Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02.20.90 Council Packet
AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR FEBRUARY 20, 1990 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE AGENDA 3. APPROVE MINUTES a. January 28, 1990 - Special b. February 5, 1990 - Regular 4. CITIZENS COMMENTS 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Set Public Hearing to Approve Redevelopment Plan 6. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Scattered Family Housing b. Proclamation for Volunteers of America Week 7. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS a. Authorize Ehlers and Associates as Fiscal Consultants for Industrial Park Bond b. Amend Solid Waste Ordinance and Policies 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Update Part Time Police Program 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Industrial Park b. Insurance - New Excess Liability Coverage Option 10. MISCELLANEOUS a. Dakota County LRT Comprehensive Plan b. Budget Adjustment - Copy Machine Lease/Purchase c. Draft EIS - Dakota County Resource Recovery Project 11. CONSENT AGENDA a. Capital Outlay Request - Engineering b. Capital Outlay Request - Liquor Store c. School/Conference Request - Liquor Store d. School/Conference Request - Police Department e. Fire Fighter Appointments f. Capital Outlay Request - Finance g. School/Conference Request - Finance h. School/Conference Request - Finance i. School/Conference Request - Police Department j . Approve Payment of the Bills 12. ADJOURN AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. ba- NAME: Gerald Henricks DEPARTMENT: HRA C) 1 ) DATE: February 8, 1990 MEETING DATE: February 20, 1990 r-\rrjj-j)r-\ \\jj CATEGORY: Public Hearings SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing to Approve Redevelopment Plan EXPLANATION: Self explanatory. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Memo - Gerald Henricks REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Karen Finstuen Administration Charles Tooker Planning Gerald Henricks HRA 4/ASOR il,//CA.eillte) SIGNATURE MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 1990 The Farmington HRA requests the City Council to set a public hearing for March 12, 1990 to approve the Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan provides a guide for the efforts of the Farmington HRA. The plan explains the Project Area only of the existing downtown redevelopment tax increment district. The purpose of the expansion is to allow the HRA to have the ability to complete projects outside of the existing district that may not be accomplished if this Project Area expansion was not undertaken, specifically the Industrial Park. The Redevelopment Plan, maps indicating the expansion area and financial information will be provided to the City Council prior to the public hearing date. At the February 20, 1990 Council meeting, the preliminary drawings of the expanded project area will be presented for your review. i .- 1/4 //t4LeCl/ Gerald Henricks HRA Executive Director cc: HRA Members Ernie Darflinger GAH file NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE FARMINGTON HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Farmington will hold a public hearing on a revised Redevelopment Plan (the Revised Plan) of the Farmington Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the HRA) at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, March 12 , 1990, at the Farmington City Hall , 325 Oak Street, Farmington, Minnesota. The Revised Plan provides for additional property to be included in the area (the Expanded Project Area) subject to the Revised Plan. The additional property to be included in the Project Area is generally described as follows : See Attachment A The Revised Plan describes certain proposed activities to be undertaken by the City and the HRA with respect to the Expanded Project Area, and authorizes the use of tax increments derived from the original Project Area to pay certain public redevelopment costs in connection with improvements to the Expanded Project Area. Set forth below is a map showing the area included in the original Project Area and the area that will be included in the Expanded Project Area if the Revised Plan is approved. All who wish to be heard as to the Revised Plan will be given an opportunity to express their views at the time of the public hearing or may file written comments with the City Administrator prior to the public hearing. By /s/ Larry Thompson City Administrator 1 Attachment A Beginning at the intersection of the center of First Street with the north line of Elm Street and extending northerly to the north line of the former right of way of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad, then easterly along said north right of way line of the railroad a distance of two hundred twenty feet (220') , then northerly along an east property line of the City park which contains the Vermillion River, a distance of two hundred feet (200') then easterly along the south line of the City park which contains the Vermillion River to the intersection of the west line of Fourth Street and the center of Willow Street, then easterly along Willow to the center of Eighth Street, then southerly to the center of Pine Street, then westerly along Pine Street to the center of Fifth Street, then southerly to the center of Main Street, then westerly to the center of Fourth Street, and then extending southerly to the center of the alley between Spruce and Walnut Street, then westerly to the center of First Street, then northerly to the south line of Elm Street, then westerly along the south line of Elm Street to the center of Denmark Avenue, then southerly along Denmark to the center of Spruce Street then westerly along the half section line of Section 36 a distance of two thousand two hundred thirty feet (2,230') to the east line of the Dakota County Shop property, then northerly along the east line of the Dakota County Shop property a distance of one thousand three hundred twenty five feet (1,325') to the south line of Trunk Highway 50, then westerly along the south line of Trunk Highway 50 a distance of two thousand nine hundred sixty feet (2,960') to the west line of Section 36, then northerly along the west line of Sections 36 and 25 to the center line of the north branch of the Vermillion River, then easterly along the center line of the north branch of the Vermillion River to the center of Section 25, then southerly along the north/south half section line of Sections 25 and 36 to the north line of Trunk Highway 50, then easterly along the north line of Trunk Highway 50 to the point of beginning. AGENDA REQUEST FORM 120) ITEM NO. NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: February 12, 1990 MEETING DATE: February 20, 1990 CATEGORY: Petitions, Requests, Communications SUBJECT: Proclamation for Volunteers of America Week EXPLANATION: Volunteers of America Week is March 4-11, 1990 REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Proposed Proclamation REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: / 724 SIGNATZ r fig'" - k .> ; �C 4 y pk: ''''''''':'''''''')I'''3+�." ,k-..,,,,K -. �',4 m ja ,.,:iv7``R -" ft T K , r ..' .. . `� 'S";..r3 ....„ .¢ N''.'" y l �'"' �. sr.: '1' :'i > .t''}i t+�. 3 d � J+' r.«3. a� ,:`,4t",.-4.1:,..,'�� .� � g.'a:.':—::r.,:7";- " :L. s ';',-;"4"-: e csv" � ..!`.;'�, �r� va; ,t +sV. �.7 'rL`w��'�i: 2 .,,,,,..s.,;„-,0;.t .,:,.,,....,,„ . >r e L .�'�' `,�r',.•.‘,/:-",:: c '� '�'^x r„.;--,:z x < � ��,t,°� � ,:, �-,,,,,-,,t,,,n.�,r'�*,..-,-;,'..i-,4.„ -, `' �� � ''s'"� its -�'i �.`'�,f`=� ks ��. ��t S[ t�,, r� � +Sv E $� `� ,�: ��.`�#",71.'"r.':1.4";--'4;k. #.�$'� ' , r �'�-4 �.+�.R.'w iu� r a,�, „-:-..„-4,:r,„:i. '.:,77:7,-7-, -..::':' ray i - . s it },JE #1- a ';C a f n sy, yr /�/\ p f �" 4 �� 3�" ,;`,.‘.,* •",„,,,.;., &., Lq b a n // � Yy3t� &;4 l �. y" pyo,. #*r t y, F fi t � R ■��,/// I• !*�Y -Y>. a'� �1b ����'k�Y J"x i ��..,"' 1�r".�✓4� '�.'�'�' tP 4 '.} ,,. ,, : .';;;,A`',/,..::::4,`, �� ry 4 J � V f f ice O f tile #� ' f x y a'` ,a 1 t ,' E S'1 ' sa iV r i', t '�t+ra, a.,"Y s, r °did*' ,*;:$:* 'N'.:',.. FAQ x ,i r i�+ :. -.4,-,,,4..-J1f #„,'�e z C rt � ` htar. a t n „ , - - arnhin43tLln, E T . .. 1 Ill rottainatton WHEREAS, Vo!u.nteetus oi Amerciea, one oi htis 4.iiane6 human zerAv.iee organ-.za ,i.on4, hcvs beennahelpon' iongand o Mherusnne6o ion near'6c.��ayg94 yearns; and WHEREAS, Vol un eerc,6 0.6 Ameru ca tveeh c s ehedu ffan anch 4-11, which com- mema-urte�s -i t[, bounding on Manch 8, 1896;ed and WHEREAS, -th.vs prca c eama tLo n will be. enco wrutg ing a .thous e. -Ln the Farming.to n eommun.i ty who neee.%ve c.cvice .thrcough volun een 6env iced o� dedicated 6za.ii and .through f Lnanc ia,� con r ibwt and -to .6upporc t .th i.6 Waith. NOW THEREFORE we.: pro c ea i m Manch 4 h'u 11, 1990 ass Volu n eerc6 0 Ame�i ea WeeFz .in Fanm.ing to n and ab Fz that the e t ti z ens a Farming a n j o.in .in ee�ebruz ti ng .the 94 yearns of ded.ica ed aenv.ice .he6e vo un.teerus have. prcovided. fin cuttneis WnE2Eof J I ac'E IEZEunto 1 E my hand and causEd the SEat of tJts city to L affixEd. cAlayoz atE W •?t�s�or�ler• 9. •oeF VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA 5905 Golden Valley Road • Minneapolis,MN 55422 • (612)546-3242 January 25, 1990 The Honorable Eugene Kuchera Mayor of Farmington City Hall Farmington, MN 55024 Dear Mayor Kuchera: Volunteers of America, one of this nation's and Minnesota's largest human service organizations, has been helping others for nearly 94 years. Volunteers of America Week is scheduled for March 4-11, which commemorates its founding on March 8, 1896. I am asking you to proclaim the week in our behalf. Your personal proclamation will be encouraging to those in the Farmington community who receive care through our services. Our dedicated staff and volunteers and the many people who help support our work through their financial contributions will be equally appreciative. Your interest and support makes a significant difference in the success of our organization. And, as you know, our success is measured through the lives of those we touch. I sincerely hope you will proclaim March 4-11, 1990 as Volunteers of America Week in Farmington and ask that you join us in celebrating our 94th year of service. Respectfully yours, -7,24'0 L._ ,,f-,,,z Jm4es E. Hogie, Jr. P esident JEH/j 1 Enclosures P. S. Your proclamation will be duplicated along with other proclamations and/or congratulatory letters to be put in booklet form. A booklet commemorating our 94th birthday will be placed in the reception area of each program. • LJ 'o4.C VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA MINNESOTA 5905 Golden Valley Road • Minneapolis,MN 55422 • (612)546-3242 YESTERDAY TODAY TOMORROW Volunteers of America has been serving the needs of A men's hotel and industrial department opened;and America for nearly a century, providing over 400 in 1920, Andrick Home at 245 Oak Grove Street was programs in 240 communities across the country. Ser- purchased as a girls' home. vices are offered to children and youth, the elderly, families, disabled persons, offenders and ex-offenders, During the depression years children were brought and to communities at large. to summer camp at rented campsites; and in 1943 property on Dutch Lake, near Mound, was purchased to Since its establishment in 1896, the Volunteers of serve 200 boys and girls. This property was sold; and in America has demonstrated an ability to change and grow 1954 land, north of Anoka, was given to the Volunteers as our county, its needs, and the needs of the people of America for the site of a year-round program, thus change. Bar-None began. Now, as in the past, the Volunteers of America's programs are designed to respond to the concerns of in- dividual communities, and take a holistic approach to TODAY human care. As society has changed so has the Volunteers of Volunteers of America's continuing mission, to America. provide material and spiritual assistance to people in need, regardless of race, creed or color. In Minnesota, the Volunteers of America provides services for children and youth, adults and the elderly, and offenders and ex-offenders. Our newest service, CAN-DO,is a Community and Neighborhood Drug Of- YESTERDAY fensive Program. Volunteers of America,the first religious social-ser- vice organization founded in the United States, began as CHILDREN AND YOUTH a movement of humanitarian service that has lasted over nine decades. - ■ Residential Treatment Center for emotionally and/or behaviorally disturbed boys (Bar-None). On March 8, 1896 Ballington and Maud Booth estab- lished a New York Bowery Mission dedicated to provide ■ A Children's Emergency Shelter. material assistance as :veil as spiritual comfort and guidance. ■ 6 programs serving autistic, autistic-like, and When the Volunteers of America was less than developmentally disabled children, youth and twelve weeks old it had organized program services in young adults (In-Home Respite Care, the Inten- Buffalo,Cleveland,Philadelphia,Indianapolis,St.Louis sive Treatment Center, Forestview Annex, Out- and MINNEAPOLIS. Of-Home Respite Care, Stevencroft Apartment, and Stevencroft Home). In June 4, 1896 Volunteers of America began their services in Minneapolis by offering food and shelter to • In-Home Services and 55 licensed treatment foster homeless men. During those early years food baskets for homes and correction group homes for emotion- Thanksgiving Day and Christmas, clothing and toys ally/behaviorally disturbed children who may were distributed. have a delinquency history (Family Treatment Program). Services were held in the Mission Hall at 9 North Second Street and evangelical open air meetings were ■ Specialized Behavior Program for boys diagnosed offered on street corners. with conduct disorder. ADULTS through other offices. These services are: long-term care facilities(nursing homes)and apartment housing • 5 homes for mentally disabled, mentally ill, for low-income families, the elderly and hand- chemically dependent and/or elderly adults (Farm icapped persons. House, Ponderosa, Settevig Home, Timberlane, and White House). TOMORROW ■ Semi-Independent Living Skills Programs for The Volunteers of America will continue provid- developmentally disabled adults and youth. ing innovative services...meeting the unmet needs of individuals and communities. This will be possible ■ Supported Living Services Programs offer adult through the determined abilities of our staff, our foster care and training in self-help skills with board members, and you. full time supervisional care. We are proud of the quality of our services; and is Hot noon meals delivered to shut-in seniors who we know donors want to support nonprofit agencies are unable to prepare their own meal (Home with which they can proudly associate. Delivered Meals). • Hot noon meals served to seniors at 42 community sites in Anoka and Hennepin Counties (Senior Nutrition Program). Volunteers-of America of Minnesota Board of Directors OFFENDERS AND EX-OFFENDERS • A women's jail, workhouse and work-release cor- James W. Feil, Chairman rectional program (Regional Corrections Center). James E. Hogie, President* Mark T. Flaten, Vice Chairman ■ A men's pre-release and work-release correction- Ross E. Kramer, Secretary* al program (Residential Center). Ronald L. Britz, Treasurer Mary E. Adams* Walter W. Faster* William L. Goodman As a multi-service agency in Minnesota, the Volun- Gordon M. Haga teers of America offers community programs to in- Peter L. Hauser dividuals of all ages. Barbara King John S. MacArthur Its staff is comprised of people who not only have William W. McDonald administrative and/or professional social work expertise W. Lyle Meyer but who also have a commitment to the Christian mis- John T. Richter - cion of the organization,the reaching and uplifting of all Erling W. Rockney people. Clayton W. Strandlie* Renee J. Tait In addition to nearly 325 staff, last year more than Robert E. Van Valkenburg 2,100 persons volunteered their talents to help enrich Harm A. Weber program services in Minnesota. In Minnesota the Volunteers of America provides * Also serve on the Volunteers of America additional program services which are administered National Board of Directors VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 5905 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, MN 55422 (612) 546-3242 The Volunteers of America is a 501(c)(3) organization and is eligible to receive tax deductible contributions. January 1990 1 AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. 