Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Policy Advisory Committee Meeting Thursday, October 12, 2017; 9:00 AM Ramsey County Plato Building 1st Floor Conference Room 90 West Plato Boulevard, Saint Paul AGENDA Discussion Leader Item Action Requested Chair Rafael Ortega 1. Welcome and Introductions Chair Rafael Ortega 2. Approval of the Agenda Approval Chair Rafael Ortega 3. Approval of the September PAC Meeting Summary Approval Mike Rogers 4. Meeting Summary Information April Manlapaz 5. Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Definition Information April Manlapaz 6. Evaluation Framework Information April Manlapaz 7. Draft LPA Recommendation Approval April Manlapaz 8. Draft Implementation Plan Information Chair Rafael Ortega 9. Public Comment Information

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting Summary September 14, 2017 Participants See sign-in sheet at the end of this document for a list of attendees. Summary Meeting handouts included: Agenda PAC Meeting Summary July 13, 2017 Presentation Technical Appendix Planning for the Future of W. 7 th Street Public Engagement Activities Overview: Detailed Analysis July 13 - Aug 18, 2017 Public Comments Received July 1 - Aug 31, 2017 United and Children s Hospital Executive Summary Action Items Create timeline or process for a transit investment to support the second travel market in the corridor that isn t selected for this initial phase of the Riverview Corridor Transit Study Provide additional analysis of the comments collected from engagement activities For the public hearing, look into whether there needs to be a formal action to designate public hearing officers 1. Welcome and Introductions Chair Ortega convened the meeting at 9:07 a.m. and led introductions. 2. Approval of the Agenda Action: The PAC unanimously approved the meeting agenda (J. Commers motion; T. Busse second). 3. Approval of the May 11, 2017 Meeting Summary Action: The PAC unanimously approved the July meeting summary (R. Noecker motion; P. Mancini second). 4. PAC Meeting Summary Recap: Previous Meetings RCRRA staff recapped the actions made at the July PAC meeting. PAC moved to reduce 16 alternatives to six alternatives based on TAC recommendation and bring the remaining six alternatives for public review. The public engagement activities from July 14 to August 18 included community meetings, presentations, pop-up events, community events, and living room meetings. The purpose of these activities was to collect community feedback and preferences regarding the six alternatives moving forward, as well as the alternatives that were dismissed. Public comments were also collected via email/mail, social media, and phone calls. Staff also summarized presentations and meetings they have participated in since the end of August. This included a TAC meeting and a meeting with United and Children s Hospitals, and presentations to 1

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, Highland District Council, Saint Paul Transportation Committee of the Planning Commission, and the Fort Snelling Joint Powers Board. Study Timeline Staff provided an overview of the study timeline. The study is currently in the Draft Detailed Evaluation Results period. From August to September, TAC and PAC will review public comments and technical analysis which will cumulate with a TAC recommendation on a draft Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to the PAC at its October meeting. The PAC will be asked to approve the draft LPA for public review and a public hearing to gather additional community input in November. The PAC will be asked to take a final action approving a LPA in December. Meeting Objectives Staff gave a summary of the meeting s objectives. Objectives included review public comments from the July 14 August 18 engagement period, approve TAC recommendation to affirm the six alternatives, and discuss the LPA decision process. 5. Summary of Public Comments Project staff summarized the engagement activities and comments received during the Draft Detailed Evaluation Results period from July 14 to August 18, 2017. This period included four community meetings, one community event, four pop-up events, two presentations, and four living room meetings. During this time, the community was also engaged through electronic communications, social media, and print media. Email updates about PAC s decision to reduce the number of alternatives, an announcement/reminder for the community meetings, and a follow up or overview of comments from the community meetings was sent to 2,154 contacts. The website also had over 1,846 unique visits. The study s Twitter page has 184 followers, and 628 Facebook likes. Boosted Facebook posts were also utilized during the study to promote the community meetings to Facebook users in Downtown St. Paul, West 7 th, Highland Park, Longfellow, and Nokomis. Advertisements for community meetings were also published in the Villager, Community Reporter, and Longfellow Nokomis Messenger, and articles on the PAC decision to reduce alternatives were published in Start Tribune, Pioneer Press, and KSTP had a segment during their evening broadcast. Staff received feedback from over 637 people at the activities, 112 through email, mail, phone calls, and social media, and staff received five organizational letters from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minnesota Wild, United and Children s Hospitals, W. 7 th Business Association, and Patrick McGovern s Pub & Restaurant. During this period, staff were primarily asking three questions to the public: (1) Which travel market should a transit investment in the corridor serve? (2) What is your feedback on the remaining six alternatives? (3) What is your feedback on the dismissed alternatives? Approximately 200 people attended the July and August Community Meetings. There were 72 speakers during the Q&A portion of the meetings, and 41 people filled out comment sheets. Highlights from the community meetings include, the majority of speakers were supportive of improved transit in the corridor; more attendees supported bus alternatives than rail alternatives; and the majority preferred the Hwy 5 river crossing over a Ford Parkway crossing. Other common comments included cost, concern for residential and business impacts, and future need for better transit than local bus. Staff also provided a brief summary of the comments received during the engagement period regarding vehicles, river crossings, routes, and other concerns regarding safety, mobility, development, noise and parking impacts. 2

