HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.f. Robert St Transitway Alternatives Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting Date: July 7, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Robert St Transitway Alternatives Study AGENDA SECTION:
Presentations
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 3.f.
ATTACHMENTS: Alternatives Analysis Update
Presentation; Letter to Dakota County
Regional Rail Authority; Alternatives
Evaluation
APPROVED BY: ddj
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve the Letter to the Dakota County Regional
Rail Authority regarding the Alternatives Study and Authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.
ISSUE
The Robert Street Alternative Analysis is nearly complete. Joe Morneau from the Dakota County Transit
Office will attend the Council Meeting to provide an update on the process and the results. Staff has
prepared a letter to send to the Dakota County Regional Rail Authority to acknowledge the City’s
participation in the study.
SUMMARY
The Robert Street Alternatives Analysis is a study to examine an all-day transit service between Rosemount
and Downtown St. Paul. The study was co-managed by the Dakota County and Ramsey County Regional
Rail Authorities. The Mayor and Councilmember DeBettignies served on the Steering Committee and Eric
Zweber served on the Technical Advisory Committee. The study examined 13 possible alignments and
determined that only three had merits for in depth evaluation: Highway Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Inver
Hills Community College to Downtown St. Paul on US Highway 52; Arterial BRT from the Dakota County
Northern Service Center to Downtown St. Paul on Robert Street; and Streetcar on the same Robert Street
route. Using the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plans for Rosemount and the other communities, there was
not enough transit ridership to warrant all day service from Rosemount to Downtown St. Paul. The land
uses depicted in UMore AUAR were also evaluated and it was determined that there will be enough
ridership for morning and evening express bus service between Rosemount and St. Paul, but not enough
ridership for all-day service.
Normally, the result of and Alternatives Analysis is a single route and transit mode that is adopted as the
Locally Preferred Alternative. For the Robert Street Alternative Analysis, the Steering Committee is
recommending both the Arterial BRT and the Streetcar on Robert Street. Dakota County Regional Rail
Authority is request a Resolution of Support from all cities that participated in the study. So far, Mendota
Heights and Eagan have passed resolutions in support of both alternatives and South St Paul passed a
resolution supporting only the Arterial BRT alternative. Since none of the alternatives will have a direct
impact on Rosemount, staff does not recommend a resolution of support. Staff has discussed with Mr.
Morneau that the Mayor could sign a letter acknowledging the study and he feels that would be acceptable.
Staff has prepared a letter to the Dakota County Regional Rail Authority that acknowledges the alternatives
2
analysis and request assistance to further evaluate express bus service from Rosemount to St. Paul and
evaluate a second park and ride in Rosemount to build additional transit ridership.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to approve the letter and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
U
P
D
A
T
E
JU
L
Y
7
,
2
0
1
5
JO
E
M
O
R
N
E
A
U
◉
DA
K
O
T
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
O
F
F
I
C
E
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
(
A
A
)
•
Fi
r
s
t
st
e
p
in
lo
c
a
l
,
fe
d
e
r
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
process
fo
r
tr
a
n
s
i
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
•
Go
a
l
is
to
pr
o
v
i
d
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
service
qu
a
l
i
t
y
in
hi
g
h
ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
•
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
an
d
te
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
•
Se
r
v
i
c
e
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
•
AA
in
t
e
n
d
s
to
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
si
n
g
l
e
ro
u
t
e
an
d
mode for
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
•
St
u
d
y
co
‐le
d
by
Da
k
o
t
a
an
d
Ra
m
s
e
y
Co
u
n
t
i
e
s
’
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
Au
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
(C
O
N
T
’
D
)
•
Ov
e
r
s
i
g
h
t
fr
o
m
lo
c
a
l
ci
t
i
e
s
,
Mn
D
O
T
,
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
Co
u
n
c
i
l
•
Ro
s
e
m
o
u
n
t
in
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
St
e
e
r
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
an
d
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
Ad
v
i
s
o
r
y
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
•
On
g
o
i
n
g
pu
b
l
i
c
in
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t
th
r
o
u
g
h
open
ho
u
s
e
s
,
we
b
s
i
t
e
,
em
a
i
l
up
d
a
t
e
s
•
As
s
u
m
e
d
ne
w
de
s
i
g
n
of
Ro
b
e
r
t
St
r
e
e
t
3
ST
U
D
Y
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
•
St
u
d
y
ar
e
a
:
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
St
.