16cL, NAME: Larry Thompson DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: February 12, 1990 MEETING DATE: February 20, 1990 CATEGORY: Miscellaneous SUBJECT: Dakota County LRT Comprehensive Plan EXPLANATION: Council comment on plan. REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Executive Summary/Comment - Larry Thompson REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Charles Tooker Planning Tom Kaldunski Public Works/Engineering Karen Finstuen Administration Jerry Henricks HRA/EDC cwt � 60-1 SIGMA MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 1990 Attached please find various information relating to the Draft Dakota County Light Rail Transit (LRT) Plan. I have the following comments regarding the Plan. 1. The terminuses are planned for Burnsville Center, I-35E and 1-494, and T.H. 55 and extension of Lafayette Freeway in Inver Grove Heights. This would place the nearest terminus at approximately 9 miles form the northern boundary of the City (Burnsville Center) and the terminus with the easiest access at 12 miles from the northern boundary (I35E and 494) . Since it is approximately 25 miles to either downtown, I see little benefit or incentive for Farmington residents to use the system, unless the highway system becomes so congested that drivers begin experiencing 30-40 minute delays on a consistent basis. 2. The report states the project may be funded by a "mix of local, regional, State and Federal funding." County or regional taxes would be "the property tax or sales tax." Per the concerns expressed under #1, I feel the City should oppose any regional sales or property tax imposed on Farmington. This matter will be presented at the February 20, 1990 meeting. 77 Lar y Thompson City Administrator cc: Development Committee file MEMO TO: DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SUBJECT: COUNTY LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLAN DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 1990 Please be advised that I have received a draft copy of the Dakota County Light Rail Transit (LRT) Plan. Since the implementation of this system could have an impact on Farmington Development, I feel the committee should review the summary and comment. I've attached a copy of the cover letter and executive summary for your review. The full report can be obtained from Charlie. c/ 7, Lafry Tho son City Administrator cc: file • DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 0,14, COG 7300 WEST 147TH STREET.SUITE 503•APPLE VALLEY,MINNESOTA 55124 (612)431-1158 ...„. • -,•� : ; ;:- , E 3 b 1990 itisotsli MEMORANDUM TO: Technical Committee Members Cities Townships • �\�` FROM: Allen Moe`, Dakota County Program Manager DATE: February 2, 1990 • SUBJECT: County Comprehensive LRT Plan The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority would like to receive comments from local government and the general public concerning the County' s Comprehensive Light Rail Transit Plan. The Board of Commissioners have set a public hearing for February 27, 1990, 9:00 a.m. , at the Dakota County Government Center in Hastings. The purpose of the Plan is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing light rail transit in Dakota County within the next 20 years. The Plan has identified three corridors for potential • development. All corridors are extensions from adjacent counties with connections to downtown Minneapolis and St . Paul . (See attached map.) The three corridors include: 1. I35W - from downtown Minneapolis to Burnsville Center 2. TH 55 - from I35E/I494 to Hiawatha Avenue 3. Robert Street/Lafayette - from downtown St. Paul to TH 55 or I35E/I494 The Comprehensive LRT Plan has identified generalized alignment and stations locations . More detailed studies will be needed to make site specific recommendations . The planning process has been conducted over the last 12 months . The Authority utilized the assistance of a technical review committee comprised of local government, private business and citizen representatives . During November, 1989, the Authority conducted a series of three public information meetings throughout the County to obtain comments on the Plan. Following the February 27, 1990 public hearing the Plan will be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and Regional Transit Board for review. After Plan approval local governments are required to incorporate elements of the LRT '�j-r' Plan in their comprehensive plan. We have scheduled a meeting for local government representatives to review the plan with County staff. The meeting will be held February 12, 1990, at 1:30 p.m. in the Westcott Library Community Room, 1340 Westcott Avenue, Eagan . We would appreciate receiving your comments by February 16, 1990. If you have any questions , please contact Allen Moe, 431-1158. AM/keg M-M-L RTP Attachment DOwN'.OwM M;NM APOLI.S . .1111.11111PrAri -,11146, PowN ro�•/NI 116> 5r. PAUL_ . 0004111 `At - . 4�. V c-... � 9>, ... ''...::I ., : - : ''''':7. •.. L.:: /'''.•'' -- - tz , . .,- -, , / ' ---4- \ ' ii i ; 3 � Wti. _,,,Z ). , i r- --lik,_ u� , 3 p 2'1,;± �; T I_-g'. 494 \ '_' r-ii'r*/ / I/ 1 I) , ' i ':' \ „ y CENTRAL CORRIDOR z.f,'� T.H 55 ;,;,� �- � 5 7) 1___. ►1 EAST CORRIDOR e . ., , ., ......„.„.r. .: 1 ) '? (I \----' A--' _ . . cA41,......„. 1,1 ,...,.„,,,,f--.„--...„... - : ..;,..z ir- )// i / , \ . 771....: p 1 1 , .._..... ___._ 1 ,,„,) ‘ . • : . \ I . �:v \ ' `, " BURNSVILLE I } ' I ,-..--....;7..-- il CENTER / 1 - • �� • • i 1 ;WEST CORRIDOR ;rte r ` I-1. .....7 ' 8a+d o' 4o' Soo' I xr v 11111.11111M1 RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR Imo ami ALTERNATE ROUTING • TERMINUS I. } DAKOTA COUNTY CCMPRE+:ENSiVE LAT PLAN ` RECOMMENDED LRT CORRIDORS IN DAKOTA=,xrr REGIONAL RAILROAD AU774ORITY 20 YEAR PLAN • DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLAN FOR DAKOTA COUNTY i I PREPARED FOR DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I PREPARED BY STRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. I JANUARY, 1990 I 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . The Draft Light Rail Transit (LRT) Plan for Dakota County recommends three corridors for construction in the next 20 years. . The LRT corridors will provide direct express service to downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul and will be integrated into a metropolitan LRT system. LRT lines in Dakota County should be integrated into a county- wide transit system which provides both LRT feeder service and opportunities for transit trips within and across the county. . Overall ridership on the three LRT corridors is projected to beThe rec60 , 000 to ommended 75 , 000regiper day by the yearare 2010 estimated includingto 25 ,cost000a riders per day in Dakota County. regional corridors total of $626 million to construct. Capital costs attributable to the Dakota County portions of the corridors are estimated at 40 percent of this total . . LRT in Dakota County has the potential to reduce traffic congestion cn key river crossings and highways , to delay or reduce the need for roadway improvements , to promote efficient land-use and economic development, and to improve overall mobility. ▪ Through active participation in the regional planning process for LRT, the County can ensure that local financial support for LRT is in relation to the benefits received. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LRT SYSTEM PLAN? The plan evaluates the feasibility of implementing an LRT system in Dakota County within the next 20 years. The plan is based upon goals established by the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority: 1. To identify potential LRT corridors. 2 . To evaluate the impact of LRT development in adjacent counties . 3 . To evaluate the relationship between LRT and other transportation components. 1 I 4 . To develop a process for preserving LRT options. 1 5. To integrate LRT strategies into an overall County Transportation Plan. WHAT LRT CORRIDORS ARE PROPOSED IN THE PLAN? • The three LRT corridors proposed for construction in the next 20 years are shown in the attached figure. All corridors are extensions of LRT corridors proposed by other counties and connect with downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul . The corridors represent general paths for LRT lines. More detailed studies are needed to recommend specific alignments . Corridors with long- range (pest 20-year) potential for LRT include Cedar Avenue, I-35E, the Soo Line Railroad, and various cross-county connections. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL RIDE THE LRT SYSTEM? The projected year 2010 daily ridership for the three corridors is 60 , 000 to 75 , 000 . Daily ridership on the West (I-35W) corridor is estimated to be approximately 30 , 000 , on the Central (Hiawatha) 19 , 000 , and on the East (Robert/Lafayette) 19 , 000. About 40 percent of this ridership is expected to occur in Dakota County. Ridership within the County will be approximately 5 , 000 riders per day on the West, 3 , 000 on the Central, and 17 , 000 on the East Corridor. I HOW MUCH WILL THE LRT SYSTEM COST TO BUILD? The total estimated construction cost for the recommended corridors extending into Dakota County is estimated at $626 million. The total cost within Dakota County is estimated at $251 million. Particular alignments chosen for implementation may result in somewhat different costs. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF LRT IN DAKOTA COUNTY? An LRT system in Dakota County has the potential for: . Relieving congestion on critical roadways and bridges. Congestion is severe in many places and getting worse. All of the corridors under consideration for LRT in the County include river crossings that currently experience or will experience major traffic congestion. LRT can attract people from their automobile thus relieving peak hour traffic. The need for certain highway improvements may be reduced or delayed. 1 2 NUI 1 MI ‘.."..\ • s r • por _.•- ( , , Pow N;owN a - r PA LP_ © --- C Qv: 'tea , ' v \ 1 ^ 441 •-• \ i .: Ev \ {y - . -,c,-,-. -----. , _,. ...___,,i_ 1f __ ,. Lti Lt /..:-: : '!,, /.."-. / '—'' t ' �! I _ i t` lt_.o �/ I.35Er1-494 \ • . . 4/ j • III ,' ..... , . � ,../ CENTRAL CQRRIDQR T.H. 55 M i'lC1''. _ J • __ ) \,1 EAST CQRRID/OR -<----- , .---, 4. :,--.t.._-,-,,.. -- : :„___7...___. zi. :- -__ , lJ f(1r• I 0 l GI) i i,/ { • IR 1 , I t kr. ' 1 J - \\ ( (: i f • .. • �- I •:\ - BURNSVILLE i • --. t Llat . / — le CENTER ,_, �; ' X1 `C ^-.^' 1 9 11 ;WEST CORRIDOR /% 1 JS 1.161P.1113.11.j _7 \ �� 8aao' 0' -}000. 8xv' ' in =mom RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR ALTERNATE ROUTING I • TERMINUS 0 DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN 0 REC0MMENDED LAT CORRIDORS ,21110111011111111111"1111111 , DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I Directing efficient community growth. LRT can focus new development or revitalization to occur in accordance with local plans. Areas around station locations, in particular, may present significant development opportunities. 111 . Integration with new bus service resulting in improved overall mobility for County residents . LRT will be accompanied by redesigned bus service which will improve overall transit services in the county. 111 HOW WILL THE LRT SYSTEM BE FINANCED? A variety of funding sources are possible for constructing the LRT system. A mix of local , regional , state and federal funding :El is likely. Possible sources at the county or regional level include the property tax or sales tax. State sources could include motor vehicle registration fees , or a motor vehicle excise tax. Federal funds would consist of grants. Private sources may provide limited revenues for station development. Dakota County believes its financial participation must be based on direct benefit to be received from the system. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING LRT IN DAKOTA COUNTY? The Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) , comprised of the Board of Dakota CountyCommissioners, currentlyhas the authority to plan and implement LRT in Dakota County. The DCRRA commissioned the development of the LRT System Plan to define the recommended strategy for LRT in the County. The Regional Transit Board (RTB) is developing a regional LRT plan to coordinate the efforts of individual counties. The regional plan will identify the phasing and financing of LRT in the metropolitan area. All of the recommended corridors for Dakota County are included in the RTB ' s preliminary 20-year LRT Plan. Dakota County is actively participating in this planning process. More detailed alignment studies, environmental impact studies , and preliminary engineering for recommended corridors will be needed before final design and construction can begin. Public review and comment will be an integral part of the decision-making process. 111 In the West Corridor, a preferred transit alternative has not yet been selected for I-35W. Should LRT be the preferred alternative in the I-35W Environmental Impact Study being conducted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) , Dakota County should coordinate with Mn/DOT and the Hennepin County Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to assure that the design allows for the extension of LRT across the Minnesota River and to Burnsville Center. r 4 i I , • In the Central Corridor, the County should work with Mn/DOT and HCRRA to incorporate provisions for LRT into the proposed rehabilitation of the Mendota Bridge. The extension of LRT to I-494/I-35E in Dakota County would be particularly cost-effective if such a rehabilitation is accomplished. In the East Corridor, a more detailed corridor study islanned with the purpose of selectingp p p a preferred alignment and terminus and determining environmental review requirements. In cooperation with the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, the County will more fully evaluate the benefits and impacts of LRT in this corridor. In addition, the County will continue toare re p p for LRT • implementation by preserving right-of-way and developing interim transit services . Additional study is needed to determine right- of-way requirements and availability in all corridors. The County should, wherever possible, preserve needed right-of-way for the future provision of light rail transit. The development of interim transit services is also recommended. The reconfiguration and expansion of local bus services , provision of park-and-ride lots , and the use of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes a in potential LRT corridors will help establish a basic foundation of transit services complementary to LRT. • I r I I i I 5 1 I I I I I I DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLAN IFOR DAKOTA COUNTY I I I PREPARED FOR IDAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I PREPARED BY ISTRGAR-ROSCOE-FAUSCH, INC. I JANUARY, 1990 II I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 ' CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 6 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL LRT CORRIDORS ' IN DAKOTA COUNTY 15 CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LRT CORRIDORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY 28 CHAPTER 4 THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLAN 45 ' CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR LRT 52 CHAPTER 6 METHODS OF FINANCING 61 APPENDIX A COMMITTEE AND TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP i 1 I LIST OF FIGURES I PAGE FIGURE 1 Recommended LRT Corridors Light Rail Transit In Downtown Calgary 7 IIFIGURE 2 20-Year LRT Routes for Hennepin County and Anoka County 10 IFIGURE 3 Proposed Phase I and Phase II Corridors for Ramsey County 12 I FIGURE 4 Projected Traffic Congestion in Dakota County-Year-2010 14 I FIGURE 5 Conceptual Service Area for Radial LRT Corridor Planning 17 FIGURE 6 Extensions of Hennepin/Ramsey County LRT ICorridors 18 FIGURE 7 Hennepin-South Corridor Transit Trip Generators Iin Dakota County 20 FIGURE 8 Hennepin-Southeast Corridor Transit Trip IGenerators in Dakota County 21 FIGURE 9 Ramsey-Southwest Corridor Transit Trip Generators in Dakota County 22 IFIGURE 10 Ramsey-South Corridor Transit Trip Generators in Dakota County 23 FIGURE 11 Existing