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Discussion: Will we receive more analysis on the comments received? This presentation gives us what we already know, but it doesn t give us an idea of how many people said it. A longer report with all public comments will be provided to the PAC in October. This is an initial summary of comments and staff will review the comments and see what additional analysis can be done. 6. Recap: Evaluation of Alternatives Project staff provided a brief overview of the transit study, including the purpose and need for a transit investment in the corridor, the study goals, the development of the most promising alternatives, and the differentiating criteria to arrive at the six most promising alternatives. 7. TAC Recommendation: Affirm 6 Alternatives TAC recommends affirming the six alternatives to be considered for the locally preferred alternative: Alternative 1: No-Build (Route 54) Alternative 2: Arterial BRT (via Hwy 5) Alternative 4b: Modern Streetcar: W. 7th Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Alternative 6: Modern Streetcar: W. 7th Ford Site Alternative 8: Modern Streetcar: W. 7th CP Spur Ford Site Alternative 10b: Modern Streetcar: W. 7th CP Spur Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Discussion: Why is the PAC being asked to vote on these alternatives again? The previous vote was to bring the six alternatives out for public review. This vote is to affirm the six that were selected to move forward into the analysis to determine what the LPA should be. To make this decision, to affirm the six alternatives, we need to consider how we can serve both travel markets. We should have that conversation now rather than after we vote. Can we go to the ninth item in the agenda, Process to Select a Locally Preferred Alternative, and then take a vote? Yes. 8. Process to Select a Locally Preferred Alternative As per PAC request, staff provided information on the LPA process. In October, PAC will select a draft LPA to be released for public comment, and in November, there will be a public hearing. In December, PAC will vote to approve the Riverview LPA. In early 2018, the LPA will go to the counties and cities it runs through for local resolutions prior to requesting that the Metropolitan Council adopt it into the region s Transportation Policy Plan later in 2018. Discussion: It would be helpful to review where we left off at with our discussion on the Y alternative at our last meeting. We recognize that to apply for federal funding we need one route and one vehicle, but the Met Council can adopt two LPAs for the corridor to serve the two travel markets. Other corridors have had similar problems serving two distinct travel markets, and the region has a history of leaving one market behind. We have three examples in this region and two did not show up in the meeting minutes for July: North Minneapolis with the Blue Line Extension, SWLRT/Green Line Extension and the Midtown Corridor. If we don t figure out how to serve both markets now, then history tells us that one is left behind. Chair Ortega stated that he and Councilmember Chris Tolbert are committed to supporting and considering both travel markets. During the last vote, I voted against approval of the six alternatives because I was not comfortable with our lack of knowledge about a viable Y LPA and because of that I still cannot 3

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study vote to affirm the six alternatives at this time. By taking this vote, the PAC is affirming the six alternatives, not denying that there can be a Y LPA for this corridor. Are the six alternatives discrete and unable to be combined to make a Y alternative? At this point, ABRT stands on its own. Streetcar routes to Ford Parkway and Highway 5 may be combined from a technical standpoint. I believe we can only serve one travel market in this study. I think the Y LPA is a false alternative. Chair Ortega stated he has had many conversations on this point, and he is committed to serving both travel markets in the corridor. I appreciate the worksheet project staff provided in the packet about the opportunities and the future of W. 7 th Street, as well as construction impacts. But when will properties be assessed and how will the assessment be affected by the vehicle selected? The assessment is mode neutral and it s completed after an LPA is selected. Is there any way to get this differentiation? Property assessment happens much closer to construction during the engineering phase. The city completes this work. What is the money from the new sales tax funding used for? The money is allocated by the county for transportation. It provides funding for Green Line operations and construction and operating costs for Rush Line, Gold Line and Riverview corridors. What s the implication of not taking the vote today to affirm the six alternatives? Without the vote, it leaves project staff with no direction. When we went to the public, we didn t hear that these are the wrong alternatives. We heard that these are the best moving forward. We re moving forward with six alternatives, but we re not prohibiting a Y alternative from arising from these six. I m confused. Are these six isolated options? Not necessarily. When Gold Line recognized they had two different markets, they ultimately decided to move forward with the route and vehicle that would make the strongest case for federal funding, and left the other market for Rush Line or an extension of route 64. The Gold Line Transit Study provided a jumping off point for the Rush Line study. Could this group approve a Y alternative but select the best route for federal review? We need two different projects to select two different routes. It s important that we receive a timeline or process for the Y solution. Something to help the PAC move forward with our LPA decision. PAC agrees that we want higher standard service for both areas and without a plan for serving the market not served by this project, I don t believe we can make a decision on an LPA in October. The process for moving forward to serve the other travel market is also dependent on which market is not served during this study. I am reassured with the direction of this conversation and that we are seriously considering the needs of both travel markets. I would add that the region has an example of a dual LPA. The City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, and Met Council found two LPAs in the Lake Street Corridor. One LPA moved to Met Council for adoption and one was sent to the federal government for funding. This project has taken a long time, especially if we go all the way back to the B Line, and I am ready for it to move forward. I respect Chair Ortega s preference to have this conversation at a later meeting. But to add my perspective to this conversation, the Y LPA offers a higher standard of service, but it s not like there is no service for these markets. Hennepin County is committed to funding a single project not multiple projects. 4