Pa
u
l
an
d
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
Da
k
o
t
a
Co
u
n
t
y
•
Id
e
n
t
i
f
y
‘L
o
c
a
l
l
y
Pr
e
f
e
r
r
e
d
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
’
(L
P
A
)
fo
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
EV
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
A
N
D
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
•
St
e
e
r
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
fi
v
e
br
o
a
d
goals
wi
t
h
mu
l
t
i
p
l
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
fo
r
ea
c
h
•
Mo
b
i
l
i
t
y
an
d
ac
c
e
s
s
•
Ri
d
e
r
be
n
e
f
i
t
s
•
Co
s
t
•
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
•
Im
p
a
c
t
s
•
Ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
al
l
ma
j
o
r
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
s
in
st
u
d
y
ar
e
a
•
Id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
th
r
e
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
fi
n
a
l
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
FI
N
A
L
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
S
•
Ro
b
e
r
t
St
r
e
e
t
–B
R
T
(i
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
la
n
e
)
•
Ro
b
e
r
t
St
r
e
e
t
–
st
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
(i
n
tr
a
f
f
i
c
la
n
e
)
•
TH
52
–B
R
T
(i
n
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
la
n
e
)
RO
S
E
M
O
U
N
T
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
•
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
of
Ro
b
e
r
t
,
TH
52
BR
T
op
t
i
o
n
s
•
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
sl
i
g
h
t
ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
ga
i
n
s
,
mu
c
h
hi
g
h
e
r
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
co
s
t
s
•
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
ne
e
d
fo
r
ex
p
r
e
s
s
se
r
v
i
c
e
in
fu
t
u
r
e
TE
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
8
KE
Y
C
O
N
S
I
D
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
CO
S
T
•
St
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
:
$3
9
9
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
•
BR
T
:
$2
9
.
2
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
RI
D
E
R
S
H
I
P
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
•
Ap
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
3,
1
0
0
pe
r
we
e
k
d
a
y
fo
r
both
mo
d
e
s
EC
O
N
O
M
I
C
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
•
Hi
g
h
e
r
im
p
a
c
t
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
wi
t
h
st
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
9
AA
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
R
E
C
A
P
TE
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
LP
A
Ro
b
e
r
t
St
r
e
e
t
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
BR
T
fr
o
m
Un
i
o
n
De
p
o
t
to
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
Ot
h
e
r
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
–f
u
r
t
h
e
r
st
u
d
y
Ro
b
e
r
t
St
r
e
e
t
St
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
(c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
St
.
Pa
u
l
St
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
St
u
d
y
)
TH
52
Ex
p
r
e
s
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
10
AA
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
R
E
C
A
P
(C
O
N
T
’
D
)
PO
S
T
E
V
A
L
U
A
T
I
O
N
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
in
t
e
r
e
s
t
in
st
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Su
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
of
bo
t
h
ci
t
i
e
s
’
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
fo
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ne
e
d
fo
r
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
la
n
d
us
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
to
le
v
e
r
a
g
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
ch
a
n
g
e
s
in
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
pl
a
n
s
an
d
capital
in
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s
St
e
e
r
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
to
co
n
c
l
u
d
e
AA without
an
LP
A
En
g
a
g
e
in
fu
r
t
h
e
r
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
of
Ro
b
e
r
t
St
r
e
e
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
as
wa
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
11
NE
X
T
S
T
E
P
S
Re
v
i
s
i
t
lo
c
a
l
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
ef
f
o
r
t
s
Un
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
ex
t
e
n
t
of
ch
a
n
g
e
s
ne
e
d
e
d
Ne
e
d
fo
r
a br
o
a
d
e
r
(n
o
t
so
l
e
l
y
tr
a
n
s
i
t
)
pe
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
on desired
la
n
d
us
e
,
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
an
d
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
for
ar
e
a
St
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
po
l
i
c
y
an
d
pl
a
n
s
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
po
l
i
c
y
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
un
d
e
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
by
Metropolitan
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ne
e
d
to
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
St
.
