Memo- Southwest Transitway (LRT) Alternatives Analysis Update
Public Works Department
Memorandum
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Rick Getschow, City Manager ~
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Copy:
Date:
October 20, 2006
Subject:
Southwest Transitway (LRT) Alternatives Analysis Update
The purpose of this Worksession item is to update City Council on the subject study.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has made its recommendation to the Policy
Advisory Committee (PAC) of which route alternatives to move forward with. Public
open houses are now scheduled including one at Eisenhower Community Center on
October 26. There are also open houses scheduled in the cities of Eden Prairie and
Minneapolis. The purposes of the open houses are to present the results of the
alternatives analysis, including which alternatives are being considered to carry
forward to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process and seek public input.
The PAC is scheduled to act upon the recommendation of the TAC on December 13.
The PAC will also consider the feedback from the open houses in making its final
recommendation. Their recommendation will then go to the Hennepin County Board
for a final decision on how to proceed with the EIS. Hennepin County will manage the
EIS preparation process, but once completed the Metropolitan Council actually submits
the EIS to the Federal Transit Administration and manages the process from then on.
Katie Walker, Hennepin County Program Manager will attend the Worksession and
provide additional information and answer questions.
Attachments:
- Map showing route alternatives
- Southwest Transitway Study Memorandum - see Executive Summary for T AC
Recommendations
- Land Use Planning/Project Development Process Timeline
)
~"'ti;~~ ~.l- -'. ~ Figure 3: , 1:"
._~ _ ... . _ 1111 _ f\J
· ' "(.;--- )\ '" .'......- .-.. .--. . - \' V ... .:.~., "~' --
~ '," ,,7 GOLDEN ~-...-<).._- -.-;-/.,- 1~... I Royalston
, .. VALLEY \ ... . . "1,\ l
/:(~' \, '.,' . - 1\. .'" "r.:l_1 ':,
"" .",' ,,,,,,';;'7- ,,' . . \ , ."" ~........ J.~'.~ '
\2?" " \.jl ~~- White Bo~~vard /;'.
-~-,",,-~'-"'---''''--'--' ~---,~'--'--'"''f.._-_...;;) _.- ')-. ~~ - ;v'~_,_...... - "~'z.::.-,'
- I ,( ,. E) /7 · - - -- - ---- -
e)~. _ L..~-~ff.7-7'3:":-' --'- j ":~enn Avenue I .
--<:~:--=4~~~;:. '~~~---':~8.A ':':;/ ,f ;f--~---.. .:....~ l~-r..~~_~ -~7-~"&9>~' -'re"'~-~~:-'.~~- -
) ~.. . ST.LOUIS :/1.. --.-~-...~ ,,----:. r
': f PARK ,I --:~ ~ /
'-.,; A N:::" ",~(,-,-'i:i~ti~~"et-U'~':;' tJ "LRT-A
'-"", Ii J . ..._--... \\ B :~ ":
."-., 8 ~ ,,' ..-'- i.- . ~( '"' . _. ~
"'. '; iT ... ..._~r I ~ ~ -... r.l .'
INNETONK~ ~- -.;,:..'....., . ",,-,._'_ .~\~_......'~.~ .. ....,.. ~ L'4':rrst_LpJs~ !J: ...--" .-:~:-;~ -
~G?'''' ._..;1>....- :. 1 ". .. " '1\
\-> -- -'-';_'-~"- :il. i WOQddale~) 'u ~ ~
~~l\ - _ _ - '~---. 't' "" ~ - -- .-.~ '" ---~....... .. ~
.::'" -'. ", . {..1HO:~I:~7~ . r~1 Lou-,'s,'an-a.8 rseitiinel
. ,i"': f~ ...-t: ~............-..-.~ "'"-=-.....- ~.. ',.-'~.. -
':. {O "~,~.',:-:-' - , ~ MINNEAPOLIS
8\ r-~"'~:' 1':'- o-~-~
, " ",_:-400_ r 't
I~ I ' ·
/~1y,;:-);....[t I Hppkins . '- ~ ;
"-~haqy Oa0-,~ " i
i # . , I(
l
-. ~ t (p
11;.,0 _,'_
,
GQ
,
..
\/
{\
g!
8,
r\
!~\
'it'
o
il-:-:'\
~
",;ti
(~1\i;:::-
-
~.-
.
..'