Regular Route Transit Service 24 FIGURE 12 Overlapping Service Areas 27 IFIGURE 13 West Corridor Alignments/Service Area 29 I FIGURE 14 Central Corridor Alignments/Service Area 30 FIGURE 15 East Corridor Alignments/Service Area 31 IIFIGURE 16 Daily Ridership 33 FIGURE 17 Daily Riders Per Route Mile 34 IIFIGURE 18 Capital Cost Per Route Mile 37 IFIGURE 19 Farebox Recovery Rate 39 FIGURE 20 Annual Cost Per Annual Rider 40 IIFIGURE 21 Recommended LRT Corridors in 20-Year Plan 46 FIGURE 22 Post 20-Year LRT Corridors 50 II I 1 LIST OF TABLES 11 PAGE TABLE 1 Existing Regular Route Transit Service In Dakota County 25 TABLE 2 Estimated Preliminary Capital Costs for Potential LRT Corridors 36 TABLE 3 Estimated Annual Operating Costs for Potential LRT Corridors 38 ' TABLE 4 Summary Evaluation of Potential LRT Corridors44 ' TABLE 5 Projected LRT Ridership in Year 2010 47 TABLE 6 Estimated Preliminary Capital Costs 48 TABLE 7 Estimated Operating Costs 49 TABLE 8 Preliminary Estimate of Park-and-Ride Requirements for Light Rail Transit Stations in Dakota County 55 TABLE 9 Summary of Revenue Sources Supported in Other County LRT Plans 62 I I 1 1 r I i i i I I I PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . The Draft Light Rail Transit (LRT) Plan for Dakota County recommends three corridors for construction in the next 20 years. . The LRT corridors will provide direct express service to downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul and will be integrated into a metropolitan LRT system. . LRT lines in Dakota County should be integrated into a county- wide transit system which provides both LRT feeder service and opportunities for transit trips within and across the county. . Overall ridership on the three LRT corridors is projected to be 60, 000 to 75, 000 per day by the year 2010 including 25, 000 riders per day in Dakota County. IThe recommended regional corridors are estimated to cost a total of $626 million to construct. Capital costs ' attributable to the Dakota County portions of the corridors are estimated at 40 percent of this total. ' . LRT in Dakota County has the potential to reduce traffic congestion on key river crossings and highways, to delay or reduce the need for roadway improvements, to promote efficient land-use and economic development, and to improve overall I mobility. . Through active participation in the regional planning process for LRT, the County can ensure that local financial support for LRT is in relation to the benefits received. ' WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LRT SYSTEM PLAN? The plan evaluates the feasibility of implementing an LRT system in Dakota County within the next 20 years. The plan is based upon goals established by the Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority: ' 1. To identify potential LRT corridors. 2. To evaluate the impact of LRT development in adjacent 1 counties. 3 . To evaluate the relationship between LRT and other transportation components. 1 t 4. To develop a process for preserving LRT options. 11 5. To integrate LRT strategies into an overall County Transportation Plan. WHAT LRT CORRIDORS ARE PROPOSED IN THE PLAN? ' The three LRT corridors proposed for construction in the next 20 years are shown in the attached figure. All corridors are extensions of LRT corridors proposed by other counties and connect with downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. The corridors ' represent general paths for LRT lines. More detailed studies are needed to recommend specific alignments. Corridors with long- range (post 20-year) potential for LRT include Cedar Avenue, I-35E, the Soo Line Railroad, and various cross-county connections. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL RIDE THE LRT SYSTEM? The projected year 2010 daily ridership for the three corridors ' is 60, 000 to 75, 000. Daily ridership on the West (I-35W) corridor is estimated to be approximately 30, 000, on the Central (Hiawatha) 19, 000, and on the East (Robert/Lafayette) 19, 000. ' About 40 percent of this ridership is expected to occur in Dakota County. Ridership within the County will be approximately 5, 000 riders per day on the West, 3 , 000 on the Central, and 17, 000 on the East Corridor. HOW MUCH WILL THE LRT SYSTEM COST TO BUILD? The total estimated construction cost for the recommended corridors extending into Dakota County is estimated at $626 million. The total cost within Dakota County is estimated at $251 million. Particular alignments chosen for implementation may result in somewhat different costs. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF LRT IN DAKOTA COUNTY? An LRT system in Dakota County has the potential for: 11 Relieving congestion on critical roadways and bridges. Congestion is severe in many places and getting worse. All of ' the corridors under consideration for LRT in the County include river crossings that currently experience or will experience major traffic congestion. LRT can attract people from their automobile thus relieving peak hour traffic. The need for certain highway improvements may be reduced or delayed. 2 I millitgairiblok \ pownrroviN. ,... :35eST PaUL-� . m.' tw•0 Ik -. ... .. 1 ,:4043„,. . a3J \�.wiS3 T;_ ___ ` . .,,„ „, `yz sr ,, "1“ A , \‘,.----, / \ L` �% �� ,� --'-i)-. > \ / 094 /,‘ ,,------/ , ' / , \ iit11 ! p -Thj. L_ �` I-35E11-494J *I \\ ti �- - \'//CENTRAL CORRIDOR i T.H. 55 1 �� .,,,-:-....4c}, I �: 1 � EAST CORRIDOR (1:: MEwuE�����t+t� iii, 414, -,i,� r:, (7.KQrA '32 ,,� 7 i I ' rr dipir • , )( ; //,, , , , . \ 4 : , 1 • GII iI .$, a III BURNSVILLE ��� ,R LAKE i;o CENTER 42 _ �' . i- '---------' C. 9 I -,WEST CORRIDOR m•emin•ml 8000' 0' 4000. a000' I 1150 ��RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR I ALTERNATE ROUTING • TERMINUS _ I DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN 1 RECOMMENDED LRT CORRIDORS DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I II . Directing efficient community growth. LRT can focus new I development or revitalization to occur in accordance with local plans. Areas around station locations, in particular, may present significant development opportunities. I . Integration with new bus service resulting in improved overall mobility for County residents. LRT will be accompanied by redesigned bus service which will improve overall transit II services in the county. HOW WILL THE LRT SYSTEM BE FINANCED? IIA variety of funding sources are possible for constructing the LRT system. A mix of local, regional, state and federal funding I is likely. Possible sources at the county or regional level include the property tax or sales tax. State sources could include motor vehicle registration fees, or a motor vehicle excise tax. Federal funds would consist of grants. Private II sources may provide limited revenues for station development. Dakota County believes its financial participation must be based on direct benefit to be received from the system. I WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING LRT IN DAKOTA COUNTY? IThe Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority (DCRRA) , comprised of the Board of Dakota County Commissioners, currently has the authority to plan and implement LRT in Dakota County. The DCRRA I commissioned the development of the LRT System Plan to define the recommended strategy for LRT in the County. 1 The Regional Transit Board (RTB) is developing a regional LRT plan to coordinate the efforts of individual counties. The regional plan will identify the phasing and financing of LRT in the metropolitan area. All of the recommended corridors for 1 Dakota County are included in the RTB' s preliminary 20-year LRT Plan. Dakota County is actively participating in this planning process. More detailed alignment studies, environmental impact I studies, and preliminary engineering for recommended corridors will be needed before final design and construction can begin. Public review and comment will be an integral part of the decision-making process. 1 In the West Corridor, a preferred transit alternative has not yet been selected for I-35W. Should LRT be the preferred alternative 1 in the I-35W Environmental Impact Study being conducted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) , Dakota County should coordinate with Mn/DOT and the Hennepin County Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to assure that the design allows for the II extension of LRT across the Minnesota River and to Burnsville Center. I 4 t 1 tt i In the Central Corridor, the County should work with Mn/DOT and HCRRA to incorporate provisions for LRT into the proposed rehabilitation of the Mendota Bridge. The extension of LRT to I-494/I-35E in Dakota County would be particularly cost-effective if such a rehabilitation is accomplished. ' In the East Corridor, a more detailed corridor study is planned with the purpose of selecting a preferred alignment and terminus and determining environmental review requirements. In cooperation with the Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority, the County will more fully evaluate the benefits and impacts of LRT in this corridor. In addition, the County will continue to prepare for LRT implementation by preserving right-of-way and developing interim transit services. Additional study is needed to determine right- of-way requirements and availability in all corridors. The County should, wherever possible, preserve needed right-of-way for the future provision of light rail transit. The development of interim transit services is also recommended. The reconfiguration and expansion of local bus services, provision of park-and-ride lots, and the use of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes in potential LRT corridors will help establish a basic foundation of transit services complementary to LRT. 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 5 1 I i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 . What is Light Rail Transit? . How would LRT operate in Dakota County? . What is the regional perspective on LRT? • Why is Dakota County considering LRT? iLIGHT RAIL TRANSIT OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a public transit system that uses ' steel-wheeled train cars that run on track. The cars are powered by overhead electrical wires (see Figure 1) . LRT vehicles may be operated singly or connected together in trains. Only one 11 operator (driver) is needed regardless of the number of vehicles connected together. LRT can operate in many places--along freeways, in railroad rights-of-way, and in reserved lanes along city streets. Because LRT does not operate in mixed traffic but rather exclusive rights-of-way, it is much faster than the old streetcar systems. LRT can serve as the backbone of regional or city transit systems. It must be supported by a feeder bus system and parking facilities at many of the LRT stations. Stations are provided at key bus transfer points along the line. Passenger amenities, such as covered waiting areas, are provided at all stations. While many fixed route public bus systems are not accessible to the disabled, virtually all new LRT systems are fully accessible. Elevators or ramps provide access to station platforms. An LRT 11 system can be constructed so that the floor of the platform and the floor of the LRT vehicle are level with each other. As a result, wheelchairs can easily move on and off the train. An LRT system operating in the Twin Cities area would benefit by uniform operating standards. LRT can be expected to operate from 5:30 a.m. to 1: 30 a.m. on weekdays. Weekend service would extend I from 7: 00 a.m. to midnight. Train frequency would vary by time of day. LRT service would be every 10 minutes during the peak hours and every 30 minutes during evenings. LRT is rapidly emerging as an important ingredient for addressing future transportation needs. Currently, sixteen metropolitan areas in the U.S. operate LRT systems. Many others are building 11 or planning new systems. These cities recognize that LRT offers an opportunity to revitalize existing transit systems and to relieve peak period demand on heavily travelled highways. I I 6 11 t LRT can provide a higher level of service than regular bus service because it is faster, more reliable and operates for more hours of the day. It benefits the environment due to its electric power and quiet operation. It can be operated more efficiently than bus systems because of the high passenger-to- driver ratio. It has a long physical life with a large reserve passenger carrying capacity. Finally, LRT is a medium cost rail system (as compared to rapid or heavy rail) making it potentially suitable for medium density metropolitan areas such as the Twin Cities. REGIONAL APPROACH TO LRT Current regional policies and strategies on transit (including LRT) are documented in the Metropolitan Council 's "Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan, " October 1988 and are listed below: 1. The transportation system should contain strong and effective transit components. ' 2. Investments in services and facilities should enhance the competitiveness of transit with single-occupant automobiles, particularly for commuters. 3 . Transit should be used to reduce the demand for roadway capacity during peak hours. 4. Transit resources should be allocated to areas which have demonstrated an identifiable demand. 5. Many different types of transit are appropriate within the metropolitan area. Light rail transit is one of them. 6. All transit services and all other transportation services should be part of an integrated transportation system. 7. Transit services should be supplied by both public and private sector providers, depending on which can do it most economically. 9. Short-range decisions regarding transit should reflect long- term strategies, goals and resources. 14. Comprehensive plans for metro center cities should recognize the role of all transportation modes in serving the concentration and minimizing the investment required. 15. Planning for regional business concentrations should recognize the role of all transportation modes in serving the concentration and minimizing the investment required. 11 8 1 I 18. Public participation in formulation of transportation policy 11 and implementation decision is encouraged. The Development Guide/Policy Plan points to worsening conditions on the Metropolitan highway system: Between 1972 and 1984 the number of miles of freeway with severe traffic congestion tripled--from 24 miles to 72 miles. If nothing is done to increase the people-moving capacity of the system, the number of miles experiencing severe congestion will nearly triple again between now and the year 2010, to 200 miles. Improvements to transit, including LRT, will help accomplish the goal of increasing the number of people the metropolitan highway system can carry without greatly increasing the number of vehicles to move them. ' The Development Guide/Policy Plan establishes specific guidelines for planning LRT facilities: ' LRT should serve the metro centers. LRT lines which serve one of the metro centers of St. Paul or Minneapolis will be given first priority. . Initially, LRT service should be limited to the fully developed areas. . LRT should be located where there are concentrations of transit dependent populations. . LRT should be located where ridership potential is high. 11 LRT should be located where highway congestion can be relieved. Each of the seven counties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has a Regional Railroad Authority. Five of these counties, including Dakota County, have developed or are currently preparing LRT plans. County activities are noted below: HENNEPIN COUNTY The Hennepin County LRT Plan identifies five corridors as part of ' a 20-Year Plan (see Figure 2) . The County is proceeding with Preliminary Engineering and an Environmental Impact Statement for its Stage 1 LRT System, with the exception of the South Corridor (I-35W) which is the subject of a separate study being conducted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Council. Two corridors in the Hennepin County LRT plan could be extended into Dakota County. These corridors are the South Corridor (I-35W) and the Southeast Corridor (Hiawatha) . 9 I ?;�rn�}''cn Q I (.7) Q Q 1 Q I �L . m I 3 pso°CC '5 m I -- -- _ a a s Z I— ' Z S Q E c >, E o I L n E J � !, Q2 ¢ � ¢ 1:1-- z W ■1- J >:. J c m Cl) o q J I N f0 -zj C C l0 co C7 Q II Q 5 ill m V Q N � � a W Y Q c 1n :V d aid Q hI1 yChl� o__o___ _ - �--_ Cr a c .