Pa
u
l
co
n
c
e
p
t
fo
r
st
r
e
e
t
c
a
r
ro
u
t
e
Lo
n
g
e
r
te
r
m
‐
up
d
a
t
e
d
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Ba
s
e
d
on
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
pl
a
n
ch
a
n
g
e
s
,
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
projections
Re
v
i
s
i
t
te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
ev
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
c
e
s
s
12
TH
A
N
K
Y
O
U
JO
E
MO
R
N
E
A
U
95
2
‐89
1
‐79
8
6
JO
E
.
M
O
R
N
E
A
U
@
C
O
.
D
A
K
O
T
A
.
M
N
.
U
S
AR
T
E
R
I
A
L
B
U
S
R
A
P
I
D
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
CH
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
:
•
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
st
a
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
•
Fe
w
e
r
st
o
p
s
,
bu
t
de
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
on
ne
a
r
b
y
la
n
d
us
e
•
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
tr
a
v
e
l
sp
e
e
d
s
•
Hi
g
h
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
–1
5
mi
n
u
t
e
s
or
be
t
t
e
r
•
Op
e
r
a
t
e
s
in
mi
x
e
d
tr
a
f
f
i
c
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
B
U
S
R
A
P
I
D
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
CH
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
:
•
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
st
a
t
i
o
n
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
•
Fe
w
e
r
st
o
p
s
,
ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
ne
a
r
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
•
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
to
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
tr
a
v
e
l
sp
e
e
d
s
•
Hi
g
h
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
–1
5
mi
n
u
t
e
s
or
be
t
t
e
r
•
Op
e
r
a
t
e
s
in
sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
or
de
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
la
n
e
ST
R
E
E
T
C
A
R
CH
A
R
A
C
T
E
R
I
S
T
I
C
S
:
•
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
sp
a
c
e
d
mo
r
e
cl
o
s
e
l
y
•
Op
e
r
a
t
e
s
in
tr
a
f
f
i
c
•
Hi
g
h
fr
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
–
15
mi
n
u
t
e
s
or
be
t
t
e
r
•
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
gr
e
a
t
e
r
im
p
a
c
t
on
la
n
d
us
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
1
July 7, 2015
Mark Krebsbach, Project Manager
Dakota County Regional Railroad Authority
14955 Galaxie Ave W
Apple Valley, MN 55124-8579
RE: Robert St Transitway Alternatives Study
Dear Mr. Krebsbach:
This letter is to serve as Rosemount’s acknowledgement of the Robert St Transitway Alternatives
Study. The study began with the goal of determining feasible transit options between Rosemount
and Downtown St. Paul. Rosemount staff has participated on the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and I have participated on the Steering Committee (SC). Rosemount understands that using
the adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plans for Rosemount and the other communities along the
corridor did not generate a ridership threshold that would prompt a fixed guideway transit system
south of Minnesota Highways 55 and 110. Since the final three alternatives evaluated do not directly
provide transit service to Rosemount, it would be inappropriate for the Rosemount City Council to
choose a preferred alternative.
Rosemount does appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Alternatives Study and
acknowledges that two general transit opportunities were identified that may benefit Rosemount in
the future. These are future ridership that may support express bus service from Rosemount to
Downtown St. Paul and the possibility of another Park and Ride in Rosemount that may build
ridership for additional transit services and routes. Rosemount requests the Dakota County Regional
Railroad Authority’s assistance in future investigation of these two transit opportunities.
Sincerely,
William H. Droste
Mayor
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 33 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 11 - Segments Advanced Following Screen #1
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 37 April 2015
Final Report
Five segments passed the second screen for ridership potential. Table 10 shows the pass/fail grades for each
segment, and Figure 14 shows the segments that advanced to the third and final screen.
Table 10 - Screen #2: Indicators of Ridership Potential
Segment
Criterion 1.