I",:'.~/
- -- ---
28th Street
I ~
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT
"C" AL TERNA TIVES
.... I - LRT Alignment
-' ~
t": ~..' ~>,,' - Alternative Alignment Option
_.J " ;
'--::.7 -- LRT Tunnel
. LRT Station
0 LRT Park & Ride Station
't
~ ....
./ :' ~ ",.."'.
- ", ~,"t.- ,/'
'--~.~.'~ 'l\!'-_' Figure 4: LR A ...:,~i 4th Str~e,t .'_ :~~~--:
... --c.' _ v./., ',.' _ . ".'
· . " .- '~ GOLD,. -"'--"1'---' .-.:;;- ).;. .' . j'~' :.....:S:.l; ~_'\'::';~"
' , - VALLEY, 'I' <' I.r,. j'io" h St et ,.r~ .~ _
:f . '. ~ , ~; _ /' ".' \'.. 8t re.. ',..,r '- . ~,
"'~, ,". \ ,~ , · · ~ '~ 'J '8 '
- .. - -"" . ;~ - . ", / '-. "" . .
' ~/ , - '...' '". -" t ". .-..... .
\1.) \.J ,,\1 """12th 'Street "::::..J// . \:'{
.- .',' ,',' ,... " ~"'" " ,) '., " .. ~.,' ,..", L "
· "(,;1 _ -.' . '. . /', ... ..J' . , ...,
· A:1.-- .-:;....v -.-! '~'..:.,._ ''"';'" ..'. '." ,.~ ''::<",~~
· . - ~ '- .. , .., - - "-.. , · " . . . .
... .. -.... ,r f.,_ -I ...,...r...---J.-.. .,"f.-~~.i.~. \/'1 LRT C _____ :' I,__~ 1: ~-I-Jt .,___ ~
-. " '....:.....-.. .- .". \ .. . .' - ~/t' " - ..'\
-,'i?'~, '::'" .;' """ i ST. LOUIS I,., '-": ~"l"p;j<--' / ..'j:._ ~- _, "\' \
v, , PARK ' _,----. ".. ,f . _ . . . ..
" ~ ':..- ! /. r....... (i'j " Franklin : \,
W '::::1 I .' "" f J} r _ I
b '. ....-.... . . I ,
'. ..>'- "" · '" , ... · .
-~.- :.. CJ . I ~ I
'. ........... { . .. j - - .
I .,.- I < I /. ""_
I ..' _ _.
~-t:.>.../.,~ ; I West Lake:' /.'!_ ;.
I ---.. I _ '~ F- i
~~~S1';/~ "YVooSlda'I~;J .. - 0 .'. I (j''''. ..... '~"'. Uptown
" f ". _ .
---: :.-.. ,,~ 7 : Belthne.
' t' 'HOPK'.' T LOUISI?na _ ~ _
I "..'1 l,' .."...,~_. '.. , :
\ "J "'7. --'-i 4
\0\ - _. .
\ HopkinS :
' . .- -' - ",.- - _. ;
,.......... 0 .. ,
"'~hO:~dY Oa k l'L... ~
- - I
"- .
' ,
_u~ . " I
RoVl(!a L. . r.
I .~___
~
Lyndale
f'
i
(j
J
,I
Il,
1
MINNEAPOLIS
Iternatives
o(
I
~
j
I
.......A.
.-
I)-~
-"".... .
", ". '-.
MINNETONKA
r;
( p. ',(
I ~\3 ",,'/""~
1 - J ...-:....-.....-
- .-.---.. \
~, \
{ J
, "~.'
I. ,! .of
. ,r.. rr
l.,."7.-"", ~ II
,-,''', - -...-....-.. ~..._... ...
~ ./ ... r--"'-"''''-'''''-'''''
.. '. "\ .-' :
..) :,Ti \jIJ
... , ...;:.t-
WAYZATA I '.-;~r--::-- -----::...:--
,t".' ,,/ /,--
, -"_...~ "
-< I
~ .---
f, .......,
.
J~
81
j
. -,- ..~~,....-.._'......,
\
MINNETONKA
~ ~"'c,/..,
.~ - j"',
)i,.;,~i '. _~.",.
~, --...
TH 62 ~
__ __ _ ... -.J."'-
'~...-..-.... ,.._;.--~;:;.
"7" .2/",'
1..;..,-'
> //
.4' ~'"
'. ". ",
~J
.
