M IDTOWN C ORRIDOR A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS M IDTOWN C ORRIDOR A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS Universe of Alternatives and Initial Screening Results Initial Screening Results Public Open Houses p May 21 and 23, 2013
Today’s Presentation • Open house feedback • Study process • Universe of alternatives • Initial screening criteria g • Initial screening results and recommendations • Study next steps Study next steps 2
Comment Themes from January Public Meetings Comment Themes from January Public Meetings • Support for both Lake St or Greenway Suppo o bo a e S o ee ay • Need for fast and reliable service between transitways • Desire for fewer transit stops p • Transit service extends further east to river & St. Paul • Local service on Lake St needs to be maintained • Efficient access to Lake St provided • Better connections between Lake St and Greenway • Minimize impacts to Greenway • A rail mode would spur development 3
Promotion and Outreach Promotion and Outreach • Community Advisory Council meetings in February and April: neighborhood and businesses represented neighborhood and businesses represented • Presentation provided at Mercado Central for 20 ‐ 30 Lake St business owners • Project staff present at Breakfast with Gary Schiff: April 26 at Mercado Central • Coordinated with Mpls Neighborhood Outreach Staff to distribute open house flyer to Somali, Latino, American Indian communities • Project staff present at 5th Precinct Open House: May 14 • Coordinating with Horn Towers (31 st St and Blaisdell Ave) to outreach with Somali residents 4
Study Process Study Process 5
Study Process Steps Study Process Steps Determine ‘universe of alternatives’ Determine universe of alternatives 1. 1. • All possible mode and alignment combinations Develop initial screening criteria Develop initial screening criteria 2. 2 Apply those criteria to the universe of alternatives 3. Advance best alternatives for more detailed study Advance best alternatives for more detailed study 4 4. 6
Alignment Options Alignment Options Midtown Greenway Lake Street 7
Mode Options Mode Options 8
Universe of Alternatives Lake Street Midtown Greenway Enhanced Bus Dedicated Busway Dedicated Busway Double/Single ‐ Track Streetcar Double ‐ Track Streetcar Streetcar Light ‐ Rail Transit Double ‐ Track Light ‐ Rail Transit 9
Universe of Alternatives Universe of Alternatives Lake Street 1. Enhanced bus 2 2. Streetcar S 3. Light ‐ rail transit (LRT) 4 4. Dedicated busway Dedicated busway 5. Double/single ‐ track streetcar Midtown 6. Full double ‐ track LRT/streetcar Greenway 7. Dedicated busway 8 8. Streetcar Lake Street/Greenway loop S L k S /G l 9. Personal rapid transit 10 Commuter rail 10. Commuter rail 10
Purpose of Initial Screening p g • To evaluate the full range of alternatives against project development criteria. p • Only alternatives that meet the overall project purpose and need will be advanced to the next level of analysis 11
Initial Screening Criteria Criteria Requirements 1. Consistency with regional and Mode characteristics are consistent with Metropolitan Council recommendations local plans local plans stated in the Transportation Policy Plan and in the Regional Transitway Guidelines stated in the Transportation Policy Plan and in the Regional Transitway Guidelines Mode characteristics are consistent with local and other plans and policies 2. Level of access provided to jobs Mode station spacing guidelines provide sufficient numbers of stations within the and residents study area to adequately serve major destination and activity centers 3. Ability to provide desired transit Mode design characteristics allow for transit speed increases capacity and speed increases Mode is appropriate scale current ridership levels but also provides room for growth 4 4. Compatibility with existing C ibili i h i i M d i Mode integrates well with existing transportation infrastructure and systems. ll i h i i i i f d transportation modes and infrastructure 5. Potential ROW impacts 5. Potential ROW impacts Mode requires minimal right ‐ of ‐ way Mode requires minimal right of way 6. Community and stakeholder Does not require reconstruction of Lake Street sentiment Does not remove a travel lane or greatly impact parking on Lake Street Minimizes impacts to Greenway historic and cultural resources Minimizes impacts to Greenway bicycle and pedestrian facilities Mode is felt to have potential to spur economic development 12
Initial Screening Results Table g 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 Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good Good speed increases speed increases Compatibility with Very existing transportation 4 Good Poor Poor Good Poor Good Fair Good modes and infrastructure Very y 5 Potential right of way 5 impacts Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Good Good Poor Poor 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 13 Advanced Advanced
Enhanced Bus on Lake Street • One of the best performing corridors in the Enhanced Screening Criteria Bus Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Arterial Transitway Corridors Study Very 1 Consistency with regional • Allows for modest speed and capacity Good and local plans increases 2 Level of access provided Fair to jobs and residents to jobs and residents • Least impact and is most compatible with • Least impact and is most compatible with Ability to provide desired existing and planned transportation transit capacity and 3 Fair speed increases infrastructure Compatibility with Very e y • Least ROW impacts of all alternatives • Least ROW impacts of all alternatives 4 existing transportation Good modes and infrastructure • Bus is only felt to have ‘some potential’ Very 5 Potential right of way Good instead of ‘high potential’ to spur economic impacts d development l t 6 Community and Good stakeholder sentiment Advance for further study Overall rating Good 14
Streetcar on Lake Street Screening Criteria Streetcar • Provides best access for jobs and residents • Allows for modest speed and capacity 1 Consistency with regional Fair and local plans increases 2 Level of access provided • Requires additional infrastructure at both ends Good to jobs and residents to jobs and residents for layover and turnaround, requiring some Ability to provide desired transit capacity and right ‐ of ‐ way 3 Fair speed increases • Construction impacts on Lake Street Compatibility with G Good d 4 existing transportation • Is felt to have high potential to spur economic modes and infrastructure development 5 Potential right of way Fair impacts 6 Community and Fair stakeholder sentiment Do not advance for further study Overall rating Fair 15
LRT on Lake Street Screening Criteria LRT • Major impacts to parking and vehicular and pedestrian traffic on Lake Street d t i t ffi L k St t 1 Consistency with regional Good • Requires additional infrastructure at both ends and local plans for layover and turnaround, requiring some 2 Level of access provided Fair to jobs and residents to jobs and residents right ‐ of ‐ way i h f Ability to provide desired • Possible clearance issue under I ‐ 35W bridge transit capacity and 3 Good speed increases • Lack of strong community support due to Compatibility with P Poor 4 existing transportation concerns about reconstruction of Lake Street modes and infrastructure and impacts to existing vehicular traffic 5 Potential right of way Poor impacts 6 Community and Poor stakeholder sentiment Do not advance for further study Overall rating Poor 16
Dedicated Busway on Lake Street y Dedicated Screening Criteria • Major impacts to parking and vehicular and Busway pedestrian traffic on Lake Street d i ffi L k S 1 Consistency with regional Good • Requires a significant amount of ROW and local plans 2 Level of access provided • Lack of strong community support due to Fair to jobs and residents to jobs and residents concerns about reconstruction of Lake Street Ability to provide desired transit capacity and 3 and impacts to existing vehicular traffic Good speed increases Compatibility with Poor P 4 existing transportation modes and infrastructure 5 Potential right of way Poor impacts 6 Community and Poor stakeholder sentiment Do not advance for further study Overall rating Poor 17
Recommend
More recommend