Future population
density within 1/2
mile of segment is at
least minimally
transit supportive
Criterion 2.
Future employment
density within 1/2
mile of segment is at
least minimally
transit supportive
Criterion 3.
Segment is within
1/2 mile of areas
with transit
dependence
Criterion 4.
Segment is
within 1/2 mile
of at least one
key activity
center
Result
Robert Street + + + + +
TH 52 (North) + + + + +
TH 52 (Middle) + + + + +
TH 52 (South) X X X X X
Concord Avenue (North) + + + + +
Concord Boulevard (South) X X + + X
UP Railroad East (North) + + + + +
UP Railroad East (Middle) X X X X X
UP Railroad East (South) X X X + X
UP Railroad West (South) X X X + X
Shepard Rd – I-35E (South) X + + + X
Smith Avenue –TH 149
(North) + X + + X
Smith Avenue – TH 149
(South) X + X + X
TH 3 (North) X X X + X
Upper 55th - Cahill Ave X + + + X
Robert Tr. X X X X X
CR 71 X X X + X
TH 3 (South) X X X + X
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 46 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 16 - Potential Park and Ride Locations
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 64 April 2015
Final Report
8. Alternative Evaluation
With the final alignments fully defined and all technical analysis complete, the study then moved into final
evaluation.
8.1. Methodology Review
The overall process for alternative evaluation (based on technical analysis and local, regional, and federal
guidance) was refined by the steering committee into a five-step methodology implemented over the course
of the study.
Step (1) was the adoption of project goals and objectives. As detailed earlier in Table 7, the project
aims to:
o Improve mobility and accessibility
o Enhance the effectiveness of transit service within the corridor
o Provide cost effective and financially feasible transit solutions
o Support and enhance existing communities and planned development
o Support healthy communities and sound environmental practices
Step (2) was the identification of evaluation measures. In addition to adopting project goals and
objectives in the scoping phase of AA development, one to three evaluation measures were identified
for each project objective (also shown in Table 7). Evaluation measures were further refined
throughout project development. FTA New Starts and Small Starts project justification criteria and the
Metropolitan Council Regional Transitway Guidelines capital investment criteria were consulted to
inform the development of evaluation measures at the national and regional levels. In addition,
evaluation measures were brought through a public process prior to final analysis.
Step (3) was the establishment of a scoring system. A detailed, five-point scoring system was
developed to capture Alternative performance against evaluation measures, objectives, and goals.
Step (4) was the identification of breakpoints. Raw values were converted a standard five-point scale
using the 60th, 70th, 80th, and 90th percentiles of maximum raw values for project benefits and
opportunities, and the 20th, 40th, 60th, and 80th percentiles of the highest cost or greatest impact for
project costs and impacts.
Step (5) was the aggregation of scores to determine overall technical performance. To determine an
overall score for each Alternative, the five project goals were weighted equally; within a given goal,
objectives were weighted equally; and within a given objective, evaluation measures were weighted
equally.
Figure 25 illustrates the overall scoring aggregation process.
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 65 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 25 - Scoring Aggregation Process
8.2. Results by Evaluation Measures and Objectives
Final alternative evaluation was completed utilizing a five-point scale to evaluate alternative performance.
Each project objective was assigned one to three evaluation measures that were used to score alternative
performance against identified goals and objectives using the rankings of high, medium-high, medium,
medium-low, or low. Objective-level scores were equally-weighted to determine a score for each project goal,
and goal-level scores were equally weighted to determine an overall technical score for each alternative.
Through the analysis, certain objectives yielded scores that identified clear differences between the
alternatives. The following summarizes these findings, describes why the identified measures are key, classifies
the range between the three alternatives, and explains which alternative performed best for that measure.
The five-point scoring system that was used is illustrated in Table 22.
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 66 April 2015
Final Report
Table 22 - Definition of Scoring Symbols and Values
Symbol Definition Value
High performance 5
Medium-high performance 4
Medium performance 3
Medium-low performance 2
Low performance 1
Goal 1 - Improve Mobility and Accessibility
Mobility and accessibility benefits were judged based on six objectives that were analyzed using eleven
evaluation measures. The key differentiators of this goal were found to be total riders, accessibility, and daily
transit riders from zero car households for the following reasons:
Ridership estimates are an important indicator of the number of people a transitway will serve. The
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses ridership to assess mobility benefits generated by a project
to help inform funding decisions.
