CR 06-144 Adopt Resolution Supporting the Preliminary Recommendations of the Southwest Transitway Alternative Analysy Study
C\TY OF
m
HOPKINS
November 30, 2006
Council Report 2006-144
Adopt Resolution supporting the preliminary recommendations of the Southwest
Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study
Prooosed Action. Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move that
Council adoot Resolution 2006-088. supportinQ the preliminarv recommendations
of the Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study.
Overview.
The Southwest Transitway Techical Advisory Committee (TAC) has provided the
preliminary recommendation that LRT alternatives 1 A, 3A and 3C be retained for
further consideration. Nancy Anderson and Steve Stadler are both members of
the T AC. All the routes considered by the T AC followed the same alignment
through Hopkins, that being the HCRRA SWLRT right-of-way. An option that
would have put the western terminus of the line at a park-n-ride near Shady Oak
Road (Option 4) was not chosen for further consideration. Public open houses
were held during October and November 2006, including an October 26 Open
House at Eisenhower Community Center. Comments received were generally
supportive of LRT - see attachment showing all public comments to-date. The
recommendation will next be considered by the Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) on December 13. HCRRA will consider the PAC recommendations at a
meeting in January 2007.
Two separate studies for the City of Hopkins but sponsored by Hennepin County
are underway. One study is in regards to the opportunities and challenges
created by the proposed three Hopkins LRT stations and the second study is to
determine if a grade-separated (bridge) crossing is needed for the LRT where it
crosses 11th Avenue just south of Excelsior Boulevard. Both studies should be
completed in early 2007. A second Stakeholder meeting and public Open House
will be held on the Hopkins Station Study on Thursday, Dec 14.
Suooortina information.
Resolution 2006-088
Executive Summary and additional details on T AC recommendations
pun-
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-088
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE SOUTHWEST TRANSITWAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS STUDY
WHEREAS, transportation infrastructure forms the backbone of the region's economy as well
as its quality of life, and has a direct impact on economic development; and
WHEREAS, a well designed and functional transportation system with multiple mode choices is
essential to maintaining long-term mobility throughout the metropolitan region; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's long-range transportation plan identifies a future fixed
transitway corridor in the Southwest Metro through the cities of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park,
Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Metro area has experienced unprecedented population and
employment growth over the last 20 years and has become a major employment destination for
the metropolitan region; and
WHEREAS, a Light Rail Transit (LR T) line servicing the cities of Minneapolis, St. Louis Park,
Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie will accommodate projected growth and will help
maintain a competitive business environment and high quality of life for the entire Southwest
Region; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority is near completion of the Southwest
Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study that compares the costs, benefits, and impacts of a range
of transit alternatives for the Southwest Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Transitway's Technical Advisory Committee has provided the
preliminary recommendation that LRT Alternatives lA, 3A, and 3C be retained for further
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the recommended LRT alternatives have daily ridership projections between
23,500 and 28,100; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hopkins City Council, that the City of
Hopkins supports the preliminary recommendations of the Southwest Transitway Alternatives
Analysis; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Hopkins strongly supports all efforts by the
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, the Metropolitan Council, MnDOT, and the Federal
Transit Administration to fund and construct in a timely manner, a LRT line through the
Southwest Corridor, that it be considered a priority project for the region, and after the Central
Corridor, become the next planned expansion of the Comprehensive Transit System for the
metropolitan region.
ADOPTED by the Hopkins City Council this 5th day of December, 2006.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
Southwest Transitway Alternatives Analysis Study
Preliminary Recommendation
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has compared the benefits, costs, and
impacts of a range of alternatives to address mobility needs in the Southwest Corridor.
The range of transit alternatives considered included an enhanced bus, two bus rapid
transit (BRT), and eight light rail transit (LRT) alternatives. From those alternatives, the
T AC recommended three light rail transit (LRT) (link to new map) and the enhanced bus
alternative be retained for detailed analysis in an environmental impact statement, the
next phase of project development:
. LRT 1 A
. LRT 3A
. LRT 3C
· Enhanced Bus (as the FT A required baseline alternative)
The TAC recommendations were received by the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) on
September 27,2006. The PAC directed that public comment be solicited on the draft
technical committee recommendations during October and November, 2006.
This memorandum summarizes the study findings and preliminary study
recommendation.
I BACKGROUND
The evaluation measures developed by the Southwest Technical Advisory Committee
and approved by the Southwest Policy Advisory Committee reflect the goals established
for a Southwest Transitway and the Federal Transit Administration's (FT A) New Starts
evaluation criteria. The Southwest Transitway goals are divided into two tiers, Tier 1 and
Tier 2. For a transitway alternative to be considered viable it must meet the Tier 1
goals: improve mobility, and provide a cost-effective, efficient travel option. Assuming a
transitway alternative meets the Tier 1 goals it is then evaluated to determine how well it
fulfills the Tier 2 goals: protect the environment, preserve and protect the study area's
quality of life, and support economic development.
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.
A summary evaluation matrix that shows how each alternative was rated against
evaluation measures is provided with this memorandum.
I ENHANCED BUS ALTERNATIVE I
The Enhanced Bus alternative (link to map) includes minor modifications to existing
express bus serv.;ce, and augments Metro Transit and Southwest Metro service with two
new limited-stop bus routes. The new limited-stop routes provide bi-directional service
to Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park. Local bus service is
restrl!ctured to provide access to the new routes. These routes would begin by serving
selected stops, then travel non-stop on the regional highways using bus shoulder lanes
and/or the 1-394 HOV/HOT lane into downtown Minneapolis.