� CL) Oot' i m 1 1 tom' CO: cn v = Oc cva2u. m 1 L� lM I PE i I ..,•, / fi , �e .A Y r „rLl _ ... .i I411111 a c s: t m 1 I 1111.- tt� m ti �y: �_ s r------ -.1.--- t -� G I ^ o.. ..... �T t _ 3 I $g lJL_ N - .--.<tt (--- Y 1 i L, 01 00 °3 L,111:"1%, \‘0"5 Ill 0 1 rfr#Ar0/11,,a - m t t U I r. - - F- imin7lijkill (JJ(A a® L Lr 4t` a N 11111 A I O/ 1.7 i II f >:. O >S wCC r 1 • , col CI.= t V i(7) 1344 ' AZ s L, )" J •e o 7. c ! X 010 /II 4\w, \ 1111Vaik .5-' C-:), -.0- El i) ,„I•U 1 , , \ c T i L d M ` C S 15 `-- 1 'i t ® I 1.� r -,P-.P_ g 'I +1(1'! J 117 �-r �-, I"' 01 I -.I '0 1 0 -.J g in .ilt.ccui jj , fm% E 1z - -' 4_7(7,0 —7u I �' � pm 1-110./ Ii7.' g � 1L-J°_ k 1I�� iii.O a �� QN_� --� IP �. � . � cc,�s My•.),A1 -I—I. . IMIIIIIIIIII‘ok EP 0.141.. U41,4I Y 1 1 p \I r � I I s 1 a. 1� CO z fa 18 C 1 75- /1 rn c --� c� ,;-,Cn J 0 �� I � ; a C�5i1 ' W a I m II oi --1 WI i411414 111111r4 (3- LLI J ao % he 0 Ir.() 0 J ✓ W u_ o > 0<, c,,,o______5 `o iI vaii 1 W Q 4, � W 1 Eillo CL 1 Irh >- �... 0 a. 1 X L WAi 2....\\_....,S Z Z ��/� a% 1 r- ' Z cc V I _ �r�---J 3 1) c �-zti -- ', , U N 1 ;�S' r'� a Q CL a W LU 1 ~ W Z Q 11 Z 6 61 r w '�� ° Y i t e \ , w a r� � 0 N .T. Li: RAMSEY COUNTY ' The Ramsey County Regional Railroad Authority recently completed its Comprehensive LRT Plan. Four Phase I and five Phase II corridors have been identified as part of its plan (see ' Figure 3) . Ramsey and Hennepin Counties are jointly proceeding with Preliminary Engineering and an Environmental Impact Statement on the Midway Corridor. Two corridors in the Ramsey County LRT plan extend into Dakota County. These corridors are ' the South Corridor (Robert Street/Lafayette) and the South- Southwest Corridor (Shepard Road/I-35E) . ' ANOKA COUNTY Anoka County has completed a Comprehensive LRT Plan and has ' identified one corridor, Northeast, connecting Anoka County and downtown Minneapolis as having LRT potential (see Figure 2) . LRT in Anoka County will not directly impact LRT development in Dakota County. WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County is currently preparing a Comprehensive LRT Plan. LRT in Washington County will not directly impact LRT development in Dakota County. ' SCOTT COUNTY Scott County is currently reviewing the County Transportation Plan for potential amendments related to LRT. The C.S.A.H. 18 ' bridge (Bloomington Ferry Bridge) is being reconstructed and will be designed to structurally accommodate LRT. Coordination with Scott County regarding decisions in the I-35W corridor would be desirable. CARVER COUNTY Carver County intends only to amend its Transportation Plan to address LRT issues. I ' 11 1 I ANOKA blame cis-- I - ) I I I '` Lexi gt}n, `"ine Lino lakes I 1 1 _ i �� 1 r T� T L_ I r- ;I n Park Q Spring Lake I.ounds (a r I J I�1_� y I Park _- iew -, ---/ North Oaks 252) a� gp ' BEAFC j=- -� \ t __ I ---.R. GRAI 14 --- =--- 1 A Fridle `- , Imo- i 0 ,- Jim Z` /% , 'io d Brooklyn Center , .r I W 1 611 w I 0 , r t0hiedi lir ►, New v 1 0 �h_ I = Shorview Vadnais ` 1 r Brighton l''', Heights �`L k hfte Bear~' Jd , It. 4 r ` (Hilltop O Lake :v , Mamie `.i •~ 179, r '� Columbia d -� Z II II - _ rine Springs I•' Anthony -r- isdale r (Little Canada. r_J-�# AI 1 h t-14, CROSSTOWN ' E Si ga EASI-w I 1 'orth I L--ZI St.Paul I i derdale Roseville L___,r_ - Falter I LarpeMwr Av.IWO Oakdale 1 Lake / , WL_Height ri IV } "'"I "b.�� -- SL Paul • -'J /lam , Le t Minneapolis`_ Nii � ,.::;;i: imp EAST �r,d}ap 1 if Franklin Ave. _is Ilk ` ��1 ... I 94 I 1 MIDWAY "til'i —�" "�' 1 I $ \ how; I j I0i ' 9$1, -I .I r Woodbury I 4# 1 1. \ th 0 %_ 149 West South *, r 1 ) St.Paul St.Paul 18 r. 62 I41 ) Airport C7 /4an 41 ��{ ©:-, I `�' ndota v C� 1 Richfield � /^ fights'O�,. 110 1, war ® ` •6 0) ` I , tet' ^1 - ' �- 1 i I © L1 �•� �' 0 IF J� I p ( St.Par"' .j► 13 O Inver Grove Heights Park Ti I , iIj ca Cottage Grove Bloomington 55 f 1 I 35 I 111101 II EagarLEGEND PRE1 cLD, i_► 32 PHASE I tR I IFT I'_I PHASE II _- • 1r --- T— 1:<--- e \' I Bumsville I \'=1601,...... /� DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN MIIIIIIMINMIMINIMINIMIEM PROPOSED PHASE I AND PHASE II CORRIDORS I FOR RAMSEY COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY SRF FIGURE 3 DAKOTA COUNTY AND LRT ' During the 1980 's, Dakota County has experienced explosive growth. Between 1980 and 1988, Dakota County's population increased by 30 percent, making it the fastest-growing county in ' Minnesota. This growth will continue. The County population is expected to increase from 224, 000 in 1987 to 363 , 000 by the year 2010. Most of this population is concentrated in the northern part of the County, particularly in Burnsville and other cities. The growth has been accompanied by increasing traffic congestion. A recent transportation study for Dakota County identified nine areas of high congestion problems. This congestion is located not only in the developing area but also in sections of fully developed cities--West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota and Lilydale. Dakota County is separated from the two metro centers and much of the remaining metropolitan area by the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. River crossings are limited and have become major bottlenecks of traffic congestion for the county (see Figure 4) . 1 By the year 2010, many of the river bridges will experience major congestion. The County recognizes that transit improvements, such as LRT, can help mitigate this congestion. The overall transportation goal for Dakota County, as stated in the Dakota County Transportation Policy Plan, is to provide for efficient personal and commercial transportation movement throughout the County. LRT can assist in meeting this goal by providing high speed, energy efficient transit service with direct access to major activity centers. In Dakota County, the relationship between LRT and river crossings is unique. There are limited opportunities for building additional river crossings and the cost of doing so are extremely high. If LRT can be incorporated into existing river crossings, the capacity of the bridges can be increased. Planned improvements to existing bridges can include design standards that would allow for the future construction of LRT. This Comprehensive LRT Plan for Dakota County describes the ridership, costs, financing, and implementation issues associated ' with LRT. The results of the Plan will be used to amend the County Transportation Plan as appropriate. 13 l DOWN?OWN \ M INNEAPOUS -:: iilialE .. _ viim,,: tp: „....."040.,,, . / /101t. .: -4111k �owNTo�AlN •' s ��:; joiL* 5r Pa U L I Cr- cn 'U.LMW 1 '„_, ;II 1hii \___. 1 1 'ill ll” -1:\' . ._ . ., il /11\ ,.,,, ,' FIT AM . r ‘\' ,',,\ \ 1 II \ ,i — \ Q O e g 1\\� 1 „-;7-;--2i ,/,/ lV-/'1 is 664 1 G `.% \ /'. e cl 4. i J 11} . ',--'Ikt..„_.4.10, . NEwu V / trir 1 ) ( I� / I, �� �i � 1 I� f I /:( \i ; m f I 7 i ,\ I 4d4P 'IP f. :A LAKE - I � g V2 a1 '� `1' Cit.r.T�^�_S- r 9 I ,,411Immilimill ~� 8aoo' 0' 4000' 8000' 50 I MAJOR CONGESTION: ROADWAY -H . RIVER CROSSING I • DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN 01101110/11111Z22. • PROJECTED TRAFFIC CONGESTION DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY IIN DAKOTA COUNTY - YEAR 2010 FIGURE 4 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL LRT CORRIDORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY . Where could LRT operate in the County? . What locations would generate the highest ridership? • How would the LRT system connect to other counties? The process for identifying and evaluating potential LRT corridors in Dakota County involved several phases of analysis. The first phase identified a number of possible corridors. A preliminary evaluation of their potential for attracting riders was based upon population and employment forecasts, existing major transit trip generators, existing transit service/ ridership, along with a preliminary identification of alignments. Due to regional priorities and policies, any initial Dakota County corridors will necessarily be extensions of Hennepin and Ramsey County corridors currently in the planning stage. Thus the first phase evaluation focussed on routing possibilities for extending various Minneapolis-based and St. Paul-based corridors. I DEFINITION OF LRT CORRIDORS, ALIGNMENTS AND SERVICE AREAS A corridor is defined as a geographic sector of the metropolitan region that represents a common direction of travel. Corridors are often separated by physical barriers (such as rivers) or by 11 man-made barriers (such as freeways) . An alignment is a specific facility within the corridor that has the potential for accommodating an LRT line. An alignment may be a railroad, freeway, arterial or street right-of-way. There may be one or several potential alignments within a corridor. An alignment terminus is the proposed end point of the LRT line. A useful tool for evaluating alternate corridors is to define the likely service area (travel shed) from which ridership is drawn. 11 This is particularly important for identifying which corridors would compete with each other for riders. The service area for an LRT corridor is based on the travel time of potential riders to and from the LRT stations. Riders can be classified into three groups: . Walk-In Riders--typically come from within a quarter of a mile of stations. This is equivalent to a five-minute walk. . Feeder Bus Riders--typically come from within three miles of stations or a 15-minute bus ride. . Park-and-Ride Riders--typically come from within five miles of stations or a 15-minute drive. 15 I < \ \ter .. . >,., Cc ���1..W., a W Q Sn T ‘‘‘‘•,,(0.\•'" thy..`:.. .... J / R a ?: a \\\ CSUJ W¢ a .� >,.> \ Z to as F<. I C\'" Z \ OWa O \� 1-Wa O Q WCC <HJ Q Qm4 Q W \ cc y;. a a a U \ . sN • • . i.,„.7,,..,„,,,,, ..„\_„.\ `..\`,t O?.. >°u` .\�` :CCv�i� baa 4\\V` X \� xVffn .,:,.. -'4' :EZeno mt. N W \- \ W J i . \ I ( LUZ y � O Z a 0 \; V WQW , Zr O QSzIe:a QJ ,-Rcc Lu � �,� J � 4 Qp¢ Q cn OQa¢w> 1- mwOao . _v ll L:.,:• . v Cl) . • • _ , i *:•!..'".,-,.''',',' MIN aVZ 'MIMI\%V,.AXVill MAI MSS MI (7 e\ r. y • \ Z o [L W 3.: \a U N W Y m \ \\ ,R , \`. Z` I-Y C'') V \ \ \\ \ tiUJa Z I �? \ \\ NpZ—I Z▪ Z \\ �\��\". \ \; CS CC 2 O W U Q = d Z \v V w3o C7 J SV\\ \\\;:.?;. >:n w W u_u-Z LZ Q Qd '� [L W W� \ �. _ n p N N CC q.4 's. ass N 0p, U Z Q•• W Qm W W WCC I 1� oz,....0 cnY w C.)CC Z a� oaw a >0 3 O t "0Wz< ▪ CC x 0I— QzZ _.I. 01. LLI 0 Cf)cc UxO �QW JJ U CL GQ �C)LIJ H C.)CC !Y NC a oo 2 a 0 JL U 11 ' For planning purposes, each radial LRT corridor from the metro downtown can be assigned a service area with four district sectors as shown in Figure 5. . Sector 1 extends approximately 2 miles from downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis, has good walk access to LRT stations, good bus transfer opportunities, and good existing bus service. ' . Sector 2 typically extends for an additional 3 miles, has lower residential density than Sector 1 but good walk access to LRT stations, and radial bus routes which can be reoriented to become LRT feeder buses. . Sector 3 extends outward for an additional 3-4 miles and has I lower residential density. Access to LRT stations is primarily by feeder bus and park-and-ride facilities. ' . Sector 4 typically extends 4-5 miles further and has substantial undeveloped land. There is little opportunity for walk access to LRT stations. Access is provided primarily by feeder buses and park-and-ride with the majority of patrons using park-and-ride facilities. INITIAL DAKOTA COUNTY CORRIDORS Four potential corridors were identified in Dakota County which would connect to one or more of Hennepin/Ramsey County corridors. 1 These included (see Figure 6) : 1. Extension of the South Corridor (I-35W) from Hennepin County--Hennepin County's LRT Plan leaves the resolution of both alignment and the southern terminus for the South Corridor to the I-35W Environmental Impact Statement being prepared by Mn/DOT and the Metropolitan Council. The proposed terminus for the South Corridor in the I-35W EIS is at 96th Street in Bloomington. Preliminary alignments that were considered for extension of this corridor into Dakota County were I-35W and the Soo Line Railroad. 2. Extension of the Southeast Corridor (Hiawatha Avenue) from Hennepin County. The proposed terminus for the Hiawatha Corridor in the Hennepin County Stage 1 Plan is at the Fort Snelling GSA Federal Building. Hennepin County is also studying the feasibility of a tunnel connection under the airport between the Federal Building, the two airport terminals and the Mall of America at the I-494/T.H. 77 interchange in Bloomington. Preliminary alignments that were considered for extension of this corridor into Dakota County were T.H. 77 (Cedar Avenue) and T.H. 55/T.H. 13 . 16 I I M N M Ftl,15 's")�1 iNilp 1 1Wit pOWNto`it.4 e` --; ` T ?aU1.- AMMIII 04111440 Af' • ..X. ........-•-: 4 1 'A%).II 9, —,"3_,;,<0...c,/,,,, ,. /;s,NIVo 1 al ,s. I mer.:'" cv I ftA: t \ I N ID ' / ' 0 \ ' / 4 1 ,`ic• ' )1\, &,_ - i . ) w ' , , Opp ,/�� �' '',z- °- /�' , - „,,,,,_.7 ' 1Q,,,..otair _.0.--;:d1 41 1411e7 te I 11... 1�1L.ti 1.(mar /--_____ ,sor WA ,,H.. , _ ,/ I \ i // ‘,...S IS iS +4, - ; � 411411 . I: o , -'^`,-,:: '----' ? I 1111N 35 1.111111111111.26 I 50. 8000' 0' 4000' 8000' 9 1 i IDAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN BNIMIIRMINIMIE EXTENSIONS OF HENNEPIN / RAMSEY COUNTY LRT CORRIDORS DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROADAUTHORTfY SRF I FIGURE 6 I 3 . Extension of the Southwest and South-Southwest (I-35E) Corridors from Ramsey County. The proposed terminus of the Southwest Corridor in the Ramsey County plan is the airport. The proposed terminus of the South-Southwest Corridor in the Ramsey County plan is the I-35E/Cliff Road interchange in I Dakota County. Preliminary alignments that were considered for extension of this corridor into Dakota County were T.H. 55 combined with T.H. 13 , T.H. 55 combined with I-35E, I-35E Icombined with T.H. 13 , and I-35E. 4. Extension of the South Corridor (Robert/Lafayette) from Ramsey County. The proposed terminus of the South Corridor ' in the Ramsey County Plan is T.H. 55 in Dakota County. Preliminary alignments that were considered in this corridor were Robert Street and Lafayette Freeway. I TRANSIT GENERATORS Major activity centers generate substantial travel that can be served by LRT. Existing major traffic generators within the service area of each corridor are identified in Figures 7-10. The corridors fully serve major retail centers in Burnsville, Apple Valley, and West St. Paul and employment centers in Eagan, Mendota Heights and Burnsville. While LRT should directly serve as many major activity centers as possible, the service areas should also include many of the smaller and emerging centers. EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE/RIDERSHIP Many existing bus routes in Dakota County would be reconfigured to feed the LRT lines and most bus riders would also become LRT riders. Relatively high levels of existing transit service and ridership in potential corridors will translate into higher LRT ridership. The existing transit services in Dakota County are shown in Figure 11 and transit ridership in Table 1. Most of the local bus service and ridership is concentrated in the Ramsey South Corridor. Eagan, Apple Valley, and Burnsville are provided with substantial express bus service. I I I I 19 I ,A INNE.=,%OL f7 :�i41 I F£ �I .����/ SECTOR 1 �`,� �� ,rte , _, -. :-- ,Iniv---Nt6 6 I a ,. - ' ..;tillpiripr" ,, ..E !I*4V0P1 \__):!.a i,l z3 SECTOR 2 .:.•,/ AN WIWIa Of ‘, ,_:....mi: .,.,,„„:„..:„,,„---. . -- ::: "/ „..„...i; 1c I E. I�"1 ,, \M Iw ' 3 �� C• / SECTOR 3 x: . I "'"--...,,,,,..J. 00° ' 3: 1 r .. . r SECTOR 4 —�I .:V iiiil III ;40.4% i4 Eiliiii It e 5 Al Iiiitgiii m .41 y, ( .;',,,,,, 9.„,:, ., , AS4 ♦ 4,. ilk ID I:11 i-Rion LARE �' .� .1 • vYLJ __ JI X'" y `a '` k MAJOR EMPLOYERS ;.. I , 35 ." 0 • • • 1111 VIN, lig;`4i::.,. y'r j.1t s,000+ t,000 a,000 500-1,000 500 or ass * q Number or Employees ;,;x ,:,,,,„,:. AS.„ .• ,...,.^ RETAIL CONCENTRATIONS I • I • � I 500,000+ 200,000500,000 200,000 or less i ( ( Square feet DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN MMIMIIINNIMISIM I HENNEPIN - SOUTH CORRIDOR TRANSIT TRIP GENERATORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY II FIGURE 7 SRF I OOW H1oWN MINN�APOL15 0 k''_,, . -461ft.Art,. Iiiiiftlo.