Accessibility measures the total acres of land that are available within a 5 minute walk of stations.
While ridership modeling uses a technical, complex methodology to estimate the number of
transitway users, this accessibility measure assesses the opportunities and physical barriers that exist
to riders accessing adjacent amenities at stations.
A measure of daily transit riders from zero car households indicates how many users depend on transit
and other non-auto modes to satisfy their transportation needs. Transit dependent riders are given a
double-weighting over other riders in the new FTA funding criteria used to evaluate mobility benefits.
Table 23 summarizes the evaluation level findings for Goal 1, and Figure 26 provides the final composite scores
for each objective based on the evaluation measures.
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 67 April 2015
Final Report
Table 23 - Summary of Goal 1 Evaluation Level Findings
Robert Street Arterial BRT Robert Street Streetcar TH 52 Highway BRT
Average Project Weekday
Boardings 3,100
3,000
2,300
Population within
½ Mile of Stations 26,160
27,710
14,360
Employment within
½ Mile of Stations 58,510
59,730
35,090
Activity Centers within
½ Mile of Stations 1
1
1
Intersection Density
(Intersections per Acre within
1/2 Mile of Stations)
0.16
0.16
0.14
Accessibility
(Acres within a 5 Minute
Walkshed from Stations)
962
1,131
426
Lineal Feet Bicycle and
Pedestrian Facilities within
1/2 Mile of Stations
431,484
454,856
160,905
Number of East-West
Connections Created 0
0
0
Transit Trips from Zero Auto
Households 2,000
1,800
1,000
Reverse Commute Trips 1,300
1,200
1,100
Average Daily Off-peak Trips 1,200
1,200
800
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 68 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 26 - Goal 1 Scores by Objective
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 69 April 2015
Final Report
Goal 2 - Enhance the Effectiveness of Transit Service Within the Corridor
Enhancement to the effectiveness of transit service within the corridor was judged on four objectives that
were analyzed using one evaluation measure per objective. The key differentiators of this goal were found to
be new transit riders and passengers per revenue hour of service for the following reasons:
New transit riders account for riders that are shifting to transit from another mode of transportation.
These are riders new to the transit system, which indicates increased overall system ridership and
reductions in vehicle miles traveled.
The "passengers per revenue hour of service" measure is calculated by dividing annual system riders
by the total hours of revenue service in a year. Revenue service is any time a transit vehicle is in
operation and available for passenger service. This measure takes into account every vehicle trip made
in a given year and provides an indication of system productivity.
Table 24 summarizes the evaluation level findings for Goal 2, and Figure 27 provides the final composite scores
for each objective based on the evaluation measures.
Table 24 - Summary of Goal 2 Evaluation Level Findings
Robert Street Arterial BRT Robert Street Streetcar TH 52 Highway BRT
Average Daily New Transit
Riders 400
400
800
Average Daily Passengers
per Revenue Hour of Service 52
48
35
Daily User Benefit Hours 201
204
555
Park & Ride Capacity and
Availability 1
1
1
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 70 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 27 - Goal 2 Scores by Objective
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 71 April 2015
Final Report
Goal 3 - Provide Cost Effective and Financially Feasible Transit Solutions
The ability of an alignment to provide cost effective and financially feasible transit solutions was judged on two
objectives that were analyzed using two evaluation measure per objective. The key differentiators of this goal
were found to be capital costs and cost per rider for the following reasons:
Capital cost estimates account for the physical system elements and labor necessary to launch a new
transitway. Engineering assumptions—like station sizes, amenities, and right-of-way needs—are taken
into consideration. Capital costs indicate the amount of funding required to bring an Alternative from
planning to operations.
Cost per rider is a measure calculated from annual operating costs and ridership. It provides indication
of the long-term (post-construction) cost and value of the system.
