Midt Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis C id Alt ti A l i - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Midt Midtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis C id Alt ti A l i Evaluation of Alternatives and Final Screening Results g November 20 and 21, 2013

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda • Alternatives background • Process update • Key evaluation factors – cost and ridership • Other evaluation factors • Remaining issues • Outreach and next steps 2

Study Area Study Area 3

Mode Characteristics As compared to enhanced bus Enhanced Bus Dedicated Busway Streetcar Light ‐ Rail Transit Station spacing Yes, or greater Every ¼ mile Yes, or greater every ½ mile Off ‐ board fare payment Yes Yes Yes Near ‐ level boarding Fully ‐ level Yes Fully ‐ level Transit signal priority Yes Yes Yes Improved station Yes, but larger Yes Yes, but larger Unique vehicles Yes Yes, rail Yes, rail Street running Exclusive lane Yes Exclusive guideway / mixed traffic 4

Initial Screening Summary Table g y Both Lake Street Midtown Greenway Double / Full Enhanced Dedicated Dedicated Streetcar Screening Criteria Screening Criteria Streetcar Streetcar LRT LRT Single Single ‐ Double ‐ Double Bus Busway Busway Loop Track Track 1 Consistency with regional Very Very Fair Good Good Good Good Good and local plans Good Good 2 Level of access provided Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor to jobs and residents Ability to provide desired Very transit capacity and 3 Good Good Good Good Good Good Fair Good Good speed increases speed increases Compatibility with Very existing transportation Good Poor Poor Good Poor Good Fair 4 Good modes and infrastructure Very y Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor 5 Potential ROW impacts 5 P t ti l ROW i t Good 6 Community and Very Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Good stakeholder sentiment Overall rating Good Fair Poor Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Alternative Alternative 5 Advanced Advanced

Current Alternatives Current Alternatives • Enhanced bus on Lake Street Enhanced bus on Lake Street • Double/single ‐ track rail in the Midtown Greenway • • Combination of enhanced bus on Lake Street and Combination of enhanced bus on Lake Street and double/single ‐ track rail in the Midtown Greenway, with an enhanced bus extension to St Paul with an enhanced bus extension to St. Paul 6

Recap of Assumptions Recap of Assumptions • Developed service plan • Calculated travel times • Station locations • Concept station designs p g • Identified single ‐ track segments 7

Study Process Study Process 8

Ridership Projections (2030) Ridership Projections (2030) Enhanced Bus Corridor Alternative Local Bus Rail Study Extended Total Area Area Corridor Corridor Existing (2012) 14,600 14,600 ‐ ‐ ‐ Enhanced Bus Enhanced Bus 22,500 22 500 8 500 8,500 ‐ 11,000 11 000 3 000 3,000 Rail 20,500 9,500 11,000 ‐ ‐ Dual Alignment D l Ali 6 000 6,000 9 500 9,500 8 500 8,500 8 000 8,000 32 000 32,000 9

Cost Estimates Cost Estimates Operating Alternative Capital (annual) Enhanced Bus Enhanced Bus $50 $50 $7 $7 Rail $200 $8 Dual Alignment $245 $15 (figures in millions) 10

Results for Enhanced Bus Extension Results for Enhanced Bus Extension • Not all 21 criteria were evaluated N t ll 21 it i l t d • 8,000 more riders • 11,000 more jobs within reach • 4.2 miles of expanded service, 10 more stations • $18.9 million in additional capital costs • $3.2 million in additional annual operating costs $ p g 11

Other Evaluation Factors Other Evaluation Factors • Little difference in demography ‐ based factors Littl diff i d h b d f t (employment, population, etc.) • Greenway has greatest potential for impacts to G h i l f i historic and cultural resources • Economic development analysis in progress – working with city staff to refine • All options competitive for federal funding based on evaluation results 12

Single or Double Track Rail? Single or Double ‐ Track Rail? • Double ‐ track segments ‐ Increases reliability and flexibility ‐ Built ‐ in redundancy for service disruptions and maintenance ‐ Always necessary at stations Always necessary at stations • Single ‐ track segments ‐ Lower cost ‐ Less retaining walls ‐ Potential for fewer impacts to corridor • Balance both needs: double ‐ track where practical or operationally necessary, single ‐ track as feasible to avoid greatest impacts greatest impacts 13

Vehicle Size Options Under Consideration Vehicle Size Options Under Consideration Lake Street Enhanced Bus Lake Street Enhanced Bus Potential Greenway vehicle sizes 14

Topics Requiring Additional Analysis Topics Requiring Additional Analysis • Bridge protection Bridge protection • Retaining walls • Street crossings • Street crossings • Connection with SW LRT • Historical status 15

Outreach and Community Engagement Outreach and Community Engagement • Fall outreach to neighborhood and community organizations Central Area East Isles Resident’s E t I l R id t’ E East Calhoun board t C lh b d Neighborhood Association meeting Organization West Calhoun Minneapolis Bicycle Minneapolis Bicycle Whittier Alliance Neighborhood Coalition Association Phillips West Corcoran Neighborhood g Seward Neighborhood g N i hb Neighborhood h d Association Group Organization Cedar Isles Dean Transit center mini ‐ open Business owners at Neighborhood Neighborhood houses Mercado Central Association 16

Next Steps Next Steps • February 12, 2014 PAC vote on locally ‐ preferred F b 12 2014 PAC t l ll f d alternative • Recommendations will not include specific vehicle d i ill i l d ifi hi l type or single/double ‐ track segments • Both determined through additional analysis and stakeholder engagement 17

Your Feedback is Important Your Feedback is Important • St ff • Staff available to answer questions on four topic il bl t ti f t i areas: ‐ Process (FTA process timeline next steps etc ) ‐ Process (FTA process, timeline, next steps, etc.) ‐ Service design (travel time, service plan, etc.) ‐ Infrastructure design (station design track layout etc ) Infrastructure design (station design, track layout, etc.) ‐ Evaluation results (cost, ridership, etc.) • Please share your thoughts and complete a survey Please share your thoughts and complete a survey • Your feedback will be summarized and presented to the PAC for consideration on the LPA decision 18

THANK YOU midtown@metrotransit.org 19