Annual revenue hours 15,830 -`.__. ;Jamaica Avenue 1 � 6� Target PPISH suburban local—10; � core local bus—20 ' Assumed O&M Cost per $132.29 Revenue Hour(2015$) � Hastings bepot �MI:I>I.U�'Y_ r...:_„�:,. Q �.75 �.5 �Miles Kimley-»Horn Figure 35:Route 363 Extended to Hastings Depot With a longer run time than the version of the 363 that terminates at the Cottage Grove Park& Ride,this 363 Extension performs worse in terms of PPISH. However, its 12 passengers per in-service hour is sufficient for suburban local service (Table 8). Table 8:Year 2024 Route 363 Extended Evaluation Results - •. - - . -. Annual O&M Costs $2,090,000 Boardings 650 PPISH 12 O&M Cost per Boarding $13 Estimated Population 4,130 Estimated Jobs 1,030 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 40 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � INTERIM BRT OPTION 1: BRT SERVICE TO COTTAGE GROVE Interim BRT Option 1 serves the Union Depot, Lower Afton, Newport,St. Paul Park,80th Street,Jamaica Avenue,and the Cottage Grove Park& Ride(Figure 36).This option was generated due to the individual station evaluations that showed O&M and capital cost benefits from skipping Gateway stations and terminating in Cottage Grove.This option was evaluated in both 2024 and in 2040. Frequency 15 minutes � Union Span 6am-12am Depot Lower Afton , Service Type Arterial BRT r,rr I � � Y � � Daily in-service hours 92 �-� �_ � I -�, ��>> � Newport `�� ;� ,, Daily revenue hours 105 � � � �� _� �� -��--— St. Paul Par'k � , Annualization 315 \ 80th Street Annual revenue hours 33,250 \ ; \ �- Cottage Grove �amaica Avenue j Park& Ride Target PPISH 25 ` 61 s_J -!— 1 Assumed O&M Cost per $159.40 ' \ � Revenue Hour(2015$) �� - �-� �� NI_I1Kl)ll: rw 0 o.�s �s , . .�_.�se�� nniles Kimley��>Horn Figure 36:Interim BRT Option 1,Base BRT Service KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 41 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l With an estimated 1,050 daily riders in 2024 and 1,240 daily riders in 2040,this route would need to increase its ridership by 85 percent to meet the arterial BRT PPISH threshold (Table 9). Table 9:Interim BRT Option 15ervice Evaluation Results in 2024 and 2040 �- . . - -. - � � �� Annual O&M Costs(2015$) $5,290,000 $5,290,000 Boardings 1,070* 1,240* PPISH 12 14 O&M Cost per Boarding $16 $14 Estimated Population** 3,780 3,860 Estimated Jobs** 880 930 *Boardings in Interim BRT Option 1 are estimates interpolated from the ridership model. **Socioeconomic data for year 2024 are estimates interpolated from 2010 and 2040 TAZ data.Minor reductions in population and employment can be attributed to TAZ boundary reconfiguration near stations. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 42 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � INTERIM BRT OPTION 2: ADD GATEWAY STATIONS TO BASE BRT SERVICE In addition to the base BRT stations from Interim BRT Option 1, Interim BRT Option 2 also serves the three Gateway stations(Figure 37). Interim BRT Option 2 was evaluated in both 2024 and in 2040. Frequency 15 minutes � +Gateway Stations Span 6am—12am Union l Depot Lower AftOn � I Service Type Arterial BRT t—.l �, , '� Daily in-service hours 96 _ Newport � ; Daily revenue hours 110 � �� ';,�� Annualization 315 �_ St. Paul Park _._ i � — - - 80th Street Annual revenue hours 34,760 Cottage Grove �amaica Avenue Pdrk& Ride Target PPISH 25 61 ,� Assumed O&M Cost per $159.40 � Revenue Hour(2015$) _,_\ �� '�_� �NFI)Rl,lk ;.-� 0 OJS 1.5 . . _::""".;:_ �Miies Kimley�»Horn Figure 37:Interim BRT Option 2,Add Gateway to Base BRT Service With a PPISH of 19, Interim BRT Option 2 in 2040 is the best performing option considered (Table 10). Ridership would need to increase by 33 percent in 2040 to hit the targeted PPISH of 25. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 43 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 10:Interim BRT Option 2 Evaluation Results in 2024 and 2040 �- . . - -. - � � �� Annual O&M Costs(2015$) $5,540,000 $5,540,000 Boardings 1,550 1,800* PPISH 16 19 O&M Cost per Boarding $11 $10 Estimated Population 10,810 10,620 Estimated Jobs 2,110 2,220 *Boardings in Interim BRT Option 2 year 2040 are estimates interpolated from the ridership model. **Socioeconomic data for year 2024 are estimates interpolated from 2010 and 2040 TAZ data.Minor reductions in population and employment can be attributed to TAZ boundary reconfiguration near stations. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 44 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � INTERIM BRT OPTION 3: ADD SERVICE TO HASTINGS DEPOT In addition to the BRT stations from Interim BRT Option 1, Interim BRT Option 3 serves the three Gateway stations and the Hastings Depot(Figure 38). Interim BRT Option 3 was evaluated 2040. �, ^ ,�, Frequency 15 minutes ��—tr�-f +Gateway Stations Union Span 6am-12am �Depot Lower Aft�n i I �f_ �� ,, � . Service Type Arterial BRT (f �r� : - -- . I a � .�. � '.:: •. r1 ' Daily in-service hours 114 _�\' � _� � - � �, Newport ' �� ,. Daily revenue hours 131 f J �� St. Paul Pdrk ___ Annualization 315 ' �, _�.� \ ` 80th Street Annual revenue hours 41,400 /�j �_��' � JamaicaAvenue fl � Target PPISH 25 `7 1 61 -i / � I Assumed O&M Cost per $159.40 � ; � Revenue Hour(2015$) -- � � � ` Hastings Depot ��;,�;�,�� ,.�..�r:�,. 0 o.�s ,s �nniles Kimley)Horn Figure 38:Interim BRT Option 3,Base BRT Service to Hastings Depot with Gateway The extension to Hastings brings the PPISH down to 18(Table 11). Ridership would need to increase by 43 percent in 2040 to hit the targeted PPISH of 25. Table 11:Interim BRT Option 3 Evaluation Results in 2040 �- . . - -. - �� Annual O&M Costs(2015$) $6,600,000 Boardings 2,000* PPISH 18 O&M Cost per Boarding $10 Estimated Population 11,020 Estimated Jobs 2,500 *Boardings in Interim BRT Option 3 year 2040 are estimates interpolated from the ridership model. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 45 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � FULL BUILD BRT SERVICE (ALTERNATIVE 2B) The Full Build BRT Service is the previously chosen Alternative 2B that stops at all every proposed station (Figure 39). Frequency 15 minutes � +Gateway Stations. Union � ! Span 6am-12am �Depot Lower AfLon j I ��f �� . Service Type Arterial BRT 4 � ,. — - / r�� , , f -- .�- ` i Y q • Daily in-service hours 135 n -- -�— �\r1 -- �� - � �, Newport ,, _,, Daily revenue hours 156 � I �� Annualization 315 , St. Paul Park _ _ �� -- \ 80th Street Annual revenue hours 49,220 � � �\ �'�� Jamaica Avenue Target PPISH 25 l � 61 II `.� l I ` i Assumed O&M Cost per $159.40 �, j Revenue Hour(2015$) i - ` Hastings Depot I �,__\ +#2&#3 �o o.�s ,.s �k�,� �;�>�� .��,:.:�:,. �nniles Kimley)Horn Figure 39:Full 8uild BRT Service(Alternative 28) The Full Build BRT Service has a PPISH of 16(Table 12). It would need to increase ridership by 54 percent to meet the PPISH target of 25. Table 12:Full 8uild BRT Evaluation Results in 2040 �- . . - -. - �� Annual O&M Costs(2015$) $7,840,000 Boardings 2,200 PPISH 16 O&M Cost per Boarding $11 Estimated Population 13,940 Estimated Jobs 3,680 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 46 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Corridor Evaluation Summary and Discussion Although Interim BRT Option 2 had the highest PPISH,this optimized version of the Full Build BRT Alternative 2 does not hit regional minimums(Figure 40). Ridership would need to increase by 33 percent to meet the 25 PPISH regional threshold. For comparison,the 2040 forecasted PPISH for the Red Line transitway is presented in the figure. Note that while Red Line currently operates with a PPISH below 25,the running time improvements at Cedar Grove,growth in station areas,and the addition of new stations is expected to increase PPISH to 65 by 2040. 75 50 25 � � � � � � � Arterial BRT PPISH Threshold � � � � � . 0 BRT (2040) ■ Interim Option 1 ■ Interim Option 2 Interim Option 3 ■ Full Build BRT ■ Red Line Figure 40:Interim BRT Option PPISH Comparison to Regional5tatistics Outside of adjusting the route length and stops,a key component of increasing efficiency is through station area development, which serves to increase ridership.Achieving transit-supportive densities within station areas is a gradual process that includes land- use planning,the promotion of density in comprehensive plans and zoning code,and implementing transit advantages.These policy changes will be necessary to create a competitive BRT alignment in the Red Rock Corridor.The full implementation strategy is discussed in the Phasing Plan within the Implementation Plan Final Report. These results were presented to the TAC on May 9 and June 20,2016.The discussion centered on corridor performance and funding options given the forecasted ridership. These results were presented to the RRCC on May 26 and July 28,2016.The Corridor Commission decided that it is appropriate for the 363 to act as a primer for all-day transit service in this corridor.A future capital transitway investment to convert the 363 to BRT is possible once ridership on the 363 shows appropriate levels.The Commission noted that this local bus route is a good near-team solution that is both cost-effective and meets the needs of the community. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 47 �-.r. - _��_�`�� II�� i��. � J� ti��/� :�1 �,�.�-�:.�., � � � 1 � �� 1��. - ~ - � , , � �L�� .�� M� ' � �� ' � � � J - _ — � . � � y\� w r�ii/ ' ,� � - -�::�i� �I `a� • � - � : ;.,. ��Mi�� ---_ � �-- � - _ _�. . I,i��A■ -- � �� _'Q'� ►��,- °..�.� � � ----�Q. - ��. `,� j `` �I � `,� 4252 - . � - __ . _—_. •�.��o . .�� a � � � / • ..................................................................................................................................................................................... • � • • � . RED R�CK • _ • - � SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR • " - " • � PREPAREDFOR .............................................................................. ......................................................................... Red Rock Corridor Commission ......................................................................... PREPARED SY .............................................................................. Kimle >>>Horn PaRsoNs y BRINCKERHOFF � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Contents Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................1 CapitalCosts...............................................................................................................................................................................................2 CapitalCost Methodology .....................................................................................................................................................................2 Standard Cost Category Clarifications....................................................................................................................................................3 Category 10: Guideway and Track Elements .....................................................................................................................................3 Category 20:Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal.........................................................................................................................3 Category 30:Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Administration Buildings...........................................................................................4 Category 40:Sitework and Special Conditions...................................................................................................................................4 Category50:Systems.........................................................................................................................................................................5 Category 60: Right-of-way, Land Costs,and Existing Improvements.................................................................................................5 Category70:Vehicles.........................................................................................................................................................................5 Category 80: Professional Services....................................................................................................................................................5 Category 90: Unallocated Contingency..............................................................................................................................................6 Category100: Finance Charges..........................................................................................................................................................6 CapitalCosts by Station .........................................................................................................................................................................7 GoldLine BRT Guideway Connection.................................................................................................................................................7 LowerAfton Park&Ride....................................................................................................................................................................8 NewportTransit Station.....................................................................................................................................................................9 St. Paul ParkStation...........................................................................................................................................................................9 80thStreet Station............................................................................................................................................................................10 2"d Cottage Grove Station................................................................................................................................................................11 LangdonVillage Station....................................................................................................................................................................12 HastingsDepot Station ....................................................................................................................................................................13 Hastings#2 Station ..........................................................................................................................................................................13 Hastings#3 Station ..........................................................................................................................................................................14 CorridorCapital Costs..........................................................................................................................................................................14 Vehicles and Maintenance Facility Costs.............................................................................................................................................15 Summaryof Capital Cost Estimates.....................................................................................................................................................15 Operations and Maintenance Costs.........................................................................................................................................................16 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................................16 CostDrivers..........................................................................................................................................................................................16 CostCalculation ...................................................................................................................................................................................17 O&M Cost Discussion...........................................................................................................................................................................20 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 � � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a AppendixA:Capital Costs by Alternative...............................................................................................................................................A-1 Appendix B: METRO Gold Line Guideway Connection Design Concepts................................................................................................B-1 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Introduction The Red Rock Corridor is a proposed 30-mile transitway,connecting the Twin Cities'southeastern suburbs to downtown Saint Paul. Figure 1 shows the general study area for this project. Previous studies have assessed the feasibility of transit service between Minneapolis and Red Wing, but BRT service would be between Saint Paul and Hastings for the purposes of this Implementation Plan. The corridor has national,statewide,and regional significance as a transportation route for automobile,truck,freight,and passenger rail travel. � � ,,YF � � .. � .,_ U1..IS� �' � _ � . ��a��. � ST. PAUL � �1` Uaion Depot ,lvv t . _ �� -� c�nw...�� - a �� t� o i � � � � � � `61� � � Hastings � �\� �� \��L�\ Yo,�rTicAcr��. �� 61,�, �* . ' . .. i -. Figure 1:Project5tudyArea A single BRT alternative was analyzed as part of the Red Rock Alternatives Analysis Update(AAU).As part of the Implementation Plan process, however,commuter rail was not advanced for further analysis,and the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) recommended exploring additional BRT alignments within the BRT corridor. For the Implementation Plan,three build alternatives were analyzed in the Red Rock Corridor from Hastings to the Union Depot in St. Paul.These are described as follows: • Alternative 1: BRT with stops at the Union Depot, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,70th Street Station, Langdon Village Station,and the Hastings Depot. Parking is assumed at all stations,with the exception of the 70th Street Station.This is the alternative that resulted from the AAU. • Alternative 2A: BRT via 95th Street with stops at the Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station,95th Street Station,the Hastings Depot, Lions Park Station,and the Dakota County Offices Station.The Mounds Boulevard, Earl Street, and Etna Street Stations are shared with the Gateway Corridor and utilize the transit-only guideway being developed for that corridor. Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 1 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a • Alternative 2B: BRT via Jamaica Avenue with the same stops as Alternative 2A with two modifications: elimination of the 95th Street Station and alternative routing along the east side of Highway 61 in Cottage Grove to serve a station at Jamaica Ave n u e. The purpose of this report is to define and document the methods used to estimate both capital costs and operations and maintenance(O&M)costs associated with the primary alternatives for the Red Rock Implementation Plan. The costs presented in this Implementation Plan include a number of revised assumptions from those presented in the Alternatives Analysis Update (AAU).Some of the key cost differences between the AAU and this Implementation Plan include: ■ O&M Facility:The Implementation Plan includes capital costs associated with sharing the constructions costs of a new BRT maintenance facility(expressed as a constant cost per new bus purchased). ■ Gateway Connection:The Implementation Plan includes a capital cost estimate to connect the Red Rock and Gateway Corridors. ■ Station Area Costs:The AAU included extensive site redesign and pedestrian overpasses at the Lower Afton and Cottage Grove stations.This Implementation Plan assumes additional stations but minimal station area costs, primarily related to the construction of a BRT platform,with no pedestrian structures or structured parking. Just as costs shifted between the AAU and this Implementation Plan,the total cost of the Red Rock Corridor is likely to continue to change as more detailed assumptions are developed.As additional information is determined in later phases,specific known project costs may increase while contingencies to account for unknown costs will decrease.This report summarizes the assumptions that were used to develop the capital and O&M costs for the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan.The numbers presented in this Technical Memo represent the final Implementation Plan cost estimates that are included in the Final Report and in some cases differ from interim costs presented to the public during the development of the Implementation Plan. Capital Costs Capital Cost Methodology What is included in Capital costs Capital cost estimates include the one-time expenditure to build the system and typically include corridor improvements,stations, structures,signalization and communications systems,operations and maintenance facilities,vehicles,and right-of-way(ROW) acquisition. Also included are"soft costs"for items such as engineering,construction services, insurance,and owner's costs,as well as contingencies for uncertainty in both the estimating process and the scope of the project. Planning-Level Estimates At this early study stage,there is not sufficient definition or detail to prepare detailed construction cost estimates for the alternatives under consideration. Rather,the capital cost estimates were developed using representative typical unit costs or allowances on a per-unit basis that is consistent with this level of review. Prior to implementation,the capital cost estimates will need to be refined based upon additional design development work. The unit costs used in this capital cost estimate are derived from the Arterial Transitway Corridor Study(ATCS)and the Highway Transitway Corridor Study(HTCS),with some unit costs updated to match known A Line figures.These unit costs are then categorized into FTA's Standard Cost Categories(SCC)for each station. Corridor-level costs by alternative(such as transit signal priority and shoulder improvements) are also categorized into FTA's Standard Cost Categories(SCC). Each alternative's total cost is the summation of the individual station costs and corridor improvement costs in that alternative. Parameters Capital cost parameters are necessary assumptions that are not related to the specific location or design features of the corridor or the alternatives under consideration.The Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan capital cost estimates are based upon the following parameters: Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 2 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a ■ Base Year—Year 2015 is used as the base year for definition of the unit prices and development of the capital cost estimates. ■ Unit Prices—Base year unit prices for the various capital cost elements were developed using several references and resources that are similar to the proposed work, including the ATCS, HTCS,the A Line,the West Broadway Transit Study, and the Robert Street Corridor Study. ■ Unallocated Contingency—An unallocated contingency of 25%,similar to the West Broadway Transit Study, is included in the capital cost estimates.This contingency is applied to the total estimated capital cost for each alternative,and is in addition to any specific estimating contingencies that are added to the various cost categories. ■ Allocated Contingencies—Allocated contingencies are contingencies that are associated with individual cost estimate categories.These contingencies are intended to compensate for unforeseen items of work,quantity fluctuations,and variances in unit costs that develop as the project progresses through the various stages of design development.The level of allocated contingency applied to each cost category reflects the relative potential variability of those estimates.The allocated contingency assumptions to be included in the capital cost were taken from the West Broadway Transit Study: ■ Category 10,20,30,40,50 20% ■ Category 60 100% ■ Category 70 5% Standard Cost Category Clarifications CATEGORY 10: GUIDEWAY AND TRACK ELEMENTS New Ramp Connections This item includes civil site improvements such as slip ramps or new roadways to better connect the corridor or improve circulation. These costs are all station specific. Transit Signal Priority(TSPJ Improvements The addition of transit signal priority(TSP) has been assumed for all existing traffic signals along the corridor. Because these costs are not station specific the costs are applied at the corridor level and vary by alternative. Further study of the application of TSP to the corridor will need to be completed in future design phases. Shoulder Improvements The"Congested Principal Arterials 2040" map in the 2040 TPP indicates that US-61 to Hastings will be congested by 2040. In order to maintain travel times despite this congestion, buses are assumed to operate on US-61 shoulders.The existing shoulders between Interstate 94 and 70th Street will only require minor modifications because they are wide enough to accommodate BRT vehicles today. However,the length of US-61 between 70th Street and Hastings requires full shoulder reconstruction. None of these improvement costs between Interstate 94 and Hastings along US-61 are associated with one station; instead the costs are included in the Corridor Improvement capital costs for each alternative. CATEGORY 20: STATIONS, STOPS, TERMINALS, INTERMODAL Category 20 costs include the station shelter itself and the costs associated with platform construction. Shelters Station shelters are assumed to be enclosed structures with on-demand heating and include an additional covered waiting area. Shelters would have a recognizable branding style for the BRT corridor.Shelter costs include the installation of two trash receptacles,two bike racks,and a park-style bench. Depending on the station location and surrounding roadway environment,a larger or smaller shelter was estimated. Station Platforms Station platforms are assumed to be 80-feet long and 12-feet wide,constructed of special concrete pavement. Platforms are 9- inches high to accommodate near-level boarding.The design also assumes a 2-foot wide detectable warning strip for the entire Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 3 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a length of the platform.The following provides a summary of the assumptions used to develop unit costs for this component of the BRT station cost: • Station platforms are located at existing park-and-ride locations or near existing sidewalks. • Costs for the station platform assume modifications of the existing roadway to accommodate the station platforms. Some specific stations require removal of curb and gutter,and traffic control infrastructure.See the"Station Roadway Improvements"section in Category 40 for more information on these modifications. • Assumes some existing sidewalk reconstruction. • Station signage(two signs per platform). • Assumes other miscellaneous removals. CATEGORY 30: SUPPORT FACILITIES: YARDS, SHOPS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS Category 30 includes BRT maintenance facility costs.The requirements for BRT support facilities are dependent on the type of vehicle,the size of the fleet,and the system maintenance needs. It is currently unclear whether entirely new facilities would be needed to support the BRT corridor,or whether existing Metro Transit facilities could be modified and expanded to meet the need. For this estimate,a capital cost was included on a per bus basis for a new maintenance facility,or modifications to an existing bus facility.These costs are not station specific and are therefore included in Corridor Improvement costs by alternative. CATEGORY 40: SITEWORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS Category 40 includes roadway improvements, park-and-ride improvements, utilities and drainage, pedestrian improvements,and traffic control. Station Roadway Improvements This includes reconstruction of the roadway at the station location and additional roadway pavement needed to accommodate the station.The following provides a summary of the assumptions used for these improvements: • New bituminous pavement is provided to widen the roadway to accommodate the station platform and any other lane reconfiguration. • A concrete pavement slab is provided for the entire length of the platform to accommodate bus movements. • Concrete sidewalk and pedestrian improvements to connect the station to the existing sidewalks. • Landscaping improvements,including restoration of grass and minimal trees/shrubbery at the station. Park-and-Ride Improvements This assumes new surface park-and-ride lots,or the expansion of existing facilities for the anticipated ridership growth for the Red Rock Corridor. Parking quantities were calculated based on projected boardings from ridership based on park-and-ride access.A cost of$4,000 per required parking stall was used for the park-and-rides,which includes the costs for pavement and other site improvements.The$4,000 cost per parking stall is derived from the HTCS.The number of parking stalls assumed at each station varies based on parking demand for each alternative as well as spare parking capacity. Utility and Drainage Improvements Utility and drainage improvements are categorized as either a major or minor improvement and were based on the existing above ground utilities that were located at each station site. Major utility and drainage improvements assume that multiple utilities will need to be relocated as part of the station construction, including fire hydrants,water mains,and catch basins. Minor utility and drainage improvements assume that only one or two utilities require relocation as part of the station construction. This cost estimate assumes that existing power poles will not require relocation as part of the station construction. Pedestrian Improvements Additional pedestrian improvements costs are categorized as either a major or minor improvement based on the existing pedestrian facilities near the proposed stations.These costs assume the removal and/or construction of concrete sidewalks and pedestrian ramps to/from the station areas. Pedestrian improvements were assumed for Lower Afton and Langdon Village due to a lack of Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 4 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � a existing pedestrian infrastructure.Additional itemized pedestrian improvements were also assumed for St. Paul Park in order to connect the station to the downtown area. Traffic Control Traffic control costs are categorized based on the station platform location and type and have different costs associated with each type. Inline,highway,and arterial BRT stations will require different traffic control measures,with highway stations likely having the most significant impact and cost during construction. CATEGORY 50: SYSTEMS Category 50 includes the purchase of electrical systems,such as pedestrian traffic signals and platform system equipment. Platform Systems Allowance The platform systems allowance costs include equipment for the various off-board fare collection,security,and electrical/communications systems on the station platform.The following items are included in the cost: • Two smaller-scale ticket vending machines,similar to those used on the A Line • One Go-To Card validator • One emergency phone and security camera (assumes DVR-recorded, remotely downloadable cameras) • One real-time sign • Wireless communication connection, ITS network,and system components • Electrical service connection CATEGORY 60: RIGHT-OF-WAY, LAND COSTS, AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS It is anticipated that costs associated with the acquisition of ROW needed for construction and operation of the project will be limited to locations where station platforms do not fit within the existing ROW limits.These costs are station specific.At this level of analysis,it was assumed that no additional ROW will be required to accommodate the proposed BRT stations and corridor improvements,except at the Langdon Village Station and the southbound 80th Street Station. ROW assumptions will need to be refined based upon additional information and design development work that occurs. CATEGORY 70: VEHICLES Quantities for BRT vehicles were based on the operating service levels that were developed as part of the operating plan for the corridor.Vehicle quantities include those needed as part of the service plan and spares.Actual capital costs for vehicle types were based on the following: • Low floor 40-foot BRT buses • Two on-board validators per vehicle Separate costs for video screens/electronic stop displays and annunciator equipment will not be included as part of this estimate, but are assumed to be included as part of the overall bus costs. CATEGORY 80: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Soft costs in Category 80 include preliminary engineering;final design; project management for design and construction; construction administration and management; insurance; legal,permits review fees; surveys,testing, investigation, inspection; agency force account work and public art.These costs were generated by applying assumed rates to different categories of the estimate.The following table identifies the professional services assumptions that were incorporated into the capital cost estimates. Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 5 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 1:Professional5ervice Assumptions Incorporated into Capital Cost Estimates • • • • � • • • � Preliminary Engineering 4% - - Final Design 6% 2% 1% Project Management for Design and Construction 2% 2% 2% Construction Administration and Management 8% 1% - Insurance 4% - - Legal; Permits; Review Fees by Other Agencies 1% 5% - Surveys,Testing, Investigation, Inspection 2% 10% 2% Agency Force Account Work 6% 10% 1% Public Art 1% - - Tota I 34% 30% 6% CATEGORY 90: UNALLOCATED CONTINGENCY A 25%unallocated contingency is applied on top of the unit estimates. CATEGORY 100: FINANCE CHARGES There are no finance charges assumed in this project. Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 6 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Capital Costs by Station GOLD LINE BRT GUIDEWAY CONNECTION Alternative 2 is assumed to connect to the planned Gold Line(Gateway)Corridor at Highway 61 and I-94.A preliminary design concept was developed that allows the Red Rock Corridor to access the Etna Street Station on the dedicated Gold Line guideway. This concept utilizes an on-ramp and off-ramp accessible only by buses and the planned roundabout at the intersection of Highway 61 and Wilson Avenue.This connection also includes the realignment of the westbound off-ramp from I-94. For Alternatives 2A and 2B,civil site improvements to connect TH 61 with the proposed METRO Gold Line BRT guideway were also included in the estimates Station improvement costs at the METRO Gold Line station areas are not included as part of the Red Rock Implementation Plan. It is assumed that Red Rock BRT service will be able to utilize existing infrastructure at Gold Line stations without needing additional improvements. Capital costs for this connection to the Gateway Corridor are shown in Table 2,and a conceptual design of the METRO Gold Line guideway connection is shown in Appendix B. Table 2:Gold Line Connection Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements N/A $550,800 $550,800 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal N/A $0 $0 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings N/A $2,617,600 $2,617,600 40 Sitework&Special Conditions N/A $21,600 $21,600 50 Systems N/A $0 $0 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements N/A $0 $0 70 Vehicles N/A $0 $0 80 Professional Services N/A $908,000 $908,000 90 Unallocated Contingency N/A $1,025,000 $1,025,000 100 Finance Charges N/A $0 $0 Total Capital Costs N/A $5,123,000 $5,123,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 � � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � LOWER AFTON PARK & RIDE The existing 114-stall park-and-ride facility is located on the south side of Lower Afton Road. Due to capacity constraints,potential access and safety issues with the current facility,and neighborhood concerns,the Alternatives Analysis Update considered relocating the park-and-ride to the north side of Lower Afton Road.The facility was also assumed to have structured parking and a pedestrian overpass. Because the future of the park-and-ride itself is uncertain,the only capital costs assumed in each alternative are improved BRT platforms with larger shelters at the locations of the existing boarding areas.The ongoing discussions between Washington County, the City of Saint Paul, MnDOT,and Metro Transit to decide a transit solution at this site could impact this cost estimate. However, in order to accommodate the projected ridership numbers(from an unconstrained model),Alternative 1 would require the addition of 90 parking stalls,and Alternatives 2A and 2B would require the addition of 80 parking stalls.These parking stall costs are not included in the capital costs estimates because of uncertainty at this station (Table 3). Table 3:LowerAfton Station Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $0 $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $461,000 $461,000 $461,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $0 $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $286,000 $286,000 $286,000 50 Systems $528,000 $528,000 $528,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $0 $0 $0 70 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 80 Professional Services $363,000 $363,000 $363,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $410,000 $410,000 $410,000 100 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $2,048,000 $2,048,000 $2,048,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 g � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � NEWPORT TRANSIT STATION The recently opened transit station includes 150 parking stalls and a turnaround for buses off of Maxwell Avenue.The existing parking is currently not fully utilized,and it is assumed that 100 existing parking stalls can be used for BRT ridership.To accommodate ridership demands,the Newport Transit Station requires the addition of 50 parking stalls to the existing facility in Alternative 1 and 40 parking stalls to the existing facility in Alternatives 2A and 2B.This difference in parking needs is the only difference in capital costs between the alternatives(Table 4). All alternatives assume BRT infrastructure enhancements at the existing transit station, including fare collection equipment and real- time signage. No platform modifications are assumed for any alternative at the Newport Transit Station. Table 4:Newport Transit Station Capital Costs by FTA Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $0 $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $152,000 $152,000 $152,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $0 $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $395,000 $347,000 $347,000 50 Systems $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $0 $0 $0 70 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 80 Professional Services $233,000 $217,000 $217,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $261,000 $245,000 $245,000 100 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $1,305,000 $1,225,000 $1,225,000 ST. PAUL PARK STATION This station is assumed to be located on Broadway Avenue near the intersection with Summit Avenue in St. Paul Park.The existing ROW on Broadway Avenue is sufficient to construct station platforms for this walk-up station.Additional pedestrian improvements are also assumed to connect the station to the downtown core immediately west of the freight rail crossing on Broadway Avenue. Table 5:St. Paul Park Station Capital Costs by FTA Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $0 $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $305,000 $305,000 $305,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $0 $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 50 Systems $528,000 $528,000 $528,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $0 $0 $0 70 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 80 Professional Services $342,000 $342,000 $342,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $387,000 $387,000 $387,000 100 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $1,932,000 $1,932,000 $1,932,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 9 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � 80T" STREET STATION Alternative 2 includes a walk-up station at 80th Street.The 80th Street Station in Alternative 2A is located on the west side of US-61 at the intersection of 80th Street and Hadley Avenue. In addition to two arterial shelters and platforms,the capital costs for this location include some ROW acquisition.The 80th Street Station in Alternative 2B is located on the east side of US-61 along East Point Douglas Road.Alternative 2B does not need any ROW acquisition. It includes station platforms,shelters,and minor utility and drainage work in the capital costs. Table 6:SOth Street Station Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements N/A $0 $0 20Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal N/A $305,000 $305,000 30Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings N/A $0 $0 40Sitework&Special Conditions N/A $280,000 $280,000 50 Systems N/A $528,000 $528,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements N/A $88,000 $0 70 Vehicles N/A $0 $0 80 Professional Services N/A $330,000 $318,000 90Unallocated Contingency N/A $383,000 $358,000 100 Finance Charges N/A $0 $0 Total Capital Costs N/A $1,914,000 $1,789,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 10 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � 2ND COTTAGE GROVE STATION Alternative 2 includes a second station in Cottage Grove.Alignment 2A on the west side of US-61 stops at a 95th Street Station. Alignment 2B on the east side of US-61 stops at a Jamaica Avenue Station. Alignment 2A:95ih Street Station This station is located on 95th Street near Hemingway Avenue South. Existing ROW is adequate for placement of the curbside station platforms.This intersection does not currently have a pedestrian crossing on 95th Street,and the capital cost estimate assumes the addition of a signalized pedestrian crossing and ADA ramp improvements at this location. Alignment 26:Jamaica Avenue Station This station is assumed to be located on East Point Douglas Road immediately north of Jamaica Avenue within existing road ROW. In addition to the typical station shelter and platform construction costs,this station's capital costs include: ■ 84 parking stalls in order to accommodate the parking demand projected in the ridership model ■ Pavement removal and roadway realignment and reconstruction in order to reconfigure parking and transit operations Table 7:95th Street Station/Jamaica Avenue Station Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements N/A $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal N/A $305,000 $305,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings N/A $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions N/A $280,000 $1,196,000 50 Systems N/A $618,000 $528,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements N/A $0 $0 70 Vehicles N/A $0 $0 80 Professional Services N/A $342,000 $578,000 90 Unallocated Contingency N/A $387,000 $652,000 100 Finance Charges N/A $0 $0 Total Capital Costs N/A $1,932,000 $3,259,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 11 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � LANGDON VILLAGE STATION The Langdon Village Station,which is only assumed in Alternative 1,consists of a park-and-ride with 30 parking stalls,split boarding platforms for northbound and southbound buses,and an internal bus turnaround for northbound buses. Northbound buses are assumed to use Jamaica Avenue to access the station,and will return on Point Douglas Road to Jamaica Avenue in order to return to Highway 61.Southbound buses will utilize a new bus only slip ramp from Point Douglas Road in order to reduce the travel time for buses. This station will be located within planned redevelopment that will include mixed-use and residential uses. One acre of ROW acquisition has been assumed in the capital costs for this park-and-ride station. Table 8:Langdon Village Capital Cost Estimate � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $ 108,000 N/A N/A 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $ 350,000 N/A N/A 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $ 0 N/A N/A 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $ 210,000 N/A N/A 50 Systems $ 264,000 N/A N/A 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $ 264,000 N/A N/A 70 Vehicles $ - N/A N/A 80 Professional Services $ 304,000 N/A N/A 90 Unallocated Contingency $ 375,000 N/A N/A 100 Finance Charges $ - N/A N/A Total Capital Costs $ 1,875,000 N/A N/A Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 12 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � HASTINGS DEPOT STATION The Hastings Depot station is located at the city-owned existing parking facility near the renovated train depot at Tyler Street and 2nd Street East in Hastings. Because the city owns the parcel on which the park-and-ride and Hastings Depot are located,there is no assumed ROW cost for station placement.A BRT station platform with an enhanced shelter is included in the capital cost estimate. It is assumed that the existing parking is sufficient to meet the parking demands for BRT service,and a shared use agreement will allow riders to use the municipal lot as a transit park-and-ride.The Hastings Depot Station is the terminus station for Alternative 1; it is assumed that drivers will have the ability to use the existing facilities that the Central Pacific employees use at the depot(or nearby businesses)during layovers. Table 9:Hastings Depot Station Capital Cost by FTA Standard Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $0 $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $230,000 $230,000 $230,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $0 $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $155,000 $155,000 $155,000 50 Systems $264,000 $264,000 $264,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $0 $0 $0 70 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 80 Professional Services $184,000 $184,000 $184,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $209,000 $209,000 $209,000 soo Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $1,042,000 $1,042,000 $1,042,000 HASTINGS#2 STATION This station is assumed to be located on Highway 55 near the intersection of Pine Street within existing road ROW.The exact station location was not determined. Existing pedestrian facilities would likely not require significant improvements. Table 10:Hastings#2 Station Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Categories � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements N/A $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal N/A $305,000 $305,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings N/A $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions N/A $318,000 $318,000 50 Systems N/A $528,000 $528,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements N/A $0 $0 70 Vehicles N/A $0 $0 80 Professional Services N/A $329,000 $329,000 90 Unallocated Contingency N/A $370,000 $370,000 100 Finance Charges N/A $0 $0 Total Capital Costs N/A $1,850,000 $1,850,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 13 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � HASTINGS#3 STATION The terminus station for Alternative 2 is located at the existing Dakota County Offices. It is assumed that buses will utilize the existing drive aisle and parking area for turnaround and layover.A BRT station platform with an enhanced shelter is included in the capital cost estimate. It is assumed that a shared use agreement will allow for a limited number of park-and-ride users to use the existing county offices parking lot. Driver layover facilities are not included in the estimate,as it is assumed that the existing facilities in the county offices will be used by drivers. Table 11:Hastings#3 Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Category � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements N/A $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal N/A $152,000 $152,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings N/A $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions N/A $155,000 $155,000 50 Systems N/A $264,000 $264,000 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements N/A $0 $0 70 Vehicles N/A $0 $0 80 Professional Services N/A $165,000 $165,000 90 Unallocated Contingency N/A $184,000 $184,000 100 Finance Charges N/A $0 $0 Total Capital Costs N/A $920,000 $920,000 Corridor Capital Costs Transit signal priority and shoulder improvements are corridor costs that are unspecific to one station.These capital costs are shown by alternative in Table 12 and vary according to the number of intersections that alternative passes through. Table 12:Corridor Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Categories � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $3,577,000 $3,004,000 $3,040,000 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $0 $0 $0 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $0 $0 $0 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $0 $0 $0 50 Systems $0 $0 $0 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $0 $0 $0 70 Vehicles $0 $0 $0 80 Professional Services $75,000 $1,010,000 $1,020,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $913,000 $1,004,000 $1,015,000 100 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $4,565,000 $5,018,000 $5,075,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 14 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Vehicles and Maintenance Facility Costs Vehicles and costs to construct an operation and maintenance facility by alternative are shown in Table 13. Nine(9)vehicles are assumed for Alternative 1 and twelve(12)vehicles are assumed for Alternative 2A and 2B. Table 13:Vehicles and Maintenance Facility Capital Costs by FTA Standard Cost Categories � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $0 $0 $0 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $0 $0 $0 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $5,400,000 $7,200,000 $7,200,000 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $0 $0 $0 50 Systems $0 $0 $0 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $0 $0 $0 70 Vehicles $4,801,000 $6,401,000 $6,401,000 80 Professional Services $1,813,000 $2,418,000 $2,418,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $3,004,000 $4,005,000 $4,005,000 100 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $15,018,000 $20,024,000 $20,024,000 Summary of Capital Cost Estimates A summary of capital costs by alignment alternative is shown in Table 14. Table 14:Total Capital Costs byAlternative � � � • � • � � • � � � � � � � 10 Guideway&Track Elements $3,685,000 $3,555,000 $3,590,800 20 Stations,Stops,Terminals, Intermodal $1,378,000 $2,215,000 $2,215,000 30 Support Facilities:Yards,Shops,Admin. Buildings $5,400,000 $7,200,000 $7,200,000 40 Sitework&Special Conditions $1,536,000 $4,808,000 $5,724,600 50 Systems $1,848,000 $3,543,000 $3,453,600 60 ROW, Land, Existing Improvements $264,000 $88,000 $0 70 Vehicles $4,801,000 $6,401,000 $6,401,000 80 Professional Services $3,314,000 $6,608,000 $6,842,000 90 Unallocated Contingency $5,559,000 $8,610,000 $8,860,000 100 Finance Charges $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Costs $27,785,000 $43,028,000 $44,287,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 15 � RED ROCK �OUTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a Operations and Maintenance Costs Introduction This section documents the Operations and Maintenance(O&M)cost calculation for each of the alternatives under consideration in the Red Rock Implementation Plan. Unit costs are multiplied by cost drivers in order to determine the total O&M cost of each alternative. Figure 2 depicts the equation. • � • : � - . � . Figure 2:O&M Cost Calculation This document includes three main sections:cost drivers,the cost calculation,and a discussion of the results. Cost Drivers Cost drivers are the statistics that determine the O&M cost of each individual cost category that make up the total O&M cost of the alternative.The O&M cost drivers are primarily derived from the Service Plan Technical Memo, including statistics such as revenue hours, revenue miles,and the number of peak vehicles required in maximum service.The operating frequency,travel time,and service span of the proposed service(s)are used to generate each of these statistics. Costs are incremental,so they reflect costs that are additional to conditions prior to construction.The summary of net cost drivers by Alternative is shown in Table 15. Table 15:Net O&M Cost Driver Summary byAlternative • �• BRT Annual Revenue 32,453 47,702 49,266 Hours BRT Annual Revenue Miles 957,950 1,043,970 1,047,880 BRT Peak Buses 7 10 10 Net BRT Stations1 5 8 8 New Ticket Vending � 13 13 Machines Validators 25 37 37 TSP Intersections 12 17 20 Total Fleet 9 12 12 1 Net BRT stations refers to those in the corridor that are additional to those that will already be operating and maintained due to Gateway(the METRO Gold Line). Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 16 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Cost Calculation Unit costs are derived primarily from Metro Transit's Arterial Transitways Corridor StudyZ. Because the costs in this study were in 2010 dollars,the unit costs were inflated from 2010 to 2015 dollars(multiplied by 1.087 based on the consumer price index). Tables 16 through 18 show the cost calculation of each of the build alternatives. Table 16:Red RockAlternative 1 O&M Cost Calculation(2015$) • • �• �• • � � • � • � � • � • � BRT Service BRT Revenue Hours 32,453 $62.14 $2,017,000 $2,193,000 BRT Service BRT Revenue Miles 957,950 $2.99 $2,864,000 $3,114,000 BRT Service BRT Peak Buses 7 $36,498 $255,000 $278,000 BRT Service Subtotal $5,585,000 Farebox O&M Fleet Buses 9 $(2,000) $(18,000) $(20,000) Reduction Station Stations 5 $2,000 $10,000 $11,000 Maintenance Snow Removal Stations 5 $3,500 $18,000 $19,000 Real-Time Signage Stations 5 $4,000 $20,000 $22,000 O&M TVM O&M Ticket Validating � $10,000 $70,000 $76,000 Machines Validator O&M Validators 25 $150 $4,000 $4,000 TSP O&M TSP Intersections 12 $2,800 $34,000 $37,000 Fare Enforcement BRT Revenue Hours 32,453 $8.75 $284,000 $309,000 Transit Control Stations 5 $8,000 $40,000 $43,000 Center/Street Ops Facility and Fare Collection Subtotal $501,000 Tota I $6,086,000 Z http://www.metrotransit.or�/Data/Sites/1/media/pdfs/atcs/conceptdevelopment.pdf;revised assumptions for real-time signage O&M and additional allowance for transit control center/street ops. Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 1� � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Tnhlo 17•Rofl Rn�l�4lfornnfivo�a nu,nn�.,�r�.,i��i.,r�.,.,/�n1SC`1 •' � � BRT Service BRT Revenue 47,702 $62.14 $2,964,000 $3,223,000 Hours BRT Service BRT Revenue 1,043,970 $2.99 $3,121,000 $3,394,000 Miles BRT Service BRT Peak Buses 10 $36,498 $365,000 $397,000 BRT Service Subtotal $7,014,000 Farebox O&M Fleet Buses 12 $(2,000) $(24,000) $(26,000) Reduction Station Stations 8 $2,000 $16,000 $17,000 Maintenance Snow Removal Stations 8 $3,500 $28,000 $30,000 Real-Time Signage Stations 8 $4,000 $32,000 $35,000 O&M TVM O&M Ticket Validating 13 $10,000 $130,000 $141,000 Machines Validator O&M Validators 37 $150 $6,000 $6,000 TSP O&M TSP Intersections 17 $2,800 $48,000 $52,000 Fare Enforcement BRT Revenue 47,702 $8.75 $417,000 $454,000 Hours Transit Control Stations 8 $8,000 $64,000 $70,000 Center/Street Ops Facility and Fare Collection Subtotal $779,000 Tota I $7,793,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 1g � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Tnhlo 1R•Rofl Rn�l�4lfornnfivo�R/1QA/1!'ncf!'nl��lnfinn/�n1SC`1 • 1 1 � � BRT Service BRT Revenue 49,266 $62.14 $3,061,000 $3,329,000 Hours BRT Service BRT Revenue 1,047,880 $2.99 $3,133,000 $3,406,000 Miles BRT Service BRT Peak Buses 10 $36,498 $365,000 $397,000 BRT Service Subtotal $7,132,000 Farebox O&M Fleet Buses 12 $(2,000) $(24,000) $(26,000) Reduction Station Stations 8 $2,000 $16,000 $17,000 Maintenance Snow Removal Stations 8 $3,500 $28,000 $30,000 Real-Time Signage Stations 8 $4,000 $32,000 $35,000 O&M TVM O&M Ticket Validating 13 $10,000 $130,000 $141,000 Machines Validator O&M Validators 37 $150 $6,000 $6,000 TSP O&M TSP Intersections 20 $2,800 $56,000 $61,000 Fare Enforcement BRT Revenue 49,266 $8.75 $431,000 $469,000 Hours Transit Control Stations 8 $8,000 $64,000 $70,000 Center/Street Ops Facility and Fare Collection Subtotal $803,000 Tota I $7,935,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 19 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � O&M Cost Discussion The cost summary is shown in Table 19. The total O&M cost ranges from a low of$6,086,000 for Alternative 1 to$7,935,000 for Alternative 2B.The lower cost of Alternative 1 on Highway 61 has to do with two main factors. First, it serves fewer stations than Alternative 2A and Alternative 2B. Second,this route operates almost exclusively on Highway 61,so the number of revenue hours is lower than the Alternative 2 with community- focused deviations. Another important point is that Alternative 1 bypasses the Gateway Corridor and stations between the Union Depot and Highway 61,while Alternative 2 serves these stations. Table 19:O&M Cost Summary(2015$) • •• BRT Service Cost $5,585,000 $7,014,000 $7,132,000 Facility Maintenance and Fare Collection Cost $501,000 $779,000 $803,000 Total O&M Cost(2015$) $6,086,000 $7,793,000 $7,935,000 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 20 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Appendix A: Capital Costs by Alternative Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 A-1 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � . Length(mi) 24.5 No.of Stations 5 �� " �- . . �� ' ' � ' • Corridor Improvement $210,000 20% $3,685,000 1 10 Slip Ramp 450 LF $200 $90,000 $18,000 $108,000 Earthwork(Import/Excavation& 2 10 Embankment) 0 CY $15 $0 $0 $0 3 10 Transit Signal Priority(TSP)Upgrades 12 EA $10,000 $120,000 $24,000 $144,000 4 10 Retaining Wall 0 SF $150 $0 $0 $0 5 10 Highway Bus Shoulder Improvements 1 LS $3,433,000 $3,433,000 $3,433,000 BRT Station $3,968,000 20% $4,762,000 6 20 Highway Station(Shelter and Amenities) 4 EA $130,000 $520,000 $104,000 $624,000 7 20 Arterial Station(Enhanced Shelter) 3 EA $65,000 $195,000 $39,000 $234,000 8 20 Station Platform 7 EA $62,000 $434,000 $87,000 $520,000 9 40 Station Roadway Improvements 7 EA $100,000 $700,000 $140,000 $840,000 10 40 Surface Park and Ride Lot 80 STALL $4,000 $320,000 $64,000 $384,000 11 40 Utilities and Drainage Improvements(Major) 0 EA $20,000 $0 $0 $0 12 40 Utilities and Drainage Improvements(Minor) 7 EA $4,000 $28,000 $7,000 $35,000 13 40 Pedestrian Improvements(Major) 1 EA $36,000 $36,000 $7,000 $43,000 14 40 Pedestrian Improvements(Minor) 2 EA $10,000 $20,000 $4,000 $24,000 15 40 Pedestrian Improvements(Saint Paul Park) 1 EA $85,000 $85,000 $17,000 $102,000 16 40 Traffic Control(Inline/Online) 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 $6,000 $36,000 17 40 Traffic Control(Offline) 4 EA $15,000 $60,000 $12,000 $72,000 18 50 Platform Systems Allowance 7 EA $220,000 $1,540,000 $308,000 $1,848,000 BRT Maintenance Facility $4,500,000 20% $5,400,000 19 30 BRT Maintenance Facility 1 EA $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $900,000 $5,400,000 � Right of Way $132,000 100% $264,000 20 60 Commercial/Industrial 0.6 ACRE $220,000 $132,000 $132,000 $264,000 21 60 Residential ACRE $0 $0 $0 $0 Vehicles $4,572,000 5% $4,801,000 22 70 Low Floor 40-foot BRT Buses 9 EA $500,000 $4,500,000 $225,000 $4,725,000 23 70 On-Board Go To Validator(per bus door) 18 EA $4,000 $72,000 $4,000 $76,000 Soft Costs $3,316,000 24 80 Preliminary Engineering $347,000 25 80 Final Design $569,000 Project Management for Design and 26 80 Construction $268,000 Construction Administration and 27 80 Management $696,000 28 80 Insurance $347,000 KII 1 IIe,I��HOI 1 1 : August 2016 A-2 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � �� - • • �� • Legal; Permits; Review Fees by Other 29 80 Agencies $93,000 30 80 Surveys,Testing,Investigation,Inspection $278,000 31 80 AgencyForce Account Work $580,000 32 80 Public Art $138,000 90 25%Contingency $5,557,000 KII 1 II�y��HOCI 1 : August 2016 A-3 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � . . Length(mi) 26.7 No.of Stations 8 �� - �- . . �� ' • ' ' � ' • Corridor Improvement $2,970,000 20% $3,004,000 1 10 Slip Ramp 0 LF $200 $0 $0 $0 Earthwork(I mport/Excavati 2 10 on&Embankment) 0 CY $15 $0 $0 $0 Transit Signal Priority(TSP) 3 10 Upgrades 17 EA $10,000 $170,000 $34,000 $204,000 4 10 Retaining Wall 0 SF $150 $0 $0 $0 Highway Bus Shoulder 5 10 Improvements 1 LS $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $0 $2,800,000 BRT Station $6,605,000 20% $7,928,000 HighwayStation(Shelter 6 20 and Amenities) 3 EA $130,000 $390,000 $78,000 $468,000 Arterial Station(Enhanced 7 20 Shelter) 10 EA $65,000 $650,000 $130,000 $780,000 8 20 Station Platform 13 EA $62,000 $806,000 $161,000 $967,000 Station Roadway 9 40 Improvements 13 EA $100,000 $1,300,000 $260,000 $1,560,000 10 40 Surface Park and Ride Lot 40 STALL $4,000 $160,000 $32,000 $192,000 Utilities and Drainage 11 40 Improvements(Major) 2 EA $20,000 $40,000 $8,000 $48,000 Utilities and Drainage 12 40 Improvements(Minor) 11 EA $4,000 $44,000 $11,000 $55,000 Pedestrian Improvements 13 40 (Major) 0 EA $36,000 $0 $0 $0 Pedestrian Improvements 14 40 (Minor) 6 EA $10,000 $60,000 $12,000 $72,000 Pedestrian Improvements 15 40 (Saint Paul Park) 1 EA $85,000 $85,000 $17,000 $102,000 Pedestrian Traffic Signal 16 50 (95th Street Station) 1 EA $75,000 $75,000 $15,000 $90,000 Traffic Control 17 40 (Inline/Online) 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 $6,000 $36,000 18 40 Traffic Control(Offline) 7 EA $15,000 $105,000 $21,000 $126,000 19 50 Platform Systems Allowance 13 EA $220,000 $2,860,000 $572,000 $3,432,000 BRT Maintenance Facility $6,000,000 20% $7,200,000 20 30 BRT Maintenance Facility 1 EA $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,200,000 $7,200,000 Right of Way $44,000 100% $88,000 21 60 Commercial/Industrial 0.2 ACRE $220,000 $44,000 $44,000 $88,000 22 60 Residential 0 ACRE $0 $0 $0 $0 Vehicles $6,096,000 5% $6,401,000 KII 1 II�y��HOCI 1 : August 2016 A-4 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � �� - • • �� • � � � � • Low Floor 40-foot BRT 23 70 Buses 12 EA $500,000 $6,000,000 $300,000 $6,300,000 On-Board Go To Validator 24 70 (per bus door) 24 EA $4,000 $96,000 $5,000 $101,000 Soft Costs $5,699,000 25 80 Preliminary Engineering $623,000 26 80 Final Design $996,000 Project Management for 27 80 Design and Construction $434,000 Construction Administration 28 80 &Management $1,246,000 29 80 Insurance $623,000 Legal;Permits; Review Fees 30 80 by Other Agencies $158,000 Surveys,Testing, 31 80 Investigation,Inspection $438,000 32 80 Agency Force Account Work $1,000,000 33 80 Public Art $181,000 Gateway Corridor Connection Costs $5,123,000 Guideway and track 34 10 elements $550,800 Site work&special 35 40 conditions $2,617,600 36 50 Systems $21,600 37 80 Professional Services $908,000 38 90 Unallocated Contingency $1,025,000 90 25%Contingency $7,580,000 : ::: KII 1 II�y��HOCI 1 : August 2016 A-5 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � . Length(mi) 26.8 No.of Stations 8 �� - �- . . _-� . � � . . � Corridor Improvement $3,000,000 20% $3,040,000 1 10 Slip Ramp 0 LF $200 $0 $0 $0 Earthwork(Import/Excavation& 2 10 Embankment) 0 CY $15 $0 $0 $0 Transit Signal Priority(TSP) 3 10 Upgrades 20 EA $10,000 $200,000 $40,000 $240,000 4 10 Retaining Wall 0 SF $150 $0 $0 $0 Highway Bus Shoulder 5 10 Improvements 1 LS $2,800,000 $2,800,000 $2,800,000 BRT Station $7,291,925 20% $8,754,000 Highway Station(Shelter and 6 20 Amenities) 3 EA $130,000 $390,000 $78,000 $468,000 Arterial Station(Enhanced 7 20 Shelter) 10 EA $65,000 $650,000 $130,000 $780,000 8 20 Station Platform 13 EA $62,000 $806,000 $161,000 $967,000 9 40 Station Roadway Improvements 13 EA $100,000 $1,300,000 $260,000 $1,560,000 10 40 Surface Park and Ride Lot 124 STALL $4,000 $496,000 $99,000 $595,000 11 40 Remove Bituminous Pavement 5,800 SY $5 $29,000 $6,000 $35,000 12 40 Bituminous Pavement 30,700 SF $7 $207,225 $41,000 $249,000 13 40 Common Excavation 10,400 CY $8 $83,200 $17,000 $101,000 14 40 Common Embankment 2,500 CY $6 $15,000 $3,000 $18,000 15 40 Concrete Curb&Gutter 1,400 LF $15 $21,000 $4,000 $25,000 16 40 Storm Sewer Pipe 700 LF $75 $52,500 $11,000 $64,000 Utilities and Drainage 17 40 Improvements(Major) 2 EA $20,000 $40,000 $8,000 $48,000 Utilities and Drainage 18 40 Improvements(Minor) 9 EA $4,000 $36,000 $9,000 $45,000 Pedestrian Improvements 19 40 (Major) 1 EA $36,000 $36,000 $7,000 $43,000 Pedestrian Improvements 20 40 (Minor) 5 EA $10,000 $50,000 $10,000 $60,000 Pedestrian Improvements(Saint 21 40 Paul Park) 1 EA $85,000 $85,000 $17,000 $102,000 Relocate Traffic Signal(80th 22 50 Street SB Station) 0 EA $25,000 $0 $0 $0 23 40 Traffic Control(Inline/Online) 1 EA $30,000 $30,000 $6,000 $36,000 24 40 Traffic Control(Offline) 7 EA $15,000 $105,000 $21,000 $126,000 25 50 Platform Systems Allowance 13 EA $220,000 $2,860,000 $572,000 $3,432,000 BRT Maintenance Facility $6,000,000 20% $7,200,000 26 30 BRT Maintenance Facility 1 EA $6,000,000 $6,000,000 $1,200,000 $7,200,000 Right of Way $0 100% $0 KII 1 II�y��HOCI 1 : August 2016 A-6 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � �� - • • _-� . 1 � . . 1 27 60 Commercial/Industrial 0 ACRE $220,000 $0 $0 $0 28 60 Residential 0 ACRE $0 $0 $0 $0 Vehicles $6,096,000 5% $6,401,000 29 70 Low Floor 40-foot BRT Buses 12 EA $500,000 $6,000,000 $300,000 $6,300,000 On-Board Go To Validator(per 30 70 bus door) 24 EA $4,000 $96,000 $5,000 $101,000 Soft Costs $5,932,000 31 80 Preliminary Engineering $652,000 32 80 Final Design $1,038,000 Project Management for Design 33 80 &Construction $448,000 Construction Administration& 34 80 Management $1,303,000 35 80 Insurance $652,000 Legal;Permits; Review Fees by 36 80 Other Agencies $163,000 Surveys,Testing,Investigation, 37 80 Inspection $448,000 38 80 Agency Force Account Work $1,038,000 39 80 Public Art $190,000 Gateway Corridor Connection Costs $5,123,000 40 10 Guideway and track elements $550,800 41 40 Site work&special conditions $2,617,600 42 50 Systems $21,600 43 80 Professional Services $908,000 44 90 Unallocated Contingency $1,025,000 90 Unallocated 25%Contingency $7,840,000 KII 1 II�y��HOCI 1 : August 2016 A-7 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Appendix B: METRO Gold Line Guideway Connection Design Concepts Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 B-1 � KED RQCK SOUTHEAS7CORRIDOR .� ' � s 3, . � , _ 1- �� - - - - - - • •� e s�' 'p, • �� ll.� , . ' . _�._' _ � }q . . .�a t. „� fr --T^—_.' „ �� , r � .^I� A , ' a � +`. . " . - "I� ,'�' 9 y '�� . � _1 ♦ . �; r' ...�. V' 16 :, ^ _, �_.... . __ _M� ''�.� ....• �k.�.+. .a.. �.� , W � ,• �I�A I r�l '� !� '.�� - . _ i. I ' _ � i, � t I-�-' ;.."r , 'a�.�, � ,� �. �� .. .y�.� _ _ � WLLAONAVE 1 �" _ .. . f 1 Y .. � Fy F . � __ 1 � � f � �' _ A`t' ')'� }/ �1 `�.. ' � ' r�„ � - � 4�a�A' {C li l� -r, �ji . . y . � .�� g � ca. rw.u� rvr�� a �".� � � � �� 1 coaa o ;1� � ,� �2 � � ?�; f � j � � �� i' _ 2 x� � q �,. '. `Ye; ' .. n � _ _ a^ �� 4 . � ,r�Y`. Ai �.:.s , � _'-j .' 9R,. .� � � �I ,�``s ''a�.�� {. " '� � A - � '� �t � � ��.` ' � i� '� �r �y .�,� "t �� I �i�j 'L ,� Z =� � � �� ,.� � r �c " .t�A�., ``.�si � �� i`i�r�i.� .�" ,. �� : � ' , �`. a ��, `_a' ,��g �:,,. ._. _ ^ � '� , .:, ^. „ ' � _ '-8' _ —— � __ ' ' - � 1 w " ^r � , 4� - - T -.� y1.. - � . .�,-..p,.. �� —- - ' ' , _ � i � � . '^k.X' .,� /� .�.- � _ .. ' ' 1 � � i �. I � � .J'' � .3^ � 4�� l` �`'1:s o �. ��yy� � �p .�./'.flR�,'r"��L 1 '. -��Y' ',' . - ' , • .. . ` - . jr/( MUD�ON R0. ;!r . ;�� . �' /"g� G �� G . ' �� + -� yy. � . �.1�' ,,�L" ~�*t �i i-. 9 1 � .� � '� ' ti � ,;w� �� . 3 �� ' ��.- - � �' —�� ' , . .��. n„ ' t `• ' � 'S� � . J. --r .t1 �. ,a yys . '��;''� tj :� ,� M ,� ��. " �+ �� y� �.l ,r? '}i I Y :` '�., 'f�� i ^'�r , � pt i ,;�: � � { i , �� !^F-. �--� ��^" . Qi.P�'7�" � �r��.� -. ,1I . r . �•�r . � �O. — �,;�� -. � a�%; \�, ; !� � a� - ,. Y�, � ,,�,�� t- ; uF�/�FT � N , �� N �EET � � = � � _ - � _ � ' � RED ROCK e �RFD KOCK Y r'°ker" 'i'" ��.ts�un��ft�n � � ��,,s_��,.�� SOUTHEASTCORRIDOR � KimleV >>Horn � * � GATEWAYCORRIDOR-CONNEGTIONALTERNATNE -- �l1LII�I�� 1 � � OVTION A OATE'.1�6�2015 2 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 B-3 � KED RQCK SOUTHEAS7CORRIDOR .� ' � . �_ �� . - -� I : � �, � -. . .� - h r, , ' /. i. . - ' - t — 7 �" - I � � � `'�' ��, �� .=== ^J- �_—�J� i i,�` .r �-..-r;4-..-1 , . ,..,�j j ,�. ` i � i}�� ,�� . . _ " �..� �s :.�� _ , �r 4�__.__, fn I�R�i 1 I-J I'= ' — • JI �� (J. �'� � r' '� I: _� � •� L �. � � -., Y. �I� �' � _� , • - - I a ��,. ' F i� � r d`L..r'J�' `*�.:it�. �� /:t ��#�' ' .1 K,. t - - : - - - - -,� �; k �,�� ,,�,,; -��--�.��-��-�{'� i"' ,;��...�r�1,,.�j ' ,.� �, \ ��' �i� - - - - - - _ --� � �' -�-� , ��' ;�� - ��,�; 'T-,��---- i — 1; � ►:; . ' °�, �, � � _ _ . . . q : � A�, ,�� '�I: T� - - - - - - - ' - - - = - "'' �; � ��Ilt .� �a«. ,� —� � - .>;�✓ �`, �� _;I:�—" ��...P� __ :M� r.�. .... .an .�. �:.�., .�.ti . �� —' � !.%�� _ � �'j � � � . �',z:�. . - � ��j� � r �'� �� i� ' ��. �� / , ..�� '-., ., w .I�: — ' - r ' L�s#�' : ', �� . �__�_�— z ly . ��{+ . t • , _ y /' '/"- ` �' o�oxuosoNno� '�; � ' - yE ,� . - ..1 N7LSONAVE. � � r. . y_ � ��; .f . 7 -rW � �� ` • ',I��° � 9 "� - ��K •.� �. � ' r ��; � � �_' , �` `� ...\� ,.l�, �I /` g � p � ��.; �� ,�'�.�,� �< , 1 �. . � cwnv�aaioaa� � � .Y ,�+ �' '�''. .� � �-_!'"" .\� H �� 3 . ��„-r �,4,�.I'_. . �.'�,�::1 i - � �� .'< �� ._ t\, T�W��'�''� . e� ;. . � � ! _ " � �; �, , —:: ,�. � • I i J' '�,1� � +R �. � '. � � %!� ��" � � ,;r w a � — :,�� '!r �; � �i�' ,� , � . ~ �.� -�\' 3 F�' 'F r ` , w�k�E . � _ _ _ � „ __`_. - � - fi I 94 -— ._ .. — �__ � � � ' I ' ^ _ _' II ' � _ _ � _ _ -. . s ' � — _ — 1t - �;� — ,.. °�_ �� . � � - � I� T ��.��d � .,. ' s ,I _ , .,.f. :.� �:... � � '� _ .,+�, �, '�� , -...__ ; 1�' It� �,:, . , ..,:�,. � .�!�-�- ��'��'" � ` -' +� � �i-, HUDgON RD. (, �;. �r,�,r.. '�t � � . �.. u ;�, T � �' , ; ':I�'�I ��y � �ir^ + �a + 'ti t; '` ' ~��,a,,��#; �, ^•.� � , �,_ ' � �;-��, . ' �;,r,�� <,,� , - � JRAFT., .— . �� :..� ' '�. I- • � � ^S 'L�IN F. T � s '�' � ',� �; � "��j.�,'�� 1 �a� � ' � - � RED ROCK � '�"��.� � � �Rf.l� R�CK YwrTickeftull�e ��il��lln''�(Hl z � * . ._� Southeast Metro SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR = � Kimley>>>Horn / GATEWAV CORRIDOROPTOION B TION qLTERNATNE =C��U I�I�� 2 �FTE�.]'E:2n15 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 B-3 �`�.r. " '�L;p-iiC��;a+:..�� I,, � �,�• Y�^ .�? ��i�-t �-�:.'�., � �� 1 i I�'�` 1�� _ — � � _ � �L�� .�� M� ' � �� ' � � � J - _ — � . � � y\� w r�ii/ ' ,� � - -�::�i� �I `a� • � - � : ;.,. ��Mi�� ---_ � �-- � - _ _�. . I,i��A■ -- � �� _'Q'� ►��,- °..�.� � � ----�Q. - ��. `,� j `` �I � `,� 4252 - . � — __ . _—_. •�.��o . .�� a � � � / • ..................................................................................................................................................................................... � � • � � • . � • � • • � . RED R�CK • _ • - � SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR • " - " • � PREPAREDFOR .............................................................................. ......................................................................... Red Rock Corridor Commission ......................................................................... PREPARED SY .............................................................................. Kimle >>>Horn PaRsoNs y BRINCKERHOFF � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Contents 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Purpose.....................................................................................................................................................................................2 2.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Capital and O&M Costs Estimates............................................................................................................................................3 3.0 Summary of Funding Sources.......................................................................................................................................................4 3.1. Federal Sources........................................................................................................................................................................6 DiscretionaryPrograms......................................................................................................................................................................6 FormulaPrograms..............................................................................................................................................................................8 3.2. State Funding Sources............................................................................................................................................................10 3.3. Regional Funding....................................................................................................................................................................13 MetropolitanCouncil.......................................................................................................................................................................13 Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)...................................................................................................................................13 3.4. Local Funding..........................................................................................................................................................................15 WashingtonCounty.........................................................................................................................................................................15 DakotaCounty.................................................................................................................................................................................16 RamseyCounty................................................................................................................................................................................17 4.0 Project Related Funding..............................................................................................................................................................19 5.0 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................................................22 Appendix A:Small Starts Competitiveness Analysis..................................................................................................................................A AppendixB:TIGER Program Analysis.........................................................................................................................................................B Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 � � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � List of Tables Table 1: Red Rock Corridor BRT Capital Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................................3 Table 2: Red Rock Corridor BRT Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates..........................................................................................3 Table 3:Summary of Funding Sources.......................................................................................................................................................4 Table 4: Revenue Potential Evaluation Criteria .........................................................................................................................................5 Table 5:Stability Evaluation Criteria..........................................................................................................................................................5 Table 6: Competitiveness Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................................................................6 Table 7:Section 5309 (Small Starts) Funding Evaluation...........................................................................................................................7 Table 8:Section 5339 (b and c) Bus and Bus Facilities Program................................................................................................................8 Table 9:TIGER Grant Funding Evaluation..................................................................................................................................................8 Table 10:Section 5307 Funding Evaluation...............................................................................................................................................9 Table 11:Section 5339 Funding Evaluation...............................................................................................................................................9 Table 12:Transportation Advisory Board Regional Solicitation Rating System for Transit Expansion Projects......................................10 Table 13: CMAQ and STBGP Funding Evaluation.....................................................................................................................................10 Table 14:State Public Transit Assistance Funds Evaluation ....................................................................................................................11 Table 15:Special Legislative Appropriations Revenue Evaluation...........................................................................................................11 Table 16:State Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Revenue Evaluation.................................................................................................................12 Table 17:State Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Evaluation............................................................................................................12 Table 18: Minnesota DOT Trunk Highway Funds and Bonds Revenue Evaluation..................................................................................13 Table 19: Metropolitan Council Regional Transit Capital Bonds Evaluation............................................................................................13 Table 20: CTIB Regional Sales Tax Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................15 Table 21:WCRRA PropertyTax Levy Revenue Evaluation.......................................................................................................................15 Table 22:Washington County G.O. Bond Revenue Evaluation................................................................................................................16 Table 23:Washington County Wheelage Tax Revenue Evaluation .........................................................................................................16 Table 24: DCRRA PropertyTax Levy Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................17 Table 25: Dakota County Wheelage Tax Revenue Evaluation .................................................................................................................17 Table 26: RCRRA Property Tax Levy Revenue Evaluation........................................................................................................................17 Table 27: Ramsey County Wheelage Tax Revenue Evaluation................................................................................................................18 Table28:TIF Revenue Evaluation............................................................................................................................................................19 Table 29:Special Assessment District Revenue.......................................................................................................................................19 Table 30:Joint Development Revenue Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................20 Table 31: Developer Contribution Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................20 Table 32: Fare Revenue Evaluation..........................................................................................................................................................21 Table 33:Advertising/Sponsorships/Naming Rights Revenue Evaluation...............................................................................................21 Table 34: Funding Evaluation Summary...................................................................................................................................................24 Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � 1.0 Introduction The Red Rock Corridor is a proposed 30-mile transitway,connecting the Twin Cities'southeastern suburbs to downtown Saint Paul. Figure 1 shows the general study area for this project. Previous studies have assessed the feasibility of transit service between Minneapolis and Red Wing,but BRT service would be between Saint Paul and Hastings for the purposes of this Implementation Plan. The corridor has national,statewide,and regional significance as a transportation route for automobile,truck,freight,and passenger rail travel. .:.��'/`� . .,Y � ... ..:. � ,;.: �i,IS — �.fi` ��•�i�� ST.PAUL � ��' Union Depot _ �``. # _, en,re�.��,�ev.�n_: ..- U � [ `�fl a Q i� � � � � � � � C61' �!!1 � ��f)',:^:. - Hastings �KI l> K11�K ro„�n�kee��, h� ��1, * Figure 1:Project5tudyArea A single BRT alternative was analyzed as part of the Red Rock Alternatives Analysis Update(AAU).As part of the Implementation Plan process, however,commuter rail was not advanced for further analysis,and the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) recommended exploring additional BRT alignments within the BRT corridor. For the Implementation Plan,three build alternatives were analyzed in the Red Rock Corridor from Hastings to the Union Depot in St. Paul.These are described as follows: • Alternative 1: Highway BRT with stops at the Union Depot, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,70th Street Station, Langdon Village Station,and the Hastings Depot. Parking is assumed at all stations,with the exception of the 7ptn Street Station.This is the alternative that resulted from the AAU. • Alternative 2A: Highway BRT via 95th Street with stops at the Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Park&Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station,95th Street Station,the Hastings Depot, Lions Park Station,and the Dakota County Offices Station.The Mounds Boulevard, Earl Street, and Etna Street Stations are shared with the Gateway Corridor and utilize the transit-only guideway being developed for that corridor. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 1 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l • Alternative 2B: Highway BRT via Jamaica Avenue with the same stops as Alternative 2A with two modifications: elimination of the 95th Street Station and alternative routing along the east side of Highway 61 in Cottage Grove to serve a station at Jamaica Avenue. 1.1. Purpose This purpose of this report is to document and evaluate the potential revenue sources available to implement(plan,design,and construct)and operate a Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) system within the Red Rock Corridor.This report recognizes that a discussion of funding and financing options early in project planning helps decision-makers understand the financial feasibility—and potential administrative burdens—of advancing a major transit capital investment into environmental review,design,and construction. Section 2 of this report establishes the planning level capital and operating costs estimated for the preferred alternative—that is,the financial"target"that must be met.Section 3 presents an introduction to and evaluation of potential funding resources for meeting this target that are available from local, regional,state,and federal agencies,and the processes by which they administer those sources.An exploration of alternative project related funding sources such as value capture options and other fees and revenues that might be secured to support the capital and operating needs of the Red Rock Corridor BRT project is presented in Section 4. Section 5 concludes the report with a summary of financial considerations for moving the project forward. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 2 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � 2.0 Project Description The recommended Red Rock Corridor alternative is a mainline BRT service along Highway 61 between Union Depot in Saint Paul and Hastings in Dakota County.The project includes proposed stations at Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard, Earl Street, Etna Street, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park,80cn Street,Jamaica Avenue,and Hastings Depot. 2.1. Capital and O&M Costs Estimates Preliminary cost estimates for the Red Rock Corridor preferred BRT alternative,as described in the Cost Estimation Technical Memorandum,are estimated to be$44 million in 2015 dollars.The cost estimates provided here are based on a full build-out of the system. However, BRT service in this corridor will likely be phased,and as the phasing plan is developed and refined,these costs will be updated to reflect updated assumptions and year of expenditure dollars. Table 1 shows the breakdown of major capital cost items associated with the project. In some cases,only select portions of the capital costs may be eligible expenses for a particular funding source.The following funding discussion will highlight these distinctions when applicable. Operating and maintenance(O&M) costs(shown in Table 2) are estimated to be$7.9 million in 2015 dollars.Tables at the end of each funding source discussion will note if each funding source may be used for capital,O&M,or project development(PD). Table 1:Red Rock Corridor BRT Capital Cost Estimates . . .- . - . - � Corridor Improvements $5 M BRT Stations* $19 M BRT Vehicles and Maintenance Facility $20 M Total Capital Costs $44 M *Includes costs to connect to the Gold Line corridor Table 2:Red Rock Corridor BRT Operating and Maintenance Cost Estimates • .- . - - .- . - . - � BRT Service Costs $7.1 M Facility Maintenance and Fare Collection $0.8 M Total O&M Costs $7.9 M Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 3 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l 3.0 Summary of Funding Sources Table 3 summarizes federal,state, regional, local,and project-specific funding sources for the proposed Red Rock Corridor BRT project. Funding sources are presented under five categories: local funding; regional funding;state funding;federal funding; and system generating revenues.These may be used in combination with each other to fully fund construction,operation,and maintenance of the project.The first four categories of funding options are described in this section,while system-generated revenues are explained in Section 4, Project Related Funding. Table 3:Summary of Funding Sources Capital Investment Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Regional Transit Capital County/City General Tax Increment Financing Grant program (FTA (MVST) Bonds Funds Section 5309) Special Assessment Public Transit Counties Transit County/City Highway Districts Bus and Bus Facilities Assistance Improvement Board Funds Competitive Grants Revenues Joint Development (FTA Section 5339 b Special Legislative Wheelage Taxes and c) Appropriations Developer Contributions Washington County TIGER Transportation Regional Railroad Fare Revenue Revolving Loan Fund Authority Levy Surface Transportation Advertising Block Grant Program MnDOT Trunk Highway Dakota County Urbanized Federal Funds and Bonds Regional Railroad Naming Rights Formula Funds(FTA Authority Levy Section 5307) Ramsey County Bus and Bus Facilities Regional Railroad Formula Funds(FTA Authority Levy Section 5339) General Obligation Congestion Mitigation Bonds Air Quality and Regional Surface Transportation Block Grant Program The eligibility of each of the revenue sources described in Sections 3 and 4 to fund capital,O&M,and/or project development(PD) activities is identified in the subsequent analysis. Each revenue source is further evaluated according to its ability to fund the capital costs of a BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor, unless the source is only used for O&M in which case it is evaluated for that purpose. The specific criteria used to evaluate candidate revenue sources are presented on the following pages. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 4 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ■ Revenue Potential:The capacity of candidate revenue sources to meet the capital needs for constructing new infrastructure projects becomes increasingly important the higher the cost of such investments. The more high capacity revenue sources available,the fewer are needed to implement investments such as the Red Rock Corridor BRT recommended alternative. The Revenue Potential criterion therefore assesses the share of capital costs each candidate funding source might be expected to contribute to the project. Table 4:Revenue Potential Evaluation Criteria .. - � 50%or more of total project capital costs � 25-50%percent of costs 0 10-25%percent of costs � Less than 10%of costs Q No revenue potential Stability:While some funding sources may provide a strong potential for revenue,their availability on an annual basis may be difficult to predict and therefore a risk for financial planning purposes. The Stability criterion reflects the reliability of candidate funding sources to support the Red Rock Corridor BRT preferred alternative. Table 5:Stability Evaluation Criteria .. - � Generally stable and predictable � Can be volatile but is generally predicable source 0 Predictable, but commonly dedicated to other sources � It is not certain the source will be available in the future � Relatively unpredictable ■ Competitiveness: For some funding sources, projects must not only demonstrate eligibility but merit,and/or align with specific program goals and objectives. The Competitiveness criterion only applies to funding sources that are distributed at the regional, state,or federal level through a competitive process. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 5 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 6:Competitiveness Evaluation Criteria .. - � Red Rock Corridor is a strong candidate to receive competitive funding � Relatively competitive 0 Portions of the project may be competitive � May be competitive, but demand for source is extremely high � Not eligible or competitive for funding Section 5 recommends the most promising sources for further consideration in the development of a financial strategy for the Red Rock Corridor. 