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Thank you Chair and project staff for the clarification. Next month, come back to us with more details on the Y LPA. It s nice to see that we are narrowing down the alternatives to find a solution for the corridor, but we need to listen to the West 7 th Street neighborhood regarding rail. We have heard from the community, No rail on W. 7 th Street from the community meeting at Nova, the neighborhood association - Fort Road Federation, and W. 7th Street Business Association had a petition with over 2,000 signatures. There is a lot of opposition to streetcar in the community. W. 7 th Street is a skinny street and it doesn t allow for the flexibility that is necessary for a vehicle built into the roadway. I m still unclear what the PAC will get in October. Based on the September TAC meeting, we ll report back a recommended draft LPA, and the travel market not served in that recommendation will receive an implementation plan. What s the implementation plan? Is it just a paragraph? No, we ll lay out a process or timeline for the steps to take in 2018 to move forward with a LPA in the corridor. Part of the Y will already have a jump start because of the work this committee has already done. I m still not comfortable voting on this affirmation without a clear idea of a Y LPA. West 7 th Street neighborhood is not served by a Ford Parkway river crossing. So, without clear direction for a Y LPA, I cannot take this vote today. We have made a commitment from the beginning to serve both travel markets. One will not be dropped at the end of this study. But this is where we make the formal decisions that go on the record, so I m not comfortable approving the alternatives today. Chair Ortega stated the county will be a funding partner for a study to move the other alignment forward in 2018. So, to recap the plan for the rest of the year, at the next meeting, the PAC will approve one draft LPA to go to public review. During the public meeting, the PAC will sit and listen and a court reporter will take notes. How will the public hearing be announced? The same as we announced our community meetings. There will be ads in newspapers, social media announcements, etc. Do we need to vote to approve the PAC as designated hearing officers? MAC has to formally approve itself as the host for public hearings. Project staff will look into this. Staff should work with PAC to inform us of a practical way of moving forward with both travel markets. I believe no one here would vote for one without knowing if the other travel market will move forward. Chair Ortega noted that nothing will go before RCRRA without stating both travel markets will be served. The long haul is still ahead of us, but it might not be with this group. Another PAC or study may be convened. Action: Councilman Tolbert motioned to affirm the six alternatives with expectation that PAC will receive more information at the October meeting on the implementation steps of a Y solution (All PAC members voted Aye ; except R. Noecker, P. Mancini, and L. Severson voted Nay ) 5

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study 9. Update: United and Children s Hospital Representatives from United and Children s Hospital, as well as their consulting team, provided a brief update on their study to research potential impacts to their facility if either arterial bus rapid transit or modern streetcar were routed on Smith Avenue. Based on their study s findings they are advocating to not place a modern streetcar or arterial bus rapid transit on Smith Avenue because of potential issues with noise, vibrations, and utility impacts. Discussion: You re here to voice your opposition to a Smith Avenue route, but wasn t Smith dismissed? No. If the W. 7 th Street route is selected in Seven Corners, does the hospital still require mitigation efforts? There will likely be some, but not as many than if the route was on Smith Avenue. What type of long-term mitigation efforts would be needed on Smith Ave? We would need to replace windows with a heavy-duty glass; relocate fragile equipment or upgrade it; and structural reinforcements to the walls of the building and the three underground tunnels under Smith Avenue. If Smith Avenue moves forward in this study, will a study of mitigation efforts be conducted by project staff? Yes, that will be done during the environmental analysis. Your study found that neither streetcar nor ABRT should be routed down Smith Avenue. Is there a noise difference between streetcar and ABRT? Streetcar is louder than ABRT, but both exceed the threshold of noise levels acceptable for a hospital. Noise from streetcar bells and whistles and ABRT acceleration exceed the noise threshold. There have been other examples of rail near a hospital and a quiet zone could be implemented on Smith Avenue. The consulting team applied methods from the FTA for determining noise and used assumptions found in the project team s report to determine these impacts. How many employees does the hospital employ? United has 3,500 employees and Children s has 1,000. Do you know how many use public transit to get to work? No. 10. Public Comment Commissioner Ortega opened the meeting to the public. There were no public comments. 11. Adjourn Chair Ortega thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting at 10:43 a.m. Next PAC Meeting: October 12, 2017 6

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Policy Advisory Committee Meeting September 14, 2017 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study PAC Attendance Sheet First Name Last Name Title Representing Kristin Beckmann Deputy Mayor City of Saint Paul X Tim Busse Councilmember City of Bloomington X Jon Commers Councilmember Metropolitan Council Pat Harris Commissioner Metropolitan Airports Commission X Nancy Homans Policy Director City of Saint Paul (Alternate) Sheila Kauppi Metro District Minnesota Department of Transportation (Alternate) X Pat Mancini Owner, Mancini's Char Riverview Corridor Business House Representative Scott McBride Metro District Engineer Minnesota Department of Transportation Peter McLaughlin Commissioner Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Pat Mosites Airside Project Manager Metropolitan Airports Commission (Alternate) X Mark Nelson Transportation Planning Minnesota Department of Dir. Transportation (Alternate) X Rebecca Noecker Councilmember - Ward 2 City of Saint Paul X Howard Ornstein Assistant County Attorney Hennepin Co Regional Railroad Authority (Alternate) X Rafael Ortega Commissioner Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority X John Regal Board Member Saint Paul Area Chamber of Commerce X Bridget Rief Airport Development Metropolitan Airports Commission Director (Alternate) X Laurel Severson Citizen Riverview Corridor Citizen Representative X Chris Tolbert Councilmember - Ward 3 City of Saint Paul X Peter Wagenius Policy Director City of Minneapolis Staff and Consultants X Johanna Berg Acting Director Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority X Mike Rogers Project Manager Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority Kevin Roggenbuck Deputy Project Manager Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority X Tim Mayasich Staff Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority X April Manlapaz Project Manager AECOM Team X Nancy Stavish Technical Staff AECOM Team X Joy Miciano Public Engagement AECOM Team X Rebecca Lieser Pubic Engagement AECOM Team X Ted Davis Strategic Communications Davis Team Mike Zipko Strategic Communications Davis Team 7