\.
c
LRT 4 terminates in Hopkins @ Shady Oak
LRT 1. 2 & 3 terminate in Eden Prairie @TH5
t
....
TH 5
--,-I:T
l.
,
JUNE
2005
J~ ' I ()
1
::r If
r."
~e~~ 1
E ife:l
P~IRIE
,...-- - ...--
,: } Southwest
-,.',." "
..' ~-,
~
~.il~
c:1\V"'
ST,l.OlJlS
PARK
.-
., W~s!_Lgk,g~
\~ 0. . ,;-. :
tf;
I
ii
v
0.~'
\
I
_.J.
[ WQ:Q.cid91~~J
,.
I
I
GOLDEN
VALLEY
,._.v\(
.:: '-- "
- '....
..
,---::
'iE~rl.)'-
.
~7-
.~
J ,-' ----r
t' I LQuisia,naO
\f.~....<:- ". :-.. - I
."~'Ji'- :
o
-
8.
~
o
New Exclusive Busway
New Bus Only Lane
Existing Bus Shoulder l
--- Alternative Alignment C
. BRT Station
0 BRT Park & Ride Station
-
(
~
,
t
I
f
I
f
, '
I
_--".....~~,:;;: ';: ,;f-:-
~
\
-...-.,.,-.,..--
.~
~
IJ
~' \.:, I ._,,:.----
.. t'! ../' \(, J - '~'7'-"
.~-- .-r (' .;..
([I, ~ '-':\,$~P" " ~a .:
(~), ... U~
.1'/ . _ ...~,)
:'5~' --...-~-.- --;t- --.-.-.- .-.-.- .-.-.- -' ..-.- ---T~~b.:: ,,:8_~=., C~.:="_-
. . \;"8 ,- .A~'.. " ..
: f oJ ..... ":. -'~ I_~ _. r~h./ _
. ,-,..... f --. ", '\";; _
WAYZATA 1,'- '~ .~
r. '.!- i" A ....-:~:;t
,_....-. \:.::)
~ "
\ I,
.. '1__
t:::) , .....
c/; ii...... ,/,
-'-, --- - - ~,~_/~~--
...- - \..
''','
- CD Route A Limited Stop
~,= Route 8 Limited Stop
SW Express via 1-394
SW Express Via 1-35W
Bus Stop Location
Park & Ride Location
* New routes shown are in
addition to background local bus
network, modified to serve new
route access points,
MARCH
2006
o ~..:t
'0\ _ /-:.. _ ....
~. I I
}-.,\.. ;.~~ HOR~,insll
" .:, 0.9'1"_"- r.-. .L_' ~
.r''-!,~-r . U I
_.&..... " ...-..
Shady Oak I""'--! ,{.-:-.~-
. --y,~--' ./,--(' ~ /"
/1 ,_,r.: i. .(/....
., I '~., ,,/1~
, I ,/ _
Q \ I ..../C "., r'
.~ ~~ ,I , r '~
. , .~ I ,./...... \----..~..."'J',!
---- :\ ". ......... / '\ . : \ ' , ~
. ,/ fJ "\// <t \. 'Br~~;~ lr~~
..... MINN'rON" //\ -' · , 1\ \if
I./.~ ' - \ . I 1 - ~~ l '~~r)
, ',/' r.;:.\\ [,:'1 . . . " . "-.1 'I
..' \j.'\.:"'.' C!. -, .r~ . . ,'" ".
. "-..--'-....--.--~--J-_-""-. :":..lI.-; 1"!....._--.....~~.....-.~ l"..._-_~:r.-"- ....~...~, ji/, ..~
- (":7<" {- - ~ tr,~nl11 '., 'izrJ - . ' .--~..B~l~::~ -....-.,. ~
@)';'-. . \ 'R"""", \ j c' ~ r(" ~ RICHFlE(O~ loll
~ \ \, ~r ....;, .1,. k',"' 6"
....... I 1 ~-..: -~I - - -. . i}<- ,_ I- ,- . ""- :.
I ./' i . - - - - - . . , ( l ! Q . "'t- ~ j P; 1':
: ,/,.... ' I [ . I " I" ,10 !' \: - I: . ~ ' II
~.... I L.212/~had~ Oak, I op.lld'oLl." J ~,,-_-:. /' ' j'~~' ~ " i.
" . r I. _. -=4 8 . -' p . ! .) :' ",I ,',
f \8" ! I I Ii . f ~r~ 1."t II
, ", .J , - .... f .