Table 25 summarizes the evaluation level findings for Goal 3, and Figure 28 provides the final composite scores
for each objective based on the evaluation measures.
Table 25 - Summary of Goal 3 Evaluation Level Findings
Robert Street Arterial BRT Robert Street Streetcar TH 52 Highway BRT
Total Project Capital
Cost (2013$) $27,479,000
$373,064,000
$46,089,000
Total Annual
Operations and
Maintenance Costs
(2012$)
$4,073,000
$8,269,000
$3,420,000
2030 Projected
Annual Revenue $1,026,100
$993,000
$761,300
Operations and
Maintenance Costs
per Annual Rider
$3.97
$8.33
$4.49
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 72 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 28 - Goal 3 Scores by Objective
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 73 April 2015
Final Report
Goal 4 - Support and Enhance Existing Communities and Planned Development
The ability of an alignment to support and enhance existing communities and planned development was
judged on three objectives that were analyzed using six evaluation measures. All cities through which
alternatives travel include language in their comprehensive plan that mentions a transitway and supports
transit-oriented development (TOD). However, the Robert Street alternatives do have an advantage over TH 52
Highway BRT due to more instances of planned development and redevelopment, as well as planned areas for
mixed-use, high-density development, and walkable areas. Following an initial analysis of existing and
documented opportunities, policies, and efforts to encourage development and redevelopment, it was
determined necessary to conduct a more detailed economic development analysis on the two Robert Street
alternatives to identify differences based on mode.
Based on national research, local experience with development along the Blue and Green LRT lines, and a
survey of local developers, two different real estate development scenarios were developed. It was estimated
that while arterial BRT on Robert Street could help support up to $80 million of additional residential, office,
and retail development on the corridor, a local preference for rail-based modes suggests that streetcar may
help support up to $170 million of additional real estate development, or $90 million of additional
development over BRT. Additional details are provided in the report Market Potential and Transit
Enhancement for the Robert Street Transit Alternatives Analysis.
Table 26 summarizes the evaluation level findings for Goal 4, and Figure 29 provides the final composite scores
for each objective based on the evaluation measures.
Table 26 - Summary of Goal 4 Evaluation Level Findings
Robert Street Arterial BRT Robert Street Streetcar TH 52 Highway BRT
Comprehensive Plan
Includes TOD Supportive
Language
2
2
2
Acres of Soft Sites within ½
Mile of Stations 609
626
333
Acres of Active Tax
Increment Financing use
within ½ Mile of Stations
311
313
123
Acres of Planned Land Use
Identified as Mixed-Use,
High Density Residential, or
Medium Density Residential
425
450
84
Average Station “Walk
Score” 73
72
42
Real Estate Development
Potential Score (1-5) 2
5
- -
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 74 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 29 - Goal 4 Scores by Objective
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 75 April 2015
Final Report
Goal 5 - Support Healthy Communities and Sound Environmental Impacts
The ability of an alignment to support healthy communities and sound environmental impacts was judged on
seven objectives that were analyzed using eight evaluation measures. Like goal 4, it was determined that there
is no one key differentiator that captures all of the opportunities associated with each Alternative. As could be
expected when reviewing issues such as community resources, environmental justice, and water resources;
where more resources exist, a greater potential for impacts exist.
Table 27 summarizes the evaluation level findings for Goal 5, and Figure 30 provides the final composite scores
for each objective based on the evaluation measures.
Table 27 - Summary of Goal 5 Evaluation Level Findings
Robert Street Arterial BRT Robert Street Streetcar TH 52 Highway BRT
Acres of Proposed ROW
Acquisition 0.04
3.06
2.7
Property Access and Parking
Losses 143
134
0
Total Number of 2030
Vehicles Impacted During
Peak Hour
800
1,300
0
Total Historical Resources
within 500 feet of Alignment
or ¼ Mile of Stations
215
202
87
Noise and Vibration
Receptor Parcels within 500'
of Alignment
812
803
858
Percentage of Block Groups
within ½ Mile of Alignment
that Qualify as EJ
78%
78%
80%
Acres of Wetlands within
500' of Alignment 15
15
53
2030 Average Daily
Reduction in Vehicle Miles
Travelled
5,700
5,500
10,900
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 76 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 30 - Goal 5 Scores by Objective
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 77 April 2015
Final Report
8.3. Final Summary
The results of the final Alternatives evaluation of are provided in Table 28.