The Enhanced Bus alternative represents the proposed future baseline 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 the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) for transitway projects seeking Federal funding.
TAC Recommendation:
The Enhanced Bus alternative is required by the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) and as such is recommended for retention for further
evaluation.
I BRT ALTERNATIVES I
Two BRT alternatives were developed for the Southwest Transitway. Both serve the
cities of Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins, S1. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Both
alternatives assume special low-floor, hybrid vehicles and high-amenity stations. BRT 1
(link to map) begins at Highway 5 in Eden Prairie, operating in exclusive guideway in the
HCRRA Southwest Corridor to West Lake Street in Minneapolis. From that point BRT 1
uses the HCRRA Kenilworth and Cedar Lake Park Corridors to Van White Boulevard,
where it exits the bus-only guideway and uses Dunwoody and Hennepin Avenues to end
at 5th Street in downtown Minneapolis, adjacent to the Hiawatha LRT line.
SRT 2 (link to map) begins at Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie, using bus shoulders along
Highway 5 and a combination of local roads and new right-of-way to serve Southwest
Metro Transit Station, Eden Prairie Town Center, and the Golden Triangle and Opus
areas. Near Shady Oak Road, BRT 2 enters the HCRRA Southwest Corridor, and
follows the same alignment as BRT 1 through Hopkins, 81. Louis Park and Minneapolis.
Tier 1 Goals: Improve Mobility and Provide a Cost-Effective/Efficient Travel
Option
Key Evaluation Measures
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: 1,300 new riders with BRT1; 2,300 new
riders with BRT 2.
Capital and Operating Costs: BRT 1 and BRT 2 have the lowest capital and operating
costs. Capital costs are estimated at $540 million for BRT 1 and $706 million for BRT 2.
Operating costs are estimated at $1.8 million and $2.5 million, respectively, over the
baseline cost.
Travel Time Advantaqe: Neither BRT 1 nor BRT 2 provides a travel time advantage
compared to the single occupant automobiie traveling during the p.m. peak.
2
Transit Capacity: Neither SRT 1 nor SRT 2 can provide the peak capacity of an LRT
alternative at the assumed peak hour frequency of 7.5 minutes (640 SRT
passengers/peak hour vs. 2975 LRT passengers/peak hour). To accommodate the
estimated peak hour demand of 2,400 passengers the SRT buses would need to
operate every 2 to 3 minutes and/or operate in tandem, increasing the number and
frequency of buses at intersections and on downtown Minneapolis streets.
Cost-Effectiveness Index (CEI): Based on preliminary calculations, neither SRT 1 nor
SRT 2 is within a reasonable range of meeting the FT A's current CEI threshold for New
Start Preliminary Engineering, which is $29.
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.
I LRT ALTERNATIVES I
LRT alternatives are defined using a combination of two designations: 1, 2, 3 or 4, and
A or C. The numbers designate four possible routings west of Louisiana Avenue in S1.
Louis Park. The letters designate the two possible routes east of Louisiana Avenue in
S1. Louis Park.
LRT A ALTERNATIVES (LRT 1A, 2A, 3A, AND 4A)
The letter "A" designates routes that use the HCRRA's Kenilworth and Cedar Lake Park
Corridors in Minneapolis. Under the "A" option, four light rail transit alternatives enter
Minneapolis via the HCRRA Kenilworth and Cedar Lake Park Corridors. The "A"
alternatives access downtown via Glenwood, Royalston, th, and 5th Streets, connecting
to Hiawatha LRT at the proposed new Intermodal Station near the proposed new
baseball stadium.
Alternative LRT 1A (link to map) begins at TH 5 in Eden Prairie, travels in the HCRRA
Southwest Corridor through Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins and S1. Louis Park to
West Lake Street in Minneapolis. From that point, LRT 1A uses the Kenilworth and
Cedar Lake Corridors to access the street network north of downtown. At 5th Street, LRT
1 A connects directly to the proposed Intermodal Station, where Hiawatha LRT and the
planned Northstar Commuter Rail wiil meet.
Alternative LRT 2A (link to map) begins at Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie, travels adjacent
to TH 5 and 1-494 through Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, then enters the HCRRA
Southwest Corridor through Hopkins and S1. Louis Park to West Lake Street in
Minneapolis. LRT 2A enters downtown using the same route as LRT 1 A.
Alternative LRT 3A (link to map) begins at Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie, uses TH 5 and
local streets to access Eden Prairie Town Center, then travels north through the Golden
Triangle and Opus areas on new exclusive right-of-way through Eden Prairie,
Minnetonka and Hopkins. Near Shady Oak Road, LRT 3A enters the HCRRA
3
Southwest Corridor through Hopkins and St. Louis Park. LRT 3A enters downtown
using the same route as LRT 1 A.
Alternative LRT 4A (link to map) begins at the Minnetonka/Hopkins boundary near
Shady Oak Road and uses the HCRRA Southwest Corridor through Hopkins 'and St.
Louis Park. LRT 4A enters downtown using the same route as LRT 1 A.