_ __ _ I, .. / I J 'I Q.K ,'. ~:} '.'i ~3;, ' I'll
~lMitchelll r-l~. __ _ L _-; I " '-- ' ;~'~ - if"' ',:,[ '>11',;" o{ :: J:)
_. ~.~~~u ~ Lil .. f,... .... ) I.J, ... '.::-:. . I
,.. r '~t-l - ~_- T"' . /- I . I I ,,", n- ,~
/, . ~ _. _ - - _ --- ~ I './. '. jl , . (. ' '~,. - - I "I
i. [] , ~.,,;" i.~ ~ ' . " '- '. I, . ': ,. .:..r;:- ,- II ; I -' . 11-/" .-+;~- I : I'
.. ~::;..._..;''p''~-~ ,::..,. ~ ~'..~~ FlYing CIOU~~~~" . ....~;"'-::..:.".... ~_................. .}'':'I- .~!-....."...~*- -:S1-........~~!1k~r' ....".~\'~l .
~ ' . ~~ ~;-'l,::,.r- -- '"-=-r~'.!.';;,~<-"'~' -'- !j-4",,,,,, :.'<~~ '9' -~.....~.#.",,- "" ~v 0'''', >1 ~:'
;IIf '." '.... '\ i.. L~I""1~""J/ r' 4!,. ,:,,~)~~:---_A..~'. .~-: .... ,. ~m~
_ ." ,." ;., ~',.=-. S'"Il!'I""'''.J,V. .
So.uthwest Station ,I-J . 8 ~ ~;" ;';A/.,..;,: ;..,;:-, -." & ~ 'I, -i' , . 'f~:-~
:".:> ' .'.. "'~-~'-r'--IU'''''- ...~ ~. . . J ","', ~ --=- - 6 'I € ~.,- .... . "..........,.. .~ I r
- ': i1""""\. R IflIlE ,,'" -,C1S' C"'''l., )(8' ~ :1 L ~ '''~ t. j,
. I ... ~r' 'Y~.. f
.;.:-
I
.
o
o
Southwest Tran itway Alternative Analysis Study
Memorandum
TO: Southwest Transitway Policy Advisory Committee
FROM: Southwest Transitway Technical Advisory Committee
Cc: Katie Walker, Hennepin County
DATE: September 25,2006
SUBJECT: Draft Findings and Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Technical Advisory Committee has compared the benefits, costs, and impacts of a
range of alternatives, and from that range recommended alternatives to carry forward for
detailed analysis in an environmental impact statement, the next phase of project
development. This memorandum summarizes the draft findings and recommendations
of the T AC in evaluating the alternatives.
The Technical Advispry Committee recommends that the following alternatives be
retained for consideration during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process:
. LRT 1 A, LRT 3A, and LRT 3C
· Enhanced Bus (as the FTA required baseline alternative)
BACKGROUND
The evaluation criteria developed by the Technical and Policy Advisory Committees
encompass both local and the Federal Transit Administration's (FT A) New Starts
evaluation criteria to measure the performance of each alternative in meeting the goals
and objectives established by the Committees for the project. The goals for the project
are categorized as Tier 1 and Tier 2. An alternative would not progress if it cannot meet
the Tier 1 goals: improve mobility, and provide a cost-effective, efficient travel option.
Alternatives which meet the Tier 1 Goals are then subject to Tier 2 goals: protect the
environment, preserve and protect the study area's quality of life, and support economic
development. Preliminary analysis of cost effectiveness was developed for the modeled
alternatives and estimated for the non-modeled alternatives. Based on the discussion at
the September 13,2006 joint TAC/PAC meeting, preliminary cost effectiveness index
information was added as an evaluation measure under Goal 2.
All alternatives were evaluated in terms of equivalent service frequency, length of
service day, and area of coverage. Both BRT and LRT alternatives have comprehensive
feeder bus components as part of their service plan.
Two matrices are provided with this memorandum. The first identifies the raw data or
qualitative assessment applicable to each alternative under each evaluation measure.
The second presents a "consumer reports" style summary of the evaluation under each
measure.
ENHANCED BUS ALTERNATIVE
The Enhanced Bus alternative represents the future baseline alternative, a newer term
for the traditional "Transportation System Management" alternative. It represents a
significant increase in transit service and facilities without a major guideway investment.