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Kent ATTENDANCE SHEET Policy Advisory Committee Meeting September 14, 2017 Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study Other Attendees First Name Last Name Organization Petterson Lee Nichols WSB W. 7th Street Business Association and Community Reporter Tony Baxter ESI Engineering Jay Severance All Aboard MN Dan Kueny TAC member Carl Jensen MnDOT Rachel Dammel Kimley-Horn Jim Schoettler Self Joseph Scala Hennepin County Ken Iosso Ramsey County Jane McClure Villager 8

Riverview Pre-Project Development Study Policy Advisory Committee October 12, 2017 1

Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of the September PAC Meeting Summary 4. Meeting Summary 5. Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Definition 6. Evaluation Framework 7. Draft LPA Recommendation 8. Draft Implementation Plan 9. Public Comment 2

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 3

3. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER PAC MEETING SUMMARY 4

4. MEETING SUMMARY 5

October 12 th Meeting Purpose SEP 14 PAC consider public comment OCT 12 PAC approves Draft LPA for public comment NOV Draft LPA public hearing DEC PAC approval of Riverview LPA Early 2018 Local resolutions of support for LPA 2018 Forward LPA to Met Council for adoption 6

Comments Received July 13-August 18, 2017 PAC requested in September to quantify public comments by alternative What was the public asked? Which travel market should advance first as part of the Riverview Study? What are your thoughts on the recommendation to advance Alternatives 1, 2, 4b, 6, 8, 10b for further consideration? What are your thoughts on the recommendation to not advance Dedicated BRT and light rail alternatives? 7

Public Input: Vehicle Vehicle Route 54 (No Build) Arterial BRT Modern Streetcar Comments Adequate but extend route and continue to improve service (40%) Too crowded; low frequency; boarding a challenge for people with reduced mobility; poor quality stops/shelters (60%) Flexible; low cost; faster than streetcar option (50%) Low development potential; lower estimated ridership than streetcar (50%) High development potential; higher estimated ridership (50%) High cost; neighborhood and business impacts (50%) Light Rail Continues LRT network in region; faster than streetcar (30%) High cost; greatest neighborhood and business impacts (70%) Note: Percentages shown are relative to the total number of comments that mentioned the specific transit vehicle 8

Public Input: River Crossing River Crossing Comments Hwy 5 Shorter travel time/direct connection between Union Depot and MSP, MOA; higher estimated ridership; lower cost per rider (70%) Impacts of constructing bridge over river and/or tunnel in Fort Snelling (30%) Ford Pkwy Serves anticipated growth with redevelopment; better connection between Minneapolis/Highland Park and W. 7 th neighborhood (30%) Longer travel time to MSP, MOA; impacts to residential area (Minneapolis); higher cost per rider; lower estimated ridership (70%) Note: Percentages shown are relative to the total number of comments that mentioned the specific river crossing 9

Route Public Input: Route Comments W. 7th Street Better access for people who rely on or choose to use transit, better access to businesses and other activity centers (45%) Impacts to neighborhood and business (55%) CP Rail Spur Existing tracks, less traffic and business impacts (55%) Impacts to residences; less access to businesses and activity centers; preserve Spur for bike/ped trail only (45%) St. Paul Ave Preserve CP Spur for bike/ped trail only (40%) Impacts to residences (60%) Smith Ave Only one person and one business provided feedback on Smith Ave Remain on W. 7 th to keep route simple for transit riders and visitors; impacts to hospital Note: Percentages shown are relative to the total number of comments that mentioned the specific route 10

5. LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA DEFINITION) 11

What is a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)? A corridor s preferred transit vehicle and route that best meets its Purpose and Need The LPA Identifies: General Service Plan General Station Locations Cost and Ridership Estimates The LPA is NOT: The end of the technical analysis. Further analysis will be needed Final Approval Local partners will have additional review/approval opportunities 12

Federal and Local Context of an LPA Federal Context = Local Context = 13

For Future Environmental Analysis and Engineering Transportation Traffic, parking, etc. Alignment though Seven Corners, street vs. CP Spur, etc. Operating environment side vs. center, dedicated vs. shared Environmental Cultural, historic, noise, wetlands, etc. Provide flexibility and focus resources to: Avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts Refine the costs/benefits Discuss costs/benefits with public and stakeholders 14

6. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 15

Purpose and Need To enhance mobility and access to opportunities for residents, businesses, and the region and to cultivate economic prosperity 1. Growing population and employment increases travel demand for different travel markets 2. Support and catalyze reinvestment and economic development 3. Transit-reliant population also need improved transit service 4. Limited opportunity to improve the existing transportation network 16

Development of the Most Promising Alternatives PAC Action February 2016 October 2016 January 2017 February 2017 July 2017 WE ARE HERE October 2017: PAC approval of Draft LPA December 2017: PAC approval of LPA 17

Alternatives Carried Forward Local Bus Arterial BRT Potential connection 18

Alternatives Carried Forward Modern Streetcar Modern Streetcar Pair Modern Streetcar alternatives by river crossing They have similar evaluation results Simplifies comparison Modern Streetcar Modern Streetcar 19