3.1. Federal Sources There are a number of transit funding opportunities provided by the federal government.The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers formula grant programs for transit projects requiring capital funds.The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)also administers,through MnDOT and Metropolitan Council,capital funding which is"competed" regionally and may be used for transit. Finally,discretionary funding from FTA and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) may be available to cover up to 80 percent of the costs of a BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor.These discretionary programs are discussed below. DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS FTA and the USDOT made available nearly$3 billion in discretionary funding in 2016 for which bus transit projects could compete. This funding was provided through three capital programs: ■ FTA Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant program ($2.15 billion,rising to$2.3 billion in FY 2017 through 2020). Candidate Capital Investment Grant projects which are"fixed guideways"—i.e. operates on rail or in an exclusive busway along at least 50 percent of its alignment—may also qualify for funding under FTA's Pilot Program for TOD Planning. ■ FTA Competitive Bus and Bus Facilities program ($268 million, increasing approximately$25 million each year through 2020). ■ USDOT's National Infrastructure Investment program,or"TIGER" ($500 million, but uncertain if program will continue in FY 2017). The following describes these programs in depth and assesses the competitiveness of the Red Rock Corridor preferred alternative for each. Capital lnvestment Grant(Small StartsJ Program The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)Act authorizes over$11.3 billion in Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant(CIG) program over the next five years.The CIG program funds three categories of fixed-guideway transit infrastructure projects: New Starts,Small Starts,and Core Capacity.The Small Starts category,detailed below, is most closely aligned with the proposed transit investment for the Red Rock Corridor;the New Starts and Core Capacity categories are not relevant to the project and are thus not reviewed in this document. The CIG program's Small Starts category provides grants to major transit capital investment projects costing less than $300 million and requiring less than$100 million in CIG funds.To be eligible for Small Starts funding,a project must be either a fixed guideway rail project,a fixed guideway BRT project,or a "corridor-based BRT project."The FAST Act defines a corridor-based BRT project as: Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 6 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � "...a substantial investment in a defined corridor as demonstrated by features that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, including defined stations; traffic signal priority for public transportation vehicles;(and)short headway bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays." FTA further requires that corridor-based BRT projects contain the following elements: 1. The route must have defined stations that comply with DOT standards for buildings and facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),offer shelter from the weather,and provide information on schedules and routes. 2. The route must provide faster passenger travel times through congested intersections by using active signal priority in separated guideway if it exists,and either queue-jump lanes or active signal priority in non-separated guideway. 3. The route must provide short headway,bidirectional service for at least a 14-hour span of service on weekdays and a 10- hour span of service on weekends.Short headway service on weekdays consists of either(a) 15-minute maximum headways throughout the day,or(b) 10-minute maximum headways during peak periods and 20-minute maximum headways at all other times.Short headway service on weekends consists of 30-minute maximum headways for at least ten hours a day. 4. The provider must apply a separate and consistent brand identity to stations and vehicles. The preferred BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor meets the conditions of qualifying as a corridor-based BRT system. However, in addition to meeting eligibility criteria,candidate Small Starts must also follow a specific project development process and be subject to evaluation against a number of justification and financial criteria mandated by the FAST Act. Based on an analysis of the project's costs and ridership that is presented in Appendix A to this report,the Red Rock Corridor BRT project would not be competitive for CIG program funding. Table 7:Section 5309(Sma115tarts)Funding Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . � X X � � � Section 5339(b and cJ Bus and Bus Facilities Program The purpose of the FAST Act's Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program is to improve the condition of the nation's public transportation bus fleet and support the transition of the fleet to lower-polluting and more energy efficient transit vehicle technologies.Vehicles and maintenance and passenger facilities are eligible program expenditures.The program is authorized at $1.5 billion between 2016 and 2020; of this amount,$55 million each year must be obligated by FTA for"low-or no-emission bus or bus facility projects.The maximum grant award is 10 percent of the annual program (subtracting the$55 million low/no seta-side); for FY 2016,that amount is$21 million,which will increase annually by 5 percent as the program grows through 2020. It should be noted,however,that in prior years for which FTA has had a discretionary bus program, most awards were in the$3 to$5 million range. FTA issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity(NOFO)for the FY 2016 program on March 29,2016.As project winners have yet to be announced, it is difficult to make any determination about the types of projects FTA will fund,or the competitiveness of a Red Rock Corridor BRT investment for a Competitive Bus grant. However,the NOFO states that in making selections, FTA will prioritize projects that address significant repair and maintenance needs; improve the safety of transit systems;deploy connective projects that include advanced technologies to connect bus systems with other networks;and support the creation of Ladders of Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 � � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Opportunity.As with the TIGER program discussed below,the Red Rock Corridor Commission will need to be able to articulate how its BRT project meets FTA's criteria in order to secure these program funds. Table 8:Section 5339(b and c)Bus and Bus Facilities Program - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X 0 • O TIGER On February 23,2016,USDOT issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity(NOFO)for up to$500 million for National Infrastructure Investments,better known by the"TIGER"program name.This discretionary program is USDOT's largest discretionary program for transit and other surface transportation modes.The program is also extremely competitive with a total of 6,700 applications submitted to USDOT requesting$134 billion in TIGER funding over the seven-year life of the program.The Department has in turn awarded$4.6 billion to 381 projects,or less than six percent of all applicants. A BRT project in the Red Rock Corridor is eligible for TIGER funding. However,as the program was not authorized in the FAST Act, it would continue to need to rely on annual Congressional appropriations,as it has every year since its establishment in 2009.This places the program's future in some question. Further details on the program and the project's potential competitiveness for future TIGER funding is provided in Appendix B. Table 9:TIGER Grant Funding Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X 0 O O FORMULA PROGRAMS Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funds Over$4.5 billion in federal formula funding is provided nationwide to urbanized areas for public transportation capital, planning,and preventative maintenance purposes. Funding is allocated according to population and also a combination of existing transit service factors including bus revenue vehicle miles,bus passenger miles,fixed-guideway revenue vehicle miles,and fixed-guideway route miles.A minimum 20 percent local match is required for these funds. The seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area receives$60 million annually.The Metropolitan Council is the designated recipient of these funds and allocates them primarily for transit vehicle and facility replacement and rehabilitation (matched by its own RTC funding). Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 $ � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 10:Section 5307 Funding Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X ✓ � � - Section 5339(aJ Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Funds Section 5339(a)formula funds are used exclusively for capital projects to replace, rehabilitate,and purchase buses and bus-related equipment and facilities.The Metropolitan Council is the designated recipient of these funds in the Twin Cities metropolitan region. Traditionally,these funds are used for state of good repair needs for existing services, not for capital investment in new service,and is therefor not a strong candidate source for the Red Rock Corridor BRT project. Table 11:Section 5339 Funding Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X 0 • - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program(CMAQJ and Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP) FHWA's Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement(CMAQ) Program funding is distributed to air quality maintenance or non-attainment areas(regions that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone,carbon monoxide,or particulate matter)using a formula based on an area's population and the severity of its ozone and carbon monoxide problems with the non-attainment or maintenance area.Transportation projects and programs that reduce congestion and improve air quality are eligible for CMAQ funding, including the capital costs of transit projects and up to three years of the O&M costs of new transit service. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)funds are distributed to states and MPOs using a formula based on lane-miles of federal-aid highways, total vehicle-miles traveled on federal highways, and estimated contributions to the Highway Account of the HighwayTrust Fund attributable to commercial vehicles. Eligible projects include highway,transit,intercity bus,bicycle,and pedestrian planning and capital projects. These programs are administered for the Twin Cities region by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB),who combine them—along with FHWA's Alternative Transportation Program funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects—and allocate funds through its annual "Regional Solicitation" process.The TAB,created in 1974 to comply with federal law,which required MPOs to include elected officials in the transportation decision-making process,is comprised of elected officials,representatives of government agencies, citizens,and transportation modal representatives.The TAB is responsible for advising the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT on transportation policy.TAB groups applications into three primary modal categories: 1) Roadways Including Multimodal Elements;2) Transit and Travel Demand Management(TDM) Projects;and 3) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Each modal category has different Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 9 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l scoring criteria for various project sub categories.The Regional Solicitation evaluates Transit Expansion Projects as a subsection under the transit category by six weighted criteria shown in the table below. Table 12:Transportation Advisory Board Regional5olicitation Rating System for Transit Expansion Projects - �- - .• - . �. The role in the regional transportation system and economy 10 Cost effectiveness per rider 35 Equity and housing performance benefits for low income 20 Emission reductions 20 Multimodal facilities and connection 10 Risk assessment 5 TAB typically allocates$150 million in Regional Solicitation funding every two years.The maximum amount of funding any project can receive from the Regional Solicitation (which includes the STBGP) is$7 million.Typically 80 percent or more of CMAQ funds are awarded to transit projects. Funds are awarded four years in advance,(i.e.the solicitation in 2016 will be for funds available in 2020 and 2021); however, projects may be reimbursed for advanced construction in the year of award.A new BRT line in the Red Rock Corridor would be eligible for CMAQ or STBGP capital funding.CMAQ funds may also be used to support the project's first three years of operating costs. Table 13:CMAQ and STBGP Funding Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ X 0 • 0 3.2. State Funding Sources In Minnesota,the state legislature is charged with biennially appropriating transit revenues from the state's general fund,and for setting the percentage of the state's Motor Vehicles Sale Tax Revenues(MVST) dedicated to transit.The state also has a revolving loan fund and dedicates a limited amount of Trunk Highway Fund user fee revenues for transit. Public Transit Assistance—The General Fund Public Transit Assistance funds from the State of Minnesota are sourced from the state's general funds.The funds are distributed to the Greater Minnesota Area and the Twin Cities,with Metropolitan Council responsible for allocating funds within the region.While capital expenses are eligible,the Metropolitan Council typically chooses to dedicate these funds to support transit operations in the region.While it is rare,the state legislature may specify a certain amount dedicated to operating a particular transit project,such as the Hiawatha Light Rail.The state has a legal responsibility to provide 50 percent of the net operating costs of light rail transit and this is typically included in the general fund appropriation.The Twin Cities metropolitan area has been appropriated approximately $183 million for State FYs 2016 and 2017.The remaining funds are used for bus and paratransit operations. The Red Rock Corridor BRT project would be a candidate for this source. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 10 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 14:State Public Transit Assistance Funds Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ X O O O Special Legislative Appropriations The state legislature may provide general revenues for specific transitway capital projects through a legislative appropriation.While the practice is not common,the state legislature may directly appropriate general funds for capital projects as a line item,or provide funding through the use of General Obligation (G.O.) bonds. Eligible projects must be capital investments owned by the public entity specified in the appropriation and typically must have a functional life of 20 years or more, making buses and short-term technology ineligible uses for these funds.The Metropolitan Council usually receives these bond revenues directly,and sometimes as a broad appropriation with eligible uses but no specified line item amounts.The Metropolitan Council may not pass through funds to a sub- recipient unless it is specifically permissible in the appropriation language.G.O. bonds cannot be spent on projects within trunk highway right-of-way. In 2015,the Metropolitan Council requested$331 million in G.O. bond proceeds from the state legislature for FY 2016 to fund six transportation and infrastructure projects. In 2014,the Metropolitan Council received bond proceeds through a "Transit Capital Improvement Program" line item that noted a list of eligible and suggested projects to fund.Where G.O. bond proceeds are not directly tied to a particular project,the Metropolitan Council works closely with its partners to prioritize eligible projects for funding. G.O. bonds are appropriated on a bi-annual basis, rotating years with the Public Transit Assistance operating fund appropriations described above. A BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor is eligible for such an appropriation, but may face competition from other projects. Table 15:Special Legislative Appropriations Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X 0 O - Motor Vehicle Sales Tax(MVSTJ MVST revenues are generated from the state's 6.5 percent tax on the sale of new and used motor vehicles.The entirety of these funds are dedicated to highway transportation and transit.Thirty-six percent of all MVST funds are dedicated specifically in state law for Twin Cities metropolitan area transit and are distributed to various transit providers through the Metropolitan Council.Sixty percent of funding is dedicated to the State Highway Fund,while the remaining four percent is dedicated to transit outside of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.The Twin Cities region has been appropriated over$266 million in FY 2016 and nearly$284 million in FY 2017.The Metropolitan Council allocates these funds to regional transit providers by formula based on transit operating expense needs.While the funds are available for capital projects,there have rarely been funds available beyond operating the existing transit system. It is unlikely MVST proceeds would fund the initial capital costs of the Red Rock BRT Corridor, but it should be considered as a potential funding option for ongoing operations once the line is in service. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 11 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 16:State Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ X O � - Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Minnesota's State Infrastructure Bank(SIB) is known as the Transportation Revolving Loan Fund (TRLF).The SIB is a financing option that provides low interest rate loans to cities,counties,and other public entities for eligible transportation projects.The majority of SIB financing is dedicated to road and bridge projects;the last time funds were awarded to a transit project was in 2006 for$2 million to the Metropolitan Council for a variety of regional projects.The Metropolitan Council subsequently used their property tax levy revenues to repay the loan.A very limited amount of financing from this program may be available for a transit investment in the Red Rock Corridor; however, it will need to demonstrate that the project has a dedicated revenue source to repay the loan. Given this requirement,and its limited applicability to transit,this program should not be considered a viable funding source of the Red Rock Corridor BRT project. Table 17:State Transportation Revolving Loan Fund Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X � �� Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOTJ Trunk Highway Funds and Bonds The State Trunk Highway Fund (THF) receives 62 percent of the state's Highway User Tax Distribution Fund.The revenues within the THF are allocated through legislative appropriations.The majority ofthese funds are dedicated to roadway construction and maintenance activities.THF resources have been used before in the region to cover the capital costs of transit improvements when they are MnDOT-owned assets with at least a 20-year life span located on a state trunk highway;these requirements are similar to those for G.O. bonds but are specific to projects within the state trunk highway. MnDOT has the authority to raise additional proceeds for transportation projects through THF bonding, using revenues from the THF to repay the debt service. Like G.O. bonds,state highway bonds are appropriated for specific amounts to particular projects at the discretion of the state legislature. Portions of the Red Rock Corridor BRT system run along a state trunk highway,and the cost of corridor improvements along these segments would be eligible to receive these THF revenues,as have other transit-related projects in the region. MnDOT is the only entity with authority to expend these funds. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 12 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 18:Minnesota DOT Trunk Highway Funds and Bonds Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X � � - 3.3. Regional Funding Transportation and transit projects in the Twin Cities metropolitan area receive funding from two regional entities,the Metropolitan Council and the Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB).A description of these entities,their dedicated funding sources,and the process by which they are administered is provided below. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Metropolitan Council was created in 1967 and is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO)for the Twin Cities urbanized area and the owner and operator of the region's largest transit system.The Metropolitan Council is responsible for administering the region's Regional Transit Capital (RTC) program (described below),and receives and administers for the region the state transit funding programs.The Metropolitan Council is also the designated recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA)funding and administers the Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA)Surface Transportation Block Grant and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement programs for the region. Property Tax supported Regional Transit Capital(RTCJ Bonds Regional Transit Capital (RTC)funds,the Metropolitan Council's dedicated transit revenue source for capital,are bond proceeds backed by the Metropolitan Council's regional property tax levy.The state legislature sets the annual amount of RTC bonds that can be issued,and the Metropolitan Council is responsible for setting the regional property tax levy amount. RTC bond proceeds typically generate about$40 million in capital funding each year. RTC funds are typically used to fund either the 20 percent local match required for FTA formula-funded transit vehicle and facility replacement and rehabilitation or to match FTA or other US Department of Transportation (DOT) discretionary program funds.These funds are primarily dedicated to preservation and maintenance projects, but funding could be available to match a competitive regional solicitation or federal grant sponsored by Metro Transit. Table 19:Metropolitan Council Regional Transit Capital 8onds Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X � �� COUNTIES TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT BOARD (CTIB) The Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB)was created on April 1,2008,as required by Minnesota Statute Section 297A.992, by joint powers agreement among the counties of Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington.These member counties voted to impose a quarter-cent transit sales and use tax and the$20 motor vehicle excise tax authorized by state law.The purpose Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 13 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l of CTIB is to receive and distribute these revenues for the development,construction,and operation of transitways serving the five- county area. CTIB's role is to invest in regionally significant transit projects in the member counties,while working closely with the Metropolitan Council to achieve a shared regional transit vision for the entire Twin Cities metro area. CTIB distributes the proceeds of the quarter-cent sales and use tax and motor vehicle excise tax through capital and operating grants for the construction and operation of transitways—including"highway BRT" projects like the Red Rock Corridor preferred alternative. Revenues from the quarter-cent transit sales tax and the$20 motor vehicle excise tax have provided$570 million in capital grants,$188 million in operating grants,and$11.8 million in Washington County-guaranteed grant funds to the region since CTIB's formation in 2008. Among other purposes,these funds have been used as local match for federal funding programs, having leveraged$1.48 billion in federal funding through February 2016. CTIB's Board is comprised of two county commissioners from each of the five member counties,the Chair of the Metropolitan Council,and ex-officio members from Carver and Scott counties. By law,CTIB may only award grants to transit projects that are consistent with the transit portion of the Metropolitan Council's transportation policy plan.The Board establishes additional grant eligibility criteria through its Transit Investment Framework(Framework). CTIB's Framework outlines CTIB's core priorities, requirements,and funding principles.According to the Framework,projects must be consistent with state requirements that any grant award maximizes the availability and use of federal funds and are supported by other funding partners,as demonstrated by the availability of local matching funds and resolutions of support from each county in which a candidate transit investment is proposed.To that end,CTIB will typically fund only up to 30 percent of a project's total capital costs, unless it aligns with CTIB's Program of Projects(POP) Investment Strategy and it is determined that a higher match will either accelerate the project's completion or greatly decrease its total capital costs. In addition,CTIB funds may be used for up to 60 percent of the cost of the project development and engineering phases of work. CTIB will also fund up to 50 percent of the net annual operating costs towards projects it has contributed capital funding. Candidate capital projects must demonstrate technical readiness as evidenced by the completion of prior planning studies, project design,an approved project schedule and cost estimate,and a financial and operating plan for construction and long-term operation. CTIB's Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS)Committee reviews and ranks prospective projects based on the Board's established objective criteria in the Framework.The GEARS Committee makes recommendations to the Board.The Board then awards grants to eligible projects and authorizes the execution of annual grant agreements.According to its Annual Report to the Legislature(February 2016),CTIB may add additional criteria to evaluate projects on an annual basis. The POP Investment Strategy acts as the Board's five-year financial plan for a ten-year build-out of the region's transitway system. Based on candidate investments'consistency with the Framework,CTIB identifies a set of projects in the POP as"Phase 1" priorities, deeming them eligible for funding.The Red Rock Corridor BRT project is a Phase 1 Transitway Improvement project. In order to receive CTIB capital funding for the preferred Red Rock Corridor BRT alternative,the Commission will need to participate in the Board's annual technical readiness review, undertaken as part of its annual update to the POP Investment Strategy.Then,the Commission must submit a grant application to CTIB during its grant solicitation period,which typically opens in the summer.CTIB will review applications for completeness and eligibility and then submit them to the GEARS committee for evaluation. During the 2015 solicitation process,GEARS found all grant applications eligible and recommended funding for six capital,five operating,and two Washington County-guaranteed grants.The Board accepted the GEARS Committee recommendations and awarded grants payable in 2016. CTIB remains a strong candidate revenue source for the Red Rock Corridor BRT project. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 14 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 20:CTIB Regional5ales Tax Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ ✓ � � � 3.4. Local Funding The Red Rock Corridor BRT will serve three counties in the Twin Cities metropolitan area:Washington, Dakota,and Ramsey. Express buses will serve Hennepin County,so it is not included in this analysis. Metro Transit operates service in these participating counties but not in the portion of Dakota County(City of Hastings)that is served by Red Rock.While each county is served by a Regional Railroad Authority(RRA),which helps to identify and develop potential transit corridors and has the ability to raise property tax levies to fund these activities,they also have different funding sources and procedures for funding public transportation.These sources,and how they are allocated,are described for each county below.Any future funding prospects would be identified separately by each county and are not considered in this evaluation. WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County administers three revenue sources that may be used to support public transportation: 1)The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority(WCRRA) Property Tax Levy; 2)General Obligation Bonds;and 3)Wheelage Tax revenues.All capital projects must be included in the county's annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in order to receive funding from these sources.The WCRRA,a part of the county's Public Works Department, is responsible for rating and ranking transit projects within the CIP. Prospective CIP projects are ranked from (1) being the most critical of needs to(5) being the least critical, meaning that the project should be reserved for future consideration after the most critical capital needs are met. Washington County Regional Railroad Authority(WCRRAJ Property Tax Levy The Regional Railroad Levy is a property tax collected by the WCRRA.WCRRA's levy revenues are the lowest of the four counties, with collection projections totaling$750,000 in FY 2016.The levy collected through the WCRRA funds general operations of the WCRAA and the operation of the Newport and Forest Lake express bus stations;the proposed Red Rock Corridor BRT investment would include Newport as a stop.While tax revenues may continue to rise, it is unlikely these funds will provide a significant amount of funding to a Red Rock Corridor investment due to the relatively small amounts of revenues and previous commitments to fund operations in Washington County. Table 21:WCRRA Property Tax Levy Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ ✓ � � _ KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 15 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � General Obligation (G.O.J Bonds for Transportation According to Washington County's 2016 budget,$20 million in county revenues from the sale of G.O. bonds will fund transportation projects this fiscal year.The only significant transit project currently funded with these bond revenues is the multi-jurisdictional$485 million Gateway Corridor(Gold Line BRT) project.Washington County is contributing a total of$24 million towards the Gold Line BRT project through the sale of G.O. bonds,with$2.5 million in 2016 for planning and design and the remaining$21.5 million to be raised in 2019 once construction begins. The remainder of the 2016 G.O. bond revenues is dedicated to county road maintenance and improvement projects, a public park renovation, and fiber optic ring infrastructure project. Given these commitments, this source cannot be considered a strong candidate to fund the Red Rock Corridor BRT project. Table 22:Washington County G.O. Bond Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X � � - Wheelage Tax Minnesota statute allows counties to collect a $10 registration fee from all automobiles registered within their jurisdiction so long as they designate these revenues for highway and transit projects. In 2016,Washington County budgeted an estimated$2.2 million in wheelage tax revenues annually through 2020,based on historical vehicle registration trends.These funds are committed to pavement preservation and rehabilitation activities, making them an unlikely candidate to support the capital or operating costs of a transit investment in the Red Rock Corridor. Table 23:Washington County Wheelage Tax Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X � � - DAKOTA COUNTY Dakota County's transitway needs are supported by its Regional Railroad Authority's(DCRRA) property tax levy. Dakota County's 2030 Transportation Plan (adopted in June 2012) includes a commuter rail investment for the Red Rock Corridor with an expected capital cost of$115-$128 million.The Plan acknowledges that the county's share of funding for a Red Rock Corridor investment has yet to be determined and will likely require funding beyond its current revenue stream. Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority(DCRRAJ Property Tax Levy The DCRRA provides oversight for rail or bus transit project included in the 2030 Metropolitan Council Transportation Policy Plan under development in the county. DCRRA collected$1.63 million in property tax revenues in 2015. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 16 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 24:DCRRA Property Tax Levy Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ ✓ � � - Wheelage Tax Dakota County also has a wheelage tax,which generates approximately$3.2 million annually. However,the County's wheelage tax revenues are used exclusively for county road maintenance and thus not a realistic funding source for transit in the Red Rock Corridor. Table 25:Dakota County Wheelage Tax Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . X X X Q � - RAMSEY COUNTY Transportation projects in Ramsey County are supported by funding administered by the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority (RCCRA)and its Public Works Department. Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority(RCRRAJ Property Tax Levy RCRRA tax levies are the second-largest of the four counties,anticipated to reach$21 million in 2017.The RCRRA developed and operates the Union Depot station,which is a multimodal transportation facility where Amtrak, light rail transit, local, regional,and intercity bus lines all converge.While the Union Depot is a large,ongoing financial commitment,the RCRRA also supports several corridor studies that aim to advance the transit options of Ramsey County residents. Planning for transit corridors—including the Red Rock Corridor—is programmed to receive fifteen percent($3.46 million)of RCRRA's 2016 annual budget. Table 26:RCRRA Property Tax Levy Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ ✓ 0 � _ Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 17 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Wheelage Tax Ramsey County adopted a$10 wheelage tax per new vehicle in 2013.These funds are used to allow for the completion of priority roadway resurfacing projects.They are specifically intended to catch-up on deferred road maintenance and are not applied to transit projects. Table 27:Ramsey County Wheelage Tax Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X � � _ KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 18 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l 4.0 Project Related Funding This section describes an array of funding strategies that a) might be used to capture the new and increased value of existing land and properties generated as a result of a major transit capital investment; and b)can be generated as part of the operation of the project. Tax Increment Financing(TIFJ Tax Increment Financing(TIF) involves the creation of a special district to raise revenue for public improvements—like the Red Rock Corridor BRT project—by capturing a portion of the additional assessed value generated by private-sector development.The tax base is frozen at predevelopment levels,and all or a portion of property tax revenues derived from increases in assessed values(the tax increment)are applied to a special fund created to retire bonds issued for development of the district.The initial TIF revenue yield is relatively low. However, revenue generally increases over time as redevelopment and escalation leads to increased property values.TIFs are often applied for periods of 20 to 30 years.While most TIFs capture the incremental increase in property values, some states allow the capture of other taxes as well. In Minnesota,a development authority must initiate the creation of a TIF district.A city,county,or specially created entity can act as the development authority,who may create a TIF plan for the activities to be funded with TIF proceeds.The TIF plan must be approved by the municipality's governing authority.The cost of roads,streets, utilities,and other public infrastructure are eligible expenses under a Redevelopment TIF District,as defined by state law,although such districts are rarely used for such purposes.A rare example of a Redevelopment TIF District is the Nicollet-Central Modern Streetcar"Value Capture District"approved by the Minneapolis City Council in 2013 to help pay for the$200 million project costs.The tax revenues would be collected for 25 years within the District. Table 28:TIF Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X Q Q - Special Assessment Districts Unlike a TIF,which captures the additional tax revenues generated from new development,a special assessment district is an area in which an additional property tax is applied to parcels of land that receive a special benefit from one or more public improvements funded by the special tax.The additional tax is applied to both existing and future properties. Commercial and residential properties are often taxed at different rates. Table 29:Special Assessment District Revenue - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ X X Q Q - Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 19 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Joint Development Joint Development is a partnership between a public entity and a private developer created to develop certain assets.According to FTA guidance,the development and the property must have a physical and a functional relationship.Joint Development can occur when an agency owns land that can be leased to the developer for a long period of time.This enables the developer to build on the land with a low risk of losing the capital investment. In exchange,rents are paid to the agency,creating a revenue stream that can be bonded against to support the development of a transit improvement.The revenue potential can vary depending on market conditions.This funding option would only support the Red Rock Corridor if the project sponsor owns the identified Red Rock Corridor BRT station locations or land adjacent to the stations or park-and-rides. Table 30:Joint Development Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ X O O - Developer Contributions Developers often provide in-kind or monetary contributions to facilitate construction of infrastructure that would result in a positive impact on property values. Often these contributions are negotiated to reflect the benefit the developer derives from the project. If funding is negotiated,project sponsors often request the money during the early portion of any debt service period.This enables the project sponsor to better leverage other funding sources. In many instances,developers receive increased density allowances in return for their contributions. Developer contributions may be applied to fill the gaps in funding for both capital and operating costs of the project. Alternatively, developer contributions could serve as a backstop for TIF revenues.Any developer contributions for the project will likely serve as a supplement to other funding sources identified in this analysis. Table 31:Developer Contribution Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ ✓ � �� Fare Revenues Fare revenue is a sustainable funding source for operations once a transit project is in service.While annual fare revenue has yet to be estimated for a proposed BRT service in the Red Rock Corridor, METRO transit's farebox recovery ratio for bus operations in the region was 27 percent of its 2014 annual operating expenses. Farebox revenue is generally used by transit providers to offset annual operating costs,but is sometimes bonded against to raise proceeds for capital programs. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 20 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 32:Fare Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . X ✓ X � � - Advertising/Sponsorships/Naming Rights Advertising on vehicles,and at stations,facilities,and other property of the transit owner,can augment fare revenues as an ongoing operations funding source.Advertising revenues typically account for 2 to 4 percent of transit system operating budgets. Sponsorships and "naming rights" have been an emerging financing tool for some US transit systems.The Cleveland Clinic and University Hospital teamed up to purchase the naming rights for the Greater Cleveland RTA's BRT line on Euclid Avenue(upon which their major facilities were located). Formerly called the"Silver Line,"the two hospitals committed$250,000 annually for 25 years to rename the route the"Health Line." San Francisco,Chicago,and Dallas are also exploring opportunities to acquire sponsors for rail and bus lines. It is important to note that there is a tremendous cost to changing station names and lines(both at the renamed facilities and on system maps). It is more efficient to initiate new systems with station or route sponsorships in place.As streetcar systems,for example,are beginning to come on line, many are trying to create sponsorship opportunities.The Tampa Tribune has a station named for it on Tampa's Tyco streetcar line,and stations and vehicles on Portland's and Seattle's streetcar systems have sponsors. It must be noted that such sponsorships are only modest revenue opportunities covering between 4 to 8 percent of operating costs in Portland and up to 10 percent of the costs to operate the Seattle system. The M-1 Rail streetcar project currently under construction in Detroit is likely the most aggressive emerging system to take advantage of naming rights as a both an operating and capital revenue source. On the capital side of the ledger, institutions along Woodward Avenue like Wayne State University,the Detroit Medical Center,and Henry Ford Health Systems are contributing$3 million and will receive a basic station design upon which they can customize and enhance to promote their brand.Quicken Loans has pledged$10 million for the rights to name the 3.3 mile streetcar line for 10 years. Table 33:Advertising/Sponsorships/Naming Rights Revenue Evaluation - . . . . . •: � . - •- - - �. - . . . . .- - - �- - .. - � -. . . ✓ ✓ ✓ � � - Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 21 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR i � � l 5.0 Conclusions A summary of the evaluation of each of the funding sources described in Section 3 and 4 of this report can be found in Table 34. Based on this evaluation,the following conclusions can be made about available revenue sources to support the capital costs of a BRT line in the Red Rock Corridor: Seek multiple sources to fund the Red Rock Corridor recommended alternative.The funding available from the evaluated programs and their various matching requirements indicates that multiple sources would likely be needed to construct and operate the BRT project. Most state and local programs place a high priority on leveraging federal and other sources of funding.At the same time,the current evaluation standards for federal formula transit funds are highly competitive for new transit lines or place priority on meeting the needs of the existing transit system. In addition,flexible Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)funding administered by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) is competitive and limited to only small grant awards.Value capture strategies could be pursued in the corridor but cannot be counted on to contribute a significant level of funding towards the project. Therefore,funding from a variety of programs and sources will need to be pursued to fund the recommendation in this plan. Invest in a series of small improvements to implement the project over time in order to efficiently leverage funds from multiple sources.The Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan Study Team has identified distinct steps to advance transit improvement along Highway 61.This includes an initial investment in local bus service,which would closely follow the preferred alignment for BRT service terminating at the current Cottage Grove park-and-ride.Another potential phase is peak-period express bus service between Hastings and Saint Paul,serving existing transit and park-and-ride facilities at Hastings Depot,the Newport Transit Station,and Union Depot. Later phases could expand service to off-peak periods and to more communities in the corridor,as well as investments in capital improvements to the Lower Afton park-and-ride, relocation of the Cottage Grove park-and-ride,and other passenger facilities. The advantage of this approach is that improved, low-capital service in the peak would not need to await lengthy project development nor the complex financial planning necessary to develop a$44 million capital package. Existing Regional Railroad Authority(RRA) resources, Public Transit Assistance or Motor Vehicle Sales Tax(MVST) revenues from the State of Minnesota, and operating funding through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement(CMAQ) program and capital funding for buses from the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program via Metropolitan Council's Regional Solicitation process might support such service.Such service might also begin to build stronger travel demand in the corridor,and this demand might make future capital investments more competitive for federal or other discretionary funding.Subsequent capital improvements of$7 million or less may qualify for funding through the Regional Solicitation process. However,while the Red Rock Corridor BRT project is included as a Phase 1 Transitway Improvement Project in Counties Transit Improvement Board (CTIB) Program of Projects(PoP) Investment Strategy,there is no guarantee that the project would be an attractive CTIB investment when it is ready for capital funding.State law requires CTIB to maximize opportunities to bring federal funding into Minnesota for expansion of the regional transit system.As noted in Section 3.1,the Red Rock Corridor BRT project may not be competitive for federal discretionary funding and would therefore be less likely to be competitive in the CTIB grant process. Consider local opportunities to help fund small investments towards full BRT build out. Red Rock Corridor counties have opportunities to help fund small investments though they vary by community. Local taxes could be a source for the 10 percent local match typically required to secure other funding opportunities. For example, Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority(RCRRA) raised its property tax rate to support the cost of renovating and operating the Union Depot in downtown Saint Paul. If the local partners believe that improved transit in the Red Rock Corridor is a priority investment,they could consider generating funding to support its implementation and operation.Currently,CTIB is programed to fund 30 percent of the capital cost of the Red Rock Corridor,which means local match will be required to secure CTIB funding.Some of the match might be derived from other sources such as through the Regional Solicitation,the establishment of a tax increment financing(TIF)district,or other federal grants(like the US Department of Transportation (USDOT)Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery(TIGER)grant program). Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 22 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Reevaluate funding sources and competiveness as project needs arise. Funding sources and evaluation measures for available funding change over time.As ridership for near-term phases such as regular route and express bus increases to meet regional performance standards,availability of and competitiveness for project funding could be reevaluated. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 23 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 34:Funding Evaluation Summary - . . . . .- . - . . Federal Section 5309(Small Starts) ✓ X X � � � Section 5339 (b and c) Bus and Bus ✓ X X 0 • O Facilities Competitive Grants TIGER Grant ✓ X X 0 O O Section 5307 Urbanized Area �/ X ✓ O • - Formula Funds Section 5339(a) Bus and Bus �/ X X 0 � _ Facilities Formula Grants CMAQ and STBGP(Regional) ✓ ✓ X 0 • 0 State Public Transit Assistance Funds ✓ ✓ X O O O Special Legislative Appropriations ✓ X X 0 O - Motor Vehicle Sales Tax ✓ ✓ X Q � - Transportation Revolving Loan ✓ X X O 0 - MnDOT Trunk Highway Funds and ✓ X X O O - Regional Regional Transit Capital Bonds ✓ X X Q � - CTIB Revenues ✓ ✓ ✓ � � � Local WRCRRA Property Tax Levy ✓ ✓ ✓ Q � - Washington County G.O. Bond ✓ X X O O - Washington County Wheelage Tax ✓ X X Q � - DCRRA Property Tax Levy ✓ ✓ ✓ Q � - Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 24 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � - . • . • •- • - • � Dakota County Wheelage Tax X X X Q � - RCRRA Property Tax Levy ✓ ✓ ✓ 0 � - Ramsey County Wheelage Tax ✓ X X Q � - Project Related Funding TIF ✓ X X O O - Special Assessment Districts ✓ X X O O - Joint Development ✓ ✓ X O O - Developer Contributions ✓ ✓ � O O - Fare Revenues X ✓ X Q � - Sponsorships/Naming ✓ ✓ ✓ Q � - Kimley>>>Horn : August 2016 25 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Appendix A: Small Starts Competitiveness Analysis Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 A � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Small Starts Competitiveness Analysis The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)Act authorizes over$11.3 billion in Section 5309 Capital Investment Grant(CIG) program over the next five years.The CIG program funds three categories of fixed-guideway transit infrastructure projects: New Starts,Small Starts,and Core Capacity.The Small Starts category,detailed below, is most closely aligned with the proposed transit investment for the Red Rock Corridor;the New Starts and Core Capacity categories are not relevant to the project and are thus not reviewed in this document. The CIG program's Small Starts category provides grants to major transit capital investment projects costing less than $300 million and requiring less than$100 million in CIG funds.To be eligible for Small Starts funding,a project must be either a fixed guideway rail project,a fixed guideway bus rapid transit(BRT) project,or a "corridor-based BRT project."The FAST Act defines a corridor- based BRT project as: "...a substantial investment in a defined corridor as demonstrated by features that emulate the services provided by rail fixed guideway public transportation systems, including defined stations; traffic signal priority for public transportation vehicles;(and)short headway bidirectional services for a substantial part of weekdays." FTA further requires that corridor-based BRT projects contain the following elements: 1. The route must have defined stations that comply with DOT standards for buildings and facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),offer shelter from the weather,and provide information on schedules and routes. 2. The route must provide faster passenger travel times through congested intersections by using active signal priority in separated guideway if it exists,and either queue-jump lanes or active signal priority in non-separated guideway. 3. The route must provide short headway,bidirectional service for at least a 14-hour span of service on weekdays and a 10-hour span of service on weekends.Short headway service on weekdays consists of either(a) 15-minute maximum headways throughout the day,or(b) 10-minute maximum headways during peak periods and 20-minute maximum headways at all other times.Short headway service on weekends consists of 30-minute maximum headways for at least 10 hours a day. 4. The provider must apply a separate and consistent brand identity to stations and vehicles. The preferred BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor meets the conditions of qualifying as a corridor-based BRT system. However, in addition to meeting eligibility criteria,candidate Small Starts must also follow a specific project development process and be subject to evaluation against a number ofjustification and financial criteria mandated by the FASTAct. FTA's Small Starts development process and evaluation criteria are illustrated in Figure 1 and Table 1 below. . = � . OFTAAcceptance � FTAEvaluatior.,Ratieg,Approval Figure 1:FTA Sma115tarts Process Kimley>>>Horn : A-1 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Tnhlo 1•FT4 Cmnll Cfnrfc�r�teria • • • • Mobility Improvements • Agency Financial Condition • Congestion Relief • Commitment of Funding • Cost Effectiveness • Reliability of Financial Planning Assumptions • Environmental Benefits • Economic Development • Land Use As Figure 1 demonstrates, FTA must evaluate, rate,and approve candidate Small Starts projects before awarding a grant.The specific measures used in the evaluation of each of the criteria presented in Table 1,and the breakpoints used to categorize projects based on the FAST Act's five-point scale(high,medium-high, medium, medium-low,and low),are documented in FTA's June 2016 Capital Investment Grant Program Final Interim Policy Guidance. Projects must receive an overall rating of at least"medium" based on the summed and weighted averages of all of the criteria in order to qualify for funding. Addressing the full range of the "project justification"and "local financial commitment"criteria takes time and effort well beyond the scope of the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan. However,certain aspects of the Red Rock Corridor BRT project's competitiveness for Small Starts funding can be evaluated,and the results of this assessment is presented below: Mobility Improvements FTA defines the measure for the Mobility Improvements criterion as the estimated annual trips on the project in the current year. FTA uses the current year as the foundation of estimating benefits(in this case, ridership) because it carries less risk than horizon year forecasts,which are based on forecast growth in population and employment,which may not be achieved. In addition, acknowledging the important role that public transportation plays in providing mobility to populations without regular access to a private automobile, FTA allows transit dependent riders-as codified in the regional travel demand model—to be double-counted in the calculation of the Mobility Improvements measure.The Minneapolis-Saint Paul regional model codifies this group as residents of "zero-car households." Table 2 presents the thresholds that FTA sets for establishing a Mobility Improvements rating for candidate projects: Table 2:Mobility Improvements Rating Thresholds • � � • -� � � � � • � - � - � - • � � � � - � - � - • � -� � High >30 Million Medium-High 15 Million to 29.9 Million Medium 5 Million to 14.9 Million Medium-Low 2.5 Million to$4.9 Million Low < 2.5 Million Kimley>>>Horn : A-2 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Factoring in riders who are residents of zero-car households, BRT service in the Red Rock Corridor is expected to result in 885,000 annual trips—resulting in a low rating for this measure. In addition, because this estimate is based on 2040 land use,the figure is somewhat over-stated. Congestion Relief FTA evaluates Congestion Relief based on the number of new weekday linked transit trips resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Congestion Relief ratings are based upon the thresholds presented in Table 3. Table 3:Congestion Relief Rating Thresholds � . - � � High 18,000 and above Medium-High 10,000 to 17,999 Medium 2,500 to 9,999 Medium-Low 500 to 2,499 Low 0 to 499 Travel forecasts generated for the Red Rock Corridor analysis estimated 1,600 new weekday transit trips in 2040—which results in a rating of inedium-low for this measure.Again,the actual values which would be used in FTA's evaluation would be based on current year land use,and therefore would be somewhat lower. Cost Effectiveness FTA's Cost Effectiveness measure for Small Starts projects is the annualized capital federal share of the project per trip on the project.The federal share is all federal funding, not just CIG funding.The number of trips on the project is not an incremental measure but simply the total estimated trips on the project. Costs are annualized based on a specific format for cost estimation created by FTA for New Starts,Small Starts,and Core Capacity projects that was not used in the development of cost estimates presented in the November 2015 Red Rock Corridor Cost Estimation Technical Memorandum.Absent annualized capital costs in FTA's format, it is not possible to derive a Cost Effectiveness estimate for the proposed Red Rock Corridor BRT project. However,a comparison of the proposed project to other BRT projects of comparable size and cost may shed light on the project's anticipated Small Starts Cost Effectiveness rating.According to its FY 2016 and 2017 Annual Report(s)on(Capital Investment Grant Program)Funding Recommendations, FTA is proposing Small Starts grants for the following six BRT projects costing between $30 and$55 million,as shown in Table 4. Kimley>>>Horn ; A-3 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 4:Peer BRT Projects • • - • � ' � - � Columbus Cleveland Ave BRT $47.67 5,700 High EI Paso Montana RTS Corridor $48.53 4,400 Medium-High Fresno "Q" Blackstone/Kings Canyon BRT $52.57 7,200 Medium Jacksonville East Corridor BRT $33.86 3,700 Medium Kansas City Prospect MAX $53.82 7,400 High Reno 4t" St/Prater Way BRT $52.57 6,200 High Given its 2040 ridership forecast of 2,200 at a cost of$43.54 million, it is hard to imagine that the Red Rock Corridor BRT project could achieve anything higher than a medium-low rating–and a rating of low is more likely.The Cleveland Avenue BRT project in Columbus,Ohio has the closest cost estimate to the Red Rock Corridor BRT project, but over 2.5 times the expected ridership. Although approximately$10 million less in cost,the Jacksonville, Florida East Corridor BRT project—which achieves"only"a medium rating—still carries over 1,500 more riders in the current year than what is estimated for BRT service in the Red Rock Corridor in 2040. Other Criteria FTA's measures for Environmental Benefits, Land Use,and Economic Development require substantial analysis and documentation beyond the scope of the present analysis.The Environmental Benefits measure is based on changes in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for private vehicles and transit,divided by annualized capital costs.As VMT reductions correlate with the shift of travelers from private vehicles to transit—that is, "new riders"—the proposed Red Rock Corridor BRT project should not be expected to perform well in this criterion.The Land Use and Economic Development criteria require documentation of existing land use around proposed stations and the plans and policies that are in place to guide future development.Specifically,the Economic Development criteria requires the submittal and summary of plans, policies,tools(including zoning)that promote transit-oriented development and affordable housing within the project corridor. FTA's specific rating breakpoints for its Economic Development measures are presented at the end of this appendix. Given the early stage of project planning, it should not be expected that significant transit supportive land use policies have yet been enacted in the Red Rock Corridor,and a strong rating for Economic Development cannot be assumed at this time. If corridor communities choose to enact transit and affordable housing supportive plans and policies, however,the potential for a positive Economic Development rating increases. To rate a project's(or more specifically,the project sponsor's) local financial commitment, FTA will typically request a financial plan that presents the capital funding plan,an operations and maintenance(O&M)funding plan,a cash flow analysis,and an assessment of financial risks and uncertainties. FTA will consider the current condition of the sponsor's transit assets and the level of funding commitment,both for capital costs and for subsequent O&M.At this early stage of project planning, it is not reasonable to expect that a candidate Small Starts project has developed this level of information. However,even if Red Rock Corridor BRT project Kimley>>>Horn ; A-4 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l partners were to be able to secure local match to Small Starts funding and meet all of the other financial criteria, its poor performance against the other project justification criteria should not expect to yield a medium rating and thus make it ineligible. Recommendation At a conceptual level,then, it would appear that it would be challenging for the Red Rock Corridor BRT project to meet the thresholds FTA has set for achieving a rating sufficient to merit Small Starts funding. It is therefore recommended that the Red Rock Corridor Commission not pursue Small Starts funding for a transit investment between Hastings and Saint Paul. *** FTA Small Starts Economic Development Rating Breakpoints (June 2016 Capital Investment Grant Program Final Interim Policy Guidance) Transit-Supportive Corridor Policies HIGH Conceptual plans