It is the baseline against which "build" alternatives, in this case Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
and Light Rail Transit (LRT) alternatives, are measured. A baseline alternative such as
the Enhanced Bus alternative is required by FTA to be carried through full project
development.
TAC Recommendation: Carry Enhanced Bus forward.
BRT ALTERNATIVES
Tier 1 Goals: Improve Mobility and Provide a Cost-Effective/Efficient Travel
Option
Ridership and New Riders: BRT 1 and BRT 2 have the lowest ridership at 14,400 and
16,500, respectively, of all the build alternatives. Both BRT alternatives attract fewer
new transit riders than other build alternatives.
Capital and Operatina Costs: BRT 1 and BRT 2 have the lowest capital and operating
costs.
Travel Time Advantaae: Neither BRT alternative running limited stop in the guideway
per the service plan provides a travel time advantage compared to the single occupant
automobile for selected typical origins and destinations. However, BRT alternatives offer
the flexibility to add express service within the guideway, as stations include space for
an express bus to bypass a bus serving that station stop.
Transit Capacity: The BRT alternatives cannot provide the peak capacity of an LRT
alternative at the policy headway of 7.5 minutes frequency (640 passengers/peak hour
vs. 2975 passengers/peak hour). To accommodate demand, estimated at 2, 400
passengers per peak hour, increased frequency to less than 3 minutes and/or tandem
running would be required, increasing the number of buses at intersections and on
downtown Minneapolis streets.
Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI): Based on preliminary calculations, neither BRT
alternative is within a reasonable range of meeting the FT A's current CEI threshold for
New Start Preliminary Engineering.
TAC Recommendation:
BRT 1 and BRT 2 do not meet the Tier 1 Goals of improving mobility and providing
a cost-effective and efficient travel option. They are therefore not recommended
for further evaluation.
2
LRT ALTERNATIVES: A AND C OPTIONS
LRT A Alt rnativ (LRT 1 A. 2A. 3A. and 4A)
Tier 1 Goals: Improve Mobility and Provide a Cost-Effective/Efficient Travel
Option
Ridership and New Riders: LRT 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A have high ridership, but slightly
lower than the LRT C alternatives. LRT 4A has the lowest ridership due to the
shortened route. LRT 1A's ridership is lower than LRT 2A's ridership, which is lower
than LRT 3A's ridership. LRT 3A attracts the most new riders to the system, followed by
LRT 2A, followed by LRT 1 A, followed by LRT 4A.
Capital and Operatino Costs: LRT 1 A, 2A, 3A and 4A have lower capital and operating
costs than the comparable C alternatives, Overall LRT 4A has the lowest capital and
operating costs due to its shorter route, but has a relatively high per mile capital cost.
LRT 1A is the least costly in terms of capital and operating costs of the A alternatives.
LRT 3A is the most costly.
Transit Capacity: All LRT A alternatives are assumed to have a peak hour rider capacity
of 2,976 passengers, sufficient to accommodate projected demand.
Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI): LRT 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A have estimated CEls that fall
within 200.10 of the FT A's threshold for PE.
System Inteoration: LRT 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A are assumed to operate on 5th Street
through downtown Minneapolis and be through-routed (Uinterlinedll) with Hiawatha trains.
The ability to interline the Southwest and Hiawatha LRT lines increases the efficiency of
the light rail system. Interlining eliminates the need for riders traveling to the Airport or
Mall of America to transfer in downtown Minneapolis, avoids potential traffic impacts at
downtown cross-streets, does not require relocating buses in downtown, and does not
reduce roadway capacity in downtown for private vehicles. Interlining does not introduce
new construction impacts on downtown businesses, and avoids the need for utility
relocation in downtown Minneapolis.
LRT 4A requires a transfer at the south end to serve the cities of Minnetonka and Eden
Prairie.
Traffic impacts: Although LRT A options avoid potential impacts to the downtown street
system, they will likely impact other major cross streets including Cedar Lake Parkway,
Beltline Boulevard, Woodale Avenue, Blake Road, 11 th Avenue, Shady Oak Road,
Valley View Drive, and Eden Prairie Center Drive.
The shortened route, LRT 4A, introduces special impacts within the City of Hopkins.
The street network in this fully-developed community would need additional detailed
analysis and mitigation for Hopkins to successfully function as the route terminus.
Locating an overnight maintenance facility in the immediate area would introduce an
additional challenge.
A shortened route was also considered to not be adequate to address the travel demand
projected for the study area.