Tier 1 Goals: Improve Mobility and Provide a Cost-Effective/Efficient Travel
Option
Key Evaluation Measures
Ridership and New Riders: While the estimated ridership for the LRT 1 A, 2A, 3A and 4A
is slightly lower, by approximately 1,000 trips/day, than their "C" routing counterparts,
they all are anticipated to carry a significant number of passengers. When compared to
one another, LRT 3A has the highest estimated ridership at 27,000; followed by LRT 2A
at 24,600; followed by LRT 1A at 23,500; followed by LRT 4A at 19,000.
In terms of attracting new riders to the transit system, all four alternatives attract a
significant number of new riders to the system. When compared to one another, LRT 3A
is projected to attract the highest number of new riders at 7,500; followed by LRT 2A at
5,600; followed by LRT 1A at 4,500; followed by LRT 4A at 3,100.
Capital and Operating Costs: LRT 1 A, 2A, 3A and 4A have lower capital and operating
costs than the comparable C alternatives. When compared to one another, LRT 3A has
the highest estimated capital cost at $1.2 billion; followed by LRT 2A at $988 million;
followed by LRT 1A at $864 million; followed by LRT 4A at $633 million. LRT 3A has the
highest estimated operating cost at $15.9 million; followed by LRT 2A at $14.8 million;
followed by LRT 1A at $11.5 million; followed by LRT 4A at $7.6 million.
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 full corridor "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, which is sufficient to accommodate the projected peak
hour demand.
Cost-Effectiveness Index (eEn: LRT 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A have lower estimated cost
effectiveness ratings than the comparable "e" alternatives (lower ratings on the GEl
designate better performing alternatives). When compared to one another, LRT 3A has
the lowest at $26; followed by LRT 4A at $28; followed by LRT 1 A at $30; followed by
LRT 2A at $31. LRT 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A have estimated eEls that fall within 200,10 of the
current FTA threshold for preliminary engineering.
System Inteqration: LRT 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A are assumed to operate on 5th Street
through downtown Minneapolis and be through-routed ("interlined") 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 requiie relocating buses in downtown, and does not
reduce roadway capacity in downtown for private vehicles. Interlining does not introduce
4
new construction impacts on downtown businesses, and avoids the need for utility
relocation in downtown Minneapolis.
LRT 4A does not directly serve the entire corridor. LRT 4A requires a transfer at the
south end to serve the cities of Minnetonka and Eden Prairie.
Traffic impacts: Although LRT 1 A, 2A, 3A, and 4A avoid potential impacts to the
downtown street system, they will likely impact other major cross streets including Cedar
Lake Parkway, Beltline Boulevard, Wooddale Avenue, Blake Road, 11th 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 to identify how Hopkins couid successfully function as the route terminus.
Locating an overnight maintenance facility in the immediate area would introduce an
additional challenge.
TAC Recommendation:
LRT 1 A, 2A, and 3A meet the Tier 1 Goals of Improving Mobility and
Providing a Cost-Effective and Efficient Travel Option. Therefore, they
should be carried forward through the Tier 2 evaluation.
LRT 4A does not meet the Tier 1 Goals because it does not adequately
serve the travel demand that exists in the Southwest metro area. 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 (MaS) if required in the future. In the event an MaS 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. Therefore, LRT 4A should not
be retained for further evaluation.
Tier 2 Goals: (3) Protect the Environment, (4) Preserve Quality of Life, and (5)
Support Economic Development
Key Evaluation Measures
Emplovment/Population: VVt-len cornpared to their "C;; counterparts, the LRT "A"
alternatives do not set-ve as many employment centers or population concentrations.
This is due to the fact that the "A" alternatives are routed through the Cedar-Isles Dean
Parkway (CIDNA) and Kenwood Isles neighborhoods in Minneapolis which are lower
density and have fewer employment sites than the Uptown, Lyn-Lake, and Nicollet
Avenue neighborhoods served by the "C" alternatives. Of the "A" alternatives, LRT 4A
serves the fewest number of employment and population concentration because it does
not offer direct service to Minnetonka and Eden Prairie, and as such is not adequate to
address the overall travel demand projected for the study area.
Activitv Centers: The LRT "A" alternatives, which are routed through lower-density
neighborhoods in Minneapolis and enter downtown behind the Target Center, serve
fewer activity centers than LRT l'C" alternatives. LRT 4A serves fewer activity centers
than the other "A" options.
5
(0- .,
Special Generators: The LRT "An alternatives provide direct service to the proposed
Twins baseball stadium, located adjacent to the proposed Minneapolis Intermodal
Station, and to the Minneapolis Farmers Market located adjacent to the Royalston
Station. The LRT "C" alternatives do not provide direct access to either of these special
trip generators.
Transit Service: The LRT "An alternatives will provide transit service to the Bryn Mawr,
Kenwood, and Cedar Isles Dean Parkway areas of Minneapolis that currently have low
levels of transit service because of significant topographic constraints. Providing new
transit service to these areas will improve their travel alternatives.
Freioht Rail Relocation: Due to space constraints in the Kenilworth Corridor, the LRT "An
alternatives require that the existing freight rail service be rerouted through 81. Louis
Park.
Future Transit Connections: Due to their southern terminus at or near the intersection of
the HCRRA property and Highway 5, all LRT "A" alternatives can be easily extended to
serve Carver and Scott Counties in the future. The LRT "A" alternatives also provide the
opportunity for an LRT or streetcar connection in the Midtown Corridor from West Lake
Street to the Hi-Lake Station along the Hiawatha LRT line.