---_ SECTOR 1 o- 9y \�1� 51 <.. o m. I I .-* , , ), '''s . - s9 �'/ ` I SECTOR 2 I --'%p ,� — A --10.7" A I ? . SECTOR 3 I g .:4-- , - --. - ,.-, t '''i'l*. W • 1 N At / 2 See i.. o I '. P.'' MINN A I 1 ii) 'j0 • a SECTOR 4 i -155 ,p,,,,,..: ...ally , 1 .1 ,4. z . . v .0, ::,:::. It r II : - 0 0 MAJOR EMPLOYERS , .!• ..:0',,!•. • • • I :.Av . .,, ..:, '' 5,000+ 1,000.6,000 500.1,000 500 or las Number or Employees T,:.t.: ..:, :-.•'. • a" i%:,:. ..„0, RETAIL CONCENTRATIONS , `:. ' 0 • 0 I500,000, 200,000-500,000 200,000 or less 11 ISquare Feet DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN IIIIMIMIIIMMIIMIMMIIIIOIM I HENNEPIN- SOUTHEAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT TRIP GENERATORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY FIGURE 8 SRF I in DOWNTOWN SECTOR 1 94 ,�i��j✓ fi 1 -11141- I - ...4):-.' , t-F;;:,,..,:,..:%,--e- ''" :5: . 4V1:424/4:wSECTOR 2 £ .a w'.. e / ✓ /I ,..,,_.....„. :,.„,.. ,0, '( !vitt,*..vii kk ,.•..„.„.:,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,„.s. , ...,..„: ,,,/..._,,,,,,,,,,,, ',,5;i: _:„:„ Et ,,,,),00:,.....;k1i.4. ._,.mme 01 Ai__ ' - l' r ,.` SECTOR 3 � Vim' ,i I4, 94 a ,,it,,,,,e,cs. , -, ,4ii- tu, SECTOR 4 ...::-0:441L: .\1:::::•::: allizi/ 1 l'Al61.1.1.-m7:-\\(- 4:4' '''''''''''::-: , (./ ..,,,,,:,,:. \ ::,,:.:„:„, , \ „:„, ..., NI A '''' ...:„:41%41'.--::-.7.'-Allthf. ''''''' .....:-.,,_>, ,,r,... „,_____ •...,., ., .:lii,1 ,. ' -..• / .:g::: I 1111 4 -- :,.....: ...., :,:.:;, _ ;F. MwNESO1A p 700 ¢ i ..,„..,. {v MAJOR EMPLOYERS ',. . _Ai z . . • 0 II ..,..lopp, ) 5,000« 1,0004,000 soo.t,000 soo or lees Number or Employees • RETAIL CONCENTRATIONS I .::.. ,....,..,. . • • . / 0 • • 1 ..,:i.:1, (CryTAL LAKE J }' 500,000• 200,000600,000 2 gquoe FeeI s DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN . RAMSEY- SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSIT TRIP GENERATORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I FIGURE 9 SRF 1 I VOWNTOWN \ SECTOR 2 I r_caul_ /0010:Or \ . ` \ -i ,7;4e. It. O,, \ AtV1 • 1 SECTOR3 .':'?" ) a� : `, ms ,16-:tk; l�:7n x 111 4IYIV II10' �' / < j \,,,,,..-: . .''--;,. ► : / AIN pa ��, 1 _ ..:,,-. „.„,,,,,,„.....,„,,,„„.„w, A \,, ,,-,,-_, i 1 oZl, ,x. n., „, 11 r , 1 r ‘'.34'..`. , ilik 1 Q� i 4 f ��,`, - /i MLI SECTOR 4 /' Ni,;..'--, JR f r— \ ,i1:':?: ,_ ,N,.,._Li i '\1 • .� r o M. �t MAJOR EMPLOYERS ! \4 vi • • . r 5,00a 1,000-5,000 soo,,000 soo or ass o ts� Number or Employer's • 3 I-le. AVE. RETAIL CONCENTRATIONS i ..1- .1 . • 0 I500,000. 200,000.500,000 200,000 or less Square Fest, f 1 DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN RAMSEY - SOUTH CORRIDOR TRANSIT TRIP GENERATORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY FIGURE 10 SRF I I ?OW N'1OWN Y. NNE..AF'CL.IS 1 IdlligaZ ke i ;, Ale-, , At/ �. DowNTov/N 35E : \�' 5r PAUL_ I •4110411110 - �:x•awI i I i '1,.... 7—' `S 35 ik, Prit I 5 ii \ ,i,„„0-‘-el'` Ilk /1111X,O. 41,00: di, . , E \ 7,._,. , 0„ 4't :-.,All.r- gr.......„7\ - --- •i i Era _ 75,00i 1‘ \ ,...-' ii,,,,wir ANN : .-, ‘......... , , •.... L 1 � , AlirI Ma� ,••.. \1 1p:\ -',) Li, :.- ii: .-.',-::..: i 1 NN--‘4:.;R tiro � DHEQP d , \ , , .., \_._, ., 4 , , , , , -__ I / » • , , , . I -� -?, ,, 1 ,__- ., ,®I _ ,..,_„,,s,, i � �Q � Fr I ._._ i , l'immiNmer • 8000, 0' 4000' 8000' 50 coi \k LOCAL ROUTES EXPRESS ROUTES II I I DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN EXISTING REGULAR ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY FIGURE 11 SRF II I TABLE 1 EXISTING REGULAR ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICE IN DAKOTA COUNTY IAVERAGE DAILY II ROUTE RIDERS TYPE OF SERVICE 19 47 Reverse commute local from Snelling/ University to IIEagan Industrial Area 35K 169 Express from Eagan and Burnsville to Downtown IIMinneapolis 35M 447 Express from Burnsville to Downtown Minneapolis II 35NR 568 Express from Prior Lake, Savage and Burnsville to Downtown Minneapolis I 39 39 Express from Apple Valley and Burnsville to the Airport (Operated by Airport Express) 46 48 Express from Apple Valley, Rosemount and Eagan II to Downtown St. Paul (Operated by Airport Express) 48 112 Express from Apple Valley and Eagan to Downtown ISt. Paul 72 248 Express from Burnsville and Eagan to Downtown St. I Paul 77A 501 Express from Apple Valley to Downtown Minneapolis I 77C 382 Express from Apple Valley and Eagan to Downtown Minneapolis II77EG 572 Local from Eagan to Downtown Minneapolis 5 2, 082 Local route connecting Downtown to St. Paul with West St. Paul, Mendota Heights, and Inver Grove IIHeights 7 852 Local route connecting Downtown St. Paul with West ISt. Paul 8 2, 610 Local route connecting Downtown St. Paul with West ISt. Paul, South St. Paul, and Inver Grove Heights 11 909 Local route connecting Downtown St. Paul with South St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights II29 544 Local route connecting Downtown St. Paul with Mendota Heights, West St. Paul and South St. Paul i I I I CORRIDOR OVERLAP fOverlay of the four corridor service area boundaries identified areas of overlap (see Figure 12) . This overlap translates into duplication of service and higher costs. The overlap suggested that certain corridors should be consolidated into one corridor: Hennepin County' s Southeast Corridor and Ramsey County's Southwest and South-Southwest Corridors. Within Dakota County, the same alignment could connect to both corridors. Ridership on the Dakota County extension would, therefore, be higher; the costs of construction would be lower. 11 The first phase evaluation resulted in the selection of three corridors for further study: a West Corridor, a Central Corridor, and an East Corridor. The results of the second phase of evaluation of these corridors is presented in the next chapter. I I I I I I I I I I 26 I ,.NN C `.1��t�W E,4 PODS �V l :4; ��r4 ::Mirkair- ���'���/ r Or(11DowNto JN I `: r. PAUL TI diff ti ,_r,,_) 41111. ..:WA. .41., . A :- �� ��_ : = il • j,_Ae-'. • 1 '01.'`'4,42.;,•,v/ r& 2I d ' SL�� 3i =, ,Qa. 2P: 494 . ''' 13 - ;: 1 ' s*I;iillati4 INL 41 41011 — ' '.77 , ro / ,�o. ,, .. ■ -3 ., ., ,- 4-7(,-,,,,, • \\,,, ,... ,,, ,, ,.4.....4...&:',..:.7.41 ‘ , - 1 . ,i. \ 3.: . .,,.. \ , .' s /_ • , .1 ,_ „A. „,..,40AA,ta,,.,,.,,„. ,A: .1..'4a:WaX ,A f if 1,,,, , $ ,\ / , Wtsti:',‘......ft b.1:,:. AF:;::'.. ..rWhki*:,1iiE.WX:,,i,*irAer.f. y i IK \ '4 .,:11 Z`.iS' :?.'','',.+�,'+TRK .`".�,`:,•::.�c,�.:`. ..,:.t 'y�'.0.. 4 �. 1 • �—'— 1 \ �+h2 , f baa .0; : } -�J ` 11 �.k `' w . j?ac.:;kip,: r �:;`�'�. .R AKC.,` Qi,S �i4:.a:}{;'Sybk`%�;:.C'Y,+.'>A.::.:.^z�R>'b. xJL:f^^. V :.� RAMSEY : �: ; �~ SOUTHWEST I f•--"1® 7 ritm....1iimil.r � S000s 0' 4000' 8000' 9 I IL I HENNEPIN SOUTHEAST IDAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN /11101111111 OVERLAPPING SERVICE AREAS DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I FIGURE 12 SRF I CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL LRT CORRIDORS 11 . How many riders will LRT carry? . How much will LRT cost? How difficult will it be to build? • What will be some of the impacts? The three potential corridors remaining after the first phase evaluation are shown in Figures 13-15 and are described below. In the second phase of analysis, these corridors were evaluated in greater detail, particularly with regard to ridership and costs for alternative alignments. WEST CORRIDOR The West Corridor extends south from downtown Minneapolis as far as T.H. 13 or the Burnsville Center at the interchange of I-35W and I-35E. Alternate alignments include I-35W and the Soo Line Railroad. The corridor includes portions of Minneapolis, Richfield, Bloomington and Burnsville. The West Corridor serves primarily the cities of Burnsville, Apple Valley and Lakeville in Dakota County. Parts of Scott County would also be served by the West Corridor. Major employment centers served by LRT in this corridor are the Burnsville Center, the I-494 area, and downtown Minneapolis. CENTRAL CORRIDOR Several alignments were considered. One is an extension of the Hiawatha Corridor in Hennepin County along T.H. 55 as far as the interchange of I-494/I-35E. Another alignment combines this extended Hiawatha Corridor with the Ramsey County South-Southwest Corridor from downtown St. Paul along I-35E to Cedar Avenue (T.H. 77) . Other alignments that combined portions of these corridors were considered as well. Generally, these alignments serve Eagan, Mendota Heights, Apple Valley and Burnsville in Dakota County. Major employment centers served by LRT in this corridor are the airport, the I-494/Mall of America area, the Minnesota Zoo, Eagan, Apple Valley, downtown Minneapolis, and downtown St. Paul. EAST CORRIDOR The East Corridor extends south out of downtown St. Paul to T.H. 55 or follows I-494 to the interchange of I-494 and I-35E. By possibly linking this corridor with the Central Corridor, additional trip making opportunities would be created. The South Corridor includes portions of St. Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove Heights and Eagan. The major employment centers served by LRT in this corridor are Eagan and downtown St. Paul. 28 I I 3',D r4 N10wN a1 iNNEAPOLIS —' .�I '% • DowNro !N 35E II - ii ''II - lipiliv-. Er 1 . , ,,,v. 6.. . lot IW 17,.ikr-u . -- - 1!,,1:1."' '''Itiiiik--- 011111111111111.0„..,..........Tai. ,. '*"..L.:::,.."--.Nassmwrisar, . , . ,t .. 4 Iiiik i ' IP sit i r S ..5). ,...\,,,) � ,,,...\,\ _, = ' 4‘,4 .u 1. • ,_:...iiiii. D rA','fi o .411 ..coz...i;,,,:.::,.ii:.,,:,„:. „ ,, IL 1 !•_' , I fl W �r I -� -, ti :'''''''::..":"°r1.4W........g'':6111.864" 5"22i:' '. '''''''.6i4"P'. AM' I 1 ( / \ , I r ..,:,,..1....r,:.:... ----- )( 1 \,,;.: ( , I I I '''WO;:-golig X j,rillININW"";')''P"r'In , 1 it$ i..,,,pi::Iii.:iii: ri.iiin;a0...iw .:.•,:.:77.„:,,,„:,„:,si:„,:;;,,,h1....:.,,.:.".:":",":„ 9 all • wp f ALIGNMENTS t fi E I-35V11 ....,.... : i NM I I S00 LINE R.R. r:x» IIIIIMINIIMII 135W/S00 LINE 1 ^ • TERMINI I ` I - ''''''.............. SERVICE AREA 1 0 1 3 5 IDAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN WEST CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS /SERVICE AREA DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROADAUTHORm FIGURE 13 I III :Ow N1OWN ` ':1 IPI NE-A POLIS) I I :::iiiNgi io iiplit. _ i . -rl `�� povir+To P!N Pi '► ,6? ANIMIplit � /ti ~�""s""-�.r \ \ ` .y! ���' 94 __ I "posi,N4wial ,__.,/ .4-4. •:: N.100 A '''.."'--1.-: ' ',4".4( A '}: ..vs ...„, ,r;;46 i Itil 0 1 ', ••9- \.,:'.‘:.,,,.: f.r.:,:.,,:;: •,:, - - -14- iftx ,..,.,m,„.„,„,„...Ak,,,,, - ,,,„ 7 ANA \ „ m - . 9 ..,„*,,,„:„„„..„...,,,,..,,:.-,......, I a.:,:.?..:.„..::,,.,„„::.:i:;:..;;;.:,.,;;;:...i.:.;:....,.:,„,,,:,:.:,.,.,::,::..:,:,::.:..:::::,.,...:, Anita 4,,tI uii BA:::in:?::::.' ' Ilk\ ra .,,,.: , �I ....Ali) , ..„. Y . . ,.•: _ . ... ....' ...—. . It ,,A) s \ 1 . „_ .... .... .... .. _ , 2 14Illr , 11:::,!.:!:;,;.:iiii,!.:::.,:.:‘:.:,::43:::::.:::::.::,::774:!:!::77'! MNA4I J I ,.....,...„,„• F--- ''.::....05'.':''''''..".. ,..s• ,.. „ii?a \ i,..4.... ,„,?:,., s MEN+E:_cs,- 0, ii ...:..,.,i .„. , , , 10.4.. , imillA .,,,,,.i.,;:-,1::,g,§,:,::::0-. - 7,/ , ''' /4:3:::::•:.,:::f::::-,:,,:' - --- -'‘ -7"w01111004'"W' ..... ,::;::::::::.;'"'• \--\: AtH , Iti ' 1 I f'.4T'l71 ..:Z:,•......:14.:::: 1 I ' 1 '' s ,,, , a \ �� , F t_____(.....- , t , J I �� FEZ 1:4:::iega:.., NIM'''''':''''''''..':: .R KIK[,•( Zee IJ I 11 '.:?;;:.-.4,i.i,'''''''''',:..g6y61:11:11:1111:1111111:::::: ).4:;'.::::',.:7'...l..::...::.i'''::::.: / ALIGNMENTS �� iii Imo T.H.55/SHEPARD ROAD/ AIRPORT/T.H.77 0 immilim T.H.55/SHEPARD ROAD/I-35E I \it — E. EnT.H.55/I-35E • TERMINI SERVICE AREA immiiimmlimeammielimomme 1 0 1 3 5 IDAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN CENTRAL CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS/ SERVICE AREA I FIGURE 14 DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY SIO: I ,�INEAFCL,`_' /� ii --- 1 ., ice j- (' AOtt pipl � Dowr+ro"rN PAUL v) - _Milimimuimi I :40 ,441eril /1.--.• -----% - I tj s -;.; ‘) _0410$1 k iA51#AT \', \' ,J. _ na ,-...• is :: , cz 1 ._ , 4 .otill ,,,,,1 , 4,i i : ii N'-/A,', ,rora - .'i ro.,-111,„„„:1 ,• I -:c.:!,,/ V ; ' iEl-, • oinv'' p t1t ° 't,'-c'''':1-'' ?ate ~' 9 % mil ALIGNMENTS I _,� , LAFAYETTE/1-4 : 1t I=—=I =I IN ROBERT STREET/1-494 50 0 nnnnnunn LAFAYETTE FREEWAY I \1111„ vammemmw ROBERT STREET TERMINI I / \ I !!> SERVICE AREA 1 0 1 3 5 DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN , EAST CORRIDOR ALIGNMENTS ! SERVICE AREAI FIGURE 15 DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY I EVALUATION CRITERIA 11 Based upon goals for the study, the following evaluation criteria were applied to the potential corridors: . Projected LRT ridership ▪ Capital costs . Operating costs . Corridor congestion • Physical constraints to construction of LRT . Development potential • Land use compatibility Availability of right-of-way Key results of this evaluation are described below: i PROJECTED RIDERSHIP The LRT ridership estimation procedure incorporated several factors including existing transit (bus) patronage and service levels, the growth in population and employment in the corridor service area, and considered improvements in future transit (bus and LRT) service quality, including travel time advantages for LRT and service coverage. A comparison of LRT ridership for each corridor is shown in Figure 16 and 17. Daily ridership estimates are provided for alternative alignments within each corridor. These figures represent total weekday ridership in the year 2010. The estimated riders per route mile is an indicator that helps describe the cost-effectiveness of the corridor by relating ridership to LRT route length. Ridership estimates are for the entire corridor. Findings include: . The West Corridor alignment serving Minneapolis and the Central Corridor combined alignment that serves both Minneapolis and St. Paul each have a daily projected ridership of about 30, 000. However, the West Corridor has a much higher ridership per route mile indicating superior effectiveness. . The East Corridor serves the highest number of Dakota County residents because it almost entirely within Dakota County. There is little difference in ridership expected between the alternate alignments. . Extension of the West Corridor to Burnsville Center would increase the number of riders from Dakota County by nearly 50 percent (If the LRT route did not extend into Dakota County, some residents would still travel by car or bus to the LRT route terminus in Bloomington and transfer) . Extension of the Central Corridor into Dakota County would approximately double the number of Dakota County LRT riders. 11 32 I I I cc O #::::<:::sig :vii K: :?§:§:iKix:: W �oC ' igliiiiNe..egg::gi::ii in �44:v.,:4iki.}:{:isi;.:• t}}}:tii:::: jiiN::K:ii:**:::.:}••ii :•:livvvv�}.! %a C? / CP ; ' EE\T "Nfvvi < :i:: y :: iia \`} KTii O ..a 0: ::i*::vi•i•:... ':::`v5-:;i:;iq•::;Z?:A::vii 2.."'s = : t 0 ain W Q T W O i : t O O 43 ci d v C • • 4 � V 1 00:•••.,......••••••••••:'a ` i £ a w aiiii O W Ids :2o:i::;:,:+.?':;:iv:.%{iv,+':.:::i•}v�S,yC;•C•.'•:..ti•.;;•.;;:•{..,,,;,ii': :•:+::2 f'- <,. CC \`,:..3a::•::::•iKM:,;:•i'•:y;,;;::0:�:.- 'a :S: C O Z O a,,,:;•.,:•:�}•.•i::^:;:ti 'vii\•.'';::•.:.:'^::i:{'v`-:n.-:�..{i"•>: C .. s5�i+`:�v�v�•+:o1'1� :'fi{v i.\i•• ruC{+ai'+�.. `'+. uj CI _ C &- 8 co _ T a v 0 CC T ' ° 0 IC _ C II N ;••; : rir�•rrrrrrrrrrrrrrirrrrrrr.yririrrrrrirrrrrirrr (CI • y � 7f \ G £ 0-ii::::::Mt •'?: � �` :c:':!�+, ?` . : . � ; � A : i C W cl .:kji;';, :?\w ' `2• }'i•<n `a'.� ''` ..NCJ..di: ; . v ; \•hh �y\+:': V' . yti .fti \ 2$ ai; '. , N 'Laku . c "I:3 u. .� 4 :. Ce O si'i .> << : « ::::ii::>::>::>ii::i<:Isis:>::>:ii::::>:;<«<«<: I OOO O ppp C O O Cd• ..� O O q q OO ONN1- Oin Q M C) 1— I I I I I :" t T.;. ';�:{y::}}rr iiii'}:'>v i?}ii}0:;:''{{::•}:ir:inti::}v':{:$\i{tiiti,vS:%}:;v.'A::::: : t <i•:`k:i:K.}• :K:i:: tiy.'�'::?;:f•.}}i6:i*::i�i{�{:{}:irk\:\;S S{:E:i::}:<,^.,}:' 'i:•��.:ii:.•:.}:\:::`v:ti:?;4$:;p;:;!:\ti;:i}v.::•v4:i}} \^:{v`.>ti>.kSr:::.:;?i}': r.i'ti?'?{}:{}tix.o.: Ino (IJ I o : W z N:i : S Sa tu locc — o Y r. O ' N N .. C o V IIJ{s{:i?iv4-::::k;x\4..v }•4.1\ a'ns6r r.:v.x:n:c.:::: G'Y'1 CC ti ifif,+.:•.Yn'{:iiti tiv i 44:+;:}}}vv:\:ir:ji�\. .:i+.••i•�i:}i'iiv�} ::•.}..}v 2 ::•!}}i3;?>}vJ}:•}:•Q}::i.:i}\+C .•�-:h::.X}r:.•::�}:•{ti{::?•:i' � �::::�i%:J,+.,vi'kti;itiv'ti�!�iri::}':>�:+;i'�'•{•�:.:,L:: :uk�4?..:J. C T R :;:.k:t{?.??:}:.:;a;;:;:}:}:%; ::\...•w•,`.;}..kw:8{`•,:wa•••'::'i'tl;;•�::.�}�iii O M :i:r;.,}.ky.}:•.ir:.xa:•}'•}:??;n?,x ww.