Tier 2 Goals: Protect the Environment, Preserve Quality of Life, and Support
Economic Development
3
Emplovment/Population: LRT A alternatives are not as high as LRT C alternatives in
employment centers or population concentrations outside downtown. LRT 4A does not
offer direct service to population and employment in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie.
Activitv Centers: LRT A alternatives serve fewer activity centers than LRT C
alternatives. LRT 4A serves fewer activity centers than the other A options.
Special Generators: LRT A options provide direct access to the proposed baseball
stadium, and to proposed development along the A alignment at Van White Boulevard
and Penn Avenue.
Transit Service: LRT A alternatives use an existing rail route through an area of
Minneapolis underserved by transit because of significant topographic constraints,
increasing the spread of transit across Minneapolis.
Freiaht Rail Relocation: Under all A alternatives, freight rail which currently uses the
Kenilworth Corridor would be rerouted along an existing freight rail line in St. Louis Park,
which has adjacent residential land use.
Future Transit Connections: LRT A alternatives leave the Midtown Corridor available for
potential future crosstown transit, enabling a potential future LRT or streetcar route to
bypass downtown and connect Uptown to the Hiawatha LRT line.
Transit Dependents: the area served by the A routing is not high in transit dependent
populations.
Economic Development: Of the full-length routes in the west end of the corridor, LRT 1
is the lowest cost alternative but offers less potential for economic development than
LRT 3. LRT 2 does not have the cost advantage of LRT 1, or the development potential
of LRT 3. LRT 3, the highest cost of the three routes, offers the highest potential for
economic development, planning for which is underway at more locations within route 3
by the cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. The 3 route serves employment and
activity nodes identified by the cities, and the greatest potential for reverse commute
access to suburban jobs. The T AC determined that if consideration were to be given to
other than the least costly option, it should be given to the option that maximizes
potential for access to employment" a significant factor for FT A New Starts project
approval.
LRT C Alternatives (LRT 1 C. 2C. 3C. and 4C)
Tier 1 Goals: Improve Mobility and Provide a Cost-Effective/Efficient Travel
Option
Ridership and New Riders: LRT 1 C, 2C, 3C and 4C have higher ridership than the
comparable A alternatives. LRT 4C has the lowest ridership due to the shortened route.
LRT 1 C's ridership is lower than LRT 2C's ridership, which again is lower than LRT 3C's
ridership. LRT 3C is exceeded only by LRT 3A in attracting more new riders to the
system. LRT 2C and 1 C also attract slightly fewer new riders than their A counterparts.
Capital and Operatina Costs: LRT 1 C, 2C, 3Cand 4C have higher capital and operating
costs than the comparable A alternatives, Overall LRT 4C has the lowest capital and
operating costs due to its shorter route, but has a relatively high per mile capital cost.
4
LRT 1 C is the least costly in terms of capital and operating costs of the A alternatives;
LRT 3C is the most costly.
Transit Capacity: All LRT C alternatives are assumed to have a peak hour rider capacity
of 2,976 passengers, sufficient to accommodate projected demand.
Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI): LRT 3C has an estimated CEI that falls within 2001'0 of
the FT A's threshold for PE.. LRT 1 C, 2C and 4C have estimated CEls that exceed 2001'0
of the threshold.
System Intearation: LRT 1 C, 2C, 3C, and 4C cannot be through-routed ("interlined")
with Hiawatha trains. All C alternatives require a transfer to access the Hiawatha line in
downtown Minneapolis. LRT 4C requires a transfer at the south end to serve the cities
of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie.
Traffic impacts: the LRT C options enter downtown Minneapolis via new rail tracks in
the existing street system. Impacts would occur to Nicollet or Marquette and Second
Avenues, along with intersections at downtown cross streets between Franklin Avenue
and 5th Street. Impacts may also occur at other major intersections along the
alignments including Cedar Lake Parkway, Beltline Boulevard, Woodale Avenue, Blake
Road, 11th Avenue, Shady Oak Road, and for 3C, along Valley View Drive and Eden
Prairie Center Drive.
LRT 4C, like LRT 4A, introduces special impacts within the City of Hopkins. The street
network in this fully-developed community would need additional detailed analysis and
mitigation for Hopkins to successfully function as the route terminus. Locating an
overnight maintenance facility in the immediate area would introduce an additional
challenge.
