Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015.09.21 CC PowerPoint Rush Line171/jr/7 Line Pre -Project Development (PPD) Study Hugo City Council Kush Line Corridor PPD Stud 30 -mile study area between Union Depot in St Paul and Forest Lake Purpose is to provide transit service that satisfies the long-term regional mobility and accessibility needs for businesses and the traveling public catalyzing sustainable development within the study area Led by Ramsey County Regional Rail Authority (RCRRA) on behalf of Rush Line Task Force Builds off 2008/09 Alternatives Analysis Results LEGEND"] Project Study Area ColLImbL]s Forest Lake CnFeevillP I 1 r Hugo Lind Lfem ANO KA COUNTY RAMSEYCOUNTY te8s ' nship WASHINGTON COUNTY Mitt, 4 Kar e Vadna'ss Heights LiLtle Canada North St. Paul St. F'z u I u I i4 � ��. Population is growing Afiifi#t#114 $i'tlPffift'� 111'�1�tf�f{"1 bfiifiit44�ti 4fi1!#t#14� zoio +zar ;f#� s}}#hf�f4f4i A}#�ItFt�t#1r 1?fi'RR'19Rf44 11fi�91'1��f� 1t#�IA41t1fi 2040 Corridor population will increase from 445,000 to 555,000 through 2040 Employment is increasing Corridor employment will increase from 245,000 to 315,000 through 2040 Employment Rush Line Increase in elderly population #f#f 2000 2012 Increase in people living below the poverty line (in corridor) fliff 2000 IIMIIII 1 2012 Rush Line Increase in demand for express and suburban local routes Northern - oriented routes EXPRESS...* ,,+33% SUBURBAN +9% LOCAL URBAN ==* +4p/0 LOCAL `Rush Line ongoing public and stakeholder engagement L3 TUDY Rush Line We want to hear from you and share the work we have done We want to engage many audiences General Public City (District Council) and County Business Associations and Special Interest Groups Presentations, Electronic Communication, Pop-up activities, Neighborhood Meetings and Community Events [W Spring 2015 - Fa112015 Winer 2015 - Spring 2o16 0 u a nor:" Spring 2o16 - Fall 2o16 1\172 W AN Alternative Evaluation Process Tier I — Pass/Fail Annivsis • What gins in: all modes and alignments under consideration • How they are evaluated: high-level qualitative assessment to identify if any modes or align m tints have fatal flaws • What c€ mes oust: a sntaIler set of modes and alignments for more detailed definition and evaluation Tier 2 — I?etaiied Evaluation • 'What goes in. paired modesand alignments that survived Tier • How they are evaluated: aganinst the project purposeand needs and goals and objectives. Uses detailed quantitative and qualitative criteria. • 'What cornus out: one or two preferred alternatives for further refinement Tier 3 — Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) • What goes in. the preferred altematives from TieO • How they are eval uated: detailed evaluation criteria that are similarto FTA evaluation criteria • What comes out. the Locally Preferred Alternative - the alternative that best meets the project purpose and needs Transit Modes • Frequency Runningway System Length Capital Costs Station Spacing How often does a typical bus ortrain arrive ata Does a typical bus or train travel in mixed tra M c or its own From end-to- end, how far What is the relative costto What is theavera average a between each station for g g MODE stop? dedicated lane? does a typical constructthis this mode? bus or train mode? Mixed Dedicated travel? Traffic Guideway �l r 