Ridership Travel Time Construction Development Potential Environmental Considerations Cost per Rider Summary of Alternatives Carried Forward Alternative 2 Arterial BRT via Hwy 5 River Crossing 11,100 riders per day 3,200 transit-dependent riders 200 new riders 39 minutes to travel ~12.4 miles Union Depot Randolph: 16 min. Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 14 min. MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 9 minutes Similar to No-Build. Minimal construction at stations Lower development potential than modern streetcar alternatives Minor environmental considerations at stations $4-$6 Alternative 4b & 10b Modern Streetcar via Hwy 5 River Crossing 20,000 riders per day 4,500 transit-dependent riders 2,500 new riders 43-44 minutes to travel ~11.8 miles Union Depot Randolph: 14 min. Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 17-18 min. MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 12 minutes High level of construction activity along route and at stations Higher development potential due to fixed guideway Major, due to new bridge National Park, Historic Fort Snelling, Fort Snelling State Park Tribal coordination Cultural and historic resources $10-$12 Alternative 6 & 8 Modern Streetcar via Ford Pkwy River Crossing 19,000 riders per day 4,300 transit-dependent riders 1,700 new riders 54-56 minutes to travel ~15.8 miles Union Depot Randolph: 14 min. Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 28-30 min. MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 12 minutes High level of construction activity along route and at stations Higher development potential due to fixed guideway Major, retrofit existing bridge Minnehaha Falls Regional Park, Coldwater Spring Tribal coordination Cultural and historic resources $12-$14 20

Alternatives vs. Federal Funding Criteria Based on technical information on hand What would qualify? What would be the strongest Riverview Corridor alternative for federal funding? 21

FTA Evaluation Criteria Each criterion gets a rating: High Medium-High Medium Medium-Low Low Medium Rating required for both Project Justification and Local Financial Commitment 22

Local Financial Commitment Criteria Reasonable Financial Plan and Cost Estimates Conservativeness of Financial Plan compared to recent experience Access to additional funds if necessary Commitment of Capital and Operating Funds Current Financial Condition Not included in preliminary assessment Would not likely differentiate alternatives 23

Project Justification Criteria Existing conditions Population Density, Employment, Affordable Housing Future development Plans and Policies Ridership Focus on transit-dependent Balance of Cost & Ridership Capital and Operating Costs Benefits compared to cost Capital and Operating New riders All 6 criteria are equally rated 24

Preliminary Project Justification Rating Not all necessary information is currently available Reasonable assumptions and professional judgment used to fill in gaps 4 of 6 Project Justification Criteria have been approximated based on available data Modern Streetcar evaluated under New Starts Arterial BRT evaluated under Small Starts 25

Economic Development Rating Does not differentiate between alternatives Qualitative assessment of plans and polices Transit Supportive Plans and Policies Growth management, transit corridors, zoning, station area planning, land use tools Performance and Impacts of Policies Performance of land use policies Potential impact of transit project on regional land use Tools to maintain or increase rating Affordable housing need and supply (preserve and increase) 26

Environmental Benefits Rating Does not differentiate between alternatives Based on change in Vehicle Miles Traveled by mode Ratio of Monetized Value of Environmental Benefits compared to Annualized Capital Cost + Annual Operating Cost Includes: Greenhouse Gases, Particulates, Energy Use, and Safety 27

Land Use Rating Employment served Population density (New Stations) Affordable housing (New Stations) Downtown parking supply Alternative Anticipated FTA Rating Alt. 2: Arterial BRT Medium Alt. 4b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Medium Alt. 6: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Ford Site Medium Alt. 8: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Ford Site Medium Alt. 10b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Medium 28

Mobility Rating Annual Ridership (Trips on Project) + Trips by Transit-Dependent Persons Average of current year and horizon year ridership forecasts Trips by Transit-Dependent Persons are counted twice Transit-Dependent Persons are people who live in households without an automobile (regardless of income) Alternative Anticipated FTA Rating* Alt. 2: Arterial BRT Medium-Low Alt. 4b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Medium Alt. 6: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Ford Site Medium Alt. 8: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Ford Site Medium Alt. 10b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Hwy 5/Fort Snelling *Based on 2040 ridership forecasts Medium 29

Cost Effectiveness Rating Cost Per Rider New Starts (Annualized Capital Cost + Annual Operating Cost)/Annual Ridership Small Starts Annualized Federal Share of Capital Cost/Annual Ridership Average of current year and horizon year ridership forecasts Alternative Anticipated FTA Rating 1 Alt. 2: Arterial BRT Medium-High to Medium-Low 2 Alt. 4b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Medium-Low Alt. 6: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Ford Site Medium-Low or Low Alt. 8: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Ford Site Medium-Low or Low Alt. 10b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 1 Based on 2040 ridership forecasts. 2 Based on Small Starts formula and breakpoints. Medium-Low or Low 30

Congestion Relief Rating New Transit Riders Average of current year and horizon year new weekday riders Alternative Anticipated FTA Rating* Alt. 2: Arterial BRT Low Alt. 4b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Medium or Medium-Low Alt. 6: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Ford Site Medium-Low Alt. 8: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Ford Site Medium-Low Alt. 10b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -CP Spur-Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Medium-Low *Based on 2040 ridership forecasts 31

Draft FTA New Starts Ratings Based on 4 Project Justification Criteria Alternative Anticipated Cost- Effectiveness Rating Anticipated Congestion Relief Rating Anticipated Mobility Rating Anticipated Land Use Rating Anticipated Project Justification Rating (based on 4 criteria available) Small Starts New Starts Alt. 2: Arterial BRT Alt. 4b: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th - Hwy 5 Alt. 6: Modern Streetcar W. 7 th -Ford Site Medium-High or Medium or Medium-Low Medium- Low Medium-Low or Low Low Medium-Low Medium Medium or Medium- Low Medium or Medium-Low Medium Medium Medium Medium-Low Medium Medium Medium or Medium-Low Alt. 8: Modern Streetcar CP Spur-Ford Site Medium-Low or Low Medium-Low Medium Medium Medium or Medium-Low Alt. 10b: Modern Streetcar CP Spur-Hwy 5 Medium-Low or Low Medium-Low Medium Medium Medium or Medium-Low 32