Transit Dependent Populations: When compared to the "C" alternatives, the LRT "An
alternatives do not serve as many transit dependent populations, defined as populations
who are low-income, younger than 16 or older than 65, disabled, or who do not have an
automobile. Of the "An alternatives, LRT 4A serves the fewest number of transit
dependent populations.
Economic Developrnent: LRT 3A is considered to have the highest economic
development potential of the three remaining LRT "An alternatives. This is due to the
access it will provide to areas the cities have identified for redevelopment, which include
the Eden Prairie Major Center Area, Golden Triangle, and Opus. LRT 2A is considered
to have the lowest economic development potential due to its location within Interstate
494 right-of-way. LRT 1A is considered to have slightly better economic development
potential than LRT 2A, but both are surpassed by LRT 3A. LRT 3A is also projected to
have the highest reverse commute ridership of the LRT "An alternatives.
in evaiuating the !!All aiternatives the I AG not only considered the economic
development potential of the alternative, but also the estimated capital cost. The T AC
decided that they could not recommend moving forward with LRT 2A because, while it
exhibits performance comparable to LRT 1A, it is more expensive than LRT 1A yet does
not yield the potential economic development benefits of LRT 3A.
TAC Recommendation:
LRT 1 A and LRT 3A meet the Tier 2 Goals of (3) Preserving the Environment,
(4) Protecting the Quality of Life, and (5) Supporting Economic Development.
LRT 1A and LRT 3A should be retained for detailed evaluation during the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) study phase.
LRT 2A does not meet the Tie; 2 Goals and is therefore not reconlnlended for
retention. While LRT 2A does perlorm well in terms of ridership and attracting
6
new riders, it does not provide adequate opportunity for economic
development.
LRT C ALTERNATIVES (LRT 1C, 2C, 3C, AND 4C)
Routes identified by "C" use the HCRRA Midtown Corridor in Minneapolis, and a shallow
tunnel under Nicollet Avenue to return to grade at Franklin Avenue. From Franklin
Avenue north into downtown Minneapolis, LRT C alternatives operate on streets, using
either Nicollet Avenue or Marquette and Second Streets in a one-way pair to reach
Hiawatha LRT at 5th Street. At 5th Street, LRT 1 C provides the opportunity to transfer to
Hiawatha and the proposed Central LRT lines.
Alternative LRT 1 C (link to map) begins at TH 5 in Eden Prairie, travels in the HCRRA
Southwest Corridor through Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park to
West Lake Street in Minneapolis. From that point, LRT 1 C uses the Midtown Corridor
and a shallow tunnel under Nicollet to Franklin. At grade from Franklin north, LRT 1 C
uses Nicollet or Marquette and Second to 5th Street, ending at Hiawatha LRT.
Alternative LRT 2C (link to map) begins at Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie, travels
adjacent to TH 5 and 1-494 through Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, then enters the
HCRRA Southwest Corridor through Hopkins and S1. Louis Park to West Lake Street in
Minneapolis. LRT 2C enters downtown using the same route as LRT 1 C.
Alternative LRT 3C (link to map) begins at Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie, uses TH 5 and
local streets to access Eden Prairie Town Center, then travels north through the Golden
Triangle and Opus areas on new exclusive right-of-way through Eden Prairie,
Minnetonka and part of Hopkins. Near Shady Oak Road, LRT 3C enters the HCRRA
Southwest Corridor through Hopkins and St. Louis Park. LRT 3C enteis dovvntown
using the same route as LRT 1 C.
Alternative LRT 4C (link to map) begins at the Minnetonka/Hopkins boundary near
Shady Oak Road and uses the HCRRA Southwest Corridor through Hopkins and St.
Louis Park. LRT 4C enters downtown using the same route as LRT 1 C.
Tier 1 Goals: Improve Mobility and Provide a Cost-Effective/Efficient Travel
Option
Key Evaluation Measures
Ridership anq New Riders: LRT 1 C, 2C, 3C and 4C have higher ridership than the
comparable "A" alternatives, by approximately 1,000 trips per day. LRT 4C has the
lowest ridership due to the shortened route. When compared to one another, LRT 3C
has the highest estimated ridership at 28,100; followed by LRT 2C at 25,600; followed by
LRT 1 C at 24,500; followed by LRT 4A at 19,000.
All four "c" alternatives traverse areas of Minneapolis already well served by transit. As
a result, the "c" alternatives are less successful in attracting new riders to the system
than their "A" counterparts, although of all the alternatives, LRT 3C is exceeded only by
LRT 3A in attracting more new riders to the system. VVhen compared to one another,
LRT 3C is projected to attract the highest number of new riders at 6,800; followed by
7
LRT 2C at 4,900; followed by LRT 1C at 3,800; followed by LRT 4C at 2,400.
Capital and Operatinq Costs: LRT 1 C, 2C, 3Cand 4C have higher capital and operating
costs than the comparable "A" alternatives. When compared to one another, LRT 3C
has the highest estimated capital cost at $1.4 billion; followed by LRT 2C at $1.2 billion;
followed by LRT 1 C at $1.1 billion; followed by LRT 4C at $889 million. LRT 3C has the
highest estimated operating cost at $17.1 million; followed by LRT 2C at $15.5 million;
followed by LRT 1C at $13.3 million; followed by LRT 4C at $8.5 million. LRT 1C is the
least costly in terms of capital and operating costs of the full corridor C alternatives; LRT
3C is the most costly. Overall LRT 4C has the lowest capital and operating costs due to
its shorter route, but has a relatively high per mile capital cost.