1/8- 1/6 mile 110" ca I I Busw III Varies Varies $ 1/4- 1/2 mile uid Tr�aansit Arterial Bs-Rap (BRT)ii�r Every 7-15 minutes 5-15miles $$ v POP 1/8-1/4mile a, �r�� Streetcars - Every 7-15 minutes 1-5miles $$$ c a� - 1 mile LL Light ,Rail Transit (LRT) Every 10minutes 10-30 miles $$$$$ 0 1 mile Diesel Multiple MU) EverylOminutes 20-40rniles $$$$$ 1 mile Dedicated,Guide�way, Everyl0minutes 10-30miles $$$$ Highway Bus Rapid Transit Every 10-15 minutes 10-20 milesti- $$$ 2 miles Station-to'St± lu F11iwv� R High,apid Transit 5 miles (market specific) r�i�r Exp_ T Every30+minutes 10-25 miles $$ $$$ J �. j - aD Ln U_ Ew a � Ex(V 0wv) Does a typical bus or From end -to - How often does a typical train travel in mixed end, how far MODE bus ortrain arrive ata trafficorits own does a typical stop? dedicated lane? bus or train Mixed Dedicated travel? Traffic Guideway What is the relative cost to What is the average mileage between each station for construct this this mode? mode? � light gra—cll T'ran`sit (LRT) Every 10minutes 10-30miles $$ 1 r7ilr 1 mile 1)ies'eI Multiple MU EverylOrninl 20-40 miles $ $ 1 mile D d mated Gui d 77a y, BRT, Eve ry 10 minutes 10 - 30 miles $$ $ ��mauuai mynmeAl vnn oe eenneo . ; erconDwnr av rK arce,.wr are aanem.n I ED I a J • L mt Alignment Options I Alignments from the 2009/2009 i Altematives Analysis i Public Engagement • d i s METRO Gold Line (Gateway e re�I i iAlignment I " METRO Green Line 0 1 2Miles . r> 10 .c Iz i7 Identified through previous t 14 i ' A studies and public W B 'g I engagement efforts I i 61 I rp2ND 57 ,1 ANOKA COUNTY __,_ouNrr RonE. a....^I,._ I]OTH Sr fMSEY COUNTYINET � I 1 I1 I non+sT G H vim« 9L d NP. T 'CAU L Pvt w�l be dellirwid as to ails ril we il I w � STH ST i ^ I DE71WODORO C WWY ROAD 9F 1 S 75TH 9T �w I 1 COUNTY R.3AOE ,0.N I 3 � 'ami ) _ Iw tleurreo I�x al 4 elrefineJ in Y M11'ple�rnW _ S 1 E -M 4F+w rvE i 3 j y Options Alignment Options CO ROAD ITTHAVE i Alignments from the 2008112009 es; INSEY 1 AJterrratives Analysis z 61 �H,YR�DB A. FROST RVE EMPIRE DR _.� Public Engagement �.r METRO Gold Line (C-Weway Corridor Alignment METRO Green tine MINNEHAH0.AVE {� 1 2 SEE INSET Miles t Pden6el �ignieM wil aemaa ve �S Rt ,F \, _.. nr�4 as anemawee are rears _,n01.� - The strongest performing segments are in the southern portion of the corridor. Density (jobs and housing) and number of activity centers are highest in the southern portion of the corridor. Environmental and cultural impacts (right-of-way) are less in the northern portion of the corridor. Regional connectivity is limited in the middle and northern portions of the corridor. All modes and alignments advanced from Tier 1, Phase Ato Tier 1. Phase B. Rush Line iE�nV l ronmont a/,, Capital costs =� -�r 3\j0 txrne00 Mu�t�r�oda` Te t chnical Equity Analysis se� vara v -FL Policy Analysis � Recommended Alternatives V 140 Rush Line Environmental If property (right-of-way) is insufficient or too constrained Land use Low density existing and planned land uses Capital cost More than $1 billion Travel time More than 75 minutes Policy Rational Rush Line Advanced: LRT/D M U to downtown White Bear Lake (along RCRRA / BNSF rail corridor) Dedicated Guideway BRT to downtown Forest Lake (along RCRRA / BNSF / WCRRA rail corridor Arterial BRT to White Bear Lake (along White Bear Avenue and US Highway 61) 1 BRJFDNAY AVE Wn "" F °res[ L DraftlWork in Progress Subject to Change 0,14 July 2015 071 - i 1 _ - Forest Lake 1 � Transd Center IZ I� I� J In io iz n q ; Ir9THAVE ! 