Purpose and Need 4b, Modern Streetcar-W. 7 th -Hwy 5/Ft. Snelling is the best alternative to Enhance mobility, Provide access to opportunities for residents, businesses, and the region and Cultivate economic prosperity. Highest 2040 weekday ridership (20,400) Highest Development Potential due to fixed guideway Highest number of transitdependent riders (4,600) Double the ridership of No-Build in 2040 33

What is Modern Streetcar? For Riverview Corridor Would share infrastructure with Green and Blue Lines, so Riverview vehicle needs to be compatible Tracks, signals, power Stations in downtown Saint Paul, MSP, Bloomington South Loop Operations and maintenance Other features High amenity stations Pay before you board Level boarding Tacoma Streetcar Atlanta Streetcar 34

What is Modern Streetcar? For Riverview Corridor Operating Environment Determine segments of shared use and dedicated in future environmental and engineering phases Dedicated: Tie-ins with Green and Blue Lines 35

Draft LPA: Other Considerations Retain these options for future environmental analysis and engineering Alignment Downtown Saint Paul: Green Line tie-in Seven Corners: Smith Ave concepts Alternative 10b: CP Spur segment parallel to W. 7 th St Hwy 5/river crossing concepts Bloomington South Loop concepts Operating environment Dedicated or shared use Center- or side-running 5 4 Potential connection 3 Legend 1) 1 Green Line tie-in 2) 2 Smith Ave concepts 3) 3 CP Spur segment 4) 4 Hwy 5/river crossing concepts 5) 5 Bloomington South Loop concepts 2 1 36

7. DRAFT LPA RECOMMENDATION 37

TAC Recommendation by Member Agency Recommendation Remarks Saint Paul Public Works Yes Most competitive project for federal funding; greater balance in future development; LPA will be refined in environmental work Saint Paul Planning & Economic Development Yes Agreed with PMT recommendation to forward Alternative 4b as Draft LPA to PAC for public review Saint Paul Ward #2 Yes Goal is to improve transit and W. 7 th walkability; concerns about sidewalk impacts MnDOT Metro District Yes Agreed with PMT recommendation to forward Alternative 4b as Draft LPA to PAC for public review Metropolitan Airports Commission Yes Long term economic benefits to rail; public comment needed; questions will be answered in environmental TLC/Smart Trips Yes Board voted to support Alternative 4b; concerned about walkability, bikeability, construction impacts on businesses City of Minneapolis Yes Technically speaking, Alternative 4b should move forward; up to PAC to discuss technical vs. community issues City of Bloomington Yes Strongly encourage; concerned about adding additional train trips through the 24 th Ave. intersection at MOA station Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority Yes Alternative 4b best meets Purpose & Need and federal funding criteria; public input on the draft LPA needed Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority Yes From TAC perspective, Alternative 4b appears to be the best alternative; should move to PAC & public for feedback; still many questions to answer Metropolitan Council Yes Agreed with PMT recommendation to forward Alternative 4b as Draft LPA to PAC for public review Metro Transit Yes Agreed with PMT recommendation to forward Alternative 4b as Draft LPA to PAC for public review Transit-Dependent Community Representative No Concerned about impact of rail on W. 7 th St businesses, prefers flexibility of ABRT Highland District Council No Highland District Council supports modern streetcars; need more info for impacts to W. 7 th St businesses before moving forward West 7 th Street/Fort Road Federation No Too many unanswered questions. Can t move forward without answers, there will be 100% opposition from business owners until they are answered. Minneapolis Parks & Rec Board Abstain No formal stance; concerned about access points, ecological impacts, unanswered questions on impact to park board property Ramsey County Public Works Abstain Missed prior meetings and didn t feel comfortable voting National Park Service Abstain Okay with 5 build alternatives, but not transit paralleling the bluff; cultural impacts to be looked at in future work 38

Draft LPA Recommendation TAC Recommendation Carry forward Alternative 4b Modern Streetcar W. 7 th Hwy 5/Fort Snelling as the Draft LPA for public review for these reasons: Likely qualifies for Capital Investment Grant (CIG) funding Strongest corridor alternative for CIG funding Best meets the Purpose and Need Connects people and opportunities; yields highest ridership from transit-reliant population; and catalyzes/supports economic development Alternative 4b: Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th Hwy 5/Fort Snelling 39

Draft LPA Recommendation TAC Recommendation Retain these concepts for future environmental analysis and engineering Alignment Downtown Saint Paul: Green Line tie-in Alternative 10b: CP Spur segment parallel to W. 7 th St Seven Corners: Smith Ave Hwy 5/river crossing concepts Bloomington South Loop concepts Operating environment Dedicated or shared use Center- or side-running Alignment and Operating Environment concepts identified above 40

Other Draft Recommendations TAC Recommendation Commit to a separate study of transit improvements to/from Ford Corridor that include these activities: Identify funding partners Identify study lead/co-leads Initiate study in 2018 Develop and execute necessary inter-agency agreements for the study Develop work plan, schedule, and budget of study Establish distinct advisory committees for Ford Corridor study Identify and adopt LPA, and determine next steps City of Saint Paul, Metro Transit, and RCRRA commitment to study, identify and implement feasible, near-term transit improvements in Highland Park 41

8. DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 42

Draft Implementation Plan Once an LPA is selected, an implementation plan: Identifies the project stakeholders/governance to be involved in future project phases Lays out a series of steps to move a project through the phases of the New Starts/Small Starts process 43

Riverview Corridor LPA Draft Implementation Plan Late 2017-2019 From 2020-2021 From 2022-2023 From 2024-2027 Complete the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Engineering to support it. Complete the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Engineering to support it Complete Engineering, construction plans, finalize costs and agreements Obtain a Full Funding Grant Agreement, complete construction 44