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): When compared to one another, LRT 3C has the lowest
estimated CEI at $30; followed by LRT 1 C at $37; followed by LRT 2C at $38; followed
by LRT 4C at $41. LRT 3C has an estimated CEI within 200/0 of the current FT A
threshold for PE. LRT 1 C, 2C and 4C have estimated CEls that exceed the threshold
by more than 200/0.
System Inteoration: 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" alternatives 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, Belt/ine Boulevard, Wooddale Avenue, Blake
Road, 11th Avenue, Shady Oak Road, and for LRT 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 to
identify how Hopkins could successfully function as the route terminus. Locating an
overnight rnaintenance faciiity in the immediate area would introduce an additional
challenge.
TAC Recommendation:
LRT 3C meets the Tier 1 Goals of (1) Improving Mobility and (2) PrQviding a
Cost-Effective and Efficient Travel Option. Therefore LRT 3C is
recommended to be retained for further evaluation.
LRT 1C, 2e, and 4C do not meet the Tier 1 Goals of (1) Improving Mobility
and (2) Providing a Cost-Effective and Efficient Travel Option. Therefore
LRT 1 C, LRT 2e, and LRT 4C are not recommended for Tier 2 evaluation.
8
Tier 2 Goals: (3) Protect the Environment, (4) Preserve Quality of Life, and (5)
Support Economic Development
Key Evaluation Measures
Emplovment/Population: LRT 3C serves employment centers and population
concentrations throughout the corridor.
Activitv Centers: LRT 3C serves a higher number of activity centers than the "A"
alternatives. These include Southwest Metro Transit Station, Eden Prairie Center Mall,
Golden Triangle, Opus, Downtown Hopkins, Wooddale Area, Excelsior & Grand,
Methodist Hospital, Calhoun Commons, Uptown, Lyn-Lake, Eat Street, and Nicollet Mall.
Special Generators: LRT 3C provides service to the Minneapolis Convention Center.
Transit Service: LRT 3C provides transit service to the Uptown, Lyn-Lake, and Nicollet
areas of Minneapolis that are well-served by bus transit.
Freioht Rail Swap: LRT 3C does not require freight rail relocation from Kenilworth to St.
Louis Park. However, the "C" routing does require a grade separation and
reconfiguration of the Canadian Pacific/Twin Cities and Western railroad tracks east of
Louisiana Avenue. The reconfiguration would exchange the positions of the freight
tracks and the existing trail, with LRT constructed in the location currently occupied by
the existing freight tracks.
Future Transit Connections: LRT 3C uses the Midtown Corridor west of Nicollet
Avenue, which may complicate plans by Minneapolis to use the Midtown Corridor for
streetcar operations from West Lake Street to the Hi-Lake station along the Hiawatha
LRT line.
Transit Dependent Populations: The area served by LRT 3C is higher in transit
dependent populations than any of the "A" alternatives. Transit dependent populations
are defined as populations who are low-income, younger than 16 or older than 65,
disabled, or who do not have an automobile.
Economic Development: LRT 3C has the highest potential for economic development of
all the "C" alternatives.
TAC RECOlliflli1Ef.JDA TION:
LRT 3C meets the Tie; 2 Goals of (3) Preserving the Environment, (4)
Protecting the Quality of Life, and (5) Supporting Economic Development.
Therefore, LRT 3C should be retained for further evaluation.
I OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
The T AC 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
Transit Plan component of the Transportation Policy Plan(TPP) in 2008.
9
That the Southwest Transitway PAC request that the HCRRA proceed into
the Environmenta//mpact Statement (E/S) process for the Southwest
Transitway.
All recommendations passed unanimously with the exception of the dismissal of LRT 4A,
which was not approved by St. Louis Park and Minnetonka staff. Metropolitan Council,
Metro Transit, and Mn/DOT staff chose to abstain from voting on all recommendations.
Twin Cities and Western (TCW) staff chose to abstain from voting on the LRT "A"
recommendations due to unresolved issues regarding the proposed freight rail
relocation.
10
SOUTHWEST T AANSITWAY
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
,~
'I'V,
j;--.r
;/'l '
...J~ J
~r \.
I; "
Intermodal Station---..",
\~ .:
'7'8 --~~3:-:-
~-'-
--'I\. ~-
1I
:f
'R'"lI~,,~t...r""
~~,
~ ~ ~---=~5,t?
-~>~;}-
"
~'_ "-r_~J ~f:l
Sf [Ol'IS
p"p-,,-
8
(-~
'V (-.....~->'II"'"
I
~
f ~
t ~...
! ",
'''~-...
1-
>
.
.......,-",
LEGEND
-- LRT 1 A Route
-- LRT 3A Route
- - LRT 3C Route
. Bus Stop Location
0 LRT Park & Ride Station
Preliminary Study Recommendation
Southwest Technical Advisory Committee
September 27, 2006
~N , MilES
',~ ::.
, . 0' 1/2' -'- ,'~;F
- .,
October 2006
H
:;:(-~~
'a
-
~\
'::\ :
, \~
~! \
~l
8 ~\
\
, ,
-~t:~
~-
f
I'
.:.
et
ilFJl!'L
==r~-8-
MP,.i'a'lPOLlS.