Tier 2 Goals: Protect the Environment, Preserve Quality of Life, and Support
Economic Development
Employment/Population: The C alternatives serve more employment centers and
population concentrations outside downtown. LRT 4C does not offer direct service to
population and employment in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie.
Activity Centers: the LRT C options serve a higher number of activity centers than the A
alternatives.
Special Generators: The C alternatives provide service to Calhoun Commons, Uptown,
Lyn-Lake, and Eat Street (Nicollet Avenue).
Transit Service: The C alternatives provide transit service to areas already well-served
by transit.
Freiaht Rail Relocation: The C alternatives do not require freight rail relocation from
Kenilworth to St. Louis Park. The C routing does require a grade separation and
reconfiguration of the Canadian Pacific/Twin Cities and Western railroad tracks west of
Louisiana Avenue.
Future Transit Connections: LRT C alternatives use the Midtown Corridor west of
Nicollet Avenue. That corridor has been proposed for crosstown transit service and is
5
being considered as a potential streetcar route as part of the Access Minneapolis
planning effort.
Transit Dependents: The area served by the C routing is higher in transit dependent
populations.
Economic Development: The same determination applied to the A routes above applies
to the C routes. Of the full-length routes in the west end of the corridor, LRT 2 does not
offer the cost advantage of LRT 1, or the development and reverse-commute potential of
LRT 3. At the west end of the corridor, LRT 3 offers the highest potential for economic
development, planning for which is underway at more locations within route 3 by the
cities of Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. At the east end of the corridor, LRT 3C serves
the heart of south Minneapolis, with transit supportive development already in place.
LRT 3C serves the highest number of employment and activity nodes and more transit
dependent populations.
TAC RECOMMENDATION:
a.) LRT 1A 2A, 3A, and 4A meet Tier 1 goals and are therefore recommended
for further evaluation.
b.) Under Tier 2 goals, LRT 2A is not recommended for further evaluation
because it has higher capital and operating costs than LRT 1, but does not
provide the economic development benefits of LRT 3. LRT 2A also has
the highest estimated CEI of the A alternatives. Because other A
alternatives better achieve Tier 1 and Tier 2 goals, LRT 2 A is not
recommended to carry forward.
c.) LRT 4A is already encompassed in the full-length A alternatives. A
shortened version of the preferred alignment(s) may be identified as a
future minimum operating segment (MOS) if required in the future. In the
event an MOS is required as the initial phase of staged implementation of
the full alternative selected, detailed analysis of impacts and mitigation
required to serve as an interim route terminus will be undertaken.
d.) LRT 1A and 3A are recommended to carry forward.
e.) Of the C alternatives, LRT 3C is the only alternative meeting both Tier 1
and Tier 2 goals and is therefore recommended to carry forward.
OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
The TAC also approved two other recommendations to forward to the PAC:
. That the Southwest Transitway PAC request that the Metropolitan Council
move the Southwest Transitway to a Tier 1 corridor when updating the
Transportation Policy Plan.
. That the Southwest Transitway PAC request that the HCRRA proceed into
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the Southwest
Transitway.
6
.
.
Land Use Planning Process during Transitway
.
Development
Project
Typically 6-12 Years
FTA Approval
Required for
Full Funding Grant
Agreement (FFGA)
Development
Project
FTA
Approval
Required
FTA
Approval
Required
Transitway
Project
Process
Operation
Construction
Final
Preliminary
Engineering
2-3 years
Alternatives
1-2
Regional System
Plan, Corridor
Priorities,
Feasibility Study
-.
.
-r.- '}',;
'<":"'-."~
$'"
,...."H~:."',1;.
Station Area Development
Implementation Plan or Strategy
Station Area Specific Plan
Construct infrastructure
streetscape
Station Area Land
Use Master Plan
Amendment to
Comprehensive Plan
· Wayfinding,
· Roadways
· Public amenities
Zoning Changes
Capital Improvement
!Financial Plan
.)
Issue development
lNegotiate joint development
__d___~___.___'_~'________",,_,___,_____,___,_,,_,,_,___
(parks
RFP's
I I
l Land Assembly I
__.._____,.__._..___.,........,....,..,,___.1
f
~-.---'-.-----..l
I Corridor-wide I
I Land Use I,
Vision
P 1. . I
re nmnary 'I
Station Area
Development I
Concepts I
l Market Study I
___..______._....J
years
Land Use
Planning &
Development
Process
Minneapolis Star/Tribune May 5, 1984
.
..i
.