}i:.ii'``'k•:i•.::..:..\�kr:?::}:.•}.;,:.:: C Z li ' h4'`4}i?;.;i ti::{•:?ji{isy:::i;:}•:tia•'•',•'•'^��kw•:kz:+•'"`' Tt ik?:k�4:;:v':{fivi:?4}:. ::::.::;.',iea££k{:fitGtik?.,:6ow.vr. '.'�••fi ti��.kLLfi'sciww+s•{'.,,5: � W 0 pp 3 o Cl) .. CC O • i r C.) la (1) a) = sem° CD O ' - I re .`- N':; ;fi.l :::o i i;:: :,.:.:':...'::::i;`i :i::i : ::i: :i J L 12) rrrrrrr�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ; N iii. },:Sii\k.}}.•.r:......: •.1}•'vr r::::..:::ii-::::-µ,.ii •r•ky}{`�::.rySi:�::;.; = :•:•AIv; ::ixky�Y.}.;v;;.v;:::; ::;ct;:?7>r.-{:'ii;;:::::}„L }}?i`:•..;\i': :' d V/ T: .:$�}..'.•,::'•' ti't w';•vov:;i:::::,?'•i :.}.•.+:`•i:. .}•:.:••ti.:r}.}: c C :\w:41W::Iiiii-Aigqiiii a- 0 ID '� 'v\U'• 22'v:.+ii"`v. '•:�Rt tw.\\\�'kA`.QG4 \ 'viv\',w�`vk. : I -. .. .. .. ...•v.Y 8cl 13 T CC T : Z` 1 ■IMMO Oo C C O 8 O 0 I oo N N 8 r' I I . I . Extension of the West Corridor along the Soo Line alignment rather than the I-35W alignment would decrease the number of Dakota County riders due to its long circuitous route. . As the length of each corridor increases, the number of riders ' per route mile decreases. This reflects decreasing population density and decreasing propensity to ride transit. The East Corridor has the highest riders per route mile followed by the ' West Corridor. CAPITAL COSTS Capital cost estimates incorporate capital cost information from the "Comprehensive LRT System Plan for Hennepin County, " the "Ramsey County Comprehensive LRT Plan, " preliminary data from the I-35W EIS process, and estimates for the RTB's "LRT Development and Financial Plan. " ' Capital costs for each entire corridor are listed in Table 2 and Figure 18. Costs include right-of-way, vehicles, park-and-ride lots, a share of downtown LRT costs, yards-and-shops. Yards-and- shops costs are allocated based on the corridor's vehicle requirements. Cost estimates for the portion of each LRT corridor within Dakota County are based upon an average cost per ' mile for the corridor. It should be noted that these estimates are preliminary and could change significantly depending upon conditions along individual alignments. More detailed cost estimates will be required during any future studies. ' Capital costs are generally highest in the West Corridor because it is relatively long. However, since some freeway improvements on I-35W would be made concurrently, certain capital costs would be shared. Thus on a cost per mile basis the West Corridor ranks better than the East Corridor (but below the Central Corridor) . Overall, the Hiawatha extension to I-35E has the lowest cost per ' mile while the East Corridor extension to T.H. 55 has the highest cost per mile. The Central Corridor combined alignment cost of $394 million compares to $171 for the Hiawatha extension due to the very long total route mileage. OPERATING COSTS Projected operating costs were estimated based on projected ridership, frequency of service, length of route, and number of ' cars per train. Cost estimates for the portion of each LRT corridor within Dakota County are based upon an average cost per mile for that corridor (see Table 3) . Estimated unit costs are ' comparable to recent unit costs from LRT systems elsewhere in the U.S. Annual operating costs are shown in Table 3 and range from $3. 6 million for the Hiawatha extension to I-35E to $15. 1 million for the I-35W extension to Burnsville Center via the Soo Line alignment. 35 I ITABLE 2 ESTIMATED PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COSTS I FOR POTENTIAL LRT CORRIDORS I TOTAL COSTS IN DAKOTA ROUTE (MILLIONS) COUNTY (b) CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE MILES (a) (MILLIONS) II II WEST T.H. 13 15.4 $258 $ 34 Burnsville Center via I-35W 17.8 $283 $ 70 II Burnsville Center via 22.8 $334 $ 44 Soo Line Railroad 1 CENTRAL I St. Paul to Cliff via I-35E 13 .2 $211 $146 Minneapolis to I-35E via 12.2 $171 $ 50 Hiawatha (T.H. 55) Combined to Cedar Avenue 26.7 $394 $206 I EAST IRobert/Lafayette to T.H. 55 8.8 $161 $117 Robert/Lafayette and 10. 1 $172 $131 I-494 to I-35E I (a) 1988 dollars. I (b) Based upon average cost per mile. I I I II I 36 I I I I I 41 W 1. M a i 110110111 111111111111111111111111101111111111011111111111111111111 Ill l'''' 0 T s o cei it I !I'M.' I 8 t a V 0 o J M W cc 0 ce 'r' � E— C 0 .L Z 412 0 CC 0 C.)T 5 I - - 2 i 3 . � a' m L . ' o CC _ -11 cn d � r. ` a N =' W $11iiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 111111 11111el co a. Ich CD Nim. T • 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1111 I I 1 1 I N LC) 0 p to O 5 C as N O U TABLE 3 ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR POTENTIAL LRT CORRIDORS IN DAKOTA TOTAL COSTS (a) COUNTY (b) CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) 11 WEST T.H. 13 $ 9. 6 $ 1.3 Burnsville Center via I-35W $11.2 $ 2.8 1 Burnsville Center via $15. 1 $10.4 Soo Line Railroad ' CENTRAL St. Paul to Cliff via I-35E $ 4 .7 $ 3 .3 Minneapolis to I-35E via $ 3 . 6 $ 1. 1 Hiawatha (T.H. 55) Combined to Cedar Avenue $10. 0 $ 5.2 EAST Robert/Lafayette to T.H. 55 $ 4 .5 $ 3 .3 Robert/Lafayette and $ 5.2 $ 4 . 0 I-494 to I-35E (a) 1988 dollars. (b) Based upon average cost per mile. 11 I i I 38 1 I The farebox recovery rate represents revenues as a percent of I operating costs and is a measure of the need for transit subsidies. The average fare assumed was $0.60 per passenger which is the current average bus fare for the metro system. Figure 19 compares farebox recovery rates for each corridor. 11 Farebox recovery ranges from 33 percent for the Soo Line alignment in the West Corridor to 94 percent for the Hiawatha extension to I-35E. This compares to approximately 35 percent II for the current metropolitan transit system. I I Farebox Recovery Rate Figure 19 I1 00% 94% 1g0% .,.s. 78%AiNi . s79c, c is>::>:::. a7x �4'�sk; viii s g ,{ � y ` ,1 * ? \ r 40% k '9 • liii '74:0i rr Oi'i {;�;/rri� yxk4 ,,e ?, yak :• . f .. keen:• "..mi 1004 ' eAtiOAMMEEME I T.H.13 Burnsville Soo Line St.Paul Minneapolis Combined To T.H.55 To 435E Center to Cliff to 1.35E to Cedar WEST CENTRAL EAST ICORRIDOR I I I 39 I I I TOTAL ANNUAL COST PER ANNUAL RIDER IThe Metropolitan Council has established a feasibility threshold for the construction of LRT based on an annual cost of less than I $4.00 per annual rider. This cost combines an annualized capital cost with annual operating costs. Annual cost per annual rider is calculated for each corridor and shown in Figure 20. Annual cost per annual rider ranges from $3 .20 for the Hiawatha I extension to I-35E to $6.80 for the St. Paul to Cliff Road via I-35E alignment in the Central Corridor. Three alternatives do not meet this proposed $4. 00 threshold: (1) the Soo Line I Railroad alignment in the West Corridor, (2) St. Paul to Cliff Road in the Central Corridor and (3) the combined Central Corridor with a terminus at Cedar/I-35E. I I Annual Cost per Annual Rider Figure 20 I $7 I $8.80 I $6— $5.40 $4.90 $5-- ' $3.80 $3.80 _:«Y $4—i $3.50 <:z: <>:: $320 Cost ' : 3 < r :. Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 1 :. �F .•`ju Y4 $2—t::: • 'i; g, }; gilegE �:• 4 <S lC [� p 4 fft! I T.H 13 Burnsville Soo Line St.Paul Minneapolis Combined To T.H.55 To 1.35E Center to Cliff to l-35E to Cedar WEST CENTRAL EAST I CORRIDOR I I I 11 CORRIDOR CONGESTION Corridor congestion in 2010 is expected to be the most severe on I-35W (depending on highway improvements) , T.H. 55 in the Mendota area, T.H. 5 in the Fort Snelling area, and along T.H. 3 (Lafayette Freeway) . Moderate congestion is also expected along Cedar Avenue (T.H. 77) and I-35E near the Lexington Avenue area. Thus, all three potential LRT corridors will experience I congestion. However, forecasts indicate that the Central Corridor will have less overall congestion than the West or East Corridors. According to the Metropolitan Council, bridges in the area forecasted to have severe congestion by the year 2010 include the I-35W Minnesota River Bridge in Burnsville, the T.H. 55 Mendota Heights Bridge, and the T.H. 3/Lafayette Bridge in St. Paul. Modest congestion is projected for the I-35E Lexington Avenue Bridge and the Cedar Avenue, T.H. 77 Bridge. Thus all the potential corridors have alignments where river crossing ' congestion will be severe. IPHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABILITY All of the potential LRT alignments must cross either the Mississippi River or the Minnesota River. Completion of the Central Corridor so that there is service to both downtowns would involve two river crossings. All of the proposed crossing sites are near existing highway bridges, but in almost all situations either completely new structures or extensive reconstruction of existing structures would be required to accommodate LRT. The crossing at the Soo Line bridge is especially difficult because the existing bridge is close to the river surface; the existing approaches are not adequate for a higher level bridge. There is also limited opportunity for realignment of the track. The Soo Line alignment in general is on a narrow right-of-way. Further investigation would be required to determine if the right-of-way width is adequate. Where the median of a freeway is too narrow to accommodate LRT, the tracks would have to be placed either on the freeway sideslope or an aerial structure within the freeway right-of-way. 11 This situation occurs on the Lafayette Freeway between Concord Boulevard and Wentworth Avenue, on I-35E between the Mississippi River and T.H. 110, and on T.H. 55 between the Mendota Bridge and the Crosstown Highway. In the East Corridor, the proposed alignment would need to surmount the bluff on the north side of the Mississippi River floodplain. An aerial structure is required in both Robert Street and the Lafayette Freeway, but the Robert Street structure would have more impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In Iaddition, an existing narrow underpass on Robert Street, just 41 1 south of Concord Boulevard, would need to be reconstructed to allow the passage of LRT. Along Robert Street between Concord Boulevard and I-494, the existing right-of-way is too narrow to accommodate the existing roadway plus two LRT tracks. South of I-494 on South Robert Trail, extensive grading and right-of-way acquisition may be required because of hilly terrain. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL The assessment of development potential is based on the recognition that development along LRT lines or around LRT stations can be stimulated where land use planning is coordinated with LRT planning. LRT related development can be of three types: 1) new development on currently undeveloped property, 2) intensification of existing development, or 3) redevelopment of underutilized property. All of the corridors pass through areas which are not completely developed, but where the patterns of land use have been established and most of the property has been improved. The implementation of LRT may not alter the character of development planned for certain areas, but could accelerate this growth. The largest amount of undeveloped land is along I-35E, south of ' I-494, and in the East Corridor, south of and along I-494. The smallest amount of undeveloped land is along I-35W and in the East Corridor north of I-494. Locations where stations would be appropriate are generally near major highway intersections and, therefore, already predominantly ' commercial. Intensification of this commercial development and perhaps additional multi-family structures could occur if land use controls are modified to accommodate these changes. tLAND USE COMPATIBILITY The compatibility of LRT with adjacent land uses is a function of the type of development that is nearby and the orientation of potentially sensitive land uses to the LRT alignment. In general, LRT alignments that are proposed for highway or freeway corridors are compatible with the surrounding land uses. This is primarily because the existing land use has been planned to accommodate the presence of the highway. Nearby residential development is set back and screened from the highway right-of- way. There is a significant amount of new residential development directly adjacent to the Soo Line alignment in the West Corridor. Implementation of LRT would represent a significant change in the utilization of this track. 42 i i ' Each of the LRT alignments involves the crossing of either the Mississippi or Minnesota River. Any proposal for the construction of a new river crossing or the modification of an existing bridge would have to consider the impact on wildlife refuges, state parkland, scenic views and historical sites. SUMMARY The evaluation of potential LRT corridors (see Table 4) i identifies differences in the performance levels and characteristics of various alignments. In terms of cost- effectiveness, each of the three corridors has one or more alignments that perform well and meet regional standards. Both ' cost indicators and the other evaluation criteria identify preferred alignments as follows: West - via I-35W Central - Minneapolis to I-35E via Hiawatha (T.H. 55) East Robert/Lafayette to either T.H. 55 or I-494/I-35E i The West Corridor total ridership and total costs will be higher than others on an overall corridor basis; it is the longest corridor of the three. At the same time, the West's projected annual cost per annual passenger is equivalent to that in the Central and East Corridors. Due to its length within the County, the East Corridor will carry three times the number of County residents as the other individual corridors. All three corridors have preferred alignments along severely congested highways and river crossings and can contribute to congestion relief. While extension across the bridges will reduce congestion at these bottlenecks, further LRT extension into the County will improve traffic flow on highways feeding the iriver crossings. • The next chapter presents recommendations for LRT implementation in the County including the timing for construction. i r I i 1 43 i I 0 0 0 0 z 4) 4-) .J o N w111 o v v v v v v v b y v4.1 v (U v (U v W e $4 $.4 WW W Ws-1 W W W v v v v v v v v v v v v Z > > > b > > b > b > b > I 0z v v v 0 v v 0 v o v o v GLI • U to Z CA Z N 1-1 41C4 0 0 0 0 0 0• 0 0 ] Q• a W N CO d' CO N 01 In CO zE-Iz0 M M In 10 Cl d' C1 r1 z EnZ H O Kt a irk v} v} v> EA ca v} i? •-4 —Cl, H• En •4 N N C1 N r•1 C1 H r♦ 4E4a UGH i v} i v} vs U) O - co I a W H H H o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O Z Z d' N C) N 0 N 0 0 . r•1 r-1 I O 0 EA d' In N C7 C1 10 N N 1-•1 r-1 Ea Io 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 aw M N o V 0 0 Q 0 H 0 CA N r. CO 0 C71 C71 0 G H N M N ra M r♦ r♦ CC CC W CA 0a d' CO CO N N Nel N CO r-1 V a Z rI r♦ N H HN CO 0 F— CC t J J H 3 W u-) in ul in Z m 0 M Ol I F- H C!) H ••••I ►'� I' Lu W a 0 0 b v Ei w - H •> •> •> n 0 Z I 0 Z aN W W H �• (U v RIv 0 W m +) b •r1 x b 4) 4-) • I I— Ei I s~ >~ c0 ra o • v Cl) Q1-1 H U U U El U ?• >i J a •� v N •� 4-) +� w w W rH-1 Q 0 > r-I r4 f0 H 4 0 «J tf1 0 > 0 r'1 r4a r-4 04-) r' a )-4 en 'O Lu cc H M •r4 •r, a (0 v 1 ', a ri > > v c0 t0 3 f. +) +) H CO 0 I:4 Cl) >~ a v •� �• �• CO V< U • 1-7 4 >~ x E; A A 4 rl LU I F012 Elcl) Ei m EA cc'n Z 0 Z E� 0 a°cn _ N 3 U w tts I-- 1 CHAPTER 4 THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PLAN . What LRT corridors are recommended for construction? . What is the timing for implementation? . How does this fit with the regional LRT plan? This chapter presents the recommended LRT system in Dakota County, the system's projected performance characteristics and proposed staging of the system in relation to the regional plan for LRT. RECOMMENDED CORRIDORS The recommended plan for light rail transit in Dakota County is shown in Figure 21. The West, Central and East corridors are all recommended for construction within 20 years. These corridors are recommended because of the following: - Strong ridership potential - Reasonable cost to construct Cost-effective operations Located in congested corridors and river crossings - Provide connections to major employment centers - Are generally compatible with existing land uses Will improve transit service in the county Have the potential for enhancing economic development Specific recommendations for each corridor are: West Corridor The Hennepin South (I-35W) corridor should be extended from 96th Street in Bloomington to Burnsville Center within the next 20 years. The Burnsville Center will serve as a strong regional anchor for that end of the corridor. A terminus at this location will help alleviate I-35W congestion south of the Minnesota River as well as on the river crossing. Due to excessive length, lower ridership projections, and resulting high cost per annual patrons, a Soo Line Railroad alignment is not recommended. This and other railroad corridors, however, should be preserved for possible transit use in the post-20 year period. The status of LRT in this corridor will be determined by the outcome of the I- 35W Environmental Impact Statement being conducted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. LRT is under active consideration as a preferred alternative and if approved, Dakota County should coordinate with Mn/DOT and HCRRA to design for the future extension of the LRT route into Dakota County. I 45 i I ivow NI0v414 I MINNEAPOLIS 1 :11101r~P„ P :kvie, ; % /it '� PowNtoWN (St' ST I'aUL 0 iii1;41.11r6 a 111 -Wer„. *• �Ill 01 ' .9A :),, �, 1 = WPM\ \ / i "w.P-1" :1:40110arly/ ".'''44.4-4410.44_ 1 IMO k �r0-1rAim ° IL 1 . \ 1 _ tv .,_ . _ 14, , AMIN il 8 41; 4 7, 1-35E/1-494 I /0° / 1 CENTRAL CORRIDOR T.H.55 I / ,- ..