for the corridor and station areas l�ave been developed. Local jurisdicrions have adopted or drafted revisions to comprehensive and/or small area plans in most or all station areas. Developmentpatterns proposed in conceptual plans and local and insritutional plan revisions are strongly supportive of a major transit investment. MEDNM Conceptual plans for the corridor and station areas l�ave been developed. Local jurisdicrions have initiated the process of revising comprehensive and/or small area plans. Development patterns proposed in conceptual plans and local and insriturional plan revisions are at least moderately supportive of a major transit investment. LOW Limited progress,to date,l�as been made toward developing station area conceptual plans or revising local comprehensive or small area plans. Station area uses idenrified in local comprehensive plans are marginally or not transit- supportive. Ratings based on assessment of the following: • Plans and policies to increase corridor and starion area development • Plans and policies to enhance transit-friendly character of corridor and station area development • Plans to improve pedestrian faciliries,including faciliries for persons with disabiliries;and • Parkingpolicies. Supportive Zoning Near Transit HIGH Local jurisdicrions have adopted zoning changes that strongly support a major transit investment in most or all transit station areas. MEDNM Local jurisdicrions are in the process of adopring zoning changes that moderately or strongly support a major transit investment in most or all transit starion areas. Alternarively,strongly transit-supportive zoning has been adopted in some starion areas but not in others. LOW No more than inirial efforts have begun to prepare station area plans and related zoning. Exisring starion area zoning is marginally or not transit supportive. Ratings based on assessment of the following: • Zoning ordinances tl�at support increased development density in transit station areas; • Zoning ordinances tl�at enhance transit-oriented character of station area development and pedestrian access; and • Zoning allowances for reduced parking and traffic mitigation. Kimley>>>Horn ; A-5 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Tools to Implement Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies HIGH Transit agencies and/or regional agencies are working proactively with local jurisdictions,developers,and the public to promote transit-supportive planning and station area development. The transit agency has established a joint development program and idenrified development opporiunities. Agencies have adopted effective regulatory and financial incentives to promote transit- oriented development. Public and private capital improvements are being programmed in the corridor and starion areas which implement the local policies and which leverage the Federal investment in the proposed major transit investment corridor. MEDNM Transit agencies and/or regional agencies l�ave conducted some outreach to promote transit-supportive planning and starion area development. Regulatory and financial incentives to promote transit-oriented development are being developed,or l�ave been adopted but are only moderately effecrive. Capital improvements are being idenrified that support station area plans and leverage the Federal investment in the proposed major transit corridor. LOW Limited effort has been made to reach out to jurisdicrions,developers,or the public to promote transit-supportive planning,to identify regulatory and financial incentives to promote development or to idenrify capital improvements. Ratings based on assessment of the following: • Outreach to government agencies and the community in support of land use planning; • Regulatory and financial incenrives to promote transit-supportive development and • Efforts to engage the development community in station area planning and transit-supportive development. Performance of Transit-Supportive Plans and Policies HIGH A significant number of development proposals are being received for transit- supportive housing and employment in starion areas. Significant amounts of transit-supportive development l�ave occurred in other,e�sting transit corridors and station areas in the region. MEDNM Some development proposals are being received for transit-supportive housing and employment in station areas. Moderate amounts of transit-supportive development have occurred in other,exisring transit corridors and starion areas in the region. LOW A limited number of proposals for transit-supportive housing and employment development in the corridor are being received. Other,existing transit corridors and station areas in the region lack significant examples of transit- supportive housing and employment development. Ratings based on assessment of the following: • Demonstrated cases of development affected by transit-oriented policies;and • Starion area developmentproposals and status. Kimley>>>Horn ; A-6 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Potential Impact of Transit Project on Regional Development HIGH A significant amount of land in starion areas is available for new development or redevelopment at transit-supportive densiries. Local plans,policies,and developmentprograms,as well as real estate market conditions, strongly support such development. MEDNM A moderate amount of land in station areas is available for new development or redevelopment at transit-supportive densiries. Local plans,policies,and developmentprograms,as well as real estate market conditions, moderately support such development. LOW Only a modest amount of land in starion areas is available for new development or redevelopment. Local plans,policies,and development programs,as well as real estate market conditions,provide marginal support for new development in station areas. Ratings based on assessment of the following: • Adaptability of station area land for development and • Corridor economic environment. Kimley>>>Horn ; A-� � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Plans and Policies to Maintain or Increase Affordable Housing in Corridor HIGH . Comprehensive affordable housing plans have been developed and are being implemented tl�at identify and address the current and prospective housing affordability needs along the corridor. The plans include efforts to preserve existing affordable housing(both legally binding affordability restricted housing and market-rate affordable housing.) The plans also eaplicitly address the housing affordability and quality needs of very-and eatremely-low income households. • Financing commitments and/or sources of funding and robust financial incenrives are secured and available at the local and/or regional level and along the proposed corridor to support affordable housing acquisirion (including acquisition of land and/or properties intended to be converted to affordable housing),development and/or preservarion consistent with adopted plans and policies. These commitments may include early phase or acquisition financing as well as permanent financing. • Local policies and zoning codes support and encourage significant affordable housing development in transit corridors. • Developers are actively working in the corridor to secure priority development sites and/or maintain affordability levels in existing housing units. MEDNM . Affordable housing plans have been developed and are being implemented tl�at identify and address the current and prospective housing affordability needs along the corridor. The plans include efforts to preserve existing subsidized housing. The plans also eaplicitly address the needs of very- and eatremely-low income households. • Some financial incenrives are available along the proposed corridor to support affordable housing acquisition(including acquisition of land and/or properties intended to be converted to affordable housing), development and/or preservarion consistent with adopted plans and policies. These commitments may include early phase or acquisirion financing as well as permanent financing. • Local policies and zoning codes support affordable housing development in and near transit corridors to a moderate eatent. • Developers are starting to work in the corridor to secure priority development sites and/or maintain affordability levels in existing housing units. LOW . Affordable housing plans and policies are in development or non-existent, or fail to address key elements such as length of affordability,preservarion of existing affordable housing,and the needs of very-and extremely-low income households. • Little or no financial incentives are available to support affordable housing development and preservarion. • Local policies and zoning codes support only limited affordable housing development in and near transit corridors. • There is little or no affordable housing development/preservation activity in the corridor. Kimley>>>Horn ; A-$ � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Plans and Policies to Maintain or Increase Affordable Housing in Corridor (continued) Ratings based on assessment of the following: • Evaluation of corridor-specific affordable housing needs and supply; • Plans and policies to preserve and increase affordable housing in region and/or corridor; • Adopted financing tools and strategies targeted to preserving and increasing affordable housing in the region and/or corridor; • Evidence of developer acrivity to preserve and increase affordable housing in the corridor;and • The ea�tent to which the plans and polices account for long-term affordability and the needs of very-and extremely-low income households in the corridor. Kimley>>>Horn ; A-9 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Appendix B: TIGER Program Analysis Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 B � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � TIGER Program Analysis On February 23,2016,USDOT issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity(NOFO)for up to$500 million for National Infrastructure Investments,better known by the"TIGER"program name.This discretionary program is USDOT's largest discretionary program for transit and other surface transportation modes.The program is also extremely competitive with 6,700 total applications submitted to USDOT requesting$134 billion in TIGER funding over the seven-year life of the program.The Department has in turn awarded $4.6 billion to 381 projects,or less than six percent of all applicants.Table 1 presents the supply and demand for program resources since 2009,when TIGER was first authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Table 1:TIGER Program Supply and Demand • • • � - • � � � � - • • • - � -� 2009 $1,500 ^'1,400 51 2010 $600 ^'1,700 75 2011 $510 848 46 2012 $500 703 47 2013 $474 585 52 2014 $600 797 72 2015 $500 627 39 2016 $500 (?) (?) The TIGER program provides discretionary grants for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure that will have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region. Eligible projects include highways, bridges, transit, passenger rail investments,freight investments,and marine port infrastructure.The TIGER program's current key statutory provisions include: ■ Total Funding Available:$500 million in fiscal year(FY)2016. No more than 20 percent of funds may be obligated to projects in a single state,and at least$100 million must be awarded to projects in rural areas. ■ Amount of Each Grant: Minimum of$5 million and maximum of$100 million for projects in urban areas. Minimum of$1 million for projects in rural areas. ■ Cost Sharing: Maximum 80 percent federal share(up to 100 percent in rural areas). In addition,USDOT uses the following administrative requirements to select projects and administer the program: ■ Application Criteria: Primary Selection Criteria:State of Good Repair, Economic Competitiveness,Quality of Life, Environmental Sustainability,and Safety;Secondary Selection Criteria: Innovation and Partnerships. ■ Other Requirements:Applications must be supported by a benefit-cost analysis(BCA). Proposed projects must also demonstrate readiness to obligate funding,technical and financial feasibility,and provide a project schedule and assessment of risks and mitigation strategies related to the delivery of the project. Kimley>>>Horn ; B-1 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l In addition to the statutory and administrative requirements described above, past practice by USDOT in awarding previous years of TIGER funds is informative in determining the competitiveness of a Red Rock Corridor BRT investment for program funding. Specifically: ■ Despite the$100 million statutory maximum grant amount, USDOTonly rarely awards even$25 million in TIGER funding to any one project. In fact,since 2012,only 17 out of 210 winning projects have received$20 million or more in funding.The typical TIGER grant award in urban areas is$10-15 million. ■ Despite the 20 percent statutory minimum local share required for projects in urban areas,most TIGER project financial plans provide significant overmatch. In fact,according to analyses performed by the Eno Foundation,the TIGER share of total capital costs of transit projects funded through 2012 was less than 44 percent. ■ While responding to the selection criteria is critical to demonstrating the merits of a proposed project,evidence that projects are grant"obligation ready"and low-risk is becoming increasingly important to USDOT.This is in response to many projects funded under prior year TIGER programs not being able to complete National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA) requirements within the deadline for grant obligation,or post-NEPA having experienced cost overruns and significant schedule slippages. Beginning in 2013, USDOT requires applicants to identify risks in project delivery and explain how they plan to mitigate them. Most recent winning TIGER projects are able to demonstrate a relatively high level of design,and/or were proposed by applicants with demonstrated experience in the delivery of similar projects,thus giving the Department greater confidence in their successful implementation. ■ USDOT places a premium on projects that demonstrate strong local support and consensus.This can be satisfied by demonstrated multi-agency(and/or private sector)support for a project, including evidence of financial contributions from project partners. It is also helpful when there are no or few competing TIGER proposals from a given region. TIGER funding has been awarded for a number of BRT projects, including new systems in Omaha and Richmond,as well as an extension of Orlando's Lymmo service. In 2015,the City of Birmingham,Alabama received $20 million in TIGER funds for a 15-mile $39.9 million BRT project. It should also be noted that the FAST Act creates new discretionary programs for highways,freight rail, ports,and "state of good repair" bus transit projects,which in the past have competed for TIGER funding.While these modes remain eligible under TIGER, it is reasonable to assume that the new FAST Act programs will largely address federal investment objectives for them, leaving TIGER to fund more BRT and other projects that do not have their"own"funding sources. Consequently, if a BRT project moves forward in the Red Rock Corridor, local decision-makers should consider pursuing funding under future year TIGER programs—assuming Congress continues to appropriate funding for it(it was not authorized in the FAST Act). Given program demand,its statutory requirements,and the administrative practices followed by USDOT in the evaluation and selection of TIGER projects to date, it is recommended that the Red Rock Corridor Commission seek no more than$20 million in TIGER funding for the project;which means,that over 50 percent of project funding would need to come from other sources. The Commission should therefore consider the following three questions: ■ Can it generate a sufficient local match?As noted previously,candidate TIGER projects must demonstrate"financial feasibility." This means,at a minimum, providing strong evidence of the commitment of non-TIGER program funding to the project at the time of application. Given the project size and maximum practical grant award,a match of at least$25 million would be recommended. ■ What is the regional and state competition? USDOT aims to fund not only good projects, but to distribute funding to good projects as widely as possible throughout the country. In fact, USDOT has never come close to threatening the statutory limit for obligating TIGER funding in any one state.Competition is at least as much regional as it is national. Can the region throw their support behind a BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor? Kimley>>>Horn ; B-2 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ■ How does the project perform against the TIGER criteria?Can it generate a positive benefit-cost ratio?As noted above, candidate TIGER projects are evaluated against five primary and two secondary criteria,as well as other considerations, including a detailed BCA.Simply put,would a BRT investment in the Red Rock Corridor enhance public safety?Would it improve the quality of life of residents in the project area? How? Does the project contribute to the state of good repair of the region's transit infrastructure? How would it improve the economic competitiveness of the region?Does the project deliver benefits greater than its costs? The answers to these questions are outside the scope of the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan. In order to answer the final question, in particular,the Red Rock Corridor Commission should evaluate the BRT project's alignment with the TIGER program criteria; identify the most likely categories for which qualitative and quantifiable benefits may be realized from the project; and assess the extent to which these benefits can be realistically articulated in the grant application and confidently estimated for BCA purposes. For example, information on the socioeconomic character of corridor residents and the location and characteristics of employment and education opportunities within the corridor may demonstrate the BRT investment's importance of improving access to opportunities for transportation disadvantaged populations—a key measure supporting the program's Economic Competitiveness criteria.The project's integration with other ongoing and planned community investments that enrich the lives of residents and visitors would support the Quality of Life criteria. Quantitative benefits should be focused on transportation related outcomes,such as improved trip times, reduced VMT from mode shift,intermodal transfer efficiencies,etc.The economic value associated with enhanced station amenities and development opportunities facilitated by station investments should be considered. Ultimately, if it can be demonstrated that a) benefits exceed costs; b) match can be generated; and c) regional support secured,then the remaining focus of a TIGER grant application should be on how the project can distinguish itself from its competitors. Demonstrating need, meeting the criteria,and telling the project's"story"are all critical attributes of a successful TIGER application. Kimley>>>Horn ; B-3 �-.r. - _��_�`�� II�� i��. � J� ti��/� :�1 �,�.�-�:.�., � � � 1 � �� 1��. - ~ - � , , � �L�� .�� M� ' � �� ' � � � J - _ — � . � � y\� w r�ii/ ' ,� � - -�::�i� �I `a� • � - � : ;.,. ��Mi�� ---_ � �-- � - _ _�. . I,i��A■ -- � �� _'Q'� ►��,- °..�.� � � ----�Q. - ��. `,� j `` �I � `,� 4252 - . � - __ . _—_. •�.��o . .�� a � � � / • ..................................................................................................................................................................................... � � . . • • • ' RED R�CK • _ • - � SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR • " - " • � PREPAREDFOR .............................................................................. ......................................................................... Red Rock Corridor Commission ......................................................................... PREPARED SY .............................................................................. Kimle >>>Horn PaRsoNs y BRINCKERHOFF � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Contact List WASHINGTON COUNTY Lyssa Leitner I yssa.leitner@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-4314 Hally Turner hall y.turner@co.washington.mn.us 651-430-4307 CONSULTANT TEAM Brian Smalkoski,Project Manager brian.smalkoski@kimley-horn.com 651-643-0472 William Reynolds,Deputy Project Manager william.reynol ds@kiml ey-horn.com 651-643-0462 ChelseyArmstrong,Service Plan Report Preparation chelsey.armstrong@kimley-horn.com 612-294-9731 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 � � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Contents ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................................................................iv Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................................................1 Alternative1: BRTService Plan..................................................................................................................................................................2 Description.............................................................................................................................................................................................2 ConnectingTransit Service.....................................................................................................................................................................2 ServiceCharacteristics...........................................................................................................................................................................2 TravelTime ............................................................................................................................................................................................2 Alternative2: BRT Service Plan..................................................................................................................................................................6 Description.............................................................................................................................................................................................6 ConnectingTransit Service.....................................................................................................................................................................6 ServiceCharacteristics...........................................................................................................................................................................6 WeekdayService................................................................................................................................................................................6 WeekendService ...............................................................................................................................................................................6 TravelTime ............................................................................................................................................................................................6 InterimService Plan.............................................................................................................................................................................10 Additional Local and Express Service.......................................................................................................................................................11 Route367.............................................................................................................................................................................................11 Route363.............................................................................................................................................................................................13 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Figures Figure1: Project Study Area ......................................................................................................................................................................1 Figure 2: Red Rock Alternative 1 Proposed Route.....................................................................................................................................4 Figure 3: Red Rock Alternative 1 Proposed Connecting Transit Service....................................................................................................5 Figure 4: Red Rock Alternative 2 Proposed Route.....................................................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Red Rock Alternative 2 Proposed Connecting Transit Service....................................................................................................9 Figure6: Proposed Route 367..................................................................................................................................................................12 Figure7: Proposed Route 363..................................................................................................................................................................15 Tables Table 1:Alternative 1 Travel Time by Segment.........................................................................................................................................3 Table 2:Alternative 2A via 95th Street Travel Time by Segment..............................................................................................................7 Table 3:Alternative 2B via Jamaica Avenue Travel Time by Segment.......................................................................................................7 Table 4: Interim Alternative 2B via Jamaica Avenue Travel Time by Segment........................................................................................10 Table 5: Northbound Route 367 Proposed Schedule ..............................................................................................................................11 Table 6:Southbound Route 367 Proposed Schedule...............................................................................................................................11 Table 7: Northbound Route 363 Proposed Schedule ..............................................................................................................................13 Table 8:Southbound Route 363 Proposed Schedule...............................................................................................................................14 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Executive Summary The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority(WCCRA), Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority(DCRRA),and Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority(RCRRA) have initiated an Implementation Plan for the Red Rock Corridor between Hastings and downtown Saint Paul. The purpose of this report is to define and document the details of the service plans associated with alternatives advanced to the cost, ridership,and alternative evaluation phase of the Red Rock Corridor Implementation Plan.The service plans reflects alternative refinements that were made during the planning process based on stakeholder input. The resulting weekday service plans outlined below and summarized in this technical memorandum were used as inputs for the ridership model,as discussed in the Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Memorandum,as well as the operations and maintenance costs estimates discussed in the Cost Estimation Technical Memorandum: • Alternative 1: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Highway Orientation o Travel Time:43 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Alternative 2A: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Community Orientation (via 95th Street) o Travel Time: 64 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Alternative 2B: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Community Orientation (via Jamaica Avenue) o Travel Time: 66 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Alternative 2B(Interim BRT): BRT Along Highway 61 to Cottage Grove Park&Ride o Travel Time:47 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Route 367: Peak Hour Commuter Express Service from Hastings to Minneapolis via Newport o Travel Time: 65 minutes o Daily Trips:8 trips • Route 363:All-Day 30-Minute Local Service between Cottage Grove and Saint Paul o Travel Time:41 minutes o Daily Trips:58 trips Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 �� RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Introduction The Red Rock Corridor is a proposed 30-mile transitway,connecting the Twin Cities'southeastern suburbs to downtown Saint Paul. Figure 1 shows the general study area for this project. Previous studies have assessed the feasibility of transit service between Minneapolis and Red Wing, but BRT service would be between Saint Paul and Hastings for the purposes of this Implementation Plan. The corridor has national,statewide,and regional significance as a transportation route for automobile,truck,freight,and passenger rail travel. � � ,,YF � � .. � .,_ U1..IS� �' � _ � . ��a��. � ST. PAUL � �1` Uaion Depot ,lvv t . _ �� -� c�nw...�� - a �� t� o i � � � � � � `61� � � Hastings � �\� �� \��L�\ Yo,�rTicAcr��. �� 61,�, �* . ' . .. i -. Figure 1:Project5tudyArea A single BRT alternative was analyzed as part of the Red Rock Alternatives Analysis Update(AAU).As part of the Implementation Plan process, however,commuter rail was not advanced for further analysis,and the Red Rock Corridor Commission (RRCC) recommended exploring additional BRT alignments within the BRT corridor. For the Implementation Plan,three build alternatives were analyzed in the Red Rock Corridor from Hastings to the Union Depot in St. Paul.These are described as follows: • Alternative 1: BRT with stops at the Union Depot, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,70th Street Station, Langdon Village Station,and the Hastings Depot. Parking is assumed at all stations,with the exception of the 70th Street Station.This is the alternative that resulted from the AAU. • Alternative 2A: BRT via 95th Street with stops at the Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station,95th Street Station,the Hastings Depot, Lions Park Station,and the Dakota County Offices Station.The Mounds Boulevard, Earl Street, and Etna Street Stations are shared with the Gateway Corridor and utilize the transit-only guideway being developed for that corridor. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 1 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l • Alternative 2B: BRT via Jamaica Avenue with the same stops as Alternative 2A with two modifications: elimination of the 95th Street Station and alternative routing along the east side of Highway 61 in Cottage Grove to serve a station at Jamaica Ave n u e. Alternative 1: BRT Service Plan Description Alternative 1 includes mainline BRT service along Highway 61 between the Union Depot in Saint Paul and the Hastings Depot.This alternative includes stations at the Union Depot, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,70th Street in St. Paul Park, Langdon Village in Cottage Grove,and the Hastings Depot.The end-to-end travel time to cover the 24.5-mile distance is assumed to be approximately 43 minutes. Figure 2 shows the proposed Alternative 1 service plan. Connecting Transit Service Proposed transit service in the Red Rock Corridor would build upon the existing transit network(see Figure 3). Numerous transit lines connect to the Union Depot, including the METRO Green Line and Routes 3, 16,21,54,94,262,417,480,484,and 489. Numerous other routes are a short walk away in downtown Saint Paul. Routes 361 and 365 are both express routes that currently serve the Lower Afton Park& Ride and provide an opportunity to connect with BRT in the Red Rock Corridor.The Route 364 is an express route that currently serves the Newport Transit Station and would provide an opportunity to connect with additional areas in Newport and St. Paul Park.Similar to the Lower Afton Park& Ride,the existing Cottage Grove Park& Ride is currently served by Routes 361 and 365.These routes would move with the park-and-ride to the Langdon Village Station and provide an opportunity to connect at this location. $2CYIC2 ChBC'8Ct2C'IStICS Alternative 1 is proposed to operate 4 trips an hour each weekday.These trips would complement the existing express routes in the corridor,which currently operate a total average of 6 trips per hour in the peak period. Weekday Service ■ Frequency 0 15 minutes(6:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.) 0 30 minutes(5:00 a.m.—6:00 a.m.; 6:00 p.m.—12:00 a.m.) ■ Service Hours 0 19 Hours Weekend Service ■ Frequency 0 30 minutes(7:00 a.m.—12:00 a.m.) ■ Service Hours 0 17 Hours Travel Time The end-to-end travel time for Alternative 1 was calculated by measuring the distance between stations and calculating the travel time between them based on an average speed for the segment.Additionally,station delay was estimated based on the upstream station as well as the station type and configuration. On-street stations were assumed to introduce 20 seconds of delay and off- street, park-and-ride stations were assumed to add two minutes of delay.Station delay was not included in the total time for Union Depot and Hastings Depot because this time is part of the layover and riders would not be on the bus during this time. Table 1 shows the travel time by segment for Alternative 1. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 2 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Tnhlo 1•4lfornnfi�io 1 Trrniol Timo hv Conmonf � - Union Depot to Lower Afton Road - - 4.7 9.4 30 9.4 30 Lower Afton Road to Maxwell Ramp Lower Afton 0.3 2.7 3.6 45 3.9 42 Maxwell Ramp to Newport Station - - 0.7 1.4 30 1.4 30 Newport Station to 70th Street Station Newport 2.0 3.9 5.2 45 7.2 33 70th Street Station to Langdon Village Station 70th Street 0.3 4.8 7.2 40 7.5 38 Langdon Village Station to the Mississippi River Langdon Village 2.0 7.2 9.6 45 11.6 37 Mississippi River to Hastings Depot - - 0.5 2.0 15 2.0 15 Tota I 4.6 24.5 38.4 38 43.0 34 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 3 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � a � i ? _ � g ` � �a� � �` ,,..ma,�,Ew.,,�xao � ` � ,�1_ Lower Affon Park�. _ _ ' � ��. .�.........� � - �...E� ,�.,..,.. llr� - � � � ' z f 3 mxmuxixn�E w<rvrvmarxwx�u wvee " # vEQ C� n _��''. , s $ �u,m�meLVO R Newport Transit Station p � mm5�5 M�voo�..oE N E�l��;i`; wg � ; � r�,� . . .�'�':� �' J Ir e y�'`Fo ....�. s'� m�.,,� � a 701h Street' �„w� i � 4 .,n��... �..,., � � z E �� e9 �..r. �� e � �I�`�'� z � � _. 8 .,.'1.. .. I 3. _ . 61 � '� e Langdon Village Station � '� £�,. a �unt �� „ ::'.,',:'�:�:�,�.;::;:�:.�.:::::,:i::: . ,�.,,.. � ��):�.".�:.::'�'::.'�.:'.''::.''.'..�'..;:• ' � �� ._... ,�o.w:.� �. g �,..... o � s �w o � aox.a...m� ? ��V / , �nxo,.� o `w 9Ro 9 0 �.:: s�,.a. ,xo„w on Altel'11c7tIV@'I: PYOpOSeCI ROUtE? �RFD ROCK ro�r�keeeo�,� SoutheastMetro, 0 0.75 1.5 , Figure 2:Red RockAlternative 1 Proposed Route KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 4 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � O�� i _ � �`' N RED ROCK llnion�Depdt V RF ��''O eAILEV OLower ABon Park&Ride Newport O `E""E�E"" Transit � �` :;tation o'T' `°a° - nsr 2isT £µEN m 20TH MARK zorH is*H m m iarH e� vrH vrN ' � � ' ^=t HIGH y� SMIL[5 Z �� . -.`�FSIf STCJ�1011 � IfiTH �` miST Z `�.. 14TH � 13TH . . ? 4.., , .. . . C , r / � � .�F �Oth Sh� l a�'P�.��`! ; / , 1 �i ��"t':.•,P.'::.�.:�..,�•..�.... ,... _::�.:':..:.'�. •L . �f ::�.;:;: _ .. Langdon Village Station O I/ ,. -. . .4` � �i�•�•, I � . , PARK pacr+ SrH k z ., _ _ �� eku � � � � FREMON � � � 2HD �, 2fy rONWAYEUCLID g � b E. N WILSON m 15 6tTH N �` 9RN S - .PFCIFIC� q 9r INCLEAN S'q„ �'q j j �> :;i a�` M�N W o � 2cs �s � �. O�Unian D��:c�m s a�,Ea R 70tE, Rn,.,.;.,�t � � ainoea rvP �� 'o r �Pao -" `� � �tiOA e oAownv HC1SfIngS Depof^c'�".d�,i� 5� � sHnv � � ? �,'�§,�� F�Q � �r � wa �Fsr � � �arH a � g arH - .. 0 �P oe�as �b - o .. Connecting Transit Service �{�• Red Rock CorridorAlternative 1 0 0.75 1.5 Figure 3:Red RockAlternative 1 Proposed Connecting Transit Service KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 5 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Alternative 2: BRT Service Plan Description Alternative 2 includes mainline BRT service along Highway 61 between the Union Depot in Saint Paul and the Hasting Depot with arterial deviations in Newport,St. Paul Park,Cottage Grove,and in Hastings.The arterial portions of this alternative aim to serve existing destinations and densities in order to support all-day, bi-directional transit service and park-and-rides.This alternative includes stations at the Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Park& Ride, Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street Station,95th Street Station (2A only),Jamaica Avenue Station (2B only),the Hastings Depot, Lions Park Station,and the Dakota County Offices Station.This alternative also has the potential to add a station south of Jamaica Avenue in Cottage Grove after that area becomes more developed. For alternative 2A,the end to end travel time to cover the 26.7-mile distance is assumed to be approximately 64 minutes. For alternative 2B,the end to end travel time to cover the 26.8-mile distance is assumed to be approximately 66 minutes. Figure 4 shows the proposed Alternative 2 service plan. Connecting Transit Service Proposed connecting transit service for Alternative 2 is similar to that of Alternative 1(see Figure 5).The additional stations on the east side of Saint Paul provide greater opportunities for bus connections to BRT in the Red Rock Corridor.The METRO Gold Line (Gateway Corridor)would provide connections at the Etna Street Station, Earl Street Station, Mounds Boulevard Station,and the Union Depot.Additional connections would also be provided with the Route 70 at Earl Street Station and the Route 63 at the Mounds Boulevard Station. $2fVIC2 Ch8f8Ct2fIStICS Alternative 2 is proposed to operate the same frequencies as proposed for Alternative 1.Similarly,Alternative 2 is proposed to complement the existing express trips in the corridor. WEEKDAY SERVICE ■ Frequency 0 15 minutes(6:00 a.m.—6:00 p.m.) 0 30 minutes(5:00 a.m.—6:00 a.m.; 6:00 p.m.—12:00 a.m.) ■ Service Hours 0 19 Hours WEEKEND SERVICE ■ Frequency 0 30 minutes(7:00 a.m.—12:00 a.m.) ■ Service Hours 0 17 Hours Travel Time The end to end travel time for Alternative 2 was calculated the same way as Alternative 1,by measuring the distance between stations and calculating the travel time between them based on an average speed for the segment.Additionally,station delays were assumed the same as in Alternative 1 which were based on the upstream station and 20 seconds for on-street stations and 2 minutes for off-street stations.Station delay was again not included in the total time for Union Depot and Dakota County Offices Station. Table 2 shows the travel time by segment for Alternative 2A via 95th Street,while Table 3 shows the travel time by segment for Alternative 2B via Jamaica Avenue. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 6 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Tnhlo �•4lfornnfi�io �4�iin QSfh Cfroof Trrniol Timo hv Conmonf - � - Union Depot to Mounds Boulevard Station - - 0.9 3.0 18 3.0 18 Mounds Boulevard Station to Earl Street Station Mounds 0.3 0.8 2.0 24 2.3 21 Earl Street Station to Etna Street Station Earl 0.3 0.7 1.8 24 2.1 20 Etna Street Station to Lower Afton Rd Etna 0.3 2.1 3.2 40 3.5 36 Lower Afton Rd to Maxwell Ramp Lower Afton 0.3 2.7 3.6 45 3.9 41 Maxwell Ramp to Newport Station - - 0.7 1.4 30 1.4 30 Newport Station to St. Paul Park Station Newport 2.0 3.3 7.9 25 9.9 20 St. Paul Park Station to 80th Street Station St. Paul Park 0.3 2.0 5.5 22 5.8 21 80th Street Station to 95th Street Station 80th 2.0 2.3 5.5 25 7.5 18 95th Street Station to the Mississippi River 95th 0.3 7.2 9.6 45 9.9 44 Mississippi River to Hastings Depot - - 0.5 2.0 15 2.0 15 Hastings Depot to Lions Park Station Hastings 2 0 2.2 6.6 20 8.6 15 Depot Lions Park Station to Dakota County Services Lions Park 0.3 1.3 3.5 22 3.9 20 Station Total 8.3 26.7 55.5 29 63.9 25 Table 3:Alternative 28 via Jamaica Avenue Travel Time by Segment : . �- - - . - - Union Depot to Mounds Boulevard Station - - 0.9 3.0 18 3.0 18 Mounds Boulevard Station to Earl Street Station Mounds 0.3 0.8 2.0 24 2.3 21 Earl Street Station to Etna Street Station Earl 0.3 0.7 1.8 24 2.1 20 Etna Street Station to Lower Afton Rd Etna 0.3 2.1 3.2 40 3.5 36 Lower Afton Rd to Maxwell Ramp Lower 0.3 2.7 3.6 45 3.9 41 Afton Maxwell Ramp to Newport Station - - 0.7 1.4 30 1.4 30 Newport Station to St. Paul Park Station Newport 2.0 3.3 7.9 25 9.9 20 St. Paul Park Station to 80th Street Station St. Paul 0.3 2.0 5.5 22 5.8 21 Park 80th Street Station to Jamaica Avenue Station 80th 0.3 2.4 7.2 20 7.5 19 Jamaica Avenue Station to the Mississippi River Jamaica 2.0 7.2 9.6 45 11.6 37 Mississippi River to Hastings Depot - - 0.5 2.0 15 2.0 15 Hastings Depot to Lions Park Station Hastings 2 0 2.2 6.6 20 8.6 15 Depot Lions Park Station to Dakota County Services Lions Park 0.3 1.3 3.5 22 3.9 20 Station Total 8.3 26.8 57.2 28 65.5 25 Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 � � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � tt i e ° _ . : � i � �..�aFlon.o ` �I = r � � � �, .�....�....� �r'[ u ° � z 5 3 mxi••uxixn.E wrvrvmaxwx�w �wvee. ^ I .EQ � � n ;�; . ; q � r.,....� �m,., M��oo...oE V �NM1m•`Vo t Transit Siaiion ��'`'`" : µ` , �3� . . � � :':y::i��-� c o y�Mr u�x:i� � mm�� _ xai ff = g -n.�nz �� 9 � � .:�''� x-.nE � � - BOih Street, \ �� i i:': 5 \ . .. � QCS \ `` ..__ �.,__.., mm,.� '� �� e � � `�� ,a' JJJ ? 95th,�� 61 r`° lu� a �m.,,.E � �C:••�.::'.'';:::':.;';_r;:.i�.:�'.:� ;.; „a.�.� ;��:::,:; „o.�„ �� g' u,..,.E o � � ` �uxo,.E �� A � eoxxx�vnm� " �� k qm m ��4Yo ��:�.: .,. o xxo.iw � � RED ROCK �ut ees�Memohe 0 OJ5 1.5 Alternative 2: Proposed Route �*��_ �:',z°�'a Figure 4:Red RockAlternative 2 Proposed Route KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 8 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � ��`�,. � ...,.. . .�'�� - �-_.`�j a �n �i� Earl Street: � aeoaocK --��.� u �o, �.� RFo q0� eAI lEV � �.4}%Ji`i:1f}Ofl"� ..... " '— CEMETEftY � �ty Foao — z zisr . 2isr ELIEN m zorH MARK ' ' 20TH t9TH m m 18TH I� V tJTH 1lTH -----�� HIGH 51(11 E5 siT Station " ,zrH ` m�s z ` iarN : i3rH � . : :�::..... x {:� y , �`: � st.P��i s� - .k.•:.•.?.:... . :`•C,:�� tir:: �.., C' ,.. � ...,� �I �� 9 � � Q( � �P � • !amaica Avenue StaFion o � � � y ay°� aot� a°� wk'!M.':iV1� ^ �'`�.951h Street Station (� EixEl: 84TH . �... .. 64TH �,•�� .. . ... I � .. .. W �' p O ➢ "' w c'� u ca .i� , PARK pkCH STH Z v _ � �] y ��..- �HU V FREMON � X �_ �i.:. g - a m �� 2N� � � � �.T m N � � _ l5 65TH , 9�� t �� _ / 4"� 9mN L y�,• �'9� > . �<�� .�F� 2r�� w f�. ;. 9� �c �s i� S N 1ER -�e��'- c �A A AtooFH 'N�`P� � ory HOS}II1�5 �m o . � '�'oa � Dep015�atir.in y��eP�' mF , �ta CounTy � m s"o° < �� OfficesStaf�� . � a � � � � � LL z o�*`O oe�as �� s>o� o �arH a i5�, .�,��"�.. I.ions Par� S Connecting Transit Service Red Rock Corridor Alternative 2 0 0.75 1.5 Figure 5:Red Rock Alternative 2 Proposed Connecting Transit Service KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 9 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Interim Service Plan During the alternative refinement process,several interim scenarios were developed for comparison purposes.A comprehensive discussion of these can be found in the Alternative Evaluation Technical Memorandum.To aid this process,one additional service plan was developed for a modified version of Alternative 2B,with the following revisions: • Elimination of the three Hastings stations • Service extension from the Jamaica Avenue Station to the existing Cottage Grove Park& Ride on the west side of Highway 61. For interim alternative 2B,the end to end travel time to cover the 17.5-mile distance is assumed to be approximately 47 minutes. Table 4 shows the travel time by segment for this revised version of Alternative 2B via Jamaica Avenue. Table 4:Interim Alternative 28 via Jamaica Avenue Travel Time by Segment : . �- - - . . - . - - - - Union Depot to Mounds Boulevard Station - - 0.9 3.0 18 3.0 18 Mounds Boulevard Station to Earl Street Station Mounds 0.3 0.8 2.0 24 2.3 21 Earl Street Station to Etna Street Station Earl 0.3 0.7 1.8 24 2.1 20 Etna Street Station to Lower Afton Rd Etna 0.3 2.1 3.2 40 3.5 36 Lower Afton Rd to Maxwell Ramp Lower Afton 0.3 2.7 3.6 45 3.9 41 Maxwell Ramp to Newport Station - - 0.7 1.4 30 1.4 30 Newport Station to St. Paul Park Station Newport 2.0 3.3 7.9 25 9.9 20 St. Paul Park Station to 80th Street Station St. Paul Park 0.3 2.0 5.5 22 5.8 21 80th Street Station to Jamaica Avenue Station 80th 0.3 2.4 7.2 20 7.5 19 Jamaica Avenue Station to Cottage Grove Park& Ride* Jamaica/CG 1.3 1.9 5.7 20 7.0 16 Tota I 5.3 17.5 41.2 25 46.5 23 *Some additional delay assumed to access the existing platform within the Cottage Grove Park& Ride Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 10 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � � • � l Additional Local and Express Service Metro Transit's 2015-2030 Service Improvement Plan (April 2015) identifies two new routes within the Highway 61 corridor that would serve many of the same stations as the proposed BRT alternatives. Route 367 would provide peak-hour, peak-direction service between Hastings and downtown Minneapolis via the Newport Transit Station,and Route 363 would provide 30-minute service throughout most of the day on weekdays between Cottage Grove and downtown Saint Paul1. In order to assess the ridership potential of these routes as interim or complementary services,service plans were developed drawing from the current travel times assumed in Metro Transit's existing schedules for Route 361, Route 364,and Route 365,which serve several of the stations in the Red Rock Corridor. Route 367 Express Route 367 would serve two primary stations within the Red Rock Corridor(Hastings Depot and Newport Transit Station)and make local stops in downtown Minneapolis. Eight daily trips are proposed,with four northbound trips during the morning peak and four southbound trips during the evening peak.Tables 5 and 6 show the proposed timetables for the route,drawing from Metro Transit's travel times for Route 365 between Lower Afton and downtown Minneapolis to obtain peak hour variability. Table 5:Northbound Route 367 Proposed Schedule +� v +� v �..i '� L {n O � � � i � Q' �p a +�+ 7 � H � � � �n i � •� � U � �n � O C � � m ++ .. N � Q O �' C Q' tn L 7 t�if �i +.' � C � C 7 C Route `° °1 � � °1 `° � ° = z cn n = � _ � 367 6:00 6:23 6:59 7:02 1:02 62 367 6:30 6:53 7:32 7:35 1:05 65 367 7:00 7:23 8:06 8:09 1:09 69 367 7:30 7:53 8:36 8:39 1:09 69 Table 6:Southbound Route 367 Proposed Schedule +� v v +� L '� � � � L O � � � ; � Q � t � Q L N +' -a H p � � U � •� i � � �n b0 m ++ to � O C � � � Q � � � Q O .� i � Route `° � � °1 °1 � `° ° � � �o = z = _ � 367 16:00 16:03 16:40 17:03 1:03 63 367 16:30 16:33 17:12 17:35 1:05 65 367 17:00 17:03 17:42 18:05 1:05 65 367 17:30 17:33 18:09 18:32 1:02 62 For ridership modeling purposes,the average travel time was assumed to be 65 minutes in each direction. Figure 6 depicts proposed Route 367. 1 The 2015 Service Improvement Plan document indicates that this route would continue to Minneapolis. For the Red Rock BRT Implementation Plan,it was assumed that Route 363 would only serve Saint Paul. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 11 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � a 3 � � j � c a � � 5 . To Downtown h�" 9� Minneapolis ,,..,,.,,,„„� w. �,E..,�.ao ' � �1��- . . � , �,� � � �.,.A�.....o �w.rc,. .�n..w. _s'��_�(G � . � o - z m.�.�.��.,.F .a.�.�.�o,.� u.,u. - � o i,t F n : i�:' iw„�.,��,.�.o ^ � € �.�,...o mM,., ' , Newport TransiT STation - ,�.�om.,wE i �'`^w a � . 4 z�� \ I I � :��:�� s ' �'MPo d �-..,. s:� m�..�: s .. q �.�...ev. m..n: � F � 4�46� � k4� 9y �..:\.; 3 m..,�E � � ' ��y � � � '�: e �. 61 � i::(." ¢ .-- 4 'E � -4.:.::::. ':'�`::`. �� :;.�::.... :....::.: ...... n...,,� :�.,..:::::<'.:;;:.;::�, � ... . ..... � � � ,,,..,.. $`� _ �,m,� � � �a...E.n�. � �� ,E�onE ro�� ^ Hastings Depot Station RFD ROCK r��=n�x�r��tn� 0 0.75 1.5 Proposed Route 367 �*__�-- a�>� s��he�=��e�=a Figure 6:Proposed Route 367 KII 1 IIGy��HOCI 1 : August 2016 12 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Route 363 Local Route 363 would serve the existing Cottage Grove Park& Ride,Jamaica Avenue,80th,Street, Newport Transit Station, Lower Afton,and the Union Depot in downtown Saint Paul.With assumed 30-minute headways,the route would operate between 6am and 8pm for a total of 58 trips(29 trips in each direction).Tables 7 and 8 show the proposed timetables for the route,drawing from Metro Transit's travel times for Routes 361,364,and 365 to estimate travel times between stations. Table 7:Northbound Route 363 Proposed Schedule � o� a � ; L � (6 �"i 0 � � O Q � � a� � +� � a� � v co �L,, co � a � � � U d O •• +�+ � � C � �j � 7 C N C O Route � � � �, z � � _ � 363 6:00 6:06 6:12 6:18 6:25 6:31 6:41 0:41 41 363 6:30 6:36 6:42 6:48 6:55 7:01 7:11 0:41 41 363 7:00 7:06 7:12 7:18 7:25 7:31 7:41 0:41 41 363 7:30 7:36 7:42 7:48 7:55 8:01 8:11 0:41 41 363 8:00 8:06 8:12 8:18 8:25 8:31 8:41 0:41 41 363 8:30 8:36 8:42 8:48 8:55 9:01 9:11 0:41 41 363 9:00 9:06 9:12 9:18 9:25 9:31 9:41 0:41 41 363 9:30 9:36 9:42 9:48 9:55 10:01 10:11 0:41 41 363 10:00 10:06 10:12 10:18 10:25 10:31 10:41 0:41 41 363 10:30 10:36 10:42 10:48 10:55 11:01 11:11 0:41 41 363 11:00 11:06 11:12 11:18 11:25 11:31 11:41 0:41 41 363 11:30 11:36 11:42 11:48 11:55 12:01 12:11 0:41 41 363 12:00 12:06 12:12 12:18 12:25 12:31 12:41 0:41 41 363 12:30 12:36 12:42 12:48 12:55 13:01 13:11 0:41 41 363 13:00 13:06 13:12 13:18 13:25 13:31 13:41 0:41 41 363 13:30 13:36 13:42 13:48 13:55 14:01 14:11 0:41 41 363 14:00 14:06 14:12 14:18 14:25 14:31 14:41 0:41 41 363 14:30 14:36 14:42 14:48 14:55 15:01 15:11 0:41 41 363 15:00 15:06 15:12 15:18 15:25 15:31 15:41 0:41 41 363 15:30 15:36 15:42 15:48 15:55 16:01 16:11 0:41 41 363 16:00 16:06 16:12 16:18 16:25 16:31 16:41 0:41 41 363 16:30 16:36 16:42 16:48 16:55 17:01 17:11 0:41 41 363 17:00 17:06 17:12 17:18 17:25 17:31 17:41 0:41 41 363 17:30 17:36 17:42 17:48 17:55 18:01 18:11 0:41 41 363 18:00 18:06 18:12 18:18 18:25 18:31 18:41 0:41 41 363 18:30 18:36 18:42 18:48 18:55 19:01 19:11 0:41 41 363 19:00 19:06 19:12 19:18 19:25 19:31 19:41 0:41 41 363 19:30 19:36 19:42 19:48 19:55 20:01 20:11 0:41 41 363 20:00 20:06 20:12 20:18 20:25 20:31 20:41 0:41 41 Shaded times denote peak-hour service Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 13 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � Table 8:Southbound Route 363 Proposed Schedule � o� a � Y a� a� L ' � 0 O d �..1 O � a v � � v � +� � v p a L co � co v � � i Q d � V t]A � ++ � L � � 2� 3 c � � � � c Route � ° z � � � � = g 363 6:00 6:10 6:16 6:23 6:29 6:35 6:41 0:41 41 363 6:30 6:40 6:46 6:53 6:59 7:05 7:11 0:41 41 363 7:00 7:10 7:16 7:23 7:29 7:35 7:41 0:41 41 363 7:30 7:40 7:46 7:53 7:59 8:05 8:11 0:41 41 363 8:00 8:10 8:16 8:23 8:29 8:35 8:41 0:41 41 363 8:30 8:40 8:46 8:53 8:59 9:05 9:11 0:41 41 363 9:00 9:10 9:16 9:23 9:29 9:35 9:41 0:41 41 363 9:30 9:40 9:46 9:53 9:59 10:05 10:11 0:41 41 363 10:00 10:10 10:16 10:23 10:29 10:35 10:41 0:41 41 3 63 10:30 10:40 10:46 10:53 10:59 11:05 11:11 0:41 41 363 11:00 11:10 11:16 11:23 11:29 11:35 11:41 0:41 41 3 63 11:30 11:40 11:46 11:53 11:59 12:05 12:11 0:41 41 363 12:00 12:10 12:16 12:23 12:29 12:35 12:41 0:41 41 363 12:30 12:40 12:46 12:53 12:59 13:05 13:11 0:41 41 363 13:00 13:10 13:16 13:23 13:29 13:35 13:41 0:41 41 363 13:30 13:40 13:46 13:53 13:59 14:05 14:11 0:41 41 363 14:00 14:10 14:16 14:23 14:29 14:35 14:41 0:41 41 363 14:30 14:40 14:46 14:53 14:59 15:05 15:11 0:41 41 363 15:00 15:10 15:16 15:23 15:29 15:35 15:41 0:41 41 363 15:30 15:40 15:46 15:53 15:59 16:05 16:11 0:41 41 363 16:00 16:10 16:16 16:23 16:29 16:35 16:41 0:41 41 363 16:30 16:40 16:46 16:53 16:59 17:05 17:11 0:41 41 363 17:00 17:10 17:16 17:23 17:29 17:35 17:41 0:41 41 363 17:30 17:40 17:46 17:53 17:59 18:05 18:11 0:41 41 363 18:00 18:10 18:16 18:23 18:29 18:35 18:41 0:41 41 3 63 18:30 18:40 18:46 18:53 18:59 19:05 19:11 0:41 41 363 19:00 19:10 19:16 19:23 19:29 19:35 19:41 0:41 41 363 19:30 19:40 19:46 19:53 19:59 20:05 20:11 0:41 41 363 20:00 20:10 20:16 20:23 20:29 20:35 20:41 0:41 41 Shaded times denote peak-hour service Figure 7 depicts proposed Route 363. Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 14 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR � • � S s z s �� i s � � v 3 = Union Depot �� pe �.oE..R�,.o Lower Aflon Park 8zRide ��'`'�" � �o I r ..,,..�,....o .:�:� a� .E�m�.,..... ��,�o.��a,.,. u..... _ - � � . .::;. . � F _ R e . � �,...o .��,�, ��.E.,,..o $ „� "`"°°'""°` m " Newport Transit Station � Y e 4 r 1 � { �� ..,.E � �,.,,, _ : St.Paul Park Transit Station � � ...,ff .w,. A��,., Q i � � 61 gOth Street Transii Station , s � Cottage Grove Park&Ride f � ��'��" � Jamaica Avenue Transit Station �X515 ` f�).':.'.�.,.�;�i`:':`:'�.�. a P d` �iit� ( y :.,-:�::::`�. ��':�:�'.'''.':' �o:.x:�E � �o � ,....:.. �'w"a.m � .�.v......� 3 ��4 0 „�„os E � Proposed Route 363 �*Fp RocK Yoa�r�=k=t�a�h� 0 0.75 1.5 s��rhe�=�Me��a. �Miles June 2016 Kimley»>Horn Figure 7:Proposed Route 363 KII 1 II�y��HOCI 1 : August 2016 15 � RED ROCK SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR i � � l Conclusion The weekday service plans outlined below and summarized in this technical memorandum were used as inputs for the ridership model,as discussed in the Travel Demand Forecasting Technical Memorandum,as well as the operations and maintenance costs estimates discussed in the Cost Estimation Technical Memorandum: • Alternative 1: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Highway Orientation o Travel Time:43 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Alternative 2A: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Community Orientation (via 95th Street) o Travel Time: 64 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Alternative 2B: BRT Along Highway 61 with a Community Orientation (via Jamaica Avenue) o Travel Time: 66 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Alternative 2B(Interim): BRT Along Highway 61 to Cottage Grove Park&Ride o Travel Time:47 minutes o Daily Trips: 124 trips • Route 367: Peak Hour Commuter Express Service from Hastings to Minneapolis via Newport o Travel Time: 65 minutes o Daily Trips:8 trips • Route 363:All-Day 30-Minute Local Service between Cottage Grove and Saint Paul o Travel Time:41 minutes o Daily Trips:58 trips Kimley>>>Horn : August2o16 16 ��"�-+.- " �a'�rt:��r�� l��' If�'i1. �`J��L" ' ,��^ S �.�� ti,-_::,�,;.�, v � �f r , i-l� �.�`.. �- ,.�c -_ t... ■ ._--- � �� ' L' � � � 0 d�r►. F . �•. � .� 4-rli� � ' � r'•!1 LI .•� .� _, ��d � � . � ..t .. + ; . -y!:Sil ill � z:'� • . .� -�-�-..- ' _ - ;,�. �!M.� � - � ^� � '�� I��A� _ ' 6. ".--+�`---�; �, ,�y� _ :..�.� f � --,=� �� . ^� ( ' � 4252 • � '" �� _ `_ , i' f 1 ? r � , �� •...� ��"�� '''!r ,: � � • � • • • • � • � � � � . � � • � RED R�� K � _ . _ � S�UTHEAST C�RRIDQR • " - � � PREPARED FDR .............................................................................. ......................................................................... Red Rock Carridor Commission PREPARSD BY .............................................................................. Kimle >>)Horn �RsaHs ]I BRINC�KERHOFF � RED ROCK �OIJTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a Introduction The Red Rock Corridor is a proposed 30-mile transitway that runs along Highway 61 and Interstate 94 between Hastings and Union Depot in Saint Paul.The Washington County Regional Railroad Authority(WCRRA), Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA), Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority(RCRRA),and Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority(HCRRA) have initiated an Implementation Plan for the Red Rock Corridor.The Implementation Plan builds off the recommendations from the 2013 Alternatives Analysis Update to create a financial,development,and service plans to lead toward the long-term goal of more transit service in the corridor and better connections to the regional network. Mounds Boulevard The preferred corridor alignment(Figure 1) includes bus Etna Street rapid transit(BRT)service generally along Highway 61. Ea'' I Union Street The proposed service would occasionally deviate from Depot � Highway 61 to serve existing destinations and densities �oWe�Afto� � I rather than park-and-ride stations,thus supporting all- ��— � day, bi-directional transit service.The alignment includes ,. ;% � stations at Union Depot, Mounds Boulevard Station, Earl Street Station, Etna Street Station, Lower Afton Station, ;� �';, �:..� .. • -- — _� �, --- Newport Transit Station,St. Paul Park Station,80th Street � ', — �� . Newport�...,._ Station,Jamaica Avenue Station, Hastings Depot,and two - other station locations in Hastings. Riders could access ! � ��\ many destinations from the Union Depot using other r' i ( �. transit service including express buses, local buses,and __l�� — sc.Paui Pa.k � _ the METRO Green Line. ::"� ' ~� 1 . JI� 80th Street I - � , Station Area Planning � - " � . ��"� Jamaica Avenue This report provides context and recommendations for ; � the station areas along the Red Rock Corridor between i 61 � downtown Saint Paul and Hastings.The intention of the — Red Rock Corridor station area planning process was to locate stations and,where appropriate,to demonstrate \ the potential for a transit-oriented development(TOD) pattern around each station.The success of transit is _ �- , dependent upon proper land use planning along the '� "�� corridor,specifically in the station areas. Likewise,tll2 � Hastings Depot Hastings#3 success of TOD is dependent upon the implementation of Q_-0 Hasti ngs#2 high-quality transit like BRT. Figure 1:Preferred Alternative The purpose of this report is to guide the cities within the Red Rock Corridor in reviewing and planning for improvements to station areas in preparation for potential future BRT in the corridor.The context and recommendations in this report will serve to inform the cities as they update their comprehensive plans. Principles of TOD Transit-oriented development(TOD) is a type of community development that provides a mix of housing,office, retail,and commercial uses within walking distance to public transportation. Living,working,and shopping in TODs has become more popular and common with the growing interest among young people,seniors,and others in driving less and living close to transit.TODs encourage greater transit ridership and provide nodes of activity and commerce around transit stations.This results in more efficient use of land,energy,and resources that increases transit ridership and fare revenue.TODs are typically located next to transit corridors with regular service, most often light rail transit or BRT service. Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 1 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a Metropolitan Council's Transit Oriented Development Policy •' The Metropolitan Council's Transit-Oriented Development Policy1 �,� identifies six general principles that can be used to define TOD-type , - ��f - �� ' ^� , development: - 3� --+� *.f ~k -.�, ,�: - • r - �j�,, -�. f . . , 1. DIVERSITY �� , ��' A mix of land uses located within close proximity,preferably accessible by _y'' - - - - _�-� :�,;1 � .� foot or a short transit trip. _ -�_ ' ., � _ � ~� �� -�,`� 2. DENSITY - - � A higher concentration of infrastructure and amenities,and a compact I � � � built environment that allows more workers and residents to live near ""'' -'� Figure 2:Clarendon Market Commons,Arlington, VA transit. 3. DESIGN High-quality, safe, pedestrian-oriented streets and public spaces. -� 4. DISTANCE TO TRANSIT _ � � � ' , Development is ideally within a 10-minute walk of transit. � �� ;��, � �' ��"'," _ �� _ � _ u �� : ' f��F. ...._ 5. DESTINATION ACCESSIBILITY ,; : �; ""�' � i� �}.` �� Proximity to retail,employment,and service destinations that allow Figure 3:Falcon Heights Town Square I people to meet daily needs without the use of a car. 6. PARKING Limited parking supply for residents,workers,and customers and coordinated,district-wide parking solutions for the station area. Other Key Considerations for Creating TOD2 CREATING CONNECTED AND COMFORTABLE STREETS AND A SENSE OF PLACE Developing within a half-mile of a transit stop/station creates a comfortable distance for people to walk to their destinations.Streets and intersections should offer safe connections and access for all modes of transportation. Pedestrian-scale development, landscaping, public art,and other streetscape elements should be integrated into the design of the TOD to create a sense of neighborhood, place,and cohesion. BUILDING INTENSITY AND CONCENTRATION OF USES Allowing higher density development with a variety of land uses near transit areas encourages economic and recreational activity, which can also increase transit ridership. However,density needs to be appropriate to the setting and should depend on the context of the community. Benefits of TOD3 There are many social,economic,and environmental benefits from TOD.A summary of these benefits include: 1 Source: Metropolitan Council. http://metrocouncil.or�/Communities/Services/Livable-Communities-Grants/Maps.