Table 28 - Summary of Evaluation Results
Evaluation Measures
Alternatives
Robert Street
Arterial BRT
Robert Street
Streetcar
TH 52
Highway BRT
Mobility & Accessibility
Benefits
Goal 1: Improve mobility and
accessibility
Transit Benefits
Goal 2: Enhance the
effectiveness of transit
service within the corridor
Costs
Goal 3: Provide cost effective
and financially feasible
transit solutions
Opportunities
Goal 4: Support and enhance
existing communities and
planned development
Impacts
Goal 5: Support healthy
communities and sound
environmental impacts
Overall Ranking
Goal 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 78 April 2015
Final Report
9. Locally Preferred Alternative(s) and Next Steps
9.1. Steering Committee Decision
The technical recommendation and results of public input were brought to the Steering Committee for
consideration in July 2014. While the Robert Street Arterial BRT Alternative rated the highest based on the
technical evaluation measures, cost was one of the few key separators between the Robert Street Modern
Streetcar and Robert Street Arterial BRT Alternatives. At the conclusion of the technical analysis, many of the
project stakeholders expressed an interest in revisiting the land use assumptions and development potential
for Arterial BRT and Modern Streetcar. Additional economic development analysis was conducted, but an
interest remained to revisit comprehensive planning efforts to further refine achievable densities on Robert
Street. Furthermore, the Saint Paul Streetcar Study recommended modern streetcar on a shorter segment of
Robert Street from the Union Depot to Cesar Chavez and State St. in the West Side neighborhood. Therefore, a
need was identified for Saint Paul and West St. Paul to coordinate on the long term vision for transit in the
Robert Street corridor.
Due to the continued interest in the Robert Street Modern Streetcar Alternative, the Steering Committee
recommended delaying the advancement of a single LPA at the conclusion of the AA. This decision was made
to allow more time to conduct additional land use planning, update comprehensive plans to guide
development within the corridor, and make targeted capital investments to encourage additional density
within the corridor. Due to the competitive nature of federal programs, demonstrated commitment to transit-
supportive densities within the Robert Street corridor will be especially important in the New Starts/Small
Starts application process, if this is targeted as one of the funding channels.
Based on these considerations, the Steering Committee recommended a two-part conclusion to the AA.
Conclude the AA without an LPA and carry forward the two strongest options for further study,
including: Robert Street Arterial BRT and Robert Street Streetcar
Other Recommendation: begin assessment of traditional express service on TH 52
Following the conclusion of the AA, the Steering Committee also recommended that West St. Paul and Saint
Paul schedule a workshop or series of workshops to establish a vision for transit-oriented development within
the Robert Street corridor. This process would aid in establishing goals, setting targets for growth, and
scheduling milestones to achieve this vision. Transit-supportive policies would likely have the strongest
influence on development as well as overall ridership within the corridor, and the selection of mode will follow
this key process.
9.2. Implementation Plan
LPA Adoption Process
The Steering Committee advances two alternatives—Robert Street Arterial BRT and Robert Street Streetcar—
from the AA into the next phase of project development. Given that the AA concluded in early 2015, an
opportunity exists to align future corridor planning efforts with the update of local Comprehensive Plans. Over
the course of the next three years, Cities will work to update their Comprehensive Plans and make planning
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 79 April 2015
Final Report
decisions that affect the Robert Street transitway corridor. Following the update of Comprehensive Plans, it is
recommended that the Robert Street Alternatives be re-evaluated and an LPA be selected. Figure 31 depicts
the timeline for each alternative.
Funding Sources
Funding is essential for implementation of a transitway on Robert Street. While transit funding is currently
scarce and competitive, there are sources of funding available at both the federal and local level.
9.2.2.1. Federal
The Federal Transit Administration’s New and Small Starts discretionary program is the largest source of capital
funds for transit. This program provides more than $2 billion of capital funding for transit projects each year.