--'—% /,• fEASTCORiDOR 1 14,4461,:,, . _ ,., iiiiiii,___ _ .1010141nr, 41111PAIR ( I lig , , , v - '-- 1 — _.1 ''s ' — ---- .� = dE j ,...„ ; . _ . , \ °AI lirr 1 9 111111a 'i CENTERBURNSVILLE ,_ il ,„.. „ c if I -WEST CORRIDOR 1 ir3 r.„---.1% I 'o 0 I ‘l RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR Imo ALTERNATE ROUTING I • TERMINUS I IDAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN MIIIIMMINIMINIIIIIIIII RECOMMENDED LRT CORRIDORS IN DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RANAOADAUTHORTTY 1 20 YEAR PLAN SRF FIGURE 21 I I Central Corridor The Hennepin-Southeast (Hiawatha) corridor should be extended beyond the GSA building, across the Mendota Bridge and along T.H. 55 as far as the I-35E/I-494 interchange area. The Mendota Bridge may be structurally capable of supporting LRT without substantial reconstruction and thus capital costs could be lower than for other river crossings. This extension, linked with the East Corridor, provides access from this part of Dakota County to both Minneapolis and St. Paul as well as the I-494 area and the airport. This connection would also better serve the increasing reverse commute traffic into Dakota County. The Central Corridor as recommended promises a very high farebox recover ratio. East Corridor The Ramsey South Corridor will provide the highest LRT ridership within Dakota County. This East Corridor benefits by a strong existing pattern of transit service and ridership. Projected riders per route mile is high. Recognizing the potential of the East Corridor, the DCRRA has recommended that a more detailed corridor study be undertaken in order to select a preferred alignment and terminus. All of the alignments identified in this study along with other potential alignments should be considered. I The corridor study would also determine environmental review requirements. ILRT SYSTEM RIDERSHIP The projected LRT ridership for the recommended three corridor LRT system in year 2010 is approximately 60, 000 to 75, 000 riders per day (see Table 5) . An estimated 25, 000 of these will be Dakota County riders. TABLE 5 PROJECTED LRT RIDERSHIP IN YEAR 2010 I Corridor Riders Per Day Within Dakota County West 26, 500 - 34, 000 5, 200 jCentral 16,800 - 20, 200 3, 000 East 16,900 - 21, 100 17, 000 11 TOTAL 60,200 75, 300 25,200 47 11 I ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS 1 Total capital costs for the recommended LRT system are provided in Table 6. The estimated capital cost for the three corridors is $626 million. These costs are for the entire length of each regional corridor including the portion in Dakota County. TABLE 6 ESTIMATED PRELIMINARY CAPITAL COSTS I TOTAL COST (a) IN DAKQVA jCORRIDOR (MILLIONS) COUNTY(I ) PERCENT West $283 $ 70 29% Central $171 $ 50 29% East $172 $131 76% TOTAL $626 $251 40% (a) 1988 dollars. (b) Based upon average corridor cost per mile. 1 1 11 1 11 I 1 48 II 1/ ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS II Total annual operating costs for the recommended system is estimated at $20. 0 million as shown in Table 7 . These costs are for the entire length of each corridor. IITABLE 7 ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS II I Corridor Annual Cost (a) In Dakot (Millions) County k ) Percent II West $11.2 $ 2.8 IICentral $ 3 . 6 $ 1. 1 East $ 5. 2 $ 4 . 0 IITOTAL $20.0 $ 7.9 il (a) 1988 dollars. (b) Based upon average corridor cost per mile. IITIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION The timing of LRT implementation in the three corridors proposed II in the twenty-year plan will be dependent on several factors. Most importantly, it will depend on priorities for funding set at the regional level and the progress of construction on the I portions of the I-35W and Hiawatha corridors within Hennepin County. Within these constraints, the following recommendations are made regarding timing of construction: 11 1. The extension of the West (I-35W) Corridor to T.H. 13 is included in the ten-year regional plan. This corridor is considered a high priority regional corridor which must be II linked in timing to the reconstruction of I-35W. It is recommended that the design of LRT to Burnsville Center be incorporated into the I-35W EIS and subsequent design activities. Construction could then occur as highway II reconstruction occurs if LRT is the preferred alternative in the I-35W EIS and funding is available. I 2. The construction of the East Corridor to T.H. 110 is also included in the ten-year regional plan. However, there is some concern about when adequate growth will occur to 11 support extension of the corridor south or west of T.H. 110. 49 I I wNICHN ik I • _./ 1004 . 0.1.115. \ PoWfo4/N a ������I AP N Milr - •- ' ' 1 - 11.0141: - 4" -- --- T Pa v L 40.4r44 __, 7 ;,i,t. r \ , i,„ . ,, J , \ \ _i I1 AO i \ \, 494 --t rs _ :: 14 . I e"/ / , 1 .4. \ i; -1Y IA p % L ., 11-494 \ N ,1 // il) yIr� �' T.H.55 I ' _�-' d lir 1 a \ .� /10.t ___...-/-. ' / 1 32 V- / r_� iiii '�- _._,� ! j \ , •i CD , , • El ,\V • 1 _ ---- IJI t i4 I - BURNSVILLE �-=` S11'_ CENTER II)- 5.3f C;J V:_::-,CM9 / ,,____400 Imed"mmem'i I $ $J 000' 0' 4000' 00' i In 9 t I 1 RECOMMENDED CORRIDOR ALTERNATE ROUTING • TERMINUS 1 DAKOTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LRT PLAN MIIIMINIIMIMMINWIIIIM POST 20 - YEAR LRT CORRIDORS DAKOTA COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY II FIGURE 22 SRF I It is recommended, therefore, that a corridor study be undertaken as soon as possible to refine ridership forecasts and costs, select a preferred alignment, and determine required environmental studies. This study should consider the desirability of phased construction of the corridor as 11 suggested in the regional plan. A decision on timing of construction could be a part of the corridor study. 3 . The extension of the Hiawatha Corridor into Dakota County (Central Corridor) is included in the second ten years of the regional plan. Thus, this corridor should receive a lower priority in design and construction than the West and East Corridors. The most important issues in this corridor are preservation of right-of-way and rehabilitation of the Mendota Bridge. The timing of LRT implementation in the County hinges upon the development and adoption of a regional LRT plan. The preliminary RTB Development and Finance Plan includes the corridor extensions 11 recommended in this study. The staging of these extensions has not been finalized. The regional plan continues to move through a regional approval process. The counties are proceeding with 11 environmental studies and preliminary engineering for various corridors. It is vital that Dakota County, as much as possible, participate in the further planning and design of these corridors as described in Chapter 5. I I I I I I I I 51 I I CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES FOR LRT i . How can the County plan for LRT? . What additional LRT studies are needed? . What interim actions should be taken to preserve right-of-way? A long-term plan for LRT in Dakota County will allow for staged implementation of LRT and future expansions based upon demand and funding availability. The County can pursue a variety of actions to plan for a phased implementation of LRT. Key implementation issues are: . Initiation of corridor studies . Preservation of right-of-way (ROW) . Provision of transit services . Coordination of LRT with other transportation improvements ▪ Land use planning and development reviews . Financing . Monitoring Future detailed analysis of individual LRT alignments will reveal site or area specific implementation issues (for example, right- 11 of-way complexities) that must be addressed. A number of guidelines and strategies should be adopted by the County to properly prepare for possible implementation of LRT. GUIDELINE 1: INITIATE CORRIDOR STUDIES TO SELECT ALIGNMENTS AND IDENTIFY SITE SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Studies should be conducted in each of the proposed LRT corridors 11 to identify preferred alignments, conduct necessary environmental reviews, and identify needed right-of-way and potential opportunities for the provision of transit service. Initially, a corridor study should be undertaken in the East Corridor. This corridor is a primary LRT corridor providing direct service between Dakota County and downtown St. Paul. The corridor has projected ridership of approximately 21, 000 people per day. The two key design issues in this corridor are the location of a river crossing into St. Paul and the selection of a preferred alignment. Preliminary design and environmental studies would I/ follow if the corridor study found that LRT would be feasible. A similar study should also be undertaken at some point in the future for the Central Corridor. Suggested work tasks for an LRT corridor study include the following: 1. Determine data requirements . Review previous studies . Identify alignment evaluation criteria and process . Identify base data and mapping requirements 52 I I I 2 . Identify alignment alternatives . General alignment alternatives . River crossing alternatives . End-of-line alternatives ▪ Downtown connection alignments . Station location alternatives 3 . Conduct detailed alignment analysis . Right-of-way requirements and availability . Traffic impacts including capacity, circulation, access and parking . Ridership by market group, mode of access, peak versus off-peak, first year, five year and ten year ridership 1 forecasts • Feeder bus requirements and impact on existing routes . Land use impacts and relationship to local comprehensive plans and economic goals and objectives • Environmental impacts including air quality, noise, and aesthetics . Facility requirements including station platforms, park- and-ride lots, bus interface and pedestrian access . Refine capital costs for each alternative . Refine operation costs for each alternative 4. Evaluate alternative alignments . Compare against evaluation criteria • Evaluate alternatives for staging potential . Rank alternatives for feasibility and cost-effectiveness . Recommend preferred alignment 11 5. Prepare documentation and conduct public participation process . Draft and final reports . Corridor task force . Public information meetings I GUIDELINE 2: PRESERVE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE FUTURE PROVISION OF 11 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT Specific right-of-way needs cannot be determined until corridor studies and initial preliminary engineering are completed. However, some guidelines can be provided so that opportunities can be recognized. Potential alignments in most of the corridors appear to provide adequate linear right-of-way for the provisions of LRT (the Robert Street alignment in the East Corridor is an exception) . However, right-of-way will be needed in all corridors for the provision of bus transfer stations and park/ride lots. 53 1 II II 1. While specific station sites cannot be identified at this I time, general station locations and sizes are noted in Table 8. Opportunities for the acquisition of land or the incorporation of LRT station requirements into development I proposals should focus on these approximate areas. 2. If railroad rights-of-way become available through abandonment or sale, acquisition of these rights-of-way for 11 LRT or trail use should be evaluated by the DCRRA. Although the DCRRA evaluation process did not identify any railroad corridors as preferred alignments, such corridors might prove II feasible with long-term expansion of the system into the County. Railroad right-of-way should be preserved where possible to maintain future LRT options. Interim and/or eventual joint use as recreational trails (hiking and biking) IImay be appropriate. II GUIDELINE 3: ESTABLISH A BASIC NETWORK OF TRANSIT SERVICES COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 1 The integration of existing transit service into a long-range plan for LRT should focus on three key features: (1) expansion and reconfiguration of local transit service, (2) provision of II park/ride lots and transit hubs, and (3) use of High Occupancy Vehicle lanes in potential LRT corridors. Each of these strategies is discussed more fully below. il 1. Encourage the expansion of local transit services within the LRT corridor service areas. I . Support the Cities of Prior Lake, Savage, Burnsville, Eagan, Apple Valley and Rosemount in the initiation of new "opt-out" transit system in 1990. I . As recommended in the Needs Assessment Transit Study, existing services should eventually become fixed route trunk lines with either demand responsive or fixed route II feeder services and local community circulator service for area employers. I . Establish reverse commute services as employment expands, in coordination with the transit hubs established as part of the proposed "opt-out" transit system. II I II 54 1 1 III TABLE 8 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF PARK/RIDE REQUIREMENTS FOR ILIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATIONS IN DAKOTA COUNTY II ESTIMATED APPROXIMATE PARK/RIDE 1 CORRIDOR STATION LOCATION SPACES II West Corridor T.H. 13 200 McAndrews Road 100 C.R. 42 400 ITotal West Corridor 700 II Central Corridor T.H. 110 200 I-35E 400 IITotal Central Corridor 600 East Corridor C.R. 4 25 II C.R. 8 25 C.R. 14 100 T.H. 3/I-494 300 11 T.H. 110/I-494 100 T.H. 149 100 I-35E 300 IITotal East Corridor 950 IITOTAL DAKOTA COUNTY 2,400 I. I II II II 55 I II2. Locate bus transit facilities to coincide with potential LRT facilities. I . Monitor the use of existing park/ride facilities to assure that adequate capacity is provided and that park/ride 11 facilities are in the appropriate locations. . Expansion or construction of new park/ride lots should be coordinated with LRT planning. I . Coordinate LRT feeder bus service with the sites identified in the Six Cities Transit Needs Assessment as IIneeded transit hubs and park/ride facilities. 3 . Pursue the development of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and facilities within recommended and potential future LRT 11 corridors. . Monitor the I-35W EIS process to assure that suburban I transit services are incorporated into each alternative. If LRT is the preferred transit solution and 96th Street becomes the initial southern terminus, request the interim designation of a highway lane as a diamond lane across the I Minnesota River to assure good transit speed. Data available from the I 35W indicates that HOV demand is high enough to warrant a diamond lane. I . Investigate the demand for, and feasibility of, providing a diamond lane connection across the Mendota Bridge to the GSA Building in the event that LRT in the Hiawatha il Corridor is initially constructed only to the GSA Building. If demand for carpool and bus use is sufficient, consider the provision of interim HOV lanes 1 when the Mendota Bridge is rehabilitated. . Investigate the feasibility of HOV facilities as an II interim transit solution in corridors such as I-35E and Cedar Avenue which have potential for LRT beyond the 20- year timeframe of the LRT plan. IIGUIDELINE 4: REVIEW TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS IN PROPOSED LRT CORRIDORS TO ASSURE THAT THE PROVISION OF LRT IS IICONSIDERED IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Light Rail Transit in Dakota County is most likely to be located within existing transportation corridors. Roadway and bridge II construction and maintenance projects along the alternative alignments in the three LRT corridors should be monitored to assure that LRT is considered in these projects. Specifically, IIthe following actions should be undertaken: 1. DCRRA should coordinate with Mn/DOT in the design of the IIalternatives for I-35W including the bridge over the 56 II Minnesota River to assure that the future provision of transit facilities into Dakota County can be accommodated. Initially, this coordination can be accomplished through the I-35W EIS process. The DCRRA should strongly encourage Mn/DOT to include LRT in the design and reconstruction of the ' highway to County Road 42. This is consistent with the Regional LRT Development and Financial Plan. 2. DCRRA should coordinate with Mn/DOT in the rehabilitation of ' the Mendota Bridge on T.H. 55. This bridge is scheduled for rehabilitation and is structurally capable of supporting LRT. It would provide the river crossing for the extension of the ' Hiawatha LRT Corridor into Dakota County. DCRRA should work with Mn/DOT to assure that LRT can be accommodated after the reconstruction work is complete. 