Ford Corridor Study Draft Implementation Plan Analyze alternatives to serve the Ford Corridor travel market Governance Study lead Agreements Work Plan/budget Adopt a Locally Preferred Alternative Begin analysis in 2018 City of St. Paul, Metro Transit and RCRRA commitment to study, identify and implement feasible, near-term transit improvements 45

9. PUBLIC COMMENT 46

Public Comment When Commenting, Please Be respectful Be brief - Speak for 3 or fewer minutes to give others an opportunity to speak Visitor comments will be included in the PAC meeting summary The Chair reserves the right to limit an individual s presentation if it becomes redundant, disrespectful, or is not relevant to the Riverview Corridor. 47

Riverview Pre-Project Development Study TECHNICAL APPENDIX Policy Advisory Committee October 12, 2017 A-1

Technical Appendix ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY A-2

Alternative 1 No-Build (Route 54) 12.4 miles 26 stops 10-min peak frequency 2040 Ridership ~50% lower than modern streetcar alternatives: 10,700 riders per day Travel Time Slower travel time than ABRT: 41 minutes over 12.4 miles Union Depot Randolph: 16 minutes Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 14 minutes MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 11 minutes Construction Minor construction impacts W. 7 th St resurfacing and sidewalk reconstruction Development Potential Lowest development potential of all alternatives due to lack of fixed guideway Environmental Considerations None Cost per 2040 Rider Not applicable; cost of additional service to accommodate future demand A-3

Alternative 2 Arterial BRT: W. 7 th Hwy 5 2040 Ridership ~40% lower than modern streetcar alternatives: 11,100 riders per day 3,200 transit-dependent riders 200 new riders Travel Time Fastest travel time : 39 minutes over 12.4 miles Union Depot Randolph: 16 minutes Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 14 minutes MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 9 minutes Construction Minimal; at stations (concrete bus pads, shelter, electrical) 12.4 miles 26 stops 10-min peak frequency Development Potential Lower development potential than modern streetcar alternatives due to lack of fixed guideway Environmental Considerations Minor environmental considerations at stations Cost per 2040 Rider Low cost per rider: $4-6 A-4

Alternative 4b Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Ridership Highest ridership : 20,400 riders per day; 4,600 transitdependent riders; 2,700 new riders Travel Time 44 minutes to travel ~11.7 miles Union Depot Randolph: 14 minutes Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 18 minutes MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 12 minutes Construction Assumes full road reconstruction, utility relocation, tracks and electrification, and new stations Development Potential Higher development potential due to fixed guideway 11.7 miles 20 stops 10-min peak frequency Environmental Considerations Major environmental considerations include new river crossing, parkland, Historic Fort Snelling, tribal coordination, cultural and historic resources Cost per 2040 Rider Lowest cost per rider of modern streetcar alternatives: $10-11 A-5

Alternative 10b Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th CP Spur Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Ridership 19,600 riders per day; 4,500 transit-dependent riders; 2,200 new riders Travel Time Fastest travel time of the modern streetcar alternatives: 43 minutes to travel ~11.9 miles Union Depot Randolph: 14 minutes Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 17 minutes MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 12 minutes Construction Assumes full road reconstruction, utility relocation, tracks and electrification, and new stations 11.9 miles 20 stops 10-min peak frequency Development Potential Higher development potential due to fixed guideway Environmental Considerations Major environmental considerations include new river crossing, parkland, Historic Fort Snelling, tribal coordination, cultural and historic resources Cost per 2040 Rider Similar to Modern Streetcar via Hwy 5: $10-12 A-6

Alternative 6 Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th Ford Site Ridership 19,000 riders per day; 4,400 transit-dependent riders; 1,800 new riders Travel Time Longest travel time: 56 minutes to travel ~15.7 miles Union Depot Randolph: 14 minutes Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 30 minutes MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 12 minutes Construction Assumes full road reconstruction, utility relocation, tracks and electrification, and new stations 15.7 miles 27 stops 10-min peak frequency Development Potential Higher development potential due to fixed guideway Ford Site is largest single redevelopment site in corridor Environmental Considerations Major environmental considerations include river crossing, parkland, tribal coordination, cultural and historic resources Cost per Rider Highest cost per rider of all alternatives: $12-14 A-7

Alternative 8 15.8 miles 27 stops 10-min peak frequency Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th CP Spur Ford Site Ridership 18,400 riders per day; 4,200 transit-dependent riders; 1,500 new riders Travel Time Longest travel time: 54 minutes to travel ~15.8 miles Union Depot Randolph: 14 minutes Randolph MSP Terminal 1: 28 minutes MSP Terminal 1 MOA: 12 minutes Construction Assumes full road reconstruction, utility relocation, tracks and electrification, and new stations Development Potential Higher development potential due to fixed guideway Ford Site is largest single redevelopment site in corridor Environmental Considerations Major environmental considerations include river crossing, parkland, tribal coordination, cultural and historic resources Cost per Rider Highest cost per rider of all alternatives: $12-14 A-8