-,
;HoPkins----\ ~:
i.c !:/;
~~'~ .~~ ;
~. ~/ i
, .-/ ..
, ..\ ;' ~
~ / t:/, ~\
+ ./- /'il \-Shady'Qak
~ / /" t~ rS
h . . I ,
ROwland~Y~ -'/ tJ~~: - . - . ,~'->..; /
. ? ~ I
,/ *' f
I ';/' ,. =',
~/ . : ''-Op~'s 1
.l(1'V'lFTOV~ ~. €!I _<:=::::::--l~ ~ )l
'-"~'-'--'.:?-Q'~'~-'~~i>- ~--,,- city-'~'W;s;-~:~- ~':2~_'-~ '! " -<s;~~~
'fI - \ :'~. \ \
/f I \-Highway 62 ,.. I, \ '
./ I \ ;/1: i.. I
/// /- '\ ::,~ / Go~den Triangle I /I
// ~ 31&/' 'fl 1 :,)
.-/ ,. ;.1::::\ (:. r 'f ~
/ \0 - j' i \ r I
\~ -,..e H;:"\ A
J 1 ff.. , ", ,
t'~ - 4,: : 1'8 f 8 ;
. ; '}<~ ,~i I f. . I~~
HIghway 5 \, .J - l(':.-- -:< ~.. J, 1 ~,:::i, i' '^,
-. i 0 f!.,~:::~.;~~:;;'t'~~-~~-'~~~::~--~:::F=:4~~.-::~>->~~~-.cr~' -t-"' I
!I Mitchell.-l .: .. ,6 'i ?~)
" \8 . I ~
~~ Southwest Station--' . "-Eden Prairie Town Center i III
'.~, P~fg;F ;8 l 1
~ dLi...'fJIJ/'H.,TO \ 1"1
:I ~~1 I
{h\ .1
" \
Ii
t
--="'
..........!:..>
,.~ ----
-=::::19
?
~
t...J~ =--......_-'
'I
~\~
J.:{' f..'DJ/'l
",8
:(
t
J!!L;.:t-:,
,
\
j.;
,-~~
f I
: iI~ _
~:-rt~-
lJOPK1.v",
[2]
r
l~J
o
Southwest Transitway Study
Public Comments on SW Technical Advisory Committee Recommendation
(updated as of November 17, 2006)
I. Open Houses
October 24,2006 - Minneapolis
Flip Chart Comments
Makes sense to go through Kenilworth - get cars off road.
Costs too much to tunnel under Nicollet.
Disruptive when being built (Alt. C) (bridges, etc.)
Streetcars will serve Midtown and Nicollet without disrupting street and traffic.
Streetcars belong in the street (Lake Street)
I don't like 3C. Nicollet already has plenty of transit.
I like 3C. Increased light rail service to downtown would be good. Plus the not
guaranteed streetcar can still service Lake Street and end at 28th Street stop. Build
3C and jobs will come to Midtown with the associated development.
Forget 3C - for all the expense of building a tunnel you won't pick up enough new
riders. Disrupts local small businesses - we don't have many. In later years a
streetcar could be added to link Downtown with Greenway. Kenilworth is the natural
most cost effective option.
Hopefully a Greenway streetcar will be done first with local money as the Midtown
Greenway Coalition is advocating.
Comment Cards
Don Ostrom
Why does the 3C route, with twice the population and twice the employment living
within ~ mile of the stations as the 3A route generate only 3% more ridership?
M. Anderson-Rossini
"Seamless" light rail is more user friendly than transfers.
Streetcars on Lake Street (Marshall, downtown St. Paul.)
Preserve "Greenway" as just that - a greenway for bikers, runners, skiers, skaters,
etc.
Consideration of disruption to car traffic should be of lowest priority.
Thatcher Imboden
In favor of 3C - Nicollet
1
I won't walk 5 blocks to take a Midtown streetcar and transfer at West Calhoun to get
downtown. I'd take a bus.
I would take LRT from Uptown if it went downtown directly and quickly. Buses get
stuck in traffic on Hennepin now - only it will be worse in 2030. Plus, most of the
places in downtown I go to is around 8th - 10th & Nicollet - not 5th Street.
10/26/06 - Hopkins
Flip Chart Comments
Very interesting alternatives and plan
Want light rail
Concern about impact for our condo (5627 Green Circle Drive)
Concerned in past about impacts - but think issues have been addressed.
Save the trail around Shady Oak Lake! (consider recreation and environment impact
- prefer option #3)
3C is the preferred alternative - link Uptown with Downtown - young person/business
perspective
3A and 3C are both good options. I hope Hennepin County puts some thought into
how the decisions will impact communities of color in Minneapolis. Also - reverse
commutes from key areas of Minneapolis - which route will likely serve the needs of
the business community re: access to jobs and easy access to transit for the folks
most likely to have the existing potential jobs along the line.
Definitely 3A and 3C. Benefits far outweigh drawbacks. Retains beauty of trail west
of industrial Hopkins area. Line east of 11th Avenue and South to Opus seems best
for number of riders. (Old railroad track - freight line would be good as track is
already there.)
Stop the delay - get it moving. 2015 is ridiculous!
Note to Metropolitan Council - put the Southwest Corridor on Tier 1.