14 1 F DoH 90 n o bIR_H ST i ! � 1 i 1L0. �: HAVE n si RMOK.Q CilUN� =o-D:=':�q:=. _. _. _. �.�I�. 135TH ST_ 1IDTn sT _ _: RAMSEY COUNTY 11 rTH ST 1 1 -LINTY READ I ; IbiH 6T & I U o 9TH CT� white Dear "" OEJ-LWdOPRO 4 ardFPY RDAD 96 Lake 75THST t9uuTr13aao E - aruNtt aeA° E s : Rush r e kAaE� Maple o°d Litre Mall u GJ"NTYROAD c TI ROAD c . ITRIAVE 1 _ G __ Tier 9, Phase B Evaluation s l © ' " ' " ; Major NorthlSouth Alignments ea wav'rnr: —T. ! Dedicated BRT to —PE E"RAVE i Downtown Forest Lake - - ! LRT/DMU to White Bear _ ARLI-TOPAVE N ¢ g 1 Lake InAPru VE N1•.'., t Phalen i Arterial BRT to White FRc�eurleRr,T�ogy, w villa ae '0 i Bear Lake MDraocreenLme please see 1r.-NEHAHAAVE 1 u W11-11AVE +�e■■■■■■■+■■■u■■■■■ �_ Other Tier 1,Phase A ■■ downtown _ _ 1 Alignments for Reference IAAR HAL—E SE—AVE detail map--'�--= ETRO G°Id Line,6ate..y 1 Key Key Destinations for muriDFVEoy�b Cr. ; Analysis i Downtown F orest Lake i i ^aCASBC]1A�F:l_ Draft[Work in Progress Subject to Change July 2015 Forest Lake Transit Center Downtown Hugo 12f;T4ST 126TH ST • +7 117T H ST 1 1 1 ■ 1 i22NDST 110TH ST 1 1 1 1 1 1� 1� . cy Wo Lo 1 1 - 1 p , 1 BIRCH ST ; 1 1 .`L 1 ASH ST 4NOKA COUNTY COUNTYRCIAD,] ■ RAMSE75[1NTY h� Draft[Work in Progress Subject to Change July 2015 Forest Lake Transit Center Downtown Hugo 12f;T4ST 126TH ST • +7 117T H ST 1 1 1 ■ 1 i22NDST 110TH ST I. Streetcar High cost and slower travel time compared to other alternatives Streetcar lines are typically much shorter 1-35E Low- density existing and planned land uses Existing express market will be improved through MnPass investment Deferral does not limit ability to advocate for future express bus improvements LRT or DMU north of White Bear Lake High costs compared to other alternatives Low-density existing and planned land uses Rush Line I. LRT/DMU or Dedicated BRT on White Bear Avenue or Highway 61 (south of White Bear Lake) Significant property impacts because these transit modes require their own travel lanes Higher cost and slower travel time compared to other alternatives Rush Line November 2015 - Policy Advisory Committee will take action on the Tier 1 Analysis after reviewing the draft final Tier 1 technical report and summary of public comments Winter 2015 - Detailed Tier 2 analysis of remaining alternatives (ridership, cost, impacts and etc.) Spring 2016 - Recommendation on a draft Locally Preferred Alternative Summer 2016 -Recommendation on Locally Preferred Alternative Fall 2016 —Approval of Locally Preferred Alternative by impacted cities and counties and the Metropolitan Council 174USAY Line Attend a Community Meetings Tuesday TuesdayI Wednesday Sept. 22, 2015 Sept. 29, 2011511Sept. 34, 2015 5.00p.m.-7:00 p.m. Presentation at 5.30 p.m.. Headwater Service Center 19955 Forest Rd. hl., Forest Lake 5:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.ma Presentation at .5:0 p.m. Maplewood Community Center 2100 White Bear Ave., Maplewood Contact Us 6.00 p.m. - 8.00 p.m. Presentation at 6:30 p.m. wArlington Hills Community Center 1 1244 Rayne Ave., St Paul • f www.facebook.com/rushlitie • I` @rushlinetran it www. rush line. rq - info@ru Mine. r * 651-266-276 Questions? Rush Line