3 . DCRRA should coordinate with the RTB and the other RRAs in the preparation of the Regional Development and Financial Plan. This plan will set priorities for implementation of ' LRT corridors and will establish a regional plan for the financing of LRT construction and operation. 4. DCRRA should coordinate with Mn/DOT in the proposed extension of the Lafayette Freeway, in the event that a southern rather than westerly alignment is selected for the East Corridor. In addition, DCRRA will need to coordinate with Mn/DOT, RCRRA and the City of St. Paul in planning a river crossing for LRT in the East Corridor. 5. DCRRA should establish a regular procedure for reviewing all proposed roadway construction projects by Mn/DOT, Dakota County, and local communities to assure that LRT is considered where appropriate. I GUIDELINE 5: INCORPORATE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT INTO LOCAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES The Metropolitan Council, under the Land Planning Act and the Transportation Development Guide/Policy Plan, requires local communities to revise their transportation plans to reflect the potential role of LRT. The DCRRA should provide direction for local communities potentially affected by LRT to make these ' comprehensive plan changes. Following completion of an LRT corridor study and selection of a preferred LRT alignment, the affected local communities should be requested to undertake the following actions: 1. Revise land use plans to assure appropriate land uses in the vicinity of proposed LRT stations. Commercial or high density residential land uses are most appropriate in close proximity to transit stations. 1 57 1 2. Revise transportation plans to reflect transit needs and county LRT plans. Transportation plans should address specific concerns such as bus turning radii, auto accessibility, bus circulation, operational efficiency, street and intersection capacity, non-through streets, etc. In newly developing areas, transportation systems and roadway networks should be planned to facilitate efficient transit service. ' 3. As part of LRT corridor studies, the County should identify, on a site-by-site basis, where it is desirable to preserve existing public right-of-way or to acquire land for ' preservation or interim use purposes. Local land use plans should reflect these recommendations. 4. Revise local site plan review criteria and processes to address urban design issues related to transit facilities and park/ride lots including set-backs, visual and noise buffers, landscaping and green space, security elements, pedestrian access, etc. 5. Revise local zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to incorporate the above changes in land use plans, transportation plans, and site plan reviews. GUIDELINE 6: EXPLORE INNOVATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT METHODS Experience elsewhere suggests that LRT can reinforce, although not necessarily generate, new development. If the development potential (market forces) already exist, LRT can influence the ultimate location, timing and scale of development. Frequently, land values around rail stations will increase since these sites offer a preferred opportunity for regional accessibility. The regional railroad authority or local governments may wish to pursue any of several methods for acquiring and managing land for the LRT system. Additional research is needed to determine limitations imposed by state and federal laws or regulations. 1. Land Banking--Land can be acquired through negotiated purchase or eminent domain. Land is assembled at today's ' prices and allows the authority to control the timing and nature of development. Federal funding (UMTA) may be available in the form of loans if the land is used for transit within 10 years. This technique would be most ' appropriate after initial approvals and commitments for financing of particular LRT extension are secured. If plans for LRT are not implemented, the authority would still benefit from any interim increases in land values. 1 58 i 2. Lease or Sale of Development Rights--This technique has traditionally taken the form of selling or leasing air rights at transit facilities. For example, development could occur on a decked freeway site above an LRT station. This approach is normally used where land is scarce in high density areas. ' 3 . Negotiated Investments--A variety of arrangements with private interests near stations can be negotiated. These include :Land contributions, design integration with private ' developments and cost sharing of parking facilities (ramps, etc. ) . The private interest generally benefits by gaining preferred access to the LRT system for employees or ' customers. GUIDELINE 7: MONITOR CONDITIONS IN PROPOSED LRT CORRIDORS TO ' DETERMINE APPROPRIATE TIMING OF TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS AND LRT CONSTRUCTION Since the extension of LRT into Dakota County may not occur for some time, it is important to establish a monitoring program which can help to determine the most appropriate timing for LRT construction and which can help to identify opportunities for construction of facilities or preservation of right-of-way. The key elements of this monitoring program should include the following: 1. Monitor population and employment growth to determine if growth is occurring at the projected rate and in the expected locations. 2 . Monitor transit ridership to determine if the transit mode share is growing at the projected rate given improvements in transit service. 3. Monitor traffic volumes in congested corridors to identify ' locations where the expansion of transit service or the provision of transit facilities such as HOV lanes or LRT could ease congestion. ' 4 . Monitor highway construction projects to assure that LRT is accommodated where appropriate. 5. Monitor development proposals in the vicinity of proposed transit stations and park/ride lots to assure that these facilities have been provided or will not be negatively impacted. 6. Monitor railroads to assure that opportunities are seized when railroad rights-of-way are available for acquisition. 59 I 7. Monitor LRT legislation and financing activities at the State, regional and county levels. 8. Monitor operational experience of other LRT systems and corridors, particularly after implementation in the Twin ' Cities to determine ridership patterns, to understand operational problems, and to identify contingencies which should be accounted for in planning. 1 1 60 1 CHAPTER 6 METHODS OF FINANCING The Regional Transit Board has recently made recommendations regarding LRT financing as part of its draft Regional LRT ' Development and Financial Plan. Hennepin, Ramsey and Anoka Counties have previously provided recommendations for the use of revenue sources to finance construction of LRT in their ' respective counties (see Table 9) . A brief summary of the regional recommendations on financing are provided below: ' FEDERAL FUNDING Federal funding for LRT is provided by the Urban Mass ' Transportation Administration. However, UMTA currently has an annual expenditure of approximately $400 million to fund 60-65 project requests with a total cost of $28 billion. As a result, ' it is likely that only the highest ranked corridors regionally will receive any federal funding. The regional recommendation is to maximize federal funding in ' spite of the constraints by pursuing federal funding for specific corridors which appear to have the best chance of receiving UMTA approval. These corridors include both the I-35W and the Hiawatha Corridors. STATE FUNDING ' The only current state funding for LRT is from the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) which is collected on sales of new and used ' vehicles. A small portion of these monies have been made available for LRT planning and design. MVET funds are also used to fund transit operations in the metropolitan area. ' The regional recommendation is to seek 50% combined state and federal funding for LRT construction without recommendation of a specific source of revenue for state support. An increase in ' MVET funds to support the operation of LRT, in addition to continued use of these funds for broad transit operations, is also recommended in the regional plan. REGIONAL FUNDING ' Currently, the only source of regional/local revenues for LRT is a property tax levy by the Regional Railroad Authorities. Each county has the authority to levy up to 0.4835 percent times the county's estimated market value. 61 I I >" z a) a) N a) a) I U w 0 044 0 1 1 1 O O I O t l l 0 x 1 I I 04a I a I I I 04 I4 cZV) CIIcin I oTs Ts 4J U 1 0 11 O 0 0 0 1 II II I O I N I 04 al a a t 1 1 1 a U) a cin ai VI VI ci Cl) Zro I a CL >4 I— CC C o mi W W ami Ti I Z U4.1 )4 0 1 1 1 1 O• 1 I. O I 1 O M •a 0 1 I I 1 04 I 04 I 04 I U c m m cin U) CC a W a) II— O Z_ O , I W I-- .. CC N Oat I a, C) a S.' 0 0 U) N I W w XU U CC a• ) E+ k Z C 0 a C.L. aE-' W O N N .. a) N I ••.-I rt w a) 0 4•1 Z ro a •° aww N 4) c e Z EA E c 04 N I W .--I 0r-O-i U U N tT CC C U) H 0 •-•'-I •r4 '-1 W e N a) •,-1 LJ. O D 04 = .0 .0 O a) W b I -.-I >r r-1 U) a) v a) -tz1 S4 rl w >~ 0 tT 4-) �2f ctf H '• J 'J r7 N RI U a-) C CC IX WNOO $4 S-414S4a) • H•.1U +) a)Q >1 o� � > \ � - 4 --4 � X 0 004 ro MS I �2CO 2 satil aero a) 000114 (U (Uae �' 3-4a ti) a s Z Z Z 0 • EA cn H '� C7 1--u") u° can a4 w ' Several other potential regional/local financial options were investigated as part of the Regional LRT Development and Financial Plan including property tax, a regional sales tax, sales tax on gasoline, payroll tax, 40% of the new growth in ' fiscal disparities contributions, and hotel/motel taxes. The draft Regional LRT Development and Financial Plan gives first priority to a regional sales tax, second priority to use of the ' RTB's debt service levy (a regional property tax) , and third priority to use of 40% of the new growth in fiscal disparities. Other key recommendations in the draft plan regarding regional financing are: . Feathering or redistribution of taxes in relationship to the ' benefits received from LRT. . Linkage of LRT funding to a broader funding package for other transportation/transit needs in the metropolitan area. LOCAL FUNDING The RTB's draft plan recommends that the Regional Railroad Authorities retain their property tax levy authority for LRT. In ' addition, the plan recommends that a 10% local share be required for LRT construction unless the corridor includes federal funding. The plan also provides for a mechanism whereby counties may proceed with local funding of corridors in the ten-year plan ' with the opportunity for payback when regional funds are available. Counties may also build LRT corridors not in the regional ten-year plan with 100% local monies. PRIVATE FINANCING ' The RTB draft plan recommends that Regional Railroad Authorities aggressively pursue private financing of appropriate LRT facilities such as transit stations. t DCRRA POLICIES ON LRT FINANCING ' The DCRRA has recently begun the study of financing options for LRT in Dakota County. The first step in that process has been to set forth a series of general principles that would apply to the ' financing plan regardless of the revenue sources. These principles are stated below and are the founding of the County's position on financing LRT: ' 1. The County's financial participation is contingent upon the demonstration of the long-run financial viability of the construction and operation of a light rail transit system. 63 2. The County recognizes that the construction of a viable system is a long-run process. Service to the County will ' follow construction of a core system. However, the County's financial participation is based on direct benefit to be received from the system. 3 . Light rail transit is one part of an integrated transportation system. The Metropolitan Council should determine the benefits received and the subsidies to be ' given for all aspects of the transportation system as part of an evaluation of light rail transit funding. ' 4. If Dakota County is not to receive light rail transit service in the foreseeable future, then other transportation system improvements must be made as a condition of the County's financial participation. 5. Revenue sources selected for support of capital costs must not preclude the financial feasibility of system operations. 6. The plan must be based on more than one source of revenue. 7. Dakota County must play an active role in the planning, ' implementation and administration of the light rail transit system. ' 8. The evaluation of financing options should consider the feasibility of giving each County flexibility in financing its contribution to the system. ' 9. The system has state-wide benefits. The finance plan should be designed with a realistic appraisal of those benefits. ' 10. Private revenue sources (such as impact fees, special assessments and capture of increased property values) from light rail transit beneficiaries should be used to the greatest extent possible in an overall financing strategy. ' 64 1 r AGENDA REQUEST FORM ITEM NO. /dab NAME: Karen Finstuen DEPARTMENT: Administration DATE: February 12, 1990 MEETING DATE: February 20, 1990 CATEGORY: Miscellaneous SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment - Copy Machines EXPLANATION: Lease/purchase of copiers in Administration, Police and Engineering Departments REFERENCE MATERIAL/RESPONSIBILITY: Budget Adjustment - Wayne Henneke Memo - Karen Finstuen REFERRED TO: (NAME) DEPARTMENT: Larry Thompson Administration Karen Finstuen Administration Dan Siebenaler Police Tom Kaldunski Public Works/Engineering Wayne Henneke Finance SIGNATURE R . MEMO TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBJECT: COPIERS FOR ADMINISTRATION, POLICE AND ENGINEERING DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 1990 The copy machine in the Police Department has reached an age that Xerox will no longer provide a service agreement. The copy machine in the Administrative offices is no longer providing the most economical copies because of the increased volume that is occurring. We need to add a copier capable of photo copying large plans for Engineering. By addressing all of these needs at one time, rather than doing it at three different times throughout the year, we can save more than $1,000 annually. The new phone system that was recently purchased will create a savings of $150.00 per month. This amount will fund the entire proposed lease purchase. A budget adjustment is attached. Ce/ '(64-i4,-) ;;;;471.:1,6c,„ ..„ Karen Finstuen Administrative Assistant w 1 a-rt-i%A.ko.t, 0.4-2±... C., ( soo x la) l a o.6o CA-AAA-t---T-_ -4,-- 6138'. 5')( I )+(53tl.rs x ) 3337.30 Po_ C-a- (343.,8 x 12 + 4156.00 +s rsg t7t • . 1-pvi,,:„..:,__3 0..„4„.4„,... . 6..",...„A......k e...A...... ... — 0 - T04-c .I Propos ed. CbS- 5 Uo FS./o_ Cu-r r e_e\i.. CO STS e-L587.3QCUr.--0.-t-,-... le )A-t._ ttA—e--4-e-c9,--. _ 1coo. 80_ PctitJt_t_. c_Atih n„...._.J...:4____(_, (0_, (,„34.00 bct.tiute:t_., (ke.t.0 -4' 1200 .00 a13ti. .00 .... . ......... .. . .. ........ .... ... . .. ... ...... . . .. . . . . .... . . •