TAC Draft Subject to Change Without Notice 27 Sep 2017 Based on Draft PMT Recommendation F ord Corridor Pre-Project Development Study 1 Develop and analyze alternatives to serve the Ford Corridor/travel market, presuming the Draft Riverview LPA is Alternative 4b, Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th St Hwy 5/Fort Snelling. Outline of Next Steps 1. Identify funding partners 2. Identify study lead/co-leads 3. Initiate study in 2018 4. Develop and execute necessary inter-agency agreements for the study 5. Develop work plan, schedule, and budget of study 6. Establish distinct advisory committees for Ford Corridor study 7. Identify and adopt LPA, and determine next steps 8. City of Saint Paul, Metro Transit, and RCRRA commitment to study, identify and implement feasible, near-term transit improvements in Highland Park 2 1 2 If Draft LPA were Modern Streetcar through the Ford Site (Alternative 6 or 8), then conduct a similar for the travel market across Hwy 5 from approximately W. 7 th Street/Saint Paul Ave to the Blue Line Fort Snelling Station. Hwy 5 counterpart requires additional discussion of commitment between these three agencies. R iverview Draft LPA Implementation Plan Alternative 4b, Modern Streetcar: W. 7 th St-Hwy 5/Fort Snelling Overview of Process 1. Governance 3 a. Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority b. City of Saint Paul c. Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority d. City of Bloomington e. Metropolitan Council f. Metro Transit g. Minnesota Department of Transportation h. Federal Transit Administration i. Metropolitan Airports Commission 2. Remainder of Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study (From Late 2017-2019) a. Riverview PAC approve LPA b. Obtain resolutions of support from cities, county RRAs, MAC c. Forward LPA and financial plan to Met Council for amendment into Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) d. Initiate FTA coordination, including determination of NEPA Class of Action e. Initiate environmental review f. Complete engineering to support environmental review; make key decisions; reduce cost and risk g. Explore additional local funding opportunities h. Review and, if necessary, modify implementing legislation i. Prepare New Starts Project Development application j. Establish Project Organization for Project Development and execute associated interagency agreements 3. New Starts Project Development (From 2020-2021) a. Complete final environmental decision document b. Affirm LPA and consistency with TPP; amend if needed 3 Add City of Minneapolis to the list of key agencies if the Draft LPA were Modern Streetcar through the Ford Site. c. Advance design to obtain final cost estimate to determine federal share d. Develop material for New Starts Engineering (evaluation and rating) e. Demonstrate/document agency technical capacity f. Capital and operating funding Final resolution of the non-capital Investment Grant (CIG) funding sources and operating funding sources 4 Establish intergovernmental Financial Working Group to support required coordination involved with grant application dates, timing of funding, and formal interagency funding agreements. 4. New Starts Engineering (From 2022-2023) a. Identify utilities and relocation requirements b. Details of right-of-way acquisition requirements c. Prepare contract design/specification documents d. Signal modifications and new signal design e. Finalize project capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, and schedule f. Environmental testing and permitting requirements g. Construction staging and detailed construction mitigation plan h. Capital and Operating Funding Provide a Financial Plan with timing and amount of all capital funding sources vs. expenditures and financing requirements (if any). Prepare Operations Agreement that defines the operating plan, operating costs, fare subsidy and operations funding source assumptions. i. Project Management/Organization Prepare a Project Management Plan (formalizes the Contract Design Procurement approach and method(s)) Update New Starts Evaluation Templates Formalize project organization and interagency agreements j. Agreements Cooperation Agreements Grant Agreements Master Funding Agreements (MFA) and Subordinate/Sub-Funding Agreements (SFA). Memorandum of Understanding Operations and Maintenance Agreements Cooperative Construction and Utility Relocation Agreements Coordinate adjacent projects, e.g. W. 7th Street resurfacing and sidewalk reconstruction (MnDOT) 5. New Starts Grant & Construction (From 2024-2027) a. As applicable, initiate long-lead items under Letter of No Prejudice (e.g. utility relocation, property acquisition 5 ) b. Execute Full Funding Grant Agreement between FTA and Met Council 4 5 Riverview will pursue CIG funding as a New Starts project. Task would likely occur earlier in the New Starts process for Ford Site and CP Yard, along with required agreements and environmental remediation. rv - imp plan outline - 20170927.docx 1

Riverview Corridor Pre-Project Development Study ARTERIAL BRT (Alternative 2) TAC Requested Summary of Technical Issues Requires property for operations and maintenance facility May require utility relocation Requires transit signal priority coordination MODERN STREETCAR (Alternatives 4b, 6, 8, 10b) Requires property for operations and maintenance facility Utility related impacts on residents and businesses with relocation/improvements Requires transit signal priority coordination Smith Ave./W. 7th St. current transit operations, hospital access, ongoing development Proximity to bedrock may require construction methods that are more time consuming, costly and disruptive Typical section priorities consider all users including bicycles Pedestrian safety sidewalk widths and speed of adjacent traffic Tie into the Blue Line and Green Line Potentially affects more parklands Coordination with MSP (access, security, runway protection zone) Coordination with MOA (access, potential for new rail tie-in); may require grade separation at 24 th Ave. Requires greater tribal coordination Hwy 5 (Alternatives 4b & 10b) Ford Parkway Bridge (Alternatives 6 & 8) Hwy 5 bridge/tunnel is eligible for National Ford Parkway Bridge is listed on National Register of Historic Places Register of Historic Places Requires reconstruction of Hwy 5 bridge Requires structural analysis to determine for traffic, rail, pedestrian, and bike or a scope of work to accommodate modern new bridge near Hwy 5 for transit, streetcar pedestrian, and bike Requires grade separation at Blue Line Design/engineering and coordination with Requires grade separation at Soo Line near Historic Fort Snelling: rail tie-in options, 46 th St. access, impacts to parkland and historic resources W. 7 th (Alternatives 4b & 6) CP Spur (Alternatives 8 & 10b) Potential loss of on-street parking Dependent on availability of CP Spur; Denser development limits staging and entails acquisition of entire CP Spur ROW laydown areas during construction from private owner Higher number of access points higher Design/engineering effort associated with safety concern potential land bridge between CP Spur and Montreal Ave. over I-35E