11/2/06 - Eden Prairie
Flip Chart Comments
Prefer 1A - no transfer to stay on Hiawatha.
Sooner rather than later!
Need to understand Eden Prairie growth plans (e.g. senior housing, residential,
commercial. )
2
Please stay away from Bent Creek and Bearpath. Prefer Golden Triangle
Oppose LRT past (west) of Shady Oak.
Substantial fixed investment - so be careful in choosing route. Prefer "3" alternatives
- helps city create downtown area.
Do it right or don't do it
Economic growth
Ridership
Minimal impact on trails
Prefer "3" alternative
Delete 1A from further study (don't waste time and money)
Sooner the better - prefer Alt. "3"
Process is too slow
Prefer "3" alternative
Ditto - on of "3" alternatives - stay away from "1" alternatives
Get it done either way
Prefer Alt. "3"; Alt 1 goes through last wilderness type area; affects many
neighborhoods
Prefer Alt. "3A" - can't wait to have this done.
Comment Cards
Bob Krocak
LRT that proceeds through Golden Triangle will benefit more businesses and the
most potential for ridership.
Rita Krocak
I prefer LRT 3 -light rail transit that travels through the Golden Triangle in E.P. It
travels through E.P. where most employees work. It makes the most sense!
Elmer Otto
I prefer LRT Route 3A because we would get on the train at the Southwest Station. I
don't like going to the Golden Triangle because it takes longer when I am going to
downtown Minneapolis. But there will be more riders and the train will be more cost-
effective. I definitely would not want to board the train at the Highway 5 location, as
in LRT Route 1A, because the car traffic is much too aggressive. I take the bus now
from the Southwest Station to get away from the cars.
3
David and Jackie Beyer
We would like to strongly state our opposition to the "1" routes and instead state our
support for the "3" option(s) through "Golden Triangle" to EP Center and then west
along Highway 5. Transit should serve connections to work, shopping and
entertainment. Route option "1" provides none of these and only goes through
neighborhoods. Yes, it may cost more - but if it (option 3) provides for more ridership
and more reason to ride - then do it right out of the blocks.
Peg McCartan
Option 1A does not make sense. 3A will bring more ridership.
II. Other Comments Received via Mail, Email
Letter:
October 25, 2006
Dear Transit Officials:
I was at your meeting at Bryant Square. On balance, I support the light rail proposal, but it
does pose a dilemma for environmentalists. Route 1A would be especially harmful
destroying a beautiful shady forest for construction on the way through Eden Prairie. The
trail along side the rails would be a desolate desert compared to the current situation until
any newly planted trees mature.
The benefits of light rail would outweigh short term harm. Trees will eventually grow back
after the area is re-Iandscaped. Transit between Eden Prairie and Minneapolis is currently
weighted in favor of rush hour routes on weekdays. The scenario presented at the meeting
was vastly improved weekend service currently almost nonexistent.
My preference is route 3A. I do not care for route 3C. I heard about two tracks running
down Nicollet Mall. Where would the dozens of buses currently running down Nicollet go if
this plan were adopted? There is plenty of transit currently serving Nicollet with 17 and 18
lines and many more downtown.
One big concern is how you will find enough room for tracks near Highway 169 and
Excelsior Boulevard. You repeatedly claim there is 100 feet of space. The Hopkins Depot
and parking lot is probably 25 feet wide or more. The existing 3 railroad tracks probably use
another 25 feet. The bike/pedestrian trail is 15 feet for trail and buffer space. This leaves
little space for light rail track and a station unless one of the existing freight tracks is
removed.
Sincerely,
Steven Steuck
****************
e-mail: bicvclinaelephant~vahoo.com
Melissa Gustafson
4
I do think light rail is a good idea and I do think traffic getting in and out of Eden Prairie is
awful. However, I do think light rail going throughout the golden triangle is a must for a few
reasons. It makes a lot more sense to spend a little more dollars and do it right and get the
most ridership and benefit to the city. Also, the bike trail is a huge asset to the area and
would be a great loss to take it over with light rail. Don't even consider the argument of
having the trail and light rail next to each other. That would never work.
Gary Gustafson
I would like to see light rail in EP but I also would like to see it go through an area with little
impact to residents and environmental areas. From the info I got at the open house, it
sounds like ridership would be higher with the 3 A & C options. If we are going to spend the
money, let's make sure we get the most use out of it. Thanks.
III. Comments Received at Other Meetings
October 12, 2006
St. Louis Park Neighborhoods
About 20 - 30 citizens attended. Councilmember and Southwest PAC member Sue Sanger,
and SW PAC member Jim Brimeyer were in attendance, in addition to St. Louis Park City
staff and Bob Suko from TC&W Railroad. Councilmember Sanger opened the meeting and
advised residents to keep an open mind as the transitway study progresses. Katie Walker
presented slides on the SW T AC recommendation. Citizens asked about and debated
issues relating to the impact on City residents of Alternative A which would call for re-routing
of freight traffic from the Kenilworth area into St. Louis Park. Bob Suko explained a number
~f rail issues, and said that the level of freight train traffic through St. Loius Park will likely go
from about 5 trains/day to about 11 trains/day if freight traffic is re-routed under Alt A.
Attendees also discussed impact of recommendations on trails, street parking, and property
values, as well as the study process and how decisions will be made. SW PAC member
Brimeyer pointed out that Alt A will interline with Hiawatha, whereas Alt C will not.