Other federal funds that can be used for capital funding include TIGER funds, FTA Section 5303 Planning funds
and CMAQ and STP funds. Most funding for streetcars currently comes from TIGER funds and CMAQ and STP
funds. Locally, CMAQ and STP funds are distributed through the Metropolitan Council via their Transportation
Advisory Board Regional Solicitation for Federal Funds.
9.2.2.2. State
There are various sources through the State of Minnesota that can also be used for capital funding. These
typically include funding from the state legislature or MnDOT. More specifically, the State General Fund,
General Obligation Bonds and MnDOT trunk Highway Funds and Bonds can be used for funding transit
projects.
9.2.2.3. Regional
There are several sources of funding at the regional scale that can be used for capital and operational funding.
These include the motor vehicle sales tax, regional transit capital bonds, and the TAB Regional Solicitation for
Federal Funds, which are all administered by the Metropolitan Council. Thus far, the Metropolitan Council has
been supportive of funding arterial BRT but is still in the process of developing a policy regarding streetcars.
Regional Railroad Authority property taxes are another source of regional funding and are administered by the
county regional railroad authorities. The Counties Transit Improvement Board is also a source of regional
transit funding. Currently, CTIB’s framework for funding does not include the funding of streetcars. CTIB’s
Phase I Program of Projects includes Robert Street if arterial BRT is chosen as the locally preferred alternative.
9.2.2.4. Local
Local municipalities can also provide funding through the creation of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) districts,
special assessment districts, and other fees and taxes. Cities and counties can also use their general funds for
transit projects as they see fit.
Local Precedent for BRT and Streetcar Funding
The first Arterial BRT route in the region, the A-Line on Snelling Avenue, currently under construction, is
funded through a variety of sources. These sources include federal grants and bonds, bonds and general funds
from the State of Minnesota, and local funding sources.
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 80 April 2015
Final Report
The Nicollet-Central Streetcar in Minneapolis has not been fully funded at this point. In 2010, the City of
Minneapolis completed the “Minneapolis Streetcar Funding Study” and identified probable sources of funding
for streetcars in Minneapolis. These sources included increases in parking meter fees and a surcharge on public
and commercial parking spaces, city tax abatement related to future development and future increases in
property value caused by the streetcar, special assessments within the a streetcar benefit district, revenues
from fares, bulk user agreements, and advertising or naming rights.
Thus far, the City of Minneapolis has created a Value Capture District, from which it anticipates collecting $60
million. This district is different than a typical TIF district because only certain properties are included in the
district rather than the district being composed of the area along the entire transit corridor. Additionally,
rather than using tax revenues that result from the transit project, this district is capturing the increases in
property taxes before and after the project since development has already started.
Local funding sources are currently the primary funding source for streetcar projects. Approximately 70
percent of the Cincinnati streetcar, 50 percent of the Seattle streetcar, and just under 50 percent of the Tucson
streetcar were funded with local sources. These projects utilized local improvement districts, TIF resources,
other development revenue, property and income taxes, revenue from public utilities, local grants, private
funding, and the sale of land15. While the City of Minneapolis created a special assessment district focused on
only a few properties for the Nicollet-Central Streetcar, a broader special assessment district or TIF district
could be used to fund a streetcar on Robert Street. TIGER, CMAQ, and STP funds are also frequently used for
streetcar funding in other parts of the country, but the Metropolitan Council would need to change their
policies in order to use CMAQ and STP funds for streetcars locally. The use of CTIB and Regional Rail Authority
funds for a streetcar on Robert Street would also require policy changes by these organizations.
Next Steps
The next steps for this corridor include and assessment of land use within the Robert Street corridor, followed
by the selection of an LPA. After the LPA is selected the process is dependent on whether streetcar or arterial
BRT is chosen for the corridor, as shown in Figure 31.
15 http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/streetcar/streetcar-funding/
http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/about/docs/faqCosts.pdf
http://www.sunlinkstreetcar.com/index.php?pg=5
■
Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Study 81 April 2015
Final Report
Figure 31 - Implementation Process