-forms- misc/LCA-TOD-Handbook.aspx Z Source:American Planning Association,Zoning Practice. http://www.reconnectin�america.or�/assets/Uploads/bestpractice216.pdf 3 Source: Center for TOD.Why TOD and Why Now. http://tctod.or�/pdf/TOD101.pdf Kimley�»Horn August2016 2 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a SOCIQI � , p I ■ Leads to walkable communities,which support more healthy and active lifestyles '_.�` ■ Expands travel choices to jobs and reduces transportation costs for households *�' ��" ■ Improves neighborhood safety due to increased street activity,community i {---� ' � _I building,and the instilling of a sense of community place and pride ;, '� .+;�� i - `:��,� _ Economic � � z�� ■ Increases ridership and fare revenue � � y -� ■ Improves property values and lease revenues � ,,,v,.� � , ■ Generates foot traffic for local businesses ' ":, ■ Reducestransportationexpenditures �'�;� � ^��n ■ Lowers cost of transit ridership compared to bus service or parking structures are ��_ � needed to bring riders to stations Figure 4:Portland's Pearl District Environmental ■ Reduces driving,congestion,air pollution,and greenhouse gas emissions ■ Uses of land,energy,and resources more efficiently ■ Conserves open space , �F, � J Challenges of TOD4 � � � :�� -� � ;�_ While there are many benefits to TOD,challenges exist. Low-income �� •- � ,� _�His��' � ■-- renters are the most at risk with TOD as they are more likely transit _�n�'�"'—� ' � - , '�.�- dependent,but it is often challenging to provide affordable housing �, � , ' � , � ' �"' �,� '' � � " �ai �� within TOD areas.As a result of TOD, low-income renters can be pushed � w � "�� ' °��r ,�.� � �� • �� L��; �` fi� �'�+� �t��"�,nms.+�l��> to neighborhoods with lower quality housing because of the higher land �, ��_ '_- - costs near transit. However,there are tools and policies available that �'�j"- �� _: - � - �sas*.:� . . r:.._... w�.�,.. *��W.— '_ . . .� . . can be used in the early planning stages to ensure that affordable � /� '�-� ` , �,_..�� _ __� housing is protected or made available in TOD areas.These tools include: Figure 5:Rendering showing plans for PLACEin St. Louis Park~ ■ Direct Low Income Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC)for TOD ■ Land banking and community land trusts ■ Reduced parking requirements ■ Use of private sector value capture to reinvest in funding affordable housing ■ Public-private partnerships ■ Incentive-based zoning ■ Inclusionary zoning ■ Infill/redevelopment in transit zones In addition to the social impacts, other challenges of TOD can include: ■ Zoning changes may be required ■ Change is difficult for areas that have not previously had TOD or high-density development ■ Time for TOD to occur is different in every area TOD in the Twin Cities The Metropolitan Council offers TOD grants for projects that promote moderate-to high-density development projects located within walking distance of a major transit stop that typically include a mix of uses such as housing,jobs, restaurants,shops,and 4 Source: Center for TOD. http://ctod.or�/ctod-research.php Kimley�»Horn August2016 3 � RED ROCK �OIJTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a entertainment. More information on the Council's TOD grants can be found here: http://www.metrocouncil.or�/Communities/Services/Livable-Communities-Grants/Transit-Oriented-Development.aspx. A few examples of TOD in the Twin Cities include: ;,�_,.. ��;� ■ Bloomington Central Station � � �" � - ■ Hamline and Dale Stations along the METRO Green Line,Saint Paul ��.' '� ' ��(� �_, ■ Regency, Hopkins �' �`� �4, M �� . ■ PLACE,St. Louis Park -- ��4-�� . ■ Liberty on the Lake,Stillwater - ��:��--�� ■ Falcon Heights Town Square �' R � � � ��-�;_ Examples of TOD around the U.S. include: �; � �= f � � NI ■ Clarendon Market Commons,Arlington,VA 1 ��PaP�=� � - , oe�eioame�tor ■ Bayshore Town Center Milwaukee WI ��B'°°^`^�`°^`e""a � � , scano�10o s�ce � ■ Portland's Pearl District, Portland,OR �� ■ 16th Street Mall, Denver,CO Figure 6:eloomington Central5tation TOD Site PI an Cottage Grove Context Early settlement in Cottage Grove centered on three distinct �a�� - y„ � geographic areas,Atkinson Corners(80th Street), Langdon Village, ' �' � .-+�ti f� 4 �-- and "old Cottage Grove". Cottage Grove was referred to as the y'�,y� �-� �, '�� ; "New England of the West"due to early structures built in a Greek ;, y��,. ,.�+I i �3� 2 � � `...----- � i Revival style of architecture. Langdon Village was a railroad town, � •:.. �� ' _ _ served by the Saint Paul and Chicago Railroads. Both settlements =�; ;aniH,sz.s �'�;'^`'"-:—�' � , : -� 4 , were platted in 1871.The communities maintained very rural �t;. ��.,�• -f,-: +.,t;::=�,�-��; development patterns until the 1950s,when a period of steady _��. �� '�� ...1. �:fV �.•. growth of suburban housing began. From 1950 to 1970,the City - ;`.� ,_ � ' ��~��' � grew from 833 residents to over 13,400. By 2000,Cottage Grove ,o; `'� . . ` . `� " "� e� • was home to about 30,000 people and was one of Minnesota's � �r w yl f+r�zs.� fastest- rowin communities. �y g g , _'��' -�,� fip �.`_��.:�.'-... 2�'y�r F*',�.. 6� �iL Cottage Grove now boasts over 35,000 residents and 7,000 jobs.s ` �';.�:�::':��.�' � � �"a . � �- �, y , �,4 • r- = � The area has proven to be a successful location for companies such ,::'t�.i;',.-ti;:`�J' '1� �4s;�n�� as 3M, Renewal by Andersen,Werner Electric,and Up North Figure 7:The SOth Street5tation area Plastics. Residents and businesses take advantage of convenient access to urban opportunities in Saint Paul,while enjoying the recreational amenities,open spaces, high-quality schools,and close- knit community that Cottage Grove offers. 80th Street Station Station Area Characteristics LOCATION AND CONTEXT A BRT station is proposed on the east side of Highway 61,south of 80th Street along East Point Douglas Road.This location is in the west/northwest part of Cottage Grove.The proposed station is located in a commercial area, near the future Hy-Vee and former 5 http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=02393644 Kimley�»Horn August2016 4 � RED ROCK �OIJTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a Home Depot sites.This site was chosen based on the presence of a traffic light, proximity to retail,and opportunities for redevelopment. FIGURE-GROUND DIAGRAMS To get a sense of the spacing and size of blocks and buildings in r ��-_ � the proposed station area,two figure-ground diagrams were � o� � � '��'' � F' �i��i't'� produced. Figure-ground diagrams depict the relationship �' "-' � �'�_ I; 'T'�� ,; �,�. between built and unbuilt(open)space.The first figure-ground , l '�`_�.� —• t `f��: ,�: � diagram (Figure 8) illustrates the street grid and development `'� � �� . �J�_ - ,� t •�;; , � y � . �1_[�" �' I pattern.The block/street diagram in the 80th Street station area � � �" � `� � �� re f lec ts a c lassic su bur ban deve lopmen t pa t tern wi t h large x-��,R��( �'�" � �- ;�- � buildings and large separate blocks with segregated land uses. .�y Y' `' �4r�J � �' ��'1�°jj ;' ''� � � i�\\ �. � --i"i/��. , Street patterns tend to be limited to a major arterial road and ��`° �o.� �, . �' � ,%�,;�,, ;��r�1 � � L. ` 9 i....,..,� access cul-de-sacs. Blocks do not typically vary in size or `��.;Y, � ✓�<,$ °� � �c�,m` � S �� =- dimension. ;"�� ;� , ,., •o � 'ka' � ,- rr� '�� =� �- � The second building/parcel figure-ground diagram (Figure 9) ''� � J ~ � ,� '^ `�,�;: . , .�.;��C`;^ �- � � illustrates the size of the buildings within a parcel. Buildings �I�` �!Po``�• ��'.�''f�`"�,,°, ��` that are located on the ed e of the arcel and frontin the ' '- �'�'�'��"'�' ` ��f�'' `�� g p g Figure 8:Block/street figure-ground diagram for the 80`h Street Station street are easily accessible to pedestrians. If buildings are area located on parcels much larger than the building footprint and away from the street,the development is considered auto- � _ _ _ orientated, because it was arranged to handle high parking , �' f � � and traffic volumes. Like the street and block pattern,the � � �THSTS , ��r�Y building/parcel patterns at the 80th Street station consist of fO��+uto � large buildings within parcels that are arranged to handle . , oUG�RDs HRRDWpOp[TS high parking and traffic volumes.While there may be ycy�-9` f � •1 * �� *� " � .j,\� �. s� .. � SOTH5T5 80TH5T5 opportunities to walk or bike on sidewalks and trails , � _' parallel to existing streets, pedestrians and bicyclists likely +t�y�f yGyg % '� � � � + � � +., need to traverse parking lots to reach building entrances. �•`��' t 9"� � t � ��--� � ` �p � • ■s A ° ♦ �i EXISTING LAND USE S � yf° � '� ' ' �G�$�y0 - ydG �OGC<� +rI+9�A��M �� Land uses adjacent to the station area are primarily ; •* �.a9 r q°T �A ' s":s �`� commercial, located on larger lots separated from the �. '.° � 1's9�i • ►■ ' roadway by lawns or parking lots. Land use beyond the �`' � ` �{':�r �` '�. , station area to the east transitions to a single-family �L `'\ +�,,,LL 9ETR.5' � •1 , y t residential neighborhood accompanied by parks and school Figure 9:euilding/parcel figure-ground diagram for SOth Street5tation area property. OWNERSHIP There are currently a few landowners in the proposed station area: ■ Hy-Vee is developing the former Rainbow Foods site ■ Dominium is developing housing to the northwest of the station area ■ The former Home Depot site is in the process of changing ownership,and is planned for redevelopment as a multi-tenant space Other parcels in the station area are privately owned. Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 5 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a CURRENT ZONING The land in the proposed station area is currently zoned as Retail Business District(B2)and General Business District(B3) (see Figure 10). B2 is the City's retail business district used to regulate retail sales and service. B3 is the general business district used to provide for centralized areas for retail, highway,and auto-oriented uses. Residential land uses are not permitted in these districts. Comprehensive Plan Guidance , � The City of Cottage Grove Future Vision 2030 A�= ; r ' A°' � Comprehensive Plan identifies the planned land use for the R�. , 80th Street Station area as Commercial Service(see Figure o�� 5 ' P�o � � 11).This is defined as"Retail sales and services, including � RS , Po — R2 professional services, private institutional uses,as well as H, j recreational services that are predominantly privately �'RZ RS owned and operated for profit." � P� R, B� aa Recommended Opening Day Site I mprovements r 9 B RT I M P RO V E M E NTS Figure 10:Current zoning near the SOth Street Station ■ Two station platforms,signage,and pylons ■ Two smaller arterial shelters ■ Two smaller-scale ticket vending machines ■ One Go-To Card validator � � ■ Station amenities(trash receptacles,bike racks,and � � � park-style benches) � I � ■ Roadway improvements necessary to construct �.. � f --� � . �� platforms � � ��_ ■ Major utility reconfiguration associated with adjacent � � ��; or concurrent land development ., �x�� ■ Minor pedestrian improvements(ADA ramps at f �� .� �'. platforms to connect to existing sidewalk,etc.) � �� CITY IMPROVEMENTS :�:� �� Depending on what land development occurs outside of the i � ��:� BRT station,there is civil infrastructure work that will be Figure 11:The planned land use in the SOth Street Station area is primarily needed above and beyond the BRT Improvements listed Commercial service(shown in red) previously.These improvements are not assumed as a project cost,so they will need to be financed by either the City or the developer.While these improvements can be generalized into the following five items,the scope of each will vary greatly according to the specific development use and design: ■ Utilities: major utility reconfiguration associated with adjacent or concurrent land development would need to be financed and constructed by the City or developer; coordination with station construction may be possible ■ Land acquisition: Land outside of the station platform for any new development would need to be acquired by the City or developer if it is not already publicly owned. ■ Roadway configurations: Concurrent roadway improvements outside of the station area would need to be financed and constructed by the City or developer;coordination with station construction may be possible ■ Right of way reallocation: Restriping of new lanes or movements as requested to accommodate demand outside of transit ridership will need to be led by the City ■ Crossings:Adding sidewalk crossings and markings outside of the station platform were not included in the project improvements Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 6 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a Long-Term Station Area Recommendations This plan proposes a long-term land use plan at the 80th Street Transit Station in conjunction with BRT serving the station (see Figure 12).The proposed land use plan is consistent with guidance from the Red Rock Station Area Master Plan.A mixed of land uses, including some commercial and medium to high density residential have historically supported transit and are therefore generally recommended for this area. The City's comprehensive plan identifies only commercial uses in the station area in the future.To facilitate long-term development at the station area in conjunction with BRT,the City should update its comprehensive plan to identify this area with mixed-uses in order to support future BRT. i _,{ �4_�}JI�� p9 + °�Ins7��_ � + r � �� oq I � a `�g 9'�1- I 3 � 5 0 I g � � �, P�`' '�s I " � � � o° � p z �o I � pQ° I � o � � I o I x I ? � I a � �Or s ti � 'r sac '9yp � � I ��p I _ C`� f� i . —'_, . �� ,l� � � � . ,� � i � _ _—_----�� A � f � � o �1 ,.� � � .� , � � - -' � + � � I � Ie�f I a h i] TS O ¢ � SµpJ�S z µFA a x � yF I I--� � � i f � yyc4, d a � 99 I � = G � � � ` fT t = i � --- �NILLSIDE TRL 5 . . � —. Figure 12:Potential TOD Build-Out Scenario for SOth Street Station Jamaica Avenue Station Station Area Characteristics ��'� ` � ��_{�'F ;-��' �� ' �� ` ?�=��" � t,kJ�r�� '-c J}�:,.��,,5{-'-1� �.".�°��'•,�j"F � `.. / ,r LOCATION AND CONTEXT �._.::{; "� f r,� . , A BRT station is proposed on the east side of Highway 61 on East � +`�-#i°- �'��` ' � � , ;;},. .,, � . �' .,�.. ., Point Douglas Road between Inwood Avenue and 90th Street South. `"•;�''�. r-��.i�:�'.�_ _. � � '� � ~�, �-�,-,,:-�' ��' i;a':��- _}�,' +: ��, There are trails on both sides of Jamaica Avenue,with marked � � - ,_� _��--� ':' s; . �� ;�� -- r': ::��.., 1 :fi � pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Jamaica Avenue and East '�� . - � ��'',P- �'.. '"F:X�a...� ' 4 l �—`.�:�}-., Point Douglas Road. Pedestrian trails and crossing infrastructure •''�,�'�• i -; ` � r 1 , .-�,,1. .. would be necessary for a station on East Point Douglas Road. _ ��:-�-r-=, .::�:=1� �{ A station was proposed at this location due to the proximity to the �� - • �c � �-'�� ' potential school district redevelopment parcel, businesses,and Figure 13:TheJamaicaAvenue Station area housing. Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 � � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a FIGURE-GROUND DIAGRAMS . -, , iii ��- To get a sense of the spacing and size of blocks and -- �`"�~ t.�� buildings in the proposed station area,two figure-ground ^`��, �� i�"�,��- �.�� diagrams were developed,which highlight constructed P� `�� 5h�.�; � �e�,� ' ' �� y o � rj �,� -s �;�� f , versus open spaces.The block/street figure-ground �6sQ �� '9� � _ � ��.,�� diagram (Figure 14) illustrates the street grid and <1 ��"��'� ' � �.,' �l� �� s — = development pattern. For instance,small blocks with - �Q - straight streets are more typical in urban environments and `� , ��-�� ..�\. � . � _ � foster pedestrian activity,while larger blocks with winding, /�\ , ' � less frequent streets are more typical of suburban `� ,\`� ' `�'' � developments and are more auto-oriented. ;,:Q � • J �N r�� , � � , `� "�,�\ + - ' -�; —.�`�r The building/parcel figure-ground diagram (Figure 15) \ � J�,G,,�:°� �i '--' �:�' illustrates the size of the buildings within a parcel. Buildings - °��,s;°ti�� =-'" �� that are located on the edge of the parcel and fronting the - \ . � street are easil accessible to edestrians. If buildin s are - � � ��`�� - Y p g �--r-r-__ �,� located on parcels much larger than the building footprint Figure 14:elock/streetfigure-ground diagram forJamaicaAvenue Station area and away from the street,the development is considered auto-orientated,because it was arranged to handle high parking and traffic volumes. '.�.•�'4;'y •"� y��;� �,� � 'i�� - �- v �� .�: ]�e. �•� � y,�ciFq� � � e ,_�• '� � � rs `�owe : � � �' r q � � * � The station area includes a limited street network and �;��1�k� '.;� � •'�;' �� <� � • s A � � , � .-� �a g� y sr �. blocks that are larger than a traditional city block.This is a � y oyf�� _�. �.��• �� b . z� � 4`' '� r..�, familiar pattern that is typically found near highway �°o'�tiy, °�� .'�� .r q�•,. � �' � �� ¢� - NTQ ys <.qj, z� ..'�_'.�a x - � ��*r��.*. interchanges.The auto-oriented pattern of separated land �` °�� a,. � '°T"�TS , uses and individual parking lots is organized for individual � �9s�`°,. y,ch�'qY6� � �� ■ ' �4�� access and to provide the required parking based on the �� . � -_ , building size.While there may be opportunities to walk or • � � ' •�"+;� ` � � i bike on sidewalks and trails parallel to existing streets, ` � y/CH�qY �� '� pedestrians and bicyclists likely need to traverse parking 6' • �♦ � '"r'"_''" lots to reach building entrances. _ , ` � � � EXISTING LAND USE �� 92��! �, Land uses adjacent to the station area are retail and Figure 15:Building/parcel figure-ground diagram forJamaicaAvenue5tation commercial uses typically associated with a highway area interchange-fast food and other restaurants, hotel,car wash,etc.The northern part of station area transitions to a single-family residential neighborhood,and larger-lot commercial and retail uses are found to the south. OWNERSHIP The South Washington County School District owns a large parcel on East Point Douglas Road. Informal conversations with the District confirm a willingness to accommodate the BRT station and allow for the District to continue operating programs at this location. CURRENT ZONING The area near Jamaica Avenue on the east side of Highway 61 is currently zoned as Retail Business District(B2)and General Business District(B3) (see Figure 16). B2 is the City's retail business district used to regulate retail sales and service. B3 is the general business district used to provide for centralized areas for retail, highway,and auto-oriented uses. Residential uses are not allowed in these districts. Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 g � RED ROCK �OIJTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a The City also has a planned unit development(PUD)district and a planned development overlay.The purpose of the - PUD district is to encourage the following:flexibility in land , development and redevelopment; provision of lifecycle R5 ^�� P housing to all income and age groups; energy conservation; RS AG preservation of desirable site characteristics and open ' °"° 1 k'� p space and protection of sensitive environmental features; � %� R2.5 Ry �' - .t more efficient and effective use of land,open space,and PUD public utilities; high quality of design compatible with surrounding land uses; and sensitive development in � PiG2 AG A�, transitional areas.The purpose of the planned � � ' - i development overlay district is to promote creative and •�_ efficient use of land by providing more flexibility in the Figure 16:Currentzoning for theJamaicaAvenue Station area design of land development than is presently possible through the strict interpretation of conventional zoning and land division ordinances. Both the PUD district and planned development overlay require consistency with the underlying land use guidance and underlying zoning districts. Comprehensive Plan Guidance " ' �� w �� " The City of Cottage Grove Future Vision 2030 � Comprehensive Plan identifies the planned land use for the ti � � �� east side of Highway 61 in Jamaica Avenue Station area as � � _ . � ��;�-� �; -� commercial use(see Figure 17).This is described as � i "Commercial development including retail,service,and �,.+_�. � office uses.With few exceptions,areas designated for �� commercial development are within the MUSA." � � In general,the generalized land use plan in the 2030 �' � Comprehensive Plan focuses on a significant new � �►�, ;� development called the East Ravine.This is a large area in - -�� the southern part of Cottage Grove(north and east of Figure 17:The planned land use on the east side of Highway 61 in the proposed station area includes Commercial5ervice(shown in red)and Highway 61)that is guided for industrial use.The East Ravine Low Density Residential(shown in tan) area is found just to the east of the proposed station area. Recommended Opening Day Site Improvements This plan proposes the addition of the following improvements by opening day operations of BRT: Improvements for an opening day scenario would include station shelters, parking spaces for 80 cars, pedestrian improvements,and the realignment of East Point Douglas Road.The realignment would require land acquisition from the South Washington County School District in order to accommodate the needed right-of-way. These improvements are for BRT only; but there may be potential in the long-term for express bus(including parking)to be served from this station location as well. BRT IMPROVEMENTS ■ Two station platforms,signage,and pylons ■ Two shelters ■ Two smaller-scale ticket vending machines ■ One Go-To Card validator ■ Station amenities(trash receptacles,bike racks,and park-style benches) ■ Major roadway and parking lot reconfiguration, including Jamaica Avenue realignment Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 9 � RED ROCK �OIJTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a ■ New parking provided for park-and-ride users ■ Major pedestrian improvements at new station location CITY IMPROVEMENTS Depending on what land development occurs outside of the BRT station,there is civil infrastructure work that will be needed above and beyond the BRT Improvements listed previously.These improvements are not assumed as a project cost,so they will need to be financed by either the City or the developer.While these improvements can be generalized into the following five items,the scope of each will vary greatly according to the specific development use and design: ■ Utilities: major utility reconfiguration associated with adjacent or concurrent land development would need to be financed and constructed by the City or developer; coordination with station construction may be possible ■ Land acquisition: Land outside of the station platform for any new development would need to be acquired by the City or developer if it is not already publicly owned. ■ Roadway configurations: Concurrent roadway improvements outside of the station area would need to be financed and constructed by the City or developer;coordination with station construction may be possible ■ Right of way reallocation: Restriping of new lanes or movements as requested to accommodate demand outside of transit ridership will need to be led by the City ■ Crossings:Adding sidewalk crossings and markings outside of the station platform were not included in the project improvements Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 10 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a Long-Term Station Area Recommendations � � -�� : � -�j � w , : � i� � ¢ �'��J - •. .t,. `t � i Z �� ' �I : : .-ra��- _. .. . '-�_ ' ' - . • . �. . .'.�• ' 90TH 5T 5 ' I �s N � � m r. Q ♦ 0 �_ t.I. . �!. �:1 "�� O p•41�dE t� ,� � f�' �� M � - �L'�' 3 � � � ? !i �i'rl E � � ! r }"r�� 6�+�1 f w �]" � .. - - -� � � �•� �F� �y; ��e r rJ• i FE Frqa� _ �� ' t� .k- �h -i!�11P' r .' , � . `_ _,� r � . . i .�.c� = '�. � '!'t �F PF � S � � w l ��:-� '- �. • _ . - � �;; � - - � � � up• �I� �. •l��A�i�fa _ r .� . �+ �-T� � i�M��♦ . ?�-��Y�-�Y�� `�� F-�. .• �!��r� ' ' .� r�. `'.' ` -� - f �"- �4f��i � 6' _�/i � � .� �� \ ��A rL- _ • v . �� ' , � . � � E POINT DOUGLAS RD 5 J ��,• � ,�� r� � �' � t 1y - " - `r_. .. .�A' ' ,�`ij �w ./ Z �s1..+��g,w �� ,.,` ' - . �? ""d� J "�'� 1- - 'i7 _inJ'Rr�� .. � .� � wr �mi , � 1 r , 9�9jCq,�`�.S j� ,��9� ��`� _ y t ,, �,. , .,..� �� ,5, ��Hr2,y �tieHh, �� ' :� '�/f �", PP`� �r'y� �� Y6� \ �T C r � , P 9�' !�'. /' �.'/�r,,, F , •. �•'�\ � PCr i• � 6, � -.� ~�s..�_ �� _� _ i:�.rs/ !� • _ '�'ea.'�;. >_ • Figure 18:Recommended opening day site improvements in the Jamaica Avenue Station area This plan proposes a long-term land use plan at the Jamaica Avenue Transit Station in conjunction with BRT serving the station.The proposed land use plan is consistent with guidance from the Red Rock Station Area Master Plan.The larger station area (see Figure 12) has three large tax-exempt parcels that are recommended for conversation to a mixed or higher density-use to support the transitway. Figure 19 presents an example of this potential future build-out on one of the currently tax-exempt parcels.The proposed redevelopment scenario includes space for school district operations,while also allowing space to develop additional multi-family housing.The future opportunities for redevelopment near the Jamaica Avenue Transit Station may extend beyond the area immediately adjacent to the station to the surrounding area.The City's comprehensive plan identifies only commercial uses in the station area in the future.To facilitate long-term development at the station area in conjunction with BRT,the City should update its comprehensive plan to identify this area as serving future BRT,and include mixed use and residential as future land uses in this station area. Another long-term alternative would be to relocate the Metro Transit Cottage Grove Park&Ride to this location with a structured deck that would have space for approximately 600 cars.The addition of the structured deck would also allow the surface BRT lot to be converted into a mixed-use or residential building. IVrn��j��Horn : August2016 11 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR a � a - u --� � �' � � � Z 90TH ST 5 - ._.__s� - , i-� . ' . _ _-1�� i''�;-� I-f��- i -I- i-� �- I�� Ia i_, . � �"-"`�� f:, - ' - I ��-,-I-- {�,.�... -1. . _ ��-�-� i,� i t , Q �.. � ` . - � _ ;},� I-.�� t O '��.' -:�r'_� II� + -�.� -- 1 t _._}_� '��fi � ��-.J.�. , � � S` - �t � � _ i , �� ! ;�p 1.�+�.; L'�- I� �p ��-_� t �4,� ,�� i f , � ' = -�_. _ _ _ _- � �: a. , - -. ��- - � ; ti• . , r� .� .. � _-- — - - - — -- ,._ � ;_; � - .-- -� ,' i � i' , . , �� .• -� r � -'� R- {� ' I !' "-� •• } ,F �s� j�� . ��- - - � •'�� - /� '' '� - -- � I _ � ,- • '. . ��'. � .. �r r � --+ !i —�� - . ,r.��r.sPa.�� r I, . I I �1 �� r=��NY D� �1�� - -��+�'� I �� I i �; =—I � I ` ,}"�---� ::L �., "K: ..._. �� _ I-�-�- -fi �-f -�� / � . , �..t-�—��.�' '� �� - . ;�,.�'� _ Apartment ., � _ �,' ; . o ' E POINT DOUGLAS RD 5 � 'l '7� . rk� ��f✓ 6 J9 j. � -�,�� f;a� ;`� � _. M �' ,�s `. � ��_ � '�'cq '- I' :��'''_ y� • -- � �. y� 9�Fsr '-. ; �- , �� ++„;� _ i Office15choQl District � �ry � ��; i�� Gy By F� � � 9y�, �?.ys, * r � / �- �1-_ � � I. !.� 1� �'� Figure 19:Potential TOD build-out scenario in the Jamaica Avenue Station area. Green space shown in the schematic could accommodate stormwater needs using Low Impact Design(LID)and green infrastructure techniques. Recommended Comprehensive Plan Wording Modifications This report recommends incorporating the changes transcribed below in the City of Cottage Grove Future Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan (deletions are indicated by�*��'�^��and additions by underline). Proposed language should be included in the updated 2040 Comprehensive Plan.These text revisions reflect the changes to the Red Rock Corridor project since these documents were published. Document sections are indicated for reference; however,this does not mean the whole section is proposed for revision. Revisions are specific to the language included below. Land Use Designations Transit-Oriented Development:Areas desi�nated transit-oriented development include a mix of uses or�anized around a transit station. Residential densities of 25-50 units per acre are appropriate in these land use areas. (Reference page 2-10,2030 Comprehensive Plan) Roadway System Policy 6.8 The City will continue to support and participate in the Red Rock Corridor Commission and its efforts to implement Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)�^Y~Y~��+^~~^�'�^~.,�^^in the Red Rock Corridor.This��" �^^'��^'^^^^^'��^*�^^includes station area planning for proposed "^�:station locations�^ �^++..,.,,�..,,.,,, Policy 6.9 The City will continue to support development of a high speed rail corridor between St. Paul and Chicago on an alignment through Cottage Grove . (Reference page 6-3,2030 Comprehensive Plan) Kirnleyj»Horn : August2016 12 � RED ROCK �SOUTHEAST C�RRIDOR a � a Transit Red Rock Corridor Cottage Grove has participated in the Red Rock Corridor Commission since its inception in the late 1990's.This Commission is made up of communities along the corridor from Hastings to St. Paul and includes the Re�ional Railroad Authorities in Washington, Dakota, Hennepin,and Ramsey Counties.The Red Rock Corridor is included as an "Express Bus"transitwav in the 2040 Transportation Policv Plan that includes three park-and-ride facilities at Lower Afton. Newport.and Cotta�e Grove.The Red Rock Corridor is also identified in the Counties Transit Improvement Board's Phase I Pro�ram of Proiects.which means it is eli�ible for �rant fundin�from existin�sales tax resources^T�^�'^ ��^'^��^+�„ ��„+..,,..,,�;+....�,,,,..,.;�� n�n T.-....��+..,...,�.,�+,,.... . , . , � �„<< ..,�„ ..,�,,,� ......�, ....,� ..;,�„�„+� , . o„�..+n„��..i..� o,,..,� Cotta�e Grove worked with the Commission to plan for a BRT implementation plan that recommended two station locations east of Hi�hwav 61:one on East Point Dou�las Road iust south of 80th Street and one further south on East Point Dou�las Road iust north of Jamaica Avenue. (Reference pages 6-27 and 6-28,2030 Comprehensive Plan) IVrn��j��Horn : August2016 13