October 19, 2006
Edina Transportation Commission
Hennepin County Study Manger, Katie Walker, presented SW T AC recommendations to the
Commission. After some discussion, some members indicated preference for Alternative 3
over Alternative 1 since Alt 3 parallels Hwy 169 and employment centers. It is assumed that
Alt 3 will better serve Edina residents, better support economic development, and serve trips
going both ways on the transitway (not just one-way commuters to downtown). The
Commission voted to support Alternatives 3A and 3C.
American Society of Civil Engineers - Minnesota Chapter
Hennepin County Study Manger, Katie Walker, presented SW T AC recommendations at an
ASCE meeting (about 15 people in attendance). Attendees asked about how the transitway
could be funded, trail and rail issues, and why Alt C did not have a significantly higher
ridership than Alt A.
October 26, 2006
Downtown Mpls Transportation Management Organization Executive Committee
Meeting
5
Southwest Transit Corridor - Katie Walker reviewed the status of the study. Light rail transit
was selected as the preferred mode. They have narrowed the LRT alternatives to three
routes, shown on page 7 of the handout (Newsletter #3). Public comment is encouraged and
will continue until the end of November 2006.
The earliest that the Southwest LRT line would be operational is 2015.
It was observed that the Access Minneapolis plan does NOT reflect the Southwest LRT
options. Katie and Joe Gladke said that the City of Minneapolis staff helped with defining the
routing options and that they are working together.
Action Item: TMO write a letter to the City to encourage their working with Southwest LRT,
City's Access Minneapolis take into consideration the Southwest LRT study and the
perspective of the downtown user in the design of system.
Comments on the routing into downtown:
1. Option C along the Midtown Greenway and Nicollet Avenue expands the options for an
LRT system by potentially providing an LRT route south along 1-35W.
2. Minimize the need for the downtown user to change transit systems; for example,
minimize the need for the user to change from LRT to bus in order to complete the trip. It
would be better to change from LRT to LRT to complete the trip.
3. Option C considerations: If LRT is on Nicollet Mall, how would it act as a circulator? What
happens to bus traffic? And what would be the headway frequencies?
4. Key is connectivity and ability to move people
5. Option A: relevant factors are new Twins Stadium, proximity to Convention Center, and
uncertainty of Metrodome's future.
October 28, 2006
Stevens Square Neighborhood Group - Minneapolis
About 30 - 40 citizens in attendance. Hennepin County Study Manager, Katie Walker,
presented information on the SW Transitway Study. Councilmember Robert Lilligren added
information and comments. Some attendees expressed support for the A alternative, with
comments relating to concerns about disruption to the busy Nicollet Ave, and preference for
a streetcar in the Midtown Corridor. Others expressed support for the C alternative, saying
that ridership would be strong and there would be better potential for economic
development. This group wants to stay informed to better understand environmental
impacts as the next phase of study goes forward.
6
Nov mb r 7,2006 .
Midtown Community Work Partn rship
Resolution Supporting the Midtown Greenway Streetcar Network Alignment
draft for Executive Committee consideration 11/7/06
SWLRT-RoUl8A ...
SWLRT-RouteC
...
NETWORK ALIGNMENT ...
II
"C"
Midtown Greenway
Streetcar
~'\'\\.~
Midtown
Greenway
SW LRT A
SW LRT C
Network Alignment
WHEREAS the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority is currently analyzing two
configurations for the northern portion of the SW LRT Corridor: LRT A which runs through
the Kenilworth Corridor and LRT C which runs east through the Midtown Greenway to
Nicollet Avenue where it turns north and enters a tunnel for access to downtown
Minneapolis, and
WHEREAS the Midtown Community Works Partnership (MCWP) asserts that the superior
regional configuration would be a Network Alignment utilizing a streetcar line in the Midtown
Greenway to link a SW LRT line running through the Kenilworth Corridor with the Hiawatha
LRT line, and
WHEREAS the Network Alignment would provide a much-needed regional link to the more
transit-dependent Greenway neighborhoods east of Nicollet, including one of the largest
employment hubs in the state of Minnesota (Lake Street, the Midtown Exchange, Abbott
Northwestern and Wells Fargo), while also serving the important transfer point with BRT on
35W, and
WHEREAS the Network Alignment including a streetcar line in the Midtown Greenway is
significantly less expensive than LRT C, the Nicollet Avenue alignment, and generates
significantly higher ridership, and
WHEREAS a streetcar line could be built much more quickly by implementing a "starter" line
between Hiawatha and Uptown and by relying on state/local funding to avoid the
burdensome and time consuming FT A approval process thereby jump-starting transit
oriented development along the combined Lake Street/Midtown Greenway corridor, and
WHEREAS a streetcar line would sustain the vision for the Midtown Greenway by
minimizing the impact on the bicycle and pedestrian trails while providing the potential to
green the corridor with grass planted between and alongside the tracks, and
WHEREAS state/local funding for a Greenway streetcar line may count as a local match for
later LRT funding;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the MCWP favors a streetcar line in the
Midtown Greenway as soon as possible, ultimately creating a regional network alignment
with the future SW and Hiawatha LRT corridors while supporting the ongoing revitalization of
the Midtown/Lake Street corridor.
7
November 21, 2006
East I I s Neighborhood Group
November 28, 2006
Edina Realty
December 5, 2006
Edina Chamber Government Relations Committee
8